Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[Bleed S & G]

Futhermore, I'm not sure how you see a contradiction between the OT and NT. For example, the difference between an "eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" are not contradictory as they address different concerns. The first deals with carrying out justice in a community. Specifically, it is saying that if someone commits an offense as outlined in Torah, then the community has the responsibility of carrying out a punishment of equal standing. However, the rabbis at the time of Jesus had taken this saying beyond its original meaning and were using it as a justification to take personal revenge on others who wrong you. This is what Jesus was teaching against, he was not changing or altering Torah. We must always remember that Jesus had a Jewish perspective of the Law and he would not contradict anything in it--after all, he would be contradicting himself if he did.

I agree.. and i was wrong.. i was also wrong in saying God dosen't demand perfection in an earlier post so whoever that was to i stand corrected. I didn't mean to say Christ contradicted the law, just the general themes of the torah v. NT were contradictory. But they are not "contradictory" but are very diffrent from one another in a polar opposite sort of way.. i hope im making some sense, it's hard to put it into words.. and hopefully im not digging this hole any deeper

I look at the OT and see a God who is vengeful at some points (He is loving, but He destorys and kills alot in the OT), where as the biggest 'violent act' (and its not even a violent one) Christ commited was flipping the stands in the temple.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

God made the world and man perfect. we sinned. A fair judge cannot pardon law breakers. Overlooking it would have made Him unjust as well.

This is one of the things you said that I really agree with. A very good answer to why the Father couldn't just wipe everyone's slate clean without payment.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This takes a somewhat broader view of what is going on among the Israelites and especially the tabernacle area, but essentially His holy presence was in the camp. Unrighteousness (acts and people) cannot be allowed to exist in his holy presence, hense the destruction.

On the other hand, in the instances you name, God's holy presence is not there and righteousness continues unabated at that moment. (This does not mean God does not know it is occurring, nor does it mean divine punishment will not occur at some point in time--though I suppose to God the punishment might be immediate since time has no meaning to God). The prophets tell us that God does not look upon evil, as in the case of Hitler et al., therefore since His holy presence was not among these individuals, there was no immediate act of destruction from our perspective.

Well I gave you another reason other than OT v. NT, Law v. Grace (which by the way, I believe is an incorrect teaching of the Bible--has much more to do with Luther's theology than the writings of the apostles).

What do you think of my explanation?

Yes, I missed your explaination until just now...

I suppose the fairest way to say it is that I'm troubled by your explaination. First, it seems to me that the solution that God was present in the whole whoring situation, and presumably "looking upon the evil" that that represented, undercuts the contention that God didn't bother himself with the Nazis. Likewise, the suggestion is - and maybe it's fully intended - that God has abandoned us since he cared enough to hang around the tabernacle when whoring around was the big deal, but hasn't seemed particularly interested in Nazis or Terrorists for that matter. Can't one assume his failure to address these "evils" is A) and indication that these activities meet with his approval or B) he doesn't care about this stuff - meaning: it is meaningless from his perspective of reality. (which of course, would lead one to the conclusion that the OT stories of God's physical intervention are written for effect to teach a different rule... which would be in line with my understanding of what the Bible is)

 

[Bleed S & G]

Yes, I missed your explaination until just now...

I suppose the fairest way to say it is that I'm troubled by your explaination. First, it seems to me that the solution that God was present in the whole whoring situation, and presumably "looking upon the evil" that that represented, undercuts the contention that God didn't bother himself with the Nazis. Likewise, the suggestion is - and maybe it's fully intended - that God has abandoned us since he cared enough to hang around the tabernacle when whoring around was the big deal, but hasn't seemed particularly interested in Nazis or Terrorists for that matter. Can't one assume his failure to address these "evils" is A) and indication that these activities meet with his approval or B) he doesn't care about this stuff - meaning: it is meaningless from his perspective of reality. (which of course, would lead one to the conclusion that the OT stories of God's physical intervention are written for effect to teach a different rule... which would be in line with my understanding of what the Bible is)

Agree.. i think actual fear of the Lord is a very important thing that most christians lack. At least christians i was surrounded with.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Bleed S&G, you shoulda stuck to your guns my friend.

God made the world and man perfect. we sinned.

God made man perfect, and yet we sinned? I don't understand how that is possible. Unless... 1 - sin isn't displeasing to God or 2- Man wasn't perfect afterall.

A perfect creation cannot act in a manner which is inconsistent with perfection. Assuming that committing Sin is "bad" and that a "perfect creation" would not commit bad acts, a perfect creation would be incapable of sinning. You posit man sins... Thus, Sinning is either not "bad" because perfect man having done so assumes that committing sin was part of what is required to be perfect, or God did NOT create man perfect.

Of course, I don't see any reason why God would have to be compelled to create a perfect thing. This goes to the heart of my contention against people who argue that God must not exists because the world isn't perfect. A lot of people observe that "Who are you to judge what God deems perfect." And I think that debate gets us nowhere. So, I look at it like this.... Ability to do, does not require that which we are able be done. This is why I say God is ABLE to do evil, that does not require that he DO evil. I am ABLE to jump off of a 30 story building, but my ability does not demand the concluision that I must therefore engage in that act.

God does not have to create perfect man to still be a "perfect God" so far as I'm concerned. Nor does God have to create a perfect world, a perfect universe or a perfect anything else. Indeed, in as much as I believe in M-Theory and Chaos Theory as better indicators of how the Universe is put together (including in the term "universe" other universes entirely (which M-Theory predicts)) God's perfection isn't analyzed in observation of one small part of the creation, say this universe, but instead in the WHOLE of it.. which would be every possible universe (which M-Theory, to my knowledge, accepts and predicts). That is to say, "Perfection" does not require "Good" and ONLY Good exist. Pefection requires that EVERYTHING exists (If it requires anything) Good and Bad.... Of course, anyone familair with my arguments on this topic knows I don't recognize "good" and "evil" as actual things (from a "God perspective" if you will... that is I appeciate that I persoanlly categorize things as "good" or "bad" relative to whatever judgement I make about situations).

I dont know... maybe I'm just fucked in the head, but arguing about how requiring a perfect God to act perfectly misses the point. And tortured explainations about how God acts perfectly even in the face of "evidence of imperfection" is foolish. I've never been satisfied with the "Well, who are you to judge what God deems "perfect"" in the face of evils such as war, or child rape, or whatever "evil" you want to accept. I'm likewise unwilling to accept that people - if created perfectly - are going to sin.

As I wrote that it occured to me, I suppose I must accept that - as I reasoned about God - that having been created perfectly does not require that I act perfectly.... and therefore even having been created perfect, I could still sin. So, my indication above that only A or B could result is not the only possible conclusions. However, it also occurs to me that my larger perspective on this issue (which is the rest of this crap I've been talking about) would still contend that there's no harm in God not creating Man perfect, in fact, that the "perfection" of man is Man's existence in multiple universes, and not his existence in this one alone. So, it seems to me, God did indeed create man perfect... but whatever occurs on this plane of reality is NOT the whole story, and therefore, the view from inside this plane is NOT perfection.... again, "Pefection" requires all... "good" and "bad"

Finally, in the larger sense, It doesn't really matter... it's a chicken and egg question. If I'm correct about multiple universes, God has "behaved" perfectly anyway.
I digress.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

For my curiositie's sake - do you have link that can describe M-Theory. I'm just not familiar with it at all.
Edit: you went through all that to change your mind about being possibly created perfect and still being able to sin?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

For my curiositie's sake - do you have link that can describe M-Theory. I'm just not familiar with it at all.
Edit: you went through all that to change your mind about being possibly created perfect and still being able to sin?

Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory and Here are a couple of places to start on what M-Theory is. I got my knowledge of it from "Space night" on the Science Channel (Tuesdays from 8 - 11pm (then repeting until 1 or 2 am)

I don't think I went through all that just to change my mind and I guess I don't know that I even changed my mind... but assuming I did, yeah, that's pretty much how I think things through. And, I'm not done concerning myself with the quesiton, so I'll probably change my mind again, or at least refine my theory as time goes by. Unlike what I think a lot of people do, I try very hard to be A) consistent in my holdings and B) willing to keep an open mind to things which I have to assimilate from reality and how that influences my theory of life the universe and everything. (Which, incidentally, is why the notion of making up wild theories about how there could be 60 million year old dino bones is so absurd. Reality is exactly as we find it, regardless of how someone interperates some book. I find it's more rewarding to accept reality and work it in to my theory of everything, than it is to make up bizarre theories that don't seem to comply with reality)

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Well I'm glad that we can agree that people claiming bones were 60 million years old without having witnessed it is absurd.

Edit: Link I'm somewhat concerned that about what you just said and how that jibes with a theory that

lacks empirical evidence.

 

[Bleed S & G]

God made man perfect, and yet we sinned? I don't understand how that is possible.

Free will. We were created perfect, hung out in paradise until we could tell the diffrence between right & wrong. At that point, we no longer were perfect, and were banished from eden.

From the Book of the Great Invisible Light:
The first emanation of the Godhead to descend to the mortal plane was the Parents, Father and Mother. These became the Aadamah who commenced the race of mortals. They descended from realms of Light to create a home in the paradise of Eden. They forgot their origins as they ate food, which the garden freely produced for them, but still they were surrounded by Divine Light. They breathed Light; they consumed it with their food; they moved through it like fish dwelling in water. They knew nothing but Light, for all they saw, all they felt, all they smelled, all they heard, all they tasted was Light. Although they had descended from their Origin, although they had forgotten who they were and whence they came, still they were Light; they dwelled in Light; they knew and experienced only Light. They were dwelling continually in gnosis; they experienced nothing but gnosis; yet gnosis was closed to them. They did not know that in which they dwelled; they did not understand what they experienced.

These were the Aadamah, the Source of everything that exists on the physical plane. All things on the physical plane center in them. They are the eye at the center of this creation, the hub around which it revolves. Everything came through them; everything came to them, for without them and apart from them nothing was produced on this physical plane. They were the Divine Parents, but they descended to the physical plane to open the Way of Salvation for their children. They sacrificed their divinity, their knowledge, their fullness of Light to establish a covenant through which their children could be saved and exalted, for no covenant can be established except through sacrifice. They reverted to a state of childlike ignorance so that their children could mature in gnosis.

All these things were accomplished by the power of the word. Through the word, the physical plane came into existence as order came out of chaos. Through the word, the Parents descended to the physical plane to become aadamah. Through the word, the Aadamah became mortal.

...
Eve looked at Adam and saw a group of young boys. "Grow up!" said Eve. "Will you be children forever? It’s time to start making your own decisions. When the Parents put us in this garden, we were not separated into male and female. Now they will drive us from the garden for eating this fruit. If you do not join us in eating the fruit, you will remain in the garden, but you will never be whole again, for you will be irreversibly separated from your feminine side. Without us, you will never find your way back to wholeness."

Adam listened carefully. They felt the voice of Truth in what Eve said. "We will partake of the fruit," said Adam, "not because we choose to violate the instructions of the Parents, but because we feel Truth speaking in what you say, and we desire to become whole even more than we desire to remain in this garden." Then Adam partook of the fruit also.

This is how the Aadamah lost their paradise in Eden. This is how they became mortal, descending to the mortal plane to commence the race of mankind. This is how the illusion of separateness entered the mortal plane, where it has reigned over the minds of mortals ever since. This was the beginning of Adam and Eve’s pursuit of gnosis and sophia.

 

[CookyPuss]

Free will. We were created perfect, hung out in paradise until we could tell the diffrence between right & wrong. At that point, we no longer were perfect, and were banished from eden.

Where in Genesis does it say that humans were made perfect? It says God deemed creation to be "very good." I'm not sure where this idea of perfection comes from. The idea of "original sin" was largely developed by St. Augustine. The Genesis story can also be viewed more along the lines of a parable of the human condition. Not that all are guilty due to the sin of Adam and Eve, but all are like Adam and Eve and eventually succomb to temptation. That's why Paul says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and not that God created humans perfect and Adam and Eve screwed it up by sinning. Another way to look at the Genesis account is that we were created ignorant. Adam and Eve's actions in eating the fruit brought about knowledge. It is what seperates us from the other animals. That knowledge comes with consequences: death, pain, suffering etc. But it also comes with joy and love.

 

[Brewtus]

Well I'm glad that we can agree that people claiming bones were 60 million years old without having witnessed it is absurd.

If this statement were a valid challenge to evolution (which it is not), it would equally invalidate Creationism and Christianity since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present and using science we can analyze that evidence.

And I'll ask you: How do you know that the events in the Bible are true? Is it because the Bible tells you they are true (sounds like circular reasoning to me), or do you have many independent sources that confirm those events?

 

[Bleed S & G]

Where in Genesis does it say that humans were made perfect? It says God deemed creation to be "very good." I'm not sure where this idea of perfection comes from. The idea of "original sin" was largely developed by St. Augustine. The Genesis story can also be viewed more along the lines of a parable of the human condition. Not that all are guilty due to the sin of Adam and Eve, but all are like Adam and Eve and eventually succomb to temptation. That's why Paul says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and not that God created humans perfect and Adam and Eve screwed it up by sinning. Another way to look at the Genesis account is that we were created ignorant. Adam and Eve's actions in eating the fruit brought about knowledge. It is what seperates us from the other animals. That knowledge comes with consequences: death, pain, suffering etc. But it also comes with joy and love.

It never says those words..

In the beginning man was immortal. He was not subject to death. It was only after eating the forbidden fruit that man became mortal.

Did you read anything after that in my post or any posts before this? Ignorance is bliss, and knowledge between right & wrong is what leads to sin. So we can agree there.

Orginal sin is fun a topic of discussion.. is there such a thing? What about an aborted baby? Or a baby that dies before 'baptism'? Im not familiar with how Augstine came up with the concept, i don't think it matters if we are born with sin or not, always found Christs connection with kids interesting.. the innocence.

The genisis story is a parable. well maybe not a 'parable' but its made, once again, for the masses. there are also 2 creation stories in there. meaning its obvious it's not literally how we came into exsitence.. check out the book of invisible light. or at least read what i posted to get an idea.

Paul said what was true, unclear of the point you're trying to make? Every man does sin.. thats what i took from it. Like in Isiah where it's said our rightenouss is like a filthy rag.. even our good acts are shit. Sin is in thought as well.

Knowlegde does not come with love and hope, thats what our pursuit here in this world is for.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

If this statement were a valid challenge to evolution (which it is not), it would equally invalidate Creationism and Christianity since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present and using science we can analyze that evidence.

And I'll ask you: How do you know that the events in the Bible are true? Is it because the Bible tells you they are true (sounds like circular reasoning to me), or do you have many independent sources that confirm those events?

The difference in believing the what the Bible says happened and what your saying is the same difference between not witnessing 60 million year old dinosaur bones and knowing that William Shakespeare, Christopher Columbus, Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Muhammed, the Magna Carta, Louis XIV existed or happened. There were other people around to see them and we have written record. Everyone agrees there were no people around 60 million years ago. My post actually said nothing about evolution just about the 60 million years. For a formula to work in any science doesn't that formula have to be verified not using the formula. Radiometric dating is the only "science" where this seems to be perfectly acceptable while when we date rocks that came out of the Mt St Helen's eruption (that would be well under a million years ago) we get dates of about 2 million years ago. The only way radiometric dating is verified is by using the same method to date what's around it. That is not science.

I find the Bible to be true because I find the sources credible. We could rehash that if you would like. Not only that but archaeological digs never dispute accounts in the Bible only affirm. (That doesn't mean everything is found, just what they do find affirms not disputes).

 

[Bleed S & G]

And I'll ask you: How do you know that the events in the Bible are true? Is it because the Bible tells you they are true (sounds like circular reasoning to me), or do you have many independent sources that confirm those events?

The OT is not a history book. Wheter or not God parted the red sea (just one tiny example) is not important to me and dosen't interfer with my belifs.

However, Christ actually walked this earth. A man named Jesus Christ walked this planet, historically, and did worked many wonders. He was hung on the cross. The rest is faith, but historically that much is true. Did he rise? Was he the Son of God? Why is He still remembered today, 2,000 years later, if he were just another man?

 

[BayBuck]

A perfect creation cannot act in a manner which is inconsistent with perfection.

This opening sentence is where your essay goes astray. Perfection in this context is the state of sinlessness, and man was indeed created in such a perfect state. Free will gives man the ability to depart from that state, and though man may have been sinless he was also weak, and you know the rest...