Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord
At this point, in fairness to a reasoned discussion, the obvious must be stated that there is no evidence (that I know of) that God exists or existed or anything in-between. Quite unlike evolution, I might add.

God (whichever one you like) is (are) in-fact an assumption. An assumption based on no evidence.

This is the essence of faith. I think we all know this, but some folks get confused in the mix.

As to Moses (probabily more than a myth-- akin to legend, but culture can be substituted if desired): Truth and its interpretation are axiomatic to the culture and to the age of judging. The criterion for assessing God as reality for Moses was probably an attempt to negate the forces and ravages of nature (and likely man, as natural beings). To make the universe amenable. I think that is the way Chassidic Rebbes teach it, if I remember correctly.

Except that you and Rebbes know nothing. Try to see that your belief that God is an assumption is your assumption. You have no idea what the God-Realized know, no idea at all.

OK, OK, OK....

So I'm not 100% sure that Moses was trying to make the Universe more amenable.

I'll go back to Charlton Heston version.

You happy now, sarcasmo-subtle-sufficientrarity-gibber boy?

You need to practice absorbing data impersonally without letting your ego get in the way. I passed you info that can lift your insight, I have no interest in putting you down. And don't worry, your comment didn't bother me. I am completely used to how ego reacts and try to apply what I suggest. We have fallen in love with our assumptions, unfortunately, and that's why we hold on to them. But they are a hindrance to sight.

 

[jasong42]

What is God? Is God a giant man who once incarnated as his own son 2,000 years ago through the womb of a woman in the Middle East? Certainly not. Is God a man who created everything we see? Wrong again. These stories are just perceptions filtered through the limited human mind. They are not ultimate truths. Is God male? No way. This is an erroneous interpretation by the male ego.

"God" is the Life Force

New Age is a bunch of garbage. I believe in the Christian God simply because the other answers either create an unavoidable Hell(IMO, with Hell being a relative term) or create an abrupt end that makes life worthless when compared to the age of the universe. Btw, for those of who conceitedly believe the Theory of Evolution is conclusive, Christians believe Pride is a sin. "I don't know," is an honourable concept, whatever the politicians and scientists happen to believe.

 

[cquark]

"I don't know," is an honourable concept, whatever the politicians and scientists happen to believe.

True, but ironically, it's the scientists who admit that they don't know about such topics as abiogenesis and many others and the Creationists who are so certain that they konw everything.

 

[jasong42]

OT rant(short): I was pissed when I learned Christian Science was the name of a religion, wasted 15 minutes of a conversation with someone I respected because we were confused about the other's definition of the term.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: [unknown delusional true-believer]
God wishes that I please Him, and Him alone.

Why? Is God lacking in pleasure? Are you saying that an omnipotent being's pleasure state is contingent on your actions?

If you are flawed and wicked, then God created you that way, Why? Why not just create perfect beings? Is God playing some game?

If you are so wicked and flawed, then why do you trust what your mind is telling you when you read the bible? If you are filled with wickedness and self-deception, then your interpretations of the Bible are probably filled with error, and your actions is pursuit of your faith may well be wicked.

If you reply, "Through the grace of God, I will know the truth," then why doesn't he make EVERYONE see "the truth"? Is he manipulating each of us like puppets, allowing some to see "truth" and be saved, while others (for example, religious Jews and Moslems, who seek God just as fervently as you do) are not allowed to see "truth" despite their best efforts, and are damned? What sort of "infinite love" is that?

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord
At this point, in fairness to a reasoned discussion, the obvious must be stated that there is no evidence (that I know of) that God exists or existed or anything in-between. Quite unlike evolution, I might add.

God (whichever one you like) is (are) in-fact an assumption. An assumption based on no evidence.

This is the essence of faith. I think we all know this, but some folks get confused in the mix.

As to Moses (probabily more than a myth-- akin to legend, but culture can be substituted if desired): Truth and its interpretation are axiomatic to the culture and to the age of judging. The criterion for assessing God as reality for Moses was probably an attempt to negate the forces and ravages of nature (and likely man, as natural beings). To make the universe amenable. I think that is the way Chassidic Rebbes teach it, if I remember correctly.

Except that you and Rebbes know nothing. Try to see that your belief that God is an assumption is your assumption. You have no idea what the God-Realized know, no idea at all.

OK, OK, OK....

So I'm not 100% sure that Moses was trying to make the Universe more amenable.

I'll go back to Charlton Heston version.

You happy now, sarcasmo-subtle-sufficientrarity-gibber boy?

You need to practice absorbing data impersonally without letting your ego get in the way. I passed you info that can lift your insight, I have no interest in putting you down. And don't worry, your comment didn't bother me. I am completely used to how ego reacts and try to apply what I suggest. We have fallen in love with our assumptions, unfortunately, and that's why we hold on to them. But they are a hindrance to sight.

Hey, my wife says the same thing.

The ameanable universe thing was worth a shot.

Who knows, maybe the Chuck Heston (as Moses) worldview is right on.

I hope my comments didn't bother you-- Summary-of-your-signature-boy.

 

[Moonbeam]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
God wishes that I please Him, and Him alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was not me who said that. Could you please edit me out as the source.

 

[petrek]

For one, I wasn't talkinga about man in general. I was specifically asking you about your wicked and deceitful heart. I don't know about you, but I lead a decent life because I like it. I don't not commit crime because it's against the law, I don't commit crime because I have no desire to. I don't sit awake at night thinking how if only there wasn't a law against this or that then I could go right ahead and do it. Granted, some people are different, but I wasn't asking about them. I was asking about you.

Sorry, if you misunderstood. I?m a Christian, which means that I believe the Bible is the word of God. As such, when God speaks, he speaks the truth, and I listen. So when he says the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things, he means it.
What thoughts and temptations come from our hearts, depends on what we put into them. I wasn?t always a Christian, and as such, I watched a lot of movies that stress ideals, and ideas that are at enmity with God. Even now as a Christian, I still disobey God and watch TV and Movies with content that is opposed to Godliness. As such, those thoughts that were put there from my disobedience to God (albeit, watching tv and movies is a perfectly normal activity from a worldly point of view) will automatically resurface as temptations.
Do I dwell on them, no. I do my best to avoid the thoughts. But I obviously consider some less of a concern than others (eg: I occasionally use the f word in a casual sense). God however views all behavior that is not subservient to him as wicked and sinful.
For instance, I have Sirius in the car, and quite often throughout the day I am tempted to turn to one of the rock stations (again, a perfectly normal thing to do from a worldly point of view, but considered by God to wicked). Just the other day I gave into the temptation, and listened to Metallica at a kicked up volume. By man?s standards is such behavior desperately wicked, NO of course not. By God?s standards, YES of course. Why? For one reason, most rock lyrics support opposition to the God of the Bible, to Christ. Articles on music can be found here. Articles on sin and the heart can be found here: here, and here.

Now, about Moses. We have no way of knowing Moses' motives in the words he chose. We can't know if he was being literal, using literary license, or trying to deceive us. It's all in how you interpret the bible. An allegory isn't a deception, is it?

If Moses was being literal than he is deceiving people, if he was being allegorical, than why is it that this "allegorical position" is the result of recent scientific theories and not something inherently recognizable in the text.
After all, if one takes the position that any word in the Bible can mean anything, then the Bible is no more useful that a blank page. Moses chose those words, day, evening, and morning in reference to time. Day, evening, and morning, have understood meanings in relation to time.
I?m asking for a reasonable answer as to why Moses would purposely use specific words that he knew would be understood in one way if what he meant to say, could have been stated with other words that he had access to at the time.

Dave

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: petrek
Moses was a man who wrote the first five chapters of the oldest known book (as I believe via the guidance of God), and thus was very capable of expressing various time periods as noted by his use of various time based words throughout those first five books. So the my question remains, what possible reason would Moses have for intentionally using words that refer to one earthly day if what he really meant was not one earthly day, as he obviously had access to words to denote other amounts of time based on his use of those words in the books he wrote?

Dave

Uh, no he wasn't. Moses didn't write the first five books.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: petrek
Moses was a man who wrote the first five chapters of the oldest known book (as I believe via the guidance of God), and thus was very capable of expressing various time periods as noted by his use of various time based words throughout those first five books. So the my question remains, what possible reason would Moses have for intentionally using words that refer to one earthly day if what he really meant was not one earthly day, as he obviously had access to words to denote other amounts of time based on his use of those words in the books he wrote?

Dave

Uh, no he wasn't. Moses didn't write the first five books.

yes he did write the first five books books. you can read it yourself in the commentaries in the beginning of the books.

 

[conjur]

heh heh

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: petrek
Sorry, if you misunderstood. I?m a Christian, which means that I believe the Bible is the word of God. As such, when God speaks, he speaks the truth, and I listen. So when he says the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things, he means it.
What thoughts and temptations come from our hearts, depends on what we put into them. I wasn?t always a Christian, and as such, I watched a lot of movies that stress ideals, and ideas that are at enmity with God. Even now as a Christian, I still disobey God and watch TV and Movies with content that is opposed to Godliness. As such, those thoughts that were put there from my disobedience to God (albeit, watching tv and movies is a perfectly normal activity from a worldly point of view) will automatically resurface as temptations.
Do I dwell on them, no. I do my best to avoid the thoughts. But I obviously consider some less of a concern than others (eg: I occasionally use the f word in a casual sense). God however views all behavior that is not subservient to him as wicked and sinful.
For instance, I have Sirius in the car, and quite often throughout the day I am tempted to turn to one of the rock stations (again, a perfectly normal thing to do from a worldly point of view, but considered by God to wicked). Just the other day I gave into the temptation, and listened to Metallica at a kicked up volume. By man?s standards is such behavior desperately wicked, NO of course not. By God?s standards, YES of course. Why? For one reason, most rock lyrics support opposition to the God of the Bible, to Christ. Articles on music can be found here. Articles on sin and the heart can be found here: here, and here.

I just suppose I'll never understand why anyone would choose to believe in a God that hates everything you do if it's not specifically to please him.

If Moses was being literal than he is deceiving people, if he was being allegorical, than why is it that this "allegorical position" is the result of recent scientific theories and not something inherently recognizable in the text.
After all, if one takes the position that any word in the Bible can mean anything, then the Bible is no more useful that a blank page. Moses chose those words, day, evening, and morning in reference to time. Day, evening, and morning, have understood meanings in relation to time.
I?m asking for a reasonable answer as to why Moses would purposely use specific words that he knew would be understood in one way if what he meant to say, could have been stated with other words that he had access to at the time.

Dave

First, what 'allegorical position' is the result of recent scientific theories? Are you insinuating that young earth creationism is scientifically supported? I'd love to see the references on that.

Second, let's step back from the Moses thing for a second and 'word choice'. You say that Moses chose the word 'day' because he literally meant 'day'. Let's say you're right, that the words of the Bible were chosen because that's exactly what they meant.

Revelations 7:1 says, "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." The phrase 'four corners' is also in Isaiah 11:12 and Ezekiel 7:2.

The Bible says in this sentence that the earth has four corners, indicating a flat earth, no? I mean, if the Bible's words were chosen to be clear and non-confusing, that's certainly the conclusion to be drawn. Now, of course, the main argument is that Bible writers used "language of appearance" in order to get their message across in a way that is easily understood. It's said that the 'four corners' actually refer to the cardinal directions, and not actual 'corners'. This argument seems to directly conflict with your notion that the words of the Bible mean exactly what they say. Other arguments talk about how the word 'corner' was mis-translated and actually should be 'border' or 'extremity'.

So what's the truth? The words of the Bible are intended as literal explanations, or that the words are used rather to easily get the message across by means of 'language of appearance'? And let's not even get into the fact that the Bible has been translated and re-translated numerous times over the centuries, mistakes have been made, edits have been made, etc. Are you going to try to have your cake and eat it too?

My opinion, Moses (if he wrote the story) was not intending to deceive anyone, he was using 'language of appearance' to make the story easy to understand in an attempt not to confuse readers.

 

[petrek]

I just suppose I'll never understand why anyone would choose to believe in a God that hates everything you do if it's not specifically to please him.

ok, fair enough.

First, what 'allegorical position' is the result of recent scientific theories?

The allegorical position that you are taking in regards to day, evening, and morning.

Are you insinuating that young earth creationism is scientifically supported? I'd love to see the references on that.

Plenty of information to support that with a simple google search.

Second, let's step back from the Moses thing for a second and 'word choice'. You say that Moses chose the word 'day' because he literally meant 'day'. Let's say you're right, that the words of the Bible were chosen because that's exactly what they meant.

Revelations 7:1 says, "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." The phrase 'four corners' is also in Isaiah 11:12 and Ezekiel 7:2.

The Bible says in this sentence that the earth has four corners, indicating a flat earth, no? I mean, if the Bible's words were chosen to be clear and non-confusing, that's certainly the conclusion to be drawn. Now, of course, the main argument is that Bible writers used "language of appearance" in order to get their message across in a way that is easily understood. It's said that the 'four corners' actually refer to the cardinal directions, and not actual 'corners'. This argument seems to directly conflict with your notion that the words of the Bible mean exactly what they say. Other arguments talk about how the word 'corner' was mis-translated and actually should be 'border' or 'extremity'.

Nobodies trying to prove that the Bible doesn't use figures of speech, because it obviously does. I'm only arguing in regards to the use of day, evening, and morning as being allegorical. Up until the scientific theory of uniformitarianism there was no reason to believe that Moses meant anything other than a literal day. Now, suddenly, even though there has been no change in the text, "christians" are saying that Moses meant an inordinate amount of time (inordinate only in the sense that science has yet to determine a final date as to the beginning of the universe, so no firm date can reasonably be given).

No one is arguing the genealogies that put the date from the present day, to the creation of the world at about 6,000 years. That being the case, and scientific theory in tow, people who want the Biblical view to correspond to the world view (even though God is at enmity with the world, and accordingly, Satan is the god of this world) have to somehow fit a few billion (and growing) years into the timespan of the 7 days of creation. What better way to do this then to suddenly claim that Moses was talking allegorically. Problem is, that position can not be reasonably supported, or at least I have yet to run across anyone who could give a reasonable, biblically supported reason as to why Moses would intentionally use words synonomous with a regular day, if he meant (and had access to) words capable of representing a (growing) time consistent with present day scientific theory.

So what's the truth? The words of the Bible are intended as literal explanations, or that the words are used rather to easily get the message across by means of 'language of appearance'?

It obviously depends on the situation.

And let's not even get into the fact that the Bible has been translated and re-translated numerous times over the centuries, mistakes have been made, edits have been made, etc.

Not if you take the time to study the issue.

My opinion, Moses (if he wrote the story) was not intending to deceive anyone, he was using 'language of appearance' to make the story easy to understand in an attempt not to confuse readers.

And it is my belief that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (under the guidance of God), and used day, morning, and evening in relation to an ordinary day because he meant an ordinary day. If he meant 70,000 x 70,000 years, he would have said so.

Dave

 

[Moonbeam]

*And it is my belief that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (under the guidance of God), and used day, morning, and evening in relation to an ordinary day because he meant an ordinary day. If he meant 70,000 x 70,000 years, he would have said so.*

That is fine so long as you keep in mind that if you ever loose this absurd belief and or others like it, it will not mean, prove, lead to, or imply that there is no God.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: petrek

Are you insinuating that young earth creationism is scientifically supported? I'd love to see the references on that.

Plenty of information to support that with a simple google search.

Ok, if it's that easy, give us a couple.

There is no way...NO WAY...that creationism can be backed by scientific data. NO WAY.

And it is my belief that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (under the guidance of God), and used day, morning, and evening in relation to an ordinary day because he meant an ordinary day. If he meant 70,000 x 70,000 years, he would have said so.

Well, you can hold on to that belief despite the fact that it's been proven by many people (for well over two decades now) that Moses did NOT write the first five books.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
God wishes that I please Him, and Him alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was not me who said that. Could you please edit me out as the source.

Sorry about that. Corrected.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: petrek

Are you insinuating that young earth creationism is scientifically supported? I'd love to see the references on that.

Plenty of information to support that with a simple google search.

Which part are you referring to "young Earth" or "creationism"?

I hope you realize that even if overwhelming evidence of a 6,000-year-old universe existed, that wouldn't represent one atom of evidence that the ultimate cause of the universe was God.

Don't confuse evidence against a scientific theory with evidence for the supernatural. Equally, don't confuse "We can't adequately explain xyz with any current theory" with "It must be God."

 

[petrek]

Moonbeam, you are responsible for stopping the abuse.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Ok, if it's that easy, give us a couple.

There is no way...NO WAY...that creationism can be backed by scientific data. NO WAY.

Creationism, the belief that Christ created the Universe out of nothing, can't be proven, because no human is able to create something out of nothing.
The belief that Christ created the Universe is based on the accuracy of Scripture, especially as it relates to the Jews. In other words, a Christians belief in Creationism isn't based on what the Bible says on Creationism, but rather on the Bibles accuracy regarding the Jews. If the Bible was inaccurate regarding the Jews, than a Christian would have no reason to believe that what is said in regards to how the Universe got here is accurate. It is because of Scriptures accuracy in regards to the Jews, that one can trust what the Scriptures say in regards to how the Universe got here.

The old earth theory is based on uniformitarianism, whereas the young earth theory is based on the knowledge that all things do not continue as they always were.
So while it is impossible for a human to prove that something can be created out of nothing (because man is incapable of such miracles), and subsequently, it is impossible to scientifically test for such miracles. There is plenty of evidence to prove that things do not always progress at the same pace.

Well, you can hold on to that belief despite the fact that it's been proven by many people (for well over two decades now) that Moses did NOT write the first five books.

Who are these people? Where did they study? Who did they study under? On what basis did they formulate their opinion?

 

[petrek]

Which part are you referring to "young Earth" or "creationism"?

Young earth creationism implies a 6,000 year old earth. So I'm referring to the evidence that suggests the possibility of a young earth.

I hope you realize that even if overwhelming evidence of a 6,000-year-old universe existed, that wouldn't represent one atom of evidence that the ultimate cause of the universe was God.

Same can be said for the big bang, or any theory that requires knowledge of the past. Without a time machine, overwhelming circumstancial evidence, is and always will be overwhelming circumstancial evidence.
My belief that what the Bible says in regards to how the Universe got here is based on my belief that God exists, and my knowledge that what the Bible says in regards to the Jews is accurate.

Don't confuse evidence against a scientific theory with evidence for the supernatural. Equally, don't confuse "We can't adequately explain xyz with any current theory" with "It must be God."

Equally so, don't confuse man's inability to prove God exists with "God can't exist"

Dave

 

[I800C0LECT]

Not quite sure about the rest of you....although I may not be able to refute many ideas founded in science....when did we forget that science is a big guess?

I believe truth is definitive. However, through our skewed phsyical interpretation of the world...our view of that truth is subjective. We will never have the capacity to take into account all variables.

Simply, we are not omnipotent beings.

Thus, our conclusions and analysis are also subjective. To a degree...we're all flaming idiots

 

[I800C0LECT]

hrmmmm.

Everybody throwing around "facts"....I looked it up and I fail to see the interpretation I had been taught.

However, my science teacher once taught me that a fact is any direct statement with the ability to be proven true or false.

i.e. At one point in time it was a fact that the world was flat.

 

[I800C0LECT]

The following has been pulled from an exchange concerning jewish people within the bible and the punishment God dealt to them through the books. The issue is that adding up the punishments jews received throughout the bible...resulting in the loss of their country, language, and culture...when all was accounted for it leads up to the point in time when their country, culture, and society were founded once more. In all the history of the world...this has not once happened to any other people group. Shockingly, it ends up being the exact date and time when the countries of the world signed them back into existance in 1948. (I think that's right)

• > My friend says your math is way off..I'm awful at math so I'm not gonna even
  > attempt. What is your starting point and how did you figure that it came to
  > may 1948?
  
  The math is sound. It was first published in a book called "Armageddon -
  Appointment with Destiny" in 1988 and has never been refuted in all the
  years since despite high publicity and awareness among Bible scholars who
  have examined the math very carefully.
  
  Beginning point is 536BC, when the Jews were released from captivity.
  
  God had decreed through Ezekiel that Israel would suffer 430 years of
  punishment. Removing the 70 years of captivity would bring the remaining 360
  years to the year 176BC. At that time the punishment clearly did not end and
  the Jews were not yet living in a land that was entirely theirs. So we have
  to take a closer look because *either* God was wrong or there is another
  answer to the puzzle.
  
  There were many places in Scripture, including Isaiah's prophecies more than
  100 years prior to the captivity itself, that prophetic proclamations called
  for the Jews to celebrate their release from Babylonian captivity and to go
  back to Jerusalem at that time with joyful worship. It was clearly God's
  plan that they all return to the land that had been promised and won with
  such great faith and effort.
  
  Unfortunately, only a small handful returned. Scholars aren't sure exactly
  how many Jews were living in the Babylonian/Persian empire at the time, but
  estimates range from 500,000 to 700,000 and only 44,000 returned. This is
  well below 10 percent! It is clear that the vast majority were enjoying the
  wealth and comfortable life they had made in this tolerant yet pagan empire.
  There was little anti-Semitism. Jews held positions of honor and had built
  vast business empires. Although many of the Jews were devout and held to
  their beliefs faithfully, they had no temple and could not fulfill all the
  requirements of the Law, so clearly their lack of desire to return would be
  seen by God as a sinful attitude. This is especially true given His direct
  commands to return home when allowed to do so.
  
  In Leviticus 26:18, 21, 23-24, 27-28 God declares that after Israel suffers
  the 70 years of punishment for not keeping the Sabbath of the land, if they
  continue to disobey "then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."
  This meant that the Jews would remain without a nation they could call their
  own for another 2,520 biblical years from 536BC (360 x 7 = 2,520). Note that
  the Bible only deals in 360-day years.
  
  Babylonian captivity ended in spring of 536BC or 536.4BC
  
  Duration of Israel's captivity 3483.8 calendar years (2520 biblical years
  work out to 3483.8 modern years of 365.25 days)
  
  This arrives at a date of 1947.4 AD using simple math, but there is no year
  "0" so we have to add one year to adjust for this (the calendar jumps from
  1BC to 1AD -- there was only one year between the Passover celebrations of
  14Nisan 1BC and 14Nisan 1AD). Adding that year takes us to May 15, 1948.
  
  In order to calculate it with all the necessary details, you have to convert
  biblical years to days and measure the days, including the adding of leap
  years. This was all documented in the "Armageddon" book.
  
  There is some uncertainty about the exact starting date, but if you assume
  it begins when Cyrus' decree was issued which is a reasonable assumption
  then it works out.
  
  Thanks for writing to have this clarified. Hope my explanation helped.
  
  --
  
  = George Pytlik =
  george@pytlik.com
  
  http://www.pytlik.com/
  
  "People read what interests them; and
  sometimes it's an ad." --Howard Gossage

wow...that's confusing....

does this help petrek?

 

[petrek]

does this help petrek?

I don't know, I've never seen that study before. I'm always skeptical when it comes to date setting. I'd have to spend some time going over the data, before being able to make a personal conclusion on the info you provided.


Interesting though
Dave

 

[I800C0LECT]

indeed....I really have no idea what to think of it...I'm not the brightest bulb

I thought it was entertaining.