Navigation
Recent Comments
- charlie wagner on August 23, 2004 09:51 PM
- charlie wagner on August 23, 2004 09:36 PM
- Wayne Francis on August 23, 2004 09:32 PM
- Gav on August 23, 2004 04:28 PM
- Wadsworth on August 23, 2004 05:18 AM
- Steve on August 23, 2004 01:11 AM
- Steve on August 22, 2004 03:48 PM
- Wadsworth on August 22, 2004 04:57 AM
- Steve on August 21, 2004 09:59 AM
- Pim van Meurs on August 20, 2004 06:46 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Yang Yang on July 21, 2004 11:36 AM
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we’ve splashed a coat of paint on it.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/367
Comment #5499
Posted by Gary Hurd on July 21, 2004 01:22 PM (e) (s)
Now Steve, sucking belongs in the van out in the parking lot. And don’t forget to wash!
Comment #5501
Posted by Johnnie C. on July 21, 2004 02:23 PM (e) (s)
Fyi
Joe Carter just put a post up at the Evangelical Outpost, critiquing three arguments against ID (specifically, ”ID is a form of “stealth creationism,” ”ID is an argument from ignorance,” and ID is a “God-of-the-gaps” explanation”).
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000766.html#more
He states that “There are many other philosophical objections, but rather than build strawmen to knock down, I’ll simply ask the critics of ID to present their objections themselves.”
So we don’t need to crash the party. We’re invited. ;)
Comment #5504
Posted by Frank Schmidt on July 21, 2004 03:59 PM (e) (s)
Love his appeals to authority- Behe and Plantinga. And he never addresses the main argument: “It ain’t science.”
Comment #5505
Posted by Frank Schmidt on July 21, 2004 04:01 PM (e) (s)
Love his appeals to authority- Behe and Plantinga. And he never addresses the main argument: “It ain’t science.”
Comment #5508
Posted by TriciafromOhio on July 21, 2004 07:41 PM (e) (s)
Eh, just to be nitpicky, the creation myth of the Egyptians begins with a sacred mound, the Nun, rising up out of the waters….Geb and Nut are much later in the cosmology… Before I was a cashier, I was an Egyptologist:)
Comment #5518
Posted by roger on July 22, 2004 03:10 AM (e) (s)
Bob: Thanks for your concern for my son. Surgery tomorrow… He’s taking it better than my wife and I! Sorry to hear about your pipes. That can be a mess! Hope insurance covers it!
Something I’m noticing as I interact with you, Wayne and even Steve when he can bring himself to communicate with me, is you all seem to ascribe only negative characteristics to “god”. I find that interesting.
Admittedly, I’m a believer so you’d expect my comments to be naturally positive when describing my concept of “God”, but I wonder why is your concept of “god” overwhelmingly negative?
Steve is an atheist, which as far as I understand it simply says: there is no god.
I don’t believe in elves, but I don’t have a particularly hostile concept of what they might be if they existed.
Bob… well, I take it you’re an atheist too?
And Wayne is agnostic which, if I understand correctly says: I just don’t know if there’s a god or not. Again, I wouldn’t expect to hear a significant amount of comments like:
Bob: “a fickle and insecure (and capricious) Cosmic Trickster”
or: “diseases and viruses He so thoughtfully provided”
or “Didn’t your loving God command the angel-sheltering believer to send his wife (or daughter?) out to be gang-raped to death by the horny mob?”
or from Wayne: “Fear god because if you don’t respect god you’ll face eternal damnation.”
or: “God Dammning man and 3 more generations”
or “I don’t think god would be a older man with a great white bushy beard.”
Frankly, if God is as you describe him, I don’t like him either! I mean, you’ve described a cosmic scumbag! The interesting thing to me is you all seem to be not simply opposed to his existance; but convinced he’s evil if he does exist.
You ignore the positive characteristics ascribed to God in the Bible, but are quick to latch onto anything in the Bible you see as negative. Why is that?
You are all obviously familiar with the Bible… so why do you read it contrary to the message of God’s love? It’s almost like you’re angry with God… is that it?
If God exists, could you imagine him possessing ANY positive characteristics?
I’m just curious, as it’s something that has really stood out to me.
Bob: I want to go back to one comment you made and admit something… okay? Confession time from the Creationist! You said: “Didn’t your loving God command the angel-sheltering believer to send his wife (or daughter?) out to be gang-raped to death by the horny mob?”
Actually you are referring to the story of Lot (Abraham’s nephew) in Genesis. Here’s my confession, right up front: This is one of the few stories in the Bible I really have a hard time with. You’re right, it doesn’t square with what I think is right.
In defense of God, however, you DO have your facts mixed up though.
God NEVER commands Lot to offer his daughters to the mob. That was Lot’s idea (which never comes to fruition, by the way, as the “angels” intervene). I think there are two factors at play here… 1. That culture was COMPLETELY different from our own and I believe some, if not many, of their values would shock us. 2. Lot himself is never presented in the Bible as a shining example of virtue, in fact we have indications in other verses that he was selfish at best. The bottom line is, he was spared because he was Abraham’s nephew.
But again, I admit, I don’t like the details of this story. I think it’s an example of God getting a bad wrap, though, simply because the Bible accurately reports what happened rather than glossing over the unpleasant facts.
Changing the subject a bit, Wayne says: “It doesn’t make sense. A “God” that is alone and creates with life with no partner is asexual. Unless, here is where I get struck down by lighting, god’s penis is a vestigial organ.”
Wayne, you’re ascribing human features to God. John 4:24 has Jesus claiming that God (the Father) is a “spirit”. And let’s face it, if he really is omnipotent (all powerful) then creating life is no big deal. He wouldn’t need any help.
Your next comments are very candid. Speaking about “free will” you say: “I guess I do this with my son. I give him choices and let him know the consequences of his choices. The difference is I’m not all knowing and I don’t claim to be perfect and all good.
Most loving parents do attempt to communicate the consequences of certain choices to our children while still offering them a free choice when we believe it is appropriate. You seem to be saying you can’t grant God that same freedom because he knows more than you do about any given outcome. Have you ever let your child make a “bad” decision so they will learn? Not only can it teach them far better as they remember the consequences they went through, but it also helps them trust you in the future… they remember that Dad knows what he’s talking about after all. It doesn’t mean you don’t love your kids.
You continue: “Other difference is my punishment doesn’t wipe my son out of existence like will happen to me by Jesus and God if the bible is right.”
This is probably the biggest complaint people have about Christianity. The idea of hell, eternal damnation, etc. I have to admit (I’m admitting too much in this post!: ) it seems pretty harsh to me too.
Here’s what it comes down to, for me. I believe the Bible says Jesus will be our ultimate judge. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery even though he didn’t have to and there’s no indication she asked for forgiveness. When he healed the paraletic (sp?) he said: “Your sins are forgiven.” There’s no indication the guy even asked for his sins to be forgiven. The religious leaders had a fit over that statement, by the way! He forgave the thief on the cross beside him when all he said was “Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He said “today you will be with me in paradise.” There’s many more examples of this. There’s every indication to me as I read the Bible that Jesus is an extremely compassionate judge.
Ironically, the people Jesus came down hard on were the religious leaders! They were the people who should have recognized him and didn’t. Jesus saw them as hippocrites using their positions of authority to gain power and riches and he accused them of such to their face! He condemned this in no uncertain terms, which is part of the reason they hated him and eventually had him crucified.
So how does that relate to eternal damnation? Only that Jesus is the ultimate judge and I don’t believe he’ll send anyone to hell who doesn’t deserve to be there. Of course, you and I may have our own concept of what “deserve” means. Ultimately, if Jesus is God, he’ll decide.
By the way, I think it was Bob who said that God created hell to prompt us to worship him. I don’t agree. The Bible says hell was created for the devil and his (fallen) angels. But, alas, I suppose if you have a hard time envisioning the possible existance of a god, you’ll have any even more difficult time with the concept of a devil!
Guys, I’m more than happy to keep posting, but there may come a time when you get tired of hearing my views. If so, let me know and I’ll lay off. I enjoy hearing your perspective… I always learn something, and it’s been good “getting to know you” so to speak through cyber space.
Comment #5521
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 22, 2004 07:42 AM (e) (s)
Hi Roger,
Keep us posted on your son’s progress. Repair on the leaking pipe cost $212, but is fully recompensable through the Class Action Fund, which, as far as I know at this point will also provide a whole-house replumb and reimbursement for incurred damages (carpets, walls, etc). The coverage window for our particular type of installation is 16 years from closing, which ends in less than a month. So if God was punishing me, at least he limited it to a relatively minor inconvenience - more of a warning? :>)
As to my (can’t speak for Wayne or Steve) ascribing only negative characteristics to God, it’s pretty much in direct counterpoint to your ascribing only glowingly positive characteristics to Him. Got to maintain a context here. I don’t think I’d call myself an atheist though - how about on the atheistic side of agnosticism?
If you’re going to credit God with creating the universe; us; butterfly wings; sunsets; and every other pleasant or good thing, you’ve also got to hold him accountable for Ebola and HIV, bubonic plague, and all the rest of the less than pleasant stuff. No cherrypicking allowed.
Blunt questions - “Yes” or “No” answers? Do you consider the Bible inerrant? Do you take the Bible literally?
Comment #5533
Posted by Jim Harrison on July 22, 2004 07:50 PM (e) (s)
Actually, a lot of people who don’t believe in God are rather fond of him (Him?) as a liteerary figure and resent the tendency of some folks to bad mouth him.
You gotta say this for the Yahweh of the Old Testament. He isn’t an insipid goody two shoes. As Trekies know, there’s a great deal of Q in J.
Comment #5538
Posted by Wayne Francis on July 22, 2004 11:44 PM (e) (s)
Something I’m noticing as I interact with you, Wayne and even Steve when he can bring himself to communicate with me, is you all seem to ascribe only negative characteristics to “god”. I find that interesting.
I don’t agree. I find god an amazing concept. Its mans interpretation of god I often find negative and in conflict. You ever watch a movie where someone rips it to shreds for faults? Well if I don’t like a movie I do that …. if I don’t like a book I do that to. And while there are many good messages in the bible for such a powerful book there are many bad messages too.
I don’t believe in elves, but I don’t have a particularly hostile concept of what they might be if they existed.
Could this be because you’ve never read stories where evils threaten to get revenge on your children and grandchildren?
Frankly, if God is as you describe him, I don’t like him either! I mean, you’ve described a cosmic scumbag! The interesting thing to me is you all seem to be not simply opposed to his existence; but convinced he’s evil if he does exist.
Hence I don’t mind the concept of god just mans description of god in the bible. It is to in conflict with what a creator would be in my opinion. Also I personally think that god doesn’t have to be “Good” god could well be what we deem neutral or more likely beyond our understanding.
You ignore the positive characteristics ascribed to God in the Bible, but are quick to latch onto anything in the Bible you see as negative. Why is that?
The negative shows me discrepancies. They are prevalent throughout. Despite what you think I do not hold onto the negative. I look at much of the bible as a set of morals. I talk about the bible in good and bad but if we are talking about concepts that we don’t understand….well then I understand why the bible would have good parts. I don’t understand the bad parts with what most people admit about religion. I understand the bad parts with the concept that I know religion throughout history has been used to control the masses and thus making people fear going against “religious doctrine” is a control mechanism. This is not an attack on god but an attack on those in power that use that power in the wrong way.
You are all obviously familiar with the Bible… so why do you read it contrary to the message of God’s love? It’s almost like you’re angry with God… is that it?
I don’t. I read the good with the bad. I absorb it all. I analyses it. I read other religious text the same way. I read history that same way. I read, I learn, I choice that which I like and I build upon my views with those points. I take the bad and to the same. I look outside the square. To read the bible and to only see good is to be blind to the full meaning of the bible and its purpose.
If God exists, could you imagine him possessing ANY positive characteristics?
Many…infinite in fact. I can imagine god would treat all god’s creations in a similar regard. You might say I’m an anti-raciest to the extreme. I believe that all life has similar meaning. I don’t imagine a biblical god and Satan. Note that I also believe, if there is a god, that we are not at the high point of god favour. I believe that is a dream, desire of man wishing for that to be true.
Wayne, you’re ascribing human features to God. John 4:24 has Jesus claiming that God (the Father) is a “spirit”. And let’s face it, if he really is omnipotent (all powerful) then creating life is no big deal. He wouldn’t need any help.
You and I are not on different roads. But yet you refer to god as a spirit yet call god “him” “he” “his”. You have engrained into you the image of what god has been dictated to most people by the religious institutions. That of a strong but older man with long white slightly wavy hair with a huge beard. I can’t blame you when someone talks about god I often get the same picture. The problem is people don’t think for themselves, not saying you because you do question, but most people don’t. I believe god is portrayed as a man so males would have more power. God creating man then woman from man is a method to make women inferior to men. Again this is not an attack on god. This is an attack on the men (males) that controlled this power throughout our history. It is also part of the reason man likes to separate themselves from the rest of the creatures of the universe. You may not agree but if there is a soul I believe humans aren’t the only ones to possess such a thing.
{quote=roger]Have you ever let your child make a “bad” decision so they will learn?[/quote]
All the time. More then most parents. But I also slapped my sons hand so hard when he was about 2 and was reaching for a flame that he has an inherent fear of fire though he’s never been born. I, unlike god, will not knowingly put my son in that much danger. The biblical god put us in situations akin to letting us burn ourselves on the fire and while we are dealing with that pain slaps us silly. Again this is MAN’s account of how god act. Not what I believe god would really react like.
they remember that Dad knows what he’s talking about after all.
I some times wish this was true. My son’s IQ is 145. He is independent, not a phase unless this phase has been going on for the full 8 years 5 months and 6 days he’s been alive. He constantly test the boundaries from when he was able to walk to now. He doesn’t eat red meat because he choices not to. He gets in trouble for the same things over and over again. Maybe this is god punishment to me. Maybe I have my son acting to me as I act to god. But you know what. In the end I’d rather have my son test his boundaries, question everything and find his own way then to be a blind obedient little boy that can’t question his father. When I die and if God is out there I have no doubt that god will be just as proud of me as I am of my son and the fact that I have problems with the bible will not be a negative in god’s mind.
This is probably the biggest complaint people have about Christianity. The idea of hell, eternal damnation, etc. I have to admit (I’m admitting too much in this post!: ) it seems pretty harsh to me too.
Aye, it does. Seems more like a control mechanism put in by men to control the masses not the doctrine of a god. You’ve said before that god may be responsible for my morals. In actuality I don’t have a problem with that. Maybe god is constantly whispering to my soul. But just as god is whispering to my soul that I should help someone that is getting beat up on a side street in the city god must also be whispering to my soul to learn all I can and try to look at the universe from a different point of view.
There’s every indication to me as I read the Bible that Jesus is an extremely compassionate judge.
I agree in part. But man twisted this too. Now with Christianity the rulers of Christianity had to figure how to separate themselves even more from the other religions. For many of those around them believed in the same god. So you have passages like
Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
Now Christianity had control of the door to heaven since it is Christianity that believes in Jesus. Having “God” empower Jesus with the judgment meant Christianity would have power that other religions didn’t. Not this isn’t Jesus saying this and I do not believe this is what Jesus would have meant by what he is reported to have said.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Again even if I believed in that Jesus was god manifested on earth this is NOT Jesus’ words but words of men trying to control the masses.
But if you believe in the bible then it isn’t so. I could live my life as a murdering, child molesting thief and accept Jesus on my death bed and be saved but little 5 year old Sing Lee in China will be damned to hell because she was hit by a bus and never even heard of Jesus. Something I do not believe would happen.
[quote=Roger]I think it was Bob who said that God created hell to prompt us to worship him.
I think it was man that created hell to fear more people into doing what the leaders of religions wanted them to do.
Once again I find myself reading someone’s reply to your post and they’ve summed up much of what I mean in 1/20th the amount of text :)
Oh, BTW, thank you roger. You really do make me look at things differently. Might not be the way you currently look at things but its different then what I looked at it before. No big shift. More of just coming more to grips with my inner views and finding that so much more supports those views currently.
Comment #5541
Posted by roger on July 23, 2004 03:12 AM (e) (s)
Bob, Wayne & Friends:
Well we took my son in for surgery today but the Dr called in sick! So we had to reschedule for Wed. The good news was they hadn’t started the IV yet.
Bob, I guess your pipe thing might even be a “blessing” in disguise? Bob Writes: So if God was punishing me, at least he limited it to a relatively minor inconvenience - more of a warning? :>)” Hmmm, Bob… I think you might be on to something! : )
Bob, you make a good point about God creating good and bad… not sure how to answer right off, so that’s my indication that it’s a good point…. my inclination is to argue that God created things in a “good” state but sin corrupted things. In fact that could be the answer, but that might be too simplistic… how ‘bout if I get back to ya?
You also ask: “Blunt questions - “Yes” or “No” answers? Do you consider the Bible inerrant? Do you take the Bible literally?”
Actually I think I’ve pretty well answered this already, but to sum up… A. in it’s current form “no”, but remarkably close; I also believe God uses the imperfect to communicate his message; B. as much as possible except when it is obvious allegory or metaphor. I’m not opposed to someone interpreting the “difficult to understand” stories as allegory. (Guess that wasn’t yes or no… sorry!)
Wayne: You bring up the concept that God will hold 3 or 4 generations responsible for the sins of their fathers several times. Two things, 1. could you tell me where to find this? 2. As far as I know this idea was done away with, but I’m fuzzy on the details.
I see that most of your responses to my last questions basically add up to: I don’t believe the “God” of the Bible is the creator of the universe. The Bible, you believe was created by man. So you are not opposed to the idea of a “god”, but you don’t beleive it’s the god of the Bible, which you describe as bushy-haired old man.
I agree (with the bushy-haired part). But I notice most of your comments seem to apply to the God of the Old Testament. You also argue that the words of Jesus have been embellished and even fabricated.
Do you believe Jesus claimed to be God?
You also quote John 5:22-23 and comment that: “Not this isn’t Jesus saying this and I do not believe this is what Jesus would have meant by what he is reported to have said.”
So you believe this has been added? Because, according to the way it is written it IS part of a long, direct quote from Jesus which begins in verse 19.
This quote, to me, seems consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teachings.
You also make the same point with John 3:18. Again, the author presents this as Jesus speaking directly to Nichodemus. So I can only conclude that you simply do not accept the account as it’s presented. Right?
Comment #5552
Posted by Wayne Francis on July 23, 2004 11:10 AM (e) (s)
Wayne: You bring up the concept that God will hold 3 or 4 generations responsible for the sins of their fathers several times. Two things, 1. could you tell me where to find this? 2. As far as I know this idea was done away with, but I’m fuzzy on the details.
Done away with because it is in the old testimate? I find the change in doctrine strange. When I look at it I see it used for a struggle of power.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
I don’t accept much of the gospils as the word of Jesus directly and even if I don’t really believe he is who you believe him to be. I’ll leave it at that.
Comment #5567
Posted by Frank J on July 23, 2004 03:48 PM (e) (s)
Frankly, if God is as you describe him, I don’t like him either! I mean, you’ve described a cosmic scumbag! The interesting thing to me is you all seem to be not simply opposed to his existence; but convinced he’s evil if he does exist.
Remember me? I’m the one who has no problem with God, and who asked you to pick which of the alternative positions you find most convincing. Since you are more interested in theology than science, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely unsure as opposed to being obviously strategic like professional IDers. The fact that OECs exist in the first place should make you as little suspicious of YEC, though.
Since you mention caricatures of God that you wouldn’t like, you must read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller is a cell biologist, a Christian, and one of the most prominent opponents of the anti-evolution strategies. In addition to refuting the “mutually contradictory” anti-evolution positions he also criticizes their unwarranted caricatures of God as a “charlatan,” “magician” and “mechanic.”
Evolution does not explain everything, nor does it claim to, but Miller represents the consensus of mainstream science-literate Christians, which is that creationism and ID are not only bad science, but also bad theology. I am of course not asking you to blindly agree, but come to your own decision.
PS: Hope your son gets well soon.
Comment #5569
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 23, 2004 04:32 PM (e) (s)
Roger,
Somewhere on this thread I believe you were asked (by Frank J?) what type of Creation (ism) you subscribed to, and you answered “Biblical.” Everything from the Universe to us in 6 days, and Noah’s Flood thrown in for good measure?
Comment #5571
Posted by Frank J on July 23, 2004 05:09 PM (e) (s)
Roger,
Somewhere on this thread I believe you were asked (by Frank J?) what type of Creation (ism) you subscribed to, and you answered “Biblical.” Everything from the Universe to us in 6 days, and Noah’s Flood thrown in for good measure?
Twas I who asked, then remarked that “Biblical” according to minstream Christianity includes a 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution. Of course “Biblical” has also been claimed to mean a flat earth.
Comment #5592
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 23, 2004 09:50 PM (e) (s)
Hi Frank,
Mainstream Christianity aside, I would point out that “Biblical” creation is a six day affair that leaves no room for evolution.
And once we get into Biblical literalism we’re dealing with such assorted goodies as Lot’s wife as a pillar of salt; the plagues of Egypt; Moses’ staff into a serpent; the Red/Reed sea parting; Noah’s Flood; and Jesus crucified, dead, and resurrected.
This site is not about validating or alibiing (an invented word that looks kinda weird) the Bible, it’s about demonstrable supports for naturalistic predictions. I’m waiting for Roger to provide some sort of a framework for evaluating Divine Creation. Absent that, it’s a non-starter. In point of fact, I’m waiting for anyone to provide said framework.
Comment #5597
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 23, 2004 10:25 PM (e) (s)
Roger,
Are you telling me you’ve never considered the downside of “God the Creator”? I’ll see your sunset and raise you an Ebola outbreak. One of my dearest friends is a born-again Christian conservative Republican. A few years ago we got into an EvC debate, and at one point he said, “Every time I see a sunset or a butterfly’s wings I’m reminded of the glory of God’s handiwork.” I responded, “Do you also see the glory of God’s handiwork in the Ebola virus?” and he replied, “I don’t understand what you’re getting at.” We’re still dear friends, but it has been difficult.
I have a problem with you’re having to decide how to respond. He either did it or He didn’t, unless you’re suggesting several co-creators - altough that would be a new and startling addition to the
Christian cosmology. Do me the courtesy here of not running the “sin corrupted things” riff on me. This site is dedicated to providing support for, and engaging dissents from, evolution, not to engaging in theological debates.
You indicated that you take the Bible literally, except when it’s obvious allegory or metaphor. Who makes that final distinction? Suppose I claim that the WHOLE THING is allegory and metaphor? Can you dispute that with evidence? I would suggest that your “yes or no” answer is “No.”
Comment #5601
Posted by Wayne Francis on July 23, 2004 11:20 PM (e) (s)
Bob brings up a good point. The whole “sin corrupted everything” doesn’t make sense to me.
God created a perfect world but some how it broke when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Or was the Garden of Eden the only perfect place and the land of Nod was not so perfect.
Why would God make a perfect world but not a perfect being?
I actually like a hindu interpretation of Genesis 3 where it was not fruit of a sacred tree that they ate but the “fruit” represented intercourse and that upon Eve discovering the pleasures of sex for herself tempted Adam. Thus they where thrown out of the Garden of Eden for doing that which only the creator wanted to do, create life. I don’t believe it but its symbolism makes more sense in my eyes of how early civilised man would try to describe origins.
As far as the whole bible being allegory and metaphor. I think if we look at the O.T. I would say much of this is true. With the N.T. I would say it is more political manipulation personally. The gospals where not written to be anything but fact even revolations.
Agian these are my views and don’t expect to have anyone agree with me.
On an interesting side note I just got an email from a woman, via a match making site, who is interested in catching up…she’s a born again Christian studying to become a teach in science. I emailed her my openness to all religions and briefly explained that I like learning about religions, biology, geology, cosmology etc and reitterated the fact that I’m agnostic. Any bets on if she’ll continue on trying to meet me?
Comment #5605
Posted by Frank J on July 24, 2004 10:26 AM (e) (s)
Mainstream Christianity aside, I would point out that “Biblical” creation is a six day affair that leaves no room for evolution.
But even OECs (classic OECs, not the ID strategists) claim that their various scenarios, day-age and gap, in particular, are “Biblical.” Same for YE geocentrists. IOW the the word is ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. I am still trying to find out what Roger’s intended definition was.
Comment #5619
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 24, 2004 06:22 PM (e) (s)
Hi Frank,
Guess Roger’s up to his eyeballs with family things, or taking a weekend break.
Don’t forget about Lilith - the first feminist. She took one look at the setup and said, “I’m outta here.”
Absent individual specifics from Roger, I’m assuming a pretty literal Biblical line:
Me: “Do you consider the Bible inerrant? Do you take the Bible literally?”
Roger ; “A. in it’s current form “no”, but remarkably close; I also believe God uses the imperfect to communicate his message; B. as much as possible except when it is obvious allegory or metaphor. I’m not opposed to someone interpreting the “difficult to understand” stories as allegory.”
Comment #5622
Posted by roger on July 25, 2004 05:09 AM (e) (s)
Hey Friends:
I WAS quite busy… too many details to explain, and then when I tried the page wouldn’t download… anyway, since I have limited time (gotta get to church tomorrow! : ) I’ll get right into it…
Wayne: the passage you quoted doesn’t say anything about “damning” anyone. Is this the only verse you are talking about are are there others?
Frank: Thanks for the benefit, and yes, I am genuinely unsure. Bottom line: if I haven’t made up my mind, I flat out admit it. And if someone can show me I’m wrong, I’ll change my views. My goal is to get to the truth, not win an argument. I’m certainly not a professional IDer. (I’m sure the REAL ones would be offended at the thought! : ) No, the truth is, in the end, my opinion doesn’t mean a whole lot… I’m not much of a “threat” or “benefit” to either side! Thanks for the book recommend, I’ll see if I can find it.
Shoot! I don’t even know what all the acronyms you guys are using stand for! I’m guessing Young Earth Creationist; Old Earth Creationist… but then you start to loose me. Here’s the way I see it:
If you read the Bible literally, you read it that a day is 24 hours, hence 6 days. On the other hand “day” has been used in other locations to mean “years”. So, I suppose that’s where all the debate comes in. Again, a lot of people on both sides of the debate disagree. That’s why, for me, the jury’s still out. I just don’t know, but either way works under my world view, because I believe in an all-powerful creator who could have done it either way and who is well above my IQ, or Wayne’s son, or even Bob… (I don’t know about Steve!) (Kidding!)
Sure, I realize that’s not “verifiable” so I suppose that ends the discussion and I can come back to class when I have some concrete evidence for the existance of God. Fine! I’ve said from the beginning you have to accept MY position on FAITH. My only point, in that regard, is that you all accept YOUR positions by FAITH as well.
Bob writes:
“I have a problem with you’re having to decide how to respond. He either did it or He didn’t, unless you’re suggesting several co-creators - altough that would be a new and startling addition to the
Christian cosmology.”
Why do you have a problem with my indecision? I’m not claiming to be God. For me, Bob, God IS the creator of all things. And you’re absolutely right in pointing out that not all things are “good.” So that makes me stop and think. What are the possible explanations?
You continue:
“Do me the courtesy here of not running the “sin corrupted things” riff on me. This site is dedicated to providing support for, and engaging dissents from, evolution, not to engaging in theological debates.”
Here you go again, asking me a question, knowing full well that I am, in fact, a believer in the Bible, but then telling me the Biblical explanation is off limits. Bob, if you ask a “theological” question such as: “Do you also see the glory of God’s handiwork in the Ebola virus?”; you might have to settle for a “theological” answer. You can’t have it both ways. Besides, last I checked we are, after all, still in the bathroom here!
That said, I think the “sin” argument is valid. You may not believe it, and that’s fine, but I certainly see it as a valid position from my perspective. However, you’ll notice in my previous comment that I admitted that may be too simplistic. For example: Under my world view, is it possible that both options are true? Ie: God created a perfect world which sin did indeed corrupt, but then God created “imperfect” or even “negative” as a possible consequence of sin? I will have to give that some more thought, but, right off, it strikes me as a good possibility.
Bob writes:
“You indicated that you take the Bible literally, except when it’s obvious allegory or metaphor. Who makes that final distinction? Suppose I claim that the WHOLE THING is allegory and metaphor? Can you dispute that with evidence? I would suggest that your “yes or no” answer is “No.””
I knew this question was coming! Who makes the final destinction? Everyone is free to make up their own mind. Can I dispute that the whole thing is allegory? Sure. Will you accept it? Probably not. Without going into a huge amount of research and evidence, however, hopefully you’ll at least grant me that much (if not most) of the verifiable data given in the Bible such as geographic locations, names of kings, civilizations, structures built, battles fought, etc, etc have been verified archeologically and through outside historical documents. Names like “David” and “Solomon”, the “Hittites”, etc, once thought to be nothing more than the stuff of legend have been verified. On such matters, we can conclude that the Bible is accurate, even remarkably so given the fact that it is a collection of books by many different authors covering thousands of years.
Is Job, for example, allegory or fact or even a little of both? Either way is possible and quite acceptable. For me personally, however, it all comes down to Jesus Christ. To me, if Jesus was just a man and not who he claimed to be, then I’d throw the whole thing out and start getting my philosophy from you guys.
Wayne writes:
“Bob brings up a good point. The whole “sin corrupted everything” doesn’t make sense to me.
God created a perfect world but some how it broke when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Or was the Garden of Eden the only perfect place and the land of Nod was not so perfect.”
I think the “sin corrupted” argument does make sense. But there’s a lot of things underlying that concept that you, as an agnostic, don’t agree with. For example, you write:
“Why would God make a perfect world but not a perfect being?” Several possibilities, but I suggest that a “perfect” being would be a robot, not capable of truly and freely loving (or rejecting) God. I suggest, this is not what God wanted. Who’s to say he didn’t already try that somewhere else anyway?
Bottom line: If God did indeed create us as the center-piece of this creation, with a free-will and everything else as the backdrop, it means we’re quite “special”. Therefore, our actions could indeed impact our environment either directly (as we see in play today as our technology impacts our environment)or indirectly through God’s (or some other) actions in response to sin.
Wayne: “Any bets on if she’ll continue on trying to meet me?”
Not to meddle in your personal affairs, but keep in mind the scriptures teach her not to be “unequally yoked” to unbelievers. That’s not meant to be a slam on you, but it could definitely be a limiting factor. I realize you probably see that as a control mechanism, but, that’s probably where she’ll be coming from.
Thanks for your comments! G’nite!
Comment #5624
Posted by Frank J on July 25, 2004 10:43 AM (e) (s)
Bottom line: if I haven’t made up my mind, I flat out admit it. And if someone can show me I’m wrong, I’ll change my views. My goal is to get to the truth, not win an argument. I’m certainly not a professional IDer. (I’m sure the REAL ones would be offended at the thought! : )
Actually you are exactly the victim that professional IDers want. They discourage YEC-OEC debates, and their goal is not to get to the truth, but to misrepresent the parts of the truth that are known, down to the definition of every term, including their favorite, “Darwinism.”
If your goal is to get to the truth, why not just browse the Talk Origins archive, and read books like “Finding Darwin’s God”? No one can “show you that you are wrong” if you don’t at least tell us which of the mutually contradictory origins models you find more convincing than the others.
Trying to interpret the Bible will not help in settling the YEC-OEC debate. You need to look at the evidence, and pay close attention how some groups take it out of context to fit a pre-held conclusion. The fact that you didn’t know (but guessed correctly) what YEC and OEC stood for, means that you have a lot to catch up on. So did I as recently as 7 years ago, even though I thought I knew the “Creation/Evolution debate” for 30 years prior. I was as excited to find where I was wrong as where I was right. The newfound knowledge even strengthened my belief in God; to paraphrase Kenneth Miller, not because evolution was wrong, but because it was right.
This may not help you resolve the YEC-OEC question (other than to conclude that they are both wrong), but I also recommend “God After Darwin” by John Haught. I haven’t read it yet, but I have read several of Haught’s articles. His thesis is that evolution (as science defines it, if not how its misrepresenters do) is just how the Christian God is expected to operate.
My goal too is not to win an argument, I’m not good at that at anyway. My goal is to alert well-meaning people that “snake oil salesman” are exploiting them, in God’s name no less.
Comment #5625
Posted by David Harmon on July 25, 2004 11:02 AM (e) (s)
Admittedly, I’m a believer so you’d expect my comments to be naturally positive when describing my concept of “God”, but I wonder why is your concept of “god” overwhelmingly negative?
Steve is an atheist, which as far as I understand it simply says: there is no god.
I don’t believe in elves, but I don’t have a particularly hostile concept of what they might be if they existed.
I’m an erstwhile Neo-Pagan, (and ethnic Jew) and I *do* have a moderately hostile view of what elves might be like, if they existed according to the original myths describing them. (Hint: Tolkien created a more-or-less new concept of elves.)
The Celtic version is perhaps most sympathetic, describing elves as basically another race of humans, inhabiting a world which was partly identified with the afterlife. The German version, however, has faeries as nature spirits/demigods, who if not properly apeased, could be very nasty indeed. Think of the back-story for Grimm’s “Hawthorn Rose”, (later corrupted as “Sleeping Beauty”) where the uninvited “thirteenth guest” curses the princess. The Greek equivalent to “elves” would be the dryads, nymphs, etc, also known for screwing people over. Shakespeare gives a similar riff in _Midsummer Night’s Dream_.
The point here is that such mythic entities are defined by their stories, and accordingly can be judged by those stories. The connection to the JCM God is that, despite the drastic fragmentation of the tradition, each believer continues to define (their) God by the stories s/he chooses to tell about their God. If your idea of God is represented by such stories as Ezekiel siccing bears on little children, or the Israelites being commanded to commit genocide, well that’s not a very nice God at all. If you instead choose to tell about the forgiveness of sinners, healing of the sick, etc. — well, that’s another story entirely. ;-)
The problem in a modern context is that the early Christian leaders made a number of compromises over the centuries, selecting those stories which allowed them to “make deals” with local rulers — notably, retaining the pagan idea that a king was also the representative of God (“divine right”). As the Church grew, it also started to select stories that directly reinforced its own power (i.e., no path to Heaven except through Jesus). The result of these selections was to progressively tilt the individualistic (Promethean) faith seen in the original mythology, eventually converting it back into an authoritarian (Jovian) religion. (Note that Prometheus himself retained his role as the eternal rebel, but was cast into Hell, under his Roman name of Lucifer.)
Anyone who tried to argue with this was of course declared a heretic, subject to the full retaliation of the Church. Unfortunately for the Church, they didn’t (and still don’t) actually have the power to slay all unbelievers and heretics. This is why they’ve suffered a steady stream of schisms, as the original Promethean strain keeps re-emerging despite the best efforts of the Church rulership. Of course, many of the splinter religions later modified themselves toward Jovian form, in the interest of taking and holding secular power.
Interestingly, Jesus himself was rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests, a classic Jovian authority. But the destruction of the Jewish Temples, as the Christians continued the Roman oppression of the Jews, wound up converting Judaism into a mostly Promethean faith! And despite the efforts of modern Israeli authorities, it remains so — which is why American Jews (or Israeli Jews, for that matter) are *not* lined up behind the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, despite much effort from such religious authorities as they still recognize. Some Jews support it, some don’t, but I think almost all Jews still recognize the issue as a matter for individual choice.
Comment #5626
Posted by Wayne Francis on July 25, 2004 11:16 AM (e) (s)
Wayne: the passage you quoted doesn’t say anything about “damning” anyone. Is this the only verse you are talking about are are there others?
Here you maybe able to shed some light on this verse as no one, as of yet, has been able to. I’m working out the problem as I see it.
John 3:18, and many other verses, says if you do not believe then you are condemed. The bible reads out that if you do not worship then you are damned. If you interpret it differently then that is your choice. I actually interpret it as not being what god would mean.
So if you are damned and given what Deut 5:9-10 says…well I’m just putting 2 and 2 together. Perhaps I’m miss interpretating Deut 5:9-10 and god will give out candy to 4 generations, sorry sarcastic humour. I just don’t know how else to take it given the context.
Not to meddle in your personal affairs…
Seems the Born Again Christians here in Australia are a little less bible thumping then in the US. She sent me her phone number and pointed out we think alike in that we like talking about our beliefs but don’t like to force them on others. So we’ll see what happens next. Oh and it isn’t meddling …I layed it out for comments :)
Comment #5645
Posted by roger on July 26, 2004 01:27 AM (e) (s)
David: Actually I was thinking about Santa’s elves! : ) Then again, maybe they’re sneaky, little nymphs too!
Question for you… something I’ve been curious about for quite some time… what is an “ethnic Jew”. How is that defined?
Wayne writes: “John 3:18, and many other verses, says if you do not believe then you are condemed.” Maybe it would help to back up a bit… the way I understand the Biblical teaching is that everyone is “condemned” because everyone is guilty of sin. That means everyone, even Mother Teresa. But just 1 verse prior to the one you are quoting has Jesus saying: “For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
In other words, we’re already condemned, compliments of our sin. Jesus is saying “I came to save the world, not condemn it.” Again, I point out that Jesus is a merciful and compassionate judge.
You continue: “The bible reads out that if you do not worship then you are damned. If you interpret it differently then that is your choice.”
Where does it say that? My concept of worship, in order for it to be genuine, would have to flow freely out of a greatful heart. Someone who is truly thankful to God for his free gift would willingly “worship”. The idea that God demands worship goes against my understanding of the Biblical God. What’s the point of creating beings with a free choice if you demand worship of them?
I also don’t think you’ll find a verse that teaches lack of “worship” will damn you. It’s sin that damns us. But again, the Bible says we’re all in the same boat with regard to sin, not just those who don’t “worship”, and Jesus says, “I’m not here to condemn the world, I’m here to save it.”
As far as “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” …I’m not a theologian, but it reads to me that God will “punish” those who hate him (or his chosen nation of Isreal) in THIS life. In effect he’s saying: You mess with Isreal, you mess with me and you’ll pay for 3 or 4 generations, but if you love me and keep my commandments (even if you’re not a part of the nation of Isreal)I’ll show compassion on you for a thousand generations (verse 10). To me, the point of the passage is the contrast: Look, the God of the Jews is the only God and he’s not to be taken lightly. BUT he’s also compassionate. In fact his compassion FAR outweighs his anger.
Wayne: You better be careful! I’ve been praying that God would send someone in your life to show you he exists! : )
Couple questions on evolution….
What would you say is the BEST evidence in support of evolution?
If you don’t mind answering this one… what is the best argument or evidence you’ve ever heard in favor of creationism?
Take care!
Comment #5652
Posted by roger on July 26, 2004 04:38 AM (e) (s)
David: Your thoughts are very provocative! You write: “The problem in a modern context is that the early Christian leaders made a number of compromises over the centuries, selecting those stories which allowed them to “make deals” with local rulers — notably, retaining the pagan idea that a king was also the representative of God (“divine right”).”
Are you suggesting that the Bible itself was edited, altered or censored through the centuries to bring it in line with certain political power centers or merely that church doctrine, protocol, liturgy, etc. was?
Comment #5654
Posted by David Harmon on July 26, 2004 07:34 AM (e) (s)
what is an “ethnic Jew”. How is that defined?
“Judaism” is usually thought of as a religion, but it is also a cluster of ethnic groups, which have maintained fairly good cohesion over many centuries of dispersal and oppression. My own family are Ashkenazi Jews, (the Eastern-European branch) but we’re fairly assimilated — my grandparents stopped following the kosher laws, and the trend has continued to where I don’t even go to Yom Kippur services anymore. (My last time was the year after my father’s death, when I went to participate in the “Mourner’s Kaddish”.) I’ve explored Neo-Paganism, but I’m most comfortable with a naturalistic worldview, and don’t practice any of the religious aspects of Judaism.
But… those practices don’t define “what is a Jew”, they are just things that (by faith and tradition) a Jew “ought” to be doing. The official rule is that if your mother is a Jew, then so are you, whether or not you believe, practice, or even know your heritage. Someone who converts away from Judaism is considered to have “left the tribe”, but they can always come back — there is no excommunication. (Converting to Judaism is possible, but purposely difficult, and we do not proselytize.) So, not going to temple, keeping kosher, etc. means that I’m not a “good Jew”, but I am still a Jew.
I did grow up in a community where there were a lot of other Jews, and so I still identify with the ethnicity and parts of the culture. Notably, I’m big on the education ethic, and I never got infected with the Christian concept of “sin”. I hope that if/when I have children of my own, I will give them at least that much of my own cultural heritage. And so, I call myself an “ethnic Jew”, as distinguished from an “observant Jew” who follows the various rituals and commandments.
Comment #5658
Posted by David Harmon on July 26, 2004 08:25 AM (e) (s)
Are you suggesting that the Bible itself was edited, altered or censored through the centuries to bring it in line with certain political power centers or merely that church doctrine, protocol, liturgy, etc. was?
Both! I will admit that the history of Christianity is very much not my field, but even I know about the Council of Nice, where the bishops of the time, in cooperation with the Emperor Constantine determined which of the many scriptures of the time would be considered “books of the Bible”, and relegated the others to the status of “Apocrypha”. A bit of Googling indicates this is properly called the First Council of Nicea. The lengthy material at http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/f/fi/first_co…" target="_blank">
BrainyEncyclopedia includes this comment:
The first Council of Nicaea is conspicuous as the starting point for the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union between the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had been contented with protection against heretical doctrines; but the Council of Nice is characterized by the further step from a defensive position to positive decisions and minutely elaborated articles of faith.
In the centuries since then, there have been many other occasions when secular rulers have forced the Catholic and other Christian churches to the negotiation table; the most troublesome case I know if is the “doctrine of papal infallibility” (DPI). As I originally heard the story, DPI was motivated by the desire of secular rulers to have a stable religious canon that couldn’t be undercut by dissension within the ranks of the Church. Even at the time, some of the bishops argued that DPI was unwise, because the Church might be saddled with doctrines that would conflict with future developments in world society. (As it turned out, the policy on contraception fits that description!)
Comment #5659
Posted by David Harmon on July 26, 2004 08:52 AM (e) (s)
… even I know about the Council of Nice, where the bishops of the time, in cooperation with the Emperor Constantine determined which of the many scriptures of the time would be considered “books of the Bible”, and relegated the others to the status of “Apocrypha”.
Whoops! On reading further in the BrainyEncyclopedia entry, I find that I have apparently been caught by a fairly old, but false, legend. I find that I do not in fact know *when* the various denominations chose which of the scriptures would be considered canonical, apocryphal, etc. The point remains that at various times, such choices were made by the denominations, and on general principles, I have little doubt that there were political implications to the choices.
Comment #5660
Posted by Frank J on July 26, 2004 08:56 AM (e) (s)
Couple questions on evolution….
What would you say is the BEST evidence in support of evolution?
If you don’t mind answering this one… what is the best argument or evidence you’ve ever heard in favor of creationism?
Roger, I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you must understand that most people who frequent these forums, avoid simple questions, yet phrase their own questions in the way you have, are deliberate anti-evolution strategists.
In previous posts I recommended some books and links where you can decide for yourself what the best evidence for evolution is. If you want my opinion, it is no one piece of evidence, but the “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated” of multiple lines of independent evidence. Incidentally, and ironically to some, the phrase in quotes is from Pope John Paul II’s acceptance of evolution. Keep in mind that “evolution” has several definitions, including some that science does NOT use, such as “microevolution only” or “excludes a creator.” Not that it alone should influence you, but the Pope clearly accepts “macroevolution,” an old earth, and of course, God.
The evidence for “macroevolution” is overwhelming, and to date no one, repeat no one, has satisfied even one Dr. Theobald’s dozens of potential falsifiers:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/…
The claims that are made against evolution, which do not falsify it but merely misrepresent it, are answered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html…
Now to my opinion on “the best argument in favor of creationism”: It depends on which of the mutually contradictory creationisms you mean. I have never heard a reasonable one for YEC, which misrepresents not only biology, but geology and cosmology too. But there are arguments for OEC-independent origins that at least attempt to be scientific:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm…
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm…
They are not well supported by the evidence, however, and since they don’t employ the false dichotomy of “creation/evolution” they are technically not “creationisms.” So the best one for me is that of “evolutionary creationism,” which accepts evolution as science defines it, and adds that a Creator is responsible. I find the argument to be valid as long as it does not pretend that the Creator (or designer) part has been scientifically concluded. Efforts to do that have resulted in both false positives and false negatives. Apparently God still will not be outsmarted by mere humans, and thus needs to be taken on faith.
Comment #5663
Posted by Ed Darrell on July 26, 2004 09:12 AM (e) (s)
Best single argument for evolution? It works; the predictability of the theory is quite spectacular. It was an evolutionary formulation which allowed surgeons, practicing on dogs, to notice they had induced diabetes in the dogs, which information led to the understanding that diabetes is a malfunction of the pancreas in humans. This link would not be expected were evolution not accurate.
Similarly, the treatments for diabetes, using pig and beef insulin, is suggested by evolution.
And today’s treatments, using Humulin manufactured by genetically-modified E. coli is suggested by evolution theory, and achieved through applied evolution theory in engineering the mechanisms.
That’s one line of evolutionary achievement on one pathology. There are similar lines in food crops (I especially like the grapefruit story), crop pest management, paleontological explanations (with molecular biologists predicting what the fossil hunters would find in whales, for example), and cancer treatments and cures among thousands of medical applications.
The most powerful, single argument for evolution theory is that the theory works in the real world to predict what will happen in myriad specific applications.
IMHO, of course.
Comment #5701
Posted by Wayne Francis on July 26, 2004 10:55 PM (e) (s)
Roger you say we are all condemned and must be saved.
Does this mean a baby that has committed no sin itself is “condemned” and if that baby dies soon after birth that it is to spend a unspecified time in hell because that baby did not accept Jesus?
It is an inconsistency I can not reconcile.
You may not be an Evangelical Christian but their interpretation of the bible says that one isn’t accepted into the kingdom of god based on deeds but faith. Thus the mass murderer that in his/her heart accepts Jesus and believes they are killing others in the name of God will be saved but Mary Jane who is Buddhist and has dedicated her life to helping the poverty stricken starving children in Africa will be going to hell.
Even if you do not believe in Evangelical Christianity the bible reads like this.
The fact that you have different interpretations of the bible should also indicate how hard it is to take much of the bible literally.
If you don’t mind answering this one… what is the best argument or evidence you’ve ever heard in favor of creationism?
Honestly…I haven’t.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul
I do not see a single shred of evidence that would show god formed the first human from dust.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
I see no evidence of this either. Why would god use Adam’s rib? I see this as a try by early man to explain why men have 1 less rib then women….but think about this God took “one of his ribs”
hmmmm should that not mean that men have one less rib on only one side? It is also the first of many steps to make women worth less then man in the bible.
As far evidence for evolution. Every time we make a new discovery that can be explained and tested against the theory of evolution it shows me how well it works.
Now if we want to talk about “creationism” in the broad sense that there is a god and that god created the universe to evolve and we are now here because of that …. well I’d have to say that the universe is an amazing place but I don’t see the evidence but don’t expect to…why would there be?
Wayne: You better be careful! I’ve been praying that God would send someone in your life to show you he exists! : )
Thanks for your prayers but I don’t think I’ll associate god with meeting the woman of my dreams. While I’m a romantic I do not believe there is just one person for us. I love to love but also don’t have a problem with the concept that love is partly a chemical reaction in the brain mixed with a weird sense of genetic understanding between individuals. This does not lessen what love means to me. It explains why I can have strong feelings to someone that personality wise I would not care to spend the rest of my life with.
Are you suggesting that the Bible itself was edited, altered or censored through the centuries to bring it in line with certain political power centers or merely that church doctrine, protocol, liturgy, etc. was?
I’m with David here. There is evidence supporting this. The history of the bible and other religious text is there for the learning. Religion has always been part of politics. Politics is always about power. Those in power might think that they are doing everything for the good of those under them, even Hitler thought this, but often it is just greed and prejudice that is being promoted.
Comment #5706
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 01:10 AM (e) (s)
Frank: Thank you for the links. I’ve started to check them out, they seem to be very informative. You mention anti-evolution strategists… I was going to make a comment that it seems like I’m the only Bible-believing creationist who posts here!
You write: “I have never heard a reasonable one for YEC, which misrepresents not only biology, but geology and cosmology too.”
So you couldn’t accept as a possibility that either a great flood accounts for the appearance of age or that God created the world to appear old?
You write: “Apparently God still will not be outsmarted by mere humans, and thus needs to be taken on faith.”
I agree.
Comment #5709
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 02:57 AM (e) (s)
David: I’ve heard that before… about being born to a Jewish mother automatically makes one a Jew. Yet, forgive my ignorance, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean it seems to me that somewhere back down the ancestral line someone would have to have been a practicing Jew.
Could you be born to a non-practicing “Jewish” mother and still be a Jew?
Put another way: it seems to me that a “Jew” who does not accept Judaism is somewhat of an oxymoron? Wouldn’t that be like me saying “I’m a Christian, but I don’t follow the teachings of Jesus.” ?
Do you find yourself neutral toward Judaism or hostile or perhaps indifferent?
Do you consider the books of the Old Testament to accurately represent the history of the Jews?
Just curious, hope you don’t mind me asking.
With regard to the Bible, admitedly, my world view rests on an accurate, or divinely inspired Bible. So if it has been politicized, edited and fabricated, it would greatly impact my world view. I have to believe that God ultimately orchestrated the coming together of the various books that encompass the Bible. If not, it ceases to be world view and falls to mere philosophy. I have no problem, however, with an omnipotent God working within the framework of various political powers to accomplish his purpose. In fact, the Bible itself is replete with such stories (the stories of Esther, Moses, Joseph just to name a few.)
As far as the impact of political power on various church doctrines and policies, my world view is affected very little either way. The various Christian churches may have been influenced and even corrupted at various times by those in power, but, if the Bible has remained unchanged, then my faith has a solid foundation.
Comment #5710
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 03:04 AM (e) (s)
Ed: Thanks for your response. I’ll take your word for it, but, if possible in a forum like this, could you show me the connection between using pig and beef insulin, to treat diabetes, and evolutionary theory?
Comment #5712
Posted by Great White Wonder on July 27, 2004 03:17 AM (e) (s)
Wayne writes
Why would god use Adam’s rib? I see this as a try by early man to explain why men have 1 less rib then women…
Oy. Men and women have the same number of ribs.
Comment #5713
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 04:34 AM (e) (s)
Okay Wayne… I’m going to have to ask you to stop asking me such DIFFICULT questions! (Kidding!)
Wayne writes: “Roger you say we are all condemned and must be saved.
Does this mean a baby that has committed no sin itself is “condemned” and if that baby dies soon after birth that it is to spend a unspecified time in hell because that baby did not accept Jesus?”
Okay Wayne, don’t show me any mercy here… don’t hold back… just wallop me, okay? Let’s see if Roger can handle a question the greatest theologians in the world wrestle with!
Am I overreacting???? : )
Personally, for what it’s worth, I have to believe the answer is “no.” In fact, as Judaism provides the basis for Christianity, David may be able to shed some more light on this, but I think, according to Jewish tradition, a child is not considered to reach the age of accountability until like 7 or 8?
But I admit, right up front, that, is just too “generic” for me. I then start wrestling with questions like, “So if this kid dies on his eighth birthday without accepting Christ, he’s gonna burn in hell, whereas if he died one day earlier he spends eternity with God?” So you’re right, I can’t reconcile it as a strictly black & white issue. And, as you’ll see, I don’t believe it is.
Theologians may have a hard time with this, I don’t know, but again, for me, everything comes down to Jesus Christ. I don’t believe Jesus Christ is limited to any pre-set “rules”… “Ooops sorry, you didn’t make the cut, you died at the wrong time or lived in the wrong place so now I (Jesus) have no choice but to send you to hell. Sorry for any incovenience.”
You and others may interpret the Bible to be saying that, but I don’t see it. Show me where I’m reading it wrong.
I see, for example, the Jewish law that said: Do no work on the Sabbath. Pretty black and white. Right? Jesus and his disciples were good “practicing” Jews, yet he allowed them to pick corn (or wheat or whatever it was) on the Sabbath because they were hungry. The religious leaders had a fit. Jesus’ reply was pretty arrogant (or perhaps a simple statement of fact?) “[I am] Lord of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:28)
So I have to believe Jesus is also Lord over who goes to hell and who doesn’t. And I’m very encouraged by stories of Jesus healing people, for example, just because he had compassion on them. I think the story of the healing of the paralytic has far reaching implications… the summed up version is this guy is paralyzed, right? Can’t get to Jesus especially considering the crowds. So his friends decide to make a hole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus in front of the crowd and all. From the context, Jesus had never laid eyes on this guy before. Also from context we get nothing indicating that the paralytic says anything at all to Jesus. Mark 2:5 says: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’”
He doesn’t just heal the guy, he says “your sins are forgiven.” The religious leaders, again, had a fit because they saw it as out and out blasphemy. Jesus was indeed equating himself with God since only God has the power to forgive sins. Then to prove his point he heals the guy.
So how does that relate to your question? If Jesus had the power to forgive that man’s sins on the spot without the guy even asking for it, he has the power to save the baby in your example, or a Chinese kid, or a muslim kid, or whoever he chooses.
To me the attitude of the person is what’s important to him. But I don’t believe he will send the “innocent” to hell.
Now that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are all born into a “sinful nature”. We can’t help it, we just are. And if Jesus had not paid the price for the sins of the whole world by dying on the cross, then we’d all be condemned, end of story. But according to Jesus: God did not send (me) his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it.”
So under my world view, Jesus paid the price. Jesus is the ultimate judge.
The good news is, according to the Bible, all you have to do to receive salvation (eternal life with God)is simply believe Jesus was who he claimed to be. I may diverge from traditional orthodoxy when I take it to the next level… namely, I don’t believe that if you choose not to accept or believe it or if you never get the chance, you then, by default, limit Jesus’ choices and he is “required” to send you to hell. If he has the ultimate power to decide, and he is a compassionate judge, that’s REALLY good news.
But you may be right in arguing that is not what is typically taught.
Now having said all that, I acknowledge I could be wrong. I could be reading too much into it. But, Wayne, I have to agree with you, a God who would choose to create millions, even billions of people only to send them to eternal damnation simply because they never had an opportunity to hear the gospel and make up their mind about it, would not be the kind of God I want to serve. And I can’t reconcile that kind of a God with the one I see in the Bible and especially in the person of Jesus Christ.
Theologians may have a problem with this because they see a huge potential for abuse… “Well Jesus will save me whether I accept him in this life of not.” I don’t think so. If Jesus is God, you can’t “pull one over on him”. He knows your heart, and that would be a dangerous attitude to have.
Well enough of me “preaching” the gospel according to Roger! I’m sure Steve has had quite enough!
Great question, by the way, Wayne!
Comment #5716
Posted by Jim Harrison on July 27, 2004 08:01 AM (e) (s)
From a rhetorical point of view, it’s a natural move to argue from premises accepted by the person you’re speaking with. This thread shows the limitations of this approach. Moving from talking about biology to talking about the Bible hardly helps when believers approach the book no more rationally than they approach nature.
Comment #5718
Posted by Wayne Francis on July 27, 2004 09:16 AM (e) (s)
Thanks GWW … hmm where did I get the idea. Well next time I’ll have to do more research before sticking my foot in my mouth with urban legends.
Roger I think you interpret much of the bible which in my view is fine. Can you tell me if there is any place in the bible which Jesus talks about Adam and Eve?
Theologians may have a problem with this because they see a huge potential for abuse… “Well Jesus will save me whether I accept him in this life of not.” I don’t think so. If Jesus is God, you can’t “pull one over on him”. He knows your heart, and that would be a dangerous attitude to have
I agree but tell me who when faced with Jesus no matter how they lived and confronted with that truth would choose not to accept Jesus? Not many I care to say. I think it causes a problem with the theologians but I think it causes more problems with the head of church and state that rely on this fear of man that unless they follow mans religious and political doctrine that they will be sent to hell. Someone who rebels against the church doesn’t help the church if they accept Jesus after they die because they are face to face with him.
Again I probably sound like a broken record but I believe when I die if there is a god that god (or in your case Jesus) would not say “Hmmm you didn’t worship my father enough…..to hell with you” Yet the bible is ALL about drilling that into your head. Those that don’t worship enough will pay … and some of those that do will pay to…seems god is pretty big on collateral damage at least for the living.
My next question for you is what do you think the world would have been like if Jesus did not come to us?
Comment #5719
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 27, 2004 09:19 AM (e) (s)
Hi Jim,
It does pretty quickly become a pointless exercise in diminishing returns - along with having nothing to do with biology, evolution or science. In the end, a subjective belief doesn’t have to make sense to anyone else - and frequently doesn’t.
Comment #5720
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 27, 2004 09:59 AM (e) (s)
Jim,
Yeah, it pretty quickly degenerates into a pointless exercise in diminishing returns, along with having diddly to do with biology, evolution or science. Once the caveat about “it’s literal except for the metaphors and allegories” is tossed in there’s nowhere to go with it, so why try?
Comment #5721
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 27, 2004 10:05 AM (e) (s)
Sorry ‘bout the double - I swear to God the first one didn’t show up even after I backed and refreshed. The posting delay on this site is bizarre - when I hit “post” nothing happens for up to 30 seconds and then I get a “can’t find server” error message, hit “back” and then “refresh,” and then, normally, my post shows up. It didn’t this time, but there it was after I did the second.
Comment #5730
Posted by Jim Harrison on July 27, 2004 12:55 PM (e) (s)
Discussions of how to read an old book are not irrelevant to the concerns of Panda’s Thumb because of the overwhelming political and cultural power of the Bible, especially in America where bibilolatry has a long tradition. Anyhow, it was philology and not evolutionary thinking that first loosened the grip of religious orthodoxy and made possible both secular and religious enlightenment. You’ve gotta have a Spinoza before you can have a Darwin,
Creationists talk about science as if it were a discussion session in Philosophy 101 where everybody has a right to their own opinion, no matter their level of ignorance, and warehouses full of data don’t matter. In fact, genuine science is very different and more demanding kind of operation. The serious study of texts is also something more than an amateur debating society. There are established facts. There are nonarbitrary rules. In short, there’s a there there.
Comment #5731
Posted by David Harmon on July 27, 2004 01:03 PM (e) (s)
Could you be born to a non-practicing “Jewish” mother and still be a Jew?
Put another way: it seems to me that a “Jew” who does not accept Judaism is somewhat of an oxymoron? Wouldn’t that be like me saying “I’m a Christian, but I don’t follow the teachings of Jesus.” ?
Given that this is exactly the point I just explained, I begin to share Frank J’s suspicions. Like him, I am so far willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even if you are merely a provocateur, I see little harm and no shame in letting you abuse a few minutes’ worth of my patience.
As previously noted, the answers to your above questions are Yes and No, respectively. In the second case, this is precisely the difference between a faith-based religion such as Christianity, and a tribal religion, such as Judaism.
And, as I strongly implied above, I am not at all hostile to Judaism, I merely choose not to engage in its traditional rituals. I certainly do not claim literal truth for the Jewish “founding myths”, and I do know that the surviving records from Egypt and surrounding peoples do not particularly support the tales.
On the other hand, as you may have gathered by now, I am much interested in mythology and legend in its own right, as a mirror to culture and a window to human psychology. These purposes do not at all require that a tale be historically true.
As far as the “recursion” issue, the traditional “founding population” for Jewish identity would be the sons and further descendants of Israel, nee Jacob. Of course, by the standards of the time, any woman would be assumed to join the tribe (thus religion) of their husband. This does beg some questions, such as about other descendants of Abraham, but that’s hardly the worst inconsistency in the tales!
Comment #5732
Posted by David Harmon on July 27, 2004 01:12 PM (e) (s)
Bob Maurus, re doubling: Funny, I get a completely different annoying response, possibly because I’m not registered or anything:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I’ve enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.[/b]
Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.
The first time it happened, I left a triplicate (and lengthy) comment; since then, I’ve just ignored the error. (I assume that eventually I’ll make a different mistake. :-) )
Comment #5736
Posted by David Harmon on July 27, 2004 02:06 PM (e) (s)
I should be more careful about such jesting prophecies! Seems I missed a close-bracket, but I think you folks can figure it out.
Comment #5750
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 03:38 PM (e) (s)
Jim & Bob: My “logic” may not make sense to you, but I disagree that it doesn’t “make sense to anyone else.” While I may diverge from traditional orthodoxy in some areas, and while I do seem to be the only voice (and weak one at that) for a Biblical world view in this forum, there are, in fact, millions of believers in Jesus Christ.
Bob writes: “Creationists talk about science as if it were a discussion session in Philosophy 101 where everybody has a right to their own opinion, no matter their level of ignorance, and warehouses full of data don’t matter. In fact, genuine science is very different and more demanding kind of operation.”
Bob, I’m not a scientist, which I acknowledged very early on in this discussion. I pointed out that I am not qualified to argue about scientific facts. I don’t have a problem with facts! Who would? Though I am interested to learn about the facts that prove evolution.
As far as I am aware, though, the fact that I am not a scientist coupled with the fact that I do not accept evolutionary theory doesn’t disqualify me from being able to think. Unless, perhaps, my brain has simply not evolved to the level required to accept evolutionary theory as fact.
You write: “The serious study of texts is also something more than an amateur debating society. There are established facts. There are nonarbitrary rules. In short, there’s a there there.”
It would seem you are saying that because I don’t follow a set of prescribed rules for debate, my opinion is irrelevant? That may very well be true.
Comment #5751
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 03:46 PM (e) (s)
David: Sorry for the abuse of your patience. None was intended. I have more questions, but will refrain.
Comment #5752
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 04:11 PM (e) (s)
Wayne writes:
“I agree but tell me who when faced with Jesus no matter how they lived and confronted with that truth would choose not to accept Jesus? Not many I care to say. I think it causes a problem with the theologians but I think it causes more problems with the head of church and state that rely on this fear of man that unless they follow mans religious and political doctrine that they will be sent to hell. Someone who rebels against the church doesn’t help the church if they accept Jesus after they die because they are face to face with him.”
Actually, I agree with you, Wayne. (Which seems to annoy Bob & Jim!) Again, it comes down to the validity of Jesus Christ. Was he an historical figure? We agree that he was. If so, is the Biblical account of him accurate? We disagree on that. It’s as simple as that.
I’ll answer your question, but it would seem that my communications here are starting to wear on the patience of others. So I will attempt to keep it brief and may not be back for a while.
What would the world be like if Jesus had not come? Hmm… are you accepting, for the sake of argument, that he is God and therefore the creator? Given that premise I can only conclude that conditions would remain as they were prior to his coming. The only atonement for sin being the regular sacrifice of animals. Frankly, I don’t like that thought.
If, on the other hand, you are asking what it would be like if Jesus is not God, it would certainly change my world view. I would like to think I could still find “meaning” in life through my experiences with those I love. But I would always be questioning: Why are we here?
Comment #5754
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 04:41 PM (e) (s)
Wayne: You ask if there’s any place in the Bible where Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. Right off the top of my head, I don’t think so, but I’ll do some checking…
Comment #5756
Posted by roger on July 27, 2004 04:48 PM (e) (s)
It appears as though I have attributed Jim’s quote to Bob, sorry.
Comment #5757
Posted by Ian Menzies on July 27, 2004 04:50 PM (e) (s)
Bob, I’m not a scientist, which I acknowledged very early on in this discussion. I pointed out that I am not qualified to argue about scientific facts. I don’t have a problem with facts! Who would? Though I am interested to learn about the facts that prove evolution.
Then read this site: http://www.talkorigins.org… especially this section: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/…
Comment #5759
Posted by Frank J on July 27, 2004 05:59 PM (e) (s)
So you couldn’t accept as a possibility that either a great flood accounts for the appearance of age or that God created the world to appear old?
I accept both as a possibility, in the same sense that there is a possibility that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, with all our memories in place. But none of those scenarios fit the evidence we now have. Even without a promising alternative theory I also accept the possibility that evolution may be wrong. Indeed, for it to be scientific, or to “work” as Ed says, it must be falsifiable. That its detractors don’t even attempt to falsify it, and are becoming increasingly noncommittal as to what they think is the best alternative, is yet another argument in evolution’s favor.
As a hypothesis, the Genesis story was quite reasonable when first written. My own speculation is that it was the proper thing to say at the time, even if God wrote the Bible, because humans were not equipped to understand billions of years, speciation, DNA, etc. Even today, the very young cannot grasp such facts, but nevertheless should read the Bible. As you know, allegories usually convey a moral more efficiently that the literal truth; and the Bible is about morality, not natural history anyway. We don’t “lie” to our children when we talk of flying reindeer; God didn’t “lie” when he wrote (or inspired man to write) of a flood for which there is no evidence. Of course one can always “cherry pick” “evidence” to support a global flood, young earth, or just about any hypothesis, but that is exactly how science is not done. Once we allow “cherry picking” and other misrepresentation tactics (e.g. quoting out of context, using bait-and-switch terms) science becomes useless.
You may find it interesting that at least two “Bible believing evolutionists” with whom I commu
Comment #5498
Posted by steve on July 21, 2004 12:18 PM (e) (s)
Inaugural post:
Creationists suck