Hi all,
As I have stated before I'm not a Creationist, because I simply cannot accept the reasoning they're using. In my view their reasoning is based on an interpretation of the book of Genesis that is much too literal to my liking.The book of Genesis is definitely not a biology book. But this does not imply that there is no sence at all in the story. It seems to me that too many evolutionists are embracing the same litteral interpretation of the book without actually realising this. They're sharing the same distorted heritage both the creationist side and the evolutionist side. On the basis of a litteral interpretation the evolutionist side rejects the book of genesis as a whole as being rubbisch or being "just" a myth. What a pity ...
IvanH.
Originally posted by rwingettI must refer again to Miracles by C.S. Lewis. The situation in a nutshell, however, is this: the historical evidence left behind by the events of the first century overwhelmingly attests to the literal, bodily resurrection of a Jewish peasant named Jesus, called Christ. Again I refer to the literature, as posting all the evidence here would be impossible. Well, I could do it, but my posts are long enough already 😉
I totally disagree with this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One can entertain a "strange" notion as an interesting hypothesis, but to "believe" it is to abandon reason. The christian likes to have it both ways by cl ...[text shortened]... lls back on faith precisely because his beliefs are unreasonable.
I suspect that your understanding of the word "faith" differs from mine. Since I'm the one with the faith, I claim the right to define it. First, what it is not: it is NOT belief in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If that were the case, I would never have become a Christian in the first place. Faith is not the belief of things which are not reasonable.
Now, to say what faith is . . . that's tricky. There are several senses of the word. I will try to illustrate one sense by pointing to my own faith (who else's faith could I describe?)
I decided (reluctantly) that the only explanation of the events of the first century which faced and accounted for all historical facts was the straightforward account given in the New Testament. Most specifically, to paraphrase a famous Christian scholar, "there is a hole in history which is the exact shape and size of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; with what does the sceptic propose to fill this hole?" Now, I may be wrong in my assessment of the evidence, but I certainly do not buy the New Testament account just because someone at church told me to. I believe it because, after doing my homework (again I can't recommend this too strongly to anyone who wants to discuss this topic), I conlcuded that the only reasonable explanation was that of the Bible. If it contained things I found strange, or uncanny, or contrary to the (known) laws of nature, tough! To this day I have never been given an explanation which satisfies the historical evidence other than the Christian account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Now where's faith? Faith comes when, as has often happened in the not-quite-four years of my time as a Christian, I am tempted to lie, to go back to drugs, to behave in a lustful manner, to be lazy, to be angry (even when insulted, even when insulted for my beliefs), to break the speed limit when driving, to snap at my wife when I'm irritable, to -- well, you get the idea. Faith is the part of me that trusts my mind's judgment when my heart doesn't want to. When my emotions, my feelings, the irrational parts of me, say, "it's ok, you can do this even though it's wrong, no one will know . . ." what stops me is my faith (ie, trust) in facts, in the specific Fact that Jesus Christ died for me and now I owe Him my life. How did I come to believe this Fact? Reason, evidence, logic. Faith is the ally of Reason, which two must often oppose Emotion.
This, my friend, is my Faith. What of yours? No science has ever yet disproven the possibility of Something outside observable nature breaking, as it were, in and showing Itself in ways which would seem to us, bound as we are by nature only as we can see it, incredible. What are the laws of nature? Human observations. I never knew of a black swan 'til I saw one. I thought everyone spoke English until sometime in my childhood, when I became aware of a whole world outside my native country. At three I would have thought the sun to be a big yellow light in a blue plane above me. Now I know differently (well, in so far as I have FAITH 😉 in the astronomers). To the point: unless you claim for yourself the quality of omniscience, you have no honest recourse but to admit the possibility, however slight you consider it, that things and perhaps persons (we would call such things and persons "supernatural" ) exist in modes or in places beyond your capacity for perception. If beyond your perception, then beyond your description. So such a Person beyond your ability to perceive or to describe MIGHT exist, who is capable of having created an entire universe ex nihilo, of having set into motion all those laws of nature taken for granted by the diligent scientist, of having at times and places in the history of His universe temporarily altered the ordinary course of His universe's history (we would call such alterations "miracles" ), and of sending His one and only Son to die for your sins and mine.
Unless you, my friend, are yourself omniscient, you cannot deny that the supernatural is possible. It may require a heap of evidence to believe any specific supernatural event is true, but clearly it is only rational to admit the possibility. Blindly to deny the possibility of anything occuring which does not fit your preconceptions about how this world works -- now for THAT I can think of no adjective more appropriate than:
Irrational.
taking a deep breath,
huntingbear
-p.s.- again I plead forgiveness from everyone for the length of this post. Those who know me know that if I start talking about the Bible, chess, or my son, I have trouble stopping. Speaking of my son . . .
just kidding 🙂
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf the book of Genesis cannot be taken as being literally true, then why should any of the bible? If it is reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the book of Genesis, then would it not also be plausible to doubt the rest of the bible and the very existence of god, by extension? If the book of Genesis is to be doubted, then doesn't that discredit the rest of the bible as a reliable source of information?
Hi all,
As I have stated before I'm not a Creationist, because I simply cannot accept the reasoning they're using. In my view their reasoning is based on an interpretation of the book of Genesis that is much too literal to my liking.The book of Genesis is definitely not a biology book. But this does not imply that there is no sence at all in the ...[text shortened]... enesis as a whole as being rubbisch or being "just" a myth. What a pity ...
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWith apologies to RC.
Royalchicken,
It seems to me that your goal in a debate sometimes is, to score as many points as you can.Then I cannot find any effort on your side at all to try and understand your opponents position. If you are only able to commun ...[text shortened]... ither way of debating ... The choice is yours.
IvanH.
I know this was addressed to Mark, but something about it bothered me all night. I woke up this morning with a sudden understanding.
First. I withdraw my apology to you IvanH. I regret the apology very much because I have come to realize that you are a bully and not an honest person.
I base this on the following logic. For the past few months you have made post after post trying to instill the notion that you are the "universal man", and can see all sides of every issue. All leading up to the entrapment of Mark in an ambush of your choosing. Why? Because you are not an honest fellow.
This thread creation is direct proof of that. You don't have the honesty of calling this thread "God Exists". That is all it can be called, and that is what Mark, in his ever polite way was saying. I'm not as polite as he is. This thread stinks, and so does your pedagoguery. Have the guts to just create threads called "God Exists" and nothing else. You are a single issue guy, and that is what took me a while to figure out.
Machiavelli would be proud of you. One of his first and most "workable" solutions was to impune others with your own intent.
For example, you say...
"If you are only able to communicate with persons who you consider your equals then there will be a danger of something you can call "Intellectual Incest". I have noticed on several occasions that you are able to bully or ridicule people whom you consider to be lesser people"
You know that this will cut Mark to the bone. IvanH is the bully. So make Mark feel bad by accusing him of being a bully. IvanH has "Intellectual Lack". So accuse mark of "Incest" because it is more "Loaded". Make IvanH invulnerable to response by implying that Mark is a racist or an intellectual snob. To respond would mean that Mark is not caring or sensitive. IvanH calculates this and thinks he is safe. maybe he is and maybe he isn't.
The Crux. Why Mark? Well this is where it gets interesting and why I will forever view IvanH as a dishonest bully. Mark is the smartest person in the forums. (In my opinion) IvanH has a totally losing position. IvanH therefore bullys the smartest guy in the forums into withdrawing from the fight. What conclusion to the discussion thus ensues? IvanH APPEARS to have won. Wrong. He has just made it known that he has no substance. Those old birds like me who have read Machiavelli know what he is doing and why.
IvanH says... Quote...
"I have been reading enough posts of yours to know you are able to debate in a way that is acceptable to all participants and then I can truly appreciate your contributions. You know either way of debating ... The choice is yours."
Unquote...
Lets look at this a bit. IvanH is indeed the "Universal Man". He has read enough of Marks posts to know that he is "able". How magnanomous from one who is not "able". But IvanH increases his own stature. In his mind. IvanH implys that he knows what is "acceptable to all participants". How generous. Again he elevates himself. Then the ultimatum from the "Wise Parent" to the [implied] recalcitrant child... "The choice is yours." Who is the [implied] "wise parent". IvanH. In his mind. Who is he the [implied] parent of? Mark... who is just coincidentally the smartest guy in the forums. If IvanH is that smart and good and strong... Geez he must be the big winner. We'll see, won't we.
IvanH Says... Quote...
" When he or she is not on your side you try to smother him with words, lots of words because words are your favourite weapons, and you chose words a lot of people do not understand and you are aware of that, but you do not care, because communication and trying to understand other people is not what you're after ..."
Unquote
Again knowing he has just cut Mark to the bone. If one has an indefensible postion, accuse the opponent of Sophistry. Imply that he is somehow unfair because he uses words that are not understood. Is IvanH's lack of skill and ability any reason for mark to feel ashamed? I think not. IvanH, never the less tries to paint Mark as "uncaring." IvanH cares not a bit for "understanding other people", so he accuses Mark of that very thing.
Why can we be so sure of this being what IvanH is up to? Study his posts in this thread. He cares not a bit about either issue. He even states this openly just a couple of posts above this one. What he does care about is his "IvanH... Universal Man" image. He only cares for his self inflated "standing" in the debate. In the post above this one he tries to again become the "universal man" by equivicating on this entire thread. He believes neither point of view. He believes both points of view. Dishonest to the end. He is angry that we know that "creationism vs. evolution" is a dishonest effort. He is frustrated that we see his real intent as "God Exists". When Mark points this out IvanH becomes a bully.
In summary... In my not so humble opinion:
1 - IvanH is not honest.
2- IvanH is a bully.
3- IvanH wants desparately to be what he can never be.
4 - Mark deserves an apology for the manipulation and treachery perpetuated by IvanH.
5 - I will never pay attention to IvanH again. Don't like bullies and never will.
If I offend or embarrass Mark in this post... I am sorry. If I offend IvanH... Good! You deserve that and worse.
Mike
You are partially correct, but only partially. You are correct in saying that, "faith is NOT belief in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." That would be delusional psychosis. What faith IS, is believing something to be true despite having no evidence to substantiate the claim. If you were able to rationally demonstrate your claim, you would have no need for faith. Belief would be accorded to your claim in proportion to the degree you were able to substantiate it.
...I suspect that your understanding of the word "faith" differs from mine. Since I'm the one with the faith, I claim the right to define it. First, what it is not: it is NOT belief in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If that were the case, I would never have become a Christian in the first place. Faith is not the belief of things which are not reasonable...
For example: several years ago there were no known planets outside our solar system. But the available evidence indicated that there was a likelihood that they might exist. To have said, "I think there is a likelihood that planets exist outside our solar system", would have been a rational claim. But to have said, "I know for a fact that planets exist outside our solar system", would have been an article of faith. As our knowledge increased, we were able to demonstrate that other planets do exist. We can now say, "I now believe in the factual existence of planets outside our solar system." Because we have hard evidence to back up the claim it is no longer an article of faith, it is now a rational statement.
Unfortunately for the christian, he has no such evidence to back up his claim. He tries in vain to distort and manipulate the evidence in an attempt to provide a rational basis for his claim. But his efforts have been unconvincing. So he introduces faith into the argument. When his faith is questioned, he tries to provide a rational basis for his faith, but these efforts are doomed to failure. Reason and faith cannot be reconciled. If your claim is rational, then faith is superfluous.
Originally posted by rwingett
You are partially correct, but only partially.
I suspect that your understanding of the word "faith" is different than mine (boy that sounds familiar! ). Since I'm the one with the faith, I claim the right to define it (deja vu?).
I am fully correct, because I'm telling you what my faith is. I have never in any instance on any matter, religious or otherwise, taken refuge in the detestable cowardice which you have decided is what the word "faith" means. We are using the same word, but meaning different things. My whole intention was to clarify this. I am (it would seem) a sad failure 🙁
What faith IS, is believing something to be true despite having no evidence to substantiate the claim.
That is not my faith. I refer you to my previous post.
But to have said, "I know for a fact that planets exist outside our solar system", would have been an article of faith
Such a claim would be irrational. If irrational were synonymous with faith, you'd be right. I refer you to my previous post, in which I defined the term faith. I have no use for and neither do I indulge in the mode of (non)thought which you call "faith."
Unfortunately for the christian, he has no such evidence to back up his claim
I refer you to a previous post of mine, in which I pointed out some introductory material regarding the evidence for Christianity. And again I strenuously recommend you do your homework on this subject. You are operating here according to a "faith," by your definition of the term. Without having investigated the matter in the first place, you insist "There is no such evidence, there is no such evidence, there is no such evidence." Should you not be saying, "I find the probability of such evidence existing to be very slim, but until I substantiate that belief of mine I must concede my inability to pass final judgment on this matter"?
He tries in vain to distort and manipulate the evidence in an attempt to provide a rational basis for his claim
If this nameless "Christian" of whom you speak is me, then I deny this allegation and (sigh) refer you to my previous posts, in which I did not list any specific evidence, let alone manipulate it, but instead pointed out some introductory material pertaining to . . . etc. etc.
So he introduces faith into the argument
You're the one who brought up faith! 🙂
I refer you to my previous posts about Evidence and Reason. I'll double-check, but I'm pretty sure I never typed the word "faith" before you did. Neither have I ever in my life resorted to "faith," as you define the word.
Reason and faith cannot be reconciled
Of course not, for they would first have had to be estranged!
This whole discussion, if anyone cares enough to read this much, has been derailed. The reason I re-defined faith (so that the definition corresponded to an actual, real-world thought form and not some imaginary Christian's head-in-the-sand syndrome) was to come around to discussing why I trust the Biblical statements about the creation ex nihilo of the universe by the One and Only God. But I can't seem to get past your trying to convince me that when I use the word "faith" I mean blind stupidity. What I really mean by "faith" is conviction in my beliefs which were previously formed by reason, logic, evidence, etc., a conviction I must maintain even when irrational emotions work against my intellect. My faith upholds my intellect when my emotions disagree with my brain. You say that faith is emotions upholding irrational beliefs when they conflict with reason. We are talking about two different tools and calling them both "spades." I agree with you entirely that no one should accept any belief or claim any knowledge for which there is not sufficient evidence (have I not made this clear?) You agree with me, I presume, that one ought to stick by one's reason when it conflicts with one's feelings. Is that not so? Our disagreement, if you would but see it, is merely semantic.
Why, come to think of it, do I bother with this post? Well, I'd hate to waste all this typing, so here it is (with the usual apology for length).
-huntingbear
Edit: I'm quite wrong. I did at least once type the word "faith" prior to your bringing it up in its current context. I said something about "the Christian faith," obviously using the word in one of the different senses I mentioned earlier.
Originally posted by rwingettHi rwingett,
If the book of Genesis cannot be taken as being literally true, then why should any of the bible? If it is reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the book of Genesis, then would it not also be plausible to doubt the rest of the bible and the very existence of god, by extension? If the book of Genesis is to be doubted, then doesn't that discredit the rest of the bible as a reliable source of information?
The Bible is a collection of books and each book deserves a different approach according to it's nature. Some books you may call Poetic Books, for instance the Book of Psalms, the Book of Job and the Adam and Eve part of the Book of Genesis. Other books have a more historic impact, but beware, I hesitate calling them history books, because the way we regard history writing nowadays is completely different from the way they wrote history thousands of years ago. Now History writing is an academic discipline. In those days it was story telling. Historical facts were blended in with other facts of a more cultural nature, of how they understood things. It was part of their cultural heritage and part of their identity as a people. Books you may call history books in the sense they understood history, are for instance the Book of Exodus, the Prophets, maybe not all of them, and the second part of the Book of Genesis, let's say the Abraham part.
Now if you want to use the collection of books called the Bible as a reliable source of information, you have to keep those things in mind.
If you want to know something about biology I certainly would advise everybody to read a quality biology book. If you want to know history in the way we perceive things now, well go and buy an interesting history book. Of course it is very interesting to compare things that are written in the Bible with the findings of modern science. Well, let's say that modern science , among which archeologie, has proven that not everything in the Bible is rubbish or just a myth. However if you want to have a reliable source of information about Who God is or what His plans are, how the relationship evolved between God and His people, how the relationship should be between you and God, between you and your fellow men, then I would suggest to you to have a look in the Bible. But then again, beware and do not jump to conclusions, because all the books in the Bible are in many ways connected and they very often refer to each other. The Bible is a very complicated and difficult collection of truly magnificent Books.
I hope that answers your question rwingett.
IvanH.
Mr. Ivanhoe,
Is it not the case that a poem can contain within it literal historical truth? Is that possible?
Perhaps the good and royal chicken could compose us a brief poem which insisted, poetically, on some historical truth? Perhaps about Sir Francis Drake?
In the ocean wide, not in a lake
Did sail the sea dog Francis Drake.
He and his crew, all sea dogs too,
Sank Spanish ships and the sailors, slew.
In the neck for Spain he was a pain
And Spain's Spanish King did claim,
That should the Queen of Enland not
Have Drake killed and left to rot,
Then under his royal collar hot
He would become, and toss
And turn in bed, too cross
To sleep. And yet he imagined not
How angry he would truly be
When the Queen did Queenly see
That Francis Drake for England's sake
Did sail and sink and slay
All through day and all through night
And so she dubbed him "Sir,"
A knight!
I'm sorry to horn in on your territory, Mr. Royalchicken. I defer to your judgment as to the poetic quality of my composition. As for its hisorical truth, despite license taken of a poetic sort, I claim my poem contains valid and accepted historical truth.
As for the first few chapters of Genesis: Moses, Jesus, and I (to name but three) claim they contain literal truth, even if that historical truth is conveyed through ancient Hebrew poetry.
Up past my bed-time,
huntingbear
Mr. Ivanhoe,
Is it not the case that a poem can contain within it literal historical truth? Is that possible? Huntingbear.
Hi Huntingbear,
Yes, that is true. By the way I do not recall having said the contrary.
I do believe that The history of the relationship between The Lord and the Jewish people is factual and true. They made a blend of historical facts and means used in the realm we now call literature. At that time literature as we understand it now did not exist. You gave a good example of how historical facts and methods of literature,here choosing the form of a poem, can be reconsiled, but other methods were used too. I can refer to the parables of the Lord in the Gospels. I don't think anybody wants to claim that they are not true. That's not the point. These stories are used to typify moral or spiritual relations.
I believe that the life, death and resurrection of the Lord is based on facts. If the resurrection did not take place than our belief becomes senseless, meaningless. How do we know this is true ? I guess the same way we know that Augustus once ruled the Roman Empire or that Napoleon was defeated near a place called Waterloo. Witnesses wrote down what they saw and heard. Modern science ,among which archeology, is trying to confirm these reports.
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoeBull****! Modern science could care less. Modern science is anathema to your mind. Drop the insults already!
Mr. Ivanhoe,
Is it not the case that a poem can contain within it literal historical truth? Is that possible? Huntingbear.
Hi Huntingbear,
Yes, that is true. By the way I do not recall having said the contrary.
I do believe t ...[text shortened]... archeology, is trying to confirm these reports.
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Yes, that is true. By the way I do not recall having said the contrary.
Well, we disagree about the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis!
And as for the parables of Jesus, they are true AND they are not. I don't believe Jesus referred to a literal Good Samaritan or Prodigal Son. I do believe, as do you, that the NT refers to a literal Resurrection of Jesus, yet I also believe that Genesis refers to literal creation when it says "God created the heavens and the earth." I see no indication in the text that this is symbolic, metaphorical, or otherwise non-literal history.
We can, of course, disagree without any feelings hurt. No one's salvation depends on interpretation of Genesis 1. What I wondered when I wrote my silly poem, was just what is it about Genesis 1 that indicates, for you, that it is not meant literally? I assumed, because I can't see anything else, that it was the poetic nature of the passage. My apologies for the hasty assumption.
I guess the same way we know that Augustus once ruled the Roman Empire or that Napoleon was defeated near a place called Waterloo.
Too true! This is precisely the point I (try to) make with rwingett! My personal faith ("faith" here meaning "body of beliefs"😉 starts and ends with the Resurrection, which was a historical event, and which you so well compare to other accepted historical events.
Definitely is archaeology a modern science, and truly has it proven beyond reasonable doubt the historical reliability of the New Testament. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't actually checked, and we can't suppose they'll ever give us a fair listen, good Sir Wilfred.
-huntingbear
Originally posted by huntingbearoh those evil "they" and their refusal to give you a fair listen. You need a good shake about the head and shoulder to wake you up from a stupid dream!
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Yes, that is true. By the way I do not recall having said the contrary.
Well, we disagree about the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis!
And as for the parables of Jesus, they are true AND they are not. I don't believe Jesus referred to a literal Good Samaritan or Prodigal Son. I do believe, as do y ...[text shortened]... ed, and we can't suppose they'll ever give us a fair listen, good Sir Wilfred.
-huntingbear[/b]
True and Not? Do tell! Is and Ain't. How Quaint! Get on with your damn death. I want to see the resurection! This will bear close reflection to see if it is or...
Some systematic glitch in the hitch of pulling silly pullys of bullys fails and flails to no avails... ever wanting to be... not quite managing ... he... tries. Fails. Alas. Poor hack.
Originally posted by ivanhoeFirstly, historical texts may contain literal historic truths, however they also contain many embellishments and exagerations. When considering historic texts it is important to bear this in mind. Because a small proportion of the book may contain the "truth", this does not justify the use of the book for reconstructing the past.
Is it not the case that a poem can contain within it literal historical truth? Is that possible? Huntingbear.
Witnesses wrote down what they saw and heard. Modern science ,among which archeology, is trying to confirm these reports.
Secondly, speaking as an archaeologist, the purpose of archaeology is not to confirm details that have been recorded. In fact it is quite the contrary. Like modern writers, ancinet scholars were biased and often used literature to achieve or promote their own personal goals or beliefs. Archaeologists are extremely wary of using ancient literature to support hypotheses, and many, myself included, are trying to dismantle archaeological theories that have revolved around the use of historic texts, and where modern schoalrs have paid little attention to the biased nature of both the authors and translators of aforementioned jistorical texts.
Mark
Originally posted by mmanuelHi mmanuel,
Firstly, historical texts may contain literal historic truths, however they also contain many embellishments and exagerations. When considering historic texts it is important to bear this in mind. Because a small proportion of the book may ...[text shortened]... thors and translators of aforementioned jistorical texts.
Mark
Instead of writing " Modern science ,among which archeology, is trying to confirm these reports." I should have said "Modern science, among wich archeology, is trying to confirm or to dismiss these reports". I'm aware this is not a perfect description of what is going on but I hope it's a more accurate one.
Furthermore, what you said is very enlightening in the context of how both creationists and evolutionists are interpreting the Book of Genesis. I suggest we all read your post very carefully ! Thanks.
Joe.
Originally posted by mmanuelHi Mark. Well let me quote Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (NIV)
[b]I am intrigued to know exactly how Genesis has been scientiofically proven correct. According ot this book, wasn't the earth apparently created roughly October 4004 BC, making the earth circa 6,007 years old. Interestingly though, I have held a human skull in my hands that is scientifically proven to be over 100,000 years old - notice the discrepancy?
Now this is what the Word of God says. We do not know how long ago this was. And as you can read, the Bible does not mention any dates. Further, we do not know how much time passed between God creating the earth and when the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I have no idea where you got your info from. So let me just mention that there are a few schools of thought here. This is so because people disagree about the lengh of time of creation. Some say God worked within science and that creation happened over billions of years (Old Earth) and other say that it literally took 6 days (Young Earth). NB: Both views are biblically sound - either could be correct.