The Bible - just an interesting read or the divine inspired flawless Word of God?
- Thread starter bonosloveslave
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
The Bible is a mix of precepts and commands. A command is like a "Speed Limit 35" sign. A precept is like a "Drive Carefully" sign.
I was arguing that by treating the Bible as a conceptual book, we turn the commands into precepts.
I was arguing that by treating the Bible as a conceptual book, we turn the commands into precepts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
I have more fun when we disagree
peace
Ok then... you're wrong.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
I also agree.
I'm not sure anyone has argued that every word of the Bible must be taken literally. Jesus often spoke in parables or used illustrations in His teaching. Prophecy is often intertwined with symbolic language to describe future events.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
So NBC is it your belief that everything SHOULD be taken literally? Do you believe there is no man "sneaking" their own twists in or conceptual stories used.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
Yes I apologize we posted at the same time...
*stupid internet timing*
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
This happens all the time. An example would be when precepts are turned into commands (legalism). The Truth is found through study and prayer (God did give us a tutor in the Holy Spirit to help us understand).
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
If you don't mind more agreement from the Friendly Local Lefty Squad
I believe this too.
thrillme
Refugee
"Because someone's opinion differs from yours they must automatically be uninformed?"
Em no, but when someone makes a blanket statement, the Bible's just a fairy tale, (something I've read/heard plenty of times), and compares it to Harry Potter? Notice I used the word "seem," it seems like the person has not read much of the Bible. I've been in debates with people who have read the Bible, and don't believe it, so that experience led me to believe the person hasn't read much of it.
"This is both over simplistic and offensive to those who don't consider the Bible to be the "truth." You imply that people reject the Bible bcause they wish to lie, steal or cheat. I choose not to do those things because they are inherently wrong and they can cause harm to other people. My limits on "what I can and can't do" are guided by what impact my actions have on other people and the idea that doing good is its own reward. Please don't imply that all non-Christians must be liars, cheats and thieves: it really don't make for the most interesting of debates. "
Well I knew that would be offensive, Jesus did say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through Me." I suppose that's offensive to people who reject Jesus.
Some people reject the Bible as true because it does set boundaries. Does that mean non-Christian people wish to do lie, steal, cheat, etc., no not really, it just means, that if they were to do these things, they don't have a religion that says not to. What is right and wrong to people, is either based on their own ideas, (as you go by?) or by a religion/philosophy. You feel doing good is it's own reward? How so? If we all got here through some mindless mechanical process (actual quote about evolution from a public, university biology book). How would we know what is right and wrong? Does an animal know right from wrong? Are animals and humans, different, or related through a common ancestor. Animals kill other ones, steal from each other, survival of the fittest?, so how do we humans have a sense of right and wrong, if we are nothing but highly evolved animals? We'd just evolved to that point? Shouldn't animals be more moral than us? Some were apparently around millions of years before humans.
------
"You are not doing proper science there buddy"
Proper science involves observation, I do remember that from my science classes.
Can you prove this 65 million year time gap? Carbon dating/radiometric dating? rely a lot on assumption.
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY."
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124.
Hoaxes huh, well the pepper moth "proof" of evolution was discovered to be a hoax, gluing moths to trees, saying they landed on the trunks of trees, when moths are nocturnal, I suppose that's more creative than digging footprints.
(http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm)
Now how do I know those are real, and not hoaxes? I see the jpeg images of the whole fossil, but this is the internet. I can be just as skeptical to evolution as an atheist is towards God.
I actually get a lot of my information about evolution and creationism, from a guy with a Ph.D, who's studied science longer than I've been alive, there are a bunch of Ph.D's who reject evolution. http://www.fishdontwalk.com/articles/creationists01.html
All dinosaurs are fully formed and functional (no half legs/half wings or half scales/half feathers). Dinosaurs provide no evidence for evolution. Dinosaurs contradict the Evolution model that life in the distant past was simpler, and became more complex over time. If dinosaurs did exist way back then, they should be simpler, not more complex than animals living today. Dinosaurs were intelligently designed. http://www.fishdontwalk.com
I actually like science, I ace'd biology in high school, got a B in it in college, but I appreciate it more, when it's viewed as the product of intelligent design (God), rather than accidental.
------
"Does God always work through the laws of science, and if not does it negate science?"
A supernatural (above nature, not subject to nature) being *God* could use laws of science, or use supernatural means. Jesus was said to have walked on water, this would naturally not happen, but through God, He could.
I admit I'm just a student of science, but I think that when scientific laws are allowed to be broken or bent so that theories can be proven, it's a little dodgy. 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and my basic understanding of them negate the Big Bang, (matter can not be created or destroyed), and evolution (disorder to order, increase in complexity).
My worthless 2 cents. (yeah, that's an oxymoron
) A lot of this is string of conscious.
There ARE websites and books devoted to this, why ask members of a U2 forum? To wind up people?
Em no, but when someone makes a blanket statement, the Bible's just a fairy tale, (something I've read/heard plenty of times), and compares it to Harry Potter? Notice I used the word "seem," it seems like the person has not read much of the Bible. I've been in debates with people who have read the Bible, and don't believe it, so that experience led me to believe the person hasn't read much of it.
"This is both over simplistic and offensive to those who don't consider the Bible to be the "truth." You imply that people reject the Bible bcause they wish to lie, steal or cheat. I choose not to do those things because they are inherently wrong and they can cause harm to other people. My limits on "what I can and can't do" are guided by what impact my actions have on other people and the idea that doing good is its own reward. Please don't imply that all non-Christians must be liars, cheats and thieves: it really don't make for the most interesting of debates. "
Well I knew that would be offensive, Jesus did say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through Me." I suppose that's offensive to people who reject Jesus.
Some people reject the Bible as true because it does set boundaries. Does that mean non-Christian people wish to do lie, steal, cheat, etc., no not really, it just means, that if they were to do these things, they don't have a religion that says not to. What is right and wrong to people, is either based on their own ideas, (as you go by?) or by a religion/philosophy. You feel doing good is it's own reward? How so? If we all got here through some mindless mechanical process (actual quote about evolution from a public, university biology book). How would we know what is right and wrong? Does an animal know right from wrong? Are animals and humans, different, or related through a common ancestor. Animals kill other ones, steal from each other, survival of the fittest?, so how do we humans have a sense of right and wrong, if we are nothing but highly evolved animals? We'd just evolved to that point? Shouldn't animals be more moral than us? Some were apparently around millions of years before humans.
------
"You are not doing proper science there buddy"
Proper science involves observation, I do remember that from my science classes.
Can you prove this 65 million year time gap? Carbon dating/radiometric dating? rely a lot on assumption.
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY."
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124.
Hoaxes huh, well the pepper moth "proof" of evolution was discovered to be a hoax, gluing moths to trees, saying they landed on the trunks of trees, when moths are nocturnal, I suppose that's more creative than digging footprints.
(http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm)
Now how do I know those are real, and not hoaxes? I see the jpeg images of the whole fossil, but this is the internet. I can be just as skeptical to evolution as an atheist is towards God.
I actually get a lot of my information about evolution and creationism, from a guy with a Ph.D, who's studied science longer than I've been alive, there are a bunch of Ph.D's who reject evolution. http://www.fishdontwalk.com/articles/creationists01.html
All dinosaurs are fully formed and functional (no half legs/half wings or half scales/half feathers). Dinosaurs provide no evidence for evolution. Dinosaurs contradict the Evolution model that life in the distant past was simpler, and became more complex over time. If dinosaurs did exist way back then, they should be simpler, not more complex than animals living today. Dinosaurs were intelligently designed. http://www.fishdontwalk.com
I actually like science, I ace'd biology in high school, got a B in it in college, but I appreciate it more, when it's viewed as the product of intelligent design (God), rather than accidental.
------
"Does God always work through the laws of science, and if not does it negate science?"
A supernatural (above nature, not subject to nature) being *God* could use laws of science, or use supernatural means. Jesus was said to have walked on water, this would naturally not happen, but through God, He could.
I admit I'm just a student of science, but I think that when scientific laws are allowed to be broken or bent so that theories can be proven, it's a little dodgy. 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and my basic understanding of them negate the Big Bang, (matter can not be created or destroyed), and evolution (disorder to order, increase in complexity).
My worthless 2 cents. (yeah, that's an oxymoron
) A lot of this is string of conscious. There ARE websites and books devoted to this, why ask members of a U2 forum? To wind up people?
Last edited:
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
thrillme said:
I think the point there is that for non-Christians, the idea of the Bible being the literal truth is as unlikely as the adventures of a fictional wizard being true.
Then why say it? As I said, insulting people doesn't make for an interesting debate. Am I offended by the quote you posted? No. I disagree with it, I don't think it has value, but it's not offensive to me. Implying that anyone who rejects a literal interpretation of the Bible is a liar or a thief, however, is offensive.
I'm not sure that I can simplify that statement any further. I think that doing the right thing is good in itself. I don't think people need some promise of a "heavenly reward" to do good. I think that the knowledge that you've helped someone, or at least not hurt anyone, is a reward in itself. That isn't actually the only way I'd define what's right and wrong, but this discussion would get a lot longer and a lot more pointless if I went into that here.
People used to have these debates over in the "Goal is Soul" forum, but Elvis decided because of the amount of "preaching" and exclusion of non-Christians, such debates were better in FYM. They're more controversial in FYM because there are plenty of people who aren't Christian or have different visions of Christianity than there were in GIS.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Why ask members of a U2 forum? Why not? Even though none of us might be *certifiable* experts, we all have a huge stake in this discussion. What could be more important, enlightening, and interesting to talk about than where we came from, where we are going, and why things happen as they do?
We all came here to talk about U2, I guess, but I think U2 is lucky to have a fan base that is perhaps a bit more intelligent and sensitive than, say, Britney Spears' fan base. FYMers, regardless of their side of the political/religious fence, tend to be well-read, thoughtful, educated, and articulate individuals.
Nobody asked us; we are asking each other. Beli's thread is a great example; she might not want to go right up to a priest and say, "So, what's the deal with Christianity?" But here she can ask these questions and get answers as the people who have struggled with these questions their whole lives understand them. We are not, by and large, academics; nor are we "professional" Christians or Buddhists or whatever (in the sense that a priest or a guru would be). We're helping each other and entering into dialogue and meeting people where they are. That is the great gift of a place like FYM.
I encourage you also to read the FYM threads that have nothing to do with religion. We do talk about things other than religion (although it doesn't seem that way lately, LOL--not that there's anything wrong with that).
We all came here to talk about U2, I guess, but I think U2 is lucky to have a fan base that is perhaps a bit more intelligent and sensitive than, say, Britney Spears' fan base. FYMers, regardless of their side of the political/religious fence, tend to be well-read, thoughtful, educated, and articulate individuals.
Nobody asked us; we are asking each other. Beli's thread is a great example; she might not want to go right up to a priest and say, "So, what's the deal with Christianity?" But here she can ask these questions and get answers as the people who have struggled with these questions their whole lives understand them. We are not, by and large, academics; nor are we "professional" Christians or Buddhists or whatever (in the sense that a priest or a guru would be). We're helping each other and entering into dialogue and meeting people where they are. That is the great gift of a place like FYM.
I encourage you also to read the FYM threads that have nothing to do with religion. We do talk about things other than religion (although it doesn't seem that way lately, LOL--not that there's anything wrong with that).
thrillme
Refugee
paxetaurora said:
Points taken. I see what you're saying, I just rarely see message boards that delve into religion and politics, (some forums that aren't for that area) that don't get really ugly, and often it's nothing more than a wind up. (Check out MTV message boards, you'll see what I mean.) Not interested in the debate, just to see others get into fights.
I don't feel the starter of this post did that, but I dunno, better wording of the title, could have made it more approachable.
However, something like evolution and creationism, world religions, politics, I do like to hear/read "non-experts" thoughts, but I also consult and research "experts" so that I have a better understanding.
Having had my beliefs mocked, degraded, made to feel like an idiot because I believe in the Bible, calling it fairy tales, I think you'd feel a little defensive too. I made my decision about Christianity, out of intellectual reasoning, I have studied about other world religions, I've read the rationale, the reasons for evolution and creationism, and through that I made a real committment. I think an honest student of science, would admit, some of the theories in science are in some way, believed with faith, rather than fact, because direct observation is a key part of science; and that would not be the case with the Big Bang theory. If I believe that the flood was real, even if I didn't see it happen, I'm just a believer of fairy tales. If I believe the Big Bang theory happened, and didn't see it, I'm pretty smart.
I suppose this only makes sense to me.
When I joined this and other U2 forums, I went into them knowing, that there would be a possibility U2 could be the one thing I have in common with the members. I didn't really know much about U2 until a few years ago, I can now see why their message boards would have areas for political and religious posts, but I'm hesitant to go into them. I end up here, often because of the "see similar thread" links on the bottom.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I just went to www.fishdontwalk.com and I must say that it wasn't the objective non-partisan site that its title suggests. It clearly demonstrates blatent contempt for the theory of evolution, this may be seen in its criticism of evolution on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics, saying that because "in theory" evolution "will allways" create more advanced organisms it violates the 2nd law that the complexity of a system will allways collapse to a more chaotic state, I do find this one quite funny if only because it neglects the fact that the earth continues to recieve energy from both geological sources as well as from the sun, it also forgets that evolution IS NOT a linear progression and clearly shows that often the lowest common denominator will allways prevail, this is why proto-bacteria still exist, its because they are so well evolved for their environments most mutations do not give dicernable benefit that allows them to reproduce more. The fact it only had one link to an outside page that wasnt strictly pro-creation (the page is http://www.talkorigins.org and I would seriously recomend it to anyone interested in the subject) just shows that this site is yet another archive of pseudo-science and anti-intellectual tripe designed to confound the senses of anybody who doesn't understand basic scientific principles and get them to spout young earth creationist drivel.
To demonstrate my contention that this site is not designed to allow someone to make up their own opinon but simply to give them the ability to repeat what they have been told to believe and think, just take a look at this golden article of pre-prepared "answers" to confront those heck bound evil darwinist atheists with http://www.fishdontwalk.com/articles/evangelism01.html
Now just out of interest can somebody please tell me what scientific theorys are faith based, give me some real examples. I can see evolution in action as bacterial infections develop resistence over the course of days, we know this is a definite fact and it isn't just a vaugue rationale that once a monkey gave birth to a human being hypothesis. We can see species of life that are extinct that bear close resembelance to various species that are alive today, hence they were probably a common ancestor. As for the big bang theory there is plenty of evidence for it, the gradual inflation of galaxies away from eachother, cosmic background radiation and black holes (prove that regions of infinite curvature i.e. singularities can exist) are all phenomena that can be explained and predicted with a big bang type theory. The other important thing to remember is that Big Bang is just a theory and it is falsifiable, hence if we were to discover evidence that the universe didnt arise from a singular point we may have to go for a steady-state theory or even an ocillating universe. The important thing is that scientists don't just come up with theories out of thin air and take them at face value, it takes a lot of time and effort to come up with hypothesis that explain observation and then be able to predict future observations with it. After you can explain the results properly the theory is submitted to scrutiny by peers and if it survives all of that it is very watertight and may be adopted widely. It must be reciognized that evolution isn't a religion or rationale, it is an undeniable fact because we have accumulated so much evidence (show me how the entire fossil record is fraudulent, why 'fitter' animals breed more and hence pass off more genetic material or why human DNA shares such a close resembelance to primate DNA without evolution through natural selection) It is also a scientific theory that has been rigorously tested and so widely accepted for over a century.
As I clearly stated before science is a process of objectively observing our world and deriving a model that may best explain and/or predict new observations. It is not a religion, people do not put faith in science, It is a collection of knowledge and as such it does not have to relate to any scripture or belief. There is no such thing as a sacred scientific theory, if you can produce a theory that explains substantial and repeatable evidence that can best be explained by a theory that invalidates previous assumptions then there is not reason for it to be ignored, Newton (a devout christian like allmost everybody in europe at the time) came up laws of motion and began to describe a clockwork universe. The ramifications of this theory upset many because it describes a world of pure causality where everything from an apple falling from a tree to the intricate workings of a human mind were pre-determined by physical laws. In the early 20th century we had another paradigm shift when the theory of quantum mechanics allowed us to explain the universe in terms of fundamental units called quanta, the results of this were modern electronics, communication technology, electron microscopes etc. We also gained both theory's of relativity which are powerfull tools that can describe the universe as a 4 dimentional space-time. The predictions of relativity such as a constant speed of light (not really a prediction since it was proved in the MM experiment several years prior so it was a postdiction), black holes and time dilations have all been experimentaly verified and observed. The theory of evolution is just like these theorys it takes the evidence (life on the planet earth from both the present and the past) and builds a hypothesis to explain how such diversity can occur through natural processes (removing inherent divine intervention is what makes this a scientific theory because there is absolutely NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for god this is because a) God doesn't nor ever will exist or b) God is dead or c) God is totally undetectable hence cannot be disproved hence not evidence that it exists. Evolution isnt very hard to understand, if a particular plant has a fluke mutation that makes it secrete a noxious chemical then animals are less likely to eat it. If less animals eat this particular plant it will have more of a chance to reproduce and pass this genetic mutation to its decendents, over time each of these decendents with the mutation will be able to reproduce more and eventually most of the population will have the mutation. This is of course counteracted by evolution in the animals that eat the plant, say that an particular animal cannot taste the noxious chemical it will be the only one able to feed on these plants, it will therefore have more food and a higher likelyhood of reproducing. Ultimately this leads to a dynamic ecosystem where both predator and prey are evolving and in a constant state of change.
Evolution DOES NOT disprove god, it simply says that the world we see around us was not created all at once with all life on it and it is important to remember this. There are so many variables within an environment that one could use a theistic evolution as a basis for belief, that being god effects the mutations withing the DNA in order to create new species (this idea is good because it a) Isnt particually disagreeable within the context of quantum mechanics, see copenhagen interperatation and b) Because it doesnt place belief of a creator on a disproved hypothesis (6000 year old earth, adam and eve etc.).
**EDIT** Changed 2 spelling mistakes, remember splitting a bottle of Ouzo over a hot afternoon with friends does NOT improve ones dexterity.
To demonstrate my contention that this site is not designed to allow someone to make up their own opinon but simply to give them the ability to repeat what they have been told to believe and think, just take a look at this golden article of pre-prepared "answers" to confront those heck bound evil darwinist atheists with http://www.fishdontwalk.com/articles/evangelism01.html
Now just out of interest can somebody please tell me what scientific theorys are faith based, give me some real examples. I can see evolution in action as bacterial infections develop resistence over the course of days, we know this is a definite fact and it isn't just a vaugue rationale that once a monkey gave birth to a human being hypothesis. We can see species of life that are extinct that bear close resembelance to various species that are alive today, hence they were probably a common ancestor. As for the big bang theory there is plenty of evidence for it, the gradual inflation of galaxies away from eachother, cosmic background radiation and black holes (prove that regions of infinite curvature i.e. singularities can exist) are all phenomena that can be explained and predicted with a big bang type theory. The other important thing to remember is that Big Bang is just a theory and it is falsifiable, hence if we were to discover evidence that the universe didnt arise from a singular point we may have to go for a steady-state theory or even an ocillating universe. The important thing is that scientists don't just come up with theories out of thin air and take them at face value, it takes a lot of time and effort to come up with hypothesis that explain observation and then be able to predict future observations with it. After you can explain the results properly the theory is submitted to scrutiny by peers and if it survives all of that it is very watertight and may be adopted widely. It must be reciognized that evolution isn't a religion or rationale, it is an undeniable fact because we have accumulated so much evidence (show me how the entire fossil record is fraudulent, why 'fitter' animals breed more and hence pass off more genetic material or why human DNA shares such a close resembelance to primate DNA without evolution through natural selection) It is also a scientific theory that has been rigorously tested and so widely accepted for over a century.
As I clearly stated before science is a process of objectively observing our world and deriving a model that may best explain and/or predict new observations. It is not a religion, people do not put faith in science, It is a collection of knowledge and as such it does not have to relate to any scripture or belief. There is no such thing as a sacred scientific theory, if you can produce a theory that explains substantial and repeatable evidence that can best be explained by a theory that invalidates previous assumptions then there is not reason for it to be ignored, Newton (a devout christian like allmost everybody in europe at the time) came up laws of motion and began to describe a clockwork universe. The ramifications of this theory upset many because it describes a world of pure causality where everything from an apple falling from a tree to the intricate workings of a human mind were pre-determined by physical laws. In the early 20th century we had another paradigm shift when the theory of quantum mechanics allowed us to explain the universe in terms of fundamental units called quanta, the results of this were modern electronics, communication technology, electron microscopes etc. We also gained both theory's of relativity which are powerfull tools that can describe the universe as a 4 dimentional space-time. The predictions of relativity such as a constant speed of light (not really a prediction since it was proved in the MM experiment several years prior so it was a postdiction), black holes and time dilations have all been experimentaly verified and observed. The theory of evolution is just like these theorys it takes the evidence (life on the planet earth from both the present and the past) and builds a hypothesis to explain how such diversity can occur through natural processes (removing inherent divine intervention is what makes this a scientific theory because there is absolutely NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for god this is because a) God doesn't nor ever will exist or b) God is dead or c) God is totally undetectable hence cannot be disproved hence not evidence that it exists. Evolution isnt very hard to understand, if a particular plant has a fluke mutation that makes it secrete a noxious chemical then animals are less likely to eat it. If less animals eat this particular plant it will have more of a chance to reproduce and pass this genetic mutation to its decendents, over time each of these decendents with the mutation will be able to reproduce more and eventually most of the population will have the mutation. This is of course counteracted by evolution in the animals that eat the plant, say that an particular animal cannot taste the noxious chemical it will be the only one able to feed on these plants, it will therefore have more food and a higher likelyhood of reproducing. Ultimately this leads to a dynamic ecosystem where both predator and prey are evolving and in a constant state of change.
Evolution DOES NOT disprove god, it simply says that the world we see around us was not created all at once with all life on it and it is important to remember this. There are so many variables within an environment that one could use a theistic evolution as a basis for belief, that being god effects the mutations withing the DNA in order to create new species (this idea is good because it a) Isnt particually disagreeable within the context of quantum mechanics, see copenhagen interperatation and b) Because it doesnt place belief of a creator on a disproved hypothesis (6000 year old earth, adam and eve etc.).
**EDIT** Changed 2 spelling mistakes, remember splitting a bottle of Ouzo over a hot afternoon with friends does NOT improve ones dexterity.
Last edited:
beli
Blue Crack Addict
Hi A Wanderer,
I agree with you.
To quote LivLuv from another thread, if I may:
I think its just two entirely different ways of thinking. I agree with you and dont understand why anyone would not agree with you. I fundamentally dont understand the whole concept of God worshipping. I have been trying to get my head around just one minor point of Christianity for days now and Im still not succeeding.
Not that thats a bad thing either way. Just frustrating.
Just my $0.02 worth but then Im in a pondering mood at the moment.
I agree with you.
To quote LivLuv from another thread, if I may:
I think its just two entirely different ways of thinking. I agree with you and dont understand why anyone would not agree with you. I fundamentally dont understand the whole concept of God worshipping. I have been trying to get my head around just one minor point of Christianity for days now and Im still not succeeding.
Not that thats a bad thing either way. Just frustrating.
Just my $0.02 worth but then Im in a pondering mood at the moment.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Very good quote I may have to steal it (j/k), faith is important for everybody, perhaps what we are seeing is a division between blind faith and other types. I myself have an optimism for humanity as a whole I see society itself as corrupted however when we look at people we see something, it's what makes us human, the compassion that we all have that divides us from animals, the concepts of dignity and the determination that make us aspire for greater things. We don't need God to define such things and by removing any external creator we realize that we are all equal, when we start a position of equality society need not be bound by racial or class distinctions we must then realize that the only way humanity will be able to survive is if we end our petty disagreements and stop killing eachother, to paraphrase JFK from his American University speech, "We all breath the same air, we all cherish our childrens futures and we are all mortal" we have been using The Bible as a spiritual guide for the last 2000 years but has it moved us forward? are we able today honestly say to ourselves the world is a fair and peaceful place? Is it time that we stop looking for a divine intervention and start making a difference here and now, when it counts? I ask these questions not to offend but to get answers (also to move this topic away from Creation/Evolution, the facts are well defined, the arguments without facts lack a context in the real world, let the facts speak for themselves) So let me ask you, Has the bible outlived it's usefullness?
pax
ONE love, blood, life
I don't think so. The Bible was never meant to teach us scientific truths, and I think that is the mistake people sometimes make with the Bible. God wanted us to have the Bible in some way, I think, but mostly to teach us about Her purpose for us and about where we came from as a faith community.
God also gave us reason and intellect and the tools of scientific inquiry. For me, I see no disconnect in believing in both the possibility of evolution and the creation as completely authored by God. The Creation stories (or story
)in the Bible are most likely based on local myths popular at the time of the writing and were not meant to be taken literally; rather, they were meant to show that, however you believe Creation came about, God was and is responsible for it.
So, then: Is the Bible still useful? Yes, of course, and for many different purposes--even secular ones. The Bible tells us an awful lot of history, sociology, and anthropology. But for Christians, the Bible is still very important in that many persons who want the very same things you do, A_Wanderer--compassion, dignity, mutual understanding, peace--rely on the Bible for guidance. It's true that the Bible and religious teachings can be twisted for people's own evil purposes. But they do not reflect the majority of Christians or religious persons.
Most of the great leaders of the world were religious in some way: Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day (and JFK, too, who you mentioned in your post) and so many others. Religion and faith and holy books are not the problems. The problems are greed--for power or for money--and narrow-mindedness. Combined these two are responsible for a lot of the problems I think you're talking about. But in the Bible, and in other religious traditions and other holy books, we can find the ways to counteract these things. Whether it's prayer, meditation, whatever, don't discount these things as a way to a better life--for yourself and for the world.
Agh, I'm not awake and this doesn't seem clear to me. Can anyone help me out?
God also gave us reason and intellect and the tools of scientific inquiry. For me, I see no disconnect in believing in both the possibility of evolution and the creation as completely authored by God. The Creation stories (or story
)in the Bible are most likely based on local myths popular at the time of the writing and were not meant to be taken literally; rather, they were meant to show that, however you believe Creation came about, God was and is responsible for it.So, then: Is the Bible still useful? Yes, of course, and for many different purposes--even secular ones. The Bible tells us an awful lot of history, sociology, and anthropology. But for Christians, the Bible is still very important in that many persons who want the very same things you do, A_Wanderer--compassion, dignity, mutual understanding, peace--rely on the Bible for guidance. It's true that the Bible and religious teachings can be twisted for people's own evil purposes. But they do not reflect the majority of Christians or religious persons.
Most of the great leaders of the world were religious in some way: Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day (and JFK, too, who you mentioned in your post) and so many others. Religion and faith and holy books are not the problems. The problems are greed--for power or for money--and narrow-mindedness. Combined these two are responsible for a lot of the problems I think you're talking about. But in the Bible, and in other religious traditions and other holy books, we can find the ways to counteract these things. Whether it's prayer, meditation, whatever, don't discount these things as a way to a better life--for yourself and for the world.
Agh, I'm not awake and this doesn't seem clear to me. Can anyone help me out?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
two stories of Eve's creation
version 1.
Genesis 1
created male and female on the 5th day, if I read correctly
version 2
Genesis 2
Eve created from Adam's rib, after the 5th day?
nbcrusader said:
version 1.
Genesis 1
created male and female on the 5th day, if I read correctly
version 2
Genesis 2
Eve created from Adam's rib, after the 5th day?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Curious, if you read through all of Genesis 1, you see that people were created on the 6th day (see verse 31 of your first quote).
Chapter 1, a general statement of mankind's creation. Chapter 2, the specifics of Adam and Eve. There is nothing to suggest that they are separate events.
I've heard this strawman argument many times - maybe they are based on "traditions", maybe there are false teachers. But to say that the quoted passages constitute two separate and distinct creation stories is false.
Chapter 1, a general statement of mankind's creation. Chapter 2, the specifics of Adam and Eve. There is nothing to suggest that they are separate events.
I've heard this strawman argument many times - maybe they are based on "traditions", maybe there are false teachers. But to say that the quoted passages constitute two separate and distinct creation stories is false.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
In the first story, animals are created before people; in the second story, they are created after people, as helpers for Adam.
So which is it? Or doesn't it matter?
I first was taught this, by the way, by a theology professor and priest at my college. This man has a Ph.D. in theology. So I think his knowledge of Scripture is probably pretty good.
So which is it? Or doesn't it matter?
I first was taught this, by the way, by a theology professor and priest at my college. This man has a Ph.D. in theology. So I think his knowledge of Scripture is probably pretty good.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
No, in Genesis 2:19, it says "the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
The animals were already in existence. They were presented before Adam to be named.
I don't have a PhD, but I have the Bible. As we look at the Bible, I do not see contradictions that suggest two separate creation stories.
The animals were already in existence. They were presented before Adam to be named.
I don't have a PhD, but I have the Bible. As we look at the Bible, I do not see contradictions that suggest two separate creation stories.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Okay, let's assume there is no contradiction. Let's assume that they are one story, and that Genesis 2 is an elaboration on Genesis 1. How do you account for the similarity to the Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation myths?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Frankly, I've never studied Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation myths, but let's just say there are some similarities. If there is an official text for these myths, I'd be interested in links to them.
Similarities can suggest many things, all of which depend on one's existing worldview.
Let's take this as a starting point: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
It is quite possible that the Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation myths were divine knowledge of the Genesis account. There existence, however, does not make God's Word any less infallible.
Similarities can suggest many things, all of which depend on one's existing worldview.
Let's take this as a starting point: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
It is quite possible that the Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation myths were divine knowledge of the Genesis account. There existence, however, does not make God's Word any less infallible.
Similar threads
