-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Young Earth Creationism (the Six day theory), meets the big bang and Evolution...
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
At best the decision of two individuals thousands of years ago is what made it such a feat.
The knowledge couldn't be undone for future generations. What they did in life echoes in eternity.
If God didn't want them to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did he put it there in the first place. Didn't he know what would happen?
He knew.
One can only assume that what happened was exactly what God wanted to happen, with all the evils of the world that came with it.
Evil exists because God wants it to exist. Neither more nor less.
He allowed it to happen. Neither more nor less regardless of your assumption.
At most, you only have God's word that he's qualified.
Who else's word would be good enough?
If someone pushed a bunch of people off a cliff, would lowering a rope to some of them absolve them of the original crime?
If a train left New York at noon travelling at 50 mph...
Ah, so when Pol Pot told all those people he was "right" when he slaughtered them that makes it OK.
Next mighty evil god figure... Hitler!
When someone takes up the authority on their own, justifies any atrocity they care to commit (read your bible if you don't believe that God commits atrocities), demands people be thankful and kiss his feet because he happened to spare them from the latest atrocity, this time, that's not "Justice" whatever the someone too powerful to be taken to task may claim.
Well, it's not your perception of justice. Not that I agree with most of your recent analogies on this topic.
He choosed to "care" about us in the same way that small boys "care" about flies when they pull their wings off.
At least He's not burning us with his big ol' magnifying glass.
I can't really respond to your personal misconception.
You're back to the "he's too powerful to be taken to task."
Only one among many attributes taken as a whole.
Sorry, but might does not make right no matter how much the "mighty," and those hoping to be on the mighty's good graces, might believe it.
Might only enforces one's version of right. His rightness is born of His righteousness among other aspects of his nature.
You might also want to consider that the God in Bruce Almighty lied about giving Bruce all his power. He didn't give him omniscience. If he had then instead of trying to use "omnipotence" (which wasn't really since it was limited) to get the girl to "love him" he would have known exactly what to say, exactly what to do, exactly how to act and behave, to get her to fall in love with him of her own "free will." Likewise, he would have known the results of a blanket "yes" on all the prayers.
That wasn't God. It was Morgan. That level of manipulation isn't what I would consider free will (as if what I would consider it even matters.)
His nature as a spoiled brat insisting on adulation of inferiors?
Blame His parents. Oh... wait...
If I set a gap for you to jump across, make it too wide for any human to pass, give everyone a "jump or be pushed" choice, and then choose to catch a few, does that absolve me of the others who couldn't make it over the gap I set? Of course not.
... the train travels for 1 hour and then stops to pick up 9 passengers...
If he's supposed to be so much better than human then he should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
Perfection is both the standard and His nature.
If by "children of god" you mean "toys of a child like the next-door neighbor in Toy Story" then the metaphor mostly works. Or if you mean "slaves of a capricious and cruel master" then it also works. If, however, you mean anything that involves loving parents who do actually care about their children than it completely and utterly fails.
Wow! You're really believing the magnifying glass thing.
And you know that God is the center of all things how exactly? Because he told somebody that?
Well how else could we have figured it out?
And your logic is circular. How do you know that there is actual acknowledgment? Why because people "worship" which is ego stroking. And not required? The first five of the 10 Commandments are all on that theme.
If he's so great then why does he care if anyone worships him, or even acknowledges him? I don't care if that leaf cutter ant acknowledges my human greatness or not. So long as it doesn't do anything to harm me or mine I'm willing to let it go on its merry way without any interference from me. I certainly won't decide to punish leaf cutter ants for the "crime" of not acknowledging, let alone worshiping, me. Is not God at least as much greater than me than I am to a leaf cutter ant? Why should he care whether anyone worships him or not. And don't claim he doesn't. If he's going to punish people who don't then he cares enough to take specific actions based on whether they do or don't.
Why presume that God would reason or care just as you do?
When they are actual theories as science defines the term.
First thing you have to ask is: "how would we know if this were wrong." Is there anything, anything at all, that could be observed that would lead to the conclusion "this theory is wrong."
Simply saying "this is what some folk writing thousands of years ago said happened" does not make it a scientific theory.
Then throw out criminal investigations, evidence gathering, witness accounts, anything that has already happened... we just can't speculate based on what we do have...
Do you really want to argue from how old it is?
I didn't. The implication was that science has had a little while to deal with it already.
"Debunk"? How about evidence that it actually happened. Let's take the core point of Christianity: the Resurrection.
Is there a record of Roman Soldiers set to guard a tomb executed for abandoning their post? (They would have been, you know.)
You don't think they knew this as well? I ask you, what must have happened to make them leave their post or allow someone to remove the body under peril of death? I don't know about their pending executions or records of such... heck, the Roman database may have been down?? But the body was gone.
Is there any actual evidence that it actually happened?
You wouldn't consider eyewitness reports to be evidence.
The written record? Earliest known copies of any books of the New Testament were some of Paul's epistles about 80 AD or so--50 years after the events supposedly transpired and Saul/Paul was not a participant in any of the events in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He didn't come on the scene until later. The earliest written records perporting to be actual "eyewitness" testimony were not written until late 1st Century early 2nd Century--when none of the folk who might have actually "witnessed" the angel at the tomb or the Resurrected Christ were alive (nor anyone who might have seen Jesus walking on water and Peter taking a couple of steps himself or any of the other "miracles" that were supposed to have happened).
Will research before response
ETA: Here's a source making a strong case for at least thee of the four gospels having been written between 50-70 AD:
When were the gospels written and by whom? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
Oh, and don't bother going to the Shroud of Turin.
Didn't plan to. Never been very interested in it.
Come up with some actual, real, evidence and we'll discuss that. Until then, all you've got is "some folk writing thousands of years ago made the claim and wrote it down."
I don't need to come up with anything. End discussion whenever you'd like.
Last edited:
I've got evidence that Christ lived, died and raised from the dead. 2 weeks ago on a Sunday night. We had a young girl invite her firend and bring a friend to our usually ignited Sunday night services. She'd never been to a Apostolic church before. She came in , the Lord moved upon her, she wept, she raised her hands, she spoke in a language she had never known before in her life! JUST LIKE the 120 did in the upper room. JUST LIKE Jesus told them to go and wait on; and it happened. (ref. Acts 2 again to refresh your memory)
YHWH, robed in flesh, paid our penalty for breaking His law.
He allowed Himself to be tortured by His own creation;
allowed pathetic and ungrateful man to spit on Him, mock Him and deny Him and His deity;
He then let that body give in to death as a perfect man that should not have been punished;
(John 2:21 --Jesus said HE would raise HIS OWN body-- Spirit in flesh) and then raised that body and told His disciples to go and wait for that power to have victory over sin in this life;
and then came in to those people gathered and regenerated their souls;
Peter preached for all to repent, be baptized in Jesus name, in water and TOLD THOSE WHO SAW the 120 speaking in other tongues (just like Lauren 2 Sundays nights ago) that they, the onlookers could HAVE IT TO!
You want proof, come to church with me. Witness the miracle of the operation of the Spirit of God, feel it, respond to it. Don't hide on this internet and spew arguments, come. You can see, feel, for yourself. Last year I was prayed for at church, my knee had given in and I could not walk. (too many sports) I was prayed for and as I was being prayed for I felt --what felt like a hand massaging my knee--; I walked away that night never to have issues again.
You have no denial for 250 witnesses that night who watched me walk. You are just arguing to argue; really you are arguing with yourself, trying to convince yourself.
Truth can be had, despite what Plato thought. Truth walked on this earth, spoke, lived, died, raised up that body to be a witness of the fee paid and now regenerates the dead soul in mankind upon conversion. ...................... just come.
YHWH, robed in flesh, paid our penalty for breaking His law.
He allowed Himself to be tortured by His own creation;
allowed pathetic and ungrateful man to spit on Him, mock Him and deny Him and His deity;
He then let that body give in to death as a perfect man that should not have been punished;
(John 2:21 --Jesus said HE would raise HIS OWN body-- Spirit in flesh) and then raised that body and told His disciples to go and wait for that power to have victory over sin in this life;
and then came in to those people gathered and regenerated their souls;
Peter preached for all to repent, be baptized in Jesus name, in water and TOLD THOSE WHO SAW the 120 speaking in other tongues (just like Lauren 2 Sundays nights ago) that they, the onlookers could HAVE IT TO!
You want proof, come to church with me. Witness the miracle of the operation of the Spirit of God, feel it, respond to it. Don't hide on this internet and spew arguments, come. You can see, feel, for yourself. Last year I was prayed for at church, my knee had given in and I could not walk. (too many sports) I was prayed for and as I was being prayed for I felt --what felt like a hand massaging my knee--; I walked away that night never to have issues again.
You have no denial for 250 witnesses that night who watched me walk. You are just arguing to argue; really you are arguing with yourself, trying to convince yourself.
Truth can be had, despite what Plato thought. Truth walked on this earth, spoke, lived, died, raised up that body to be a witness of the fee paid and now regenerates the dead soul in mankind upon conversion. ...................... just come.
Actually the deeds of one individual "echoes in eternity."
And why couldn't the knowledge be undone if God wanted it undone. God is omnipotent. It says so right here on the label.
So they, and everyone to come after them, was punished for doing what God wanted them to do in the first place.
If I don't want my dog to eat a steak, I don't leave it unattended on a counter where he can reach it. If I do, then it's my fault, not the dogs.
Surely God is smarter than I am. I, at least, don't claim omniscience.
He put the tree in there knowing the results. He can no more declaim responsibility than I could if I fired a gun down a crowded street and the bullet struck someone.
When you do something knowing the outcome you own that outcome. It's yours, responsibility and all.
How about the "word" of all the people he's exterminated over the years through one temper tantrum or another.
Is there anyone else whose unsupported word you would accept as "gospel" when it came to anything important affecting your life?
How do you know that God is being truthful about being qualified? Because God says so? Doesn't that beg the question?
No answer, huh? Let me explain the parable to you. The people pushed off the cliff are all the people who ever lived and who ever will. The cliff represents (the filters probably won't allow the correct term so lets just call it "spiritual death") to which all of those people are consigned because God (the someone doing the pushing) decreed it that way. The rope is "salvation" that that is extended to only some of the people (chosen by the same one who pushed them off the cliff). Only some of the people. And they're being offered a "salvation" they wouldn't need if they hadn't been pushed off the cliff in the first place.
God offers "salvation" that's only necessary because God condemns everyone in the first place.
Kind of like government payments. They "give" money for things that wouldn't be needed if they didn't take the money in the first place.
Pretty much does whatever he wants to "protect" those he chooses (who wouldn't be at risk except for his own choices/actions anyway) and destroys bunches of others. Works for me.
Please tell me any perception of justice other then that of the one committing the atrocities that it fits.
The people committing atrocities always claim they are justified. But you want to give this one a pass because some people writing thousands of years ago claimed that, well, the being committing the atrocities claimed it was justified.
He choosed to "care" about us in the same way that small boys "care" about flies when they pull their wings off.
At least He's not burning us with his big ol' magnifying glass.
I can't really respond to your personal misconception.
"personal misconception" You misspelled "reading the actual text."
Abusive fathers and spouses always claim they're doing it for the other's "own good" and because they "love" them.
Cruel. Capricious. Vindictive. Egotistical. And "too powerful to be taken to task. That would seem to sum it up pretty well.
Except the only "rightness" shown is "too powerful to be called to task."
You're right. It wouldn't be "free will" and that is why "free will" is a complete myth if there exists an omnipotent and omniscient being. That being knows every result of every action, knows exactly what actions will elicit any given result, and has the power to take any action that causes any given result. If that being then started by creating everything then any possible result that the being desired could come out of that original setup. In that situation everything that happens happens because that being set it up that way and "free will" is a myth.
Well, he does act like someone who never received any parental discipline.
Nice dodge. Mind you, the hit still landed, but a nice dodge.
Because he said so, right?
If he's so perfect then he should be held to a higher standard instead of excuses being made for behavior that would slap a human into very long incarceration if not being strapped to a table with a needle in the arm.
Actually, I don't since I don't believe in that conception of God. But that is the being described in the Bible.
So you believe anything anybody tells you? If not, then why is this one special? Why believe this unsupported claim while rejecting plenty of others.
I don't. If God exists as described in the Bible I presume he's an egomaniac with self-esteem issues that require constant ego-stroking, who is given to fits of rage and violence when that ego stroking isn't done. Add sadism and wanton cruelty to the mix and you've got a pretty good description of the God described in the Bible.
Five different ways of saying kiss God's metaphorical feet given precedence over Murder for the love of Pete?
Non-sequitor. Which of the above is solely about "this is what some folk writing thousands of years ago said happened."
Even history, which is all about things that have already happened, looks for actual physical evidence and independent corroboration.
And if that some folk wrote this stuff thousands of years ago is sufficient to accept it why this and not any of the other belief systems written thousands of years ago? There are so many to choose from. Surely you must have some reason why this one is to be accepted and all those others rejected. Don't you?
Deal with what? That some books written a good century after the events they describe are supposed to have taken place have gained a certain popularity with a large segment of the population? What's to "deal with"? I mean, there's essentially no independent corroboration (where's the Roman census for all those saints raising from the dead after Christ's resurrection? Where's the execution order for the Roman soldiers who abandoned their post because, so it is claimed some magical being (so they would describe it) came down from the sky and rolled away the stone, where are the reports of the sky being darkened a particular Passover Friday? Sure, it was a long time ago and not all of that would have survived but some of it would have. The Romans were fanatical record keepers. We have more historical records of grain shipments in Rameses' Egypt then we do of the life of Christ. The closest to independent corroboration is the writings of Flavius Josephus who wasn't even born until several years after the crucifixion and resurrection supposedly happened.
The very first written records detailing those events date from about a century after they supposedly happened. A hundred years for myths to grow in the telling. How long did it take for stories like George Washington and the Cherry Tree or throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac to grow, or how about the various stories told about Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett that have no historical basis whatsoever (grinning down a grizzly bear?)? And that's in an age when people were actually writing things down as they happened rather than whispering them in secret to avoid being thrown into the Colosseum along with some hungry carnivores.
So what, exactly, needs to be "dealt with"?
Ah, but that assumes that they were actually there, actually deserted their posts, and actually faced that threat. Assumes facts not in evidence.
The "record of the execution" is a stand-in for all the various things that should have been recorded. The Romans were fanatical record keepers. They kept records on everything. They kept records locally. They sent copies to provincial capitals. The provincial capitals sent copies to Rome. We have no problem finding records of other events from the Masada campaign to the wars in Britain against Boudica, to Crassus's campaigns against the Parthians (from the preceding generation). Why are all the major events that supposedly happened in the New Testament mysteriously absent?
We don't have any eyewitness reports. We have reports written a hundred years after the events supposedly took place.
Have you ever played the game "telephone" (that's the name I knew it as as a kid)? You line up a group of people. First person whispers a short sentence into the second person's ear. Second person whispers into the third. And so on. When you get to the end, you compare the results of what comes out of the chain with what the first person actually said. Results are usually hilarious.
After a hundred years of that kind of "word of mouth" spread, how much resemblance to the original do you think actually remained? Stories do tend to grow in the telling.
Oh, let me guess. Another miracle, right?
Be my guest. I've already done the research.
Fair enough. I brought it up because some folk do like to cite it as physical evidence that the events of the NT were real. It's not.
I don't need to come up with anything. End discussion whenever you'd like.
Well, you don't need to if you're happy with only having "some folk writing thousands of years ago made the claim and wrote it down."
And how many people spoke that language so as to understand what she supposedly said in it? Was it an extant language such that one could take a recording to the appropriate language department of a university and get translated or was it some ancient or "spiritual" or "holy" language that nobody except those "moved by the spirit" speaks?
People have similar kinds of experiences to what you describe in all sort of belief systems many of them have nothing to do with "Jesus Christ." Psychologists have studied the phenomena quite extensively.
As for coming to church with you and experiencing it. Been there, done that.
No you haven't. Keep making excuses, perhaps you'll make one that will justify your hate and resistance; or, your backslidden condition? You know so much, but, so little.
You win, you know more than God, He's just an idiot who made us.
Cheers.
I'll repost since I edited my post while you last posted and you brought it up again.
Here's a source making a strong case for at least thee of the four gospels having been written between 50-70 AD:
When were the gospels written and by whom? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
This discussion is not like your normal style. I expected a rational but patiently detached scrutiny of details. Seems much more emotional - almost angry, though I don't feel like it's really directed at me. Done playing for the evening.
Here's a source making a strong case for at least thee of the four gospels having been written between 50-70 AD:
When were the gospels written and by whom? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
This discussion is not like your normal style. I expected a rational but patiently detached scrutiny of details. Seems much more emotional - almost angry, though I don't feel like it's really directed at me. Done playing for the evening.
No you haven't. Keep making excuses, perhaps you'll make one that will justify your hate and resistance; or, your backslidden condition? You know so much, but, so little.
You win, you know more than God, He's just an idiot who made us.
Cheers.
Yes. I have. That I don't come to the same conclusions you do does not invalidate what I have done and experienced. You see, what you describe is pretty straightforward "religious ecstacy" as experienced by some adherents of religions all over the world, Christian or not. I'm sure you think yours is different, but have you ever explored those other belief systems to see? Somehow I doubt it.
As for "hate," how can I possibly hate what I don't believe exists. But you have to have an "explanation" for my not simply accepting your word that it is so so "hate" is convenient. Where have I heard that approach before? Oh, yes, "hate motivated" opposition to the current administrations plans.
Likewise I don't believe in that conception of God so the snarky "you know more than God" fails.
One thing you miss is that I don't have a problem with your belief system as a belief system. I have my own personal beliefs that defy "logic" or "science." However, I don't try to form public policy based on those personal beliefs, nor do I claim that those personal beliefs should be taught as "science" when there's nothing scientific about them.
I'd like to say that "creation science" site posted uptopic was a particularly bad one but the truth is that it's typical, completely wrong statements about science, logical fallacies, outright fabrications and all.
When it comes to deciding if something is "science" the first question remains is "if this theory is wrong, how would we know?" This is the "testable prediction" criterion that all scientific theories must meet. There must be some prediction deriving from the theory that, if the theory is true must happen or, contrariwise something that must not happen if the theory is true.
Example from evolution. A claim was made that a fossil discovery had human footprints among dinosaur footprints. If such a thing actually were found (and found not to be a hoax) that would pretty seriously wreck current evolutionary theory (wouldn't, by itself, be evidence for creation, but would certainly open up the field to a new theory).
Some time back just such a claim was made. Dinosaur footprints frozen in petrified mud with the smaller marks, which the claimants said were human footprints, running between them.
Turns out that the "human footprints" didn't really resemble human footprints all that much just kind of ovalish. This was "explained" as having been distorted over time. Quite reasonable on the face of it since it's hard for a footprint not to get marred in the course of being covered up by other layers of silt and mud. Ah, but there was more. Turned out that the dinosaur in question, when examined, walked with a 'pigeon toed" gait and longish curved claws that made staggered rows of smaller indents between the dinosaur's feet.
Yep, those weren't human footprints between the dinosaur footprints. They weren't any kind of footprints. They were "toeprints" of the dinosaur that made the larger footprints.
Many "pro-creation" sites still list this piece of "evidence" for creation in much the same way that many anti-gun sites still list the discredited Kellerman "study."
"By their fruits shall ye know them."
Actually, what that site makes is a case that the oral tradition on which the Gospels were based may have been compiled between 50-70 AD. Earliest extent copies (even fragmentary) still come from early 2nd century.
As for the emotional nature, what else is there? The whole concept of "God" is based on emotional rhetoric. "Rational scrutiny of details"? Give me some details to actually scrutinize and we'll go from there.
The "traditional" view of God, however, is really a simple "might makes right." God can get away with, even be praised for, actions that anyone else would be roundly, and rightly, condemned for. I mean I can understand televangelists taking the "do as I say, not as I do" approach since they appear to have learned it at the feet of a master of the art.
And the circular
"God is perfect"
"How do you know"
"God said so"
"What makes what he says on the matter right"
"Because God is Perfect."
gets pretty frustrating the third or fourth time you encounter it. It gets downright infuriating the fiftieth or sixtieth time.
As I have said, I have no problem with people's beliefs as beliefs. It's when they try to turn those beliefs into policy so that others are required to act according to their beliefs or when they try to claim "scientific" when they most assuredly are not that I start objecting. Remember, the start of this thread wasn't "do you believe in God" but "Young Earth Creationism vs. Evolution."
Creationism is not science. The "scientific creationism" site posted uptopic didn't refute that but more underscored it. And until someone couches it in terms and concepts that make it science it has no place in science classes.
Adam and Eve were in the presence of God in the Garden of Eden. And until they ate the fruit they had not sinned. And God being just will not kick you out of His presence until they broke the law. He gave them a pradox - Eat the fruit and become mortal and have children (one of the commandments) or stay in the garden, immortal, innocent and childlike, without knowledge of right and wrong, and no children, and don't eat the fruit (the other commandment).
Evil exists because of human choice to do evil.
I get it. I do. You wish you could actually refute the evidences but can't. The evidence that exists is not good enough for you. I understand. Not enough corroboration, etc.
I will not be drawn to debate your version or (mis)understanding of a god you don't actually believe in (hence the train problem responses to your parables.)
So keep waiting for evidence or even a workable theory for how we just happened. At that point, I will likely say that your evidence is not conclusive enough for me and we will remain at an impasse.
For now, what I believe still requires less of my faith than the (lack of?)alternatives presented.
The site I listed has many other items in their apologetics section. Knock yourself out. Post a favorite source of yours and I will explore it.
If all you and I really have are emotional biases to discuss, I'll bow out for now. I'd rather make short wirecracks in other threads.
I will not be drawn to debate your version or (mis)understanding of a god you don't actually believe in (hence the train problem responses to your parables.)
So keep waiting for evidence or even a workable theory for how we just happened. At that point, I will likely say that your evidence is not conclusive enough for me and we will remain at an impasse.
For now, what I believe still requires less of my faith than the (lack of?)alternatives presented.
The site I listed has many other items in their apologetics section. Knock yourself out. Post a favorite source of yours and I will explore it.
If all you and I really have are emotional biases to discuss, I'll bow out for now. I'd rather make short wirecracks in other threads.
And people "choose" to do evil because of the background they have and the situations they find themselves in.
I've been over this already repeatedly. Unless you want to deal with those actual arguments I'll just refer back to them.
Oh, and the "paradox" only existed because God set it up that way. If God wanted a different answer, he could have set it up differently. Why not just create them able to have children (that as a reason for the "test" is not universally believed among Christians, but I'll go with your belief for this) in the first place without that whole rigamarole of having to break God's commandment about the tree in order to obey another Commandment about "be fruitful and multiply"?
God sets up a catch 22 and then punishes people for the "wrong" answer when there is no "right" answer. How wonderful.
Last edited:
Actually it's more than that. The "evidence" presented for Christianity is no better than that given for Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, or Asatru for that matter. If I accept your "evidence" as compelling I have to accept theirs as equally compelling.
So why is yours any better than theirs?
And yet you can't point out where the parables are flawed except to just assert that they are and basically claim "because God said so."
Doesn't matter. Even if there were zero evidence for any of the scientific theories. Even if all the objections raised by creationists to them were valid it still would not be evidence for any particular other theory.
That's the point on which you continue to stumble: lack of a compelling scientific answer is not the same thing as support for "God did it."
I'm sure that belief comforts you. (No sarcasm intended.)
Sorry, but if their front page is so flawed there's really not much justification for me to dig deeper.
Kind of like with the media--every time the media reports something about which I have personal knowledge they get significant parts of the report wrong. Maybe somewhere in the parts that I don't have personal knowledge they do a better job, but that's not the way to bet.
If all you and I really have are emotional biases to discuss, I'll bow out for now. I'd rather make short wirecracks in other threads.
No, I'm saying that's all you have to offer. Or at least that's all you've offered so far.
Oh, and on that 50-70 AD date for the origin of the NT, I do find it interesting that the "prophesies" attributed to Jesus in the NT that were clear and specific enough to be tied to actual events without literally centuries of debate were all things that happened before the earliest known written copies of the NT. Funny that there was no, "Rome shall be divided into two Kingdoms and the Western one shall fall but the Eastern one shall linger for some hundreds of years before it too shall fall," or no "And a great evil empire shall rise and shall smite the Jews, and the dead shall be as numberless as the sands on the shore. And again, a nation shall arise across the sea in the West and another evil nation in the East and together they shall smite the evil empire and shall divide its lands between them." I mean, should not things like that have been at least as important as the destruction of the temple, the fall of Jerusalem and whether Peter shall "follow me"?
It seems like you made a box for people to be in that do evil. Maybe a normal guy gets depressed and drunk and he's mad at his girlfriend for dumping him. He sees something that sets him off and tosses a rock through a plate glass window, he did not know that a kid was sleeping under the window and the kid gets a cut on his face and glass in his eye. (No this is not me or anyone I know) What category does this fellow belong in?
I never thought of the apple tree as a suggestion of free will but I do now. So what if God said be fruitful and multiply now after the apple, we don't and can't judge his motives or his methods, thats the deal, faith.
I see nothing wrong with other faiths, who knows when we die who God will appear to us as, it's not important. I don't believe in pouring over every word in the bible and trying to dissect it, thats not the point, it's the spirituality of it all, thats the beauty, it's not a science project.
If you don't believe, it's fine, thats your choice.
It's not me who makes the blanket "good" and "evil" categories. I'm simply following the train that's given in the Bible to where it leads--binary solution set, Heaven or the other place. Traditionally the "good" (which apparently means those who kiss God's feet) go to Heaven and the evil (those who fail to do the foot kissing) go to the other place.
Minor quibble. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it was an apple. That's just a story that's cropped up about it. It was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
As for "we don't and can't judge his motives or his mothods." Who says? Oh, right. God says. The person stacking the deck, setting impossible standards, punishing everyone based on those impossible standards and then offering a select few "salvation" based on a situation that he set up in the first place and makes claims of "free will" which are purely mythical since he has complete control over the situations that lead to those choices and complete knowledge of what those choices will be, say's "it's good."
It may not look like it but I really don't have a problem with people who believe and have faith that there is some justification out there that makes it good. But criminy, can't people at least admit that they are making that leap of faith not only in absence of evidence thereof but in utter opposition to logic and reason?
In which case the Bible is incorrect. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man entereth into the Bible except by me."
Then people should stop trying to put it into science classes.
Ah, but if the omnipotent, omniscient deity actually exists it's not my choice. It's the result of a chain of events that happened because God put this atom over here rather than 22.5 picometers thataway, doing so knowing full well that the end of that chain of dominos would lead to me saying and believing as I do now.
In the face of an omnipotent omniscient deity that created the Universe and set the initial conditions the whole concept of "free will" is pure myth.
If I accept your "evidence" as compelling I have to accept theirs as equally compelling.
Your rules of acceptance are your own.
So why is yours any better than theirs?
It's not mine. I was just compelled by it.
And yet you can't point out where the parables are flawed except to just assert that they are and basically claim "because God said so."
I addressed the flaws of your construct in earlier posts.
That's the point on which you continue to stumble: lack of a compelling scientific answer is not the same thing as support for "God did it."
No stumble, just nothing to compel me toward natural occurance.
I'm sure that belief comforts you. (No sarcasm intended.)
I know that people are comforted by deception as well. I do not use it as an evidence.
Sorry, but if their front page is so flawed there's really not much justification for me to dig deeper.
Couldn't tell you what's on the front page or most of the site. I only recommended the apologetics section.
Oh, and on that 50-70 AD date for the origin of the NT, I do find it interesting that the "prophesies" attributed to Jesus in the NT that were clear and specific enough to be tied to actual events without literally centuries of debate were all things that happened before the earliest known written copies of the NT.
Conspiracy theories... from a scientist?
Funny that there was no, "Rome shall be divided into two Kingdoms and the Western one shall fall but the Eastern one shall linger for some hundreds of years before it too shall fall," or no "And a great evil empire shall rise and shall smite the Jews, and the dead shall be as numberless as the sands on the shore. And again, a nation shall arise across the sea in the West and another evil nation in the East and together they shall smite the evil empire and shall divide its lands between them." I mean, should not things like that have been at least as important as the destruction of the temple, the fall of Jerusalem and whether Peter shall "follow me"?
So, since the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible are not an exhaustive account of every possible future prophecy, you discount it. OK?
Just consider that you may have placed the truth outside of your reach by negating it as a theory simply because science wouldn't be able disprove it. Science is the study of the natural but is unfitted for considering the supernatural.
What are the rules for philosphical theories? Science seems so restricted in the types of material it may even consider.
Last edited:
No different than those who believe we just occurred but can't explain how. Same leap. Same lack of evidence. Same opposition. Yet easier for some to embrace.
In honor of the point of this thread..which died long ago...*sniff*...I propose a toast.
and this painting of A rooster zebra contemplating a grilled cheese sandwichhttp://indecisions.org/wtfwtf.jpg by Matt Forderer.
and this painting of A rooster zebra contemplating a grilled cheese sandwichhttp://indecisions.org/wtfwtf.jpg by Matt Forderer.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- glock addict
- brown trix
- Charsh78
- Nakatomi
- INP8riot
- ChristianPatriot
- cbhausen
- nhgluff
- ancjr
- peterock
- StukaJU87
- Hawkeye7br
- Revolvers&w1966
- tv1217
- d.kaufman
- KLB
- blainepoe
- 45sRfun
- freekforge
- ditcherman
- Dewidmt
- 66chevelle
- Myrradah
- Huzrjim
- indyjohn
- JettaKnight
- Hillbilly
- mhs
- FreeLand
- jsn_mooney
- Eagle21
- snorko
- Michigan Slim
- spencer rifle
- Shooter5
- Flash-hider
- solarpimp
- Tanfodude
- edporch
- indyartisan
- Brandon
- dmarsh8
- Magneto
- Dan35
- harvey4
- LtScott14
- Judamonster
- PappyD
- DDadams
- MemphisR32