But recently, I have learned from the Bible, that this will always be the case. That God actually blinds some people to the truth, when it is clearly before them! But why is this?
First Corinthians, chapter one, from verse seventeen has an excellent summary.
- v18 - "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness". That gives the fact.
- v22 - "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom". This is an interesting side note. How many people say, "God should give me a sign" or "Prove it to me".
- v25 and 29 give the reason - "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men" and "That no flesh should glory in his presence".
Is there no hope for the unsaved to come to a knowledge of the Good News? Not at all. The Bible makes it clear that those of humble heart, turning away from sin, and trusting in God can be saved (1 Peter 5:5c - "for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble", and 1 Timothy 2:4 "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth").
33 comments:
Wow, there are so many problems with this, it's hard to figure out where to begin.
Why is god blinding me to the truth? Doesn't god want me to be saved? If not, then how can you claim god is omni-benevolent? If so, then how can you claim god is omni-benevolent since he isn't allowing me to see "the Truth"? How can you simultaneously claim that people can be humble, turn away from sin, and trust in god to save themselves while god is blinding them? Do you think I have more power than god?
How can you call god just? It is clearly not my fault that I am blind to the "Truth" because god is causing me to be that way, yet he will judge me for the actions he has taken against me?
Do you believe that logic is absolute? Then, why is god's argument out of my grasp? It should be possible for you to actually explain yourself and your arguments to me and I should have a chance at grasping them because the logic should be rock solid. Yet, you haven't actually answered any of my questions. You've simply stated that I don't understand. So what? Of course I don't understand why you think these things make sense, that's why I asked. It seems as though you are simply throwing up your hands and saying, "Sorry, the answer to your questions is that I don't have an answer." Is that the case? Do you not have an answer? If you don't have an answer, then why not? Why does god not arm you with the ability to actually debate logically?
Sorry, nedbrek, but this leaves more questions unanswered. You didn't answer a single objection/question I had, you simply added more on. Do you really think that this is a sufficient response to the questions posed to you in the other thread?
The whole point is logic is not absolute. God is absolute.
You must put yourself below God.
The door to God is wide enough for you, but short - you must go through on your knees.
You cannot stand above God and judge Him. You cannot judge the truth of His word.
You must accept the truth of His Word, His goodness.
And see where that leads you.
Logic is not absolute? Perhaps you can give me an example?
Why must I put myself "below god"? What does that mean? Why does god demand that I put myself below him? Why would an all-loving god wish to have people "below" him? If he truly loved us, why wouldn't he want to elevate us to his level? Shouldn't he want me to strive for that?
Why can I not judge the truth of his word? If god is caught in a lie, can I not judge that? What about the fact that when I do take him at his word, I find instances of mass genocide, etc?
Why do I need to simply accept his goodness? If I do, shouldn't I find that his goodness is unimpeachable? Yet, I find the opposite. I find many instances that call his goodness into question. How do you explain this conundrum?
Finally, you still haven't answered the vast majority of my questions, and those that you did "answer" raised other questions. Rather, all you seem to want to do is proselytize. Is that the extent of Xian logic?
You cannot be elevated to the level of God. God's love is closer to that of a parent for a child, than that of a boyfriend/girlfriend.
Your assumption that you can judge God shows your view of God is too low.
In order to judge God, you must have authority over Him. You must also know more than Him (how else to judge the extenuating circumstances).
nedbrek,
"You cannot be elevated to the level of God. God's love is closer to that of a parent for a child, than that of a boyfriend/girlfriend."
Then why does god torture us in hell? Why does god not open all of our eyes? Can you imagine a parent having two children and selecting one to be happy and the other to be miserable for all eternity? Also, don't children grow up and become adults themselves, thereby becoming like their parents?
"Your assumption that you can judge God shows your view of God is too low."
But, aren't you asking me to judge god? I mean, you're asking me to look at god's actions and judge that they are good, but you also say that I can't judge god at all. So, which is it? Further, you assert that I have to judge god's actions as "good" or else I am wrong? What if god's actions really aren't "good"? Then what?
"In order to judge God, you must have authority over Him. You must also know more than Him (how else to judge the extenuating circumstances)."
Really? I have to know more than god in order to judge that him killing every human except 8 is bad? How about judges in courtrooms, do they have to know more than the people they judge? When god does things that are inherently unjust, I can't say to myself that what has transpired is unjust? That is tyranny.
To "open your eyes" would be to override your will. You are willfully defying God. You are glorifying yourself. God will run out of patience with you.
The child/parent analogy breaks down pretty quickly. We do not grow up to "be like God". That was Satan's lie. We are originally children of Satan, children of wrath. It is God's love that makes salvation possible (but does not guarantee it).
You do not have to judge God to say that He is good. You have to just accept it. If it seems to you God is not good, then you need to think about how it is you could be wrong. It is humbling, but that should be our attitude towards God.
A judge knows the law, and has been selected for wisdom (skills in applying knowledge). The witnesses and attorneys present the information relevant to the case.
God knows everything. He knows who deserves justice and who receives mercy. The Flood shows us God will deliver justice.
Do you think the people before the Flood were more evil than people today?
nedbrek,
"To "open your eyes" would be to override your will. You are willfully defying God. You are glorifying yourself. God will run out of patience with you."
How silly is this supposition? If god truly does exist, do you think that I would want to go to hell? Do you really think that I wouldn't want god to show himself to me and show me that he is good and worthy of worship? That you believe otherwise is nothing short of bizarre.
"The child/parent analogy breaks down pretty quickly. We do not grow up to "be like God". That was Satan's lie. We are originally children of Satan, children of wrath. It is God's love that makes salvation possible (but does not guarantee it)."
It was YOUR analogy, remember? Besides, why can't god's love guarantee our salvation? Isn't god powerful enough to do so? Your god seems rather impotent.
"You do not have to judge God to say that He is good. You have to just accept it. If it seems to you God is not good, then you need to think about how it is you could be wrong. It is humbling, but that should be our attitude towards God."
Are you aware that you just contradicted yourself in the space of one sentence? I don't have to judge god to judge that he is good? How else would one do it? It is an act of judging to deem that a thing or an entity is good. If I am unable to judge god at all, then it would seem to me that I am unable to judge his goodness as well as his badness. It seems to me that the best we can say is that god exists and that's it. If I say that god is evil, then shame on me; but shame on you for saying he is good.
"A judge knows the law, and has been selected for wisdom (skills in applying knowledge). The witnesses and attorneys present the information relevant to the case."
OK, so the judge doesn't need to know more than the defendant is what you are saying. So, your objection that I would need to know as much as god in order to judge his actions is defeated.
"God knows everything. He knows who deserves justice and who receives mercy. The Flood shows us God will deliver justice."
The flood was justice? I'm sure those newborn babies had it coming, right? How can you defend that? Further, how do you know that god is justice? You have no evidence for that. You simply assert it and then fit the facts around it. If the Bible is factual in it's retelling of the actions of god, however, then god's actions don't come out as just at all. So, what do you base your assertions on?
"Do you think the people before the Flood were more evil than people today?"
No, but you seem to think so. Those people were so irredeemably evil that god had to wipe them out. That's YOUR argument, not mine.
Yes, no one would choose Hell. That's why Arminian statements like "people choose Hell" don't make a lot of sense.
So, if God reveals Himself to you in a manner sufficient to you, He is forcing you to believe in Him. That is contrary to free will.
But can you see the arrogance in that? The almighty creator of the universe needs to satisfy you...
Next.
Sure all analogies break down. When talking about God, things break down pretty fast. He is too big to fit in our minds (which should make sense, He is infinite and perfect - we are not).
God is powerful enough to guarantee salvation for all. But how is He going to be in the presence of unrepentant sinners? His presence would destroy them, or their imperfection would contaminate Him.
Next.
Say He is good. Admit it to yourself. Believe it. No judgment required. Trust that He is telling the truth when He says it about Himself. Thinking He is evil is thinking He is a liar. It is disbelief.
Next.
The judge must know all the relevant facts of the case. If there are not enough facts, the case will be thrown out (because the judge cannot decide).
Next.
Yes, death is minor compared to Hell. And newborns don't go to Hell.
Next.
The people before the Flood were no more evil than people today. We are "irredeemably evil" too... And the second Flood will one of fire...
nedbrek,
"Yes, no one would choose Hell. That's why Arminian statements like "people choose Hell" don't make a lot of sense."
Then it's not really about me "opening my eyes" or willfully disobeying god, is it?
"So, if God reveals Himself to you in a manner sufficient to you, He is forcing you to believe in Him. That is contrary to free will."
No, actually it isn't. I freely choose that I would want to know if god exists and whether he is good or not. By his not revealing information to me, he's actually negating my free will, because I don't have the option of choosing from all the choices. I'm not able to make an informed choice. Do you think I choose to disbelieve? If you think that, then try to believe in Zeus tomorrow. No, god is simply withholding information, which is anathema to free will.
"But can you see the arrogance in that? The almighty creator of the universe needs to satisfy you..."
If he loves me, as you claim, then he should want to do so, yes. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that he loves us, but also claim that he's aloof to us due to his power/position when he fails to show us that love. Actually, quite the contrary. If he loves us so much, he has the power to do whatever he needs to do to demonstrate it. His absence and the contradictory actions he takes speak volumes to him not loving us. If he loves us so much, why does he not use his infinite power and knowledge to show it?
"Sure all analogies break down. When talking about God, things break down pretty fast. He is too big to fit in our minds (which should make sense, He is infinite and perfect - we are not)."
Again, if he is perfect, then why did he create the universe at all? Was it to increase his perfection? That is logically contradictory. Either way, it doesn't matter if he can fit in our minds or not, he doesn't act as a parent, nor as one that supposedly loves us.
"God is powerful enough to guarantee salvation for all. But how is He going to be in the presence of unrepentant sinners? His presence would destroy them, or their imperfection would contaminate Him."
How can a perfect being be contaminated? Do you understand what "perfect" means? Why would his presence destroy something that he supposedly loves?
"Say He is good. Admit it to yourself. Believe it. No judgment required. Trust that He is telling the truth when He says it about Himself. Thinking He is evil is thinking He is a liar. It is disbelief."
In order to say that he is good, I'm making a judgement about god, which is something that you expressly said can not be done. You are contradicting yourself. Either god can not be judged, therefore we can't say that he is good or evil, or we can judge his actions and find him good or evil. Which is it?
"The judge must know all the relevant facts of the case. If there are not enough facts, the case will be thrown out (because the judge cannot decide)."
But you claimed that the judge must know more than the people in the case. You seem to be taking that back. Also, if the Bible is relevant enough to say that god is good, then it is similarly relevant enough to determine god's evil side, which is displays quite plainly for anyone who reads it without having a priori conceptions about god that are based on no evidence. IOW, if the Bible is the evidence of god, then you can't claim the Bible only tells us god is good, because that would be ignoring the evil that the Bible also gives us evidence for.
"Yes, death is minor compared to Hell. And newborns don't go to Hell."
So, god does them a favor when he kills them? Then why does god not similarly whisk us all to heaven? If god is omni-just, then we should all be given the same opportunity to either save ourselves or go to hell, correct? But, some newborn that gets killed in a flood goes to heaven without having the same trials as you or I. How is that justice?
"The people before the Flood were no more evil than people today. We are "irredeemably evil" too... And the second Flood will one of fire..."
OK, so we are irredeemably evil, just like before the flood? Well, god's plan didn't seem to work at all, did it? We (humans) didn't change after the flood. So, god killed all those people for what? For nothing. Why is god so impotent? Why do his plans fail? Also, why are you OK with the idea that god will come with a second flood and kill us all? I'm thinking that there is probably someone close to you that will perish in the flood and burn in hell for all eternity. Does that not bother you? It doesn't seem to bother god, else he wouldn't have set up a system whereby we go to hell, would he? This is sick and twisted. This is disturbing and inhumane, not just from god, but from you as well. How can you wish hell on anyone, even your worst enemy? Do you really think that anyone deserves to be tortured, especially for eternity?
Sorry for the delay,
You won't choose Hell. If you go, it will be because your sins haven't been forgiven.
Next.
I could choose to have a million dollars, it's not going to just happen. There is plenty of evidence for God and Christianity. I have a feeling you're either asking God to give you some heavenly fireworks for your amusement, or you're making excuses for disbelief.
Next.
He loves us enough to make it possible to be saved. You want more? You sound awful needy...
Skip.
Next ("How can a perfect being be contaminated?").
God hates sin. We are sinful. God destroys sin or sin destroys God.
Next.
I said "No judgment required." Just assume He is good.
Skip.
Next.
I never said God did them a favor. God is giving them (the people who died in the Flood) justice. Bringing it on a few years early makes little difference.
God leaves us here for good works, and so all those who will be saved can be saved.
A newborn has no understanding of God or sin. You do.
Next.
The purpose of the Flood was not to change people's behavior. There were many environmental changes which were effected (leading to shorter lifespans). It also serves as a graphic warning to us.
Nearly everyone I know is (very likely) unsaved.
Of course it bothers me. I'd give my life to save them. I wouldn't wish Hell on anyone.
Why do you think I created this blog? Why do you think I spend my time on you?
"You won't choose Hell. If you go, it will be because your sins haven't been forgiven."
Then, I take it that you are conceding that it's not about me "opening my eyes" or "willfully disobeying god" right?
"Next.
I could choose to have a million dollars, it's not going to just happen. There is plenty of evidence for God and Christianity. I have a feeling you're either asking God to give you some heavenly fireworks for your amusement, or you're making excuses for disbelief."
What excuses do I need to make? What evidence is there? You say there's tons of evidence, but what is it? Where is it?
"Next.
He loves us enough to make it possible to be saved. You want more? You sound awful needy..."
Yes, I want more, I want actual love. If he loves us, then we shouldn't need saving, especially since the entity that we need saving from is god himself!
"Next ("How can a perfect being be contaminated?").
God hates sin. We are sinful. God destroys sin or sin destroys God."
How can anything destroy a perfect being or contaminate it? I don't see an answer here, I only see an assertion that doesn't make sense. How is it logically possible for a perfect being to be contaminated? If god is contaminable, then doesn't that mean that god is not perfect?
"Next.
I said "No judgment required." Just assume He is good."
Which is a judgement in itself. If you asked me to assume that god is, then that wouldn't be a judgement, but as soon as you attach the modifier that I have to assume god is "good" then you've asked me to make a judgement.
"Next.
I never said God did them a favor. God is giving them (the people who died in the Flood) justice. Bringing it on a few years early makes little difference."
I'm sure it made a difference to those people who are now eternally tortured in hell. But, how is that justice? If they had free will, then they could have changed their ways, no? If they couldn't, then why does god not visit a similar punishment on the wicked now?
Oh, and BTW, the "favor" comment was in regards to newborns getting a free ticket to heaven. If heaven exists and newborns who die get to go there, then didn't god do them a favor? He surely did, for they do not have to toil on this Earth, they don't have to worry about temptation leading them astray, etc. They get to go straight to heaven on the express train.
"God leaves us here for good works, and so all those who will be saved can be saved."
Why does god need our good works for people to be saved? Besides, I thought you held to predestination, which means that good works don't save anyone, since god chooses who will be saved.
"A newborn has no understanding of God or sin. You do."
And, that's part of the point. They get to go to heaven without ever having been tempted. Their souls are never in jeopardy, whereas mine is. How is that just or fair?
"Next.
The purpose of the Flood was not to change people's behavior. There were many environmental changes which were effected (leading to shorter lifespans). It also serves as a graphic warning to us."
You gotta love those warning shots that hit people right between the eyes. So, god massacred boatloads of people so that he could change the environment and make our lives shorter? Why would an omnipotent god need to resort to such measures, especially one that is supposedly omni-benevolent?
"Nearly everyone I know is (very likely) unsaved.
Of course it bothers me. I'd give my life to save them. I wouldn't wish Hell on anyone."
Yet you give a free pass to a god that does just that, to nearly everyone you know. Is that good? Is that just? Do you think you can truly be happy in heaven knowing that many of your loved ones and even other people that were simply acquantances - or even people in general - are being eternally tormented? Is that even possible for anyone who isn't a psychopath?
"Why do you think I created this blog? Why do you think I spend my time on you?"
You do so because you believe that you are doing some moral and good. Your theology, as I understand it, says that you are wasting your time, but you do it anyway, because you are actually more moral than the god that you worship and the faith that you hold to.
You are "willfully disobeying God". If you are not elect, God may be hardening your heart, He may lose patience with you!
Next. I'm creating a series of posts on evidence. The first is done.
Next. I have been planning a post on love for some time. It is now done. I imagine our definitions of love differ... And you don't need saving from God because He is spiteful or mean (which I imagine is your meaning). You need saving from a God who is just and punishes wrong doers. Do police men not love because they arrest (or sometimes kill) criminals? Do judges not love when they give the death penalty?
Next. God is just. He cannot allow injustice (continuous, repeated violation of the law).
Next. I don't think it's a judgment. It's an assumption (or presupposition). A judgment involves a decision. An assumption forms the basis of a set of logical points.
Next. They could have changed their minds, but they hated God. Just like people do now. The punishment is coming.
Next. There is an interesting possibility that newborns will grow up during the millennium. It could explain how it is possible that there could be a rebellion against God at the end of the millennium...
Next. God chooses who is saved, but people are saved through hearing the Word preached. And someone must preach the Word (Romans 10:14).
Next. Handled above. Also, life isn't fair (which will be a post :)
Next. We have to trust that God knows what He is doing about the Flood. He is a lot smarter than us...
Next. I wouldn't wish Hell on anyone, because they haven't done anything (much) to me. I can, however, see why God would be displeased with them.
I can be happy in Heaven (and on the new earth) because God is enough for me.
Next. I believe you are thinking about hyper-Calvinism - the idea that nothing we do matters. Proper Calvinism is that God works through us.
I don't see how you think I could be more moral than God. Am I not "hateful" and a "psychopath"? (Your words.)
nedbrek,
"You are "willfully disobeying God". If you are not elect, God may be hardening your heart, He may lose patience with you!"
If god is hardening my heart, then how am I "willfully disobeying"? Are you saying that I'm more powerful than god? That even though god is making it impossible for me to follow him that I can overpower god and follow god anyway? Your statements are contradictory.
"Next. I have been planning a post on love for some time. It is now done. I imagine our definitions of love differ... And you don't need saving from God because He is spiteful or mean (which I imagine is your meaning). You need saving from a God who is just and punishes wrong doers. Do police men not love because they arrest (or sometimes kill) criminals? Do judges not love when they give the death penalty?"
But I still need saving from god, because god is the one that not only set the rules and will judge me, but also made me in such a way that I could not follow the rules. IOW, god made it impossible to follow the rules, yet still sits in judgement of us for not following the rules. Yes, we do need saving from god.
"Next. God is just. He cannot allow injustice (continuous, repeated violation of the law)."
It is not just to make laws that are impossible to follow and further make humans that can not follow the laws. Would it be just for me to say that anyone who is under 6 feet tall must be put to death, even if I am god? No, of course not, because we recognize that it is not a person's fault for being shorter than 6 feet tall (I myself fall short of that boundary). This is what god has done, however. Actually it is worse. It's like god made the 6 foot rule and then created humans that are not 6 feet tall on purpose just so he could punish them. Is that just? No, of course not. Nor is it just to punish them for eternity.
"Next. I don't think it's a judgment. It's an assumption (or presupposition). A judgment involves a decision. An assumption forms the basis of a set of logical points."
To say that god is good, I have to be able to judge what is good and what isn't and then judge that god fulfills those criteria. It is a judgement.
"Next. They could have changed their minds, but they hated God. Just like people do now. The punishment is coming."
So, the newborns hated god? How interesting, considering that they didn't have the cognitive capability to hate yet. But, anyway, this shows that god is unfair. Surely there are those that will not change their minds (actually, don't you believe that only god can change their minds anyway, which makes it even more unjust and unfair?) now, as you contend that none back then would do so. But, we are still given a reprieve (temporary maybe) from the eternal torture and given further chances to maybe see the light. Why do we get those chances when those others do not?
"Next. There is an interesting possibility that newborns will grow up during the millennium. It could explain how it is possible that there could be a rebellion against God at the end of the millennium..."
Newborns and aborted or miscarried fetuses are not subject to the temptations of this world and are therefore given a free ride to heaven. How is that fair to you or me?
"Next. God chooses who is saved, but people are saved through hearing the Word preached. And someone must preach the Word (Romans 10:14)."
Just by hearing the word? Surely, there is more to it than that. In fact, I know that you hold there is more to it than that.
"Next. Handled above. Also, life isn't fair (which will be a post :)"
No, life isn't fair, but an omni-benevolent, just god should be by definition.
"Next. We have to trust that God knows what He is doing about the Flood. He is a lot smarter than us..."
Why? Why must we trust god? Do you trust that everything Stephen Hawking says is true? He's certainly much smarter than you or I. god commits mass murder and you wish to simply let him off the hook because he is smart? One would think a smart being would be able to figure out a better way than mass murder.
"Next. I wouldn't wish Hell on anyone, because they haven't done anything (much) to me. I can, however, see why God would be displeased with them."
So, you'll be OK with your loved ones in hell? If that is so, then you are a very immoral person.
"I can be happy in Heaven (and on the new earth) because God is enough for me."
Ah, so as soon as you have god, you jettison all those that you love and who love you? I hope those people are aware that you will so cavalierly drop them like a bad habit. Again, this is highly immoral.
"Next. I believe you are thinking about hyper-Calvinism - the idea that nothing we do matters. Proper Calvinism is that God works through us."
But god, ultimately, is the one that saves us and the one that must change our hearts.
"I don't see how you think I could be more moral than God. Am I not "hateful" and a "psychopath"? (Your words.)"
Your theology is hateful and your assertion that you would go on killing sprees if god didn't exist is psychopathic. That said, you don't (I hope). I bet that you really wouldn't go on a killing spree if you found out tomorrow that god doesn't exist. You would realize that the way you live your life need not be affected by the existence of a god. What was moral before remains moral after. You would not go out and start killing. god, however, does have the compunction to kill and does kill. god does go on killing sprees and seems to think nothing of it. god tortures people for eternity, while I doubt that you'd have the stomach (IOW you'd have the moral fiber not to torture) to torture anyone for any length of time. god sets up impossible rules then creates us and makes us incapable of following those rules, whereas you probably would not do such a thing.
The morality that you hold is from the culture and society in which you live, and that morality is far advanced from the morality of god, which was really just the cultural and societal morality of the time the books were written. At the time of the OT and NT, slavery was an accepted practice, so we don't see injunctions against it from god's morality. god seems to be OK with it and even advocates it. Now, however, we know that it is immoral to hold others in bondage as slaves. That is a cultural morality shift that left the Bible behind (one of many). If god's morals are laid out in the Bible, then we have all left those morals behind for the archaic, un-evolved, nonsense that they are. Now, we turn around and apply our morals to the Bible and try to make the Bible fit what we know is right, yet it should be the other way around, should it not?
Hi Ed, bringing things over from facebook. You were having trouble or were trying to ignore my repeated questions about the bible, written by men, and the writings by Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard, also men, both of which have many mindless adherents. Are these people any better or worse that the people who blindly follow the bible? Are the teachings any better or worse?
Hi!
I would say they should be judged based on what they say, in the context of assuming what they say is true.
L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. He once said the best way to make money is to start a religion. He did, and he (and his estate) have...
Mormons (who follow Joseph Smith) claim the Bible as the Word of God. Yet they preach a false Gospel.
That is, that we are saved by good works - rather than by grace as a free gift from God.
Smith claims an angel gave him this new revelation. However, Galations chapter 1, verse 7 says:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
These false theologies have negative consequences (crazy ideas about DC3's in space/multiple wives), but we should not reason from the consequences back to judge the theology.
L Ron was as smart as any of them then wasn't he. Look at the money the Catholic church has blackmailed out of people, and I'll bet every other church dreamed up isn't all that poor either.
Your rabid insistence that your view is the only view is very curious in the extreme. Have you had your bible interpreted for you or have you interpreted it for your self, and if so what makes your interpretation any better or worse than anyone elses?
Biblical interpretation is a good question (a field called hermeneutics).
The short answer is: I interpret the Bible for myself.
That said, I also compare my interpretation with other Christians.
I've come to the viewpoint I have after careful consideration and logical analysis. It is no "leap of faith" :)
nedbrek said:
"The short answer is: I interpret the Bible for myself.
That said, I also compare my interpretation with other Christians.
I've come to the viewpoint I have after careful consideration and logical analysis. It is no "leap of faith" :)"
Interesting, considering your viewpoint then, what in your opinion would it take for you to revise or reverse your point of view? What if when comparing your interpretation with another christian you are presented with an interpretation very different from yours. Is he/she wrong? Are you wrong? Are you both wrong and there is a completely different answer? Are ALL of you wrong and I'm right?
I often have differences of opinion with other Christians (and those who claim to be Christians).
There are parts of the Bible that are very clear, and parts that are less clear. We must agree on the clear parts to call ourselves Christians (as opposed to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses - who are not).
The less clear parts we can disagree about.
One of the blogs I read regularly (helives.blogspot.com), the author believes in an old earth (I lean towards a young earth). One of us is wrong about that, but we agree on most everything else.
You are welcome to propose evidence against God. You should probably read one of my posts on that subject.
nedbrek said: "One of the blogs I read regularly (helives.blogspot.com), the author believes in an old earth (I lean towards a young earth). One of us is wrong about that, but we agree on most everything else."
Oh sorry Ned but I really have to jump on this one. You really can't be serious, are you one of those who think the earth is only 6000 years old? I really hope not. If I'm offtrack here please explain what a young earth/old earther is.
Hey nedbrek, you still didn't answer my question either. I ask again.
Considering your viewpoint then, what in your opinion would it take for you to revise or reverse your point of view? What if when comparing your interpretation with another christian you are presented with an interpretation very different from yours. Is he/she wrong? Are you wrong? Are you both wrong and there is a completely different answer? Are ALL of you wrong and I'm right?
Re. old and young earth: yes, I think it is most likely the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. An "old earther" Christian (like David) believes the earth is about 4 billion years old (following the orthodox science story).
How familiar are you with the scientific story? Have you heard of dark matter?
"what in your opinion would it take for you to revise or reverse your point of view?"
It depends on the view.
On the existence of God? Hard to imagine anything could do that ("Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" - Romans 8:35 :).
The age of the earth? I don't think it's really knowable... so you'd have to make a Biblical argument that an old earth is necessary.
Other doctrines? Again, you'd have to make a good argument, based on the Bible.
"What if when comparing your interpretation with another christian you are presented with an interpretation very different from yours. Is he/she wrong? Are you wrong? Are you both wrong and there is a completely different answer? Are ALL of you wrong and I'm right?"
There is only one correct interpretation for any Bible passage - so one of us is wrong, or we are both wrong.
But a lot of very smart people have been going over the Bible for almost 2000 years. There is a lot to be found in the history of Christianity. Most of the debates have been around two or three times.
Sorry I've not been here for a while.
"Re. old and young earth: yes, I think it is most likely the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old."
Ed I've really got to take exception. Now what on earth could possibly lead you to think that. That HAS to be the most ridiculous statement EVER made!
6 to 10 thousand years old, we have a lot of Aboriginals and their bones etc here in Australia that would beg to differ with that! The upper limit on their occupation is between 50,000 to 60,000 years. I have visited some of these areas where burial sites have been discovered that during their occupation surrounded a vast inland sea but has been dry for about 40,000 years. I had previously assumed that I was debating with a misguided bu essentially sane individual but now I'm not so sure. Trying to twist the FACTS to fit in with YOUR interpretation of a book of fairy stories is the most faulty logic imaginable. You have just bumped heads with your biggest obstacle in any of this foolishness. It simply isn't so. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and there is simply no getting around this fact, no matter how you fiddle things.
How familiar are you with the scientific story? Have you heard of dark matter?
Yes, I am familiar with the term. The fact that the universe is expanding in all directions at unimaginable velocity. Dark matter has been postulated as having the extra mass needed to account for the expansion. The fact that the entire universe will eventually be so spread out as to be empty space and therefore gone displays some mighty fine planning by your supreme being. Extremely poor planning I'd say. Or are you saying all this was done just for a few billions of bipedal animals on a tiny insignificant spec of a planet? The loony bins are full of people who think like that.
How do you know the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Do you have a verifiable paper trail?
Those figures are based on assumptions. Assumptions about rates of change and initial conditions. Assumptions that cannot be verified (not without a time machine).
It comes down to "how do you know what is true?".
Is something true because a group of men in white coats tell you?
Or because you have a verifiable paper trail from someone you trust?
"How do you know the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Do you have a verifiable paper trail?"
Yes! It's called the fossil record and it's unequivocal and becoming more complete every day.
"Those figures are based on assumptions. Assumptions about rates of change and initial conditions. Assumptions that cannot be verified (not without a time machine)."
We have that time machine. When we look at slices of the earth's crust we look back in time. When we focus our telescopes into space we look back in time. We know the universe is around 13.7 billion years old and you can't argue with this, it is very accurate. I can't understand this head-in-the-sand attitude of yours. The facts won't go away simply because you have a silly little book written by uneducated savages that says different. Our Australian Aborigines have hundreds of creation stories involving snakes, giant birds and kangaroos etc, all many thousands of years older than yours and as equally preposterous as your story. You happily describe them as false but blithely insist yours are true. Such conceited arrogance.
One hundred years ago, scientists were just as sure as you that the earth was a few million years old. Practically everyday, theories are challenged and changed.
What promise do you have that one hundred years from now, scientists won't scoff at these numbers?
'One hundred years ago, scientists were just as sure as you that the earth was a few million years old. Practically everyday, theories are challenged and changed.'
Yes, and that is EXACTLY how science works. Peer review is the ultimate rigorous test for scientific exploration. Not long ago it was held that the earth was flat too. I wish you could understand this, this is the difference between your narrow minded group who desperately cling to the outdated, disproved rubbish and the rest of the normal world. The "magic" stories in your book are known and provable to be false and impossible yet you hang on to them like drowning desperate people. You see if I claimed I could levitate (or walk on water for that matter) I would be scoffed at, and rightly so, until I could prove scientifically that it was possible. I'm sure you would insist on that too, wouldn't you? Yet you persist in believing in much more ridiculous impossibilities without a shred of verifiable, repeatable evidence.
History is not repeatable. You can't scientifically prove that George Washington was the first president. You can only offer up written records.
The Bible is the same way. Walking on water was no more believable then, than now. I don't believe in God because of miracles, I believe in miracles because God says there were miracles.
I believe what God says, because it has proven reliable.
He said the problem with the world is sin. It is sin, and the consequences and solutions for sin that "proved" God's Word. That is repeatable, in that it can do so for you too.
Sorry to puncture your balloon further Ned but have you done any reading on the so called Hobbit fossils?
"Australian and Indonesian archaeologists began to unearth the Hobbit in 2003 in a cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. Tooth wear on the fossil, which appears likely to have been a female, indicated that she was a full-grown adult at the time of death. But she stood only about 3 feet tall and had a brain approximately one-third the size of modern adult humans. Known specimens range in age from 90,000 to 18,000 years old, making them contemporaneous with modern humans."
Really stuffs up your 6000 year old earth myth eh?
Also:
""Their feet have a combination of human-like and more primitive early hominin traits, some of which are more akin to those in Lucy." Lucy is an early bipedal but small-brained hominin, or australopithecine, that lived in Africa 3.2 million years ago."
Hmm.
""The fossil record continues to surprise us," says William Jungers, Chairman of the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University Medical Center"
You see, science is continuously advancing and expanding our minds not insisting it remain stunted and atrophied.
Ned said:
"History is not repeatable. You can't scientifically prove that George Washington was the first president. You can only offer up written records."
Of course it is, you keep repeating your faulty thinking. Washington is easy to prove with the many relics and artifacts available as evidence. How fatuous!
You went on to say:
"The Bible is the same way. Walking on water was no more believable then, than now. I don't believe in God because of miracles, I believe in miracles because God says there were miracles."
This is very confusing, you say you don't believe in miracles like walking on water, then you say you do believe in miracles because god says..
I think believing in god because of miracles would be very poor science, but then I think believing in god period is very faulty thinking.
"I believe what God says, because it has proven reliable."
You see I would have less trouble with this if there was ANY possible way this book was the result of any divine writing but it isn't! It's cobbled together writings compiled over many hundreds of years then heavily edited and added to by evil men to control the thinking of the less intelligent amongst us.
"He said the problem with the world is sin. It is sin, and the consequences and solutions for sin that "proved" God's Word. That is repeatable, in that it can do so for you too."
This is just meaningless babble. The problem in the world is evil people interfering in the lives of others.
Post a Comment