posted
The Bible is silent when it comes to what to teach in school. The entire school system isn't mentioned.... LOL. It does say for parents to train their children however.
I believe in creation but I'm not a Creationist. Creationism does tend to ignore scientific findings. These findings don't contradict the Bible but they do contradict Creationism's interpretation.
Consider the age of the Earth. The Bible states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Then a few verses later the creation account begins with Day 1. Reading this straight through you see that the Earth, the big ball of rock and cooling magma was in existence BEFORE the start of Day 1. How long before? The Bible doesn't say.
In regards the creative days - No indication is given how long each creative day was. It definitely was much longer than a 24 hour period. The Bible lists each creative day as a separate epoch of Creation. Then about the third or fourth day it mentions the creation of Day and Night. So now the Bible is using the word "Day" to indicate an even smaller portion of time in comparison to the creative "Day." Then at the end of the creation account the Bible refers to the entire span of time as one "Day."
So, how long was it? Was it 6 days or 1 day? Other passages in the Bible indicate that from God's standpoint 1 Day is comparable to several thousands of years from man's point of view.
We can see that the term "Day" can mean more than just a 24-hour period. We even use the term in everyday speech. "Back in my day..." or "Back in the day..." doesn't refer to just one day but some period of time in our past that was months or even years in length.
Yes, you can twist the Bible so that it appears to support whatever idea you want. However, if you twist part of anything to fit what you want, the rest of the object will be out of whack. The Bible is the same way. Twist one part to fit this or that and something else doesn't fit. The Bible does not contradict itself so any apparent contradiction may be the result of twisting or misapplication.
So, if one part of the Bible doesn't fit with another, it's time to go back and look at your original assumption or doctrine. Is it in harmony with the Bible or is it a tradition of man? Was the Bible using literal phrasing, poetry, symbolism, metaphor, illustration or what?
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
The point of science backing up the bible is a notable one. A lot of the thumpers I have know were all too pleased when a city mentioned in the bible was possibly found, but very dismissive of any fact that may have caused doubt with their young earth theory.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: In regards the creative days - No indication is given how long each creative day was. It definitely was much longer than a 24 hour period.
One of my favorite lines from Oh, God!:
"Well...what about the Earth? Did you really create everything in 7 days?" "Well, you have to remember that one of my days isn't exactly the same as one of yours." "What do you mean?" "When I woke up this morning, Sigmund Freud was still in medical school."
And then of course, there's the idea put forth in Robert Heinlein's Job: A Comedy Of Justice, where the fervently religious protagonist is told that the earth is indeed 4.4 billion years old...AND 4004 years old, that it was "deliberately created old."
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
"Of the hundreds of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, all of them were fulfilled by Jesus. I've read this in connection to the accusation that Jesus was a con-artist who read the prophecies and then arranged events so that he'd fulfill them. It simply doesn't work. There are many prophecies that were beyond his control that he couldn't influence yet did fulfill."
They may have been out of his control, but they weren't out of the control of the people who wrote the gospels. He didn't fulfill the prophecies because he knew them ahead of time. He fulfilled the prophecies because, after he died, other people said he'd fulfilled the prophecies.
"The Bible does not contradict itself so any apparent contradiction may be the result of twisting or misapplication. "So, if one part of the Bible doesn't fit with another, it's time to go back and look at your original assumption or doctrine. Is it in harmony with the Bible or is it a tradition of man? Was the Bible using literal phrasing, poetry, symbolism, metaphor, illustration or what?"
Are you joking? You warn against "twisting" the words of the bible, but then, if someone finds a contradiction, you say "oh, just assume this bit here is a metaphor ; yay, it all works out now!"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I remember being taught darwinism in 8th grade bio. One of the kids refused to listen and respectfully asked to leave the room when we talked about it. Maybe the kid would have felt differently if the teacher had been alowed to touch on creationism, other than mentioning that it existed. She said that it was against school policies to talk about religion in any other class than history, or culture classes, and even then, they couldn't delve too deep into personal beliefs, only the facts of the religion.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, if Jesus was a con artist, he was a pretty dumb one. Usually con artists are out to get something. All Jesus got was a rigged trial, a massage with a cat o' nine tails, and slow death in the sun. Messianic prophecy indicated that the Messiah would be despised, tortured and killed. So either Jesus was the Messiah written about, or he at least believed that he was.
Another thing people often don't realize about the Bible is that it's quite limited in its focus as regards "universalness". After "God created the heavens and the Earth", the focus of the Bible is on the Earth. Even the creative days are described from the point of view of someone on the Earth's surface. And the rest of the books all focus on the outworking of God's plans for the Earth and humanity. As Fox Mulder said, it doesn't really go into any "side projects".
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Are you joking? You warn against "twisting" the words of the bible, but then, if someone finds a contradiction, you say "oh, just assume this bit here is a metaphor ; yay, it all works out now!"
Some Christians are of the mind that the Bible effectively fell from the lips of God and that it is flawless. Others, the Mormons in particular, believe that the Bible was subject to numerous translations and, occasionally, deliberate manipulation, omissions, and inclusions (see the Song of Solomon for an example of the latter). We know that the actual compilation of the current Bible occurred years after the individual books were written. And there are a number of books that early Christians seem to have used (e.g., the Book of Enoch) that were declared heretical years later.
Mormons believe that the Bible indeed contains many important truths (the most important being that Jesus is the Son of God and the only source of salvation) but that many details and doctrines have been muddled. Needless to say, this has not gained the Mormons many friends in mainstream Christianity, particularly among the evangelical Christians.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I don't know if I was entirely clear about what I was saying earlier. Someone mentioned "it's unfortunate that people have been turned off Christianity by violence" or something along those lines. When I said "my problem with Christianity is" I didn't mean "ONLY Christianity has this problem" but rather "Christianity has this problem." In my view every religion has that problem, at least among the laity. For example, there's a passage attributed the Buddha that basically boils down to "never believe you're right and everything else is wrong - just have a conviction that you're right and be open minded." I don't *know* any lay Buddhists so I can't make any arguments, but I would imagine most lay Buddhists would probably not follow that statement, because it's human nature, it seems, to believe your religion is correct. But that causes more problems than it solves. You can go on about "agreeing to disagree" (which is indeed what I promote) but someone who really believes everyone else is wrong won't ever agree to disagree in their heart. It's divisive. It makes you think of Us and Them instead of humanity as a whole species and family together in the same boat.
Also, while I really don't make it a point to argue against other people's beliefs, I don't think it's accurate to say the Bible never contradicts itself. Here is at least one, which I noticed when I was a kid being raised a protestant:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11) "For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9) "God is love." (1 John 4:16)
So...which is he, ferocious and destructive, or merciful and forgiving? I mean, the Old Testament God and the New Testament God (without trying to sound too Gnostic here) sort of seem a bit different in personality.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Never ever use quote when directly replying to the post above yours. Was it here that I was told that? LOL
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Also, while I really don't make it a point to argue against other people's beliefs, I don't think it's accurate to say the Bible never contradicts itself. Here is at least one, which I noticed when I was a kid being raised a protestant:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11) "For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9) "God is love." (1 John 4:16)
So...which is he, ferocious and destructive, or merciful and forgiving? I mean, the Old Testament God and the New Testament God (without trying to sound too Gnostic here) sort of seem a bit different in personality.
Actually, the do harmonize. People just tend to ignore the vindictive and destructive portions of the New Testament.
God's judgments and wrath have always been tempered by his love and mercy. Yes, there have been times when peoples and nations have been destroyed, such as the siting you made above (I think those are from two separate scriptures, btw). For example he sent Jonah to warn the people of Ninevah of their impending destruction. The Ninevites repented and God spared them.
God's wrath has always been proceeded by a warning and people have been given ample opportunity to make amends.
In the case of the Amalakites you mentioned, they were, in effect, relatives of the Israelites. Both nations were descendants of Abraham. As a result they should have had brotherly affection for the Israelites. Instead they were the first nation to launch an unprovoked attack against God's people. Because of their continued hostility, God called them to account and instructed Israel to strike them down.
It was either that or watch the Amalkites wipe out the nation of Israel.
The same thought is carried throughout the New Testament.
quote:2 Thess 1:6-10 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
2 Peter 3:9,10 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Romans 12:19 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[a]says the Lord.
Pretty much all of Revelation
Sounds harsh, doesn't it? How can a God of Love do these things? Well, don't we humans have similar laws? Which is more loving - to allow someone free reign to abuse, molest and mistreat other individuals or to remove the offending individual after they refuse to change their ways? God's love for his children, all of humanity, moves him to remove the wicked ones instead of allowing them to wipe out the good.
quote:Are you joking? You warn against "twisting" the words of the bible, but then, if someone finds a contradiction, you say "oh, just assume this bit here is a metaphor ; yay, it all works out now!"
No, I'm saying that if you find a contradiction, ask someone and get the answer. Then check if that answer is in harmony with the rest of the Bible.
Twisting the Scriptures to fit our own ideas can result in lasting harm. Two things can help us to understand the Bible correctly. First, consider the context (surrounding verses) of any statement. Next, compare texts with other statements in the Bible that deal with the same subject. In that way we are letting God�s own Word guide our thinking, and the interpretation is not ours but his.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Zefram: I'd have to go look this up to get my dates and references just right, but as to the timeline of the compilation of the books: The Hebrew Scriptures were mostly compliled by Ezra (according to Jewish tradition) after the resettlement in Judah. Only a couple of the books hadn't been written yet. The canon of Christian scriptures seems to have been closed shortly after the first century. We see all kinds of quotes from various letters and writings popping up in the second century.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I don't know if I was entirely clear about what I was saying earlier. Someone mentioned "it's unfortunate that people have been turned off Christianity by violence" or something along those lines. When I said "my problem with Christianity is" I didn't mean "ONLY Christianity has this problem" but rather "Christianity has this problem."
Oh, I understood what you were saying, I just happened to use Christianity as an example of a revealed religion since I'm even less qualified to speak for other religions. Islam and Judaism would also fall into the same category as Christianity since all these religions believe that God has spoken to their prophets or leaders and given them direct commandments and guidance. Such religions, by definition, cannot have the attitude that all beliefs are equally correct. Either God talked to them and gave them specific instructions or he didn't. If they believe that God has told them that something is right or something is wrong, they can't very well say that any contrary belief is equally valid; that would be contrary to God's command.
Now a religion like Buddhism (which I admittedly know very little about) seeks truth through meditation and personal searching; it doesn't claim to have directly received divine truths and thus has no reason to dogmatically cling to any particular set of beliefs.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Zefram: Oh, I understood what you were saying, I just happened to use Christianity as an example of a revealed religion since I'm even less qualified to speak for other religions.
Much more qualified, however, to talk about Warp theory and first contact with Vulcans.
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
About Buddhism, it really depends what you mean by "divine revelation" and which school you belong to. The more mystical schools borrow a lot from Hindu cosmology, for example, and Tibetan Buddhism took the Tibetan pantheon of gods into itself. In one Buddhist tradition, there have been 28 Buddhas, including Gautama, and there will be yet one more, Matreiya(sp?). The Buddhas lived in a different samsaric realm before being born into this one. So, stretching "divine" a bit, you could argue some Buddhist school as 'revealed religions.' It's just that part of what was revealed was never to believe something was unequivocally correct.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
"Twisting the Scriptures to fit our own ideas can result in lasting harm."
Does that include twisting them to fit the idea that they don't contradict themselves?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump:
In regards the creative days - No indication is given how long each creative day was. It definitely was much longer than a 24 hour period. The Bible lists each creative day as a separate epoch of Creation. Then about the third or fourth day it mentions the creation of Day and Night. So now the Bible is using the word "Day" to indicate an even smaller portion of time in comparison to the creative "Day." Then at the end of the creation account the Bible refers to the entire span of time as one "Day."
So, how long was it? Was it 6 days or 1 day? Other passages in the Bible indicate that from God's standpoint 1 Day is comparable to several thousands of years from man's point of view.
We can see that the term "Day" can mean more than just a 24-hour period. We even use the term in everyday speech. "Back in my day..." or "Back in the day..." doesn't refer to just one day but some period of time in our past that was months or even years in length.
This was one of the points I posted about earlier. Given the theory that time slows as you near the event horizon of a black hole, how much more so would time have been affected by the original ball containing the total mass of the universe? If a single black hole can alter time, then it follows that time itself would come to a halt around the OB. When the "Big Bang" happened all that mass was still in close proximity as it began to expand. The total mass of entire galaxies would still be in relatively small areas for light years away from the epicenter of the blast. As these galaxies began to spin out solar systems, they would still have incredible mass far beyond a black hole that would have temporal effects. "Normal" time as we know it would not have existed until the masses of galaxies and their solar systems had sufficient separation to cross the threshold or "event horizon" of the temporal effects caused by the local mass. It just seems to me that current theory just does not account for this particular variable. Our galaxy could have been a hundred trillion billion lightyears from the point of the OB before its mass began to separate into the different solar systems. So how much "time" actually passed?
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
