Repent for being a Mac user!!

[ebolag4]

Originally posted by RacerX
Why is the World not flat? Biblical accounts would have the world be both flat and unmoving. The motions of the planets in our own solar system and the Earth's place run completely counter to what literalist should be getting from the Bible. Why take some things as actual facts and not others (shouldn't the rule for reading the Bible be completely steadfast)?

Not trying to start a two-front argument here, but why do you keep bringing up flat-earth weirdness like that is what a literalist Christian believes. I've never believed that, in fact, if people had actually read their Bibles back during the times when that belief was held, they would have found Biblical evidence to the contrary:

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

There are other passages that give evidence of the earth being round in Scripture, but I can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

As for the morality argument, here's my take. As a literalist Christian, I believe that the Bible is the ultimate guide for morality. However, I also believe that every person has a built in conscience because they are created in the image of God. (Remember, this is my belief, not necessarily yours.) With this in mind, I see that every person has a built in sense of right and wrong, but we don't always agreed because we are in different stages in life, differenent environments, cultures, and so on and so forth. There is also the belief that God created all people with free will to do as they wish.

I'm not explaining this too well, and I've gotta take my son to a birthday party.

Good debate.

-ebolag4

 

[RacerX]

by ebolag4
There are other passages that give evidence of the earth being round in Scripture, but I can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

Small problem here, round does not equal sphere. Round would seem from my reading to represent disk. Again, if all must be literal, exceptions should not be allowed even in the face of the over whelming sphere-ness of the Earth.

 

[AdmiralAK]

I saw something worth noting yesterday,
you know those fishes, the ones that have text in them, most of the say "jesus"

well yesterday I saw a car sporting 2 of them
One with "Jesus" and another one saying "Darwin" .
you make your own conclusions

 

[simX]

... and then there's the dead fish with feet, that is upside down, and has a cross for an eye. I love those things. That would be funny if someone had all 3 on his car.

Interesting conversation about religion..

MDLarson: One question for you. The evidence for things like evolution and the universe being billions of years old: what do you say to this? How do you refute it? I know they may be wrong, but you can't simply ignore evidence to this theory and say it's wrong.

And I would just like to respond about your comment about how we used to think cells were the smallest thing, and then atoms, and now sub-atomic particles, and how creation scientists are rejoicing at this:

I should hope that we never figure out everything in the universe. I don't care if it's becoming more and more complicated. So be it! For me, I think the ultimate goal of human beings is the attainment of knowledge. Not to know everything, but to strive to learn about new things. If one day we explained everything using science and there was nothing left to discover, I would be sorely disappointed. The universe would be so boring if there was nothing left to discover, even if there is a God for me to believe in. For me, when we discover that sub-atomic particles are divisible, I will be "rejoicing" (along with creation "scientists", as you say they are) too, because I WANT there to be things left to explain.

 

[RacerX]

Originally posted by simX
I should hope that we never figure out everything in the universe. I don't care if it's becoming more and more complicated. So be it! For me, I think the ultimate goal of human beings is the attainment of knowledge. Not to know everything, but to strive to learn about new things. If one day we explained everything using science and there was nothing left to discover, I would be sorely disappointed.

I would like to strongly echo simX's sentiments.

 

[simX]

Whoa, did hell freeze over or something? RacerX and I AGREE on something?

Haha, j/k Racer.

 

[AdmiralAK]

Originally posted by RacerX


I would like to strongly echo simX's sentiments.

Hmm.....reminds me of teh Q in star trek....(think about how they procreate.,...how boring )

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by RacerX
My personal experiences with Christians has been that the more Fundamentalist they are, the more there is a risk that they are going to act without regard for ethics (actually, I think that is true of Fundamentalist of any of the middle east religions). And lets face it, if you have not actually struggled with ethics to reach your own conclusion, then you are more of a risk. I would trust someone who knows right from wrong because they feel it more than someone mindlessly following a book.

Quick question here: If you found out that nature does not follow a Creation model, are you going to stop following the morals and ethics that our society is based on?

I don't mindlessly follow the Bible, to answer what I think you're getting at. And I don't consider myself Fundamentalist in the traditional sense, if you're curious about that too. But I do take the Bible seriously because of what I believe and feel, and what I can research (as I will attempt to show in my next posts). Also let me assure you that I do not mindlessly follow the Bible, either. That notion of mindless zealousy (remember that word? ) is disgusting to me.

To attempt to answer your quick question: If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do. You proposed a hypothetical situation which I believe just won't happen because I believe the "morals and ethics that our society is based on" are themselves based on Biblical truth, with some exceptions of course. I don't mean to dodge the question, but I answered as truthfully as I can.

 

[RacerX]

by Matt
If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.

That in and of it self says quite a lot about you. It explains why you think others that don't believe as you do have no morals or ethics (because you yourself, do not believe that you would have morals and ethics without someone/something watching over you to keep you in line).

You proposed a hypothetical situation which I believe just won't happen because I believe the "morals and ethics that our society is based on" are themselves based on Biblical truth, with some exceptions of course.

I'm sure no one who believed at one point expected not to at some later time. If you would have asked me at the age of six if I believed I would have said yes. By the age of nine my questions where starting to get beyond what people could answer, so my beliefs changed. My moral and ethical foundation did shift at that point. I realized that I could no longer ask for forgiveness from anyone/anything else but me, and I was more inclined to judge myself harshly because I would not forget anything wrong that I did. My studies of philosophy (specially Kant) was only second to my studies of nature while growing up.

Needless to say, I find is disturbing and sad that you are unable to see that morals and ethics can have a separate existence from the Bible. It sounds more like your personality is more of a measure of your programing than of self realization (sorry if that sounds harsh, it was not meant to be).

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by RacerX
ICR's age of the Universe vs time needed for light to move from point to point. As I recall from the talks I had with ICR members, they were under the impression that the Universe was about 7,000 years old. This means that light would only be able to reach us from objects that are within 7,000 light-years of where we are.

Good point, and I've heard it before. Quite simply, God must have created the streams of light when he created the stars. This explanation is really not that difficult to accept if you believe in an omnipotent God. For if God is capable of creating these huge stars, He is certainly capable of creating the streams of light in between the stars and earth. The Bible does not explicitly say this, of course, but it is perfectly reasonable given the previous assumption of an all-powerful God.

Another thing worth mentioning is that God created light before He created lights. As pointed out by Bernie, the Sun was created after the day / night phenomenon of verse 5. How God accomplished this is beyond our knowledge, but the supernatural is not to be divorced from interpretation. There is no contradiction within the scripture here.

The Grand Canyon: ICR would have you believe it was formed by the great flood, but very large floods leave a different type of scarring (badlands here on earth and areas of Mars both show what large scale floods can do).

ICR's theory is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of flood drainage. Most likely from a huge lake that was backlogged from the flood. The canyon was formed quickly as a result of a dam burst as this lake accumulated more and more water. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by large scale floods, as it is more a result of the flood, not the flood itself. By your mentioning the badlands, are you hinting to a very large flood, akin to Noah's flood?

And again, the conspiracy theory about us, who must be hiding the truth for some reason. Why are we doing it, what would stop me from letting the cat out of the bag.

Firstly, I did not use the term conspiracy theory. You did. My belief is that evolutionists believe what they do out of necessity, that is, the necessity to deny the supernatural (of any kind). After that, they do the best they can to interpret what they see. Either evolutionists or creationists are flawed from the beginning.

Why would God provide us with false data? Assuming that we are not lying about all this, why would the data counter Biblical stories so sharply.

The problem here is probably misinterpretation, which can be cleared up. I'll attempt to answer your following questions (below) in another post shortly.

Why is the World not flat? Biblical accounts would have the world be both flat and unmoving. The motions of the planets in our own solar system and the Earth's place run completely counter to what literalist should be getting from the Bible. Why take some things as actual facts and not others (shouldn't the rule for reading the Bible be completely steadfast)?

That should give you a good start.

 

[ulrik]

Originally posted by RacerX

Needless to say, I find is disturbing and sad that you are unable to see that morals and ethics can have a separate existence from the Bible. It sounds more like your personality is more of a measure of your programing than of self realization (sorry if that sounds harsh, it was not meant to be).

I completely second that opinion.

I consider myself to be somebody who doesn't believe in god, since the god or the gods how they are described in various religions are unreal to me. Not only unreal, unbelievable, unlogical (to me, that is). I don't say I believe in nothing, but I don't believe in any omnipotent force. Still, I have very strong ethical and social feelings, opinions and morals. They are not based on anything religious, but on what I see in the society, what I see in the relationship between beeings and what in my opinion has to be preserved to keep this relationship and this society running.

 

[RacerX]

by Matt
Quite simply, God must have created the streams of light when he created the stars. This explanation is really not that difficult to accept if you believe in an omnipotent God...

This brings us to an important point. Why? There is no need or point to this. Why create light images of thing happening before the beginning of time? Is God trying to give us false evidence? Why would God falsify the nature of His creation?

By your mentioning the badlands, are you hinting to a very large flood, akin to Noah's flood?

Yes, as I recall from my talks with ICR members, they felt at that time that it was evidence of Noah's flood.

Firstly, I did not use the term conspiracy theory. You did. My belief is that evolutionists believe what they do out of necessity, that is, the necessity to deny the supernatural (of any kind).

Again you can only deny that which you actually know.

After that, they do the best they can to interpret what they see. Either evolutionists or creationists are flawed from the beginning.

Which brings us back to a very sticky point. When the nature of the Universe has been fixed to appear as something different than what it really is (which seems to be your argument), further discussion is pointless on actual facts.

The problem here is probably misinterpretation, which can be cleared up. I'll attempt to answer your following questions (below) in another post shortly.

Like I pointed out earlier, there is no logical reason for there to be the things that you say were generated in mid path. Also, the fact that light is being generated mid path means that there doesn't have to be the event which is being seen on the end of that path. This brings us back to the flat earth argument. People who believe that the earth is flat would use (and do) the same arguments. If you believe your arguments here, their arguments become yours.

Think about this, why couldn't the light from the Sun or Moon also be generated in the same way right now? In fact why couldn't the light that you saw reflected off me not just be divinely generated mid path? Further, why couldn't everything you know, everyone you know, all the things that are real to you not actually be God interacting with you. You could be alone with God in the Universe and not know it.

If, for the sake of a book, you are willing to believe things that run counter to your experiences, then anything is possible. You really can't trust anything you see, touch or hear. I can't say that my existence is any better than that, but I seem to have more to work with than you do.

 

[edX]

I keep meaning to give an answer to a question that was asked awhile back about pagans and beliefs that might have to be changed based upon scientific evidence. I believe it was ebolag that asked. Fryke gave pretty good response to it but i will add more.

Pagan is a very braod umbrella term that includes people from many different traditions. there is no one set of beliefs that define a pagan. In fact most modern pagan 'traditions' are reconstructions of the old ways, the true old ways having been lost at the hands of Christians who feared that knowledge of anything other than christianity was dangerous. That we have so little of our true religion left is because of the inquisition. the most complete surviving sources are the Norse Eddas. There is considerable debate among those who follow that path as to whether Ragnorak has already come to pass. If it has, then the old Gods are dead. If it hasn't then there is something like the apocalypse yet to come. Like the Bible, there are only small hints here and there as to whether that day has passed and all are pretty open to interpretation. I personally believe that it has yet to happen and the old Gods are still powerful based upon my interpretation of the translated source material. Evidence to the contrary might change some of my beliefs.

there is also some original source material from the British isles and the Druid tradition although the authenticity of much of it is suspect. The best sources are in bardic poems that survivied becasue the messages were not understood by Christians since no direct references to Gods and Goddesses were in them.

and then we have Greek and Roman 'mythology'. so full of moral and ethical content that the stories are considered classic material today and taught in universities.

other than that, most pagans accept the One Law of Wicca (often known as the Wiccan rede) - And ye harm none, do what thou wilt. Want to talk about a moral code? This is far tougher that 'accept jesus as your savior' and having all your moral indiscretions forgiven!! Learning no to harm others is a really big task. Most of us have no idea of how we are affecting others. And how do we know what constitutes harm? If i eat cow and another feels the suffering of all harm to animals, am i harming them? because of this, i am on the constant lookout for things i do that cause harm to others. and yes, i often change my lifestyle and my beliefs because of what i discover.

there are plenty of degrees of pagan belief as well. arguements over who worships corectly and who doesn't are rampant. People who proclaim to have all the answers are always springing up. Nitpicking over supposed right and wrong ways to perform ritual is neverending. and i am sure that there are many pagans who simply ignore science and anything else that tries to disagree with them But like with Christians, these kind of people are a vocal minority who only get attention because they seek it so stonrgly. Unfortunately, they are often the ones the world gets a good look at because they draw attention to themselves.

but since most pagan, or 'neo-pagan' religions as they are more accurately called at times, have only resurged in the past 40-50 years, most are in harmony with science up to a point. and that is the point that science ceases to be of any use. However many of us are involved in seeing if science does support any of or beliefs in things like psychic phenomenon or spiritual healing. We believe that these things exist and if we can jsut find the right tools to measure them, then they will be shown to be natural, not supernatural.

i am sure there is more i should add, but i grow tired of the typing. perhaps later. Blessed Be.

 

[edX]

poor matt said this
To attempt to answer your quick question: If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.

when i read what you have implied by this, i am truly saddened. It sounds like you live a life where your actions are controlled only thru fear of a vengeful God who will strike you down if you do not do what he says. it sounds like you would forsake your fellow humans if it weren't for your perceived consequences of such actions.

of cousre i could also go off on a tangent about how the 'laws of the land' aren't always God's laws and how there would still be consequences involved in some actions. Is life imprisonment really that much less scary than supposedly going to hell? especially if your source for believing in hell were no longer valid? no assurance of an afterlife might make making the most of this life that much more important.

or i might infer that you don't think for yourself, since you have no realization of what you would do without being told what to do.

or i might argue that the morals and ethics in the Bible are all good ones, even if it was just another story book. there is no reason to believe they have any less value just because there is no greater power enforcing them. They are still some wonderful guides for how to live. In fact, the ethics and morals in the Bible are my favorite parts of it. If only more Christians would live by them instead of taking refuge in the bottom line - being forgiven their indiscretions by a simple act of believing in Jesus. If only more people would really live like Jesus and like the ethical stories illustrate, the world would be a much nicer place to live in.

 

[scruffy]

Some replies to a number of points. Sorry this is so long...

originally by RacerX
My personal experiences with Christians has been that the more Fundamentalist they are, the more there is a risk that they are going to act without regard for ethics (actually, I think that is true of Fundamentalist of any of the middle east religions). And lets face it, if you have not actually struggled with ethics to reach your own conclusion, then you are more of a risk. I would trust someone who knows right from wrong because they feel it more than someone mindlessly following a book.

Why stop there? Fundamentalist Hindus, Communists, Free Market Capitalists, all fundamentalists, are living out of a book. And those who live out of books don't live fully in the real world - consequently, their actions (in the real world by necessity) are more likely to be inappropriate, disproportionate, and inconsiderate of us fellow occupants of the world.

My studies of philosophy (specially Kant) was only second to my studies of nature while growing up.

Only thing weirder than religious crazies, is them freako Kantian types

Actually, I was going to bring up Kant in response to one of Matt's postings (from a while back, I guess) to the effect of their being no solid moral grounding without Biblical belief. Not that I really know a lot of Kant, but he does make an excellent example of a very firm moral framework free of religion.

originally by MDLarson
My belief is that evolutionists believe what they do out of necessity, that is, the necessity to deny the supernatural (of any kind).

I'm not sure all, or even most, evolutionists would deny the possibility of any supernatural phenomena, or indeed of an omnipotent God. It just seems that, where there's lots and lots of signs that all point toward a coherent, consistent non-supernatural explanation, and when that explanation seems to hold up to considerable scrutiny, there's no reason to turn to a supernatural explanation.

For example - I'm not even going to get into whether I believe in a god, or if so what sort, but I will go into what sort of god I specifically don't believe in. I don't believe in a god that's got so much time on his hands that he goes dicking his creations around, by planting evidence of creation being older than it is. Planting moving streams of light between the stars and us, planting insta-fossilized bones of creatures showing a gradual development through various stages into the creatures we finally see around us, planting geological formations carefully crafted to look like the result of millions of years of sedimentation and erosion... And then telling one select tribe of nomadic middle-eastern goatherds "Hey, for future reference, the whole thing is a plant, and you're the only ones in on it." Surely, any omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being would enough of a life to be above childish pranks like that.

 

[edX]

from the scruff's mouth
.. And then telling one select tribe of nomadic middle-eastern goatherds "Hey, for future reference, the whole thing is a plant, and you're the only ones in on it." Surely, any omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being would enough of a life to be above childish pranks like that.

yea, that one always got me as well. Why would the creator of all beings go and pick a favorite. i mean we are just humans and most of us know you love your children equally, and if you don't, then at least don't show it. and we just picked this up by making mistakes. We were all knowing and all powerful to start with.

it leads me to 2 other problems with Christianity -

1st - why is it ok to rip off a whole religion from the Jewish people but not ok to do so with native americans? I mean, i know plenty of Christians who run around defending native americans and how white people have oppressed them and all that who don't think anything of their whole religion having been stolen from a small group of very oppressed people known as the Jews. and who have the gall to look down on Jews and Judaism all because they didn't tag along with the new bastardization of it. All the while, denying and excluding the Talmud and other oral traditions that surround the Torah, yet claiming the Torah as part of their tradition and their interpretation of it as the only correct one? where is the sensibility, much less morals and ethics in that?

2nd - even when i was a church goer, i have believed in a God who is as smart or smarter than me and can learn from their mistakes. there is even eveidence in the bible that God learns - noah's ark and the flood. So how can a being that can learn, already know everything? Hmmm. Is that one of those things that is just supposed to be too great for our little minds to handle? or that we have to have faith that it is possible because the bible says so? It's a contradiction for whoever said the bible has no contradictions a while back.

but let me clear, i see no reason not to believe in God just because the Bible isn't 100% comprehensible. I also don't see it as any proof of God because it is so convoluted. But why can't anyone have faith in God simply thru personal relationship? If there is a God, surely God will communicate with those who seek communion and guide them thru moral and ethical choices. I still believe that God is to be expereinced, not read about and quoted.

btw, as long as we are getting deeper and deeper into religion, xtianity in particular, do any of our xtians know why Jews have never accepted Jesus as the messiah? there are a few possible answers to this, but only one that is really relevant to any discussion of it in the present context.

 

[nkuvu]

Somewhat off topic -- I haven't been following the thread recently. But I found an interesting website:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/welcome.htm

Figured this would be a good place to share it.

Edit: Found another interesting site.
http://www.tftb.com/deify/hierophant.htm
Asks about 130 hard questions about the bible and Christianity. Please note that I am not providing this link to offend anyone. But I know a few Christians who were surprised by some of the information in this questionnaire.

 

[bighairydog]

Arguments as to whether this site was a hoax now seem to be cleared up - the site has been shut down by the Christian web hosting company that hosted it.

<words = "wise">
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think that there comes a point where an institution becomes so absurd
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;that it's ridiculousness can't be exaggerated, and satire is therefore rendered
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;obsolete by being indistinguishable from the subject of it's mockery.
</words>

Bernie )

 

[MDLarson]

I'd be more active in this thread, but I suddenly became really busy with work and a paper for my aesthetics class (not that I'm not busy the rest of the time). Anyway, I plan on catching up on the thread and hopefully offering a more respectable defense. It's hard to defend yourself when you're in the minority.

 

[ebolag4]

Matt,

Keep it up man, and you have my prayers for your class. I, too, am in the same situation. I have so much at work to do and catch up on that I just don't have the time to properly give to this thread. Hopefully it can be a long term discussion.
I also am a frequent sufferer of migraines, and I've really had a bout this week. Missed a day of work on Tuesday. So, you know how it is.

BTW, Ed. Why don't you go ahead and inform us as to which reason some of my people (yes, I'm a Jew) reject Christ as their Messiah is the pertinent one to our conversation here. I'm interested in what you have to say about it.