Spirituality
12 May 12
04 Jun 12
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillHe seems to be referring not to the early Israelites, all of which are now just referred to as Jewish Christians, but to the Gentiles that became Christians later. The very early Chruch had very few Gentile converts that were not killed, because the Roman leadership were constantly persecuting the Christians and Jews. It was not fashionable to be Christian by the general public of Gentiles under the Roman empire until the time of Constantine, Roman emperor from 306 to 337. This is my understanding of the history. Do you agree?I was thinking in terms of common adoption of these practices by the various churches.
I'm sure some of the churches did observe sunday worship from the start. But not thousands of Jews 'all of a sudden'. It took time for the practice to spread across the churches.
Whether you like it or don't like it, the first local church consiste No accident. He [b]was their God. He is God the Son.
I go to bed now.[/b]
04 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHow does any of that relate to my post? For starters, I didn't mention evolution.
No so. If one believes in God and His Christ, he is on the right track toward wisdom and knowledge, because he believes in the truth. Evolution is obviously not true to one who knows the truth of God and his Christ, even without any scientific training. Evolution is the opposite of creation by God and therefore a false teaching. Easy, huh?
HelleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&feature=related
No so.
what is “No so”?
Are you answering your own questions again instead of any question anyone else asked? If so, at least explicitly state your own question that you have answered for yourself instead of just letting us have to guess what your own question is as a result of not stating it.
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by humyI was first responding to your final statement.
How does any of that relate to my post? For starters, I didn't mention evolution.
No so.
what is “No so”?
Are you answering your own questions again instead of any question anyone else asked? If so, at least explicitly state your own question that you have answered for yourself instead of just letting us have to guess what your own question is as a result of not stating it.
"it would be the end of science and we will go back to the stone age."
I said, "Not so."
Then I went on to explain why I thought it was "not so" but did not directly answer your question about being a geneticist. No, I am not a geneticist. That however, does not prevent me from knowing the truth of God and learning something about the cell that is relavent to the discussion.
I have already pointed out that the DNA molecule that stores information code from God disproves the theory of evolution because Information Scientists say information does not arise by chance, but requires intelligent contrivance. If you would have looked at the video by the Medical Doctor, you would have heard hims say that the making of a baby from the sperm and the egg is like the conducting of of an orchestra consisting of 30,000 genetic instruments playing many genetic songs, at the same time, over a period of about 9 months. He said that is some conductor and that information that is coded in the DNA molecule is what makes that happen and keeps us alive.
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNot so. It is a wild claim that all converted Jews were eliminated in the Roman persecutions. The Jews were successful in proselytizing throughout the region of the Empire. The persecutions included a direct war between the Jews and the Empire resulting among other things in destruction of the Temple but not in genocide and not in depopulation of Palestine.
He seems to be referring not to the early Israelites, all of which are now just referred to as Jewish Christians, but to the Gentiles that became Christians later. The very early Chruch had very few Gentile converts that were not killed, because the Roman leadership were constantly persecuting the Christians and Jews. It was not fashionable to be Christian ...[text shortened]... tantine, Roman emperor from 306 to 337. This is my understanding of the history. Do you agree?
It was the Christians who were most successful in persecuting Jews, after Constantine afforded them political influence and legitimacy. Many certainly did convert to Christianity, just as many later converted to Islam, notably most Jews living in Palestine, but even after 2,000 years of pogroms and persecution at the hands of Christians, they have persisted.
Modern Jews are more likely than not descended from converts and not from the people of Palestine.
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsInteresting, since I both viewed and responded above to that hoax video and you have ignored my post.
I was first responding to your final statement.
[b]"it would be the end of science and we will go back to the stone age."
I said, "Not so."
Then I went on to explain why I thought it was "not so" but did not directly answer your question about being a geneticist. No, I am not a geneticist. That however, does not prevent me from knowing the trut ...[text shortened]... nformation that is coded in the DNA molecule is what makes that happen and keeps us alive.[/b]
Of course Creation Science would not be the end of all Science, since without Science it would not have any content whatever. There is no Creation Science. Only a giant hoax.
04 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOK. You ought to highlight and make clear exactly which part of a person's post you are actually responding to just like I and others do here.
I was first responding to your final statement.
[b]"it would be the end of science and we will go back to the stone age."
I said, "Not so."
Then I went on to explain why I thought it was "not so" but did not directly answer your question about being a geneticist. No, I am not a geneticist. That however, does not prevent me from knowing the trut ...[text shortened]... nformation that is coded in the DNA molecule is what makes that happen and keeps us alive.[/b]
I have already pointed out that the DNA molecule that stores information code from God disproves the theory of evolution because Information Scientists say information does not arise by chance, but requires intelligent contrivance.
those “ Information Scientists” you speak of must be just a crackpot minority. In general, information scientists do NOT say “information does not arise by chance, but requires intelligent contrivance” because that would be just a stupid thing to say.
Information does arise by chance via certain types of random mutation. What barrier is there to prevent a mutation from producing new information? -oh you have already answered that before after much dragging you feet over the question; the barrier is “God” according to you. But that is just stupid superstition and not part of any real science.
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357As you say I am working with the accepted terms. I agree these terms are open to a lot of misunderstanding and indeed, that is what the Creationists are either utterly confused by (the innocent explanation) or they exploit in order to misrepresent (the conspiracy theory). I favour the conspircy theory because the identities of the people pushing this stuff are in the public domain and can be tracked in a few clicks on the net. I also favour it because the people producing the propoganda cannot possibly be unaware that they are deliberately and flagrantly lying. The guy on this video for exmaple, claiming to have spent 150,000 dollars on a medical eduction, and presumably having passed enough exams to stay on the course to near the end, cannot be unware that he utterly misrepresents the claims of science on natural selection and so can only be telling a blatant and intended lie. (I suppose he could have repeatedly failed the induction course only, spending all that money like people who keep failing their driving test. But then he is lying about his eduction!)
"What happens by random chance is that there are errors in transmitting the code during replication. "
There is much wisdom in your writings.
You are saying the above with acceptance of the common parlance, in order to be intelligible, but sometimes I wish "random chance" and "intelligent design" were replaced by the simpler "without intention" and "with intention."
Fair dice can turn up numbers one to six, and which one arises is down to random chance, but it is still constrained. It cannot turn up seven or eight point two. However, if I throw dice a number of times, the results can then include 7-12 on the second throw, 13-18 after the third, and so on to huge numbers. So before we debate if it is possible to throw fair dice and obtain 99 million as the outcome, we need to be clear that this requires an awful long sequence of throws. However, to say there is a sequence that might produce 898.72 would be clearly false without any checking.
This video is just a very long variant on the complaint that a hurricane blowing through a scrap yard will never throw together a fully working aeroplane. Personally, I think this is in the cateogry of 898.72 for dice and there are good reasons why a hurricane never could do this, nor a typhoon either. Then we are told that chance could not throw together a fully working human, or eye, or earwig and if the analogy with the hurricane holds, then that seems persuasive.
The truth is however what the evidence shows it to be, even when that is surprising. Chance can indeed throw together a functioning earwig under certain conditions, including a very long evolutionary sequence. Like dice, chance cannot and never could do this in one throw. And like dice, the outcomes are not utterly random, but constrained in all sorts of ways. For example, no species can arise through evolution unless it is capable of surviving and reproducing in the environment in which it is obliged to live. No transformation is capable of surviving if even one individual of the species along the ancestral chain is not perfectly well adapted to its environment. If that individual dies, the genetic line comes to a complete stop. And no individual can reproduce if there is no mate that fancies a shag with it.
It is acceptable even to reduce this to a far more specific claim, which is to say there is no necessity for design or intention to account for the evolution of an earwig. But I fear that, as the language becomes more clear and less ambiguous, the opportunities for misleading propoganda are also reduced. So it is not me that you need to persuade on this proposal, sensible though it is.
04 Jun 12
8 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
AF is fable; Genesis is a mix of history and fable. I have not argued they are the same genre.
I am not an enemy of the Bible. I simply disagree with certain people who take certain stories in it as historical fact. I know Christians that do not believe that the Noah's Ark story, for example, really happened. So, your statement is false on two levels. immortals to the death, remembering the lives of people from centuries ago! 😛
AF is fable; Genesis is a mix of history and fable. I have not argued they are the same genre.
Genesis, rather, is history some of which you don't believe.
So some of it is not easy for people to believe. But in the reading of the history the clock does not stop and the teller transfer to some existential realm. The flow of details is seamlessly written in a continuous manner.
When Adam is expelled from the garden because of certain actions, where ever he goes we don't know for sure. But the mentioning of the rivers is an approximation the indicates the readers realize familiar localities are being discussed.
Cain leaves the family and goes east to the land of Nod -
"And Cain went forth from the presence of Jehovah and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden." (Genesis 4:16)
Now you may say, "I don't believe this stuff." But it is not written as if details, locations, ages of people, when someone was born, and other journalistic data is abstractly irrelevent.
Where's Eden ? Is it written so the clock stops and the reader is lifted into some transcendent absrtact realm as a "once upon a time" vagueness ? No. [/b]
"And a river went forth from Eden to water the garden, and from there it divided and became four branches. The name of he first is Pishon; it is the one that goes around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold." (Genesis 2:10,11)
I take it to communicate a place of familiarity, if not to us, to the audience who knew of the gold which at that time came from Havilah, where ever that was.
"And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that goes around the whole land of Cush.
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one that goes east of Assyria. And the fourth is the Euphrates." (Genesis 2:12-15)
Though there is deep symbolism in the names and details of these details, they are the details also of practical geography. Now you may say "I don't believe this stuff." But it does not read like a fable.
The audience must recognize that Assyria, that Cush (Ethiopia), that Euphrates, and that land of Havilah and the reputation of the gold which was unearthed from that location.
The flow of geneology from Adam in chapter 5 is practical historical detail, The reader is not removed to a transcendent timeless realm. The audience is still firmly in the world of familiarity where people live a certain amount of time and die leaving perhaps offspring behind them.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name Adam, on the day when they were created.
And Adam lived one hundred thirty years and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years, and he begot more sons and daughters.
And Seth lived one hundred five years and begot Enosh. And Seth lived after he had begotten Enosh eight hundred seven years, and he begot more sons and daughters. And all the days of Seth were nine hundred twelve years, and he died.
And Enosh lived ninety years and begot Kenan. And Enosh lived after he had begotten Kenan eight hundred fifteen years, and he begot more sons and daughters. And all the days of Enosh were nine hundred five years, and he died. etc. etc" (See Genesis 5)
The writing is historical. And the repeated phrase "and he died" carries significant relevance also. The writer was explaining WHY people DIE. It was the curse resulting from the FIRST man's disobedience which is the source of the DEATH of human beings.
" And he died ... and he died ... and he died... and he died ..." is very significant. The writer is telling us that for certain this matter of man DYING is firmly established in ALL the descendents of Adam.
Think about it. This is history being written. Yes, much spiritual and moral lesson is involved. But the vehicle is historical detail. It is not simply the length of life that is told. Emphatically included the significant words - "and he DIED" just as God had warned Adam.
I also did not believe this detail at first. Then I noticed that Jesus Christ took the details of Genesis seriously, to as much a degree as is indicated. I held that the integrity of Jesus was above questioning. So I eventually took Genesis seriously because I noticed that Jesus did. If it was okay for Jesus Christ it must be okay for me.
The same kind of seamless flow of historical detail is given following the Flood of Noah. The descendents of his three sons are tabled out.
First Chronicals traces ancestral lineage from Adam down to through the twelve tribes from the 12 sons of Jacob and on through to relevant descendents of all 12 sons. I am looking now at chapter 9 and the writer is STILL talking about lineage, descendents, offspring. I count nine chapters starting from chapter one - the geneology from Adam to the Twelve Tribes of Israel (1 Chron 1:1 - 9:44)
This is historical and legal ducumentation miteculously kept because some intelligent people thought it was very important, obviously. It was their national history as well as crucial details on the history of the world.
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI can show that some promises may still be in the process of fullfilment. Since Jesus and God spoke of such ONGOING fulfillment it is really no contradiction that examples could be located.The one I have in mind was a more immediate promise. The time for it to be fulfilled has passed.[quote]There is no need for anything like that in the ...[text shortened]... ason in the face of Jonah's anger. If this is the same character, he is bi-polar. 😛
This is really unremarkable, when you think about it. The compilers of the scriptures simply left out any stories that took the narrative in a direction they didn't like,
Slave of paranoid conspiracy theory.
Stay asleep. No more time to humor you on this.
04 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyHere is my take on it: They deliberated to find a way to define information with the deliberate end of being able to destroy evolution and replace it with creationism entirely.
OK. You ought to highlight and make clear exactly which part of a person's post you are actually responding to just like I and others do here.
[quote] I have already pointed out that the DNA molecule that stores information code from God disproves the theory of evolution because Information Scientists say information does not arise by chance, but requires in ...[text shortened]... “God” according to you. But that is just stupid superstition and not part of any real science.
They don't just want to make creationism equal with evolution, they want to destroy evolution entirely and teach only creationism in a science class as fact.
Like that quote from Genghis Khan: "I don't want to just win, I want my enemies to lose".
04 Jun 12
1 edit
The Challenge which SwissGambit, I think, has failed to meet remains open.
Alternative explanations will be considered to the momentous resurrection of Christ so impressing a generation of Jewish coverts to the Christian faith. How else could these following things have taken place ?
1.) For centries Jews celebrated their main worship day on Saturday. Suddenly thousands were "revolutionized" to make the next day, the first day of the week, (Sunday) that main worship day.
Why after centries of Saturday Sabbath did some Jews establish "the Lord's Day" celebrating the rising of Jesus from the dead ? Give your alternative explanation for the sudden social change.
2.) The Jews emphasized obeying the laws that God had entrusted to Moses. This set them apart from the surrounding heathen nations for centries. Yet within a short time after the death of Jesus, a considerable number were saying that to be an upstanding member of the Jewish community one need no longer be in obligation to Mosiac law keeping.
Why the sudden social change ?
3.) The Jews had believed that ever since the time of Abraham and Moses they needed to offer animal sacrifices each year for atonement for sins. God, they believed, would transfer that guilt to the animal, and their sins would be forgiven to be in a right standing before God.
All of a sudden, after the death of Jesus, a Nazarene carpenter, thousands of Jews no longer look to animal sacrifice. They believe the death of Jesus has done the atoning for sins once for all.
Why the sudden change ?
4.) The strict monotheism held the Jews for centries. Suddenly a large group of them begin to speak of the one God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . This was radically different from what the Jews believed. Previously it was heresy to that God could be God and a man at the same time. Yet Jews began to worship Jesus as God within the first decade of the history of the Christian church.
How do you explain the radical and sudden social change of these Jews to a Three-One God and the worship of Jesus ?
5.) The vast body of Jews previously thought of the Messiah as one who would immediately conquer the Roman armies and free Judea from imperialism. Suddenly thousands of Jews began to believe in a Messiah who died for the sins of the everyone in the world, including their enemies.
What happened to cause this momentous transformation in attitude of thousands of Jews ?
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillWhy do I suddenly picture a little child stamping his foot on the pavement, yelling the same word over and over again? "JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS!" 🙂I was thinking in terms of common adoption of these practices by the various churches.
I'm sure some of the churches did observe sunday worship from the start. But not thousands of Jews 'all of a sudden'. It took time for the practice to spread across the churches.
Whether you like it or don't like it, the first local church consiste ...[text shortened]... No accident. He [b]was their God. He is God the Son.
I go to bed now.[/b]
I think you forgot that we are trying to get some facts straight before I offer a plausible explanation of said facts. If you can provide some good evidence that there were thousands of Jews suddenly believing all (or at least some of) these things, then I'll accept them as fact and proceed along those lines.
I think 'son=god' in the NT is controversial. But I'd prefer not to pursue that sidebar any further. That's a whole 'nuther discussion.
It is relevant how many people believed in the trinity because that is specific to your claim. You claimed thousands of people, suddenly.
What is our standard for establishing 'belief in the trinity'. You seem to think that it is enough that people worshipped all three. I think a stricter standard is necessary - they must believe all 3 are different manifestations of ONE god. Take this away, and it is perfectly plausible some of them might think there were three gods and worship each one.
That's why John's gospel is not 'synoptic' - i.e., 'similar'. And it's also why it's the last one written. It shows an evolution in theology. Jesus was being morphed into God. But John's book was never the only theology in town.
Who was the secular writer of the Roman Empire?
04 Jun 12
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganSome reply for you now finnigan:
The way you want to frame this discussion is deceptive.
If we agree on the total and absolute truth of the 31 verses of Genesis to which you refer, then what is it that we have agreed? I am not going beyond verse 1 here. When God began to create heaven and earth the earth was without form - darkness was over the earth and God's breath hovering over the w y natural selection tells you a huge amount and puts you on the right track for a solution.
Without going back over all these posts, I'll jump in here and try to pick up thoughts on the discussion.
A scientist or a philosopher of science would present the issue differently. In Science, what we often encounter is rival descriptions of reality which appear internally consistent and which have reasonable empirical support. The task is to select between these alternatives. To keep this simple, our choice is between Genesis and Science.
That is not really our choice usaully conveyed on this Forum. It is a choice between a all-incompasing naturalism which new atheists assume has made a intelligent creation an obsolete concept relegated to a superstitious age. To those who see Intelligent causality working back there somewhere, these Atheists say we should return to the Dark Ages.
That is what is being marketed by New Atheists attempting to use Science theories as justifying facts proving their Atheism.
Creationists may start with a sacred text. Intelligent Design theorists do not start with a sacred text. They are concerned with the legitimate detection of intelligent causality as in forensic science, insurance fraud detection, crime detection, archeology, and SETI (Search For Extra Terrestial Intelligence).
The charge of "stealth creationism" is their perception. They are giving heads up that they don't like where evidence may imply or lead.
The Supreme Court ruled that bad science cannot be forced in the schools. But it also ruled that good science cannot be excluded because it may lead to implications undesierable to some people.
US Supreme Court:
Any explanation of the origin and development of the universe or life that shows scientific integrity and credibility may be taught, regardless of theological implications.
Court Ruling Affirms - The Constitution cannot be used to keep good science out, nor to force bad science in.
A free market environment for science and research has been assured so far by the US Supreme Court.
Some Christians have lost some court cases because of being deemed as trying to force bad science into the schools. Do no assume that this will ALWAYS be the case in the future. Do not assume that good science will at least as practiced in my country, the US, will always avoid implications which may have theological relevance.
Do not assume that Science always must end in Atheistic implications or it is not science.
Now turn your challenge around in the other direction. Can we demonstrate that the Bible falsifies a well established scientific theory?
First scientists can establish that science research to falsify a well established theory it is falsifiable. You cannot or should not have an attitude that a well established theory should not be falsified IF such falsification may lead to theological implications supported by the Bible or some other sacred text.
One scientist was encouraged in the past to look for "paths in the seas" by some verse in Job. He discovered that such ocean paths did exist. IF there was an established theory that the ocean contained no such paths, it would be unscientific to reject the evidence of such "paths" simply because the Bible said something about that previously.
We have encountered endless efforts to do this in respect of Evolution by Natural Selection and I have yet to see an argument that cannot be given a perfectly adequate reply and has been, over and over. That may never convince you, but the Bible will never tell you how to deal with a drug resistent strain of bacteria, whereas the theory of evolution by natural selection tells you a huge amount and puts you on the right track for a solution.
Again, you are trying to define the debate as Science Verses the Bible.
I don't see the debate that way. I see it as good science verses better science and the implications of the better should not be grounds for excluding the better.
"If it leads to agreement in any way with the Bible, let's stop it before it starts. The results of all science must never have theological implications correlated by the Bible."
That's what you want. Ie. "We cannot allow a divine foot in the door." - Harvard's Richard Lewontin.
" ... no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unititiated." Materialism must be absolute to some Darwinists.
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagent promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, beecause we have a a prior commitment to materialism."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillI have not found this kind of argument to be persuasive to those not already convinced.
The Challenge which SwissGambit, I think, has failed to meet remains open.
Alternative explanations will be considered to the momentous resurrection of Christ so impressing a generation of Jewish coverts to the Christian faith. How else could these following things have taken place ?
1.) For centries Jews celebrated their main worship day ...[text shortened]... ned to cause this momentous transformation in attitude of thousands of Jews ?
There are similar (but not identical) arguments for the truth of Christianity based on its remarkable nature and aspects (for the times and traditions it confronted). Rebuttals exist, such as at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/
Generally, this kind argument for the truth of something is covered at:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
But also, one has to question the degree of success of Christianity that we will consider remarkable and in need of explanation. Is it the adoption by some fraction (how much?) of the local Jewish population? Is it the spread to gentiles? Is it adoption as the state religion of the Roman Empire? Granted, things fell Christianity's way, but that would be true of whichever religion is ascendant.
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357
I have not found this kind of argument to be persuasive to those not already convinced.
There are similar (but not identical) arguments for the truth of Christianity based on its remarkable nature and aspects (for the times and traditions it confronted). Rebuttals exist, such as at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/
Ge ...[text shortened]... ted, things fell Christianity's way, but that would be true of whichever religion is ascendant.
I have not found this kind of argument to be persuasive to those not already convinced.
Maybe I can check your links latter.
And I have also found that there is a MYTH of the Athiests intellectual reasons for not believing in God. For the most part, he already has decided he does not like the idea of God - Full Stop.
Then he gathers some reasons which appear intellectual objections as a protective fortress around his PREFERENCE to dislike the concept of God's existence.
"I have thought on the existence of God and I have decided that I have these intellectual objections. Therefore I DECIDED to not believe in God."
This is a myth of the rejection of God's existence AFTER consideration of intellectual problems. I think the vast majority of Atheists, and especially the brand that frequent a Spirituality Forum, decided FIRST they did not want God in their lives. Then they go pick up some arguments to dignify this decision.