Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah

The problem of not taking creation and Genesis literally, but just as a story to primitve minds, is that Jesus took the Torah literally and quoted it often as absolute truth.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of anything in the New Testament which would lead one to believe that Jesus considered ALL of the Torah to be literally true. Certainly, those portions which he quoted, he must have considered to be correct and of value for instruction. But I don't see anything that would suggest that Jesus required belief in the literal Genesis account. Even if he were to have used it as an example during one of his teachings, this would remain in line with the idea that God would be at all times using language and descriptions which were understandable by the people of the time. Certainly, those who would have been listening to Jesus around 30 A.D. were not significantly more sophisticated in their understanding of the world than the Hebrews of, say, 1,000 B.C..

You are concerned that if God created the world with the "appearance of age" then He would be guilty of a great deception. Isn't this way too early in an age of science to be making such conclusions about are methods, and the reliability of our instuments. After all, wasn't it you who said to me that science can not "absolutely" rule out the possibility that two humans could reproduce, and the woman give birth to a fish?

First, I think you mis-interpret my thoughts on the word "absolutely". In science, nothing but observed data is taken as "absolutely proven", but this should not be understood to mean that scientists would not be EXTREMELY surprised - more so than just about anyone else, even! - if such an occurence should happen!

However, to get back to the original point - if I am permitted to use the lay understanding of "certain" or "proven", then yes, I would have to say that we're absolutely certain that the universe is several bilions of light years in observable extent, and therefore must be at least that old. If you have any evidence or reasoning that would suggest that the farthest observable objects are not, say, at least a billion light-years away, I would be most interested in seeing it.

If creating stars that appear to have great age through a man made instrument is deceptive of God, then how much more deceptive of God was it for Him to rise from the dead, after three full days in the tomb, which took no special instruments to see, but only the eyes and hands of a fully doubting Thomas.

How is that latter example at all "deceptive"? If it did occur, it would seem to me to be exactly the opposite - it would be one of the very, very few examples of God giving direct evidence that he is who he says he is.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by jeremiah
....... If you have heard of a man called Hugh Ross, he is a Christian, and he is a Scientist, and he thinks that the earth is billions of years old and the problem of death of plants and animals before man does not bother him in his faith.

Hugh Ross does a good job :thumb: of trying to keep science and Christian faith reconciliable. I've heard him in person several times and read quite a bit of his writing. If it weren't for him providing an alternative to the Young Earth view I probably would have left Christianity years before I actually did. So I respect him and his efforts, even though I now disagree with him.

His explanation that the "death" referred to regading Adam was a spiritual death vs. phisical makes perfect sense (people often read too much into the English that simply isn't in the original languages). He also provides a reasonable explanation for why God created sharks with their teeth if they were intended to be vegetarians (i.e. no physical death of smaller fish allowed).

Sadly , he's received a very bum rap from some in the Young Earth camp simply because he doesn't concur with their dogmatic assertions. He was labelled as a "heretic" (an all too common within Christianity ad hominem attack) by one well-known YE speaker.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah

Thank you for another direct and clear answer. Theere are a couple of reasons why if the stars are billions of years old that would bother me, and make me question the Bible. Plant life was created on day three, and then the sun and moon and apparently the stars on day four. Therefore plants have existed for billions of years and had been living and DYING before Adam and Eve came along. Yet the Bible says there was no death in the world until Adam sinned. This would be a clear and significant contradiction in the Word of God. In other words God brought death into the world, in the form of plant life and seeds.

Well, yes, but I had thought that it was clear that the question here was the acceptance of Genesis as literally true (rather than being allegorical) in its entirety. If we do not accept the "seven days" or "six thousand years ago" parts as literally true (the latter, of course, isn't even explicit from the Bible), then clearly we would not be worried about whether the order given for the creation of things was literally correct or not, either.

Of course, I personally have no problem with this in the first place, as from my perspective the book of Genesis in its entirety is best considered as a collection of the early mythology of the Hebrews; it should not, itself, be considered as any more "true" than any other mythology of primitive peoples, and it is only the traditional inclusion of these stories as the "Word of God" that causes problems today, as believers attempt to reconcile these tales with the rest of their beliefs. Consider the following - what if Genesis, and Genesis alone, had never been considered as a part of the Bible, and instead was simply viewed as some interesting stories from the history of the Hebrew tribes. Would that really have any impact at all on the rest of the Bible, or on your beliefs or anyone else's?

Of course by extension if Evoltion is true, then there were multipllied quadrillions of deaths that occurred before man ever appeared, and ever sinned against God. Therefore the statement that man brought sin, and sin brought death, and man needed a Redeeemer because of it, would be wrong. Death reigns supreme in evolution, and survival of the fittest.

True, but I don't see that as particularly relevant. There are, and always have been, countless examples of "death" in general which the Bible and Judeo-Christian theology ignores. Unless I am very much mistaken, that belief system concerns itself only with the status of the souls of humans, and either ignores the question of the deaths of other life-forms or, in some sects, denies that any other life-forms possess "souls" in the first place (and so are of no consequence from a theological point of view). Nothing that dies prior to the appearance of Man would be theologically significant at all. The Bible does not appear to concern itself with the sins of whales or horses or chickens, if such a concept is even meaningful in the first place.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
As a former Young Earther :doh: that converted to an Old Earth view (before leaving Christianity entirely), and subsequently argued with YE'rs, perhaps I can answer your question. The reason it's such an issue is fear. There is a very vocal segment within Fundamentalist Christianity (this isn't an issue among many Christian denominations) that are afraid if 1 section of scripture isn't taken literally (i.e. the "correct" way they interpret it), then the whole Bible will lose credibility. So in order to defend their particular "infallibility" view they aggressively push their YE view.

Yes, this is exactly my point. At least from my perspective, such people must have very weak faiths - if upsetting this one tiny corner of their belief system would be sufficient to endanger the whole thing. Surely the Judeo-Christian system as a whole has far more important messages to concern itself with than the age of the Earth? And you're also right - the "young Earth" view has to be recognized as being held only by a very small minority within the professed Christian population, anyway.

My own limited observation has been that this attitude is most often stirred up by the “professional” YE speakers that travel around (e.g. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc.) giving seminars. Their presentations are generally very emotionally fear based (i.e. “we need to prevail against the evil immoral atheistic evolutionary view”) and full of fast snippets of science that the average Pastor or layperson can’t possibly refute or follow. The mind-set is that this speaker is a Christian (therefore honest), speaks authoritative about science (therefore credible), and he is defending the Bible (therefore doing a good act), so they get stirred up. Then they follow on by reading more of the speakers own (or recommended) one-sided literature and become convinced that Christian doctrines are dependent on their literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

Having personally witnessed several such "seminars", I would have to agree that this is exactly what happens.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Whale-kronosaur sequences? Dude, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. About the only thing kronosaurs and whales have in common is the fact that they're air-breathing marine animals. They're not even remotely related -- even under the evolutionary paradigm. Where did you come up with this nonsense?

You're correct. Thanks for correcting me. I was spewing sauruses off the tip of my tongue, and didn't realize that I gave the wrong one. I meant to refer to the sequence of fossils that contains Basilisaurus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Eocetus. Kronosaurs were reptiles that the elasmosaurus and pleisiosaurs are related to.

 

[attention]

In all these debates, concerning Bible interpretation and fitting that into the world, I would ask myself, what the heck?
For a honest and faithfull belief, one would not be dependend on that sort of matters. The Bible and other religions, spread a spiritual message, not a scientific message, so what are they concerned about?
That science would not let them interpret the world or spread their spiritual message, or interfere with their faith?
It is not the task of sciencie to tell people what they should belief in or not, neither it is the task of science to solve issues that concern faith or belief. Science is a discipline that is neither fit to proof or disproof God.
If we talk about science issues, we must leave God out of the equations. Science abstains from that of course.
But when talking worldvisions, philosophy or religion, this is something else of course.

 

[Brother]

When will we hear from the Atheist?

When will we hear from the Atheist?

Maybe Zakath is waiting for something to evolve before he makes his next post, so that he would have better ground in which to stand on? LOL

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by bmyers Perhaps - but I also have to wonder, why is this an issue in the first place? Does the faith of anyone here really depend all that strongly on whether or not the Genesis account is literally true?

God is an idea that is impossible for us to prove exists objectively. Because the idea of God remains subjective, it requires faith to become "real" to us, and it requires continued faith for us to maintain as a functional ideal. The bible, on the other hand, is already an object, and only requires a little magical thinking (fantasy) to become the objective physical manifestation of God's will, and thus the "proof" that God is real. Once we have our "proof", little actual faith is then required. All that's required is that little bit of magical thinking up front. The reasoning works like this: if God (magically) wrote the bible and the bible is real, then God is real and the bible proves it. Bingo! A little belief in magic, a little circular logic, and we have our "proof", which then eliminates the troublesome need for actual continued faith in a God that's only a subjective idea. And it's this kind of 'faithless pretense' that seems to have become the standard modus operendi for many Christians these days.

The problem is that it's not only dishonest, it's an open doorway for the sickness of fundamentalism to enter and infect the "believers". Once they have decided that the bible is the physical manifestation of God's mind and will, it's a very easy step to then presume that anyone who disagrees with the bible must be disagreeing with God's will. And since the bible is really just a book full of words that have to be interpreted according to the reader's own understanding of them, he is then claiming that to disagree with his understanding of the bible is to disagree with the bible itself, which is then to disagree with God. And at this point he has presumed absolute infallability for himself, perhaps without even realizing it. He has become a "fundamentalist".

This presumption of divine righteousness is a heady drug for people who have otherwise been taught to live in the constant fear of being "wrong". And it's a drug not easily given up, once acquired. Thus the entrenchment of biblical fundamentalism begins, and the battle with anyone or anything that would threaten this fountain of "divine rightiousness" begins along with it. Faith has little to do with any of this. It's more like an addiction. The bible becomes the false representation of God (an idol), which then creates the illusion of an absolute knowledge of God (for the "believer") and a sense of divine rightiousness. This illusion masks one's fear and ignorance with irrational pretenses backed up by "magic" and it's this pretense of the "magic book" that these folks are fighting so hard to maintain. This pretense is the machine that powers their illusion.

I don't think that faith has anything to do with it. If anything I'd say it's all the expression of a profound lack of faith.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by PureX
God is an idea that is impossible for us to prove exists objectively. Because the idea of God remains subjective, it requires faith to become "real" to us, and it requires continued faith for us to maintain as a functional ideal. (...)

PureX:

You state something absolute there. You claim that it is impossible to proof wether or not God exists objectively, and that the idea about God is therefore only in the subjective mind.

The problem with this idea is that this idea already expresses an absolute statement about reality, in which it is unknown wether or not God exists in an objective way.
But God contains a component, that is necessary for the world in total to exist. So if God would not exist in the objective sense, it would mean that no objectivity exists at all.

But THAT can't be the case, since we know there IS a world, which exists in primary instance. So, with declaring that God doest not exist objectively, you also express that there is no objective world that exists. We would have then just subjectivity.
But something subjective can't exists if there is not an objective world in first instance.

So, you are defending the idea that it is NOT known that the world exists objectively.

So let us rephrase here, about this existence of God then.
- God is the subjective idea about the world, that the world itself exists objectively.
- Outside of the idea of God, God does not exist.
- The world itself, exists in an objective way.

The tricky thing is that we have to take in a certain way the issue of the objective world and the issue of the existence of God apart, which is problematic, cause the idea of God already expresses the idea about the objective existence of the world itself.

The only approach therefore is to state another idea about the world as it exists objectively, in the form of matter. That we declare as the primary substance of the world, which exists eternal and infinite, and is the cause of everything.
The projection of the material world, is the consciousness of the world, and since one can distinguish between the material world and consciousness itself, there can be self-consciousness.

That is the only way to resolve such an issue, and get around the issue.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by attention
In all these debates, concerning Bible interpretation and fitting that into the world, I would ask myself, what the heck?
For a honest and faithfull belief, one would not be dependend on that sort of matters. The Bible and other religions, spread a spiritual message, not a scientific message, so what are they concerned about?
That science would not let them interpret the world or spread their spiritual message, or interfere with their faith?
It is not the task of sciencie to tell people what they should belief in or not, neither it is the task of science to solve issues that concern faith or belief. Science is a discipline that is neither fit to proof or disproof God.
If we talk about science issues, we must leave God out of the equations. Science abstains from that of course.
But when talking worldvisions, philosophy or religion, this is something else of course.

Yeah, but you're talking about FUNDAMENTALISTS, who generally are not satisfied unless anything that might make someone's mind stray from their prescribed interpretation of the Bible, is purged from society. Some of them think that any books that are not biblical should be eliminated from one's life, and that's pretty Sad.

You're talking about Bob Enyart -- a man who wants to execute unbelievers, homosexuals, and heretics according to Biblical law... A man who is an extremist and proud of it. That Enyart would allow himself to be available for a debate like this is unusual and rare. That Enyart would be open to reason is... unlikely considering his extremist point of view.

 

[jeremiah]

To bmyers:

How is that latter example at all "deceptive"? If it did occur, it would seem to me to be exactly the opposite - it would be one of the very, very few examples of God giving direct evidence that he is who he says he is. [/QUOTE]


Well if we simply assume for the sake of argument that both things happened. God created the stars, and brought their light instantly to earth, and Jesus prophesied and performed His own Ressurection from the dead after 3 days.

Your reaction to this first supernatural "miracle" is that it would be deceptive of God to have performed it. Why because we as man with our measuring devices have determined that light cannot exceed a certain speed. and therefore that light took billions of years to reach here. Therefore the universe is billions of years old.
Your reaction to the second miracle, the Ressurection, is that it is not deceptive. God is giving direct evidence. But this is the same reaction that Thomas had. The event itself, the Resurrection, is impossible. My ten best friends are all lying to me, deliberately deceiving me, or believe in things that can't possibly be. They deceive themselves due to ignorance and foolishness?
Yet when he 'sees and touches, he knows and believes, that he is not just being deceived.
One has to decide, for oneself, if God is a magician, {magicians are deceivers} or if He is a miracle worker. If you decide He is a miracle worker, then one has to decide, like Thomas, if one is going to suppose a miracle to be a deception first, and only a miracle when only they themselves witness it.
At this point in my life, I have heard more lies and deceptions from Scientists and "Supposed" men of God, than I have ever heard from believing wrong interpretations of the Bible. I have never heard a lie or deception when I have properly been taught and understood the Scriptures.
Some men choose reason and Science, that is understandable, as long as you are willing to follow it to its end and accept its inevitable human errors and limitations.

 

[jeremiah]

To bmyers:

In conclusion, I know we stand at an impasse, you probably think that I have been deceived into believing that the account of Creation in Genesis is literally true. And I think, that you will never allow yourself into being "tricked" into believing anything that human reason or man's science disproves. You check the veracity of things out with reason and science. I check things out with the Bible first. I can only say it is not a "trick" to believe in things that really happened, and in the God who makes them happen. And there are many evidences and witnesses to the things spoken of in the Bible. You have "intimated" that if you saw Him, as Thomas saw Him that then you would believe. I hope the Lord blesses you with such an eye opening experience.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by jeremiah
You check the veracity of things out with reason and science. I check things out with the Bible first. I can only say it is not a "trick" to believe in things that really happened, and in the God who makes them happen. And there are many evidences and witnesses to the things spoken of in the Bible.

jeremiah,

I too was once just like you. But when I realized that my faith wasn't in God, but in various anonymous men I started to think differently. "What anonymous men?" you may ask. The men from between 1500 and 2800 years ago who were the writers, editors, copyist, translators, and political leaders that decided which books of the Bible to keep and which ones to destory.

From what you post I can tell that you are an honest person interested in truth. I'd encourage you to study the foundations of your faith instead of assuming the Bible is really what you think and what others have told you.

As it says in Proverbs 18:17: “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” So don't only listen to the Bible defense, but listen carefully to the Bible prosecution as well.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah

Your reaction to this first supernatural "miracle" is that it would be deceptive of God to have performed it. Why because we as man with our measuring devices have determined that light cannot exceed a certain speed. and therefore that light took billions of years to reach here. Therefore the universe is billions of years old.

I think you miss the point here.

In the first example - the distance to the stars - the visible evidence says one thing, while the proposal is being made that something else altogether happened (that God created the universe with the APPEARANCE of age). But if that proposal is true, then the visible evidence has been "rigged" to lie to us, and is therefore deceptive.

In the second example you give, the Resurrection, it is exactly the opposite case. The unspoken assumption or proposal on the part of men would be that the resurrection of a dead body is impossible - but that itself is not observed fact. That no one has seen a dead person come back to life is not conclusive proof that such a thing is impossible (again, the scientific method does not deal in "conclusive" proofs). And in this case, it is the observation - i.e., assuming the Resurrection actually happened, there would have been people who observed Jesus after he rose from the dead - the contradicts the assumption. In the scientific method, observations always win out over theory. There is no "deception" in this case, since it is not the case that God says "no one ever comes back to life" and then at the same time shows contrary evidence.

 

[NATEDOG]

In the first example - the distance to the stars - the visible evidence says one thing, while the proposal is being made that something else altogether happened (that God created the universe with the APPEARANCE of age). But if that proposal is true, then the visible evidence has been "rigged" to lie to us, and is therefore deceptive.

I first thought of this a couple of years ago, and it really shook my faith in a 6 day creation.
It almost makes it look that if the God of six day creation is true, He was trying to cover his tracks.
Another example of this covering tracks thing, is that we can see supernovas that are more than 10,000 light years away.
Here is a hypothetical situation. Astronomers on earth begin to observe the effects of a giant star exploding 100,000 light years away. Now, either the universe is older than 8,000 years, or 8,000 years ago God created the earth and the 8,000 light years away from earth he created beams of light carrying information about the explosion of a star 100,000 light years away that never existed.

So as a six day creationist, you'd have to believe that the star that we witnessed explode never existed. That being said, there would be no rational reason to believe that any star or galaxy more than 100,000 light years away actually exist now, or ever existed.

 

[jeremiah]

To ex_fundy:


Thanks for the advice, I know you offered it sincerely. I have been and continue to study the origins of the faith, and of the Bible. Unlike you however, my faith grows deeper as I learn more. I do read critics and disbelievers in the Bible. I usually find that even I can refute their arguments with either the knowledge I already have or with some study. I am sure you are aware that the Bible has been proven false many times by historians and archaeologists, only to be redeemed years later as their discoveries proved incomplete or false.
There are some copying and or editorial errors, in almost all English Bibles, however none of the major translations contain any serious doctrinal contradictions that I am aware of.
I know many ex fundies, but almost all of them left for a woman or a drug. Or when their pastor was caught with the church secretary, or the church funds.
It is less than usual that you found the faith itself to be untrue. What was it that you found to be false, about the faith?
Interesting that you quoted Proverbs 18- 17. I can't think of any field where this is more true than in Science, can you?

 

[jeremiah]

To Natedog:

Yes, that is exactly what I find the hardest to reconcile. I can understand a miracle that would bring the light from distant stars here immediately. But why would God bring the light from a star that exploded and died here in the same way. I don't know and I have yet to hear a good explanation for that one. It kind of makes one lean toward the gap theory.
I am sure that we will know someday, perhaps in our lifetime, as good and honest scientists seek the real answers, and ask the right questions. I will just have to wait. In the meantime there is much more evidence for a young EARTH than a 5 bilion year old earth, IMHO.

 

[jeremiah]

To bmyers:


I still think my comparison is good. It is based upon the premise that seeing is believing.
So from what you said, do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? and if not why not? Thomas gave clear and unequivocal answers to that question based solely upon his own eyesight and touch, and put zero credence in what Jesus had told him would happen, and what his ten best freinds told him did happen.
I am not real good with words, so forgive me if my explanations have been unclear to this point. I almost always got A's in math and History, and those mean "nuns", always gave me B's and C's in English composition and Art.:noway:

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by jeremiah
There are some copying and or editorial errors, in almost all English Bibles, however none of the major translations contain any serious doctrinal contradictions that I am aware of.

I wasn't referring to recent English errors, but differences among the various early manuscripts. If you read "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" (whether you agree with all the author says or not) you will see that a few "minor" changes in a couple verses can affect major doctrines. Look at the Jehovahs Witness (which most Christians label heretical). They change 1 word in John 1 and come up with a very different doctrine of the nature of Christ using their hermeneutics system. Unfortunately, God never told us which hermeneutics system we should use

I know many ex fundies, but almost all of them left for a woman or a drug. Or when their pastor was caught with the church secretary, or the church funds.

No women (except my wife), drugs, alcohol, crime, satanism, or any other normally defined vices were a factor for me. In fact, unless I tell people they assume I'm still a fully devoted follower of Christ, because my life exemplifies the good Christian lifestyle.

What was it that you found to be false, about the faith?
Interesting that you quoted Proverbs 18- 17. I can't think of any field where this is more true than in Science, can you?

It would take too much space here for me to explain all the reasons I left. In brief summary:
1) Interpretational variations (can't God communicate more clearly?)
2) Manuscript variations (see above)
3) Serious Early Church Doctrinal battles (the victors wrote history whether they were right or not)
4) Credulous Christians (I witnessed far too many people believe falsehoods just because a Christian leader they trusted told them. I'm sure it was the same in the early church.)
5) Bible contradictions (I got tired of performing grammatical gymnastics to rationalize them away).
6) 1st century culture (superstitious, uneducated, active rumor mills, etc.)
7) Borrowing from earlier religions (Jesus teaching isn't nearly as original as I originally thought)
8) 1970 years of silence (God are you still out there?)
9) ...

I'll stop there. In regards to your question, absolutely science (as should ever other endeavor to determine truth) should listen to all sides of an issue. All humans can easily become too narrowly focused to see their own errors. They tend to come to a belief (generally for reasons other than serious study and research) and then simply look for evidence to support that belief (subconsciously filtering out anything that doesn't support it). I know I once did.

 

[Psycho Dave]

I think the problem for creationists and other fundamentalists who insist on a 6-day creation and a literal interpretation of genesis, is that they are placing perhaps too much faith in inconsequential, trivial, and absurd things in the Bible, instead of what is important -- like the gospel message of salvation, in practicing kindness and charity towards others, in sharing their love and faith, etc.

As a result, the people who concentrate their faith on things like literalism and 6-day creation, tend to seem like nasty, ornery, and occaisionally angry people.