I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

So what is it with the fundies? What's your take on how things got so twisted? My perspective is that once organized religion got to be a political entity, as with anything political, common sense went out the window.

A fundamental view (AKA literal) made the most sense to the uneducated masses that were taught to not ask too many questions.

So it is EXACTLY like political entities.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Quote

Pirana

I am not parroting anyone on thermodynamics. I can appreciate that external forces can reduce local entropy (normally on a temporary timebase). Multiple species number millions/billions is not very local - but granted maybe if you accept a scale/relative point of view then accross the entire universe millions of species is "small" and localised. On a personal level (& I am not trying to be as you put it "artful at mangling meanings... etc). I see entropy at work - people age & die, machines & systems left alone decay and stop working. Pretty much everything that I know left to itself goes to its most stable state - stopped & flat on its back. Both you and Jakee has stated increases in order on a local scale - I wouldn't mind an example or 2?

Is not a very tenant of evolution that "very small" populations interbreed to create a "new" species. A very simple example lets say that the white "race" was born out of 2 albino children long ago procreating. In order for this to propagate/solidify into a race mixing of their offspring can't occur as it will dilute the genetic makeup. It is on this basis that I make the statement. What about the lion populations out of interest?

Finally I never said that there is evidence in Genesis - I was trying to separate my argument from the bible. What I said is that I am "open minded" about the problem - and do not put myself in either of the heavily defended "camps". Each of which has their thousands of "minds" at work.

5 pages added over a weekend I understand - what I don't is the working week how do people get work done?

Easy example: Any growing plant or animal that is taking nutrients and turning them into living tissue. That is a local and temporay increase in order - as all order is local and temporary.

Interbreeding is not really relevant - unless you get lions or people or some other sexually reproducing organism isolated and procreating with their next of kin for several generations. That causes mutations to accumulate at a dangerous pace. IIRC, with the lion group it has resulted in loss of fertility. So yes, interbreeding can become a problem if it is carried on beyond a certain degree. If you meant that sexual reproduction solely within a species is itself a roadblock to evolution; it is exactly the opposite. Sexuality was the best thing to ever happen to evolution.

Maybe I misunderstood this comment:

"Personally I do not think that Genesis 6 days is factual, however neither do I believe there is any more evidence that can reliably be called on to fully support evolution - as the origins of life & diversity as we see it today."

It reads to me like you are saying there is no more evidence for evolution than Genesis. Clarify if I am wrong there. Either way though, there is so much evidence that evolution is the source of diversity and is the reason for the origins of species that to question it you really need to come up with major flaws and/or evidence to the contrary. 200 years of intense research have produced no such thing.

BTW, Darwin did not write about evolution, he wrote about natural selection. Evolution is the theory (and a very strong and well established one); natural selection is a fact. Interesting trivia bit: Darwin never even used the word evolution until the very end of the book - and I think it was evolve that was used, and only once in the entire work. He never even touched on the origin of life, only on how speciation occurs.

Apologize for use of parroting. Probably a bit of an insult. But I am seriously interested in where you are coming from with the thermodynamics arguement. It is a favorite of ID proponents and fundies, and is absolutely, unequivocally, positively wrong wrong wrong. Anybody familiar with the laws of thermodynamics knows this. So when somebody introduces an idea like that, one that is the stock and trade of those that intentionally deceive, I question where they got it.

If you came to the idea on your own, well, now you know better. If you got it from a book or website, I'd like to know which.

Here's a good that has a lot to do with entropy: "The Last Two Minutes" I believe by Paul Davies. It is a good overall discussion of the life and times of our Universe, with an emphasis on what the heat death will look like if we in fact do live in an ever-expanding Universe. A bit morbid sure, but very entertaining.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Correction; it is "The Last THREE Minutes." And I never knew he (Paul Davies) was at one time a prof in Newcastle. Way cool. I went to school for a year in Alnwick, and we had profs from Newcastle visit. Small world.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[maadmax 0]

.

Quote

How do you know what the bible authors intended?

_________________________________________

As you know the meaning of the Bible is for each individual to determine for themselves. The benefit of the Bible only comes when the knowledge contained in it is understood and mixed with faith, producing wisdom. Which only has value to the person who possesses it. I certainly have noticed that different people derive different meanings form the same passages. By continuous study and prayer I do the best I can to discern God's intent.
I am always gathering information on everything and am ready to change my views as needed to make the most sense out of the chaos.

[funkcanna 0]

Quote

As you know the meaning of the Bible is for each individual to determine for themselves.

How do you know this? Were you sitting having a beer with the authors? how do you KNOW it wasnt intended literally? Im sure the early readers sure thought it was. Why has this view changed over time?

I think its changed over time to plaster over the cracks that keep appearing in the bible..

To know requires proof
To believe requires evidence
To have faith requires neither.
If you stick with that, we'll never be confused again

[philh 0]

Im sorry but you havent answered the question. Ill repeat it. How do you know what the authors of the bible's intention was? when answering please provide evidence t back up your claim. Bold assertions will not cut it.

[philh 0]

Im cuious Steve, it appears you agree science has debunked the Genesis account of creation and so you are hapy to let that go. Supposing hypothetically science was able to debunk the NT would you also let that go? or would you hold on to it no mater what?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Im cuious Steve, it appears you agree science has debunked the Genesis account of creation and so you are hapy to let that go. Supposing hypothetically science was able to debunk the NT would you also let that go? or would you hold on to it no mater what?

what science is supposed to be in the NT?

Genesis has not been debunked. It's just that the Bible is not a science text book. Plenty of Christians have no problem with scientific descriptions of how life formed. It does not touch their belief that God is responsible for creating all life.

not all Christians are fundies.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[maadmax 0]

Quote

Im sorry but you havent answered the question. Ill repeat it. How do you know what the authors of the bible's intention was? when answering please provide evidence t back up your claim. Bold assertions will not cut it.

_____________________________________________

Sorry Phil, but I did answer you question. Maybe things aren't as simple as you would like them to be.

[maadmax 0]

Quote

Quote

As you know the meaning of the Bible is for each individual to determine for themselves.

How do you know this? Were you sitting having a beer with the authors? how do you KNOW it wasnt intended literally? Im sure the early readers sure thought it was. Why has this view changed over time?

I think its changed over time to plaster over the cracks that keep appearing in the bible..

____________________________________________

See, you last sentence """"PROVES""" my point.

[maadmax 0]

[

what science is supposed to be in the NT?

Genesis has not been debunked. It's just that the Bible is not a science text book. Plenty of Christians have no problem with scientific descriptions of how life formed. It does not touch their belief that God is responsible for creating all life.

not all Christians are fundies.

_____________________________________


Amen Brother!!!!!!

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Genesis has not been debunked.

Rubbish...... Link

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Im cuious Steve, it appears you agree science has debunked the Genesis account of creation and so you are hapy to let that go. Supposing hypothetically science was able to debunk the NT would you also let that go? or would you hold on to it no mater what?

While I believe many took the account of creation in Genesis as science, I don't believe that was the "intent" So therefore I don't believe science "debunked" Genesis. I believe science may have proven false theories on Genesis wrong. Now that that is straight.

The NT doesn't make any scientific claims I know of so what would science "debunk?"

steveOrino

[Coreece 190]

Quote

The NT doesn't make any scientific claims I know of so what would science "debunk?"

Steve, I can't think of any scientific claims off the top of my head...but when I began my search to find something to give substance to the "debunking methods," I just opened the Bible to a random page and began to just read the first thing that I saw...which just happened to be 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. Since my conversion only

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I just opened the Bible to a random page and began to just read the first thing that I saw...which just happened to be 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. Since my conversion only

Great passage, for believers, but I doubt it carries weight with atheist and agnostics.

About the flip and point method ... I heard a story about a guy that wanted guidance from God so he flipped through his bible randomly with the intent of doing whatever it said. His first flip and point landed on "Judas hung himself." Whoa! He thought he'd try again. This time it landed on "Go and do likewise." Creepy! One final attempt. The third passage read "Whatever thou doest, doest thou quickly."

The Bible is full of wisdom for all the ages in all circumstance. However, I prefer a more systematic approach.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"While I believe many took the account of creation in Genesis as science, I don't believe that was the "intent" "

Perhpas you could give us some evidence as to what the intentions of the biblical authors are. As I understand at best, scholars have been able to conclude there were a few different authors, j, e etc but how one goes from that to knowing their intentions is beyond me.


" I believe science may have proven false theories on Genesis wrong. "
Science has proved the story of Genesis wrong from a literal point of view, I think we can all agree on that. But in order to salvage anything for the bible you have to provide good evidence that the authors meant it to be a matephor, so far Ive seen nothing other than ,I believe or todays scholars think, but no actual evidnce at all.
What i find interesting is that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis seemed to become more popular amongst theists after science showed it to be wrong. That sounds to me more like post hoc rationalisation rather than genuine scholarship.

As far as you refusal to deny the NT if the evidence forced it, I think that is telling. I will happily junk any belief I have , if the evidence demands. But it seems you would not act so quickly on your beliefs. That sounds like dogma rather than reaosning to me. Whilst the Nt doesnt make scientific claims in any explicit manner, any document that is to be considered as reffering to historical events is open to investigation. Scientific enquiry can and and does enable us to verify or deny aspects of history.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

About the flip and point method ... I heard a story about a guy that wanted guidance from God so he flipped through his bible randomly with the intent of doing whatever it said. His first flip and point landed on "Judas hung himself." Whoa! He thought he'd try again. This time it landed on "Go and do likewise." Creepy! One final attempt. The third passage read "Whatever thou doest, doest thou quickly."

The Bible is full of wisdom for all the ages in all circumstance. However, I prefer a more systematic approach.

I've read several different and mutually exclusive explanations from Christians about how Judas both hanged himself AND died by falling on rocks and bursting open (Acts). How do you explain it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreece 190]

Steve, I would also like to hear your insight into the scripture that I refered to in my last post...1 Corinthians 1:18-25. It quotes God as saying "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." But than Paul gives a series of what seems to be rehtorical questions that might imply that God has already done this. I haven't seen this come to pass nore can I belive that Paul had seen this come to pass in during his period. In the context of scripture and in the culture of that time Paul was dealing with the Greeks and some of the most philisophical minds. I can understand Pauls statement if he is reffering to Christ(God) as the Alpha and Omega in that He knows the begining from the end, and in God's mind He already has accomplished this though it hasn't already happened. I was just curious to see if you had some insight into this passage that could help me understand more clearly if my take on it is different than yours.

I would also like to add that that I've been raised as a Catholic, but did not become a believer until two years ago. I had an experience (though I do not believe that one can believe in experience alone to come to christ, afterall, some alcoholics have been known to experience pink elephants) My experience was outside of the "church." I had listened to several sermons and they explained and described this experience percisley as I had gone through it. I began to understand the "essentials" of what we believe, I had also gained an understanding of my entire life in regards to experiences, relationships and my actions. (it all made sense) The men from whom I've learned can be considered Fundies... (that is a new term for me, but I like it.) Though their anre many different types of "fundies" the ones I've learned from are doctors and scientists that understand the original languages and cultural history of the periods within the Bible. To be honest. they have given me the most answers and complete understanding of human nature that I believe one can have, though I'm still studying all religions and furthing my studies in evolution and other sciences. However. though I now understand the "essentials" I found myself almost taking their word on more of the commonly disputed claims between other christians on the "non-essential" beliefs of the Bible because I truly respect thier knowledge of the context and methods of exegesis of scripture. Now, eventhough they are very dilligent and will change their interpretations based on "maturity" and a better understanding of etymology and historical culture, I've found them to defend most of their beliefs to the death. I respect their theology, their determination and completely understand their points more so than anything else on the "outside," But I find some of their explanations or defenses somewhat of a stretch in regards to other classes or demoninations eventhough I completely understand them and make sense to me.

I believe that nobody has to reinvent the wheel, but I do not belive that one should take the word of another just because they are credible or make sense in other areas. (this should be obvious, but I suspect laziness to be the cause.)

I believe the bereans that you have mentioned to be a great example. If they can test the Apostles, isn't it more appropriate to test the pastors? (especially in this day and age)

I have a background in field research that was to gain a better understanding of gangs, "alcoholics," and sexual promiscuity. Those that understand field research understand the implications of what that entails. In order to get "reliable" information you need many field reseachers in order to observe many samples and to in fact become the sample themself. Many educated minds (doctors) are unwilling to put themseles in that situation for obvious reasons, so you end up with willing participants that are trained in research methods yet not as educated as doctors. They are simple guinea pigs that follow a set of rules. My point is not to disclose the findings of this research, to be quite honest, I do not want to relive those 10 years, though I may (in another forum) give my results of my research (experience) of alcoholism though they were completely inconsistent with findings of what they found relevant to the study. I found the differences between "alcoholics" with a family background of alcoholism to be relevant to "alcoholics" (researchers) that didn't have a family background of alcoholism, but they didn't agree. Because of this, I have somewhat of a disdain and distrust of scientist and their motives, eventhough the study seemed to be sucessful.

My point is that people need to find the truth for themselves and not take anothers word for it. I personally find it difficult to dedicate the time necessary to understand everything of evolution without doing just that, eventhough I'm studying to understand an evolutionists position, for the sake of understanding though I doubt I'll agree, just like I understand various religions or demnominations, yet disagree.

Science can't necessarily explain the intagibilty of human life and the Bible gives me a more complete understanding eventhough it's not scientific, so I feel more inclined to dedicated more time to the Bible. If we are left to science alone, where does that leave the people that have not the time nor the ability to understand?

I would like to believe that we could find some commonground to get a better sense of the truth, but I hopelessly find that doubtful without some compromise to our principles.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

About the flip and point method ... I heard a story about a guy that wanted guidance from God so he flipped through his bible randomly with the intent of doing whatever it said. His first flip and point landed on "Judas hung himself." Whoa! He thought he'd try again. This time it landed on "Go and do likewise." Creepy! One final attempt. The third passage read "Whatever thou doest, doest thou quickly."

The Bible is full of wisdom for all the ages in all circumstance. However, I prefer a more systematic approach.

I've read several different and mutually exclusive explanations from Christians about how Judas both hanged himself AND died by falling on rocks and bursting open (Acts). How do you explain it?

I believe most scholars have no issue with this. They see it as he hung himself ... period. Another witness recorded a later event such as the branch breaking and he fell and burst open (something that would be more consistent with a dead body in a decomposing state). In fact slight variations from the same story often give more credence. One reports two angels and one spoke. Another simply reports one angel as he felt only the one speaking was the important one to mention. The slight variation gives some credence to the idea the writings weren't simply variations of one story, but different views of the same story.

For instance in a court of law if two witnesses tell EXACTLY the same story the judge and lawyers think they worked together to get their facts straight.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"While I believe many took the account of creation in Genesis as science, I don't believe that was the "intent" "

Perhpas you could give us some evidence as to what the intentions of the biblical authors are. As I understand at best, scholars have been able to conclude there were a few different authors, j, e etc but how one goes from that to knowing their intentions is beyond me.

I really have no desire to spend the time to reduce an entire concept (JEDP) to a forum thread length. Google it -- it has tons of info on the web.

Quote

" I believe science may have proven false theories on Genesis wrong. "
Science has proved the story of Genesis wrong from a literal point of view, I think we can all agree on that. But in order to salvage anything for the bible you have to provide good evidence that the authors meant it to be a matephor, so far Ive seen nothing other than ,I believe or todays scholars think, but no actual evidnce at all.

As I said, most scholars I know or have read believe the authors wrote what they understood. It would make little sense for them to be supernaturally gifted with divine knowledge that would escape their readers intellect for 2K years.

Quote

What i find interesting is that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis seemed to become more popular amongst theists after science showed it to be wrong. That sounds to me more like post hoc rationalisation rather than genuine scholarship.

You can't have it both ways. You praise scientist when they discover a theory is wrong and change their hypothesis, but yet use that as evidence that the Bible is wrong.

Quote

As far as you refusal to deny the NT if the evidence forced it, I think that is telling. I will happily junk any belief I have , if the evidence demands. But it seems you would not act so quickly on your beliefs. That sounds like dogma rather than reaosning to me. Whilst the Nt doesnt make scientific claims in any explicit manner, any document that is to be considered as reffering to historical events is open to investigation. Scientific enquiry can and and does enable us to verify or deny aspects of history.

I never said I would categorically deny anything. I simply said I don't see how science can debunk the NT. If it did, I'd be open to investigate, but as we all know science doesn't always agree even when they feel confident they are right (GW)

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

My point is that people need to find the truth for themselves and not take anothers word for it. I personally find it difficult to dedicate the time necessary to understand everything of evolution without doing just that

But isn't that exactly what you're doing with the Bible, taking the authors word for something that happened 2000 years ago?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

But isn't that exactly what you're doing with the Bible, taking the authors word for something that happened 2000 years ago?

The context of my post gives the answer to this reply. Also, remember that I said that I don't believe that anybody has to reinvent the wheel.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[philh 0]

"I really have no desire to spend the time to reduce an entire concept (JEDP) to a forum thread length. Google it -- it has tons of info on the web. "

I presume you are reffing to the doucmentary hypothesis? Im reasonably familair with it and would reccomend Richard Elliot Friednman's "Who Wrote he BIble" as a very good summary, perhaps you might comment on this? But te documentary hypothesis does not give any indication as to whether the authors of the bible thought they Genesis was literal or not.

"As I said, most scholars I know or have read believe the authors wrote what they understood. It would make little sense for them to be supernaturally gifted with divine knowledge that would escape their readers intellect for 2K years."

Writing what they understood is not what I am debating , the issue is shoudl we treat what hey understood in any special way?

"You can't have it both ways. You praise scientist when they discover a theory is wrong and change their hypothesis, but yet use that as evidence that the Bible is wrong. "

If theists changed their minds in relation to evidence consitently I would praise them. Scientists do do this , theists do not. When scientists disocvered Kelvins method of dating the Earth was wrong they junked it and embraced Rutherfords . They didnt cling on to it and say Kelvin spoke the truth but only in a metaphorial way. Sciene takes an approach which is the degree of belief should be proportional to the degree of evidence , when theists take that line, I wil appluad them. But they dont they cling on old beliefs. Whats wrong with just saying that Genesis is worng, end of story, why do you cling on to it at all?

"I never said I would categorically deny anything. I simply said I don't see how science can debunk the NT. "
Well let me think og a hypothetical exmaple. the bible as i recall (correct me if Im wrong) claims that there were Earthquackes during the Easter peiod of Jesus death/resurection. Now if geologists could rpove there werent would you agree the NT was in error.?

[JackC 0]

Quote

The context of my post gives the answer to this reply. Also, remember that I said that I don't believe that anybody has to reinvent the wheel.

I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel. If you wanted to, you could take any scientific theory and trace it all the way from first principles to the final conclusion. There's no way to check the Bible even if you wanted to. You have to take the authors word for it. That's all.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"I never said I would categorically deny anything. I simply said I don't see how science can debunk the NT. "
Well let me think og a hypothetical exmaple. the bible as i recall (correct me if Im wrong) claims that there were Earthquackes during the Easter peiod of Jesus death/resurection. Now if geologists could rpove there werent would you agree the NT was in error.?

Well, I remember a few times my wife said the earth shook, after we had some "fun" but I doubt if seismologists recorded it.

/flippant

A retelling of what someone experinced is not a statement of scientific fact.

steveOrino