Religion The God Question - part 2

[evo]

I've always thought that god and I had something in common.

When you watch do you wear the red beard? It is most majestic; godly.

 

[The Unforgiven]

Yes, as we understand the world better our understanding of the bible will get better.

Do you believe that the Bible will become more relevant as we learn more about the world? Understanding is one thing, but you say this from a position of the Bible being correct. As we learn more about the natural world, science and the Bible become more at odds. This is called the God-of-the-Gaps scenario.

What exactly has science proven which legitimises any of the Bible's teachings? And don't refer to the circumstantial, I mean actual claims which have transformed the supernatural into the natural.

 

[The Unforgiven]

Check the dates on these writing from some heavy hitters of the Church.
Just a tad before Darwin and carbon dating.
Are you sure you weren't bought up a fundamentalist?

Clement of Alexandria

"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

And your point is what, exactly? Exactly what sort of a fundamentalist are you alluding to?

 

[Boston tiger]

And your point is what, exactly? Exactly what sort of a fundamentalist are you alluding to?

Point is you think the interpretation of the Bible changes with science discoveries. It doesn't. These writing are 1900 years old.

 

[The Unforgiven]

Point is you think the interpretation of the Bible changes with science discoveries. It doesn't. These writing are 1900 years old.

I beg to differ. Big time. How is Genesis compatible with evolution? If you take Genesis as a literal account, it simply cannot be. Unless, of course, you dismiss science altogether, in which case you'll just deny that evolution is even real. Do you deny evolution, or accept it and believe that, along with anything else that science discovers, is just uncovering more of God's own work?

I'll give you an example of how I think the Bible's interpretation has, and will continue to change over the course of the next few decades. I'm not sure of your views on the Intelligent Design pseudoscience, but I believe that the I.D. movement is as a direct result of evolution and advancement of scientific discoveries in general.

Now, not that the I.D. community has directly stated which God it is that has been attributed to intelligently designing the universe, the general consensus has been that it's the Christian God. This assertion is strengthened by the fact that most of I.D.'s proponents are from the Christian faith.

Many Christian institutions are against Intelligent Design. Fundamentalist Christians especially, they beleive that I.D. devalues God's work and "reduces God to an engineer". So, as a direct result of science, there's a division in how the Bible should be interpreted to the point that Creation Research Institutes are developing pseudoscience hypotheses to both fit in to current scientific knowledge while thwarting the further advancement of said knowledge.

As much as you think that you can hang on to a nearly 2,000 year old book, you can't. Its age works against it, not for it. The God-of-the-Gaps is closing. Not in our lifetime, but at some time in the future, if Donald hasn't "accidentally" hit the big red button and set off the nukes, humans will almost completely disprove the Bible. Your Bible simply cannot keep up with the ever-present reality of knowledge and reason.

 

[Procrastinator35]

When you watch do you wear the red beard? It is most majestic; godly.

Here's a ditty, just for you evo :

 

[Boston tiger]

I beg to differ. Big time. How is Genesis compatible with evolution? If you take Genesis as a literal account, it simply cannot be. Unless, of course, you dismiss science altogether, in which case you'll just deny that evolution is even real. Do you deny evolution, or accept it and believe that, along with anything else that science discovers, is just uncovering more of God's own work?

I'll give you an example of how I think the Bible's interpretation has, and will continue to change over the course of the next few decades. I'm not sure of your views on the Intelligent Design pseudoscience, but I believe that the I.D. movement is as a direct result of evolution and advancement of scientific discoveries in general.

Now, not that the I.D. community has directly stated which God it is that has been attributed to intelligently designing the universe, the general consensus has been that it's the Christian God. This assertion is strengthened by the fact that most of I.D.'s proponents are from the Christian faith.

Many Christian institutions are against Intelligent Design. Fundamentalist Christians especially, they beleive that I.D. devalues God's work and "reduces God to an engineer". So, as a direct result of science, there's a division in how the Bible should be interpreted to the point that Creation Research Institutes are developing pseudoscience hypotheses to both fit in to current scientific knowledge while thwarting the further advancement of said knowledge.

As much as you think that you can hang on to a nearly 2,000 year old book, you can't. Its age works against it, not for it. The God-of-the-Gaps is closing. Not in our lifetime, but at some time in the future, if Donald hasn't "accidentally" hit the big red button and set off the nukes, humans will almost completely disprove the Bible. Your Bible simply cannot keep up with the ever-present reality of knowledge and reason.

So you cannot see the significance of those 2 early writings ?

Seeing how early Christians viewed the Bible before any science theories forced their hand ..
what makes you think the Bible isn't compatible with evolution?

Evolution is not a creation theory so why would a creation story be in opposition to a theory about change ?

Are you disappointed that the creation story begins with humans and not with sulfur, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen then pond slime then multi cellular organisms.?

The Bible isn't a science book, no one seriously thinks it is. Humans 2000 years didn't think so , so why would us clever dicks now think it is ?

If you want to argue with fundamentals fine and argue wether the world was made in 7 days or if snakes can talk or not but don't post rubbish like the following

As scientific knowledge continues to advance, I'm sure the Bible will become increasingly metaphorical. This will no doubt culminate in the Church re-educating people on how to "properly" read the Bible.

My advice to you would be stop posting about the Bible unless you can find a fundamentalist like you self and then you might sound clever.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Yes, as we understand the world better our understanding of the bible will get better.

Oh,I'm not so sure about that one fella.

 

[The Unforgiven]

So you cannot see the significance of those 2 early writings ?

Seeing how early Christians viewed the Bible before any science theories forced their hand ..
what makes you think the Bible isn't compatible with evolution?

Evolution is not a creation theory so why would a creation story be in opposition to a theory about change ?

Are you disappointed that the creation story begins with humans and not with sulfur, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen then pond slime then multi cellular organisms.?

The Bible isn't a science book, no one seriously thinks it is. Humans 2000 years didn't think so , so why would us clever dicks now think it is ?

If you want to argue with fundamentals fine and argue wether the world was made in 7 days or if snakes can talk or not but don't post rubbish like the following



My advice to you would be stop posting about the Bible unless you can find a fundamentalist like you self and then you might sound clever.

I don't see anything significant about those two quotes which suggests they defy their 1,900 year old history. Suggesting some sort of creative or intelligent writing is evidence for unnaturally aquired knowledge is flawed and silly.

I'm not disappointed about any fictitious writings on a level any higher than superficially. I think the creation myth is a great story. The bit about Lucifer is especially intriguing and captivating.

The Bible isn't a science book... because there were no science books taken seriously back then! 2,000 years ago the Bible was relevant because no one really could refute what was written in it. Even the Arabs took 500 years before they attempted to refute it with an even taller tale. What people think now is that the Bible can be refuted based on a complete lack of evidence for its claims.

I don't get why you keep referring to me as a fundamentalist. Wouldn't I have to actually beleive in God to be a fundamentalist? Obviously you aren't since you do not defend Genesis. 1,900 years ago everyone would have taken Genesis literally. Why don't they now? It's turned from literal to metaphor.

 

[Boston tiger]

I don't see anything significant about those two quotes which suggests they defy their 1,900 year old history. Suggesting some sort of creative or intelligent writing is evidence for unnaturally aquired knowledge is flawed and silly.

I'm not disappointed about any fictitious writings on a level any higher than superficially. I think the creation myth is a great story. The bit about Lucifer is especially intriguing and captivating.

The Bible isn't a science book... because there were no science books taken seriously back then! 2,000 years ago the Bible was relevant because no one really could refute what was written in it. Even the Arabs took 500 years before they attempted to refute it with an even taller tale. What people think now is that the Bible can be refuted based on a complete lack of evidence for its claims.

I don't get why you keep referring to me as a fundamentalist. Wouldn't I have to actually beleive in God to be a fundamentalist? Obviously you aren't since you do not defend Genesis. 1,900 years ago everyone would have taken Genesis literally. Why don't they now? It's turned from literal to metaphor.

Those quotes don't prove that the Bible is the word of God it just shows that Darwin and co didn't shake the foundations of Christianity because many didn't take the Genesis story as you do.

Both you and Christian fundamentalist take a literalistic view of the Bible. Fundamentalist believe that when the Bible says 7 days it means 7 days ..just like you. Nothing to do whether you believe or not.
Fundamentalists believe that when the Bible says that Eve came from Adams rib you also think this is what the Bible is saying. Doesn't matter whether you think it's all baloney.. you interpret the Bible as a Christian fundamentalist do.

Those 2 quotes show that early Christians in fact didn't interpret that the Bible as you do now. They speak of metaphors way back then.
Nothing to do with whether it is true just how it has been interpreted.

 

[The Unforgiven]

Those quotes don't prove that the Bible is the word of God it just shows that Darwin and co didn't shake the foundations of Christianity because many didn't take the Genesis story as you do.

Both you and Christian fundamentalist take a literalistic view of the Bible. Fundamentalist believe that when the Bible says 7 days it means 7 days ..just like you. Nothing to do whether you believe or not.
Fundamentalists believe that when the Bible says that Eve came from Adams rib you also think this is what the Bible is saying. Doesn't matter whether you think it's all baloney.. you interpret the Bible as a Christian fundamentalist do.

Those 2 quotes show that early Christians in fact didn't interpret that the Bible as you do now. They speak of metaphors way back then.
Nothing to do with whether it is true just how it has been interpreted.

Okay. Fair enough. But that's just two bloke's interpretations, right? The problem with the Bible's ambiguity is that anyone can interpret it however they like. I will accept that it's your prerogative to see metaphors in the improbable/implausible - so I'm going to leverage off of you in order to clarify many widely misinterpreted teachings in the Bible.

You aren't a fundamentalist because you don't take it all literally, that much you have convinced me of. Being a Catholic, what's your view on Mary's immaculate conception? What about Jesus' birth to a virgin mother? Did Mary really conceive through the Holy Spirit without Joseph's input? Surely these teachings cannot be all intended to be taken metaphorically?

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm curious. If non-fundamentalists don't take bible stories like the creation and the flood literally - why take heed of any of it at all? Isn't the moral of the story behind all of it that there is some higher power than humanity that sets the rules we humans have to live by, or face the consequences on the day of judgment? Do non-fundamentalist believe in a literal God? If so, by what authority does he set the moral rules for humanity other than by virtue of being the creator?

 

[skilts]

When you watch do you wear the red beard? It is most majestic; godly.

Only when I'm in communicado. That's a suburb near Ardeer.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I'm curious. If non-fundamentalists don't take bible stories like the creation and the flood literally - why take heed of any of it at all? Isn't the moral of the story behind all of it that there is some higher power than humanity that sets the rules we humans have to live by, or face the consequences on the day of judgment? Do non-fundamentalist believe in a literal God? If so, by what authority does he set the moral rules for humanity other than by virtue of being the creator?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitudinarian

 

[Boston tiger]

Okay. Fair enough. But that's just two bloke's interpretations, right? The problem with the Bible's ambiguity is that anyone can interpret it however they like. I will accept that it's your prerogative to see metaphors in the improbable/implausible - so I'm going to leverage off of you in order to clarify many widely misinterpreted teachings in the Bible.

You aren't a fundamentalist because you don't take it all literally, that much you have convinced me of. Being a Catholic, what's your view on Mary's immaculate conception? What about Jesus' birth to a virgin mother? Did Mary really conceive through the Holy Spirit without Joseph's input? Surely these teachings cannot be all intended to be taken metaphorically?

You keep saying the problem with the Bible is that it can be interpreted any way you like. That is true but it was never intended to be interpreted any way you like...it was to be interpreted through the Church which compiled the thing. Back to Jesus starting a church not a book club etc. see reformation etc.

Holy Spirit conception, coming back to life etc are to be read as miracles etc. Believe it or don't believe but no one is expecting any science to be based on this. It's the nitty gritty of Christianity.
Believe in the woo woo or don't.

As I probably said before I don't bother interpreting the Bible I let the church do it. They are the ones who have joined up taken the pledge so to speak. I'll get on with other things.
If the church changes it mind on something I'll think .. your book your prerogative..knock yourselves out. No skin off my nose etc

 

[Boston tiger]

I'm curious. If non-fundamentalists don't take bible stories like the creation and the flood literally - why take heed of any of it at all? Isn't the moral of the story behind all of it that there is some higher power than humanity that sets the rules we humans have to live by, or face the consequences on the day of judgment? Do non-fundamentalist believe in a literal God? If so, by what authority does he set the moral rules for humanity other than by virtue of being the creator?

Well I think the fact that Christians aren't all ex Jews. Early Christians became Christians because of other Christians. There has never really been a culture of fundamentalism or getting bogged down in the OT.

It has always been based on the actions of Jesus and what he said. Always always. Christianity is only 2000 years old not as old as the OT etc.

 

[Total Power]

This should put into perspective that us humans are still pretty irrelevant when it comes to earth, let alone the solar system, or the universe, we have existed for a little more than a minute in the "grand scheme of things" called earth. And people are throwing a tanty over whose god is the better one

Perspective people!

 

[The Unforgiven]

You keep saying the problem with the Bible is that it can be interpreted any way you like. That is true but it was never intended to be interpreted any way you like...it was to be interpreted through the Church which compiled the thing. Back to Jesus starting a church not a book club etc. see reformation etc.

Holy Spirit conception, coming back to life etc are to be read as miracles etc. Believe it or don't believe but no one is expecting any science to be based on this. It's the nitty gritty of Christianity.
Believe in the woo woo or don't.

As I probably said before I don't bother interpreting the Bible I let the church do it. They are the ones who have joined up taken the pledge so to speak. I'll get on with other things.
If the church changes it mind on something I'll think .. your book your prerogative..knock yourselves out. No skin off my nose etc

The problem is I don't believe in woo woo. If I were to take up any theological view, I'd actually go with Satan having been shafted by God. The Church suppresses man's natural, healthy urges. Lucifer is a proponent for the opposite. God is the real blight on humanity and has orchestrated a gross miscarriage of justice unto Lucifer.

Why is knowledge bad? God didn't want anyone to know anything, he wanted them to unquestionably believe. Lucifer, the fallen angel, didn't take kindly to God's ways and stood up for what he believed in. Lucifer was the snake who convinced Eve to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge. Once again, why is knowledge bad?

It all stems back to what in inventors of these religions wanted. The preservation of their religion. The Bible couldn't be read by most up until the 1,500s when the Catholic Church fought to keep the Bible in Latin. Most people of the middle ages could not read and relied on Church teaching its dogma.

I believe that Satan is an archetype of what the Bible wishes to convey as evil. Everything about what is evil is everything which threatens the Bible. It's why anyone who isn't a Christian is potentially an agent of evil and why the Bible is clear in who will and won't get to heaven. If you're not with the Church you're against the Church and you'll be punished.

I would seriously love to hear Satan's version of events. There's two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. God may have engineered the universe, he may be the most powerful being in existence, he may as a result of his power be the authority of what is good and evil. But his reality I reject as it is still not an objective truth.

 

[skilts]

To conduct your life on the basis of splotches on the pages of a book (in some cases two) is inherently absurd, as are the fantasies promulgated by the religious. That they try to convince others of the value of such absurdity is hilarious.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Aint it funny how a thread about God, seems to attract all the televangelist atheists....It's a riot.

 

[skilts]

Aint it funny how a thread about God, seems to attract all the televangelist atheists....It's a riot.

As usual, name calling, rather than anything of substance.

 

[Total Power]

Aint it funny how a thread about God, seems to attract all the televangelist atheists....It's a riot.

Its sad you dont like critical thinking. I am far from an atheist, but having lived in places like India, Middle East and Africa, critical thinking should be encouraged. Whether you believe in a god or not, live and let live matters most, but if you happen to be from a religious country and a critical thinker you will pay the price with your life. How many Richard Dawkins' and Hitchens' do you see living in the Middle East or India or Africa? not cause there is none, but its because they are afraid. Travel the world my friend, as i said i am far from an atheist but crticial thinking must be encouraged, everywhere! i have a business and i need to be critical as well. Never take things for granted.

 

[Procrastinator35]

What are you talking about?....Where is the critical thinking, in coming into this forum & shouting 'God is a sham'?

 

[Total Power]

What are you talking about?....Where is the critical thinking, in coming into this forum & shouting 'God is a sham'?

So they have the right to their opinion just like you have the right to yours and i have the right to mine. Do you want a one sided discussion about "god" only? afterall this is a discussion forum and most threads on bigfooty consist of contrasting opinions, socialism vs capitalism, islam vs right wingers, abortionists vs non-abortionists, left vs right etc etc, why would this thread be any different?

 

[Procrastinator35]

It's like me going into the Evolution thread & saying 'science is fundamentally flawed'....It contributes SFA....We already know skilts is atheist....So Can the crap.