Christians, please help me understand....

Originally posted by Conrau K
What nonsense. You seem to be advocating here that the only way a religious Christian can authentically interpret the scripture is literally - which is rather disingenuous for a non-Christian (or so I assume you are) to do, when atheism (or other critics) tries to refute a literal interpretation of scripture.

If one wants to interpret scripture the main ...[text shortened]... "what you like", it actually seems to be a very logical way to approach any given text.

You say that the Bible was written at different times and in different places for different audiances. I agree 100%. This does not change the FACT that when push comes to shove, the Bible is fallen back on as "The Word of God." In said Bible, the "Word of God" is never to be questioned. It is written as it is meant. Thou Shalt not kill means dont kill...at all...ever. Not..well, ok, you can kill in the Name of God or for any other reason. The "Word of God" is to be followed in an exacting manner, as it is "The Word of God."

If you can pick and choose which "Words of God" you want to follow....Why not just make up your own religion and follow that? It is essentially what you are doing anyway...you are just sticking a well known label on it.

Originally posted by jaywill
Intelligent Design Theory does not require any particular theological foundation as far as the science of it goes.

Opponents of Intelligent Design Theory are eager to link it to Christianity. But as far as the science of it goes, no particular faith or religion is indorced by it. And that is what ID is - a science theory.

Someone on Evolution Ver elligent Design is valid as an approach to biology regardless of the age of life on earth.

ID is not science. IDers imply they have some sort of proof about what cannot happen without intelligent intervention, but I've never been able to find the proof or mathematical analysis. They carefully avoid defining key terms like "complexity", "information", etc. so that they cannot be challenged on scientific grounds. Because of this it's not science. In science, key terms are rigorously defined especially when they are quantifiable as complexity and information should be in order to fit into the IDers' claims.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
You say that the Bible was written at different times and in different places for different audiances. I agree 100%. This does not change the FACT that when push comes to shove, the Bible is fallen back on as "The Word of God." In said Bible, the "Word of God" is never to be questioned. It is written as it is meant. Thou Shalt not kill means dont kill... ...[text shortened]... ssentially what you are doing anyway...you are just sticking a well known label on it.

I believe in Hebrew the phrase is more like "Thou Shalt Not Murder" - not Kill.

Originally posted by jaywill
LOL. He doesn't bother reading it. But he probably has a lot of morality based upon it which he uses regularly.

Watch for instance how he would insist that God does "bad" things. And ask him where he derives his concept of what is good and bad.

God does bad things? Please explain...

A concept of what is good and bad is very hard to define as it changes.

Originally posted by Orange Peel
God does bad things? Please explain...

A concept of what is good and bad is very hard to define as it changes.

Don't misunderstand me. I was not making the argument that God does bad things. I was suggesting that the morality with which some skeptics take to criticize God is derived from the book of God.


But since you mentioned the problem of good and evil - did you notice that in the garden, the forbidden fruit was not on the tree of evil. It was not on the tree of the knowledge of evil. It was on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


The knowlege of good was on the same forbidden tree as the knowledge of evil - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both good and bad were on the one tree which was forbidden.

In constrast the tree in the midst and center of the garden was simplier - the tree of life. This tree represented God living in man. This tree represented God Himself being the divine life uniting with man.

The forbidden tree was no a tree of gambling. It was not a tree of fornication or a tree of idol worship. It was not what we would usually expect as forbidden behavior. It seemed good. It was of the knowledge of good and evil.

It was in fact a tree which caused man to become united with Satan. It was a tree that caused man to become independent. The tree of life would bring the created man into union with the life of God.

I say this because Ephesians says that the fallen man was alienated from the life of God. He was not just estranged from knowing God. He was estranged and alienated from the very life of God:

" ... Being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them ..." (EPh. 4:18)

Adam and his wife, after eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were alienated from the tree of life. Man in his fallen state is therefore alienated "from the life of God".

He does have the knowledge of good and evil. And he is very proud of that knowledge. But he has become infested with the evil spirit who is independent from God. Man has the knowledge of good. But man cannot have the full power to do the good that he knows. See Romans chapter 7.

Man has the knowledge of evil too. But in many cases he cannot resist to do that which he detests. Again see Romans chapter 7. The answer to this delimma in Scripture is to come to Christ as the life of God. He is the life. He is the bread of God's life. He is the water of God's life. He is the way, the truth, and the life of God. He is the resurrection and the life of God. In Him was the life of God. And we can have the life of God in His name.


The tree of life in reality today is Jesus Christ. And through Him we can end our alienation from the life of God (Eph. 4:18). The Christ can be our power and our inward life.

Originally posted by jaywill
Don't misunderstand me. I was not making the argument that God does bad things. I was suggesting that the morality with which some skeptics take to criticize God is derived from the book of God.


But since you mentioned the problem of good and evil - did you notice that in the garden, the forbidden fruit was not on [b]the tree of evil. It was not ...[text shortened]... rom the life of God (Eph. 4:18). The Christ can be our power and our inward life.[/b]

I live in today, not back then...

I don't have any views that God has ever done bad. I commonly get the conception that many people think they are God, where the power they hold enables them to do the things God has been described to do from the Bible. Different time & a different place(circumstances). Life is continually changing and you cannot take bits and pieces from the Bible to continually make a world that you would think is suitable to God.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I believe in Hebrew the phrase is more like "Thou Shalt Not Murder" - not Kill.

So do the deaths of thousands and thousands of people at the hands of the Inquisition (including the Spanish Inquisition) and the deaths of thousands and thousands in the Crusades (pick any of the 8) qualify as murder or as killing?

Definition of murder:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

That pretty much defining every death that occured during the Crusades and the Inquisitions.

However, if you go back to the Aramaic translations, it translates to KILL not MURDER.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
You say that the Bible was written at different times and in different places for different audiances. I agree 100%. This does not change the FACT that when push comes to shove, the Bible is fallen back on as "The Word of God." In said Bible, the "Word of God" is never to be questioned. It is written as it is meant. Thou Shalt not kill means dont kill... ...[text shortened]... ssentially what you are doing anyway...you are just sticking a well known label on it.

Yes, Christians refer top the bible as the "word of God". However, as I have explained such words were written in a completely different language, in a different socio-cultural setting, and the opnly way to discern what this "word of God" might be is by rigorous scholarly research. I hardly see what you mean by "pick and choose". All one does in interpreting is try to ascertain what the scripture originally meant. Whether or not you observesand or applies that interpretation varies among Christians. I suppose this is really the crux of your critique?

I suppose you are also presenting a very rudimentary understanding of the inquisitions?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, Christians refer top the bible as the "word of God". However, as I have explained such words were written in a completely different language, in a different socio-cultural setting, and the opnly way to discern what this "word of God" might be is by rigorous scholarly research. I hardly see what you mean by "pick and choose". All one does in interpretin ...[text shortened]...

I suppose you are also presenting a very rudimentary understanding of the inquisitions?

First - Basically, what has been explain is this. The Bible was written by many different people and many different times for many different people in many different circumstances and has been translated and translated and translated again.
Is that correct?

Second - I am not presenting a rudimentary UNDERSTANDING of the Inquisition, but a rudimentary EXPLANATION of them. I am very familiar with them and what occured during them and where they occured. It does not matter how you color it. They were Christian atrocities. The Spanish Inquisition being the most vile and detestable of them. They were all killing and murder in the name of religion.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
First - Basically, what has been explain is this. The Bible was written by many different people and many different times for many different people in many different circumstances and has been translated and translated and translated again.
Is that correct?

Second - I am not presenting a rudimentary UNDERSTANDING of the Inquisition, but a rudimentary ...[text shortened]... the most vile and detestable of them. They were all killing and murder in the name of religion.

First - Basically, what has been explain is this. The Bible was written by many different people and many different times for many different people in many different circumstances and has been translated and translated and translated again.
Is that correct?

Yes...but I think you are misleading when you say, it has been "translated and translated and translated again". This implies that all we have are translation - which is not true; We have access to some early manuscripts of the books (which indeed have been translated into English). I'm also not sure what you mean by "the bible has been written many times for many different people". Yes, individual books in the bible have been written at different times, and for different audiences, and some alterations have occured - but I would disagree that the bible has been re-written if that is what you are insinuating.

Second - I am not presenting a rudimentary UNDERSTANDING of the Inquisition, but a rudimentary EXPLANATION of them. I am very familiar with them and what occured during them and where they occured. It does not matter how you color it. They were Christian atrocities. The Spanish Inquisition being the most vile and detestable of them. They were all killing and murder in the name of religion.

I think you should carefully delineate between different Christian denominations. As far as I understand the Pope Sixtus the fourth protested against the severity of the tribunals being conducted, and that the inquisitors held office at the pleasure of the Spanish crown. While certainly the Spanish crown was "Christian", I would hesitate to say that they represented Christianity.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
Christians pick and chose that which the will hold dear and "The Word of God" because it is written in the Bible and yet throw away other things because it offends their modern sensibilities.

I am specifically directing my question at Christians. They are the ones that do it.

I will assume you are directing your questions to false teachers and those who have been fooled into doing all these things. Let me remind you: every nut with a Bible who claims to be “Christian” obviously isn’t. We were warned early on in Christianity to be aware that false teachers would sneak into the church…wolves in sheep clothing they were called. So unless you are, in addition to being committed to Christ, also a serious Bible student, you run a risk of being fooled. Many preachers will weave in and out of Scripture so fast, taking things out of context, and linking them together with other Scriptures taken out of context, you can’t keep up with them, but it sure sounds good. They end up teaching things the Bible never said. Others claiming Christianity will flat out tell you the Bible is not to be believed. Everybody with a title in the church is not to be believed just because they are “Reverend”, “Pastor”, “Minister”, or whatever. The Apostle Paul commended his hearers for actually searching the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was true. Something many church members don’t do today…they just assume if a preacher said it, it must be true.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
No one is answering the question. The main thing I am asking is not Creationism to ID theory...it is how can you pick and choose what to follow and what not to? The Creationism was just used to point out the fact that is it done by millions of Chirstians around the world.

The question remains....

How can you pick and choose what to follow?

The Creationism was just used to point out the fact that is it done by millions of Chirstians around the world.

And millions (if not billion(s)) don't.

How can you pick and choose what to follow?

We don't. But not every fruit that is picked has to be eaten the same way.

Originally posted by amannion
That's pretty disingenuous and you know it.
ID is a position put forward by Creationists - all of whom are Christian - ergo ID is a Christian creation.
But even if you disassociate the Christianity, to claim it as a valid biological position is idiotic.

ID fails even the simplest requirement of a scientific model/theory, which is to have your work peer ecause someoen says it is - full stop.
That's not science and don't claim otherwise.

There is not one ID paper that has appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Let's repeat that becaues it bears noting: not one single ID paper has ever appeared in any peer reviewed scientific journal!

Really? You're absolutely sure about this? I'd suggest researching the matter before being so emphatically sure about your "facts"...

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.

Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302

Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.

Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Perhaps all your other claims should also be up for "peer-review". Happy hunting.

Originally posted by rwingett
Does anything in the bible have any definite meaning, or is it ALL open to interpretation?

Well, being open to interpretation is hardly a unique quality of the Bible.

You should see how people try to interpret Tori Amos songs.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]There is not one ID paper that has appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Let's repeat that becaues it bears noting: not one single ID paper has ever appeared in any peer reviewed scientific journal!

Really? You're absolutely sure about this? I'd suggest researching the matter before being so emphatically sure about your "facts"...

nce

Perhaps all your other claims should also be up for "peer-review". Happy hunting.[/b]

When it comes to the Discovery Institute one should certainly check their sources. Simply searching their site for "peer-reviewed" and copying and pasting their responses to the question is unfortunately not satisfactory (mainly because DI is dishonest).

I'm just now beginning my review, but I've already discovered simply by checking amazon.com that Darwinism, Design, & Public Education is not a journal at all but rather a book for the public.

So the first three are not examples of publications in peer-reviewed journals. I will now examine the other three. Halitose, this should be a warning to you about casually C&Ping from creationist and ID sources. It's okay to begin there, but you should double check for yourself before posting it.

Edit: It looks like talkorigins has already responded to these articles. Their assessment is consistent with what I have been finding out in my own research up to this point so I'll put it in.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html