Page 6 of 10

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:58 am
by Feud
JL_COG wrote:Not one of those perversions of the Bible either but God's preserved Word.


I'm opening a can of worms with this question, but since it's been slow on the forums lately I'll ask it anyway. What constitutes a perversion, and who has been given the authority to make such a determination?

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:23 am
by Pox
Feud wrote:
JL_COG wrote:Not one of those perversions of the Bible either but God's preserved Word.


I'm opening a can of worms with this question, but since it's been slow on the forums lately I'll ask it anyway. What constitutes a perversion, and who has been given the authority to make such a determination?


Well clearly the bible says to believe god and god says the bible is absolute truth, so everything's recursive and comforting. Therefore, the bible is the bible, and not the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, even though the latter makes more sense.

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:43 am
by wwarnick
JL_COG wrote:atheists don't really exist but rather try to hide from acknowledging God probably to avoid facing the obvious next conclusion which is dealing with their sin.

I disagree. Maybe some turn athiest because of that, but that is not every athiest.

wwarnick

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:21 am
by Rkiver
Pox wrote:
Feud wrote:
JL_COG wrote:Not one of those perversions of the Bible either but God's preserved Word.


I'm opening a can of worms with this question, but since it's been slow on the forums lately I'll ask it anyway. What constitutes a perversion, and who has been given the authority to make such a determination?


Well clearly the bible says to believe god and god says the bible is absolute truth, so everything's recursive and comforting. Therefore, the bible is the bible, and not the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, even though the latter makes more sense.


Considering the bible is contradictory in lots of places, how can it be truth?

Also one word question. Dinosaurs? (Yeah I know Bill Hicks did it before, but the point stands).

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:51 am
by KingAl
JL_COG wrote:...


Damn, you've got me. I'll just go back to kicking puppies, now, shall I?

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:24 pm
by shinygerbil
wwarnick wrote:
JL_COG wrote:atheists don't really exist but rather try to hide from acknowledging God probably to avoid facing the obvious next conclusion which is dealing with their sin.

I disagree. Maybe some turn athiest because of that, but that is not every athiest.

wwarnick


I don't think anyone "turns atheist", as that would surely imply that people are religious from birth. Those who find that they have never believed in God will surely have no trouble disbelieving the idea of Hell, and as such, their problem is automatically solved.

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:31 pm
by Xocrates
Consider this:

There exists large chunks of evidence for stuff contradicting the bible (namely against the earth being created in seven days and evolution), God in his kindness and wisdom would have to intentionally induce us in error (maybe to test us, maybe for his personal amusent) in order for those things to be wrong.

So, if God has intentionally mislead us there (even if he did so with good intentions) who's to say he didn't do the same in the bible? What if the bible was trully "written" by god, but is intentionally flawed?

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:58 pm
by Feud
Pox wrote:Well clearly the bible says to believe god and god says the bible is absolute truth, so everything's recursive and comforting. Therefore, the bible is the bible, and not the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, even though the latter makes more sense.


That wasn't quite what I meant. I believe in the Bible, but having had many discussions with people of other Christian denominations I have found that there is the reoccurring idea that if people would just read the Bible how it was written and not put one's own interpretations into it then everyone would join group X (even though group Y and Z say the same thing).

The point I was trying to make was to pose the question of "who has the authority to declare something to be Biblically correct", and not "is the Bible just screwed up to begin with". If someone is going to declare one Bible interpretation to be correct and another false then if that declaration is to have any validity then it must derive from an authority greater then man and be given/received in a manner beyond what normal study can deliver, otherwise everyone could have authority and the world would be chaos.

Xocrates wrote:Consider this:

There exists large chunks of evidence for stuff contradicting the bible (namely against the earth being created in seven days and evolution), God in his kindness and wisdom would have to intentionally induce us in error (maybe to test us, maybe for his personal amusent) in order for those things to be wrong.

So, if God has intentionally mislead us there (even if he did so with good intentions) who's to say he didn't do the same in the bible? What if the bible was trully "written" by god, but is intentionally flawed?


None of what you have sited are contradictory to what the Bible teaches. While the Bible does say seven days many scholars think it is more properly translated to mean seven periods, and that calling such days is just for the purpose of grouping the creation periods into easier to understand classes based upon the activities in such. While some may believe it was created in seven days as we know them, it could just as easily mean 100 million years.

As for evolution if the theory is true then it would fit in nicely with the above mentioned discussion of days. If the theory is false then we have a case of modern science getting it wrong, and one can't very well blame God for that (don't forget that Phrenology and Alchemy were once considered good science but later work found them to be in error).

It is unfair for us, with a less then perfect understanding of science to pass blame upon a text which has suffered from several thousand years of translations and transcriptions. I don't believe that God would purposely lead someone into error, and I feel that misunderstandings between science and religion are just that, misunderstandings. Just as people with varying levels of understanding of English would understand the Bible very differently where they to read it independently, so I think that as our understanding of science and scripture grows that we will see that the two have much more in common then our present understanding allows.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I think a good example of that is Henry Eyring, who was one of the most important chemists of the 20th century. I would argue that he likely knew more about science then anyone on this forum but was able to reconcile what he knew with what he believed. As he once said, "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men."

shinygerbil wrote:
I don't think anyone "turns atheist", as that would surely imply that people are religious from birth. Those who find that they have never believed in God will surely have no trouble disbelieving the idea of Hell, and as such, their problem is automatically solved.


Well, by saying that no one "turns" atheist that implies that everyone is atheist to begin with. While not all atheists may "turn" that way there are those who once were religious who then lose their faith. Such may be described as "turning atheist" just as an atheist who becomes religious may be described as "turning to God".

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:41 pm
by shinygerbil
Feud wrote:
shinygerbil wrote:I don't think anyone "turns atheist", as that would surely imply that people are religious from birth. Those who find that they have never believed in God will surely have no trouble disbelieving the idea of Hell, and as such, their problem is automatically solved.


Well, by saying that no one "turns" atheist that implies that everyone is atheist to begin with. While not all atheists may "turn" that way there are those who once were religious who then lose their faith. Such may be described as "turning atheist" just as an atheist who becomes religious may be described as "turning to God".


Everyone is atheist to begin with. Nobody is born with implicit knowledge of God. People may read the Bible as they grow up, or have Christianity (or any other religion) built into their lives by their parents, but they have then chosen to "become religious". Nobody is religious from birth.

That said, I amend my statement to 'I don't think everyone "turns atheist"...' as there are clearly those who do. However, they were not religious from birth. Maybe not truly atheist, but not theist either. :)

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:25 pm
by wwarnick
Feud wrote:I believe in the Bible, but having had many discussions with people of other Christian denominations I have found that there is the reoccurring idea that if people would just read the Bible how it was written and not put one's own interpretations into it then everyone would join group X (even though group Y and Z say the same thing).

The point I was trying to make was to pose the question of "who has the authority to declare something to be Biblically correct", and not "is the Bible just screwed up to begin with". If someone is going to declare one Bible interpretation to be correct and another false then if that declaration is to have any validity then it must derive from an authority greater then man and be given/received in a manner beyond what normal study can deliver, otherwise everyone could have authority and the world would be chaos.

Yes, Feud! Yes!
Feud wrote:Well, by saying that no one "turns" atheist that implies that everyone is atheist to begin with. While not all atheists may "turn" that way there are those who once were religious who then lose their faith. Such may be described as "turning atheist" just as an atheist who becomes religious may be described as "turning to God".

That's what I meant. Thank you.

wwarnick

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:31 pm
by Xocrates
Feud wrote:*Lot's of nice points*


That is all very well, however my point was directed mostly to folk that do take the bible literally (which you apparently don't). I apologize, I should have pointed that out. Your argument is fine, although it seems more like you're trying to place a square peg on a round hole by justyfing that the peg is in fact round instead of getting a square peg (that's not meant to mean it is wrong, simply that I don't like the way it is obtained).

By the way, alchemy and phrenology never worked to begin with (although a lot of alchemy was chemistry that did work). Evolution has been, for pretty much the extent of the word, proven. The reason why it is "only a theory" is because the fine details on how it happens aren't fully understood yet (and probably never will).

Re: Observation

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:01 pm
by KingAl
Feud wrote:The point I was trying to make was to pose the question of "who has the authority to declare something to be Biblically correct"


The Pope, duh ;)

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:36 pm
by wwarnick
If Catholicism is the same religion Christ himself established, then yes.

wwarnick

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:47 pm
by KingAl
(To shamelessly rip of xander)

Code: Select all

O>= <--- The joke

 O
-|- <-- You
/ \

Re: Observation

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:38 am
by coolsi
Rkiver wrote:Considering the bible is contradictory in lots of places, how can it be truth?

Also one word question. Dinosaurs? (Yeah I know Bill Hicks did it before, but the point stands).


Not so fast: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/103 ... .asp&wpp=a