He told them this parable:...
He told them this parable “No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”Luke 5:36-39, NIV
25 comments:
I'm curious as to how you view Jesus. Do you believe he existed? That he was Diety? That he was just a good man? A prophet? And how do you feel about the significance of his words.
In the last few years I've come to alot of the same conclusions as you, it seems, and after originating from the same place. Although I think our paths came from different directions.
In my adventist education I wasn't taught very much history. I've been studying history on my own. After learning of the horrors of the Inquisition, and Dark Ages, etc, and learning of how the Catholic church openly admits to changing the scriptures, rewriting the scriptures and rewriting history, I came to a few conclusions. That the basis of christian believe is based on very evil deeds, and that to believe any of the bible I have to be able to believe all of it, and I can't if it was tampered with and rewritten by people. I can't believe any of it. This has been hard for me, but I am finding a new path. Sometimes even now though, I am not sure what to do with Jesus.
It is often refreshing to "out" of that religion. But sometimes, it still feels like I have lost so much. I still feel lost sometimes.
I also wish I had a group to go to like that. Even if it was only online.
Yes, I believe that Jesus did exist. I think he said a lot of good things. Beyond that I am not certain.
Perhaps you could call me a Christian agnostic, with the emphasis on the agnostic part.
You'll find a group, I'm sure, and if not in person, there will be one online.
Others state that Jesus was a composite from various individuals stories from that time, if he existed at all.
Most people do not doubt that Jesus existed. There are several secular (non-Biblical) references of his existence. I think the only reason people really have doubts about his existence is because the Bible says he performed miracles, and that he claimed he was the Son of God. For people who cling to a materialistic philosophy, this is unacceptable to them, thus they cannot believe.
Was Jesus a good man? Have you read the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Jesus healed the sick and the blind, and showed and taught love and compassion to all people, young or old, man or woman, Jew or Samaritan or Roman, throughout his entire life. The teachings and principles of Jesus are all good, not evil. All are based on love (see Matthew 22:36-40).
Was He Diety? I believe so, but that is a matter of faith. I believe Jesus was unique, there was nobody on earth like him, either before or after him, nor will there ever be. Whether you believe he is Deity or not, his mission was NOT to free the Jews from the Romans, but to live and die on our behalf, to reconcile us sinful human beings with God. He said this repeatedly to his disciples, but they could not understand him. He knew he was going to die, and he did so willingly.
>After learning of the horrors of the Inquisition, and Dark Ages, etc, and learning of how the Catholic church openly admits to changing the scriptures, rewriting the scriptures and rewriting history, I came to a few conclusions. That the basis of christian believe is based on very evil deeds, and that to believe any of the bible I have to be able to believe all of it, and I can't if it was tampered with and rewritten by people. I can't believe any of it.
The Dead Sea scrolls confirm the authenticity of the Old Testament. The New Testament itself is very well preserved, with thousands of ancient copies in existence. Making changes later on would have been rather difficult with older manuscripts scattered throughout the world.
Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus as taught in the Bible. As I said above, Jesus taught love. Not hate. Not evil. In fact, He taught that to love God and to love your fellow human are the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).
>This has been hard for me, but I am finding a new path.
>Sometimes even now though, I am not sure what to do with Jesus.
>It is often refreshing to "out" of that religion. But sometimes, it still feels like I have lost so much. I still feel lost sometimes.
Congrats on being "out" of religion, it can be a scary place. But don't let religion drive you away from Jesus. Read about Jesus in the Gospels, and listen to what He says, don't be distracted by the poor example of others who claim to be Christians but do not do what He says.
There is no need to feel lost. Jesus said (in John 6:37) - "...whoever comes to me I will never drive away." And in Matthew 11:28-30 - "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest..."
"There are several secular (non-Biblical) references of his existence. "
-Actually, there are none. All the supposed references have been found to be interpolations of no value.
"The teachings and principles of Jesus are all good, not evil. All are based on love"
-Unless you don't love jesus back and he sends you to hell/eternal damnation/inexistence or whatever scare tactic one chooses to coerce this "supposed" love.
"Was He Diety? I believe so, but that is a matter of faith. "
-Faith is a cop-out, an admission that the "truths" of religion are unknowable by evidence and reason. Only weak ideas require faith. No thanks.
"As I said above, Jesus taught love. Not hate. Not evil."
-"Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your own son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your fragile ego or disobeyed your rules. love is not obedience, conformity or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being."
Dan Barker.
"Congrats on being "out" of religion, it can be a scary place"
-Only if one grew up psychologically dependent on it. It is scary to ride a bike with out training wheels for the first time too. it is scary to go to college for t he first time. Your first job interview is scary too. But it is all part of growing up. That momentary feeling of fear is the doorway to great accomplishments and a feeling of self-worth one did not have before.
Leaving Jesus, Allah or Zeus behind is just as rewarding. Truth will truly set one free.
Brigno,
Are you kidding me? "All the supposed references have been found to be interpolations of no value." I suppose you are referring to some of Josephus's comments, that some "enlightened" historians believe to be forgeries?
No intelligent person could ever deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. There is a better case for His existence than many other historical figures that have been left unquestioned.
>>> Are you kidding me?
-No. You can look easily look it up yourself.
>>>"All the supposed references have been found to be interpolations of no value." I suppose you are referring to some of Josephus's comments, that some "enlightened" historians believe to be forgeries?
-I'm referring to not only Josephus (clear interpolation no even you can deny), but Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus, Pliny and many others. All either interpolations or biased interpretations.
>>> No intelligent person could ever deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
-There are many, many intelligent persons (much more intelligent than you or me) who deny the existence of a historical Jesus. They are called Mythicists.
(Just look at how the cargo cults in the pacific islands developed during WW2 and you will have a modern example of this.)
>>>There is a better case for His existence than many other historical figures that have been left unquestioned.
There is just a strong case for other positions regarding Jesus, like the mythicists', the Jesus as a composite from various individuals from that time, a mesianic individual whose life became legend and many others. Declaring the Jesus of the NT (with miracles and all) as a historical fact is a totally baseless assertion.
The fact is that the Gospel stories are no more historic than the Genesis creation accounts are scientific. Period.
S: "The teachings and principles of Jesus are all good, not evil. All are based on love"
B: -Unless you don't love jesus back and he sends you to hell/eternal damnation/inexistence or whatever scare tactic one chooses to coerce this "supposed" love.
God says in Jeremiah 31:3 - "I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness."
Jesus says (in John 4:23, 24) - "...a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
1 John 4:18 - "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, for fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears in not made perfect in love."
God does use scare tactics to coerce people to love Him. Love cannot be coerced.
S: "Was He Diety? I believe so, but that is a matter of faith. "
B: -Faith is a cop-out, an admission that the "truths" of religion are unknowable by evidence and reason. Only weak ideas require faith. No thanks.
I seem to remember from a previous discussion that you believed in abiogenesis, which is based on zero evidence and complete speculation (which are really interpolations of no value), and therefore requires faith - an enormous amount of it.
S: "As I said above, Jesus taught love. Not hate. Not evil."
B: -"Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your own son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your fragile ego or disobeyed your rules. love is not obedience, conformity or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being."
Thanks for making the distinction between counterfeit love and true love which is what Jesus taught. I will also add the following written by Paul:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.
B: Declaring the Jesus of the NT (with miracles and all) as a historical fact is a totally baseless assertion. The fact is that the Gospel stories are no more historic than the Genesis creation accounts are scientific.
Totally baseless?? You are running out of credibility Brigno. To deny the miracles is one thing, but to deny that Jesus existed? I suppose that Caesar Augustus, Herod and Pontius Pilate were also not historical figures. And ancient Kings like Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, and Alexander the Great were all composites and legends. The only reasons for the doubt in Jesus' case is because of the miracles and His claim. Of course, this poses a big problem for those who adhere to materialism.
The fact is, there is much more evidence that Jesus existed than there is in abiogenesis.
>>> God does not use scare tactics to coerce people to love Him. Love cannot be coerced.
----
Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
I have a whole long list of verses like this....
Good thing this is not coercion...
>>> I seem to remember from a previous discussion that you believed in abiogenesis, which is based on zero evidence and complete speculation (which are really interpolations of no value), and therefore requires faith - an enormous amount of it.
---
Obviously you did not pay much attention to my writings. Regarding abiogenesis I clearly said that I did not know with 100% certainty how it life came to be from non-life. (Which is more honest than never clarifying why god's complexity does not need an explanation).
I also said that abiogenesis is a progressing field of study which could very well gives us definite answers in the future. And even if it does not, the honest response today is still "I do not know". Honesty that you, due to "faith" (which I obviously lack), will not show.
BTW, it is sad how a Behe defender tries, unsuccessfully, to belittle a whole field of scientific study. Especially since ID has absolutely nothing to show but empty rhetoric for the gullible. Go get some testable results in favor of ID and come see me in the morning.
>>> Thanks for making the distinction between counterfeit love and true love which is what Jesus taught.
---
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.
Really? Talk about a insecure individual. So much that if you do not love him, he will:
Matthew 22:13, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Remember:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
THANK YOU JESUS!!!
“There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than hell if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, especially, of our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.” C.S. Lewis
If eternal punishment for a temporal crime is love and justice, then i suggest you revise your definition of love and reason right away.
C.S. Lewis could not deny it, much less you...
>>> Totally baseless?? You are running out of credibility Brigno. To deny the miracles is one thing, but to deny that Jesus existed?
---
I will quote part of my last entry that clearly you did not pay much attention to (I see a pattern from you emerging here. Talk about "credibility").
"There is just a strong case for other positions regarding Jesus, like the mythicists', the Jesus as a composite from various individuals from that time, a mesianic individual whose life became legend and many others."
Basically I stated that declaring Jesus as a historical figure is still up for debate and that the Jesus of the gospels does not have any basis at all. If a god exists, he did a really lousy job taking care of such important info...
If Jesus is supposedly alive and all powerful today, why not make a personal appearance and clear things up? Is it too much to ask for a verifiable miracle (which by a reading of the NT were a dime a dozen back then)?
The fact that no miracles happen today make it extremely unlikely that they happened in the past. Once again what is lacking is proof. And until some of it comes forward, the right thing to do is reserve belief.
>>>I suppose that Caesar Augustus, Herod and Pontius Pilate were also not historical figures. And ancient Kings like Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, and Alexander the Great were all composites and legends.
Comparing Alexander the Great to Jesus is like comparing oranges to bottles. We have so much historical data regarding these individuals that existence is more likely than nonexistence or myth. Sadly for you, this is not the case for Jesus. Myth is more likely than history, and you know it.
>>>The only reasons for the doubt in Jesus' case is because of the miracles and His claim. Of course, this poses a big problem for those who adhere to materialism.
Even if one believes magic is real (which you obviously do), there is still no evidence Jesus (or any other person) did any of it at any point in time. The fact that such magic only happens in mythological accounts (like the bible, koran, popolvuh, book of dead, gnostic gospels, etc...) and not today at all, is really telling. Once again:
The fact is that the Gospel stories are no more historic than the Genesis creation accounts are scientific.
>>> The fact is, there is much more evidence that Jesus existed than there is in abiogenesis.
You have a real hang up on abiogenesis (or at least what you think it is). That is fine. I never claimed it was the final solution anyway. My position, again, is "i do not know". Your comparison of a historical question with a biological/chemical one makes no sense. Such sloppy comparisons do not help at all.
Still creationism/ID do not have any evidence for them at all. Why then can't you just say that you do not know as well?
And regarding the historical Jesus you have to concede that the Jesus of the gospels has not been found using historical methods at all. Again, just by the fact that his existence and deeds are all up for debate is telling of what a weak foundation the grandiloquent religious claims have.
S: God does not use scare tactics to coerce people to love Him. Love cannot be coerced.
B: Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
B: I have a whole long list of verses like this....
Good. Then why don't you provide a list of verses that show that God uses scare tactics to coerce people to love him...so far you provided a text commanding (if not cautioning) people to fear God, nothing about coercing people to love Him.
B: Obviously you did not pay much attention to my writings.
We are both guilty of this (see above).
B: Regarding abiogenesis I clearly said that I did not know with 100% certainty how it life came to be from non-life...
Of course you don't know with 100% certainty. But you do believe that life came from non-life, don't you? Or is it that you have no belief about it one way or the other? If you believe it though it is less than 100% certain, then you must accept it by faith.
B: And even if it does not, the honest response today is still "I do not know". Honesty that you, due to "faith" (which I obviously lack), will not show.
huh?
B: BTW, it is sad how a Behe defender tries, unsuccessfully, to belittle a whole field of scientific study...
Actually, I did no such thing (I guess that is why it was unsuccessful). I simply said, there is no evidence for it. My position is to support research in this area.
The latter portion of our previous discussion focussed on abiogenesis, and I got the impression that you placed a lot of unwarranted stock in it. I guess I was wrong, and so perhaps you really do have no faith after all (pending your answers to the questions above). I don't think I have ever known anybody with no faith whatsoever, perhaps you will be the first.
B: Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.
B: Really? Talk about a insecure individual. So much that if you do not love him, he will:
Matthew 22:13, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
You believe the first verse reflects Jesus' insecurity. You are welcome to believe that, although it is inconsistent with the rest of the Gospels. If Jesus was so insecure, he sure didn't let what people thought of him affect his actions or mission.
You have misrepresented the second verse, it is not at all connected to the first verse.
B: If eternal punishment for a temporal crime is love and justice, then i suggest you revise your definition of love and reason right away. C.S. Lewis could not deny it, much less you...
Sure I can. The punishment is eternal in effect, not duration. C.S. Lewis did not have this understanding. I thought you said that you were a former SDA? If you were, you should know that. If not, I will explain it to you.
God will put an end to all evil, and He will destroy the devil, his angels and followers. There will be no more sorrow, death or pain (Revelation 21:4). That is love and justice. If God did not do this, there would be pain, suffering, sorrow and death for all eternity. People blame God for the evil that is in this world, then they turn around and blame Him for promising to put an end to the evil in this world. You can't have it both ways.
B: I will quote part of my last entry that clearly you did not pay much attention to...Basically I stated that declaring Jesus as a historical figure is still up for debate and that the Jesus of the gospels does not have any basis at all....
Perhaps it is up for debate for those enlightened materialists, I'll give you that. I'll quote part of my last entry: "Totally baseless??...". I felt that was an extreme position to take, even for you. Do you even have any basis for your position that the gospels have no basis at all? Because your entry does not show any - all it does is reflect a differing opinion, which may also have no basis at all.
B: If Jesus is supposedly alive and all powerful today, why not make a personal appearance and clear things up?
He will. See John 14:1-3. I can list many others if you want.
B: Is it too much to ask for a verifiable miracle (which by a reading of the NT were a dime a dozen back then)?
John 14:14 - " You may ask for anything in my name and I will do it." Doesn't sound like too much to me.
B: The fact that no miracles happen today make it extremely unlikely that they happened in the past.
I know many Christians of different denominations who would disagree with you.
B: Once again what is lacking is proof. And until some of it comes forward, the right thing to do is reserve belief.
And I support your right to reserve belief.
B: Myth is more likely than history, and you know it.
LOL! If I thought that myth was more likely, I would not be a Christian. And you know it!
B: Even if one believes magic is real (which you obviously do), there is still no evidence Jesus (or any other person) did any of it at any point in time.
I wonder how we would detect such evidence. Perhaps it is unreasonable to think that we could.
B: The fact that such magic only happens in mythological accounts (like the bible, koran, popolvuh, book of dead, gnostic gospels, etc...) and not today at all, is really telling...
Once again, I know many Christians of different denominations who would disagree with you.
B: You have a real hang up on abiogenesis (or at least what you think it is).
LOL. Not really. What do YOU think I think it is?
B: Your comparison of a historical question with a biological/chemical one makes no sense. Such sloppy comparisons do not help at all.
You compared the historical evidence for Jesus with scientific evidence for the Genesis creation account of origins. I compared the historical evidence with the scientific evidence for origins based on abiogenesis. In either case, our comparisons are the historical with scientific evidence for a particular account of origins. My comparison made about as much sense as yours.
B: Still creationism/ID do not have any evidence for them at all.
I provided plenty of evidence in our previous discussion. Evidence that you rejected due to your materialistic philosophy.
B: Why then can't you just say that you do not know as well?
Okay, I also do not know with 100% certainty. There you have it. There is still a measure of doubt. But unlike you, I am not afraid to admit that I must have faith by believing in something that I do not know with 100% certainty.
B: And regarding the historical Jesus you have to concede that the Jesus of the gospels has not been found using historical methods at all.
Based on what? Luke in particular did a good job citing many historical details of Jesus' time that have been corroborated by other sources. On what basis should I reject what is recorded in the gospels, since all other historical references there are found to be true?
Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
S: Good. Then why don't you provide a list of verses that show that God uses scare tactics to coerce people to love him...so far you provided a text commanding (if not cautioning) people to fear God, nothing about coercing people to love Him.
B: I wonder what would be the need to fear someone that loves you. I thought love drove away fear (1 John 4:18). But hey, contradictions in the bible? Nothing new.
Here you go with a couple more:
If you not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments...I will appoint you over terror, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of the heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it..and ye shall be slain before your enemies.
-Leviticus 26
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me.
-Luke 19
The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth
-Mark 9:43
(Side note: Hitler's gas ovens did not burn forever. But the ones Jesus has prepared are eternal.)
Since I don't believe in Jesus (for the obvious lack of evidence) I guess I qualify as one of those things that offend. Don't you think? DO you think such a scare tactic directed at honest, decent hard working people like me is moral? Is it ok to burn me forever just because of an honest, reasoned point of view? Is this love? Give me a break...
There are many more of these in the bible. Will give more if requested. Will try to answer the rest later. Got to go to work.
Have a nice day.
S: Sure I can. The punishment is eternal in effect, not duration. C.S. Lewis did not have this understanding. I thought you said that you were a former SDA? If you were, you should know that. If not, I will explain it to you.
B: I could not let this one pass. I am just using the words the bible uses (eternal, everlasting) to describe hell.
I know the adventist understanding of these. Still, does it make any difference? Does it make it moral? Is it right? Is it not an obvious scare tactic? Love me or burn?
As a non-believer both hell interpretations (duration vs effect) make no sense to me, being the adventist one I used to defend an excuse to make such an obviously wicked concept more palatable to the greater public, because burning alive for some undetermined time (a second? a minute? an hour? a week?) is more acceptable than burning for eternity. Whatever. The difference is cosmetic.
My greater point with he quote, which you missed, is that the hell/burning-lake doctrine is one christians cannot hide from. All the "god loves you talk" is backed up by threats of destruction, fire and brimstone.
So it is written.
S: Of course you don't know with 100% certainty. But you do believe that life came from non-life, don't you? Or is it that you have no belief about it one way or the other? If you believe it though it is less than 100% certain, then you must accept it by faith.
B: It is obvious that what we define as life comes from non-life. We are all made of different chemical elements that in a different arrangement would not be considered life. No faith is needed to recognized we are mostly carbon and water. How this particular arrangement of natural elements came to be is the open question at this point (emphasis on open). Again, it is a subject of scientific study.
What I do not understand why you keep trying to pin faith on me. Either you want to make faith seem reasonable (which is not) or maybe you just want to make science look similar to faith, or just make it look bad. I honestly do not know. Still, the faith label does not apply.
S: I simply said, there is no evidence for it. My position is to support research in this area.
B: I am all for supporting research too. Sorry if I did not understand you before.
S: You have misrepresented the second verse, it is not at all connected to the first verse.
B: Misrepresented? Who decides what is the proper interpretation of the bible? You? EGW? The SDA Church?
Either way, there is no good reason to leave loving family members to just follow some guy. Today we call people that do that cult members. And about the whole binding of feet and gnashing of teeth, the text speaks for itself. Again, the bottom line is: love me or suffer dire consequences. Leave your family for me or else.
S: God will put an end to all evil, and He will destroy the devil, his angels and followers. There will be no more sorrow, death or pain (Revelation 21:4). That is love and justice. If God did not do this, there would be pain, suffering, sorrow and death for all eternity. People blame God for the evil that is in this world, then they turn around and blame Him for promising to put an end to the evil in this world. You can't have it both ways.
B:
1) If god wants to put an end to suffering, what is he waiting for? It would be like a fireman with a hose waiting for the house to burn to the foundations before putting it out. It makes no sense.
Why didn't he do something before 9-11? Before the holocaust? Before the crusades? Before the plague? Before the madianite genocide by the hand of the Israelites? Before Adan and Eve were created?
If you had prior knowledge of 9-11, would you have done something to try and stop it? Of course you would have. You seem to be a reasonable loving person. If this is the case then you are better than your own god.
2)Regarding evil, let me ask you this. Am I evil just because I see no evidence of a god (much less a christian one) existing? Does this opinion override all my good and honest actions through out my life? Answer me that and then we can talk about justice.
Are gays evil just because they love another human being that happens to be of the same sex?
S: John 14:14 - " You may ask for anything in my name and I will do it." Doesn't sound like too much to me.
B: Have you asked for world peace in Jesus name? How about the re-growth of an amputated arm? Try that out and let me know how it went.
S: Perhaps it is up for debate for those enlightened materialists
B: Would you expect less from scientist and historians? A water walking, storm whisperer, blind and lame holy healer would definitely be open for debate. Just as you do regarding others superstitious claims from other prophets/saviors/gods.
We are all enlightened materialist. Especially you. The difference is that you make an exception with your particular set of religious beliefs. That is all.
S: Because your entry does not show any - all it does is reflect a differing opinion, which may also have no basis at all.
B: We can discuss it later if you wish.
S: He will. See John 14:1-3. I can list many others if you want.
B: He will? Just like the hidden Imam in Shia Islam will do in the end times?
S: I know many Christians of different denominations who would disagree with you.
B: So? I know a lot of people that believe in UFO's, in Bigfoot, in fairies, in alchemy, in homeopathy, in astrology and who knows what else. Do you believe in these too? Remember that all of these beliefs share the same amount of evidence that miracles from the god of the bible have.
S: Evidence that you rejected due to your materialistic philosophy.
B: Let try to clear this up. It seems you do not make any difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I subscribe to the first one. That is why on a previous conversation I recommended Victor Stenger's book on the subject. He explains and gives examples on how "methodological naturalism can still be applied without implying any dogmatic attachment to metaphysical naturalism".
Methodological naturalism does not deny supernatural entities per se.
We just assume they do not exist since there still no evidence of such. If evidence came forward of such then accepting their existence would be no issue at all.
The fact that no evidence has come forward is a failure believers should explain. It has nothing to do with materialism at all.
S:
LOL! If I thought that myth was more likely, I would not be a Christian. And you know it!
B: When you hear other religions miraculous claims, what would be more likely? Myth or history? When you read that Muhammad went to heaven on a winged horse, what is more likely? Myth or history? Whenever someone claims the laws of nature were broken especially for them, what would be more likely? Myth or history?
Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?
S: I wonder how we would detect such evidence (re: magic/godly-powers). Perhaps it is unreasonable to think that we could.
B: Then how do yo know that it exists or that it did in the past?
S: But unlike you, I am not afraid to admit that I must have faith by believing in something that I do not know with 100% certainty.
B: Then there is the difference. I accept a tested model or reality that fits the facts now. The things I do not know I simply declare ignorance regarding them. There is no faith involved. That is why I am open to change if the facts require it. I did it when i left religion and can easily do it again if the facts demand it.
Would you change your faith position if, for example, abiogenesis is proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt?
S: Luke in particular did a good job citing many historical details of Jesus' time that have been corroborated by other sources. On what basis should I reject what is recorded in the gospels, since all other historical references there are found to be true?
B: Let me give you an example. Lets say that in the future a person find a spider-man marvel novel. The book correctly gives details on New York, the streets, the buildings, people alive at the time and many other historical facts. Does that mean that spider-man was real? Does it mean that his extraordinary acts are historical? No. More than a biased account is needed. Independent confirmation from reliable sources are necessary.
Luke, and any other of the gospels, suffer from the same weakness (especially since they copy from one another). They are biased accounts. Especially Luke, since he only puts in order third hand accounts that "where handed down to" him (Luke 1:1).
It is obvious that truth can be easily mixed with fiction. I have no problem in accepting verified facts found on the gospels. But that does not mean I should accept the rest just because. The rest needs to be verified as well. And until that happens I am justified in rejecting the Jesus of the gospels just as I am justified in rejecting the Spiderman of the marvel novels.
Now, a historical Jesus may have existed. I have no problem with that, especially since there have been many persons claiming to be messiahs throughout history. Still, an obvious breach exists between the historical Jesus and the mythical one described on the gospels. There is no historical bridge that can close that gap. None.
That is why saying that "the Jesus of the gospels has not been found using historical methods at all" is totally accurate.
A happy thank you for your patience and time goes out from me to you. Hope to read you latter.
Brigno,
Can you not allow for the idea that there are consequences to things in life? Is it unloving to warn a child not to touch a hot stove, lest he/she get burned? Your reflections on these things seems very elementary, and, much like Richard Dawkins, you do not really give theology a chance. You appear to be closed-minded, choosing to very superficially quote and misquote the Bible, and then you snicker when a reasonable explanation is presented.
Sorry to sound so harsh, but these are just my reflections.
Shawn: Can you not allow for the idea that there are consequences to things in life?
Brigno: Of course. That is why I believe justice should be sought here and now since there is no evidence for a judgment or a "right of wrongs" after death. Believing that temporal actions have to lead inexorably to eternal consequences is not only lacking in evidence (and illogical), but makes fighting for justice in the here and know an exercise in futility.
Shawn: Is it unloving to warn a child not to touch a hot stove, lest he/she get burned?
Brigno: Let me give you an analogy that truly fits with bible doctrine:
Would it be unloving to punish a child that does not respect/love/obey you by forcefully burning his hand on a hot stove? Would you show your love to your own kids that way? Why not?
Shawn: Your reflections on these things seems very elementary
Brigno: I guess that is because your flawed child/stove analogy is very profound and complex. I'll try to do better next time.
Shawn: You appear to be closed-minded, choosing to very superficially quote and misquote the Bible
Brigno: I don't think your opinion on how I "appear" to be is relevant or important at all. Especially from someone who cannot bother himself with thinking how his own beliefs could be falsified. I know what it takes to change my mind. Do you?
Regarding misquoting the bible I think that christians should first agree on what the bible says, then maybe one of them could make an argument about others misquoting it. Remember that one Christians’ "misquote" is another's central bible doctrine (a fact that self defeats christianity considering 1 Corinthians 14:33).
Shawn: you do not really give theology a chance
Brigno: I give it all the chance in the world. Sadly what usually happens is that the theology proponents decide to comment on perceived attitudes rather than addressing the issues being discussed. Any idea on why that is?
And remember, there are as many different theologies as there are believers. Have you really given all of them a chance?
B: A happy thank you for your patience and time goes out from me to you. Hope to read you latter.
Thanks for your response. Sorry for the delay, I have been busy.
B: I wonder what would be the need to fear someone that loves you. I thought love drove away fear (1 John 4:18). But hey, contradictions in the bible? Nothing new.
Considering the number of writers contributing to the Bible during a time frame which spans hundreds of years, the Bible is remarkably consistent.
There is such a thing as having a healthy fear of something, or someone. I love my parents, but having a certain amount of fear them when I was a child helped keep me in line.
B: Here you go with a couple more:
The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth
-Mark 9:43
Oops, I think you meant Matthew 13:41, not Mark 9:43.
B: Since I don't believe in Jesus (for the obvious lack of evidence) I guess I qualify as one of those things that offend. Don't you think?
The word translated "offend" is also translated "causes sin and does evil".
So yes, you qualify. And so do I. Everyone qualifies, for "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23). ALL of us are guilty of sin. The only difference is, those who believe in Jesus will be "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24).
B: DO you think such a scare tactic directed at honest, decent hard working people like me is moral?
The warning, or "scare tactic" is for God's enemies and those who transgress His laws. If you are not one of them, the scare tactic is not for you.
Is it moral? To NOT be informed of the consequences is less moral than being warned of them, don't you think?
B: Is it ok to burn me forever just because of an honest, reasoned point of view? Is this love? Give me a break...
If you are so honest and reasonable, well, I would encourage you to reason with God, especially since God invites us to (Isaiah 1:18).
B: I know the adventist understanding of these. Still, does it make any difference? Does it make it moral? Is it right? Is it not an obvious scare tactic? Love me or burn?
B: My greater point with he quote, which you missed, is that the hell/burning-lake doctrine is one christians cannot hide from. All the "god loves you talk" is backed up by threats of destruction, fire and brimstone.
You complain below because God allows evil and has not yet put an end to it ("what is He waiting for?"). Yet, you are offended that God promises to put an end to evil and warns us to turn from evil and to Him to be saved. You cannot have it both ways. Which shall it be - do you want God to put an end to evil, or not?
B: 1) If god wants to put an end to suffering, what is he waiting for? It would be like a fireman with a hose waiting for the house to burn to the foundations before putting it out. It makes no sense...
Here is my view, based on my understanding of the Bible, and similar to but not necessarily identical to SDA teachings.
The End has not come because the earth is not yet ready to be harvested (Matt. 13:24-30,36-43, Revelation 14:14-16). Jesus says that He will come when the Gospel has been preached to the whole world (Matt. 24:14). That hasn't happened yet, but it is close.
Jesus said: "My kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD" (John 18:36), and referred to the Devil as the Prince of this World (John 12:31, John 16:11). Indeed, Satan himself claimed that the earth was his (Luke 4:5,6). How did that happen? As one of the covering cherub, Lucifer was a glorious being, but he became proud and corrupt (Ezekiel 28:12-17) and eventually wanted to be above God (Isaiah 14:13, 14). He deceived and caused a rebellion in heaven, and He and his angels were cast to the Earth (Ezekiel 28:17, Revelation 12:7-9). My understanding is that God is showing all creation the consequences of sin by using this planet as the demonstration. All the evil we see in it reveal how Satan would rule if he were in charge of things. Since he is prince of this world, you could say that this world IS Hell.
But Satan's rule will be temporary. God is going to put an end to all evil, pain and suffering on this planet that has been caused by the Devil and his agents. The Devil would have all of us would be destroyed as well (indeed that is his goal - see Genesis 3, Job 1 & 2, 1 Peter 5:8, Revelation 12:10-12,17). But God has provided a way out so that we need not be destroyed with the Devil and his agents.
Why fire? I don't know. It is true, there is nothing palatable about it. But why should it be? Jesus also says that He will reward each person according to what he has done (Revelation 22:12), which means that the wicked will be punished according to what they had done. Perhaps they will experience the very evil they inflicted on to others, I don't know. The fire may be real, but may also be symbolic of purification. In any case, God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, including the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23,32). The bottom line is that God wants to reconcile everyone to Himself; those who want to be separated from the Life-Giver will eventually be separated.
B: 2)Regarding evil, let me ask you this. Am I evil just because I see no evidence of a god (much less a christian one) existing?
I would say no. Blind perhaps, but not evil. 8-)
B: Does this opinion override all my good and honest actions through out my life?
No.
B: Are gays evil just because they love another human being that happens to be of the same sex?
No.
However, I do make a distinction between sin and evil. To me, evil is characterized by causing pain, harm or destruction out of malice. Sin is the transgression of God's Law (1 John), but it is characterized by selfishness or self-centeredness. Being sinful can easily lead to doing evil.
As I mentioned before, ALL of us are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3). I have found this to be true - I have not met anybody in my lifetime who I thought was completely free of sin, and I seriously doubt there will be anybody who could save themselves before God based on their own merit, no matter how good and honest they believed their intentions to be. As a general rule each of us thinks first of ourselves, and we put our interests above or ahead of the interests of others. It happens all the time. Occasionally I see exceptions, but rarely. The condition of this World reveals the consequences.
S: ...But you do believe that life came from non-life, don't you?...
B: It is obvious that what we define as life comes from non-life...
Correction. Life comes from life, NOT non-life.
B: What I do not understand why you keep trying to pin faith on me. Either you want to make faith seem reasonable (which is not) or maybe you just want to make science look similar to faith, or just make it look bad...
No, I am just saying that a certain amount of faith is needed to believe something that you know with less than 100% certainty.
I thought I acknowledged in my previous post that perhaps you had no faith after all. If you take no position on where life came from, then I'll stop trying to pin faith on you.
Does this mean then that faith has no value to you?
B: Again, the bottom line is: love me or suffer dire consequences. Leave your family for me or else.
I never, ever felt that Jesus was asking me to leave my family. The gist of his comment was that He (as Savior and Creator God, and King of the Universe, who left His throne in order to save us - Philippians 2:6-8) needs to be more important to us than our families.
S: I know many Christians of different denominations who would disagree with you.
B: So? I know a lot of people that believe in UFO's, in Bigfoot, in fairies, in alchemy, in homeopathy, in astrology and who knows what else. Do you believe in these too? Remember that all of these beliefs share the same amount of evidence that miracles from the god of the bible have.
I did not believe in UFOs. But I knew a person who claimed to see a UFO at close range. I don't know if he was drunk or dreaming or on drugs or what, but he was quite adamant and described it in pretty good detail. So, while I have never seen one myself and may be somewhat skeptical, I am not going to dismiss my friend's story just because I have never seen one before.
As for the evidence of miracles...You say that I am especially an enlightened materialist. Yet I make an exception for my beliefs. Why would I do that? Is it just blind faith, or could there be an element of reason behind it after all? Could it be possible that perhaps I have seen enough evidence in my life to warrant such a belief?
I know a cancer survivor who should be dead today. She struggled with cancer for years, but the cancer spread all throughout her body and she reached a point where she was given a few months to live. My wife and I prayed for her daily, along with many others. She defied the overwhelming odds against her, and is alive and in remission to this day, 6 years after being labeled terminal, to the bewilderment of physicians. I believe that was a direct answer to prayer.
I have had numerous experiences in my life suggesting to me that God has been involved in my life, and has been leading me, and has sustained me through difficult times. A couple of years ago I was in what appeared to be a hopeless situation. But, CHOOSING to believe that God had guided me in the past and had not abondoned me, I lifted up my hand to God in faith, not knowing what to expect, just believing that God had a plan and would pull me through it. And God rewarded me in that circumstance more than I could have imagined, and far more than I deserved.
Does God answer all my prayers exactly the way I want? No. I have learned to pray according to His will, and trust that He really does love me and knows me better than I know myself, and knows what is best for me. So far, I have not been disappointed.
Perhaps my faith is not rational. But it isn't blind, and it has only been strengthened with my experience.
S: Evidence that you rejected due to your materialistic philosophy.
B: Let try to clear this up. It seems you do not make any difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I subscribe to the first one. That is why on a previous conversation I recommended Victor Stenger's book on the subject...
B: Methodological naturalism does not deny supernatural entities per se.
Thanks for the reminder of Stenger's book, I will try to find it and read it over the holidays. And thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for the confusion here, all of your writings strongly suggested the latter position.
If this is truly your position, then you must concede that complexity of the molecular machinery of the cell (and tissues, organs, etc) and especially the information in the cell, can each constitute evidence for intelligent design, since the only reason to deny them as evidence at all is due to strict adherence to a philosophical position. And if you are not a metaphysical naturalist, then you might consider the mind/consciousness as potential evidence for non-material causation. I came across these articles (from the DI) that I thought was very intriguing that you might be interested in:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/consciousness_and_intelligent.html
B: The fact that no evidence has come forward is a failure believers should explain. It has nothing to do with materialism at all.
I'll believe that pending your response to my comment above.
B: When you hear other religions miraculous claims, what would be more likely? Myth or history? When you read that Muhammad went to heaven on a winged horse, what is more likely? Myth or history? Whenever someone claims the laws of nature were broken especially for them, what would be more likely? Myth or history?
Myth would be more likely. So then, you can either test the different religious claims yourself to see if there is anything to them, or just assume there is nothing to them. I did test, and I found something.
B: Would you change your faith position if, for example, abiogenesis is proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt?
Abiogenesis will never be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt. But hypothetically speaking, yes, my faith position would change.
B: Luke, and any other of the gospels, suffer from the same weakness (especially since they copy from one another). They are biased accounts. Especially Luke, since he only puts in order third hand accounts that "where handed down to" him (Luke 1:1).
Yeah, biased accounts from who knows how many people. What account were they trying to pass down? And to what end?
B: Now, a historical Jesus may have existed. I have no problem with that,
Well, at least you can accept that possibility, which is good, considering there are several UNbiased accounts suggesting that Jesus existed. Even in the unbiased accounts he is associated with sorcery and superstition.
B: ...Still, an obvious breach exists between the historical Jesus and the mythical one described on the gospels. There is no historical bridge that can close that gap. None.
The obvious breach being the supernatural claims - that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc., correct? That's what I thought. If you were not a metaphysical naturalist, then you would not need to rule out this possibility, and so this shouldn't pose a problem for you, right?
Shawn: Can you not allow for the idea that there are consequences to things in life?
Brigno: Of course. That is why I believe justice should be sought here and now since there is no evidence for a judgment or a "right of wrongs" after death. Believing that temporal actions have to lead inexorably to eternal consequences is not only lacking in evidence (and illogical), but makes fighting for justice in the here and know an exercise in futility.
Huh? How so?
B: Regarding misquoting the bible I think that christians should first agree on what the bible says...
It would certainly be nice, but it is a completely unrealistic expectation. Very rarely can you get a group of individuals (let alone a large group) to all agree on what something says or what something means, whether it be religion, politics, science, medicine, or whatever. There are nearly as many opinions as there are people.
Thank you for your patience.
Hi:
Thanks for your answer. I read it all. Very interesting.
Regarding sin:
It seems to me that "sin" is a made up problem. There is nothing wrong in being self-centered (heck our whole economic system is based on it) as long as one does not hurt others. The same can be said of love, hate, valor or any other human attribute. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these, it all depends on your actions.
You can do helpful things and/or hurtful things. Like sin, there is no such thing as thought crime. Much less hereditary crime (Exodus 34:7). I don't see any reason to think poorly of humanity (even before they are even born) based on a non-evidence based concept.
The only reason the concept of sin exists in people's minds is to make necessary a "redeemer god" belief. Christianity just gives you the solution to a problem of its own making.
Personally, I see no need for such concepts.
S: You complain below because God allows evil and has not yet put an end to it ("what is He waiting for?"). Yet, you are offended that God promises to put an end to evil and warns us to turn from evil and to Him to be saved. You cannot have it both ways. Which shall it be - do you want God to put an end to evil, or not?
B: Assuming a good god exists, there is no reason to have pain in the universe (considering the supposed god is omnipotent). My point of view is that the universe behaves just like we would expect if a god did not exist.
And regarding evil I do not agree that atheist are evil and deserving of fire just because of a difference in belief. That is what offends me. (I will try to respond to the related paragraphs latter.)
S: Correction. Life comes from life, NOT non-life
B: What is life then? Is not what we define as life a particular arrangement of matter which otherwise would no be considered as such? Is there life without non-sentient matter? Life IS a particular formulation of lifeless elements. If that is not the case then please define life.
S: So, while I have never seen one myself and may be somewhat skeptical, I am not going to dismiss my friend's story just because I have never seen one before.
B: But still you do not believe. I take the same approach to gods as you do regarding UFO's.
S: I did test, and I found something
B: What about the people that tested it and found nothing?
"You think the gods have no care for man? Why, you can see from all these votive pictures here how many people have escaped the fury of storms at sea by praying to the gods who have brought them safe to harbor." To which Diagoras replied, "Yes, indeed, but where are the pictures of all those who suffered shipwreck and perished in the waves?"
S: Does God answer all my prayers exactly the way I want? No.
B: Maybe that is because god only answer prayers the way you want them about 50% of the time on average. :D
S: I know a cancer survivor who should be dead today.
B: What about the one's that did not survive even thought they prayed? I don't want to sound callous but personal anecdote is not evidence. I found it telling that god only "heals" internal sickness like cancers. I have never seen any believer praying everyday and night for an amputated arm or leg to grow back (and if someone has, did the member grew back miraculously?). If god cures cancer, why does he discriminate against amputees?
If I have a headache and pray for healing while taking an aspirin, does that prove that i was miraculously healed by god through prayer?
Correlation does not indicate causation. That is why claiming that miracles exist need more than some anecdotes to back it up.
I don't mean to diminish your experiences. I have no doubt they are true. But the fact is that not everybody has them strongly suggests to me that perception is being labeled as miracle.
S: you must concede that complexity of the molecular machinery of the cell (and tissues, organs, etc) and especially the information in the cell, can each constitute evidence for intelligent design
B: I contend the assumption that complexity comes necessarily from INTELLIGENT design, especially considering how non-intelligent evolutionary processes produce all types of complexity. The problem is not a priori metaphysical conclusion on my part. Is that the ID argument fails from the start. More than an assumption that complexity indicates intelligent origin is needed.
S: And if you are not a metaphysical naturalist, then you might consider the mind/consciousness as potential evidence for non-material causation.
B: Again, the problem is that not knowing something does not constitute evidence of something. Not knowing is just that. How does mind emanate from the brain? Is it an emerging property? (In that case no non-material source is needed. Can there be consciousness with our a brain? NO.). The point is we do not know yet. Personally, I do not find arguments from ignorance persuasive. If i do not know, i do not know. Again no metaphysical constraints are present on my part.
S: Yeah, biased accounts from who knows how many people. What account were they trying to pass down? And to what end?
B:Muslims can use the same argument regarding the Koran. Still you do not believe it. Psychology shows how such accounts have and are still being developed. I suggest Michael Shermer's books on the subject like "Why People believe weird things".
The point is that Luke is not a first hand account. Neither the gospels. And if there is fact contained in them that does not mean the rest is factual a well just because. Independent confirmation is needed, especially if it is regarding miracles.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None has been provided so far. That is why i can't believe.
S: Even in the unbiased accounts he is associated with sorcery and superstition.
B: Do you know when did these "unbiased accounts" were written? If you are referring to the Talmud, it was written 300 years after Jesus !!!. The problems here are obvious and numerous. The passage does not support your position at all.
See here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_view_of_Jesus#The_Talmud_and_.22Yeshu.22
S: There are nearly as many opinions as there are people.
B: That is why claiming someone is misquoting or misinterpreting is not an answer in itself. An analysis of the argument is required.
That is why you have my respects. We may disagree but at the same time I am learning from what I read from you. Thanks.
S: Considering the number of writers contributing to the Bible during a time frame which spans hundreds of years, the Bible is remarkably consistent.
B: All the writers shared the same culture, geographic location, race and religion. Actually, there is more variance than expected in some key parts (heck, the resurrection stories do not even match). That is why apologists will never run out of work.
S: There is such a thing as having a healthy fear of something, or someone. I love my parents, but having a certain amount of fear them when I was a child helped keep me in line.
B: Is it fear (healthy or otherwise) of god (or police or whatever) that keeps you in line? I hope not.
S: The warning, or "scare tactic" is for God's enemies and those who transgress His laws. If you are not one of them, the scare tactic is not for you.
B: Atheists in heaven/new-earth? Sweet!! ;)
S: Is it moral? To NOT be informed of the consequences is less moral than being warned of them, don't you think?
B: If the option is love me or burn, there is nothing moral at all. Is it moral to warn my wife of the beating she will receive as a consequence of her not following my commandments? The word moral has nothing to do with my example nor with the god described in the bible.
The verses regarding eternal (in effect or whatever) punishment are pretty clear.
S: If you are so honest and reasonable, well, I would encourage you to reason with God, especially since God invites us to (Isaiah 1:18).
B: What makes you think I haven't?
S: The End has not come because the earth is not yet ready to be harvested (Matt. 13:24-30,36-43, Revelation 14:14-16). Jesus says that He will come when the Gospel has been preached to the whole world (Matt. 24:14). That hasn't happened yet, but it is close.
B: This is a little of-topic but it reminds me of a truly sincere question I made to a few friends before I left religion. It had to do with the next verses:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14).
and,
"He isn't really being slow about His promised return, even though it sometimes seems that way. But He is waiting, for the good reason that He is not willing that any should perish, and He is giving more time for sinners to repent."
(II Peter 3:8-9)
If the road is narrow and few are saved while the lost are more numerous and go easily into perdition, isn't it counterproductive to extend the whole ordeal more? Isn't god condemning more people to perish the more he waits for their supposed "repentance"? A simple cost-benefit analysis shows how such course of action is truly foolish and not a good reason at all to prolong it.
The answers I got went from god works in mysterious ways to how can I be thinking such things. Oh well....
BTW: What constitutes preaching the gospel to all the world? How does one quantify that? If there is no way of truly quantifying it, how do you know we are close? Close based on what? Didn't the apostles said the same thing 2,000 years ago? Didn't Jesus went into the holy of holies almost 200 years ago? Didn't the Lisbon earthquake and the falling of the stars occurred so long ago to the point of total irrelevance today? Does anyone preach these signs (the ones found in the great controversy) anymore with a straight face? (I found out not too long ago that 666 does not mean "vicarius fili dei" anymore in SDA theology. Go figure.)
Sorry if i sound kind of rude. Not meaning to offend anyone. I'm just expressing how i felt at that time.
S: As one of the covering cherub, Lucifer was a glorious being, but he became proud and corrupt
B: Was Lucifer perfect? If so, how can perfection beget imperfection? The only explanation would be that he was flawed from the start because that how it was supposed to be.
If god did not want any of this to happen, do you really, really think satan could make it happen? Maybe god, due to his omniscience, has no free will of his own. Maybe he is bound to do what he know he will do.
Heck, we could be here the next 2,000 years putting all sorts of hypothesis forward. Still the whole theological structure is built on unsubstantiated claims.
This could easily be all pure speculation on a situation we have no evidence of being real at all.
It would be like debating how Yeti culture and society works in plain absence of evidence that Yetis exist in the first place.
S: and eventually wanted to be above God
B: Isn't satan supposed to be smart? The cunning deceiver? How can he be so stupid and think that a created being can be equal to a god? How can he still not know it? Can't he read the bible? I would make a smarter Satan than the one in the bible for sure (for starters I would not have crucified Jesus making him a martyr). Let me tell you, if a satan exists, he is truly an idiot.
To some the satan figure makes more sense in a mythological type-archetype context, but that could be a conversation for another day.
S: My understanding is that God is showing all creation the consequences of sin by using this planet as the demonstration.
B: Couldn't he use heaven for that? Why kick them down here?
I think that a god that permits all this suffering, death and destruction for simple demonstration purposes is a god that,even if he existed, would not deserve to be recognized, much less praised.
S: But Satan's rule will be temporary
B: Non-existent would have been a better option. If I were omnipotent and omniscient, that's what I would have done.
S:Why fire? I don't know. It is true, there is nothing palatable about it. But why should it be?
B: Because there is no joy or benefit to anyone (at least in moral and ethical creatures) in the unnecessary suffering of other living beings. That is why we have animal shelters and HUMANE societies. The bible says that god derives no pleasure in destroying the wicked, but he drowns them (genesis) and burns then (apocalypse). Is like saying one thing and doing another (for more examples just open your OT).
S: I would say no. Blind perhaps, but not evil.
B: Then it is not my fault I cannot see, god made like this. It is his will. ;)
S: Does this mean then that faith has no value to you?
B: I care more about what people do than what they believe in. I have no use for religious faith personally. I'm more interested in truth. Which underscores the fact that if religions were true, no faith would be needed at all.
S: I never, ever felt that Jesus was asking me to leave my family.
B: The disciples did. Thee monastic orders did. Cristian cults did, even today. The difference is they decide to take Jesus at his word, you did not. As secularism in society progresses, bible literalism diminishes. I think this is a good thing.
S: The gist of his comment was that He (as Savior and Creator God, and King of the Universe, who left His throne in order to save us - Philippians 2:6-8) needs to be more important to us than our families.
B: So says the texts. And if you don't love Jesus more, then what? There is no such thing as a free choice. Love me or die.
S: But, CHOOSING to believe that God had guided me in the past and had not abandoned me, I lifted up my hand to God in faith, not knowing what to expect, just believing that God had a plan and would pull me through it.
B: I don't know how can one CHOOSE to believe like if it were something one could will oneself to. I do not know how to do it. I tried. It just feels like im trying to delude myself.
I'm truly happy that your situation turned out for the best. But what if it had turned for the worst? Would you have stopped believing? I don't think so (that is why we have the Job character in the bible). If one starts with unwavering belief, no matter what happens the "hand/will/plan of god" will be "seen" even though to a impartial observer no such thing can be detected.
I think that to be true to oneself one must take the outsider point of view. Test belief under those parameters.
S: If you were not a metaphysical naturalist, then you would not need to rule out this possibility, and so this shouldn't pose a problem for you, right?
B: I do not rule it out. But since there is no evidence in favor there is no point in loosing sleep over it. The only problem here belongs to the believers. They need to explain the evidence they have (none at this point) to say such miracles are historic fact as opposed to myth. You do accept people can believe in myths. Right?
S: Huh? How so?
B: If god is coming back to burn the earth in order to recreate paradise, what is the point of earth conservation and recycling?
If god will punish the unjust after death, what is the point of human justice?
The only thing we have proof of is the here and the now. This realization compels us to promote conservation and seek out justice now since there is no evidence any of it will come from outside ourselves in the future.
PD:
WOW this took me a couple of hours. Uff. Hope it makes some sense.
B: Regarding sin:
B: It seems to me that "sin" is a made up problem. There is nothing wrong in being self-centered (heck our whole economic system is based on it) as long as one does not hurt others.
And therein lies the problem. Invariably there will be some are more "self-centered" than others, and will hurt the many to serve themselves. I believe the economic (and environmental) problems we have today are a direct result of our (collective) selfishness.
B: You can do helpful things and/or hurtful things. Like sin, there is no such thing as thought crime.
Wrong. You are right that actions are important, but if we harbor evil thoughts, we make ourselves much more susceptible to evil actions...
B: The only reason the concept of sin exists in people's minds is to make necessary a "redeemer god" belief.
Wrong again. The sin concept is not even popular, and neither is the "redeemer god" belief. People in general (like you) don't like to be confronted with the fact that they are sinful. Many Christians don't like it, even Adventists, and would prefer to be saved by their own works if they could. Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong.
B: Christianity just gives you the solution to a problem of its own making.
Wrong again. Sin and evil has been around for thousands of years before Christianity even existed.
B: Personally, I see no need for such concepts.
So you prefer a lawless world with no accountability. How does this fit in with human justice?
B: Assuming a good god exists, there is no reason to have pain in the universe (considering the supposed god is omnipotent).
We need pain to tell us if something is wrong with us. If we are injured and do not feel pain, we will likely do nothing about the injury, bleed to death or risk infection or whatever, and probably die.
B: My point of view is that the universe behaves just like we would expect if a god did not exist.
B: And regarding evil I do not agree that atheist are evil and deserving of fire just because of a difference in belief. That is what offends me. (I will try to respond to the related paragraphs latter.)
S: Correction. Life comes from life, NOT non-life
B: What is life then? Is not what we define as life a particular arrangement of matter which otherwise would no be considered as such? Is there life without non-sentient matter? Life IS a particular formulation of lifeless elements. If that is not the case then please define life.
Sure, I agree that life is made up of matter, just like non-life. I am just saying that life comes from life, not non-life.
S: So, while I have never seen one myself and may be somewhat skeptical, I am not going to dismiss my friend's story just because I have never seen one before.
B: But still you do not believe. I take the same approach to gods as you do regarding UFO's.
I did not say I still do not believe, only that I am somewhat skeptical. I don't know what he saw, but I am no longer ruling out the possibility that he actually saw a UFO.
S: I did test, and I found something
B: What about the people that tested it and found nothing?
They should keep testing. ;)
S: Does God answer all my prayers exactly the way I want? No.
B: Maybe that is because god only answer prayers the way you want them about 50% of the time on average. :D
If I felt it was 50% of the time on average, I might be concerned. On things of importance it is much greater than 50%. :)
S: I know a cancer survivor who should be dead today.
B: What about the one's that did not survive even thought they prayed?
That is true, some do. I have known many in my current and former churches who have died. God only knows. What I do know is that one person who was given no chance to survive is now without cancer. Why her? I don't know.
B: I don't want to sound callous but personal anecdote is not evidence.
I realize that it is not evidence for you. But it is evidence for me, as well as for the others who know her and prayed for her.
B: I found it telling that god only "heals" internal sickness like cancers. I have never seen any believer praying everyday and night for an amputated arm or leg to grow back (and if someone has, did the member grew back miraculously?). If god cures cancer, why does he discriminate against amputees?
Who says He does? Perhaps He has healed amputees in the past. Jesus healed a Roman soldier who got His ear cut off. But you would call that a myth. If any amputee claimed to have been healed in the past, most people would not believe it, it would be considered a myth.
B: I don't mean to diminish your experiences. I have no doubt they are true. But the fact is that not everybody has them strongly suggests to me that perception is being labeled as miracle.
This is the kind of response I would expect from you. But don't worry, you didn't diminish my experiences. I will be the judge of my own experiences, as you will for yours.
S: you must concede that complexity of the molecular machinery of the cell (and tissues, organs, etc) and especially the information in the cell, can each constitute evidence for intelligent design
B: I contend the assumption that complexity comes necessarily from INTELLIGENT design, especially considering how non-intelligent evolutionary processes produce all types of complexity...
You have the word "complexity" confused with "diversity". Evolutionary processes produce all types of diversity, but there is no evidence that these same processes can come up with the type of complex structures and processes that we see in the cell.
Perhaps the best evidence that you have for your assertion is the ongoing experiments on E. coli where mutations made to genes coding for an ALREADY EXISTING CHANNEL were just enough to allow a different type of food source (citrate) to enter the cell. Of course, the processes responsible for metabolizing citrate were already in place. There is no evidence that evolutionary processes can even come up with a channel or the metabolic processes entirely on it's own.
B: The problem is not a priori metaphysical conclusion on my part. Is that the ID argument fails from the start. More than an assumption that complexity indicates intelligent origin is needed.
ID only fails from the start for those who can't see through their materialist (metaphysical naturalist) lenses.
Certainly the type of complexity that we see in the cell (or tissues or organs) is reminiscent of that we, as intelligent beings, produce. The metabolic processes of the cell are like an engine, and engines are designed. DNA and Messenger RNA is like computer programs, and those are designed. Ribosomes are protein factories, and factories are designed. That is why this type of complexity constitutes evidence for intelligent design. Period. Only a metaphysical naturalist can deny this.
DNA (and mRNA) is full of information, a set of instructions for a separate object, the ribosome. Without the ribosome, the instructions are useless. This type of information is always associated with an intelligence cause, that is why information constitutes evidence for intelligent design. In contrast, there is no evidence that natural processes can account for information like that found in the cell.
So, because complexity and information are (in our experience) always products of intelligent causes, the fact that life contains information and a level of complexity similar to (or even greater than) that which we have created ourselves, they certainly constitute evidence for design.
Whether or not natural causes can also account for this remains to be determined, but so far the evidence is bare.
Sorry Brigno, but you failed the test, you are a true metaphysical naturalist.
S: Considering the number of writers contributing to the Bible during a time frame which spans hundreds of years, the Bible is remarkably consistent.
B: All the writers shared the same culture, geographic location, race and religion. Actually, there is more variance than expected in some key parts (heck, the resurrection stories do not even match). That is why apologists will never run out of work.
If the stories match 100%, well, it is because one writer copied material from the other, so it can be considered plagiarism, and thus adds no reliability. If the stories do not match 100%, well, the stories are not consistent and so they are not reliable. Whatever.
Have you ever served on a jury? I have served twice. In one case, I got to hear three witnesses testify to a crime committed against them. The witnesses knew each other, they were friends. One interesting thing that came from this case is that none of the three testimonies were identical, each presented the situation from their own point of view. What made their testimony believable was that their stories were NOT identical. If they had been, we might have thought that they met beforehand to get their stories completely straight, and that would raise questions regarding their honesty. As it was, their testomonies were consistent enough for the jury to give a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt (along with other presented evidence).
B: Is it fear (healthy or otherwise) of god (or police or whatever) that keeps you in line? I hope not.
No, at least not anymore. Now I desire to do the right thing because it is the right thing, not for fear of punishment.
B: BTW: What constitutes preaching the gospel to all the world? How does one quantify that? If there is no way of truly quantifying it, how do you know we are close? Close based on what? Didn't the apostles said the same thing 2,000 years ago? ..
Did you happen to read 2 Peter 3:3,4 on your way to verses 8-9 that you quoted above?
B: Was Lucifer perfect? If so, how can perfection beget imperfection? The only explanation would be that he was flawed from the start because that how it was supposed to be. If god did not want any of this to happen, do you really, really think satan could make it happen? ...
Free-will allows for the possibility of evil. At least God was prepared for it (1 Peter 1:20, Rev. 13:8). God could have prevented the whole thing by making us like robots, but then any relationship would be ingeniune and insincere.
S: and eventually wanted to be above God
B: Isn't satan supposed to be smart? The cunning deceiver? How can he be so stupid and think that a created being can be equal to a god? How can he still not know it?...
Some people can become blind because of their own desires, ambitions, lies, etc. Perhaps the same is true for angels...
S: My understanding is that God is showing all creation the consequences of sin by using this planet as the demonstration.
B: Couldn't he use heaven for that? Why kick them down here?
To quarantine them, I suppose. Too bad it had to be here on earth with us. Fortunately, God provided a way out for us.
B: Non-existent would have been a better option. If I were omnipotent and omniscient, that's what I would have done.
As painful as the demonstration is, I would prefer that. At least that way I learn something. If Satan were obliterated at the start, I might have wondered for the rest of eternity if perhaps he should have been in charge instead of God. Perhaps I would become the next Devil! :(
B: The bible says that god derives no pleasure in destroying the wicked, but he drowns them (genesis) and burns then (apocalypse). Is like saying one thing and doing another (for more examples just open your OT).
But WHY did God drown them in Genesis? Because the earth was filled with violence (see Genesis 6:5,6,11-13). Here is an example where God puts evil to a temporary halt, which Brigno should applaud since he does not approve of evil, but instead Brigno objects. Perhaps God should have allowed violence to continue, until man wiped himself and all wildlife from the face of the earth.
Matt. 24:37 - "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man..."
S: I would say no. Blind perhaps, but not evil.
B: Then it is not my fault I cannot see, god made like this. It is his will. ;)
Are you a determinist too? In other words, you have no free-will of your own and are incapable of making choices for yourself. And therefore take no responsibility for your actions or decisions.
B: So says the texts. And if you don't love Jesus more, then what? There is no such thing as a free choice. Love me or die.
It is sad that this is the bottom line message you receive from the Bible. You dismiss or ignore all the good teachings, and instead you harbor and focus on this twisted (and false) concept of God.
S: But, CHOOSING to believe that God had guided me in the past and had not abandoned me, I lifted up my hand to God in faith, not knowing what to expect, just believing that God had a plan and would pull me through it.
B: I don't know how can one CHOOSE to believe like if it were something one could will oneself to.
Good question. That was a difficult time for me. Have you ever read the poem "Footprints"? This was my "Footprints" moment. This was a case of me looking back, asking myself if there was evidence that God had lead me in the past. As I looked back, I remembered various choices I made and how things unfolded. After reflecting, I was impressed that God had indeed guided me in the past, and based on that I decided to trust Him regarding the future even though He seemed distant at the present. It would have been easier to sink into hopelessness and despair, but I made a conscious deliberate choice to trust.
B: I do not know how to do it. I tried. It just feels like im trying to delude myself.
I agree it is not an easy thing to do. Part of your problem is that you are trapped in the metaphysical materialistic box of your making. You need to come out of it.
I realize that you are probably not at that point right now, but if you ever reach that point where you are ready to try again, do it. Jesus rewards those of even little faith (Matt. 17:20). Indeed, He is the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), and will help us to overcome our unbelief (Mark 9:23-25).
B: I'm truly happy that your situation turned out for the best. But what if it had turned for the worst? Would you have stopped believing?...If one starts with unwavering belief, no matter what happens the "hand/will/plan of god" will be "seen" even though to a impartial observer no such thing can be detected.
I don't know Brigno. I went through some dark times in the late 80's/early 90's, and could have easily stopped believing then. Looking back, I believe God sustained me during those times. I was not raised a Christian and did not go to Christian schools (except for Catholic for part of grade school). I did not become a Christian until my teens. I certainly did not start with an unwavering belief.
B: I don't think so (that is why we have the Job character in the bible).
I think there are many other reasons for the Book of Job.
B: I think that to be true to oneself one must take the outsider point of view. Test belief under those parameters.
That sounds good, you do that. But when you do, be sure to take off your "metaphysical naturalist" lenses before you observe.
B: If god is coming back to burn the earth in order to recreate paradise, what is the point of earth conservation and recycling?
Genesis 1:26 - 'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground..."'
Gen. 2:15 - 'The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it...'
I think God wants us to take good care of this planet He has made for us. If we don't take care of this planet now, why should we be trusted to take care of heaven and the new earth later on?
On a related note, I just watched a program on CNN, "Planet in peril". It will be showing again this weekend if you are interested. What we are doing to this planet and the wildlife on it is absolutely deplorable. We do live in a sinful world, Brigno, and we are destroying this planet and will ultimately destroy ourselves. In light of this, I hope you will eventually change your perspective on the Second Coming as being a rescue mission.
B: If god will punish the unjust after death, what is the point of human justice?
Perhaps the point is, there really is very little, if any, human justice, but mostly injustice. Frankly, our justice systems are a joke. Don't get me wrong, I believe that we must have a justice system to help maintain law and order, but too often the rulings I see really leave me scratching my head. We don't seem to be very well equipped for it, and we usually have too little information to make a right judgment anyway. However, God knows everything that has been done and said and all the thoughts and intentions of the mind, and so He is probably the only Being who could cast a fair judgment on anything.
B: The only thing we have proof of is the here and the now. This realization compels us to promote conservation and seek out justice now since there is no evidence any of it will come from outside ourselves in the future.
I don't know why God does not provide more direct evidence. He considers faith to be very important, in fact it is impossible to please Him without it (Hebrews 11:6). As I told you before, I don't think that God permits Himself to be studied or manipulated by humans in a scientific manner, but I believe He reveals Himself in a personal matter (anecdotal). In addition, there is plenty of evidence to be seen for the existence of a Creator so long as you are not viewing things from a strictly materialistic perspective.
B: WOW this took me a couple of hours. Uff. Hope it makes some sense.
If you don't hear from me before Christmas, have a Happy Holidays and a Merry CHRISTmas. ;)
S: Invariably there will be some are more "self-centered" than others, and will hurt the many to serve themselves. I believe the economic (and environmental) problems we have today are a direct result of our (collective) selfishness.
B: That is why the group establishes controls to self-centered behaviors that could hurt others. That is why society is trying to deal with such collective issues. We humans are social creatures, with complex social interactions. There is nothing sinful about it. It just is.
S:The sin concept is not even popular, and neither is the "redeemer god" belief. People in general (like you) don't like to be confronted with the fact that they are sinful. Many Christians don't like it, even Adventists, and would prefer to be saved by their own works if they could. Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong.
B: The sin concept is not popular? There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world for crying out loud. Again, how can someone be wrong before they are even born? Wrong about what? The fact is that there is nothing to be saved from. What is sin anyway but a term that has no interface with reality? Sin is just manufactured guilt. It has nothing do to with being wrong about anything. It is all about control trough guilt.
S: Sin and evil has been around for thousands of years before Christianity even existed
B: Sin is a religious concept that has no existence outside the minds of people. Regarding evil actions we agree.
S: So you prefer a lawless world with no accountability. How does this fit in with human justice?
B: Just because there is no need for the ethereal concept of sin does not mean I would want lawlessness and accountability. I don't know how you get to that conclusion.
S: We need pain to tell us if something is wrong with us. If we are injured and do not feel pain, we will likely do nothing about the injury, bleed to death or risk infection or whatever, and probably die.
B: If a good omnipotent god existed, there should be no injuries to be aware of, hence no pain. Why would a good god expose his creation to situations that would cause them hurt and subsequent pain? Is that how you would treat your children?
S: Sure, I agree that life is made up of matter, just like non-life. I am just saying that life comes from life, not non-life.
B: I gave a definition of life. What is yours? Maybe that is why we are not reaching an understanding on this point.
S: I did not say I still do not believe, only that I am somewhat skeptical. I don't know what he saw, but I am no longer ruling out the possibility that he actually saw a UFO.
B: I do the same thing with gods. They could exist, but until evidence comes forward I do not believe. Do you believe he saw a UFO? If you are skeptical, that qualifies as not believing. There is no middle ground. Knowledge and belief are two different things. Belief is a binary position. If you do not know if you should believe it, you are not believing by default.
S: They should keep testing.
B: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Albert Einstein.
S:On things of importance it is much greater than 50%.
B: Where important could be defined as the situations one thinks god has answered. That is why in experiments we have to takes steps to control biases.
S: That is true, some do. I have known many in my current and former churches who have died. God only knows. What I do know is that one person who was given no chance to survive is now without cancer. Why her? I don't know.
B: Maybe is because the actions of a god have nothing to do with the health of people. I think it is pretty obvious. Some people live, some people are wrongly diagnosed, some people die. Eventually we all will. What you see is what we would expect to see if a god did not exist.
S: Who says He does? Perhaps He has healed amputees in the past. Jesus healed a Roman soldier who got His ear cut off. But you would call that a myth. If any amputee claimed to have been healed in the past, most people would not believe it, it would be considered a myth.
B: But didn't your god healed a cancer patient in the present? Why can't he heal an amputee now as well? Would you pray day and night for such a thing to happen? Do you really believe in your heart that god would answer?
Everybody in church prays for cancer healing but nobody prays for limb regeneration. Why?
S:Evolutionary processes produce all types of diversity, but there is no evidence that these same processes can come up with the type of complex structures and processes that we see in the cell.
B: Science has shown how evolutionary process can create all sorts of complexity. Again, regarding how the cell came to be, we do not know. It is being investigated.
S: There is no evidence that evolutionary processes can even come up with a channel or the metabolic processes entirely on it's own.
B: So? Is there any evidence that your god can do it? Nope. Again we do not know. I reserve belief until such a day that an adequate explanation comes.
S:So, because complexity and information are (in our experience) always products of intelligent causes
B: That is the problem. Is the unwarranted phylosofical assumption (as opposed to scientific questioning) that "design" equals "intelligent" origin. For example look at how chaos and complexity theory have established the existence of self-organizing phenomena. No intelligence needed.
If interested more can be found here:
http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_145.html
and here,
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html
There is no reason to assume that design requieres intelligence at all.
As it has been said elsewhere: Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer.
In other words, who designed the designer?
S: Have you ever served on a jury? I have served twice. In one case, I got to hear three witnesses testify to a crime committed against them....
B: Nobody can create a chronology of the supposed events in the gospels. That is why we have such different account regarding the resurrection. That is why the newer gospels are more embellished than the older ones. That is why theologians still debate the synoptic problem.
Do the gospels record historical fact accurately? Would they hold up in court?
S: Now I desire to do the right thing because it is the right thing, not for fear of punishment.
B: It seems the god of the bible did not receive the memo. Not only he puts fear in people with hell but wants to, at the same time, buy them with promises of riches in heaven. In the bible doing good is not its own reward.
S: Did you happen to read 2 Peter 3:3,4 on your way to verses 8-9 that you quoted above?
B: I read it. Other than labeling honest individuals who ask questions as "scoffers" and claiming we follow "evil desires" there is no answer. I am not impressed by unwarranted insults. Are you? (See psalm 14:1 for another example of this)
S:God could have prevented the whole thing by making us like robots, but then any relationship would be ingeniune and insincere.
B: You present a false dichotomy. Couldn't god, without forcing our hand either way, have designed the cosmos so that Satan was not capable of offering Eve enough to make her choose to sin?. That is NOT a violation of free will. As it stands, Satan had to offer very little to Eve. Which says more about god than eve.
S: At least God was prepared for it (1 Peter 1:20, Rev. 13:8).
B: Then how does this does not indicate that he wanted it to happen? I thought god was omnipotent, still things that he does not want to happen keep happening. This is totally illogical.
S:To quarantine them, I suppose. Too bad it had to be here on earth with us. Fortunately, God provided a way out for us.
B: Why not quarantine them in heaven? Not kicking them here would have made the whole convoluted exit strategy for us totally unnecessary and would have prevented the untold suffering of billions and billions. Again, if such a god exists, it is not worthy of praise at all.
S: As painful as the demonstration is, I would prefer that.
B: But why here on earth? Why the unnecessary suffering? Why?
S: At least that way I learn something. If Satan were obliterated at the start, I might have wondered for the rest of eternity if perhaps he should have been in charge instead of God. Perhaps I would become the next Devil! :(
B: What makes you think you will not? Eternity is a long time. Maybe the devil had the wrong approach.
S: Here is an example where God puts evil to a temporary halt, which Brigno should applaud since he does not approve of evil, but instead Brigno objects.
B: Of course I object. An all powerful god should be able to do more than a temporary stop gap fix. And not only that but I object the sadistic manner in which it was done. How many babies drowned? (assuming the story is true, which thankfully is not) How many living creatures died because of nothing they had done? What about the ecosystems and plants that were wiped out? A god that acts that way sounds like human experience writ large. Nothing more.
S: Are you a determinist too? In other words, you have no free-will of your own and are incapable of making choices for yourself. And therefore take no responsibility for your actions or decisions.
B: Actually I am a compatibilist. It is believers that have no free will claiming they do. Can you will something different than that what god knows you will decide? In front of an omniscient god, free will cannot exist. That is so obvious that christianity has calvinists making that same point (with bible verses and all, go figure).
You can only decide that which god already knows you will decide. Stephen, you have no free will and neither does god for that matter.
The whole concept is illogical and unsustainable to the core. This is one of the reasons i had to recognize these bronze age stories as myth instead of fact. There is no other way around it.
S: You dismiss or ignore all the good teachings, and instead you harbor and focus on this twisted (and false) concept of God.
B: I have given texts. Chapter and verse. The "good" parts of the bible do not cancel out the "bad" parts. You should know that. The text regarding hell are clear. There is no way around it if you believe ALL the bible is true.
Personally, i do not need the bible to do what is good. Neither do you. Why bother?
S: That sounds good, you do that. But when you do, be sure to take off your "metaphysical naturalist" lenses before you observe.
B: How do you suggest one do that? Could you give a practical example?
S: I think God wants us to take good care of this planet He has made for us. If we don't take care of this planet now, why should we be trusted to take care of heaven and the new earth later on? I hope you will eventually change your perspective on the Second Coming as being a rescue mission.
B: Do the new heavens require taking care of? If nothing dies there is no need for food, much less waste management. I would like to think spiritual travel is a zero emission mode of transportation. Joking aside, the bible describes nature as " eagerly waiting for God" to do his thing. You say the 2nd coming is not a rescue mission, but the words of Jesus, the apostles and the whole book of revelation throw me off.
The 2nd coming IS a rescue mission (let me know if you want chapter and verse).
S: I don't know why God does not provide more direct evidence. He considers faith to be very important, in fact it is impossible to please Him without it (Hebrews 11:6).
B: Why? Wouldn't a moral god value honesty and sincerity more than blind faith?
S: As I told you before, I don't think that God permits Himself to be studied or manipulated by humans in a scientific manner, but I believe He reveals Himself in a personal matter (anecdotal).
B: But the same thing can be said of any other god, UFOs, paranormal beliefs, ghosts, leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster and whatever else one can imagine. And what happens to those who do not even anecdotal experience? How can they be condemned for not believing?
S: In addition, there is plenty of evidence to be seen for the existence of a Creator so long as you are not viewing things from a strictly materialistic perspective.
B: Can god be trounced by a human perspective? In the bible the existence of god was pretty obvious (pillars of fire, cloud in the temple, fire from the sky, etc..etc..etc..). Has modern human perspectives rendered god powerless today? Are you sure your god is the same all mighty god of the bible?
S: have a Happy Holidays and a Merry CHRISTmas. ;)
B: And a merry winter solstice (the real reason for the season) to you. :D
B: That is why the group establishes controls to self-centered behaviors that could hurt others.
That sounds great, except that all societies have corruption to at least some extent, some to a great extent.
B: What is sin anyway but a term that has no interface with reality? Sin is just manufactured guilt. It has nothing do to with being wrong about anything. It is all about control trough guilt.
Wrong. Sin and guilt are two entirely different things. One can sin and not feel the least bit guilty. It has nothing to do with control.
S: Sin and evil has been around for thousands of years before Christianity even existed
B: Sin is a religious concept that has no existence outside the minds of people...
Yeah, right. Remember that the next time someone "sins" against you. If you do wrong to someone else, you have committed a sin against them. I don't understand how you cannot see that. Do you believe in "right" and "wrong", or are these concepts also ethereal and non-existent?
S: So you prefer a lawless world with no accountability. How does this fit in with human justice?
B: Just because there is no need for the ethereal concept of sin does not mean I would want lawlessness and accountability. I don't know how you get to that conclusion.
1 John 3:4 - "Everybody who sins breaks the law; in fact sin is lawlessness."
See also Romans 7:7.
S: We need pain to tell us if something is wrong with us. If we are injured and do not feel pain, we will likely do nothing about the injury, bleed to death or risk infection or whatever, and probably die.
B: If a good omnipotent god existed, there should be no injuries to be aware of, hence no pain. Why would a good god expose his creation to situations that would cause them hurt and subsequent pain?
Pain entered the world with sin, a concept you reject.
S: I did not say I still do not believe, only that I am somewhat skeptical. I don't know what he saw, but I am no longer ruling out the possibility that he actually saw a UFO.
B: I do the same thing with gods. They could exist, but until evidence comes forward I do not believe. Do you believe he saw a UFO? If you are skeptical, that qualifies as not believing. There is no middle ground. Knowledge and belief are two different things. Belief is a binary position. If you do not know if you should believe it, you are not believing by default.
Fine. In any case, I will keep an open mind that such a possibility exists.
S: They should keep testing.
B: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Albert Einstein.
I agree, that would be insanity. Only I am not proposing repeating the same test over and over again. Keep searching.
S:On things of importance it is much greater than 50%.
B: Where important could be defined as the situations one thinks god has answered...
But isn't in my case. I'm not THAT shallow, but nice try.
B: What you see is what we would expect to see if a god did not exist.
Actually, what I see is not what I would expect to see if God did not exist. Obviously, we see differently.
B: But didn't your god healed a cancer patient in the present? Why can't he heal an amputee now as well? Would you pray day and night for such a thing to happen? Do you really believe in your heart that god would answer?
I certainly believe He could.
B: Everybody in church prays for cancer healing but nobody prays for limb regeneration. Why?
Perhaps they lack the faith, or feel they must accept their condition.
S:Evolutionary processes produce all types of diversity, but there is no evidence that these same processes can come up with the type of complex structures and processes that we see in the cell.
B: Science has shown how evolutionary process can create all sorts of complexity.
Really? Science "speculates" on how evolutionary processes can create some of the complexity in life, but unless you have a much better example than the modified (but already existing) channel in E. coli that I mentioned earlier, you have nothing. There is nothing wrong with speculating, but it is not the same as demonstrating; the former does not constitute evidence, only hypotheses.
B: Again, regarding how the cell came to be, we do not know. It is being investigated.
Of course. But intelligent cause should be under consideration, don't you think?
S:So, because complexity and information are (in our experience) always products of intelligent causes
B: That is the problem. Is the unwarranted phylosofical assumption
(as opposed to scientific questioning) that "design" equals "intelligent" origin.
Well, that is not precisely what I said. But the implication that I made an unwarranted phylosophical assumption is incorrect. Assumption should not be confused with experience or demonstration.
You are the one making the assumption...that natural processes alone are sufficient to create the structures and processes needed for life, something that has never been demonstrated, i.e. has no evidence in support.
B: For example look at how chaos and complexity theory have established the existence of self-organizing phenomena. No intelligence needed.
Of course, there are many phenomena which are self-organizing that require no intelligence. That is NOT what I am talking about. The complexity of the cell greatly exceeds anything such example, and is much more comparable to the complexity of things that we have designed and constructed. Yet nobody would ever assume that the complex things we have built would have self-organized.
B: There is no reason to assume that design requieres intelligence at all.
Thanks for the articles. Good points were made, but they not bulletproof.
These facts (not assumptions) remain:
1) the cell is jam-packed with information
2) there is no evidence that natural processes can create or account for this information
3) all evidence to date suggests that information is always associated with intelligent causes
4) therefore, there is good reason to believe that the cell was designed by an intelligent agent
To say that there is NO reason to believe that an intelligent agent is responsible is incorrect, and irrational. For one who seems to pride himself on being rational and evidence-based, I would expect you to be much more open-minded on this issue.
B: As it has been said elsewhere: Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer. In other words, who designed the designer?
Is this really a convincing argument for you? It certainly doesn't change the available evidence, which does not favor natural processes.
B: Do the gospels record historical fact accurately? Would they hold up in court?
So far they have.
S:God could have prevented the whole thing by making us like robots, but then any relationship would be ingeniune and insincere.
B: You present a false dichotomy. Couldn't god, without forcing our hand either way, have designed the cosmos so that Satan was not capable of offering Eve enough to make her choose to sin?. That is NOT a violation of free will...
The false dichotomy here is yours. You assume that if God is omnipotent that He could create free-will beings while also not allowing for the possibility of sin. If the mere possibility of sin was not allowed, then we really wouldn't have choices, we would have "pseudo-free-will" and might as well be programmed.
S: At least God was prepared for it (1 Peter 1:20, Rev. 13:8).
B: Then how does this does not indicate that he wanted it to happen? I thought god was omnipotent, still things that he does not want to happen keep happening. This is totally illogical.
Perhaps God foresaw that creating free-will beings would eventually lead to the possibility of sin.
S:To quarantine them, I suppose. Too bad it had to be here on earth with us. Fortunately, God provided a way out for us.
B: Why not quarantine them in heaven? Not kicking them here would have made the whole convoluted exit strategy for us totally unnecessary and would have prevented the untold suffering of billions and billions. Again, if such a god exists, it is not worthy of praise at all.
The war was in heaven (Revelation 12:7-9) and God decided to confine it to Earth, probably to spare trillions and quadrillions of life everywhere else. To bad it was Earth, lucky us. But perhaps that is why the reward is so great for us (see for example Revelation 3:21), and why Christ Himself was willing to pay the price to redeem us from the Devil (remember, Satan is the prince of THIS world), so that nobody need perish with the Devil, but salvation is made available to all who accept the Gift.
S: At least that way I learn something. If Satan were obliterated at the start, I might have wondered for the rest of eternity if perhaps he should have been in charge instead of God. Perhaps I would become the next Devil! :(
B: What makes you think you will not? Eternity is a long time. Maybe the devil had the wrong approach.
Honestly, being aware of my own sinful condition, the thought has crossed my mind. The Bible says that sin will not arise a second time, so I am accepting by faith that it won't.
B: Of course I object. An all powerful god should be able to do more than a temporary stop gap fix. And not only that but I object the sadistic manner in which it was done...
The Savior that He promised had not yet come, that is why the fix was temporary. He did this once. There was nothing sadistic or pleasing to God about it, and He promised never to do that again (Genesis 8:21). Should God have let violence and evil continue and let man go on to his own extinction, or should He have put a stop to it?
S: Are you a determinist too? In other words, you have no free-will of your own and are incapable of making choices for yourself. And therefore take no responsibility for your actions or decisions.
B: Actually I am a compatibilist. It is believers that have no free will claiming they do. Can you will something different than that what god knows you will decide? In front of an omniscient god, free will cannot exist...
I disagree. There is a distinction between knowing something and controlling something. God may know what I will choose from one moment to the next, but that does not mean He is making me make my choice.
S: You dismiss or ignore all the good teachings, and instead you harbor and focus on this twisted (and false) concept of God.
B: I have given texts. Chapter and verse. The "good" parts of the bible do not cancel out the "bad" parts. You should know that. The text regarding hell are clear. There is no way around it if you believe ALL the bible is true.
Suit yourself. You are of course free to interpret the Bible any way you see fit.
The Bible teaches us to love our neighbor, even our enemies, and to treat everyone with respect and kindness and not harm each other. I consider these to be very good teachings - the world would certainly be a better place if people followed them. If evil were eliminated, there would be no need to fear the judgment. But maybe you don't mind if evil continues.
S: That sounds good, you do that. But when you do, be sure to take off your "metaphysical naturalist" lenses before you observe.
B: How do you suggest one do that? Could you give a practical example?
Good point. I suppose that may be impossible if you are a metaphysical naturalist.
B: The 2nd coming IS a rescue mission (let me know if you want chapter and verse).
Yes indeed, the 2nd coming IS a rescue mission, at last we agree.
B: And what happens to those who do not even anecdotal experience? How can they be condemned for not believing?
See Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16. God knows the motives of all hearts, so I will leave that judgment to him.
B: Can god be trounced by a human perspective? Has modern human perspectives rendered god powerless today?
No, but people who chose to look only through materialist lenses have limited vision. Thus the unwillingness to see what is obvious to most.
The bottom line here is that we see the world through different lenses, we have different worldviews.
B: Are you sure your god is the same all mighty god of the bible?
That is for each individual to decide.
Thank you for the stimulating discussion.
Peace.
S: That sounds great, except that all societies have corruption to at least some extent, some to a great extent.
B: So? Still we have managed to get this far as a species. If it was so bad humanity would have been extinct by now.
S: Wrong. Sin and guilt are two entirely different things. One can sin and not feel the least bit guilty. It has nothing to do with control.
B: Again you equivocate on the term sin. You talk about sin as a doing something. That is not what I was talking about.
Remember that we are supposedly sinners even if we have not done anything. A baby is a sinner even inside the womb. What has a baby done to deserve the sinner label? Religion declares people to be bad (since sin = bad) even before they are even born. Most people (other than psychopaths which are not the norm) feel guilty (thanks to that evolutionary developed sense of community) when others label them as bad (or sinners). Again sin leads to guilt which leads to searching a solution for it. In christianity that solution is called Jesus.
That is why I said christianity offers a solution to a problem of its own making. Sin is just a guilt producing concept even if one has not done anything at all.
S: Remember that the next time someone "sins" against you
B: Again you equivocate on the term sin. People do not "sin" against me. They can do bad things, hurt me physically or psychologically. But "sin" against me? Sin as a label or state of being has no meaning or purpose other than make people feel bad about themselves even when they have not done anything wrong.
S: Do you believe in "right" and "wrong", or are these concepts also ethereal and non-existent?
B: I understand actions. And when you use the word sin to describe bad actions I agree with it. I do not agree with the word sin when is used in the religious guilt inducing, non-descript, hereditary way.
S: 1 John 3:4 - "Everybody who sins breaks the law; in fact sin is lawlessness."
B:
Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ezekiel 18:17
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Number 14:18
The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Which one is it? The bible contradicts itself yet again.
You cannot proclaim sin as a state of being and, when confronted, argue for it as a synonymous for bad actions. That is why sin is a word that serves no purpose (other than to manufacture guilt).
S: Pain entered the world with sin, a concept you reject.
B: You missed the point. I will repeat: Couldn't god, without forcing our hand either way, have designed the cosmos so that Satan was not capable of offering Eve enough to make her choose to sin?. That is NOT a violation of free will. As it stands, Satan had to offer very little to Eve.
S: Fine. In any case, I will keep an open mind that such a possibility exists.
B: And still you do not believe. Not believing does not mean one has a closed mind, you are an example of this regarding UFOs. I am just like that with gods (as well as UFO's).
S: But isn't in my case. I'm not THAT shallow, but nice try.
B: I'll take your word for it. In my case my life experiences are just the same now as they were before I left religion. Problems get solved (or not), good things happen (or not), people bug me (or not) just like they did before when I prayed to a god.
S: what I see is not what I would expect to see if God did not exist.
B: I wonder how a world without god would look like then. If a world were the law of predation is supreme (i.e. our world) is what you would expect from god, then your expectations are pretty low.
S: I certainly believe He could.
B: But do you believe that he would? Would you really pray for it to happen? Be honest.
S: Perhaps they lack the faith, or feel they must accept their condition.
B: That is just my point. People only have "faith" when the sickness has has a possibility of being wrongly diagnosed, can be treated or where the body could possibly heal itself.
But when the problem has no possibility being solved (amputations, down syndrome, etc..), faith does absolutely nothing. This is a fact.
So much for James 5:14-15.
Faith healings are only evidence to those that want to believe in their occurrence. But deep in their hearts they must know faith does not work. Because if it did, why the "lack of faith" when an amputee is involved?
Actions (or lack of them) speak louder than words (or verses).
S: Science "speculates" on how evolutionary processes can create some of the complexity in life
B: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/creationism-tak.html
Mutation plus environmental pressures acting on living beings are more than enough to create diversity and complexity with no intelligence behind it. Did an a analogous process in chemistry gave birth to celular life? We do not know, yet. But we do know that an intelligence is not needed to produce complexity in already living beings. That is my point.
S: But intelligent cause should be under consideration, don't you think?
B: Sure, if we could only figure out what that would mean in practical terms. In other words, where are the experiments? Where are the falsifiable hypothesis? What is the methodology? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Any replicable results?
S: Assumption should not be confused with experience or demonstration.
B: It is not. But remember that experience is limited. We experience a flat world but in fact it is round. We experience order from intelligence but in fact order can come from chaos by itself, being order a group within chaos.
S: That is NOT what I am talking about. The complexity of the cell greatly exceeds anything such example.
B: You are looking at the end product. Just like the people who look at the pyramids and claim such a complex and difficult building could not have been made by ancient man (at this point is where the aliens come in).
A cell could have appeared by a gradual developmental process. The fact that mitocondrias have their own DNA strongly points to that progressive developmental conclusion. Science is still investigating.
The major point is that design and order do not need a designer and that a simple beginning can and will develop into a complex present. These are all common sense, experienced backed, demonstrated concepts.
Do we have final answers? No. But science keeps searching. Could the supernatural be the solution? Maybe (although a look back trough out the history of science makes such a prediction highly unlikely). But until evidence from the supernatural realm appears, there is no need for science to give up and claim god did it. It would be irresponsible to do so.
S: 1) the cell is jam-packed with information
2) there is no evidence that natural processes can create or account for this information
3) all evidence to date suggests that information is always associated with intelligent causes
4) therefore, there is good reason to believe that the cell was designed by an intelligent agent
B:
1) So? There is no physical law that prohibits the accumulation of information bit by bit. especially since the criteria for what constitutes information has not been made clear by the ID folks yet.
2) Evolution presents a working model. Could it apply to the origin of life? Maybe. But at least we have proof that complexity does not require intelligent design.
3) Nope. Evolution is just one example. Chaos theory, even hurricanes are examples of order with no intelligent design.
4) In any case such objections are a reason to study further.
S: To say that there is NO reason to believe that an intelligent agent is responsible is incorrect, and irrational.
B: The scientific community agrees with me. These are the most responsible, rational people on the planet. Heck, many of them (if not the majority) are christians just like you!!!
I am open minded. But an unwarranted claim that complexity needs intelligent origin or that a gap in knowledge is evidence of godly action does not convince me. More is needed. I have no issue in saying I do not know. Do you?
S: Is this really a convincing argument for you? It certainly doesn't change the available evidence, which does not favor natural processes.
B: It is convincing. Do you have an answer for it?
The available evidence points to the fact that intelligence is not needed for design (or information or whatever you want to call it) to exist. The fact that you postulate a non-designed designer just underscores that fact.
S: So far they have.
B: Not really. Just try reading scholarly critiques about it.
S: You assume that if God is omnipotent that He could create free-will beings while also not allowing for the possibility of sin. If the mere possibility of sin was not allowed, then we really wouldn't have choices, we would have "pseudo-free-will" and might as well be programmed.
B: Then I guess you believe god is not omnipotent then. A OMNIPOTENT god could have made it so. If he did not, then why I am wrong to assume he wanted all to happen like it did?
And again, I never said the possibility of sining was prohibited. What I said is that god could have made the possibility of sinning hard and unattractive that no matter what Satan did, Eve did not needed to fall. The possibility of sinning would still be there (just like it would still be there even after jesus second coming). What is the point then? Where is the qualitative difference?
S: Perhaps God foresaw that creating free-will beings would eventually lead to the possibility of sin.
B: If your god is all-knowing he does not deal in possibilities. He knew it would happen because he wanted it to be.
Again, if god is omnipotent and all-knowing, how is it that things he does not want to happen keep happening? Again this is illogical and makes no sense. Which is what we would expect from a bronze age myth.
S: The war was in heaven (Revelation 12:7-9) and God decided to confine it to Earth, probably to spare trillions and quadrillions of life everywhere else.
B: Do you mean to say that the war in heaven had casualties? Really? Do yo mean to say that it did not occur to god to confine them in Jupiter, Mars or Mercury (hell like atmosphere bonus!!!) where there is no life at all? Again, such a god is not worthy of praise. Much less if he tries to buy me with a salvation that did not need to be offered in the first place (if god a little bit more of insight into the consequences of his actions).
It was bad for earth, not lucky at all if the story where (which is not) true.
S: The Bible says that sin will not arise a second time, so I am accepting by faith that it won't.
B: That is the problem. Any objection is solved by calling out "faith". With all due respect, calling "faith" sound like a cop-out when no answer can be given.
S: The Savior that He promised had not yet come, that is why the fix was temporary.
B: Yes, because bringing the savior right then and there (before the flood) was to hard for god to do.
S: There was nothing sadistic or pleasing to God about it, and He promised never to do that again (Genesis 8:21)
B: Because he will burn them alive which is much more worse.
S: Should God have let violence and evil continue and let man go on to his own extinction, or should He have put a stop to it?
B: If god is putting a stop to violence and evil there is no reason to do a half-baked job at it knowing it would get like that again (if not worse). Especially if he will later decide to put a real permanent end to it. Why? Why would a all-powerful being act with such a senseless, bronze age mentality?
S: God may know what I will choose from one moment to the next, but that does not mean He is making me make my choice.
B: If god knows what you will choose before you do, where is the choosing element? You are just a part of a predetermined flow of events god has already willed would happen in his mind. And god, by the fact he determined your existence, has put you in a inexorable path that you will follow. Can you choose something that god does not know you were going to choose anyway?
What is the point of asking people to choose salvation if he already knows who is going to be saved?
Again, free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive concepts. Omniscience turns human will and existence into nothing more than a charade.
S: The Bible teaches us to love our neighbor, even our enemies, and to treat everyone with respect and kindness and not harm each other. I consider these to be very good teachings - the world would certainly be a better place if people followed them.
B: I do not need the bible to do good things. Especially since the bible also teaches that a neighbor is only one of my race or ethnicity (that is why we have genocides commmited by the hebrews in the OT), that slavery is ok (the ideal relationship between god and believers is that of a master and a slave, even in the NT), that women are subservient to men (read Paul), that homosexuals and witches deserve the death penalty, and that god should be feared and loved (at the same time) unless you want to burn in hell.
The world would have been a better place if such teachings would not have been followed at all.
Like I said before, I do not need the bible to do what is good. Men have been doing good long before any of those myth were put in writing. The fact is that any little good that comes from bible teachings has been dwarfed by all the preventable evil it has caused.
You may ignore the bad parts of the bible. I did it once too. But now, as I try to be an impartial observer, cannot.
S: If evil were eliminated, there would be no need to fear the judgment. But maybe you don't mind if evil continues.
B: If there could be a way for evil to disappear completely, I would be totally for it. Since there is no way to fully end evil, I am happy to work as hard as I can against it.
The fact is that if an all-powerful god wanted evil to end, he would already had done so.
S: Good point. I suppose that may be impossible if you are a metaphysical naturalist.
B: ???? There is no example? If I take my glasses off what would be the alternative? Believe whatever just because? Is that it?
S: Yes indeed, the 2nd coming IS a rescue mission, at last we agree.
B: You previously said:
"I hope you will eventually change your perspective on the Second Coming as being a rescue mission."
Why should I change my perspective? Especially if you agree with me that it is a rescue mission? And if you agree with me then, what is the point of recycling, earth conservation or even human justice?
S: No, but people who chose to look only through materialist lenses have limited vision. Thus the unwillingness to see what is obvious to most.
B: Truth is not decided by majority vote. Trough out most of human history people thought the earth was flat. It is not.
This is not about limited vision. Do you think I would not recognize god if the red sea parted before my eyes? Do you think I would deny seeing an angel if he appeared in the middle of the new president's acceptance speech? Do you think I would not see a pillar of fire spelling the words "god is real" on a quiet Jerusalem night? Do you think I would deny seeing an amputee have is arm grown back in front of me after anointing and prayer?
C'mon Stephen. You know better than that. Is is not that I do not want to see. Is that there is nothing to see.
Where are the miracles of the bible now, when even the unbelievers had to accept the reality of them? Are god's miracles today so weak that a skeptic attitude can totally defeat them?
The onus is not on me. It is on you and on your god. It is not my fault he had decided to weaken your position by denying you of what were common place occurrences in the pages of the bible. Is not my eyes but yours. Maybe you are seeing more than what is really there.
B: You cannot proclaim sin as a state of being and, when confronted, argue for it as a synonymous for bad actions. That is why sin is a word that serves no purpose (other than to manufacture guilt).
Whatever. No point arguing about this one, especially if we have different definitions of sin.
S: Pain entered the world with sin, a concept you reject.
B: You missed the point. I will repeat: Couldn't god, without forcing our hand either way, have designed the cosmos so that Satan was not capable of offering Eve enough to make her choose to sin?. That is NOT a violation of free will. As it stands, Satan had to offer very little to Eve.
Genesis 3:4,5 - '"You will not surely die, the serpent said to the woman,"For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil."'
Perhaps there was something in that statement that was enticing to Eve after all.
S: what I see is not what I would expect to see if God did not exist.
B: I wonder how a world without god would look like then. If a world were the law of predation is supreme (i.e. our world) is what you would expect from god, then your expectations are pretty low.
It is what I expect in a sinful world.
S: Science "speculates" on how evolutionary processes can create some of the complexity in life
B: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/creationism-tak.html
Thanks for another article. Did you actually read it? It says absolutely nothing about how evolution accounts for complexity. What it says is this: "our results show that organisms found a way around that problem (evolution of complex organisms) by restricting mutational effects on very narrowly confined parts of the organisms."
Thus, it completely dodges the question of accounting for complexity at all. Heck, this isn't even half as good as the E. coli study. You still have nothing.
B: Mutation plus environmental pressures acting on living beings are more than enough to create diversity and complexity with no intelligence behind it. Did an a analogous process in chemistry gave birth to celular life? We do not know, yet. But we do know that an intelligence is not needed to produce complexity in already living beings. That is my point.
I understand your point. Unfortunately your point remains unsupported.
S: But intelligent cause should be under consideration, don't you think?
B: Sure, if we could only figure out what that would mean in practical terms. In other words, where are the experiments? Where are the falsifiable hypothesis? What is the methodology? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Any replicable results?
Check out the podcasts below:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-12-29T13_46_08-08_00
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-12-31T15_58_09-08_00
B: Do we have final answers? No. But science keeps searching. Could the supernatural be the solution? Maybe (although a look back trough out the history of science makes such a prediction highly unlikely). But until evidence from the supernatural realm appears, there is no need for science to give up and claim god did it. It would be irresponsible to do so.
Fine with me. But since there is certainly evidence for design in life and a complete absence of evidence that natural processes can account for it, I will choose to believe that a Designer is responsible.
S: 1) the cell is jam-packed with information
2) there is no evidence that natural processes can create or account for this information
3) all evidence to date suggests that information is always associated with intelligent causes
4) therefore, there is good reason to believe that the cell was designed by an intelligent agent
B:
1) So? There is no physical law that prohibits the accumulation of information bit by bit...
and there is no mechanism that can account for it either.
2) Evolution presents a working model. Could it apply to the origin of life? Maybe. But at least we have proof that complexity does not require intelligent design.
You have nothing. Nada. Zero, zip, zilch.
3) Nope. Evolution is just one example. Chaos theory, even hurricanes are examples of order with no intelligent design.
I said "information", I didn't say anything about "order". Heck, crystals and snowflakes contain order. You still have nothing.
4) In any case such objections are a reason to study further.
Your objections are empty. I agree about studying further, but does that include ID studies?
S: To say that there is NO reason to believe that an intelligent agent is responsible is incorrect, and irrational.
B: The scientific community agrees with me. These are the most responsible, rational people on the planet.
Not necessarily. Scientists are only human, and are quite capable of being irresponsible and irrational.
B: Heck, many of them (if not the majority) are christians just like you!!!
Wow Brigno, that makes no sense. If many or most scientists are Christians, that would REQUIRE that they believe in intelligent design to at least some degree, whether it be special creation, origin of life, or origin of the universe.
B: I am open minded.
Not about intelligent design, you blew your cover here.
B: The available evidence points to the fact that intelligence is not needed for design (or information or whatever you want to call it) to exist.
What evidence? You still have nothing.
B: The fact that you postulate a non-designed designer just underscores that fact.
Where did the universe come from?
S: So far they have.
B: Not really. Just try reading scholarly critiques about it.
Which ones? All the ones I have read so far are in support, and the ones I have read that were not in support were eventually found to be in support.
B: And again, I never said the possibility of sining was prohibited. What I said is that god could have made the possibility of sinning hard and unattractive
Genesis 1:17 - "...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely DIE."
Perhaps death sounds good to you, but it sounds rather unattractive to me.
B: that no matter what Satan did, Eve did not needed to fall.
You are actually correct here, Eve did not need to fall. She had a choice. The problem was that Satan deceived her, and she chose to believe Satan rather than God.
S: The war was in heaven (Revelation 12:7-9) and God decided to confine it to Earth, probably to spare trillions and quadrillions of life everywhere else.
B: Do you mean to say that the war in heaven had casualties? Really? Do yo mean to say that it did not occur to god to confine them in Jupiter, Mars or Mercury (hell like atmosphere bonus!!!) where there is no life at all?
This ties back into the sin experiment, demonstrating what the universe would be like if Satan ruled.
B: You may ignore the bad parts of the bible. I did it once too. But now, as I try to be an impartial observer, cannot.
You are clearly not impartial, your whole tone completely betrays that.
B: And if you agree with me then, what is the point of recycling, earth conservation or even human justice?
I thought I answered this question already, did you not read it?
B: The onus is not on me. It is on you and on your god. It is not my fault he had decided to weaken your position by denying you of what were common place occurrences in the pages of the bible. Is not my eyes but yours. Maybe you are seeing more than what is really there.
Funny, I don't see my position as being weak, but yours. It is true, I have not seen fire come down from heaven, but for me that is not necessary criteria for evaluating whether or not God exists. I have plenty of other criteria that I have already described, that have been met to my satisfaction.
I understand that you do not believe in God, and I understand some of the reasons why. You asked some very good and difficult questions, and I see that you have thought many of these through, as I have. While I certainly cannot give you a satisfying answer to every question that you have (indeed I haven't given any to my knowledge), I tried with the best of my understanding to do so, and you have pretty much ridiculed most (if not all) my answers. I finally see that there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Adios.
S: Whatever. No point arguing about this one, especially if we have different definitions of sin.
B: Define sin.
S: Perhaps there was something in that statement that was enticing to Eve after all.
B: To bad god created her susceptible to such an attempt by a talking snake. But hey, some design flaws can only be found after testing. Right?
S: It is what I expect in a sinful world.
B: Define sin then. I will ignore the whole ID propaganda you expressed in the half of the post. If someone like Miller and a fair trial like the one at Dover, and the whole of the scientific community have nothing of value to say to you, I will not pretend to be able to so myself.
A lack of eloquence or clarity on the way I try to explain evolutionary fact does not mean it is not true or that there is nothing to it.
S: Wow Brigno, that makes no sense. If many or most scientists are Christians, that would REQUIRE that they believe in intelligent design to at least some degree, whether it be special creation, origin of life, or origin of the universe.
B: Yes. People hold contradictory views all the time (just look at Francis Collins). Personally, i think a deist god would be the only one not contradicted by fact. Which is kind of interesting since a deist god is totally indistinguishable from no god at all.
My point was that ID has been discredited by believers. By christians. This was the point you totally missed.
S: Not about intelligent design, you blew your cover here.
B: I have an open mind to evidence. The thing intelligent design sadly lacks.
S: Perhaps death sounds good to you, but it sounds rather unattractive to me.
B: Maybe because you know waht death looks like. Did Adam and Eve knew that? Not only the design was flawed but the test too.
S: You are actually correct here, Eve did not need to fall. She had a choice. The problem was that Satan deceived her, and she chose to believe Satan rather than God.
B: Didn't god knew she was going to fall for it even before the snake opened his mouth? How this does not contradict the "eve did not need to fall" statement escapes me.
S: This ties back into the sin experiment, demonstrating what the universe would be like if Satan ruled.
B: And if eve had not fallen for a fruit, what would have happened to the experiment (or the necessity of it)? If it was not neccesary then, why?. A god that experiments with lesser creatures is a god not worth praising. He should be opposed as a dictator. Good thing such a being does not exist.
S: You are clearly not impartial, your whole tone completely betrays that.
B: I will not go into a debate about tone. Is irrelevant.
S: I tried with the best of my understanding to do so, and you have pretty much ridiculed most (if not all) my answers.
B: I cannot understand how can you reconcile an ID type of god that uses evolution as a tool with a literal understanding of genesis.
To bad you took my questions as "ridicule". That was never the case. I just told you they made no sense and tried to explain why.
Still I am grateful for the discussion. It has shown me areas I can study an learn more.
Take care.
B: Define sin.
We already went down this road. It doesn't matter what I define as sin since you think it is a "religious concept that has no existence outside the minds of people".
B: A lack of eloquence or clarity on the way I try to explain evolutionary fact does not mean it is not true or that there is nothing to it.
Sure. Just make sure you properly back up your assertions with established fact rather than expressing your own propaganda. Here the onus is on you to provide evidence supporting that natural processes can account for the complexity and information we see in living things, since all of our experience regarding the origin of such things points to intelligent causes. I don't blame you for providing none, since there is none to be found. I appreciate it when you provide articles or evidence supporting your cases (in general), but stop declaring that something is fact when you have no evidence to support it.
B: I cannot understand how can you reconcile an ID type of god that uses evolution as a tool with a literal understanding of genesis.
I don't think God uses evolution (natural selection plus random mutation?) as a tool, and do not recall ever saying that. Especially since random mutation results in a degradation of information. My position is that God made all the families of organisms, but natural processes took over after that. But I don't rule out that God may have directed evolution using artificial selection plus non-random mutation.
B: To bad you took my questions as "ridicule". That was never the case. I just told you they made no sense and tried to explain why.
Perhaps I exagerrated. But it doesn't matter - you are right, nothing I say will make sense to you since we view things through different lenses.
Take care.
Post a Comment