Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
ESV Study Bible
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
What to do with that SABBATH law?
date
newest »
newest »
So it would be a courtesy to those who want to discuss quiet minutiae to please just observe. lol censoring doesn't work too well here, if you want to make a point you have to build a foundation.
Atheism is really Pantheism, a belief that the universe created itself from an unknown source of energy and from it formed creatures so complex we can barely comprehend how they function. As an Atheist it would seem you believe that the universe itself is "God"
If you want to talk origins, then we must talk origins.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Science observes an expanding universe, hence the big bang theory. The fruit of Einstein's work the theory is that the universe began with a massive explosion of energy from an unknown source. Indeed the discovery of atomic energy has confirmed that all matter is made of energy. The source of this energy that universe is made from is unknown to science. God describes himself as fire when He reveals himself to Israel (fire is synonymous with energy)
The source of the energy of the big bang is God. Now it doesn't really matter if you believe it's the biblical God at this stage, but there was a unknown source of energy. This is a scientific fact and there are no words for it. The bible calls it Elohiym.
Jesus said God is Spirit, i.e. He exists outside the natural realm. Hence the sudden appearance of energy, the scientific community would estimate billions of years ago.
How do you understand this verse in an independant scholarly mindset.
I'm going to repost this on the correct thread
Stuart, this entire conversation of the age of the earth is boring to me so I've skimmed it (I'm the moderator, its my job). But your one statement struck me, so I am going to start a new thread.
Yep, it gets way overdone.
I'll look for the new thread.
I'll look for the new thread.
Joshua - if the earth's population keeps expanding at it's current rate, we will indeed exceed the planet's ability to sustain us. However, we have a God. We also have crazed religious fanatics pursuing a nuclear bomb. I wish I was a little younger to ensure I lived to see how this cosmic adventure plays out, but assuredly it will top out the Richter Scale and win the TV ratings battle.
Stuart, this entire conversation of the age of the earth is boring to me Just to be clear in this discussion I have been demonstrating validity for the history of mankind as remembered in Genesis, it's not really about the age of the earth.
Did the great flood happen circa 2500 BC? now more convinced that ever thanks to Stuart's Chinese friends.
Joshua - if the earth's population keeps expanding at it's current rate, we will indeed exceed the planet's ability to sustain us. However,exactly. Science may put forward a convincing case for an old earth, however the human race is not old.
To believe humans have existed for millions of years requires accepting that for "millions" of years we existed in a caveman like status fumbling around with shells and stone tools with a massive mortality rate that kept numbers low. Then, at the time of the great flood we suddenly got smart! Simultaneously on different continents!
Civilisation appeared, we learned to write, we learned to build stuff and over the next few "thousand" years have been riding a population explosion.
It doesn't stack up.
For more evidence of rapid cultural development, look at what happened in the industrial age, or the information age, or--heaven forbid--the coming biomedical age.
are you agreeing with me Lee?Just to be clear I don't have a dog in the fight for the meaning of the six days, but I do believe God created mankind about 5775 years ago.
Stuart now that we know what you are made of: we can properly direct our conversations. (by that I really mean nothing will change).I'm used to dealing with insanely rude and rebellious atheists. Stuart you will be a wonderful challenge. But I don't for a minute assume any of us will ever change our VERY made-up minds. But we can learn internally from our discussions.
Rod - I properly labeled Stuart a gasbag from the start. What exactly do you think you can learn from him, Rod? Once all the flotsam is waded through, we just have one more ex-Christian who wanted to pursue a sinful lifestyle rather than love God.
haha. Well, I have learned one thing on this board: Some forms of Christianity just simply don't work ... they fail to make their adherents in any way Christlike. Those forms we can safely set aside if we're looking for Jesus.
And that is the problem Lee: many abuse the very idea of Christ-like for their own desires. Basically, they poorly read what the Bible says.
Robert wrote: "Rod - I properly labeled Stuart a gasbag from the start. What exactly do you think you can learn from him, Rod? Once all the flotsam is waded through, we just have one more ex-Christian who wanted ..."
Names again ....
And - "we just have one more ex-Christian who wanted to pursue a sinful lifestyle rather than love God"
Judgement - where you can presume to judge, without knowing me, that I gave up "God" to pursue sin. Unfortunately that sort of sanctimonious, judgemental bigotry is all too common amongst Christians. Apart from learning to think for myself, you are precisely the sort of person who turned me away from "God".
Do you really think Jesus wants to spend eternity with someone like you ...? I suspect he's looking for loopholes right now.
I gave up "God" because I recognised that the Jewish Yahweh was as mythological and imaginary as the Greek Zeus or the Hindu Krishna. "God" may exist, but there is not a shred of evidence outside the Jewish writings and the imaginations of believers to demonstrate that Yahweh exists.
The idea of "God" was around for thousands of years before Jewish folks imagined Yahweh.
The Jewish Yahweh did not sire the Jewish Jesus on the Jewish Virgin Mary, because Yahweh does not exist - it's local myth and propaganda.
You are not a scientist.
Su Jen, my Chinese medical student friend, laughed out loud when I told her of your proposition that she carried the "Mark of Cain" in the shape of her eyes.
She already knew that certain Christians believe Homo sapiens were created from mud and a rib 6,000 years ago.
She received with almost equal amusement the proposition that her far more ancient than Hebrew culture did not exist before the mythological "Flood".
Although she is too polite to make much of it in public, she is quite amazed that there are still pockets of people in a so-called advanced society who devotedly - and with no intention of accepting that they may be wrong, because their minds are well and truly made up - believe the biblical writings.
I don't pursue a life of sin as you've presumed to insist, but I may well be a gasbag.
You have failed to take a long hard look at yourself.
Your judgementalism makes you a disgrace to the pleasant, reasonable Christians I have been trying to dialogue with here.
Your pseudo-science makes you a disgrace to advanced society.
Your judgementalism and your "oriental eye" pseudo-science suggest to me that you are a racist.
I doubt there is a mansion in Heaven with your name on it.
Names again ....
And - "we just have one more ex-Christian who wanted to pursue a sinful lifestyle rather than love God"
Judgement - where you can presume to judge, without knowing me, that I gave up "God" to pursue sin. Unfortunately that sort of sanctimonious, judgemental bigotry is all too common amongst Christians. Apart from learning to think for myself, you are precisely the sort of person who turned me away from "God".
Do you really think Jesus wants to spend eternity with someone like you ...? I suspect he's looking for loopholes right now.
I gave up "God" because I recognised that the Jewish Yahweh was as mythological and imaginary as the Greek Zeus or the Hindu Krishna. "God" may exist, but there is not a shred of evidence outside the Jewish writings and the imaginations of believers to demonstrate that Yahweh exists.
The idea of "God" was around for thousands of years before Jewish folks imagined Yahweh.
The Jewish Yahweh did not sire the Jewish Jesus on the Jewish Virgin Mary, because Yahweh does not exist - it's local myth and propaganda.
You are not a scientist.
Su Jen, my Chinese medical student friend, laughed out loud when I told her of your proposition that she carried the "Mark of Cain" in the shape of her eyes.
She already knew that certain Christians believe Homo sapiens were created from mud and a rib 6,000 years ago.
She received with almost equal amusement the proposition that her far more ancient than Hebrew culture did not exist before the mythological "Flood".
Although she is too polite to make much of it in public, she is quite amazed that there are still pockets of people in a so-called advanced society who devotedly - and with no intention of accepting that they may be wrong, because their minds are well and truly made up - believe the biblical writings.
I don't pursue a life of sin as you've presumed to insist, but I may well be a gasbag.
You have failed to take a long hard look at yourself.
Your judgementalism makes you a disgrace to the pleasant, reasonable Christians I have been trying to dialogue with here.
Your pseudo-science makes you a disgrace to advanced society.
Your judgementalism and your "oriental eye" pseudo-science suggest to me that you are a racist.
I doubt there is a mansion in Heaven with your name on it.
Stuart I enjoy hearing about your journey. Stu comment:
" you are precisely the sort of person who turned me away from "God"."
Interesting - my Christianity is not dependent on any humans and their behavior. But, if there was a lack of sin: that would prove the Bible wrong. Of course: Did Elijah sin by putting to death all the prophets of Baal? Hmmmm? Depends.
Stuart you haven't hit on any of the 100 reasons that i'm a Christian. But i'm being patient.
Rod wrote: "Stuart I enjoy hearing about your journey.
Stu comment:
" you are precisely the sort of person who turned me away from "God"."
Interesting - my Christianity is not dependent on any humans and th..."
Yeah, let's do a top 100, Rod, one at a time
I'll do why I'm not a Christian anymore, and you can do why you are, and see if we can blast each other to bits - Robert can supply the execrations and Joshua can chase shiny things.
Glad you enjoy hearing about my journey.
In no particular order:
- Not a scintilla of independently verifiable evidence outside the promotional literature of Jesus' followers that Jesus was sired by the Jewish deity Yahweh.
Now, if you give me a smack for this (and please do), you have to give me one of your 100 reasons so I can either hug or smack it. But just one brief one - wouldn't want folks to think you were a gasbag or anything.
Stu comment:
" you are precisely the sort of person who turned me away from "God"."
Interesting - my Christianity is not dependent on any humans and th..."
Yeah, let's do a top 100, Rod, one at a time
I'll do why I'm not a Christian anymore, and you can do why you are, and see if we can blast each other to bits - Robert can supply the execrations and Joshua can chase shiny things.
Glad you enjoy hearing about my journey.
In no particular order:
- Not a scintilla of independently verifiable evidence outside the promotional literature of Jesus' followers that Jesus was sired by the Jewish deity Yahweh.
Now, if you give me a smack for this (and please do), you have to give me one of your 100 reasons so I can either hug or smack it. But just one brief one - wouldn't want folks to think you were a gasbag or anything.
Stuart you are looking for the blindly obvious to drop on your head. How boring. What kind of God do you think the Bible reveals to us? But I agree that we should not jump on any easily digestible claim for a deity that pops-up.But my evidence is NOT likely suitable for you. But just for fun:
Number 1: the history of Israel over the last 2000 years. And don't take that simply --- I mean pros and cons and rebellion. they are NOT necessarily the good guys.
This of course won't drive you into Jesus arms - but it's an important piece of the 3000 year old puzzle. Now look at all of history bouncing off of it and around it.
I get to be judge! I score a zero for both sides so far...Stuart is insisting on evidence of a belief within a religion which insists we live by faith, and Rod is referencing eschatological expectations that have failed over and over and over for 2,000 years, including the little Jewish uprising half a century ago which again failed to produce a conquering messiah.
OK, so that's no evidence from Rod to enable me to go and check for myself that Yahweh sired Jesus.
I may just have to stick with my suspicion that everyone who was anyone back then, was sired by their local mythological deity.
From Rod:
"Number 1: the history of Israel over the last 2000 years."
Can't really give that one a hug, Rod. Technically there was no Israel since the Assyrians carted most of them away - but think I know what you meant. Since then the region has been overrun by the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians and Muslims again up until 1947, with not sniff of Yahweh's promise:
“For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem."
And Yahweh COULD have protected his chosen people, if he wasn't mythological, and prevented the Nazi Holocaust - but he didn't, because maybe he isn't really there. But Yahweh miraculously heals dicky knees at Christian prayer meetings. I still think Yahweh looks mythological.
Another reason I am not a Christian anymore:
- Christians pretend to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the human/god-man sacrifice to the Jewish Yahweh.
I may just have to stick with my suspicion that everyone who was anyone back then, was sired by their local mythological deity.
From Rod:
"Number 1: the history of Israel over the last 2000 years."
Can't really give that one a hug, Rod. Technically there was no Israel since the Assyrians carted most of them away - but think I know what you meant. Since then the region has been overrun by the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians and Muslims again up until 1947, with not sniff of Yahweh's promise:
“For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem."
And Yahweh COULD have protected his chosen people, if he wasn't mythological, and prevented the Nazi Holocaust - but he didn't, because maybe he isn't really there. But Yahweh miraculously heals dicky knees at Christian prayer meetings. I still think Yahweh looks mythological.
Another reason I am not a Christian anymore:
- Christians pretend to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the human/god-man sacrifice to the Jewish Yahweh.
Lee wrote: "I get to be judge! I score a zero for both sides so far...Stuart is insisting on evidence of a belief within a religion which insists we live by faith, and Rod is referencing eschatological expecta..."
I think we need an independent Trinity as judge/s. Where 1 means 3 and 3 means 1, so it could still be you, but we would experience different aspects of you depending on whether we needed wrath or salvation or dicky knees fixed.
I think we need an independent Trinity as judge/s. Where 1 means 3 and 3 means 1, so it could still be you, but we would experience different aspects of you depending on whether we needed wrath or salvation or dicky knees fixed.
We've all been down this road before. Looking for hard evidence of much of anything is a fool's mission. Quantum mechanics is correct in stating that all is in flux if you access the most primitive building blocks so there is only some probability that things are as they appear. It takes faith to be an atheist and it takes faith to be a Christian. Everything depends on outlook. (Yes, or No is never the correct answer, "It depends" is!)
Robert wrote: "We've all been down this road before. Looking for hard evidence of much of anything is a fool's mission. Quantum mechanics is correct in stating that all is in flux if you access the most primitive..."
Utter rubbish.
"A fool's mission" the sort of further delusion the deluded use to convince themselves it's pointless searching for the angels and virgins and floating zoos.
And it's disingenuous - Christians have been digging up the Middle East for centuries looking for "hard evidence".
It takes faith to believe Jesus rose from the dead.
It takes no sort of faith recognise that it looks like make-believe and propaganda and walk away from it. Atheists generally don't say it didn't happen, they just say it looks like primitive superstition that we should have grown out of generations ago. No faith there. In fact, quite the opposite.
That's what atheism is - an absence of faith, belief, obedient acceptance.
Utter rubbish.
"A fool's mission" the sort of further delusion the deluded use to convince themselves it's pointless searching for the angels and virgins and floating zoos.
And it's disingenuous - Christians have been digging up the Middle East for centuries looking for "hard evidence".
It takes faith to believe Jesus rose from the dead.
It takes no sort of faith recognise that it looks like make-believe and propaganda and walk away from it. Atheists generally don't say it didn't happen, they just say it looks like primitive superstition that we should have grown out of generations ago. No faith there. In fact, quite the opposite.
That's what atheism is - an absence of faith, belief, obedient acceptance.
P. S. In your "scientific interpretation" of Genesis you didn't search for "hard evidence" because it's a "fools mission" ...?
She received with almost equal amusement the proposition that her far more ancient than Hebrew culture did not exist before the mythological "Flood".As I pointed out previously the Chinese date the great flood to the same era as the Hebrews. Are you understanding this fact?
You really are not intelligent enough to have a dialogue with - this will be the last correspondence I have with you. You and your "I'm not sure I understand" but I'm going to make lots of noise again and witness loudly for Jesus anyway, contributions are an embarrassing farce.
The Gun Yu myth is MYTHOLOGY.
The Hebrew myth is MYTHOLOGY.
Intelligent people in China and around the world recognise MYTHOLOGY when they see it. The Chinese culture was not wiped out by your imaginary Jewish deity. The Chinese culture is older than your imaginary Jewish deity.
If your got your mind out the fantastical biblical delusions you're obsessed with, and read just a little genuine history, instead of snatching at the shiny things that appeal to your Sunday school level confirmation bias, you too might recognise MYTHOLOGY.
You and Robert insult Su Jen and my other Chinese, Indian and African friends with your stupidity and your superstition, and you embarrass me as a Westerner.
Your Jewish god is as mythological as all those other gods Christians say are false.
The genocidal flood of your false god is MYTHOLOGY.
You have nothing - and have offered nothing - more than the Bronze and Iron Age writings of the followers of Yahweh and his supposedly god-man son Jesus to back up your mud and rib beliefs. Nothing.
It's fantasy stuff. Your god is imaginary. You're an obsessive fanatic. You are precisely the sort of reason young people walk away from your religion.
People do not want to be seen to be like you. You drive people away from Jesus.
The Gun Yu myth is MYTHOLOGY.
The Hebrew myth is MYTHOLOGY.
Intelligent people in China and around the world recognise MYTHOLOGY when they see it. The Chinese culture was not wiped out by your imaginary Jewish deity. The Chinese culture is older than your imaginary Jewish deity.
If your got your mind out the fantastical biblical delusions you're obsessed with, and read just a little genuine history, instead of snatching at the shiny things that appeal to your Sunday school level confirmation bias, you too might recognise MYTHOLOGY.
You and Robert insult Su Jen and my other Chinese, Indian and African friends with your stupidity and your superstition, and you embarrass me as a Westerner.
Your Jewish god is as mythological as all those other gods Christians say are false.
The genocidal flood of your false god is MYTHOLOGY.
You have nothing - and have offered nothing - more than the Bronze and Iron Age writings of the followers of Yahweh and his supposedly god-man son Jesus to back up your mud and rib beliefs. Nothing.
It's fantasy stuff. Your god is imaginary. You're an obsessive fanatic. You are precisely the sort of reason young people walk away from your religion.
People do not want to be seen to be like you. You drive people away from Jesus.
You're coming on a little strong there, Stuart! Here is a reasonable flood event which would have spawned stories of catastrophy:http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/0...
Granted, it's not worldwide, nor does it fit a strict biblical timeline, but it could have provided a basis in fact.
Thankyou Lee,It's apparent Stuart has no interest in facts, hence the caps lock on mythology.
For someone defending their scepticism a strong emotional response and denial of any facts that resemble truth is to be expected.
By two or three witnesses may everything be established. The Gen Yu "myth" carries a specific timeline in agreement with the Hebrew writings, it's stunning.
Stuart - I think we have a differing viewpoint concerning "hard evidence". I define it as proof without possibility of negation, a virtual impossibility. I guess you're understanding of the term is much looser.
Robert wrote: "Stuart - I think we have a differing viewpoint concerning "hard evidence". I define it as proof without possibility of negation, a virtual impossibility. I guess you're understanding of the term is..."
This is the last correspondence I will have with you until you either produce scientific evidence that Su Jen is marked with the Mark of Cain with her "oriental eyes", or you apologise for insulting her and her far more ancient than Hebrew culture with your Sunday school level superstition.
Leave your pseudo-science alone and spend some time piecing together a timeline of genuine history.
It's easy for the noisy and not so very bright to take a faith stand - you don't have to think beyond what you believe because you cannot be wrong. Saves a whole lot of bother about inconvenient evidence.
And the noisy and not so very bright can glower fiercely at thoughtful members of their social group, and call them "rudderless" and influenced by the imaginary Satan, and rejecting "God" to indulge in a life of sin, and other veiled and not so veiled threats if they dare to suggest that maybe the first Homo sapiens were not created from mud and a rib 6,000 years ago, and maybe there is no evidence of the genocidal and mythological Jewish Yahweh drowning Su Jen's ancestors under 4.5 kilometres of mythological biblical water, because the mythological Middle East deity was miffed that the Sons of God (the ones before Jesus) were making gigantic super-babies with the daughters of men.
Refer to message 78 above.
This is the last correspondence I will have with you until you either produce scientific evidence that Su Jen is marked with the Mark of Cain with her "oriental eyes", or you apologise for insulting her and her far more ancient than Hebrew culture with your Sunday school level superstition.
Leave your pseudo-science alone and spend some time piecing together a timeline of genuine history.
It's easy for the noisy and not so very bright to take a faith stand - you don't have to think beyond what you believe because you cannot be wrong. Saves a whole lot of bother about inconvenient evidence.
And the noisy and not so very bright can glower fiercely at thoughtful members of their social group, and call them "rudderless" and influenced by the imaginary Satan, and rejecting "God" to indulge in a life of sin, and other veiled and not so veiled threats if they dare to suggest that maybe the first Homo sapiens were not created from mud and a rib 6,000 years ago, and maybe there is no evidence of the genocidal and mythological Jewish Yahweh drowning Su Jen's ancestors under 4.5 kilometres of mythological biblical water, because the mythological Middle East deity was miffed that the Sons of God (the ones before Jesus) were making gigantic super-babies with the daughters of men.
Refer to message 78 above.
there is no evidence of the genocidal and mythological Jewish Yahweh drowning Su Jen's ancestors under 4.5 kilometres of mythological biblical wateras I said in the beginning this is not a conversation is it. Seriously. I think you profess intellectualism but practice belligerence.
Stuart you remind me of the apostle Paul, kicking against the goads.
Beats me why Robert continues to put up with these rants by Stuart, since he does not subscribe to a young earth. Stuart, Robert's stance is a compromise between full-blown evolutionary beginnings and the Bible's story of Adam and Eve, and so far as I can tell, Robert doesn't approach the Biblical half scientifically; he simply finds room for God's hand within mainstream archaeological evidence.
Lee wrote: "Beats me why Robert continues to put up with these rants by Stuart, since he does not subscribe to a young earth. Stuart, Robert's stance is a compromise between full-blown evolutionary beginnings ..."
"If God says he fashioned man and woman starting with mud and rib then so be it. The extent of His power is unknowable so, as a puny mortal, I'm merely left in awe at the majesty of the little I know of His universe."
No archaeological evidence here.
But the mythological Jewish Yahweh's hands are up to their elbows in biblical mud.
You can get away with having your Creationary cake and eating it as far a the creation of the dome of Heaven within the mythological biblical water goes - a "day" can be as long as you need it to be.
You can't duck and dodge and weave with the appearance of the mud-man as a Special Creation. 4004 BCE according to Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and other authoritative Christian sources.
You have to admit, as Robert and Joshua have done, that you are stuck with what Genesis says.
It's less than half science. Finding room for Yahweh's hand is chasing shiny things in real science to patch up the holes in the crumbling dyke of your confirmation bias.
"If God says he fashioned man and woman starting with mud and rib then so be it." is not good science. It's not even good mythology.
"If God says he fashioned man and woman starting with mud and rib then so be it. The extent of His power is unknowable so, as a puny mortal, I'm merely left in awe at the majesty of the little I know of His universe."
No archaeological evidence here.
But the mythological Jewish Yahweh's hands are up to their elbows in biblical mud.
You can get away with having your Creationary cake and eating it as far a the creation of the dome of Heaven within the mythological biblical water goes - a "day" can be as long as you need it to be.
You can't duck and dodge and weave with the appearance of the mud-man as a Special Creation. 4004 BCE according to Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and other authoritative Christian sources.
You have to admit, as Robert and Joshua have done, that you are stuck with what Genesis says.
It's less than half science. Finding room for Yahweh's hand is chasing shiny things in real science to patch up the holes in the crumbling dyke of your confirmation bias.
"If God says he fashioned man and woman starting with mud and rib then so be it." is not good science. It's not even good mythology.
Stuart wrote: "It's less than half science. Finding room for Yahweh's hand is chasing shiny things in real science to patch up the holes in the crumbling dyke of your confirmation bias."I can ride the train with you, Stuart, so long as we're talking about the complete lack of evidence for a worldwide flood (and, in fact, actual evidence against such an event occurring at the time YECs would need it to), though I wish that train were a little nicer. But ruling out room for God is no less the result of confirmation bias than leaving that room in.
The problem seems to be that your interlocutors to different degrees seem to misunderstand that just because the Bible says something doesn't mean that God said it, or if you prefer, that he meant us to understand it the way Joshua and Robert seem to understand it. So, yes, the Bible talks about God forming humans out of dust. That doesn't mean God intends for us to understand the biological origins of humanity by reading Genesis 2-3.
Anyway, I'm happy to acknowledge that biological evolution does not require God as an explanation. I'm leaving room for God as the instigator and guider of the process anyway. Because for me that is a matter of faith, about which the Bible says quite a bit, not science, about which the Bible is unconcerned.
Paul wrote: "Stuart wrote: "It's less than half science. Finding room for Yahweh's hand is chasing shiny things in real science to patch up the holes in the crumbling dyke of your confirmation bias."
I can rid..."
Hi Paul - thanks for joining in: good to hear from you. I match my level of niceness to what I'm given, and then amplify it a bit. Sometimes I run out of niceness.
You and I seem to agree there was no global Flood by Yahweh, or any other Divinity concept, in 2348 BCE, or any other date. You seem to perhaps be suggesting it's mythology based on some real event/s. So do I, but I go one step further and suggest the Jewish priests who wrote of this and other events were writing historical allegory as well. The allegories refer to real events too - just not floods of real water.
I do rule out any version of Divinity in a literal global flood - because there was no global flood.
I don't rule out the possibility of Divinity in the initiation of the Big Bang, just as I do not rule out the possibility of the existence (whatever that may mean) of Divinity (whatever that may mean too).
I do rule out the possibility of the Jewish deity Yahweh in the Creationary process. Yahweh is a very new concept of Divinity - he is not the original "God" of anyone.
When you say "He meant us to understand it" - you're of the belief that Yahweh is in some way or other behind some of what is in the biblical writings ...?
At work - have to go.
Happy to discuss at this level with you.
Cheers
I can rid..."
Hi Paul - thanks for joining in: good to hear from you. I match my level of niceness to what I'm given, and then amplify it a bit. Sometimes I run out of niceness.
You and I seem to agree there was no global Flood by Yahweh, or any other Divinity concept, in 2348 BCE, or any other date. You seem to perhaps be suggesting it's mythology based on some real event/s. So do I, but I go one step further and suggest the Jewish priests who wrote of this and other events were writing historical allegory as well. The allegories refer to real events too - just not floods of real water.
I do rule out any version of Divinity in a literal global flood - because there was no global flood.
I don't rule out the possibility of Divinity in the initiation of the Big Bang, just as I do not rule out the possibility of the existence (whatever that may mean) of Divinity (whatever that may mean too).
I do rule out the possibility of the Jewish deity Yahweh in the Creationary process. Yahweh is a very new concept of Divinity - he is not the original "God" of anyone.
When you say "He meant us to understand it" - you're of the belief that Yahweh is in some way or other behind some of what is in the biblical writings ...?
At work - have to go.
Happy to discuss at this level with you.
Cheers
Sorry i've been busy the last few days:Lee comment:
" Rod is referencing eschatological expectations that have failed over and over and over for 2,000 years,"
ACtually no. I'm saying take a look our your window (or into your local newspaper).
Observe the here and now Israel in reverse over the last 2000 years. It's people, culture and religion. But don't observe them for THEIR beliefs and truth - look at what we've seen clearly in history and back it up to Jesus' comments and DAY.
If there was no Jews, no functioning Judaism, and No Israel: then our Christianity and Bible would be in a world of myths and Atlantis like settings.
Like I said; This is a small piece of the puzzle. But we can all clearly observe Jewish persecution throughout the last 1900 years. We don't even need a Bible or Christian history book to do it.
This is something FACTUAL. A foundation.
I do enjoy telling atheists Bible haters: "If you wish to rewrite the Bible - you will have to get Judaic permission for some of it. God gave us a Book with foundations that cannot fully be adjusted without upsetting another source."
Just for useless fun: Here's another reason i'm a Christian:I have read the Bible, If everyone else could simply read the Bible and tell me "IT's WONDERFUL and amazing - But SIMPLY NOT TRUE!" Then I could throw it in the garbage.
But people hate God's goodness and plan. They confuse every bit of Justice, Grace and Mercy that God sets out...
The problem here is that if someone ACTUALLY hates the God of the Bible and His plan --- all that does is reinforce my trust and love for Jesus and redemption. IT does nothing to help them: most likely condemns them to an eternal Hell...
So...
Like Lord of Rings: everyone reads it and yet we don't have any ORC worshipers and Hobbit haters, why not?
HEre's a 3rd one just for laughs: (*cause that's probably all this is)Just imagine what a few more added verses to the Bible would accomplish. And YET?
There isn't, the Bible is as weird and wonderful as ever. Nobody has inserted any verses that make me Catholic, embrace an emperor, eat my children, believe Jesus was a 3 headed Greek Goddess. The Bible is what it always was. WE really have no NEW Christianity. And we still read commentaries and theological studies from Genesis to Revelation.
Wouldn't it be interesting is someone put some:
Dogs go to heaven verses.
Only nice people go to heaven verses.
Inserted the TRINITY word 500 years later.
Or told a few more ANGEL/DEMON love stories that matched modern spiritism/
And yet, the Bible is what it is.
Lee (msg. 85) - I put up with rants from Stuart because he is so removed from accepted scientific thought AND Scriptural content that I find him in a realm temporarily beyond redemption. Perhaps I'm a failure as an apologist, but I'll try to educate Rod, a man of God, about the difference between acceptable and silly science; and I'll keep pounding Scriptural veracity at you, Lee, a man with thoroughly eclectic tastes including a solid scientific base. Stuart is in such denial in both arenas that I would have to write a book to correct his misconceptions. As I am currently involved in another book on a topic of my own choosing, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage Stuart any more than tangentially. Besides, Joshua is holding down the fort just fine!
Robert quote:" but I'll try to educate Rod, a man of God, about the difference between acceptable and silly science;"
I think we are making progress buddy. Some science actually WORKS - and other bits are just assumed ambiguous (un-repeatable and un-observable)guesses that don't build us better spaceships.
Granted, Rod, and that is PRECISELY what I, as a scientist, need to differentiate or I'm not worth my spurs to science or to God.
Now when you look at an old rock, state: "science officially and factually declares that an OLD ROCK." How old it is exactly is where science drifts into the land of comic books and space aliens.I think I would make a great scientist - but it's just not mockingly violent enough for me.
Robert any explosions and car chases in your daily lab?
One fellow who was just mad about the birds of New Guinea and Borneo stumbled onto a settlement of cannibals and head-shrinkers. He barely escaped with a full-sized cranium. That harrowing enough for you Rod?
Wow! I have a whole new respect for some areas of science Robert. Danggggg...
Rod - what if I told you there's no such thing as an 18-wheeler - That your transport truck was really a magic carpet, and all the other "vehicles" on the road were really camels. You'd say "Robert, I think I know more about my occupation that you with your outrageous fantasies". Well, you're doing the same to me, Rod. Telling me I don't know anything about science, 2000-year-old nomads knew more, and that I've got to forget everything I've learned and experienced and embrace religious fruitcakes who sold their discipline down the drain for the acclamation of a few pewfolk.
Stuart wrote: "When you say "He meant us to understand it" - you're of the belief that Yahweh is in some way or other behind some of what is in the biblical writings ...?"Yes, that's my belief. I don't believe God whispered it into the ear of a single writer or intended to create a historical or scientific textbook. I believe that God worked through the writing, editing, compilation and canonization process the same way God works through cosmological forces and biological evolution — influencing the process to achieve desired ends in a way that may not be apparent to the feeble minds of humans.
In other words, I don't confuse methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. I accept the former, but I reject the latter.
At this point I have NO REASON to assume you are a Jesus follower. Please convince me of WHAT your Jesus ..."
I'm not a Christian these days, I'm an Atheist.
I used to be a Christian - I come from a family of generations of Christian clergymen, missionaries and evangelists.
I examined Christianity from a totally independent point of view and came to the decision that I was wrong to be a Christian.
I have examined Atheism form a totally independent point of view and I'm here to see if I may be wrong about being an Atheist.
Along the way I have developed a number of hypotheses, based on earlier hypotheses by others, and some I think are original. This is one of the forums where I see how they fly. I have, as you know only recently dropped in. This Christian Apologetics site was mentioned to me by a friend. I understand you met her.
The hypotheses do appeal to the enquiring, independent, scholarly mind - minds that belong, in the most part, to intelligent, educated youngish women.
As I say, examination of my hypotheses is open to everyone in an accessible format. Not everyone will understand. Some will not wish too.
Chucking the whole thing, in my view, can be as much of a cop-out as standing defiantly on one set, out of countless sets, of only-we-have-got-it-right literalist dogmas.
I do agree that the watering and diluting and sweeping under the altar that I see going on in Christianity is inconsistent, but it's symptomatic of the pragmatic acceptance that you cannot convince many people in educated societies that they were created from mud and a rib as miniature replicas of a Middle East, Bronze Age deity.
Amidst the (usual) noise and distraction, I have been slowly and carefully putting out small items for consideration. And it seems, amidst the hullabaloo, that a couple of independently minded souls are giving the items sceptical scrutiny - as they should. I would be very disappointed in someone who latched on to something I wrote because they suddenly had a metaphysical, spiritual experience the moment they clapped eyes on it.
So far, with all the din and distraction, I've only managed to get halfway through what I see as possibly being the First Creation Allegory, and only sniffed Yahweh's Re-Creation Day.
I'm here to discuss scripture in quiet, minute detail. Some folks don't seem to like doing that ... in an apologetics site ...? It's noisy, ha, ha, lol, God had a habit of breaking his own laws fundamentalism, let's talk about Asian eyes and languages and then jump to God drowning the dinosaurs and Indian people having a biblical heritage. But let's not start at Genesis 1:1 and work through verse by verse with an independent mind.
Because we really do know that we'll probably find things we don't want to be there. So let's make lots of noise instead, and the elephant in the pulpit will just go away.
Jesus, I would love to talk about Jesus.
Perhaps you can start a thread. It would be really handy if you picked a very, very specific topic and we stayed precisely on that topic only. I know there are people here who can do that. And there are others who know by now what sort of discussion they can expect from me. So it would be a courtesy to those who want to discuss quiet minutiae to please just observe.