190 replies to this topic

[spunky-monkey]

It's not God's fault we're being tormented. If you pay close attention...there's this guy named Satan and he causes us to sin, and sin is the thing that seperates us from God. Therefore when a sinner who isn't saved dies, he goes to the bad place.

I suppose that's true, but technically every sinner on Earth is saved because Christ died for us all and he owns us, hence the term "Lord". God took us from Satan's power and gave us to Jesus as part of his promised Inheritance of all the people from all the nations. This 'torment in the presence of the Lamb' comes from people who don't want to be with God, yet have no choice.

Wow. And you think Christians can't agree on how things work. Ah well.
Oh yes, that's it, clearly verses like "John 3:16" and "Romans 6:23" and "Romans 3:23" are all about Hellfire and Brimstone.

I suppose you're one of those people who believes the Gnostic Gospels that, unlike the four canonical gospels written during the time of Christ, were written a century or more after using names found in the Canonical Gospels?

Please, dude. You're an embarrassment to Atheists everywhere. At least do research before you go spouting out words you know nothing about. Only someone who is too afraid of being convicted of what the Bible says would try to talk about what they think it says without actually reading it.

Harsh dude. While I'm not good enough to be a Christian I don't think I can be categorized as an 'Atheist' because I simply lacked faith. We are being punished yes, but even God doesn't want that to last forever, simply as long as we require punishment since our God defeats his enemies with Love, not eternal death (which is also the last enemy to be destroyed). I got frustrated because there are so many contradictions in the Bible concerning God's personality I didn't even know what God and Jesus were anymore.

...Where on LA does it say that a guy can't learn from his mistakes and drop his argument with humility?

Edited by Ricky, 11 December 2006 - 06:58 AM.

[Arturo]

I suppose you're one of those people who believes the Gnostic Gospels that, unlike the four canonical gospels written during the time of Christ, were written a century or more after using names found in the Canonical Gospels?
Written by Pagans, etc. etc.

That's just false. You don't know what you are talking about. None of the canonical were written during Jesus' times, and none of them was written by any of the apostles. Look at Matthew's Gospel, and you will see how it's never said Matthew wrote it.
These are the estimations given for the PRIMARY redaction of teh canonical Gospels.
Mark: 65-80
Matthew: 80-100
Luke: 80-130
John90-120

The most accepted hypothesis is that "two sources" hypothesis: Mark would be based in oral accvounts of Jesus' life, while both Matthew and Luke were based in a double source: the collection of sayings of Jesus, called Q Source, and the Gospel of Mark. John would come from independent sources.

It is false that ALL Gnostic Gospels are of a later date. I will give the estimated dates for some Gnostic Gospels:

Thomas: 50-140
Sophia of Jesus Christ: 50-200
Gospel of Mary:120-180
Gospel of Judas: 130-170
and so on....

My attention is in a Gnostic Gospel, Thomas, and on a Canonical one, John.

Thomas is a sayings Gospel, 114 sayings by the Lord. Of them, many (more or less 40) appear in at least one of the Sinoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke),otehrs appear in John, some appear in the Egyptian Gospel and the Hebrew Gospels, only known from quotations by the Fathers of teh Church, and others appear nowhere else. One of the theories is that Thomas represents an state similar to the Q Source, that is, tehy are parallel sources from approximately the same time.
You can compare Thomas with the canonicals in: http://www.utoronto....sis/meta-5g.htm

John is a really curious text. Why? Because it is moderately GNOSTIC. The Gospel of John is of a really clear Gnostic influence. I will quote from earlychristianwritings.com

But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary).

This is also seen in the fact how John shares many topics with Gnostics, such as the opposition between darkness and light and so on...

so you dont really base your religion on the bible do you? it sounds like your putting your faith in the catholic church more than the Bible... which in my opinion is a much more reliable source as it was inspired by God (who you says knows everything about scicence and physics) than a bunch of humans sitting around trying to decide whats historical and whats not.

First things first. In Catholicism, the Church is the only one that can interpret the scriptures. Why? Because the Pope is infallible. As Jesus told to the Apostles:
Matthew 18:18

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Because of this (and many other quotes), everything the Catholic Church says, should be considered as real.

That is the theory.

Well, in practice, there is something you must understand. FOR THE NTH TIME. The Bible is not a book of sciences!!!! It's a book about God and salvation. It doesn't matter whether the histories are true or false, fro teh historical point of view. What matters is that God inspired them.
Why is tehre now the problem of Christian Fundemantalism in the USA? Because the people don't understand the difference between Sciences and Religion. That we have come to existance through evolution doesn't mean teh Bible is false when speaking about the origins of man. It just means that Evolution is irrelevant to salvation.

why would God get a human to write something false for him just for the sake of being metaphorical... and then continue the book later with information you says is historical and NOT metaphorical?

First thing. God is NOT logic. Is teh Mistery of teh Holy Trinity logical? NO Is it logical that God came to the Earth to suffer for a bunch of ignorant and insignificant humans? NO

Now, to the topic.

There are basically 5 types of Books in the Bible:

Historical (Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Chronicles, Gospels... and so on)
Books of Law (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)
Poetry and wisdom Books (Psalms, Job, Song of Solomon, Lamentations...)
Prophetic (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah)
Apocalyptic (Daniel and Revelation) Don't argue about Daniel. Most Biblists consider it Apocaliptic, rather than Prophetic.
Letters (Paul Letters, James' Letter, Jude's Letter....)

The first kind, surely the most important one, portrays teh stories of people, told as real. The degree of historicity of most of these stories is at best, low. For example, there are no 100% confirmed characters in the Bible until the period of the Books of "Macabeos" (I don't know the name in English, they are considered apocryphal by most Protestant Churches, the Catholic one considers them fully canonical).

But what matters of these books, whose historicty is more than doubtable, is not the material story, but the story of salvation. Take Noah's story, for example. It can be easily interpreted as an example of how God , in the end, saves the good people, no matter how few are them.

And the Catholic's Church opinion is more valid than your opinion, because, among other things, they know more than any of us.

There is also many legends of a global flood in many other cultures such as china, and the americas.
coincidence?

If there was a global flood, how come teher are no geological records?

And not ALL cultures had accounts of great floods. Egypt, for example didn't have any. There were lots of different cultures. At least a few of them have to agree on something, don't they?

I think were just seeing different accounts of the same event, which actually occured.
different stories of the event probably evolved after the tower of Babel.. when everyone split into different language groups.

Yes, after building Sumer's Zigurat.

Ridiculous.

Things like the Babel's Tower are just incompatible with what we know. Do you think a bunch of Jews of the 7th century BC know more about hystory than us?

He was obviously saying that on a completely different basis... you cant just suddenly challenge the foundation of the argument with your belief. he was trying to prove a completely different point, not when the beginning of time was.

It's not HIS belief. It is a fact.
You are trying to put things said in an ambiguous book of a highly doubtable historicity in the same level as Sciences.

You really need to revise your priorities.

its the same as me suddenly saying, "but I believe that the beginning of time was after the flood! how can this be true then?"

Except because it's not the same.
It is PROVED that teh Earth is thousends of millions of years old.

While what the Bible says is just a tradition some guy from the past wrote down.


FOR THE LAST TIME

Science=/=Religion

Religion is based on faith on what we CANNOT see
Science is based on observation on what we CAN see

You cannot use an argument from the Bible when speaking of Sciences, as well as you can't use an argument of religion in Sciences. This is basical, and even the really underdevelo`ped Catholic Church knows it.

But some people don't seem to know. They think they have so much merit because they can believe in Creation ecven though it is EVIDENt that ot is not true. This is not faith. This is materialism. A religious person should differentiate between what we can see (sciences) and what we can't see (faith).

This is Medieval Theology, by William of Occam. Not 21st century.

[Flint]

and in the Bible it says that God sees all sins as the same.

Man... that's fucked up.

The basic premise of Christianity is all the same: Accept Christ, Love God, Love others. The rest is mere protocol.

I was referring more towards the interpretation of things in the Bible. Somebody quotes a few passages and says "you see? the bible says this... that's what this means." And then somebody can quote the SAME book later on and say "no it says this, you're wrong. this is clearly what God meant." For crying out loud, we have people bickering over what "love" is supposed to be according to the Bible. If Christianity were solid and the Bible was coherant, there would be no disputes. Everybody would agree on what the Bible says and on what they should do.

Edited by Flint, 11 December 2006 - 12:06 PM.

[Masamune]

The same can be said for the US Constitution or well... basically any written work ever.

Humans are fickle creatures. Arguing is what we do. If the universe could only be saved by arguing with an alien race or a sun or a rotten bit of cheese, you bet yer bum humans would be the ones who could do it.

[Veteran]

hell is being without God

Could it be interpreted then that we're currently in hell? I've never felt His presence or influence so would my current existance be the same as that which I'll experience after death?

[Flint]

Could it be interpreted then that we're currently in hell? I've never felt His presence or influence so would my current existance be the same as that which I'll experience after death?

If so, hell's pretty sweet.

The same can be said for the US Constitution or well... basically any written work ever.

True.. but the Bible claims to be the word of God, and its followers claim it to be infallible, indisputable, and to be the one truth. The US Constitution is just a set of laws of the land, whereas a religious book like the Bible is something worhipped.

Edited by Flint, 11 December 2006 - 11:38 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

The Bible is infallible, but the men and women interpreting it aren't.

[Korhend]

He was obviously saying that on a completely different basis... you cant just suddenly challenge the foundation of the argument with your belief. he was trying to prove a completely different point, not when the beginning of time was.
its the same as me suddenly saying, "but I believe that the beginning of time was after the flood! how can this be true then?"

It makes about as much sense as claiming that the universe is only a few thousand years old.

[Fyxe]

The Bible is infallible, but the men and women interpreting it aren't.

And the men who wrote it? Or the men who told them the stories *before* they wrote it?

Logic states that the Bible itself is fallible. It's just a book. One that's been translated many times over the years, things lost, things added. Even if the original message was straight from a god of some kind, that still doesn't make the Bible infallible.

But what is it that says the Bible is infallible anyway? The Bible, right? How convenient.

Also, this is completely unrelated to the topic but I couldn't let it pass without comment...

Oh yes, that's it, clearly verses like "John 3:16" and "Romans 6:23" and "Romans 3:23" are all about Hellfire and Brimstone.

Not.

Please, dude.

AHHHH, I've gone back in time to the early 90s!

Teehee.

Edited by Fyxe, 12 December 2006 - 09:36 AM.

[Arturo]

Could it be interpreted then that we're currently in hell? I've never felt His presence or influence so would my current existance be the same as that which I'll experience after death?

Hell would be an extreme loneliness, not only without God.

[MikePetersSucks]

Enlighten us, please, on how religions get started then.

Superstition, ignorance, and unscientific observations of things that couldn't be explained back then.

"Papa, what's lightnin'?" "Well, Billah, that's Gawd stompin' roun' takin' pickturs of da wurld."

[TheAvengerLever]

And the men who wrote it? Or the men who told them the stories *before* they wrote it?

Logic states that the Bible itself is fallible. It's just a book. One that's been translated many times over the years, things lost, things added. Even if the original message was straight from a god of some kind, that still doesn't make the Bible infallible.

But what is it that says the Bible is infallible anyway? The Bible, right? How convenient.

If you go by that logic then nothing human beings anywhere believe in is infallible, like Science, so we can't trust anything can we? What you're looking for is solid proof that the Bible is from God and I can't give that to you.

[Ransom]

First things first. In Catholicism, the Church is the only one that can interpret the scriptures. Why? Because the Pope is infallible. As Jesus told to the Apostles:
Matthew 18:18

Because of this (and many other quotes), everything the Catholic Church says, should be considered as real.

That is the theory.

as my understanding of the catholic chruches traditions/beliefs etc. is very low, or maybe because im just stupid... could you explain to me how this verse refers to the catholic church? (apologies... its late at night)

Well, in practice, there is something you must understand. FOR THE NTH TIME. The Bible is not a book of sciences!!!! It's a book about God and salvation. It doesn't matter whether the histories are true or false, fro teh historical point of view. What matters is that God inspired them.
Why is tehre now the problem of Christian Fundemantalism in the USA? Because the people don't understand the difference between Sciences and Religion. That we have come to existance through evolution doesn't mean teh Bible is false when speaking about the origins of man. It just means that Evolution is irrelevant to salvation.

FOR THE LAST TIME

Science=/=Religion

Religion is based on faith on what we CANNOT see
Science is based on observation on what we CAN see

You cannot use an argument from the Bible when speaking of Sciences, as well as you can't use an argument of religion in Sciences. This is basical, and even the really underdevelo`ped Catholic Church knows it.

I know the Bible's main focus is not science but faith, and it is not trying to prove any scientific theories. But i think, since God essentially wrote the Bible, that it would be scientifically (and historically) accurate (he created sceicne). And the reason i believe in creation and the flood and so on, is because essentially, speaking on those grounds, faith OVERRULES science. ANd since it says in the Bible that the "Word is truth" i am inclined to believe every part of the Bible. And since the old testament states such events as creation and the flood as a fact, i am inclined to believe those also.
And i know you probably think the Bible has a certain purpose, which would mean that it doesnt matter whether it is scientifically or historically accurate... but i guess i just disagree with that.

First thing. God is NOT logic. Is teh Mistery of teh Holy Trinity logical? NO Is it logical that God came to the Earth to suffer for a bunch of ignorant and insignificant humans? NO

touche.

However... if you believe God is not logical... why would you disbelieve certain parts of the bible because they contradict historical and scientific "evidence"?

But what matters of these books, whose historicty is more than doubtable, is not the material story, but the story of salvation. Take Noah's story, for example. It can be easily interpreted as an example of how God , in the end, saves the good people, no matter how few are them.

if God wanted an example that badly... why is not plausible that he would really do it? He isnt a logical God after all...

And the Catholic's Church opinion is more valid than your opinion, because, among other things, they know more than any of us.

if they believe that creation and the flood dint happen. i dont agree with this statement.

If there was a global flood, how come there are no geological records?

what about all those layers of rock all over the world that look like they have been swiftly stacked on top of one another by large moving forces of water?

And not ALL cultures had accounts of great floods. Egypt, for example didn't have any. There were lots of different cultures. At least a few of them have to agree on something, don't they?

?
i didnt say all?

Ridiculous.

Things like the Babel's Tower are just incompatible with what we know. Do you think a bunch of Jews of the 7th century BC know more about hystory than us?

they probably knew [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] more than we think... after all, they were a lot closer to the event. We can't possibly know, no matter how good we think we are at determining historical facts, if in the 7th century BC they didnt have their own ingenius methods to determine events that happened in the past.

While what the Bible says is just a tradition some guy from the past wrote down.

didnt you say that the Bible was inspired by God? it wouldnt matter what they know.

It's not HIS belief. It is a fact.

Except because it's not the same.
It is PROVED that teh Earth is thousends of millions of years old.

i'm sorry... but the scientific age of the earth is NOT a fact. Perhaps more Scientifically fallible then what the Bible says... but It is still essentially a belief.

You are trying to put things said in an ambiguous book of a highly doubtable historicity in the same level as Sciences.

You really need to revise your priorities.

what do you mean by that? That i need to put science before my faith?
Because if so, according my beliefs, the Bible comes first.

But some people don't seem to know. They think they have so much merit because they can believe in Creation ecven though it is EVIDENt that ot is not true. This is not faith. This is materialism. A religious person should differentiate between what we can see (sciences) and what we can't see (faith).

why is it materialism?

Man... that's fucked up.

im sorry, but i think i said this wrong. What i meant was, God views all sins the same in terms of eternal punishment. You sin once, and you belong to Satan (unless you confess your sins etc.). However, i think God set it up so that worse sins, (such as murder) would come with more earthly consequences (jail, death sentance etc). However with mass-murderers... Hitler for example has become an evil figure throughout history, and im pretty most people just hate him.
But we would all agree thats not a just punishment for such evil. But because of the curse we brought upon ourselves at the beginning of time, God will not always be there for the human race like he wouldve been.
I myself am not sure why God didnt kill Hitler before he started his rampage... but yeah... he's not a logical God, he probably had his reasons.

It makes about as much sense as claiming that the universe is only a few thousand years old.

i dont actually believe that flood before creation thing... it was just an example.

The US Constitution is just a set of laws of the land, whereas a religious book like the Bible is something worhipped.

Well... i know I dont worship the Bible...

And the men who wrote it? Or the men who told them the stories *before* they wrote it?

Logic states that the Bible itself is fallible. It's just a book. One that's been translated many times over the years, things lost, things added. Even if the original message was straight from a god of some kind, that still doesn't make the Bible infallible.

But what is it that says the Bible is infallible anyway? The Bible, right? How convenient.

thats why religion is all about faith... it cant be proved.

Edited by Ransom, 13 December 2006 - 01:47 AM.

[wisp]

It's not God's fault we're being tormented. If you pay close attention...there's this guy named Satan and he causes us to sin, and sin is the thing that seperates us from God. Therefore when a sinner who isn't saved dies, he goes to the bad place.

No, there isn't.

as my understanding of the catholic chruches traditions/beliefs etc. is very low, or maybe because im just stupid... could you explain to me how this verse refers to the catholic church? (apologies... its late at night)
I know the Bible's main focus is not science but faith, and it is not trying to prove any scientific theories. But i think, since God essentially wrote the Bible, that it would be scientifically (and historically) accurate (he created sceicne). And the reason i believe in creation and the flood and so on, is because essentially, speaking on those grounds, faith OVERRULES science. ANd since it says in the Bible that the "Word is truth" i am inclined to believe every part of the Bible. And since the old testament states such events as creation and the flood as a fact, i am inclined to believe those also.

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky... but I have a feeling that the "Word" of which the writer was speaking was not referring to the Bible, but rather the "Logos."

[Fyxe]

If you go by that logic then nothing human beings anywhere believe in is infallible, like Science, so we can't trust anything can we?

That's a silly analogy and you know it. Science isn't claiming itself as true or infallible. Science thrives on being questioned and tested. The Bible thrives on being unquestioned.

[Arturo]

as my understanding of the catholic chruches traditions/beliefs etc. is very low, or maybe because im just stupid... could you explain to me how this verse refers to the catholic church? (apologies... its late at night)

The Pope is the heir of Peter. Every authority Jesus gave to the Apostles, is an authority of the Catholic Church.- If Jesus told them they are infallible, the Catholic Church is infallible.

As simple as that.

Now, this is the theory.

I know the Bible's main focus is not science but faith, and it is not trying to prove any scientific theories. But i think, since God essentially wrote the Bible, that it would be scientifically (and historically) accurate (he created sceicne). And the reason i believe in creation and the flood and so on, is because essentially, speaking on those grounds, faith OVERRULES science. ANd since it says in the Bible that the "Word is truth" i am inclined to believe every part of the Bible. And since the old testament states such events as creation and the flood as a fact, i am inclined to believe those also.

To put it bluntly, God doesn't give a damn about our stupid sciences.

God didn't write the Bible. God inspired the writers to write the Bible. This is very much different. Apart from the Word of God, in the Bible are the bias and the beliefs of the writers. Easier:

Imagine your mother (God) told you (writer) to draw a perfect circle. You try, but don't draw a perfect circle. It is not perfect, but it is what your mother told you to. Now imagine you have a little brother (rest of the humans) who doesn't know what a circle is. You show him the "circle" you draw to teach him what a circle is. Although it is not perfect, your brother can learn from it how perfect circles are.

The same goes for the Bible.

The Bible is NOT as the Muslins claim the Quran (or whatever it is written) God's direct word, but a work inspired by God.

Faith doesn't overrule science in this matter simply because they don't have anything to do with each other. Saying taht is like saying taht the ethilogy of ants overrides relativist physics.

From a historical point of view, the religion has nothing to say about Great Floods. The only one who is to say about floods is Geology.
About Salvation, Sciences have nothing to say, the only one that has to say is Religion.

And i know you probably think the Bible has a certain purpose, which would mean that it doesnt matter whether it is scientifically or historically accurate... but i guess i just disagree with that.

Certainly it is not scientifically accurate. For example, in teh Gensis, they tralk about the sky as made of water. We know that this is completely false. This was just the way Jews saw the world.

If God cared about sciences or history, Jesus would have told us about America, for example, if God had wanted him to. But he didn't. There are many other things like this. My question is....

Since God is not made of matter... why would he care if we understand matter?
Since God is atemporal... why would he care if we understand history?
And so on...

However... if you believe God is not logical... why would you disbelieve certain parts of the bible because they contradict historical and scientific "evidence"?

God is not logical, but the world is logical. Whenever the Bible contradicts scientifical evidence, it is wrong. Why? Because those things are added by the writer's own cultural bias.

And tehre are some parts of the Bible that simply disprove others... Take most of the Pentateuc (the first five books of the Bible, I don't know how you call them in English) and the Four Gospelsa and the Acts of Apostles, and you will see how Jesus and the Apostles disprove the Books of Law.

Is God contradicting himself? NO
Men can be wrong, God can't.
if God wanted an example that badly... why is not plausible that he would really do it? He isnt a logical God after all...

if they believe that creation and the flood dint happen. i dont agree with this statement.

You don't have to agree just because teh Catholic Church says it. Among other things because you are not Catholic. And even me, being a (heterodox, I must recognize) Catholic, I don't believe things just because my Church says it....

You shouldn't believe this because whichever Church says it. You should KNOW this is false because Sciences says it.

what about all those layers of rock all over the world that look like they have been swiftly stacked on top of one another by large moving forces of water?

I don't know exactly what you mean (blame my horrible knowledge of English), but ever heard of Tectonic Plates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techtonic

?
i didnt say all?
they probably knew [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] more than we think... after all, they were a lot closer to the event.

According to your logic, the Egyptians should know better about the creation and the flood because they were a much more ancient people. So, it's more true Ra and the legends of Horus than Adam and and Noah, because Egyptioans were more ancient. Right?

We can't possibly know, no matter how good we think we are at determining historical facts, if in the 7th century BC they didnt have their own ingenius methods to determine events that happened in the past.

The thing is, they didn't. They relied on oral and written accounts. And those are fallible, while Physics and Geology aren't (at least not to that extent).

didnt you say that the Bible was inspired by God? it wouldnt matter what they know.

See my example above. It is inspired by God, not written by God.

i'm sorry... but the scientific age of the earth is NOT a fact. Perhaps more Scientifically fallible then what the Bible says... but It is still essentially a belief.

There seems to be consensus between geologists that the earth is approximately 4.567.000.000 years old. And many different proofs have been used to determine the age.

what do you mean by that? That i need to put science before my faith?
Because if so, according my beliefs, the Bible comes first.

I will answer with one of Jesus' quotes:

(Matthew 22:21)

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Is the age of Earth or the historicity of a flood that covered everything a divine matter or a human matter? It is a human matter. If it were something of God, Jesus would have told us all the truths of the world. But he didn't tell us America existed. Are you to believe that America never existed just because teh Bible never mentions it?

Then saith Arturo unto them, Render therefore unto Sciences the things which are Sciences'; and unto God the things that are God's.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

why is it materialism?

Because it believes something has to be touched to be true: If the Bible is true, and the Bible mentions a big flood, therefore there was a great flood on the year X BC. If sciences contradict this, they are wrong. This is materialistic.

What I say is: what does it matter if there ever was a Great Flood that killed every human on Eartha part from Noah? What matters is that God saves the people who are good (in the metaphor-story-myth, Noah's family), no matter how few they are. It's exactly the same as the parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

God is not material. If the things told in the Bible weren't material, taht is, weren't historical. Would that make them false? If you say eys, you are just saying God doesn't exist, because God isn't material, as well.

So, my point is, religion and science can't contradict, because they speak about TOTALLY different things.

Edited by Arturo, 13 December 2006 - 04:40 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

That's a silly analogy and you know it. Science isn't claiming itself as true or infallible. Science thrives on being questioned and tested. The Bible thrives on being unquestioned.

How can a book thrive on being unquestioned if it's questioned every single day since the books came out?

And yeah, if people elevate Science to a point where they throw out religion, they're basically stating that this is right and the Bible is wrong.

[Arturo]

No. They are just confusing Science with religion. And that's just as bad as creationism

[Reflectionist]

Science - how
Religion = why

[Korhend]

Superstition, ignorance, and unscientific observations of things that couldn't be explained back then.

"Papa, what's lightnin'?" "Well, Billah, that's Gawd stompin' roun' takin' pickturs of da wurld."

Got it. Hirohito = Fictional Character

Your Teacher Probably told you this man existed. Those were horrible lies.

Edited by Korhend, 14 December 2006 - 12:59 AM.

[Ransom]

Arturo, first of all i will say, you are very smart. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] smarter than me anyway...
So this is a sum up post for me i think... unless you totally refute my arguments to dust.

Main disagreement:
Arturo: science =//= religion. They are totally different and therefore cannot contradict each other.

Ransom: I guess my main argument is that i still think that science and religion (or the "how" and "why" as Reflectionest put it) are still closely intertwined.
For example: say i write a historical novel about an apple orchard. Obviously this novel would have nothing to do with science. However, in the novel i write about apples falling downwards (as opposed to upwards) out of the trees according to the laws of gravity. Now even though this book is plainly not about how gravity works, this shows that something can be scientifically accurate without it being about science.
It is meaningless to claim that scriptural authority applies only to "religious things", since the Christian Gospel is all about real things: the real history and salvation of man, the real destiny of man and the real universe around man. Remove its claim to authority in the realm of science and history, and you are actually removing it from any relevance to the real world. Which would then essentially mean that we have nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever, and should disregard it entirely.

The Pope is the heir of Peter. Every authority Jesus gave to the Apostles, is an authority of the Catholic Church.- If Jesus told them they are infallible, the Catholic Church is infallible.

As simple as that.

That makes no sense to me. So if i get told by Jesus that everything i say is true, then this automatically applies to all my spiritual ancestors (not blood relatives) for hundreds of generations?
(that is, assuming the Pope is the spiritual ancestor or heir of Peter)

To put it bluntly, God doesn't give a damn about our stupid sciences.

At this you are right. God doesnt give a damn about all the scientific things humans observe and calculate. However, he does give a damn about the world he created (which he said was "good") and all of the natural laws that he put in place.

God didn't write the Bible. God inspired the writers to write the Bible. This is very much different. Apart from the Word of God, in the Bible are the bias and the beliefs of the writers. Easier:

Imagine your mother (God) told you (writer) to draw a perfect circle. You try, but don't draw a perfect circle. It is not perfect, but it is what your mother told you to. Now imagine you have a little brother (rest of the humans) who doesn't know what a circle is. You show him the "circle" you draw to teach him what a circle is. Although it is not perfect, your brother can learn from it how perfect circles are.

The same goes for the Bible.

The Bible is NOT as the Muslins claim the Quran (or whatever it is written) God's direct word, but a work inspired by God.

That is a really good example as to what you are trying to get across and it explains your beliefs pefectly. However, i disagree, i do not think God would allow innacuracies to go in his Holy Word inspired or not. You make it sound like he had no control over the situation.

Is God contradicting himself? NO
Men can be wrong, God can't.

There seems to be consensus between geologists that the earth is approximately 4.567.000.000 years old.

So obviously these geologists (men who can be wrong) are right, and God inspired someone to write total bunk in his Bible.

From a historical point of view, the religion has nothing to say about Great Floods. The only one who is to say about floods is Geology.

you see... this puzzles me. Isnt there an accont of a great flood in the Bible? a religious book?
Here is a few scientific articles from a website i found that support the view of a global flood:
the grand canyon and the flood
the great flood
the global flood

Certainly it is not scientifically accurate. For example, in teh Gensis, they tralk about the sky as made of water. We know that this is completely false. This was just the way Jews saw the world.

clouds?
and by the way... what part of genesis is this?

If God cared about sciences or history, Jesus would have told us about America, for example, if God had wanted him to. But he didn't. There are many other things like this.

Why would he tell us something so useless? That has nothing to do with the Bible's scientific and historical accuracy. Jesus was obviously here to tell us about Salvation. But essentially, as i said before, throw out science, and you throw out salvation's relevance to us.

And tehre are some parts of the Bible that simply disprove others... Take most of the Pentateuc (the first five books of the Bible, I don't know how you call them in English) and the Four Gospelsa and the Acts of Apostles, and you will see how Jesus and the Apostles disprove the Books of Law.

You can find verses in the new testament that show that Jesus supported the truth of the old testament.
Luke 16:31

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Matthew 5:17-18

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

2 timothy 3:15-17

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You shouldn't believe this because whichever Church says it. You should KNOW this is false because Sciences says it.

I dont believe the Bible because of church. But because of faith. And since you seem to believe the new testament is historically accurate, i dont see why you wouldnt believe the old testament as simple historical fact(see verses above).

According to your logic, the Egyptians should know better about the creation and the flood because they were a much more ancient people. So, it's more true Ra and the legends of Horus than Adam and and Noah, because Egyptioans were more ancient. Right?
The thing is, they didn't. They relied on oral and written accounts. And those are fallible, while Physics and Geology aren't (at least not to that extent).

i admit my argument was somewhat flawed here. However in terms of your second comment, i think the writer's mostly relied on God's guidance and inspiration more than anything.

See my example above. It is inspired by God, not written by God.
There seems to be consensus between geologists that the earth is approximately 4.567.000.000 years old. And many different proofs have been used to determine the age.
I will answer with one of Jesus' quotes:

(Matthew 22:21)
Is the age of Earth or the historicity of a flood that covered everything a divine matter or a human matter? It is a human matter. If it were something of God, Jesus would have told us all the truths of the world. But he didn't tell us America existed. Are you to believe that America never existed just because teh Bible never mentions it?

Then saith Arturo unto them, Render therefore unto Sciences the things which are Sciences'; and unto God the things that are God's.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

And the only thing i say to this is: God created science, therefore science is his. However using that verse was a bad example in this case, because currency, money and taxes are a completely Human fabrication that Jesus didnt want anything to do with.

Because it believes something has to be touched to be true: If the Bible is true, and the Bible mentions a big flood, therefore there was a great flood on the year X BC. If sciences contradict this, they are wrong. This is materialistic.

This is not materialism. It is just using the Bible as a foundation of complete truth in ALL your beliefs. If you say the earth was created by the big bang, therefore the Bible is false, it is equally "Materialistic" whether it be a scientific theory or not.

What I say is: what does it matter if there ever was a Great Flood that killed every human on Eartha part from Noah? What matters is that God saves the people who are good (in the metaphor-story-myth, Noah's family), no matter how few they are. It's exactly the same as the parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

First of all, before every parable, the Bible clearly states that it is a parable. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Noah's flood is a myth. Secondly, it does matter if the Bible is telling the truth or not. Once again, if i believed the account of Noah's flood wasnt true, why would i have reason to believe any of the rest of the Bible?

God is not material. If the things told in the Bible weren't material, taht is, weren't historical. Would that make them false? If you say eys, you are just saying God doesn't exist, because God isn't material, as well.

The account of Noah's flood cannot be classified as only one form of truth; whcih means it cannot be a Christian or ‘religious’ truth without at the same time being a historical truth (unless language loses all of its meaning).

So, my point is, religion and science can't contradict, because they speak about TOTALLY different things.

no. (see beginning of post)


I guess we are just going in circles, and we will probably not convince each other.
but what is the controversial forum for?

[wisp]

So obviously these geologists (men who can be wrong) are right, and God inspired someone to write total bunk in his Bible.

These geologists use PROVEN scientific processes to come to their conclusions. By saying their proven methods are wrong, are you trying to tell us that God messes with the natural processes of things just to confuse us? What would be the point of that?

Also, you mentioned the writers of the Bible relying on "God's guidance" to make sure they were writing the correct information. Think of all of the murderers and criminals that committed their crimes because they thought that God was telling them to do it. Would you believe that God was behind that?

Edited by wisp, 14 December 2006 - 04:16 AM.

[Nevermind]

That was kind of a bad example considering that the crimes being committed were pretty much the opposite of what the Bible is trying to put across.

[wisp]

Well, my point is that just because someone claims to be divinely inspired, that does not mean that he actually is.

[Fyxe]

Unless they were killing sodomisers, we all remember what God did to Sodom. That's allowed, apparently.

[Nevermind]

Of course it doesn't mean that they are inspired. Anyone can say they are. Lots do. Most are definately bullshitting, whilst the rest are questionable. I honestly don't think God really inspires many people to do anything for Him these days. He's already got shit down.

As for Sodom, well, remember the guys DID kinda wanna RAPE the two dudes.

[Fyxe]

Yeah, that's what gay people are like! Bend over and they'll rape ya! The whole CITY will, even!! THEY'RE ALL AFTER OUR BOOTIES.

[Nevermind]

I was thinking more along the lines of

"We wanna have sex with you."
"Well we don't wanna."
"Too bad"

[Fyxe]

I was pointing out the Bible's very reasonable portrayal of homosexuality as utter back-door bandits.

It's alright to burn a whole city if there are a few rapists there. Especially if they're *gay* rapists.

[Nevermind]

"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."

All of them were there, so in that one instant at least, it was pretty much Rapeeville. They didn't want the dudes to leave, cos they wanted to get some, and these guys really didn't swing that way, nor did they want to feel reamed in the morning. Unconsentual/inconsentual sex = rape.