YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

www.csharp.com/starlight.html

not peer reviewed but you have to admit this person makes a great argument......

What is the 'eternal punishment' then?

I think most religious people like to distance themselves from the 'hell fires of eternal damnation' as expostulated in the bible. We live in a very different society from the men who wrote the bible - a far more liberal society (in the West anyway) - there's an awful lot written in the bible that we would find unthinkable now.

The church - far from insisting that the word of god is true and literal, as written in the bible, usually likes to 'put a different interpretation' on it's writings when they don't suit modern society.

I think, also, purgatory is purely a catholic concept. I think Christianity sends sinners straight to Hell.

Sabrina, lol at RCs not being Christians - mind you, one might wonder - and even bigger rofl at the idea of purgatory as modern. We don't modernise. We see God's word as a continuous revelation, not a single one-off event.

I do not distance myself from the idea that a very few people might reject God/heaven completely and go of their own choice into darkness. TBVH, it fits my experience of life that some people are self-destructive and self-defeating. I also think the temptations for e.g. tyrants to love only themselves must be overwhelming. But I think MOST people will choose God and be loved and accepted.

I didn't say purgatory was modern.

If people want to accept the bible as god's word, and interpret it literally it becomes very problematic for them, because many things in the bible are simply not acceptable now - even by christians. Generally christians, and even Best, just pick and choose the bits of the bible that they want to take literally.

He's not great to me, I'm afraid, Sabrina. Shallow and militaristic... really sad that he died so young, but I'm not a fan.

We were talking about purgatory, not limbo, and I don't rely on Hitchens for theology updates.

It's funny how Hitchens comes across as a genius except to the religious. Must be a reason for that I guess....

"It's funny how Hitchens comes across as a genius except to the religious. Must be a reason for that I guess...."

He's a genius to me. Even though I obviously disagree with some of his views, he is a brilliant writer and orator. I think he and I would have gotten on quite well actually. He was my favourite on the 4 horsemen.

"I presume you meant "don't"."

Yes, my bad. I meant "don't."

"But even so, you take your understanding from supposedly prestigious scientists who agree with your world view, yet they also seem to be unable to demonstrate anything even close to sufficient to support a young earth."

I'd say they have. As I've mentioned, there is much more evidence that the world is young than that it is old.

"If they had or could, it would revolutionise scientific understanding. But it hasn't so I genuinely can't invest in their conclusions."

This is where I disagree. Until someone over-turns the paradigm (which will never happen in the case of a young earth) mainstream scientists will never understand the evidence the same way I do because it can be interpreted both ways. They think their presuppositions are more valid and I think mine are more valid. Predictive and explanatory power are what should matter most and my theory has them beat there hands down.

"Firstly, the number of Christians is hugely inflated - it probably still includes me, but more importantly the number of people who believe that the bible is the literal dictated word of god is immensely smaller. Just ask around on here and Christians will tell you "oh no! of course I don't think the bible is actually the word of god and that it's all true. It was just inspired by him""

Well, "INSPIRED" is exactly what I mean when I say the Bible is "the Word of God." I don't believe it was dictated by Him either and I don't know anyone who does.

"If there's no way that you will stop believing the bible is the word of God then I'm afraid there's no hope for you."

It's not that there is NO WAY for me to stop believing that. But you would first have to refute tons of evidence. We have to walk before we can run. So I'd say at this point it would be easier to convince me that that my understanding of the Bible is wrong. To show that this is possible, I have already changed my long-held belief in an eternally-burning hell to one of annihilation because it seems to me that this is what the Bible REALLY teaches. I am not so stubborn that I can't be persuaded by strong evidence.

"I'm not going to suddenly trust a single source of 'evidence' when I have a mass of evidence which suggests it's wrong."

What makes you think the Bible is a "single" source of evidence? The Bible is composed of 66 books written by 40 plus authors in 3 different languages on 3 continents over 1,600 years. Some of its authors were kings and doctors. It can hardly be described as a single source. Compare this to the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon which each have one man as their source.

"You know, for someone who is so willing to learn the truth, you seem unbelievably tied to this one book which has been refuted more times than you can possibly imagine."

It's been confirmed more times than you can imagine. The doctor Luke who wrote the third Gospel and the Book of Acts has been called by archaeologists one of the greatest historians of all time.

"I think it is a misrepresentation to say 2 billion people believe the bible is the litteral word of God. I would say that of those that have given it much thought (people signing up to a religion they have little or no interest in finding out exactly what it is they are signing up to is a MASSIVE bugbear of mine) a large proportion would say that the Bible is the interprative word of God."

I agree and that's what I mean when I say the Bible is the Word of God. I mean it is inspired by God. I never used the word "literal" (although some parts are supposed to be taken literally.)

*"You have been persuaded by invalid arguments . . ."

That's a matter of opinion isn't it? I think that anyone who believes in evolution has been persuaded by some pretty bad arguments too - many that aren't even true anymore like that the appendix is vestigial or that human embryos have gill slits like a fish.

"At the crux of the matter your argument is that God did it, God can do what he wants . . ."

God can't do whatever he wants. There are many things God cannot do.

". . . God can make the evidence point which ever way he wants. If thats your view I can't argue. I can say stop trying to convince others with dodgy "evidence" though."

God does not play tricks and does not make the evidence point away from the truth. I'm not trying to convince anyone and I would say that it is evolutionists who sometimes use dodgy evidence and play fast and loose with the facts.

"Best, the Spitalfields dig encompasses graves up to the 17th century, but let that pass. i don't think you've answered my question about the absence of classic rachetic sign on neanderthals - care to explain?"

I believe I did answer your question but I'll try again. Why would we expect neanderthals to look the same a few hundred years ago as they did a few thousand years ago? My claim is that some of the earliest neanderthals found had deformations of their bones mostly attributable to conditions during the ice age. We do not have those conditions today so maybe EVERY skeleton in the Spitalfields is a neanderthal. Maybe all of us are neanderthals. I don't make a distinction between neanderthals and modern humans because they could interbreed so they are the same species (and definitely the same kind). To me, it's like saying they are a different "race" of humans (although I don't like that word either because there is really only one race - the human race).

If we found a chihuahua skeleton in a lower rock stratum and great dane skeleton in a higher one - and if we had never seen them alive together - we might conclude that they lived at different times and the smaller one was evolving into the larger one. I guarantee stuff like that is going on in palaeontology today because it is a "soft science" which is open to a tremendous amount of interpretation.

"We haven't actually gone back on that best, we are still VERY much aware that our senses CANNOT be relied on without stringent testing. So no, scientist do not ASSUME the reliability of senses. AT ALL."

Did you read the link I posted? It said one of the starting assumptions of science is that "humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately."

"I also second the comments that the number of people believing that the bible is literally the word of God is a tiny tiny fraction of those who self-identify as christian. I would have thought it less than a million tbh."

I didn't say "literally" and I don't believe it was dictated by God but inspired by Him. But if a Christian does not think the Bible is a reliable and trustworthy source of information, then I would have to wonder where they think the major tents of their faith come from. Do they believe God exists? Do they believe Jesus really lived, died and rose again? Or is that all metaphorical too? We have to take the literal parts literally and the figurative parts figuratively. We do not get to pick and choose which those parts are but instead we must let the text speak for itself.

If anyone thinks certain parts that I think are meant to be taken literally are actually intended to be figurative, I would happily listen to and consider their evidence. And if it is better than mine (as it was in the case of the immortal soul and hell) I would change my mind.

"Just so we're clear, you have absolutely no chance of converting me to narrow fundamentalism."

As I have said repeatedly, I am not attempting to convert anyone to anything. On the contrary, I am actually willing to be converted to belief in evolution.

"I assume your rickety source for the so-called sale of indulgences is (ultimately) Martin Luther, vicious antisemite?"

Yes I suppose it is and yes I agree he was.

"Again, just so we're clear, indulgences were never sold. I can explain what actually happened if people like . . ."

Yes, I would happily be corrected and would stop making that claim if it never really happened. Please explain the real story if you don't mind.

I apologize if you took offense to what I said. I really should be more aware of who I'm talking to. Understand that over here in Canada, I find that most of the atheists I meet were raised Catholic and I believe that, in many ways, their atheism is a reaction against the Catholic Church and the abuse scandals and such. That's the first thing everyone brings up when they say they are an atheist and I have to do a considerable amount of damage control to make them see that Catholic does not equal Christian. Neither does Protestant - or any denomination for that matter. It is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a conscious choice. Someone can be raised in a religious home, baptized as a baby, read the Bible every day and go to church their entire lives and still not be a Christian. (Of course it would not be my place to judge as only God knows their heart.)

"Well you could but you'd be an unusual atheist if you did. Evolution, after all, is about a biological process. It doesn't say much about ethics."

Agreed. But that doesn't stop sociologists from trying. In my view, evolution is at least closer to an objective standard than is culture so it could be a valid source for ethics.

"Most atheists I know use empathy as the fundamental basis for their personal morality."

Correct but they would still say empathy evolved in us because it conferred a survival advantage, would they not? That's what I'm talking about. Dawkins said that our aversion to rape, for example, is just as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six.

"I don't think the Bible even teaches hell as a place of eternal torment."

"Yes it does."

I covered this a bit on the first thread. Of course the word "hell" is mentioned in several verses in the Bible but it does not mean what we think it means today.

In the Hebrew O.T., the word translated "hell" is "sheol" which simply means "the grave" or "the place of the dead." All O.T. people - believe and non-believers alike - expected to go there when they died. They did not believe in an immortal soul or an after-life. They believed in a future bodily resurrection from the dead to immortality.

In the N.T, the Greek words, "hades, "Gehenna" and "tartarus" are translated hell. None of them means a place where non-believers go to suffer eternal punishing.

The Bible is clear that our choice is between eternal life (with God) or eternal death (annihilation and ceasing to exist). The concept of the immortal soul is an invention of Socrates and his disciple Plato and crept into the teachings of the early Church (but not into the Bible itself) with the help of St. Augustine - a Greek who converted to Christianity.

The Bible speaks of eternal punishMENT but never of eternal punishING. Non-believers will be cast into the "lake of fire" where I believe they WILL experience some torment - but only temporarily. They will ultimately cease to exist. Their punishment is eternal. They will never be resurrected again and will be forgotten forever. This is why we preach the Gospel. Read the Book of Acts. The Apostles never spoke of hell but taught of Christ's resurrection and how it gave us hope of our own future resurrection. I believe this is the true message of the Bible. Immortality is something man lost in the Garden of Eden and can reclaim only through a relationship with Jesus Christ.

"whoever says, ?You fool!? will be liable to the hell of fire . . . That said, these passages do NOT say it lasts forever. It's purgation. Refinement."

Yes, I have some friends who are Christian Universalists. They believe after a period of refinement and purgation (or as one friend calls it, "correction") God takes EVERYONE - even the Devil - to heaven. I would LOVE for that to be true but unfortunately I just don't see it in the Bible. If I could just believe whatever I wanted to believe, I would probably choose that. Or I'd be an atheist. It would be so much easier.

"The issue though, is not whether people who believe in evolution understand it, it's whether the people who do understand it have the evidence to support it and no evidence which refutes it. As that is the case, it's irrelevant how many people believe or do not believe. What matters is the truth."

I agree with you whole-heartedly, Pedro. I was just making the point that I think most people who believe in evolution believe in it based on the authority of science and the media. They haven't done a real investigation of the evidence. In fact, most of the things we believe, we believe not through experience but due to trust in an authority. This is inescapable.

"You keep showing links to places which say science has these assumptions, but I don't, so you haven't demonstrated one single assumption which I have."

Then I have demonstrated that whatever it is you are doing, you are not doing science.

"not peer reviewed but you have to admit this person makes a great argument....."

Good link, January. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Just wondering what anyone thinks of this: the aquatic ape theory. A conference about it is being held in London next week with none other than David Attenborough. Anyone in the area might like to attend if it's open to the public.

www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/04/world/evolution-a-new-boost-for-aquatic-ape-theory/#.UYSngkrN6HM

What makes you think the Bible is a "single" source of evidence? The Bible is composed of 66 books written by 40 plus authors in 3 different languages on 3 continents over 1,600 years.

Well the whole thing deals with different things and the bits which do cover the same topics contradict each other. So it's one 'source' of evidence and it's not in the slightest bit convincing.

I'd say they have. As I've mentioned, there is much more evidence that the world is young than that it is old.

I'd say they haven't. There is no evidence that the world is young which holds any weight. There's tons that shows beyond reasonable doubt that the world is old. Ergo, you are being unreasonable.