YEC part Trois

(407 Posts)
PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:15:49

So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?

BestValue Sun 12-May-13 09:37:38

I knew I could count on you, Pedro. smile

I'll definitely have to cut back my time on here but it is deliciously addictive. I'm happy to move on from the YEC topic but will still answer questions when they arise. We seemed to be attracting an entirely new type of MumsNetter, though, which I find refreshing.

Happy Mother's Day (if you even have that over there). Today is Mother's Day here in Canada. And although I am male and have no children (my wife and I do have 10 embryos, though), I've occasionally been called a "muther" from time to time so I feel somewhat of a kinship with you all. wink

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:53:32

Not Mother's day here. But with cutting irony in relation to the content of the thread, in the UK it falls on the 4th Sunday of Lent! So we had it on March 10th.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:55:40

Perhaps we should have a muther's day though. There's a few people I'd buy cards for......

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 11:56:10

What is a 'muther'? Or shouldn't I ask? blush

Januarymadness Sun 12-May-13 14:32:54

hellooooo.

Best not to ask....

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 15:44:58

Towards the end of the YEC 2 thread the nature of freedom / free will was considered as it relates to freedom of choice.

What do people think of a model of freedom that encompasses finding meaning in life (as opposed to feeling alienated.) That is that many people want to find purpose in their lives, if they feel they are fulling this purpose they feel liberated from a sense of meaningless/pointlessness to their actions. Regarding prophecy this could mean fulfilling a destiny.

In this way free choice is not the only factor to consider when aiming to have true freedom.

The above consideration for me, as a Christian, is an important one for me, when defining my life. I just wondered how atheists view finding this type of purpose in life.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 16:09:09

It's certainly a very human trait to want to find purpose in your life. Personally, the only thing I strive for is my own happiness. I achieve this through a number of means including partaking in activities which I enjoy and doing things to make those around me happy, this increasing the overall level of happiness and wellbeing around me.

I don't have a sense of purpose in terms of feeling like I'm supposed to achieve or fulfill anything in particular, I think that would make me fairly depressed, especially if I didn't achieve what I thought I was supposed to. Life is a journey with no destination. I enjoy it as it happens.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 16:36:32

Pedro, the pursuit of happiness sounds good to me but not if it is aimless.

For example, I might like the sensation of a fairground ride and find my friends do also. We all have a great time but then find we become desensitized to that initial thrill. We then need to constantly find bigger and better rides to satisfy our hunger...what have we achieved?

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 16:38:34

Towards the end of the YEC 2 thread the nature of freedom / free will was considered as it relates to freedom of choice

"Considered"? No, it wasn't. It was pointed out to you that omniscience and free will are logical contradictions and therefore an impossibility. "Oh, but God is beyond time and space", was your claim. a) That makes no sense and b) so what?

This WAS a discussion about evidence for God, using logic and science, not an opportunity for people to preach.

Yes, yes...you love God and want to spread the word. He's in personal contact with you and magically given you information not accessible to ordinary folks unless they just take your word for it hmm

Can you prove a single one of your outlandish claims?

<tumbleweed>

No. So why have you hijacked a thread that was supposed to be about evidence?

Oh - and to save you time. No, I'm not seeking out your God - just like you're not spending any time seeking out Allah, Lord Vishnu, Zeus or Odin. What I have done is research the claims made by Christians about Yahweh & Jesus and found them to be a) wrong b) illogical & c) impossible.

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 16:42:07

the pursuit of happiness sounds good to me but not if it is aimless

Er....pursuing something and then achieving it is not "aimless". The aim is happiness - if you achieve it, you've achieved the aim.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 16:49:16

Ellie Sorry I didn't know the thread was supposed to be purely about evidence. I didn't actually read the whole thread, just pitched in about half way through.

To be honest for me, due to the subjective nature of humanity, I have a problem with people stating they can be truly objective, observe and interpret evidence, entirely objectively. Even in our biology, in the way we perceive the information received from our sensory organs is subjective. I know I can get a bit Post Modern, apart from The Bible which is truth for me.

So that was where I was coming from regarding evidence, so it was, in my view relevant. However by all means steer this thread in any way you want.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 16:50:12

Ellie re. the happiness long term or short?

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 17:02:21

I know I can get a bit Post Modern

Grrrr. Don't get me started on post-modernism. Had all that hoo ha at university.

To be honest for me, due to the subjective nature of humanity, I have a problem with people stating they can be truly objective, observe and interpret evidence, entirely objectively

You're right. They can't - none of us can be truly objective, we all interpret things our way. It's called confirmation bias, and each and every one of us is subject to it.

That's why the scientific method was devised - to tell us what is what, REGARDLESS of how we might personally feel about it.

And it's not about "interpreting" anything. You can't, for example, interpret logic anyway you choose - it wouldn't work if we did. The God defined by Christianity is logically impossible - and if something's impossible, it can't exist.

Ellie re. the happiness long term or short? Both. It's a continuum.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:15:44

Ellie as I talked about on the last thread, scientific method always involves assumptions and prior assumptions. These involve a kind of subjectivity as assumptions and priors are the same as faith, the question is where do you place your faith?

Hope all goes well with pursuing a continuum of happiness. How are you getting on? You sound a bit peeved...

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 17:16:23

Just to throw this in about the logical impossibility of free will/omniscience, so we're clear.

I don't know what I'm going to have for breakfast on March 18th, 2015. God does. He might not care much, but he knows - he knows everything. So, God knows I'll have Weetabix & toast.

Now then - whose choice will it actually be when I do indeed eat Weetabix & toast? Mine? It might feel like it's mine - but actually, simply because God already knows about it, then my breakfast menu is preordained and I have absolutely no choice in the matter. If I really had a choice, God couldn't know what I was going to have....my "freedom" to choose is therefore non-existent. If I surprise God and have Cornflakes instead, then I disprove his omniscience.

So, it's not possible. There's nothing "free" about our will if our choices are preordained in any way - and they HAVE to be if God is omniscient.

Now, your response was "God is outside of space and time". And, I take from that, that logic doesn't apply to God in the same way it does to us? This is a cop out of epic proportions - but, OK, let's follow it through.

God is not subject to logic. You can abandon all logic when you talk about God and his properties.

So, on this basis, when talking about whether God exists, we have three choices:

1) God exists
2) God doesn't exist
3) God exists and doesn't exist at the same time

Without logic - all three of these choices have equal weight.

In two out of these three choices, God does not exist. By following your logic, we show that God is more likely not to exist than to exist.

Deploying Occam's Razar, "The simplest explanation tending to be correct" - we must rationally conclude that God does not exist, since that is more likely.

So, you see - writing the argument off as "God is outside of space and time" does not help. It makes things worse.

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 17:24:47

Ellie as I talked about on the last thread, scientific method always involves assumptions and prior assumptions. These involve a kind of subjectivity as assumptions and priors are the same as faith, the question is where do you place your faith?

Then you don't understand the scientific method. It does not work like that at all. Incidentally, you might want to research how a scientific theory IS a fact, and it's not "paradoxical" to refer to it as such. The National Academy of Sciences explains HERE

I don't have "faith". It's a childish notion invented to allow people to believe whatever they like without being laughed at. If you could show that I believe anything based on "faith" & not evidence - I'll stop believing it. Immediately.

I'm not peeved. Neither do I hate God or Christians (although there are some I am rather less than fond of, for good reason). I just have this very odd habit of expecting someone who claims that the creator of the universe has imparted information to them to back up their claim. You have a problem with this? Why?

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:44:33

Your source re. science as fact is biased, they have a vested interest in 'proving' the irrefutability of the scientific method. If indeed they are attempting that, I have not read the link - it doesn't really matter either way: they're either biased or recognise their limitations.

What I am saying is that the physical evidence for something that surpasses the physical realm (ie that is spiritual) would be incomplete since you can not measure what is spiritual with physical measures.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:49:53

Ellie it's why people use narrative (in the Bible) to inform about God. Since the narrative can show His hand in events, you see where He has been. Physically, as humans, we are tied up in the linearity of time, a spirit is not.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:59:22

Ellie school girl error there re God existing scenarios: In two out of the three choices God exists as well as not existing. Equal odds if you were employing simple probability, could you also do a Bayesian Probability Analysis?

Januarymadness Sun 12-May-13 18:40:21

why would scientists have a vested interest in proving the scientific method. Scientists love showing other scientists wrong

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 18:57:02

Januarymadness because the scientists could not prove / show anything without validity of method...

BestValue Sun 12-May-13 19:10:40

The scientific method is very good but it is limited and if we are honest we will acknowledge those limitations. To believe the scientific method is the only way to truth is to fall victim to scientism which is self-refuting and thus false.

Snorbs Sun 12-May-13 22:25:07

The scientific method is very good but it is limited and if we are honest we will acknowledge those limitations.

Indeed. And relying on religious faith to explain the universe is also very limited and we should acknowledge those limitations as well.

The difference is that science is aware of its limitations and a built-in part of it is to constantly strive to refine the predictions it makes. If necessary, entire chunks of scientific thought will be thrown out if it is shown that evidence contradicts it.

Religious faith has no such awareness. It teaches us to be satisfied with answers that boil down to "I have no evidence whatsoever that what I believe is true, but I'm going to believe it anyway."

Jaynebxl Sun 12-May-13 23:20:28

What's YEC?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 12-May-13 23:36:16

Young Earth Creationism.

That the earth is 6000yrs old and dinosaurs were either around at the same time as early man, or that dinosaur bones were put there by god as a 'test' of human's faith.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 12-May-13 23:37:42

I'm not a young earth creationist btw.

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 23:57:07

Ellie school girl error there re God existing scenarios: In two out of the three choices God exists as well as not existing. Equal odds if you were employing simple probability, could you also do a Bayesian Probability Analysis?

No.

Exempting God from logic does not mean we should also exempt ourselves. That's your error.

We live in a universe where logic applies. You demonstrated that yourself by acknowledging that a paradox arose (there is no paradox if we exempt ourselves from logic along with God).

Whatever the logic or lack of that God himself is subject to - WE REMAIN subject to logic and must use it to determine his existence.

By exempting God, you have merely added another possibility to the question of his existence. Instead of simply exists/ does not exist you've added exists/doesn't at the same time.

We therefore use our logic to determine which is the most likely to be true.

Logically something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. This is impossible. So using our logic we have:

a) An existent God
b) A non-existent God
c) An impossible God.

Impossible = non-existent. Using logic on all three propositions, we have a greater probability of his non-existence.

No, I wouldn't try and use Bayes Theorem to determine the probability of God's existence. Bayes Theorem calculates probability based on evidence. So we have an immediate problem, don't we? What "evidence"?

And "evidence" put forward by Christians/theists for their God usually turns out not to be evidence at all. At best, it is highly contentious. Therefore, it is impossible to properly establish what is/isn't evidence in order to make BT work. You just end up with a biased number based entirely on whether the calculator thinks "nice things happening" equals one point for God. And so on.

Ellie it's why people use narrative (in the Bible) to inform about God. Since the narrative can show His hand in events, you see where He has been. Physically, as humans, we are tied up in the linearity of time, a spirit is not

I have read this three times and truly have no idea what you mean. What is a "spirit" - can you demonstrate that there's any such thing? What evidence do you have that the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge & that a universe creating entity had a hand in writing/inspiring it? It looks to me like that rather silly ramblings of very primitive people who thought that a bird crapping on someone's head was a portent of earth-shattering proportions.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 09:55:35

Snorbs Eternal truth remains the same, is constant. Or understanding of it develops over time and is refined.

This is as true for a Christian as any one else, we grow and refine our understanding as we progress in our walk with God and as this happens many find their faith is strengthened (I have found this for me).

Ellie Re. existing and non-existing at the same time consider Schroedinger's Cat.

Re. demonstrating spirit. One explanation I can give is as with Scientific Theory. It exists and doesn't exist in the physical realm. It is written down so exists physically (although not as an entity) but when people read it (and test it in life) and consider it true it exists in their thoughts and then the collective thoughts of those that believe it. Like Zeitgeist (spirit of age/time).

The Bible is similar, exist physical in that it is written and in people's thoughts. Except the truth in the Bible in eternal, timeless.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 09:56:37

^ Snorbs ^ that should be our understanding of it develops...

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 09:57:55

Ellie ^ that should be exists physically

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:05:28

Regarding the above points Paul said something that many interest you in Corinthians,

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1 Co 2:12)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:14)

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:06:25

^ that should be may I'm trying to type faster than my fingers can go!

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:17:42

Ellie This may interest you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 10:23:36

That the earth is 6000yrs old and dinosaurs were either around at the same time as early man, or that dinosaur bones were put there by god as a 'test' of human's faith.

Note also that Young Earth Creationism is a movement that is primarily a Christian thing. The majority of YEC believers are Christians plus a smattering of Jews. The concept has very little traction outside of these groups.

That's not to say that all Christians or all Jews believe in YEC of course. Many churches - eg the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church etc - believe in Creationism (their god make the universe etc) but not Young Earth Creationism as they don't read the Bible that literally.

YEC almost always brings with it a rejection of evolution as an idea and envisage some vast conspiracy of scientists hell-bent on hiding the "evidence" of YEC and the "evidence" that they claim disproves evolution and cosmology.

Of course even if the YEC do manage to disprove evolution and cosmology - it's drastically unlikely given the mountain of evidence that supports these but let's just run with the idea for a moment - it still wouldn't demonstrate the Christian YEC is correct.

If you demonstrate that cosmology and evolution really do indicate an intelligent designer, how do you then work out which of the hundreds and hundreds of different creation myths is the correct one? A refutation of evolution is not evidence of creation by the Abrahamic god.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 10:28:53

I feel a bit as if I am going over old ground but here goes...

The documents contained within the bible were written in such away that both translation and interpretation were needed. these acts were carried out by people heavilly subject to bias. Even with the best intent and greatest belief in the world we cannot take the bible to be exctly word for word as God (or anyone) intended. Quoting bits is therefore a little counterproductive and easilly dismissed.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 10:34:13

On bible quotation, I'm sure I read on a thread t'other day that a poster's dad worked with someone who used a bible quote to support his point of view. Her dad took great pleasure in finding a quote that meant the opposite - and he always found one.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:44:41

Snorbs Evolution is a scientific theory that in itself is subject to change as we discover more about the world. It is not an eternal truth.

Interestingly what we are finding out with Epigenetics could fit more closely with a Biblical view of inheritance, incorporating the Old and New Covenant of the Bible (see YEC 2 thread for a brief discussion of this possibility).

Regarding YEC itself, I believe the Bible. I have no personal revelation yet of this myself as I have not tried to date the Bible, from what I have taken in from what people say on this subject, it sounds plausible.

Januarymadness regarding the language and translation. Because language is a living thing (not dead or fixed) in that meanings change over time and from community to community, translations, various editions, reflect this. Likewise, the Bible is described as a the Living Word. In understanding it you are engaging with the Holy Spirit, who revels to you the meaning through personal revelation. Revelation is not static, it builds on personal understanding which grows and is refined.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:50:13

Sabriba Yes you did, it was the thread re. God punishing. This is what I said,

re. You Dad's versus his colleague, I tend to think of the paradoxes as checks and balances. You have to look at each quotation in context, it is the reason that isolated bits of the Bible taken out of context can confuse. For me the answer is read more not less, then you get the balance. As I said you have to take the Bible in it's entirety.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:51:22

^Sorry, Sabrina !

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 10:56:02

so in the future the commandments and rules could be different but you know they are right today. Oh come on...

Taking the bible as a guide. Fair enough.

Taking it litterally, word for word while recognising that it has and will change is just absurd.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:15:48

I think, going right back to the beginning of the YEC 2 thread, there was a link to an interview with Wendy Wright and Dawkins. It's an hour long, but can be summarised by Dawkins asking WW to look at the (huge amounts of) evidence for evolution, and WW dismissing him.

What is telling though, is that she seems to fear a world where human beings evolved through natural selection. In her eyes, a world where humans weren't each created by god, in his image, is a world where human beings are devalued in some way. Needless to sya, I totally disagree with this. But, even to the majority of christians, YEC isn't the only way christians can believe that they were created by god - the majority of christians (in the UK anyway) seem to be able to reconcile god as a creator, and evolution as a scientific theory without too much trouble. They certainly seem to be able to reconcile their religious beliefs with the fact that all the scientific evidence points to the earth being far, far older than 6000 years.

But WW and her crew want to "teach the controversy" and for creationism/ intelligent design taught in school science lessons alongside evolution -and (I love this) to let the children make up their own minds. This is dangerous, because 1. In some parts of the US they are getting their way and 2. creationism is absolutely not on a par with evolution - as snorbs said it enters into the realms of conspiracy theory and I don't think conspiracy theories should be taught as fact in school. Especially not in science lessons.

Penn and Teller's take on creationism being taught in schools in Georgia

infamouspoo Mon 13-May-13 11:30:14

marking place for when I get a decent signal

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 11:32:43

Januarymadness That is not what I meant to say..I think some of what I'm saying is getting lost in translation for you. But then we don't have the same spirit grin. Eternal truth is eternal, it is our understanding of that is the variable

Sabrina What do you think of Epigenetics with regard to Biblical inheritance (Old and New Covenant). Btw way I think evolution can be taught as as scientific theory. However we've already moved on from Darwin re. the Epigenetics. Scientific theory as Snorbs pointed out is subject to change.

For me the Bible is eternal truth, I say that in faith. Don't worry about the faith aspect, it can't be taught though - it is a choice.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 11:42:34

it is not getting lost in translation it just makes no sense. A litteral interpretation of the bible is impossible because of the changing language. Therefore using direct quotes to represent utter truth is sensless.

I can understand using general principles (although improbable) they are more likely to withstand interpretation and translation.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 11:43:57

and who gets to judge what interpretation is the right one?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:44:02

We've "moved on from Darwin" have we? hmm

Sorry, didn't realise this was your thread. Some of us might actually want to talk about YEC and Darwin.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 11:50:12

is anyone still around to discuss gravitational time dialation (I promise I am not being sarcastic) I have been doing a bit of reading and I would like to see if I have interpreted the basic concept right and Best, if you are around I would like to see if I am getting your interpretation of it correct.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 11:51:18

Interestingly what we are finding out with Epigenetics could fit more closely with a Biblical view of inheritance, incorporating the Old and New Covenant of the Bible

daftdame I know you made that claim in the previous thread but I don't recall you posting anything that actually backed it up. From what little I know about epigenetics I understand that it means there can be differences in gene expression that don't come solely from the DNA itself but can also be influenced by some of the surrounding supporting structures.

How does that "fit more closely with a Biblical view of inheritance"? Or have I misunderstood what epigenetics actually is?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:51:19

To answer your question, though I don't think epigenetics has anything to do with the bible, or biblical inheritance. Nothing. And that is putting it as politely as I can.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:52:17

Last was to daftdame.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 11:58:44

For me the Bible is eternal truth, I say that in faith.

Does that mean that the bits of the Bible that show your god to be genocidal (the Flood), terroristic (Plagues of Egypt), pro-slavery (Leviticus) and misogynistic (forcing an unmarried woman to marry her rapist) are "eternal truth" too?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 12:20:37

Januarymadness now who's getting Post Modern? Regarding judging correct interpretations, God is the only judge.

Snorbs Sabrina* externals can effect changes in gene expression, those externals could be stress, diet etc. Thus our behaviour and thinking can actually affect the way our genetics determine our physiological make up or pre determinate state.

I think this is quite exciting, with regards to the concept of sin, the revisiting of sin in inheritance and complete Redemption through Christ, this could explain how we are not merely victims of our genetics at birth, complete redemption, free will, is in biological terms viable. (Some psychologists try to argue the opposite - dangerous thinking IMO.)

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 12:23:27

Snorbs no. You have to take the Bible in entirety, Jesus preached love. What do you know about the difference between the Old and New Covenant? (Being under Grace and under the Law.)

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 12:30:03

if God is the only judge and the Bible not his litteral word you are in no place to try to convince others that yours is the right path.

And most certainly the Bible is not very convincing evidence in support.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 12:38:10

Concept of 'sin' and redemption of christ in epigenetics? I'm speechless, I really am.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 12:53:00

You have to take the Bible in entirety, Jesus preached love. What do you know about the difference between the Old and New Covenant?

All I know about the difference seems rather contradictory. On the one hand there is a god who is supposed to be eternal and unchanging. On the other the same god decides to have a complete about-face from the fightin' and smitin' god of the Old Testament to the loving and caring god of the New.

I don't understand how you can have a supposed book describing Eternal Truth that nevertheless can be interpreted as coming with a "Best Before 1AD" sticker on the first section.

Are you suggesting that the genocide, slavery and child-murder of the Old Testament didn't happen? Or it did happen but what was ok then is no longer ok since Jesus? Or what? How do you reconcile a god that says it's fine to beat your slaves to within an inch of their lives with the same god saying to love your neighbour?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:23:30

Januarymadenss I never said the Bible wasn't God's literal word. History is literal but the interpretation of it can vary depending on how your mind regards symbolism, metaphor and allegory. Jesus is the 'author and finisher' of our faith. Like any author He can use symbolism, and does so with the parables that have literal and symbolic truth.

Sabrina and Snorbs, it is evident that your understanding is the Bible is lacking, since you cannot reconcile it's events, if you are seeking understanding of God, this involves spiritual understanding because He is a spiritual being.

If you want to receive spiritual understanding of the Bible you need to pray to God for it, ask for revelation, from the Holy Ghost in Jesus' name, of the truth in The Bible. Then read the Bible. Pray in faith, believe, since this is God's will it will be answered.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:32:44

back to the beginning.

The bible CAN'T be his litteral word. The documents were written in such a way that for us to understand them required translation and interpretation..... therefore not the exact words as dictated/written

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:33:47

January What is your definition of 'literal?

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:35:17

Why would God write a book that you had to pray to him to understand it. Surely the point of such a book is to understandhim and lead you to him?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:36:51

Is in fact anything in the natural world literal, since our perceptions vary? All our senses are subjective in the way we perceive and utilise information from the information that is supplied from our nerve endings.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:37:51

lit·er·al  (ltr-l)adj.

1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.

3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.

5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

All of the above.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:38:47

note 2 and 3

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 13:39:00

it is evident that your understanding is the Bible is lacking, since you cannot reconcile it's events, if you are seeking understanding of God, this involves spiritual understanding because He is a spiritual being.

You're right that I cannot reconcile the Bible's contradictory suggestions about the Abrahamic god's nature in any way other than reading it as mythology rather than Eternal Truth. It works fine that way.

However you evaded the question. My question was, given you regard the Bible as Eternal Truth, how do you reconcile your god saying it's fine to beat your slaves to within an inch of their lives with your same god saying to love your neighbour?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:42:08

January All books can be described as interactive in the way we individually utilise information from them. They affect us consciously and subconsciously, they can have physical effects such as something sad making you cry.

Praying is spiritual communication, a way of asking the author (spirit being), about what the intentions of the book were.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:46:21

Snorbs What I don't know I take in faith. The Old Testament for me is reconciled through understanding of the Fall, the Old and New Covenant.

We were created as beings who needed communion with God. After the Fall we showed we did not trust Him, we went our own way. The Old Testament shows the consequences of this. Even then provision was made so that we could continue to be blessed until Jesus Christ came to offer redemption.

The law still remains now, however you can choose to live under Grace or under the law.

Living under Grace, is described as the New Covenant, what happens, once you have accepted Jesus, is that the Holy Ghost writes the laws in your heart and you follow that.

Living under the Law is described as the Old Covenant, where you seek to follow all the laws of the Old Testament. When you failed, which you would inevitably, you had to make sacrifices in order to be blessed. Failing to keep the law also meant you were cursed. Like crime and punishment.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:49:19

You can derive different meanings from"To kill a mockingbird". But the book is as written. Yours is not

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:50:40

January thanks for your definition. The trouble is, with our language and the way it changes even the very etymology of our words employ metaphor. I find it very difficult to say anything is purely literal.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:52:30

how about "verbatim" or "as written" then

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:54:36

January A lot of literary theorists would disagree with you re "To Kill a Mockingbird", what about 'reader-response' theories, historical contextual interpretations? You can not separate an author or reader and what they write / read from the world around them and their response to it.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:55:34

January ?? What about it, verbatim that it?

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:55:49

but at least you are getting the authors words....

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:56:17

January I'd laugh at the irony grin.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:58:16

January Or is the author just a puppet of his / her contemporary Zeitgeist?

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 14:07:53

The law still remains now, however you can choose to live under Grace or under the law.

Thankyou for your explanation. I think I've got it now.

Provided I choose to live under the law, your god is fine with me beating a non-Jewish slave to within an inch of his/her life. But if I choose to live under Grace then it's a bad thing to do.

So much for objective morality.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 14:30:26

Snorbs I don't think you've got it. sad

People in the Old Testament under the Law sinned all the time (as those living under the Law do so now). God was and is merciful to those who sought / seek Him.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 14:37:10

Snorbs The Law is like any law, crime and punishment, as a deterrent, a means of preventing society from descending in to chaos. I

It does not really work unless people are able to keep the law. They have to understand it, agree with it. They don't just obey to escape the punishment or disobey and try to evade getting caught.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 14:38:57

Snorbs lawlessness for those without Grace is just as harsh.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 14:48:30

snorbs I don't think we'll ever get it. Perhaps we just haven't read the bible enough to brainwash ourselves? Then we could seek redemption through christ's eternal truth and whatever.

All a bit problematical if you don't believe that god exists, or that Jesus was the son of god, or that the bible is the word of god. (All things that daftdame seems to be taking as accepted here) And if, like me and many others, you don't believe that religion is necessarily a force for good, then the last thing you want to do is start living by the bible's (dubious) moral code.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 14:59:27

People in the Old Testament under the Law sinned all the time (as those living under the Law do so now). God was and is merciful to those who sought / seek Him.

Your book of Eternal Truth says that your god told Moses what the law should be. One of those laws (Leviticus 21:20) was that they were allowed to beat their slaves as harshly as they wanted provided that slave didn't die within a few days.

In the time of the Old Testament then was the non-fatal beating of slaves a sin or not?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 15:00:15

Sabrina I agree with you that it (life) is problematical if you don't believe that God exists, or that Jesus was the son of God, or the Bible is the word of God.

Faith is a pre-requisite for Christians. I don't think the moral code is dubious (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be one)) and I find I am more at peace with my life since growing in my faith. As for brainwashing, are you brainwashed by the secular Zeitgeist?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 15:03:25

Life isn't problematical for me - I'm not the one trying to claim the bible is god's word.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 15:05:06

Daftdame, you make it all sound like a massive confidence trick - ah... but you have to believe... don't believe? Well you're just not trying hard enough. Go read your bible!

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 15:06:25

Snorbs allowed to not had to. Whether this was a sin would probably depend on whether it justified the crime, in crime and punishment terms, whether it was needed as a deterrent. I can't really comment re sin or not - once society is corrupt, law and lawlessness can be equally harsh. Law just highlights where sin is. Pagan societies had slavery too. Horrible but true.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 15:08:46

Sabrina If something is true it can exist beyond our realisation of it. You can disbelieve it but it still exists.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 15:10:11

Snorbs and Sabrina, I wish you well anyway and I'm off for now.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 15:37:57

Whether this was a sin would probably depend on whether it justified the crime, in crime and punishment terms, whether it was needed as a deterrent.

So your rationalisation of this is that provided the slave deserved it, a near-fatal beating was acceptable to your god.

Sadly that's not what it says in your book of Eternal Truth. It sets limits as to how quickly the slave can die from the beating. It says nothing about the circumstances under which such a beating is justified.

I cannot help but feel that talk of the slave's actions justifying having the crap kicked out of him/her (although I'm struggling to imagine what such actions might be) is more post-facto apologetics to defend the indefensible rather than anything that's actually in the source text.

Pagan societies had slavery too. Horrible but true.

Absolutely true but entirely irrelevant as no-one here is claiming that the Pagan societies had a book of Eternal Truth telling them that beating those slaves was ok.

EllieArroway Mon 13-May-13 16:15:10

Ellie Re. existing and non-existing at the same time consider Schroedinger's Cat

That was a thought experiment - not designed to show that the cat actually is alive and dead at the same time hmm

Why have you given me a list of logical fallacies? Care to tell me which ones I've been using?

Re. demonstrating spirit. One explanation I can give is as with Scientific Theory. It exists and doesn't exist in the physical realm. It is written down so exists physically (although not as an entity) but when people read it (and test it in life) and consider it true it exists in their thoughts and then the collective thoughts of those that believe it. Like Zeitgeist (spirit of age/time)

Erm. A Scientific theory is a model to describe/explain something. The thing it's describing exists, but the explanation remains conceptual. Putting it into words on paper does not make it into a physical thing.

Lots of fantasies exist in people's minds - as do fictional concepts. I have a concept of Superman. He must exist because lots of people can conceive him, right? Wrong.

The Bible is similar, exist physical in that it is written and in people's thoughts. Except the truth in the Bible in eternal, timeless

The book Harry Potter & The Philosophers Stone is physically written on paper and brings the concept of a boy with glasses to mind. So Harry Potter is real?

Oh - and thanks. I know what Zeitgeist means. Kindly do not patronise me.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:18:45

Snorbs its all post-facto apologetics unless you want to do an actual Bible study - which I suspect you don't.

I don't fully understand the harshness of the Old Testament either, since I don't live in those times or that kind of society. I have not had enough revelation on the Law as depicted in Leviticus yet to understand it completely, I'm just glad of the New Covenant and Grace that comes with Christ.

Christianity is not merely apologetics and can't be fully understood through intellectual studies. You have to receive revelation through the Holy Ghost and genuinely be seeking God through Jesus Christ.

EllieArroway Mon 13-May-13 16:21:33

daftdame

I wonder what excuse explanation you have for Numbers 31: 1-40?

A charming tale where Yahweh instructs Moses and his army to kill all the Midanites after defeating them. Moses leaves the women and children alive and God says (paraphrasing) - "What the hell are you doing? Kill the babies, children and women - except the virgin girls. You can keep those for yourselves ^wink wink, nudge nudge^".

LizzyDay Mon 13-May-13 16:22:47

"Christianity is not merely apologetics and can't be fully understood through intellectual studies. You have to receive revelation through the Holy Ghost and genuinely be seeking God through Jesus Christ."

Isn't that just a fancy way of saying

"you can't understand it by thinking about it. You have to WANT to believe it."

EllieArroway Mon 13-May-13 16:24:26

January

I understand time dilation up to a point - well enough to know that Best was talking out of his backside, anyway.

Until Icbineg gets back, I'll have a stab. What are your thoughts? smile

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:24:56

Ellie sorry for my over use of the word 'Zeitgeist', I'm finding it difficult to find secular terms for spiritual concepts.

I may over explain because it is difficult to put the spiritual in to words, apart from quoting the Bible, which you have said you don't believe anyway. I can never be sure if my words do what I want to say justice. So I try to find secular analogies and language to the best of my abilities, I accept they won't always hit the mark.

LizzyDay Mon 13-May-13 16:25:48

Actually that should say

"want to believe in it."

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:26:16

LizzyDay Yes, I believe that about anything. Intention pre-curses action.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 16:34:44

so you think revelations come to all those that genuinely seek it..... fails to explain my formative teenage years. despite going to church, sunday school, school religious groups, various church youth groups etc. Wow he missed a trick with me. Even my family were scared I would become a cult member with the dedication I put in to finding faith.

Turns out I found God but presumably not your one.

LizzyDay Mon 13-May-13 16:39:00

"Yes, I believe that about anything. Intention pre-curses action."

But it's not really a great strategy for running your life, surely? I'll invest all my energy in something simply because I WANT to, whether or not it makes any sense? confused

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 16:39:15

oh oh time dialation.

So from what I read the theory is that the effect of gravity around stellar masses could alter the concept of time around those masses.

Was Best trying to argue that because, relative to us, a second could be longer then, in theory, light could travel a greater distance (perceived by us) in a shorter time period without breaking the laws of physics.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:39:21

Januarymadness I can't comment on your formative years. I know nothing about them.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 16:42:43

spiritually thats pretty much it in a nutshell. No bad upbringing. No one forcing me into anything. Me genuinely trying to find a spiritual path which centred around Christianity.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:43:06

LizzyDay its not a strategy, it's a belief and if I believe it it does make sense to me. Of course I talk with other people, they can advise me...but essentially I decide, I have free will.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 16:43:58

As I said God missed a trick because it wouldnt have taken much of a revelation to paush me over the edge.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 16:47:44

I don't fully understand the harshness of the Old Testament either, since I don't live in those times or that kind of society.

Well let us thank Reason that we live in a time when the law is set by more-or-less rational humans rather than laid down by a blood-thirsty god.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 16:51:38

Was Best trying to argue that because, relative to us, a second could be longer then, in theory, light could travel a greater distance (perceived by us) in a shorter time period without breaking the laws of physics.

I think so. So the light from stars that appear to have travelled for billions of years to reach us actually only took a few thousand. Or something. I think it's a fairly standard YEC "Science says <x>, so let's wildly stretch it to a point almost immeasurably far from what <x> actually says, therefore god" thing.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:52:05

Januarymadness Maybe God is trying to reveal something to you now but you refuse to see it...

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:54:13

Snorbs our law system is rooted in Christian belief.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 16:55:32

quite the opposite. At the beginning of this thread I was still tryong to allign my thoughts with some of Christianity. I no longer make that attempt. I certainly dont want to allign muself with the God of the OT

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 16:57:58

Time dialation- doesnt really explain how this happened uniformly in all directions from us and lack of spectral shift though

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 16:58:21

Januarymadness sad Sorry.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 17:00:49

sorry for the typos on phone

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 17:02:13

No need to be sorry for me. It has brought me closer to the God I do believe in and has given me a greater understanding of why I believe what I do.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 17:39:24

Snorbs our law system is rooted in Christianity.

Hardly. The OT laws are often grotesque and the NT doesn't really have much in the way of law other than saying the OT laws are still entirely in effect except when they aren't.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 17:58:15

btw the english legal system is rooted in common law. The concept of common law was founded in the 12th century under Henry II. The tribunals were SECULAR.

Evolution is a scientific theory that in itself is subject to change as we discover more about the world. It is not an eternal truth.

Evolution can be observed now. We know it is going on. Also without leaving your chair you can reason that it must be going on. There is a good description of this somewhere, but I don't have it to hand. It goes something like this:

Do you agree that children can be somewhat different to their parents obviously true.

Do you agree that the difference could be an advantage in survival terms Obviously true. Simplest case would be if you can run faster than your friend then he gets eaten by the lion not you. So the fast runners survive to breed.

BestValue Tue 14-May-13 01:20:07

BOB, your description of evolution is one that even the most ardent young earth creationist agrees with. So there's obviously a lot more to it. Just sayin'. smile

EllieArroway Tue 14-May-13 04:47:04

January

So from what I read the theory is that the effect of gravity around stellar masses could alter the concept of time around those masses

Not really the "concept" of time, but time itself slows down (relative to an observer). But the effect of this is that, at extreme speeds, it's possible that time could be running slower here on Earth from the point of view of someone travelling elsewhere at close to the speed of light. This kind of gravitational time dilation is seen when the universe is observed - but at nowhere like the level it would need to be to bring the universe down from 13.7 billion years to 6000!

Was Best trying to argue that because, relative to us, a second could be longer then, in theory, light could travel a greater distance (perceived by us) in a shorter time period without breaking the laws of physics

He's saying that if Earth is sitting in a gravitational well (in a finite, bounded universe) the time dilation effect would be so great that it would have the effect of allowing a mere 6000 years to pass here on Earth while 13 billion were passing in the rest of the universe. So, old universe but young Earth.

Tis bollocks. Light that's heading down into a gravity well (in other words, the light we would see if we were in one) is blue shifted. That's not what we see - we see red shifted light that's moving away from us. That's just one of the numerous problems with this crackpot idea.

EllieArroway Tue 14-May-13 04:57:34

Best

Are you familiar with TAG?

EllieArroway Tue 14-May-13 05:04:24

January - sorry, just to add:

Time dilation is not about a second being longer or shorter as such. Time doesn't change in that respect. If you're stuck on Earth, nothing changes from your perspective at all. Not just because you're unaware - but because it doesn't change at all within your frame of reference. It's only from the frame of reference of a potential observer who's travelling at a faster speed who happens to look back at you that your time, from their point of view, would have slowed down. This happens as an effect of the constancy of light speed.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Tue 14-May-13 08:02:53

Think about it this way. All of us, in fact everything in the universe is travelling at the speed of light if you add up the velocities which we are moving in each of the four dimensions (3 dimensions of space and one of time).

If you take just 2 dimensions of space you can see how, if you are travelling at, say 30 miles an hour north, you will be travelling at 0mph east. Then you turn slightly east, but keep the same overall velocity, you are now travelling a bit less than 30mph north and a bit more than 0mph east.

The same is true in 4 dimensions, if you move faster in one of the space dimensions, you move slower in the time dimension. Overall, your total velocity is the speed of light. That is also why you cannot exceed the speed of light because you'd have to be moving at a negative velocity through space, which is impossible.

A photon, which has no mass, travels at exactly the speed of light through the space dimensions because it doesn't travel in the time dimension. A photon will not experience the passing of time whilst it exists.

BestValue Tue 14-May-13 08:27:12

"Your book of Eternal Truth says that your god told Moses what the law should be. One of those laws (Leviticus 21:20) was that they were allowed to beat their slaves as harshly as they wanted provided that slave didn't die within a few days. In the time of the Old Testament then was the non-fatal beating of slaves a sin or not?"

Snorbs, I believe you meant Exodus 21:20. Let's look at the verse (and verse 21 as well):

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

The term for ‘punished’ here is 'avenged', indicating the standard 'lex talionis', the law of equivalent retribution.

lex talionis: the law of retaliation equivalent to an offense; esp : the principle of retributive justice based on the Mosaic law of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” in Exod 21:23–25 —called also talion

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lex%20talionis

So allow me to translate. This passage is saying, "If you beat your slave and he dies, you are to be put to death also. But if he recovers and does not die, than you will not be put to death either. But there is still the eye-for-an-eye punishment."

This would be similar to a law today which states: "If you murder someone you will be executed. (i.e. capital punishment). But if you assault someone, you will be assaulted." Today, we would just put them in jail and not assault them. But that's because we don't take sin as seriously as God does.

To take these passages and misrepresent them as if God is okay with beating someone within an inch of his life is just like claiming that our laws today say it is okay to assault someone as long as we don't murder them. I think you have a very skewed understanding of the text and I think it is because you let your bias get in the way. Please keep these passages in mind:

Leviticus 25:35-43

35 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. 38 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

BestValue Tue 14-May-13 08:29:08

"Are you familiar with TAG?"

Sure, Ellie, I used to play it as a kid. And you're 'it.' smile

Januarymadness Tue 14-May-13 08:33:08

thanks Ellie. I think thats what I meant I just didn't write it very well.

Snorbs Tue 14-May-13 09:09:43

So allow me to translate. This passage is saying, "If you beat your slave and he dies, you are to be put to death also. But if he recovers and does not die, than you will not be put to death either. But there is still the eye-for-an-eye punishment."

No, the passage does not say that. You are adding your own "let's try to make this abhorrent verse not quite so abhorrent" gloss on it.

If you beat your slave so badly he dies three days after you've beaten him there won't be an eye-for-an-eye punishment will there?

Moreover, if the eye-for-an-eye punishment still holds regardless of whether it's a slave or not why have this law at all? What does it add?

Incidentally, this (as well as a number of other) passages very clearly states that non-Hebrew slaves are considered property of the slave owner. This is despite your attempts in the previous thread to cast Biblical slavery as nothing more than an employer/employee relationship.

Snorbs Tue 14-May-13 09:17:27

He's saying that if Earth is sitting in a gravitational well (in a finite, bounded universe) the time dilation effect would be so great that it would have the effect of allowing a mere 6000 years to pass here on Earth while 13 billion were passing in the rest of the universe. So, old universe but young Earth.

I'm no cosmologist but it seems to me that a gravity well steep enough to slow time that much would be, um, problematic. If the Earth was at the centre of the gravity well then surface gravity would be immense - possibly enough to crush the Earth into a neutron star. If the Earth wasn't exactly at the centre then the gravitational tides would tear it apart.

Januarymadness Tue 14-May-13 09:39:53

appart from the bit about it being US in the gravitational well. Well thats just ?

EllieArroway Tue 14-May-13 13:21:10

I'm no cosmologist but it seems to me that a gravity well steep enough to slow time that much would be, um, problematic. If the Earth was at the centre of the gravity well then surface gravity would be immense - possibly enough to crush the Earth into a neutron star. If the Earth wasn't exactly at the centre then the gravitational tides would tear it apart

Yeah. Plus (not being a cosmologist either) if the solar system is so heavy it could cause that kind of distortion in spacetime, wouldn't we see the effect of that on the rest of the galaxy? In other words, everything would be orbiting us, surely. Unless it's the whole Milky Way that's supposed to be in the well - which wouldn't explain how we are able to see so much of our galaxy given that it's about 100,000 light years across.

BestValue Wed 15-May-13 01:37:44

Well, This guy IS a cosmologist (actually an astrophysicist) so he might know a thing or two about gravitational time dilation:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=g73iuRlfl8E

And this guy developed the theory:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU

And this guy explains it too:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrT3lhRzhIs&list=PLAdKzOzCc6WJl94SlbQiynJEgNwaTHpi6

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 05:06:49

Yes, and if you'd bothered actually doing any research, you'd know that his paper has been completely rejected by all of his peers as fanciful nonsense.

Guess who employs him, btw....Answers in Genesis. EMPLOYS him. Bit like tobacco companies who employ people with respectable credentials to say what they want people to hear. For such God-fearing folk, you creationists are really very dishonest.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 09:47:55

You have research funded by drug companies, research funded by governments, researchers who are Christians, researchers who are atheists, researchers of other religions. Now you tell me where there is Science without bias?

Januarymadness Wed 15-May-13 10:02:49

I think you missed the bit that said "rejected by all his peers as fanciful nonsense"

Januarymadness Wed 15-May-13 10:14:35

Again I am repeating an old argument but..

Any decent research paper will acknowledge internal bias. They will document how they address such bias in order to validate the paper.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 10:36:59

You can have collective bias you know - think of mob rule.

How far do they go to register internal bias. Do you get the complete life story and beliefs of every person involved?

Think of all the bad things done because of science over the years, mass sterilisations, lobotomies, the politics involved surrounding childbirth, child rearing - medical intervention or non-intervention.

What I am saying is that bias, assumptions, faith is involved every step of the way within the 'scientific', arena. Even Science done for Science sake, to discover something 'new' is in way worships of self in that it is biased towards discovering something new.

Not that I am against science, we have received some powerful insights in to the way the world works through this methodology. I just don't think science can be entirely separated from belief.

Januarymadness Wed 15-May-13 11:09:30

I really think you are overestimating how much people without faith actually think about it. Even those who nominally identify with any religion.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 11:14:26

Even if you are not aware of it everybody employs faith to some extent in their biases and assumptions. Just because it is subconscious does not mean if affects them any less.

Even in our biology, the way we perceive the information from our nerve endings, the 'gaps' that the brain subconsciously fills in for us with eyesight for example shows variety and diversity.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 11:41:05

Nonsense. By definition there is no 'faith' employed in scientific method. Assumptions which are tested, maybe, but not faith.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 11:47:44

Sabrina Call it what you will, the semantics vary, faith can be tested also.

On the subject of the way beliefs can effect our language have you ever looked at Daniel Everett's work work the Pirahã people?

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 11:48:21

^ that should be with the...

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 11:51:00

Argumentum ad verecundiam

There's a whole paragraph devoted to creationism. wink

LizzyDay Wed 15-May-13 11:54:04

The whole point of the scientific method IS to eliminate biases, agendas and so forth.

A perfect experiment is one with no bias.

Yes, many scientific experiments may fall short of perfect methodology due to human error etc, but if they are claiming to have found out anything of significance (eg how the world was formed) there will always be other scientists ready to challenge their results.

A good scientific theory is testable and repeatable by anyone anywhere (provided they have the right equipment) - that is the point.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 12:03:41

Sabrina but as human beings are we capable of employing any argument without being eristic? (Or is this what you are trying to say? That Wiki page is awfully dense).

LizzyDay Yes, but this is why the truth is science evolves over time ie is not constant.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 12:04:27

that should be ^with science...

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 12:08:48

No faith is required in the acceptance of evolution. There is enough physical evidence from observing the natural world, from testing by thousands of scientists for more than a century, for scientists to accept the concept with no faith, bias or assumptions involved. You can accept evolution whilst having a faith in god, or no faith in god - it's neither here nor there.

Whereas to believe in creationism, faith in a god, whose actual existence reamins unproven and untested, is a pre-requisite.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 12:17:50

Sabriana One query I would have with a Darwinian view of evolution is that it claims species distinct different classifications species are evolved through genetic mutation.( eg Evolution from ape to man)

Now as I have mentioned Epigenetics before, gene expression can vary, this means there can be a huge amount of variety within the same species. Added to this scientists disagree, and opinions change over classification.

I would never pretend to be an expert, I really would have to go back to the books. However this is one of the reasons I don't swallow the whole scientific theory as fact nonsense, as scientific understanding evolves. wink

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 12:19:20

^ that should be distinct different classification of species...

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 12:20:29

Epigenetics doesn't disprove evolution.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 12:25:10

I never said it did - my point was that the concept of evolution is evolving itself. What remains is a mystery...

Perhaps you can elaborate on what you meant re Epigenetics and evolution.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 12:32:02

Daftdame, I would suggest you do some reading about evolution, what a scientific theory actually is and stop reading the bible for anything more than an enrichment of your own personal faith.

We talked about this on the last thread, and it seems you're still not clear on it - you seem to think that science requires some sort of faith or belief, when by it's very definition, it doesn't. Good science has no agenda or bias.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 12:38:43

This is a good starting point:

National Academy of Sciences

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 12:48:01

Sabrina I suggest you do some reading of the Bible to know what life is....

I think I'll leave it at that.smile

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 12:48:43

Who says I haven't read the bible?

Januarymadness Wed 15-May-13 12:49:43

fwiw skip "numbers" it is dull dull dull

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 12:53:25

January grin

Where can I find 'scientific method' in the bible...? Not come across it so far.

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 13:35:00

Daftdame

I would never pretend to be an expert, I really would have to go back to the books. However this is one of the reasons I don't swallow the whole scientific theory as fact nonsense, as scientific understanding evolves

Evolution is a fact - the theory of evolution is our explanation of that fact. As better data & evidence emerges the theory might change a bit, or become refined - but the FACT of evolution never will.

Science's great strength is it's ability & willingness to change it's mind to fit the evidence. Unlike religion which never changes it's mind, and never will.

Oh - and there was no "evolution from ape to man". Aside from the fact that we ARE apes, we share a common ancestor with primates, we didn't evolve from them.

Still don't get this obsession with epigenetics.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 13:44:48

Darwinism a la Horrible Histories smile

There are 66 dislikes and an argument about god in the comments hmm someone's commented '66 creationists disliked this video' wink

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 13:46:40

blush Sorry wrong link blush

Here it is

I've not been perving over Matthew Baynton, oh no

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 13:47:26

Will go and do something constructive now! After one more HH clip...

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 13:58:00

"Although man evolved from monkey's millions of years ago....." Grrrr, Horrible Histories, NO!

Quite liked that Dick Turpin link, Sabrina hmm

I love YT arguments about God. I have an inbox full of messages telling me I'm going to have intimate relations with Satan in Hell.

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 13:58:34

Sorry....hmm was meant to be wink

Ooops.

Januarymadness Wed 15-May-13 14:02:43

seriouslyangry Thats cowardly. If you are going to attack someone at least have the courage of your convictions to do it publicly! Ellie please report to MN personal attacks are equally against mn code in pm form.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 14:05:27

Well the Epigenetics is interesting to me re. the Hominid skeletons found - they could just be human with different gene expression due to inheritance as described in the Bible. Who decides / decided the classification?

From here it all starts to unravel for me....so I'll go. Like the Dick Turpin clip though grin.

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 14:07:42

No, no....on YouTube I mean, January! Sorry, should have been clearer smile

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 14:08:32

sad at the messages Ellie. I fully expect people to have different beliefs and Mumsnet is a choice. I'm glad you're on here so I can talk about these subjects.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 14:10:59

Glad you all liked Dick Turpin blush

Januarymadness Wed 15-May-13 14:13:01

oh you got me all angry then grin

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 14:14:30

Again - I'm talking about Youtube, honestly. I've never had any message like that from here. And it's mostly rabid American evangelicals who can't spell, so I don't let it worry me in the slightest. I find it funny.

Have the rest of you ever heard Richard Dawkins reading his hate mail? Hilarious......HERE

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 14:16:00

And HERE

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 14:20:05

I'm afraid Dawkins doesn't do it for me...might watch the Dick Turpin clip again though! grin

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 14:26:23

Apropos of nothing...my fellow skeptics...have you seen THIS?

Wonderful.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 14:36:28

Oh yes Ellie. Love Tim Minchin grin

mass sterilisations, lobotomies, the politics involved surrounding childbirth, child rearing - medical intervention or non-intervention.

Examples of how people use the results of science and nothing to do with the scientific method of gaining knowledge.

How far do they go to register internal bias.

People can be biased, but the nice thing about the system of scientific discovery and peer review is that it minimises and ultimately cancels out the bias.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 14:41:07

Ah, if life was just like Scooby Do!

I love my life with the monsters and myths and miracles and God. Well there you go...

EllieArroway Wed 15-May-13 14:46:26

The Scooby theme song always takes me back to when my DS was a toddler - we'd spend hours singing it together.

Anyway, wish me luck all....off to have a wisdom tooth out sad

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 14:51:57

Good luck Ellie.

While we're still lighthearted: Tim again

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 14:52:13

Ellie God bless.grin (Well you wouldn't really want Lady Luck either...)!

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 14:54:29

Or <may pharmaceutical drugs numb your pain> grin

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 15-May-13 16:18:30

And how, in the name of all sanity, have I never seen THIS before? V pertinent to the discussion smile

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 16:27:54

Love the Tim Minchin stuff.

daftdame I liked your one too as a song and I think I understood enough of it to see why it might be inspiring. Then again I love the "Jerusalem" hymn too. And when I wonder about my place in the universe I listen to the Monty Python Galaxy song smile

If 'The Cave' refers to plato's cave I'd have to say that one of the things I value about being an atheist is that I can look in all directions without worrying that I might see something 'difficult'. It's very relaxing.

daftdame Wed 15-May-13 19:08:29

BackOnlyBriefly Plato's Cave has significance to me too, as a Christian, set free..

Caves signify heavily in the Bible also.

BestValue Thu 16-May-13 00:10:33

"No, the passage does not say that. You are adding your own "let's try to make this abhorrent verse not quite so abhorrent" gloss on it."

Snorbs, you can't just cherry-pick verses. As Daft has said repeatedly, you must take the ENTIRE Bible into account. The Bible is very clear that humans were created in the image of God, are all related to Adam and Eve and are to be treated equally.

"If you beat your slave so badly he dies three days after you've beaten him there won't be an eye-for-an-eye punishment will there?"

Yes there will. You will lose YOUR life just as HE has lost his.

"Moreover, if the eye-for-an-eye punishment still holds regardless of whether it's a slave or not why have this law at all? What does it add?"

What it adds is to make clear that slaves are to be treated with respect like everyone else - unlike other cultures at the time where slaves were mistreated. With a little consideration, you'll see that many of these verses actually mean the opposite of what you think they mean.

BestValue Thu 16-May-13 00:28:12

"Yes, and if you'd bothered actually doing any research, you'd know that his paper has been completely rejected by all of his peers as fanciful nonsense."

Most scientists rejected the big bang theory at first too - mostly because it was proving the Bible correct. Besides, as you well know, truth is not decided by majority opinion.

"Guess who employs him, btw....Answers in Genesis. EMPLOYS him. Bit like tobacco companies who employ people with respectable credentials to say what they want people to hear."

That's quite an accusation. I suppose you've got evidence for that, right? Not just that he's employed by them but that they hired him to lie for them.

"For such God-fearing folk, you creationists are really very dishonest."

On the contrary. Remember that Christians believe they have a responsibility to God to be honest. Atheists have no such objective moral code. If a Christian lies, we might rightly call her a hypocrite. But if an atheist lies we cannot criticize her because she is just doing whatever she feels is right at the time.

In fact, how's this for a syllogism:

Premise #1: Atheists (i.e. humanists) believe it is sometimes morally permissible to lie to prevent harm. (eg. the Jews in the attic dilemma.)

Premise #2: Atheists (i.e. humanists) believe that religion causes harm.

Conclusion: Atheists (i.e. humanists) consider it morally permissible to lie anywhere they see religion doing harm to help to minimize that harm - including in public debates such as THIS ONE on MumsNet. wink

Tell us - why should Christians trust that any atheist is being honest when it comes to matters of religion? Shouldn't we expect that it would be in their best interest to lie as much as possible if it will help to eradicate religion and, in the long run, prevent more harm and suffering?

EllieArroway Thu 16-May-13 03:54:10

Most scientists rejected the big bang theory at first too - mostly because it was proving the Bible correct. Besides, as you well know, truth is not decided by majority opinion

No - it was not "rejected", and certainly not because of The Bible. Most scientists are pretty educated people, Best - it's only the uneducated cough like you cough who think a collection of Bronze Age fairtytales has anything to say about science. When the BB was first proposed, there were no observations (or only a few) to support it. When those observations were made, science changed it's mind. Science is good like that - religion (particularly your infantile brand) is spectacularly bad.

Dr Lisle's piece of crap research doesn't just have no supporting observations, it flies in the face of all that cosmology knows, which is quite a lot. The physics community laughed at him - or politely smirked behind their hands.

That's quite an accusation. I suppose you've got evidence for that, right? Not just that he's employed by them but that they hired him to lie for them

Dr Jason Lisle.

I never said he "lied" - I said he said what they wanted to hear. Whether that was because he's bloody useless or dishonest is not for me to say. I'll go with a bit of both.

But YECs generally are very dishonest. How many times did we catch you quote mining? How many times did you manipulate quotes? How many times were you PROVEN wrong and refused to admit it? If you're typical (and you are) then I stand by that. And you are Exhibit No. 1 wink

On the contrary. Remember that Christians believe they have a responsibility to God to be honest.....and how you must be making the baby Jesus cry, Best.

Atheists have no such objective moral code. If a Christian lies, we might rightly call her a hypocrite. But if an atheist lies we cannot criticize her because she is just doing whatever she feels is right at the time

Your stupidest, and most unsupported claim (other than our cohabitation with dinosaurs of course) is that morality is impossible unless it's objective.

No. I, personally, do what feels right at the time, yes - not just what's right for me, but what's right for everybody, on balance.

But I think I'd prefer not to listen to a morality lecture from someone who would let a baby starve to death rather than break a window and take some milk.

In fact, how's this for a syllogism:

Well, it's not one for a start. Bit crap at logic, aren't you?

#1 - Yes, I think under certain circumstances it's permissible to lie to protect others. (You, presumably would have ratted out Anne Frank?)

#2: Yes, I think religion can do enormous harm.

And your conclusion from this is that I (and my fellow atheists) are lying on this thread to protect others from harm?

Don't flatter yourself. I don't think anyone's in danger from harm here - MNers are pretty smart generally, and you are nowhere near as persuasive as you think you are.

And where have we lied, then?

(BTW: January is not an atheist. What's her motivation for highlighting your ludicrous misrepresentations of science? Could it just be that she's an honest person who accepts reality and bases her beliefs around it? Like, you know, rational people do).

Gutted you've not heard of TAG. We could have really got our teeth into that one. (It's the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. Look up Matt Slick & CARM).

EllieArroway Thu 16-May-13 04:56:34

What it adds is to make clear that slaves are to be treated with respect like everyone else

Do you really not understand that it's immoral to keep slaves at all - let alone kill them under certain circumstances?

And, no - it wasn't anything like the employer/employee relationship. You've just made that up - as you made up the bit about the slave owner dying too.

Face it - your God totally approves of slavery, genocide, blood sacrifice & murder. And his attitude to rape is, frankly, disgusting.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 06:52:23

you quoted the verse yourself -

"but they are not to be punished if they recover after a day or two because the slave is their property"

Where is the eye for an eye here?

Not the morality bit again. Need I remind Christians that according to their bible they must be willing to obey and love god no matter what. Even if he tells you to murder children.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 09:51:58

sad I don't know what I would do in the Anne Frank situation. There is sin whichever way you turn. 'Ratting' on Anne certainly would be a sin as it would make you complicit in the Nazi's evil campaign, a stumbling block allowing them to sin. We live in a fallen world.

I, as you know, am a Christian. I am comforted by the fact that if you believe on Jesus all your sins are forgiven. As for the correct action Jesus said this,

"But when they shall lead you and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." (Mark 13:11)

Thus, Christians, we should do what we believe is right at the time too...

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 16-May-13 09:55:16

Morality cannot be objective. Morality is based on the wellbeing being of yourself and others. It's quite clear that everything which may be best for your own wellbeing will not necessarily be best for everyone else.

Are there good things and bad things? Yes. For example, let's say hypothetically, a radioactive dust cloud descended on the whole earth reducing the relative health of every living thing on the planet. I hope it would be clear that this would be bad for 'life' (if not, I'd love to hear your definition if bad.

Anything which can be done to subsequently improve life and health from this position would therefore be good.

However, that's not to say that there would be one correct way of improving everyone's health. There would be many alternatives.

Most actions are not 'good' or 'bad' for everyone. So morality must be judged by a balance of what is generally better on the whole for the wellbeing of yourself and others. To say one specific thing, like murder, is objectively wrong is to completely ignore the surrounding conditions of the act.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 10:03:55

Pedro This is why Christian's believe God is the only judge (we cannot judge each other).

Added to this we know we can only be righteous by believing on Christ because human kind cannot keep the whole of the Law. Breaking just one part shows unrighteousness. We can only be redeemed through Christ, we have to accept that we cannot be redeemed through our own works or actions.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 10:18:42

oh but we can, and must, judge each other. Hence the court system.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 10:23:32

January I'm really glad I'm not a judge grin.

If I was I'd have to think primarily about keeping society safe and rehabilitation and not retribution. I still wouldn't be saying or be expected say people are damned.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 10:35:43

My friend wrote her masters dissertation on rehabilitation vs retribution in the prison system. Brilliant read (her brilliant make very well deserved).

Safety is both physical and psychological. An element of retribution is necessary for society as a whole to feel safe. where as the long term physical safety of society is reliant on rehabilitation and deterant.

Could you be a juror?

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 10:46:14

You really don't knoe that you would do in the Anne Frank situation? Really? You know people are being murdered purely on the basis of their religion, these people include small children. You don't know what you would do because trying to protect some of these people might involve telling a couple of lies sad

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 11:00:58

January madness. Please don't read me wrong...I probably didn't express my self very well. I hope I do know and I hope I'd be brave and protect Anne. For that I need my faith.

I don't judge people who are cowardly, I'm sure we have all been guilty of cowardly behaviour in the past. However the Bible says that love can combat fear so my intention would be to focus on that.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 11:04:43

January When I was called I got an exemption because of personal circumstances.

I understand deterrent, I'd have to have greater understanding than I posses now to fully understand retribution.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 11:06:54

if you were called again would you go?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 11:09:25

January Don't know. Depends whether I was eligible to be exempt or not. If not I'd go and pray a lot and do my best.

keeping society safe and rehabilitation and not retribution That's what I'd be thinking about too. Sometimes the threat of retribution can be a deterrent, but the retribution itself is pointless.

I'd even be ok with capital punishment to protect society (exile is better, but where to?), but I'd insist it was painless because it's not about revenge - just a practical solution.

"Vengeance is mine saith the lord". See you have to have the taste for it.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 11:23:49

Back How do you know God has a 'taste for it', he is just saying it (vengeance) belongs to Him, it is under His authority.

Then if you were Pedro's friend you would say retribution was necessary.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 11:27:57

^ sorry January's friend.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 11:52:23

but there has to be some element of punishment for societies sake. Take the Philpot case. Rehabilitation and protecting others is unlikely to play a major part here. Their actions lead to the deaths of their children. They probably didn't mean to and they would be unlikely to repeat such actions so there is no need for rehabilitation in that sense. But there did need to be punishment. Society at large would not be ok with them not paying a harsh penalty.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 12:05:06

I understand your point. It is sort of what the Old testament reflects. For me to be entirely happy the judge would be acting under God's Authority, doing His will.

For me God's will is synonymous with what is right.

As Back reminded us vengeance belongs to God. God can carry out His will through people.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 12:23:40

God can carry out His will through people.

A very frightening idea that. People who believe that they have the will of god on their side can and have done terrible things.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 12:37:48

Sabrina agree although I'm not sure I would consider them true believers, they weren't acting according to faith anyway.

The Bible tells us to beware of false doctrines, tares (people put there by Satan) and how to know them from their fruits (although as I said before we cannot judge and the tares are not to be judged till judgement day). Its why we must be vigilant and continually refresh our minds with reading the Bible and prayer.

Look at 1 Corinthians 13 which shows how important love is.

How do you know God has a 'taste for it' I read the bible.

but there has to be some element of punishment for society's sake

Personally I see that as a means to deter others rather than vengeance as such. I mean the relatives of a victim might want the criminal killed horribly and that's understandable, but this is why we don't let relatives or victims decide. Instead we (try) to put it in the hands of people who can be coldly practical about it.

That's why I think the bible is different because god comes off as reveling in it. To paraphrase many bible verses "Kill them all! Not just the people who did it, but their wives, their children, their friends, their dog and anyone else in the neighbourhood"

Of course it isn't really god saying that since he doesn't exist so you have to think of a leader saying all that and people going along with it. More understandable back then in primitive times than it is now.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 16-May-13 12:44:04

Pedro This is why Christian's believe God is the only judge (we cannot judge each other).

Well, we can judge people and we do. But even if we couldn't, why does that automatically both require a god and give him the only right to judge? Perhaps there's no one to judge us.

EllieArroway Thu 16-May-13 12:48:14

God can carry out His will through people.....so much for free will, then, if God is "using" people to do what he wants.

Have you ever really thought this through, Daftdame? What kind of society would this be if we couldn't judge each other? No justice system of any kind - no police force (who rely on their own judgements), no social workers (who rely on their own judgements), and so on. We HAVE to judge, otherwise we would be completely unable to protect innocent people.

And I'm not a fan of leaving it all up to your God, since he seems to have a pretty weird set of priorities. He's apparently willing to forgive just about anything, except denying the holy spirit - you just have to remember to say sorry first. So a repentant Hitler could be in a state of bliss in Heaven as we speak - while Einstein & Darwin, who achieved so much for us, are being barbecued.

For me God's will is synonymous with what is right So, it's up to God what's moral and what isn't? What's objective about that? Morality can only be truly objective if it holds true in all circumstances - and if something HAS to hold true, then this means that God has his hands tied & can never change his mind about what's moral and what's not. So it's not really up to him, is it?

Not sure I've explained myself very well in the last paragraph but I'm pushed for time.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 12:49:03

Personally I prefer the deterant take on things. However what I may see as deterant someone else may see as retribution. I think the reality is somewhere between the 2, with the added splash if protecting society from other possible wrongdoings.

Couldn't agree more about the OT take on things being about punishing everyone within striking distance, whether innocent or not. Very similar to acts of war....or terror. I wonder why people think religion might be a bad thing?

EllieArroway Thu 16-May-13 12:54:57

Didn't God say somewhere in the OT that he likes the smell of burning human flesh? Charming. Wonder if he likes the taste of it too, like Hannibal Lecter.

BoB I LOVE The Galaxy song. That's how I remember facts about how fast we're spinning & moving through space!

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 12:56:47

daftdame, sorry but you're sounding like Harold bloody Camping.

LizzyDay Thu 16-May-13 12:58:51

"The Bible tells us to beware of false doctrines, tares (people put there by Satan) and how to know them from their fruits (although as I said before we cannot judge and the tares are not to be judged till judgement day). Its why we must be vigilant and continually refresh our minds with reading the Bible and prayer. "

Do you seriously believe that you come across people in your life who were put there by Satan? Really?? Even if you don't I'm sure there are many who do believe it, which I find most disturbing.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 13:14:46

Ellie Our will is free because we choose let God work His will through us or not. We have a justice system because we live in a fallen world and people do not do God's will all of the time.

Lizzy I can't honestly say I know any people put in my life through Satan. From history I would wonder about Hitler. (Also, privately, I've sometimes wondered whether people have said out loud the odd thought that Satan has put into their head. grin)

Back I just don't see God revelling in it. You've just got to look at how Jesus was, for example with the woman who was about to be stoned.

Sabrina Who is Harold bloody Camping?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 13:22:10

Ellie I think you might have a disagreement with Pedro regarding whether morality can be objective, not me. Because God knows all our hearts he is fair and just not sure it is the same as objective. In fact it is objective (because he is fair) and subjective (because he loves each and everyone of us).

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 13:31:04

Ellie Re. judgement, I tend to take the meaning associated with either being declared righteous or damnation.

Someone can be blameless but still have committed a crime if they don't fully understand what they did, in which case rehabilitation is appropriate IYSWIM.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 13:32:00

Have you ever been to a non Christian country? Is it like walking with the damned? I mean all the good non Christan people in the world that must be destined for hell? Thats odd to me if God loves us all

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 13:33:50

January I would not say that. We are all made in God's image, there is inherent goodness in all of us as well as faults.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 13:53:11

Despite the inherent goodness in these non-christians though, according to your faith, you will go to heaven and they won't?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 13:57:04

According to Christianity, going to Heaven is a choice, you either want to be with God or not.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:04:36

yep but what choice are people who know nothing of Christianity given. You can only get to be with God if you know him. Thats an awful lot of people with no choicesad

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:12:39

January Hence the Great Commission, also the Bible does say every one knows God exists when considering what he has created. ( I forget the exact scripture but I have read it). Jesus also says we have a choice, "Choose life...". I am still studying this myself so do not have all the scriptures to hand....

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:21:54

So the God I know exists is ok and I dont have to stick with all of your doctorine? Just a thought

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:23:53

January ?

But I thought you were choosing?

What exactly are you choosing?

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:32:33

I choose the God that makes rational sense to me. Unfortunately it is not the one your bible portrays

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:36:53

"everyone knows God exists considering what he created" This is very different to "everyone knows what is written in the bible and that is the only way to know God and the only path to him"

The first means anyone who considers a deity knows God regardless of religion. It is still not a broad enough catchment for me but it is getting there.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:37:05

January Which god is that?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 14:41:59

daftdame, I wouldn't agree that 'everyone knows god exists'.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:42:14

January As I have said before, you have to take the Bible in its entirety. Some things are still a mystery to me, those things I take in faith.

At salvation even though we do not know him consciously our spirit does. It is the spirit part of man that is saved. Thus we grow in our faith and as more is revealed to us, we understand more.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:42:14

I have made it quite clear on here that I am a liberal theist (possibly with leanings towards the deist) but that organised religion is a barrier to freedom of thought and more often than not a means of manipulation

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 14:44:15

According to Christianity, going to Heaven is a choice, you either want to be with God or not.

I love that - such a positive spin on sending vast swathes of the population to hell!

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:44:22

or you dont take the bible as the word of God...in its entirety or otherwise....

Snorbs Thu 16-May-13 14:45:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:45:37

January Sorry I have not read everything you have written so didn't know that.

I'm not a liberal theist / deist but would agree with you regarding some (aspects) of organised religion.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 14:47:01

And I don't understand what best and daftdame preach about 'taking the bible in it's entirety' either. How? Parts of it are so completely contradictory.

Plus, are you taking the bible in it's entirety when you've quoted verses at us here?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:48:58

January I do take the Bible as the word of God, I just have not read all of it or fully, consciously, understood all of it.

Christianity is my faith as I have said.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 14:49:42

If you've not read all of the bible, how are you taking it in it's entirety?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:51:14

Sabrina In spirit.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 14:53:33

In spirit? What does that mean?

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:55:05

fair enough. But I would like to point out I have said things directly to you that would suggest my Theist leanings grin Like I found God but presumably not yours. That the thread had given me greater understanding of what I believe about the God I do believe in.....

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 14:58:53

Isn't it hard to have faith in something when you don't actually know what that something is (my primary argument against Scientology as it goes)

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 14:59:58

Sabrina Do you really want me to go through all this again? Or are you teasing?

I really think I'm not up to this particular job. See my previous posts re. spiritual understanding. We really are going round in circles.

Basically we are made of spirit (part that is saved ), soul (thinking part) and flesh (physical body). The things that are known in the spirit are subconscious until revealed to you by the Holy Spirit when you seek God through Jesus Christ.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 15:02:05

No I'm not teasing - but I think you are. Are you in the UK out of interest? Because it's pretty unusual for even the most devout christian here to believe that the bible can or should be taken literally.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 15:08:27

my last comment was a genuine question. I don't mean it to look like I am picking on you. I genuinely don't understand how bible literalists reach their conclusions but I respect that we are all entitled to believe what we want to

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 15:13:49

Sorry just my frustration at trying to communicate well coming out.

I believe I have mentioned before about my feelings using the term 'literally' with the Bible. I believe the Bible works on many levels concurrently, literally, symbolically, thematically...To say it is merely literal is inadequate.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 15:40:13

The problem is that I read that to say "There is too much I don't agree with or understand in the bible for a wholly literal translation but I find it too uncomfortable to say that some bits may not actually be what God meant because then I have to question the bits I do agree with"

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 15:57:35

January But that would not be what I wrote / meant to convey...What I wrote is what I meant.

You are just jumping to your own conclusions about me based on your own understanding / world view, 'projecting' if you get my point.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 16:01:50

well you either believe that the bible is word for word what God meant it to be (and I dont see how it can be as there are different translations) or it isn't. It is ok to think that it is thematically correct while still not being verbatim. Though that does prevent you identifying as a literallist because you wouldn't be.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 16:07:45

No, I agree with January. I'm afraid it all sounds like you can just interpret the bible how you please, and gloss over all the horrible stuff in there.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:12:35

January I've told you what I am.

I am a literalist in that I believe the Bible is true in faith (I may not comprehend all of it and wait for deeper revelation). You have to know all of the Bible to fully comprehend its truth.

I am not a literalist in that I believe the Bible is also symbolic.

The term is inadequate. Like God being objective and subjective, see previous post.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:13:32

Sabrina sorry. My words fail me sad.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 16:14:40

Which brings us nicely back round to YEC. Even if the bible is thematically correct but not literally Genesis can be interpreted to be God saying "well first I did this, then I did this and that and then I had a rest" Which knocks the bottom out of the YEC interpretation that the time period must have been earth days.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:21:16

January But you have already said you have had no spiritual revelation re the Bible. How can you claim to comprehend it's truth?

Why would you pick the days as the bit that is symbolic. How do you know what God can do in a day?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:23:05

January Ah I see it conflicts with the Darwinian theory of evolution...which you hold above the Bible, why?

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 16:23:46

the days was simply an example based on the theme of the thread.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 16:24:56

nope it conflicts with all established and peer reviewed science in multiple fields

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 16:25:31

I have no real feelings on Darwin himself or his findings

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:26:33

January Fill me in then..

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 16:27:20

The bible says the earth is flat doesn't it?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:29:41

Sabrina Where?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 16:29:56

Do you think the earth is flat daftdame?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:31:31

Sabrina No!

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 16:33:29

It also says the earth is immovable and firm - we know this is not so now.

You'd think if god was the creator, and if the bible was the word of god, he'd be a bit more accurate about the physical details of his creation.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 16:34:49

i highy recommend the first thread for the science bit

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:35:28

Sabrina it only works if you can give me the quotations, so I can see them in context.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 16:35:45

The flat-earthers (and there are still some around apparently) are making the exact same claims as the yec's - that the bible is right and science is wrong.

And that's craaaazy.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:40:16

January I read a bit to no avail, don't get a lot of it. Cosmos stuff, expanding galaxies all that.

I really can't comment on the Science of it. I don't understand all the Science and you don't understand spiritual revelation. Where does this leave us?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:41:20

Sabrina As I said it only works for me with the Bible references...

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 16:46:38

Genesis also describes the earth as having 'pillars.' Which must be an interesting challenge for the literalists.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:49:05

Sabrina quotes please or don't you want me to read in context?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 16:56:17

Sabrina You do understand that language is literal and symbolic, take the etymology for the word bug. Originally it described a terror which morphed into meaning insect.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 16:58:52

Science is based on tangible evidence. It is also a spectra of certainty. The more we test something and our theories are shown to be correct the higher up the specra of certainty the theory moves.

Spirituality is based on things we feel to know to be correct.

When things we feel we know are correct conflict with things high up on the certainty spectra we need to change our feelings not deny testable theories.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:02:23

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Revelations 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Job 28:24
For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

Job 37:3
He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.

Job 38:4-6
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Psalms 75:3
The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

1 Samuel 2:8 For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them

Chronicles 16:30:
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.

Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm

Psalm 96:10
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable

Psalm 104:5
Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18:
who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...

A sphere does not have four corners, 'an end' or foundations. And the earth doesn't have pillars supporting it.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:03:09

literal and symbolic eh?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:04:57

And I see Best is still around trying to justify (or deny? I can't really tell) slavery in the bible.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:09:07

January scientific theory is still evolving though.

The evolved theory, if only changed by one aspect, can have great ramifications if it answers what was previously thought a mystery.

Take what some psychologists are claiming about free will for example does not totally join up with how Epigenetics works. Even across different disciplines there is not much joined up thinking, or a completely common language.

Scientists themselves argue that other scientific disciplines are not science, not truly observable especially social science, psychology.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:12:45

Should this bible quote be taken as literal or symbolic?

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 17:14:47

thats what I meant by spectra of certainty. If we feel we know the earth is flat. That then conflicts with things that are observed tried and tested (and now photographed and currently seen first hand by astronauts). Do we still try to deny that it is a sphere or do we say what we felt to be right is actually wrong ( or do we argue minor points by saying it is not a perfect sphere it is ever so slightly eliptical)

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:14:55

Sabrina See your point. I should have said the Bible (in it's entirety) is literal and symbolic, not isolated quotes. You have found a lot of symbolic quotes.

I still have a problem myself with literal and symbolic since I believe there is symbolism in life.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:17:07

January I would say trust your heart but it does rather depend on whether your heart is true.

Btw I know the earth is (roughly) spherical.grin

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:21:52

Sabrina I would have to go back and read the whole chapter or more and receive revelation. I take it it is prophecy so partly symbolic and partly saying what will happen.

I know you seem to want to catch me out but I can only tell you what I know, which is not everything.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 17:24:43

I think you need to look at by what you mean by literal. Most Christians would agree the bible is not plainly written and understood (sorry Best I know this is one of your assumptions) It doesn't make someone a bad Christian it makes them a sensible one.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 17:26:29

Sorry I have avoided this but it is bugging me. When you say recieve revelation do you mean a 'light bulb moment' or do you mean somethong else?

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 17:26:41

something

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:27:31

This is an old one, but Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:31:25

Sabrina I would have to go back and read the whole chapter or more and receive revelation. I take it it is prophecy so partly symbolic and partly saying what will happen.

See, I find that sort of answer faintly annoying. Either the bible is the word of god, or it isn't. You're trying to have it all ways, and then say that you need some sort of 'revelation' to actually understand it?

Little wonder people like Peter Sutcliffe claim that 'god told me to do it' as an excuse for their atrocities.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:32:29

January Yes revelation could be described as light bulb moment.

Yes, my understanding of literal is problematic. Don't know how to resolve that though. I have tried my best to explain myself accurately as possible.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:35:32

So you think that what's written in the bible is actually more valid than scientific research?

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 17:37:40

can I ask again why would God write something it takes a revelation to understand? Why wouldn't he write plainly for all?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:39:04

It's the Emperor's New Clothes, innit?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:40:03

To me, yes.

Not that I don't read any research I just relate it to what I know of the Bible. The stuff that fits, increases my revelation, deepens my understanding is great.

The stuff that doesn't fit I question and keep on seeking out more information (Bible wise and Science wise.)

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:42:31

^ That's not yes in terms of Emperor's New Clothes!

I could say the same about some 'bad' science which you would then probably call pseudo-science , except it wasn't at the time.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:44:13

January Because seeking Him is more important than worldly knowledge.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 17:44:37

I think I need to back off a bit. You believe what you believe on faith and thats fine. I would ask, in return, that before you try to teach others on anything other than faith you have evidence aside from faith or declare your hand up front.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:47:20

Evolution does fit, though. And with a lot more physical evidence than anything written in the bible.

The bible can't even describe the shape of the earth correctly. Oh, but that's ok - that bit's just "symbolism." hmm

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:47:38

January OK by me, in my mind I was questioning...I could never claim to be able to teach on science. Sorry if you got that impression. I thought I had made this clearer than I seem to have.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:49:09

Because seeking Him is more important than worldly knowledge.

That sort of thinking would have kept us in the dark ages, still thinking that the earth was flat.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:49:46

Sabrina There's meaning in it though (the symbolism). I still hold out on evolution though, as Darwin described it.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 17:49:50

saying you only take evidence that fits and question the rest is like having a theory that 100 test subjects suffer from an illness. 1 test result comes back positive and the rest negative then still declaring that every subject has the illness because you got a single positive result.

Everything needs to be questioned whether it fits or not

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 17:51:03

Sabrina People can be Christian and be part of the scientific community you know.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:54:11

Would you prefer we had all been kept in the dark ages, taking the bible literally, reading about the slaughter of children for their parents sins, and then praying for revelation then, daftdame?

Evolution is exceptionally awkward for people who want to take the bible literally, that's why people make careers out of denying it.

But you know it's not just a theory, don't you? You did read those nice links I put up about all that stuff....?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 17:55:55

Sabrina People can be Christian and be part of the scientific community you know.

Yes, I know that - I already said it. But you seem not to want to be part of the scientific community, because scientific discovery raises awkward questions about what's written in the bible.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:00:10

Sabrina and January you are attempting to tell me a lot about what I believe in.

No, I don't wish I lived in the middle ages, or that we were in the dark ages.

The analogy about the theory on illnesses just doesn't fit either.

Your attempts at trying to describe my pattern of thought have failed, since I don't think that but still hold with what I said.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 18:03:44

it fits perfectly with you saying you use science that fits to support your faith and question the rest.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 18:04:25

your post of 17.40

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:04:49

But you believe in satan? And Hell?

You also believe in inherent good in everyone, but that if they don't follow your god, they will end up in hell?

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 18:06:12

And I am not saying DONT question what doesnt fit. I say question that and the stuff that does.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:19:10

January Do you still question the scientific theory you believe in? Or would you be morel likely to question a theory that fitted in with the Bible? From what I can gather from your posts the latter seems true but I hope not.

Sabrina We don't get to Heaven through good works.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:22:39

Scientific theory does not require any element of 'belief' daftdame.

So your god condemns people who are good to the Christian idea of Hell?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:26:55

Sabrina doing good works does not make you good although if you are good you will do good works. It's the intention that counts. Part of being a Christian is questioning your intentions. We can only be sure of redemption through Christ, we can not trust our own intentions.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:30:27

Sabrina If you defend it you believe it, otherwise you would just point to information that is lacking and call it current theory / thinking.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:30:44

That is such an awful way to live your life, daftdame. Fearing Hell if you don't "believe" enough. Feeling that you need 'redemption through christ' - and that you can't even trust your own intentions.

I'm always pleased for people who gain comfort through a personal faith, as long as they don't ram it down my throat - but your faith seems to have replaced all your reason.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:31:50

Re science - there's nothing to believe. A scientific theory must be able to be demonstrated and repeated for it to be a scientific theory.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:32:38

It is interesting that at our school we would not be required to have a 'conclusion' when writing up experiments, just a discussion.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:33:30

Sabrina Demonstrated, past tense, could just form a part of a larger pattern.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:34:55

Whereas at my school we always had a conclusion to our experiments.

Demonstrated and repeated.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:37:30

You're confusing a scientific theory with a hypothesis.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:37:48

Sabrina I don't fear Hell, I am saved. The same with intentions, I can now trust my heart as I stay in communion with the Holy Ghost. If I miss God He'll find me again.

Sorry I don't believe in 'reason' (or your brand of it).

I'm not trying to ram anything down your throat just telling you what I believe.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 18:38:46

if the entire scientific field, bar 1 or 2, supported a theory I would trust that regardless of whether it supported the bible or not.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:38:57

Sabrina If the pattern is really big you may not have had enough repetitions.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:39:46

January Well at least there's hope.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 18:41:42

of what

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:44:06

Your light bulb moment January. smile

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:44:28

daftdame, weren't you trying to convert pedro on the last thread? Denying accepted scientific theory, because it contradicts what is said in the bible is taking leave of your reason, imo.

And if there's not enough repetitions, then it's not called a scientific theory.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:45:52

Sabrina Who decides if there has been enough repetitions?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:47:13

Sabrina I can't 'convert' any one . It is their choice what they believe.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:47:15

Here you are daftdame. Have a read of it this time.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:48:44

Sabrina Now who's trying to convert who?

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 18:49:57

Btw I did read it. grin

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:51:56

We get back to Tim Minchin's Storm here don't we? Storm opines "you can't really know anything, knowledge is just opinion..."

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 18:55:13

But when you read proper scientific theory you don't need to have any faith, or to pray for revelation to understand it. You don't need to be 'converted' to it - it's not a belief system.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 18:56:30

I had my lightbulb moment when I realised that to believe in God I didn't have to believe all the nasty arse shit that goes along with Christianity. I didn't have to believe that God would punish someone because they had the misfortune to be born into the wrong culture or a God that would be ok with kids dying from horrid diseases he could prevent or cure.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 19:30:49

January I don't believe that either - the nasty arse shit.

Sabrina Yes we are back to Tim Minchin's Storm I suppose. Although I hope I don't come across as drippy as that. I wouldn't pay a psychic or even want one either or some of the other stuff, can't remember all of it.

Januarymadness Thu 16-May-13 19:38:25

Unfortunately if you believe the bible is true the nasty arse shit is not escapable

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 16-May-13 19:39:49

I don't fear Hell, I am saved. The same with intentions, I can now trust my heart as I stay in communion with the Holy Ghost. If I miss God He'll find me again.

What makes you saved? Is it because we're all saved? In which case, what's the point in hell? Hashtag confused.....

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 20:19:17

I could say the same about some 'bad' science which you would then probably call pseudo-science , except it wasn't at the time.

Pseudoscience isn't discredited science, or something that was accepted at the time but is not accepted now.

It is a claim which is presented as scientific but does not actually stand up to proper scientific scrutiny or employ proper scientific method. Intelligent Design is an excellent example of pseudoscience.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 21:03:55

Should say 'superceded' really, rather than discredited.

daftdame Thu 16-May-13 21:25:44

Sabrina If science can be superseded there is information lacking which means the 'conclusions' aren't absolute truth.

January You seem fond of arguing theology as if you know everything there is to it. From here I can see you haven't really had a revelation of God's love. Do you want revelation on this? You have to look for it, seek it, to get it.

PedroTruly believing on Jesus saves you.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 21:56:46

An example of a superseded theory is the geocentric universe. According to the information available at the time, the ancient Greeks, among others, believed that earth was the the orbital centre and celestial bodies moved around it. This has obviously been superseded by the now extensive (but not complete) knowledge of the structure of the universe now.

Scientific theories like gravity, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, evolution aren't likely to be superseded or completely discredited in the same way. There is just too much physical evidence supporting them. The theories may be refined, as here:

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete. Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.

It's only because the science is so grossly inconvenient to those who want to argue that the bible is true that people erroneously say 'but evolution is just a theory.'

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 22:05:29

Btw, I believe that Jesus, the man, existed. But he was most unlikely to have been born on Dec 25th.

I don't believe that he was the son of god, or was resurrected. I don't believe in the virgin birth. Funnily enough, we are now at the stage of scientific discovery where a virgin birth could happen - via IVF. But science has made that possible, not god or religion.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 22:25:15

Hypothetically, of course, if some discovery was made that completely blew evolutionary theory out of the water (it's not going to happen, but anyway...) the scientific theory would change. Because that's the beauty of scientific discovery, it doesn't need faith in anything. Just evidence. Scientists are forced to change their minds based on evidence.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Thu 16-May-13 23:16:36

Oh. No more replies. I'll just stay and chat to myself then grin

This is good.

BestValue Fri 17-May-13 01:00:40

"Btw, I believe that Jesus, the man, existed. But he was most unlikely to have been born on Dec 25th."

No one - ANYWHERE - EVER - believed Jesus was born on December 25th, Sabrina. The Bible indicates it would have been in the spring or autumn. Also, no one believes that there were only 3 wise men (that is presumed because only 3 gifts are mentioned - gold frankincense and myrrh) or that they visited baby Jesus in the stable. (The Bible indicates it was nearly two years later at a house.)

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Fri 17-May-13 06:52:23

I think a fair few christians think that Dec 25th is Christ's birthday actually, Best. I know quite a few people who do. Perhaps they're just taking 'Mary's boy child' too literally...?

But I know it wasn't written in the bible - it was introduced because St Augustine's had a clever way of pinching English pagan festivals and making them 'christian.' He just usurped the god of Mithras's birthday with a celebration Jesus's birthday instead.

Januarymadness Fri 17-May-13 08:30:01

I know very little of it but what I know I know. I am slightly offended that you are suggesting that because I dont believe the same things as you I must still be seeking God.

The thing is I found God and I LIKE what I found. I don't like the God of the OT and I dont like the idea of God that enjoys watching people suffer when he can stop it. So if I wanted to find belief in the Bible I would be looking to find fault which is kind of counter productive is it not.

BestValue Fri 17-May-13 08:34:19

Not sure if Islets is still around. She hasn't posted on this thread yet. (maybe because it hasn't been linked to the previous thread yet). I just wanted her to know that the book she recommended "The Seashell on the Mountaintop" has come in through the inter-library loan program and I'm going to go pick it up tomorrow. smile

Of course seashells - especially in the closed position - are best explained by a global Flood.

EllieArroway Fri 17-May-13 09:21:51

Of course seashells - especially in the closed position - are best explained by a global Flood..... only to an idiot, I'm afraid.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 10:52:37

January Not my intention to offend.

We obviously are each getting a different message from the Bible.

It is because, with my understanding, I find such comfort and love in Christianity that I have tried to encourage you to keep seeking or questioning your own beliefs about it.

Like you I like the God I have found but unlike you He is in the Bible.

As you have said trying to find fault is rather counter-productive to understanding.

Now you probably would want to accuse me of the same closed thinking regarding science. Just because I put God and the Bible first does not mean I don't think any science can give us wisdom. Indeed if something really bothered me, a conflict between science and the Bible I would probably revisit my understanding of both. However the Bible holds priority for me because of my faith.

I am stating my bias, as a good scientist should. I don't believe there is anyone out there with no biases whatsoever. In your last post you stated your bias by saying you would be looking for fault with the Bible. How can you be sure this does not reach over into your interpretation of science?

Januarymadness Fri 17-May-13 11:52:46

no I would not be looking for fault within the bible. If I look to the bible to build my beliefs upon I find fault with God.

The bible says that women are being eternally punished for Eves original sin. The bible says its ok to own other people. The bible says that God can physically save people but chooses not to. The bible says that people are unequal and that childen are to be punished for the crimes of a parent. The bible justifies wars and killing. And the bible is used to manipulate and rob vulnerable people. A loving God wouldn't be OK with any of that.

Technically it is improbable (to the point of impossibility) That the bible we have today is anything close to a representation of the original documents (which themselves are unlikely to originate fron the people we think because of the levels of literacy required) I find it completely illogical to base my beliefs of something like that.

daftdame tell me if I've got this wrong, but it sounds like you mean that reading the bible just connects you to god. So it's not the actual words that matter as god will put the meaning into your head. If so then presumably holding the closed bible would do as well except that it's the intention of looking that invites god to put things into your mind.

Back I just don't see God revelling in it. You've just got to look at how Jesus was, for example with the woman who was about to be stoned.

Yes, Jesus was clearly a completely different person with totally different morals from the god of the OT (there's a quote a few posts back about dashing children to death). That makes sense if you see Jesus as just using the OT as a basis for a brand new religion like Joseph Smith did, but can't be made to work if you say he is the same good god.

objective and relative

I think some of us might be using these words differently. Objective morality would surely mean that some things are just wrong. They'd still be wrong even if god did them. Therefore if you think that slaughtering children is a bad thing then god is bad. If you want to say god is good then you should stand up and say that slaughtering children is a good thing.

Some people may mean external morality where things are wrong simply because god declares them to be wrong. If he changes his mind tomorrow then tomorrow it is right to do those things.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 13:58:56

Back Just to complicate (or simplify?) matters I believe the word is God (and Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost is God).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)

I believe morality is objective and external with God. Humans can not be truly objective because they are so subjective they cannot fully comprehend the bigger picture.

January What can I say except what I understand from the Bible is not the same as what you believe.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:06:53

Back The word, word(s) do matter.

I don't know whether it will help at all but in my mind I view truth as cyclical or spherical, not linear as such.

It is a complete entity, there is right and wrong in every case but to understand it the divide is not linear. It is difficult to predict, as it adapts to context, but if you repeat the exact the context it will repeat.

Some contexts, although they appear to be externally different from others, will be the same in truth, hence as when analogies work.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:14:08

Some contexts may appear to be the same in truth, externally, but they aren't and an analogy won't work.

I don't know whether I have explained myself very clearly, but that is how I visualise truth, so to speak - not black and white, or grey area, but all.

btw while most people will now admit that Jesus was not born on Dec 25th this was not always the case and isn't now for everyone.

Here's one example

And another

I also found lots of questions along the lines of "I've just been told that Jesus wasn't born on christmas day. It's not true is it?"

It's not terribly important, but too often we see "oh, but christians never believed that.." as the churches retreat from untenable positions. Funnily enough I have been told by Christians that no ever believed in young earth creationism. That I was just making it up to make Christians look daft.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:22:02

Back God is the same, remains constant, does not change. Contexts change and in the Bible you see God from different perspectives and in different contexts.

daftdame I didn't understand a word of that that to be honest. Do you believe that some things are just wrong. Always have been and always will be - no matter who does them?

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:29:51

Back I've never found Jesus' birth date in the Bible. It does not matter to me,

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks (Romans 14:5-6).

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:32:17

Back Sorry, you see my words just aren't enough...Yes some things are just wrong but only God can judge them. As humans we can't escape our context, eg would you have done the same in their shoes? - type thinking.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Fri 17-May-13 14:36:19

Yes BOB - I've met a few that genuinely thought it was Jesus's birthday and look confused and shock when they find out it wasn't. They are generally young people that have never heard of pagan gods/mithras. They are equally surprised about Easter / Eostre.

Interesting disturbing link btw.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:41:23

Sabrina I know about the pagan festivals, and symbolism in churches, green man etc.

It's why I have difficulty with some established churches, when the ritual becomes more important than scripture. Although I know many people for whom ritual strengthens and helps develop / deepen their faith so my difficulty is not clear cut.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Fri 17-May-13 14:42:51

The rituals were the tools used by St Augustine to convert Pagan England over to Christianity. He hijacked the existing pagan festivals.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:47:08

Sabrina I know. Although there is also ritual / symbolism present in the Bible. I think , put in the right perspective, it can strengthen understanding, make something intangible more tangible.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Fri 17-May-13 14:56:02

Or convert the masses so that someone gains control and power?

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 14:56:18

From my perspective "The Wicker Man" is really disturbing and Kitsch ant the same time. Like the music though.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIac4nKaAy4

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Fri 17-May-13 14:59:53

A very young Edward Woodward there. The Wicker Man is a very disturbing film I agree. It's meant to be. I'm no pagan.

Beautiful song though.

EllieArroway Fri 17-May-13 16:00:50

*Btw, I believe that Jesus, the man, existed. But he was most unlikely to have been born on Dec 25th

Here's what we know historically:

* Wasn't born on Dec 25th (if born at all)
* Very unlikely to have been born in Bethlehem
* There was no star that people were able to follow from country to country
* There was no census
* King Herod never ordered the mass murder of babies & toddlers
* No trial took place over Passover & no thief was released (and wouldn't have been being crucified either)
* No darkness covered Jerusalem, the curtains in the Temple did not rend and no Zombies invaded the city
* Pilate in real life was a bit of a shit - not the decent man portrayed by the gospels
* Also worth noting that a death from crucifixion a long time - you are gradually suffocated under the weight of your own lungs. Very unlikely that an otherwise healthy person would die in a matter of hours

Up until about 6 weeks ago, I would have agreed with you that Jesus probably existed as a man, just not as a divine being. In fact, I started my thread from that position - and this was because the scholarly consensus is that he probably existed. I'm all for scholarly consensuses - if all the experts in a field appear to say one thing, I respect that.

But as I was writing my posts on that thread I was thinking "Why do they think he existed again?". I realised there were certain inferences that could be drawn, but they were beginning to look mighty weak. So I went searching with my historian hat on (history is my subject).

What I've found is genuinely shocking. The "scholars" are almost entirely theologians with literature degrees in the NT NOT historians. There are not actually that many real historians who have addressed this - although there are some. The kind of rigorous methodology we would normally expect in a situation like this has been largely ignored and far too much emphasis has been placed on rather shaky inferences, which cannot themselves be supported. I'd also say, that evidence from the Bible itself seems to have been completely ignored.

For example - Acts tells us about some trials that very early Christians find themselves involved in. They are asked to prove before judges that this Jesus character they worshipped was real. Not one of them mentioned any aspect of his life on earth - his parents, his family, his miracles in front of thousands. They only blather on about visions they've had and revelations. This is like if I had to prove that Tony Blair really existed but could only offer my dreams about him as evidence hmm (NB: I have never dreamt about Tony Blair. To be clear). That's one example out of many.

It looks very much as if the earliest Christians of all (including Paul) had no earthly idea that Jesus was supposed to have been an historically existing person.

I still have lots of reading to do - but, thus far, my mind is largely changed. I think he is entirely mythical and was never intended to be seen as anything other than a sky god, which would have fit perfectly with the type of gods people worshipped back then.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Fri 17-May-13 16:08:51

Very interesting, Ellie.

daftdame Fri 17-May-13 16:37:00

Ellie Well all I can do right now is repeat the cliché:

"The truth is out there..."

Good hunting!

P.S. I am happy with my faith, it has helped me through a lot in my life so I will continue to believe. I don't have the historical data to hand, I could go hunting for it but right now it's just not a priority for me. I have enjoyed watching some amazing archaeological documentaries though, and wondered at the mysteries that unfold....I'm content with the mystery for now.

EllieArroway Fri 17-May-13 17:01:37

P.S. I am happy with my faith, it has helped me through a lot in my life so I will continue to believe No reason why you shouldn't smile

I don't have the historical data to hand, I could go hunting for it but right now it's just not a priority for me No need. I know what you'll say....Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Seutonius etc..... and I'll just have to point out that these are not sources that indicate an historical Jesus. I did all of that on my thread, and going through it all again would be boring for everyone.

Anyhow....I'm signing off for a while. DS has three GCSE exams next week and needs my support.

Thanks for a stimulating discussion, people. Hopefully in a week or so I can catch up on some more great debate.