NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.

well I suppose we are all made of star dust. in a way.

The literal word of the bible is incompatible with the physical reality of the universe. Thus few Christians believe in it literally. Much of the bible no longer provides a satisfactory explanation for people's surroundings.

It is really only in the US that there is a significant Christian community which still believes the literal word of the bible where scientific inquiry has overturned it.

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.
Because it is not necessary to take the Bible literally.

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.

Well, first, I'm certain we can assume you didn't read it in the original language and know little about the culture at the time it was written. I find it interesting that when discussing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn every teacher finds it important to tell you about the culture of the time and about the differences in language and for some reason, nearly no one does this with the Bible. Seems like the very basis of understanding the Bible well.... moving on.

Imagine the days of Genesis were visions. And each vision took a day and showed a different origin. This explains why the several version of Genesis are not in the same order. It explains why say the evolution from a one-celled organism to a man might look like being molded out of clay or dust (depend on what version you read). It explains why the stories don't match the evidence. It explains why the order doesn't make sense in some ways, like the existence of days before there was an earth or the existence of light before the sun and the stars or the existence of time before the existence of the universe. Certainly anyone viewing this would simply use the best way they could to describe what they were seeing but there were no real words for. Now these things might have clear at the time, but over time they've become less so because of the difficulty of translating a dead language and changes in language and culture.

As far as other stories, I think some stories of the Bible are clearly not meant to be historical but rather are composed to teach us about ourselves and our relationships with each other, the earth and God. Do I believe there was a 40-day flood? Nope. Do I believe a man lived inside a whale? Nope. These were meant to teach us. Taken in context and with a little bit of period knowledge it fits very well with the style of teaching of the times and the means of story-telling in the language.

Also, don't forget that for one and a half millennia before the advent of movable type, the bible was copied out by hand by generations of monks, and told and re-told orally alongside the legends of numerous cultures with their own storytelling traditions and metaphors, while being translated through several languages.

Whether it was the Word of God or not, it sure as hell isn't any more.

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.

Because some Christians see the Bible, especially much of the old testement, as allegory, not literal fact.

Because some Christians see the Bible, especially much of the old testement, as allegory, not literal fact.

Sad, but true :(. I even overheard our director of English talking about planning a "Biblical allegory" class of sorts for some year or something, and most of my friends seem to be under the impression that the Bible is filled with all sorts of contradictions and that you "can't take all that stuff literally", so I can at least personally affirm that many people who claim to be Christians do indeed take a "Weeeell, it's only as literal as I want it to be" sort of route, I say claimed Christians, because quite frankly, many of them don't act like Christians at all, but that's a whole other story.

Sad, but true :(.

How is that sad, it has been the Catholic line for a long time?

I even overheard our director of English talking about planning a "Biblical allegory" class of sorts for some year or something,

Good on him.

and most of my friends seem to be under the impression that the Bible is filled with all sorts of contradictions and that you "can't take all that stuff literally",

Well. You can't. It would be foolish to believe otherwise.

Re: copying of the Bible.

What we call the Old Testament was the holy scriptures for the Hebrews, and they faithfully copied it down to the jot and tittle. If when copying, they made a mistake, they had to throw away the whole scroll and begin again. So the copies were pretty perfect.

Re: Evolution vs Genesis.

They are incompatible. Fortunately, the more science progresses, the more we learn how evolutionary theory does not explain how things got to be the way they are. When over 500 legitimate scientists are willing to sign a public document expressing their doubts about Darwinian evolution, there is definitely reason to doubt. Perhaps scientists will come up with a better theory someday.

In the meantime, those of us who believe that the Bible is the Word of God will continue to believe that someday science will catch up with us.

Re: Genesis being ahistorical.

If Genesis is not historical, you can throw out the rest of the Bible. The origin of man as given in the Bible is the reason for the advent of the messiah. No Genesis=no need for redemption=no need for messiah. The Bible is the story of God's creation and redemption of that creation. That is what it is all about.
AKA the story of how God deals with free will.

Re: reading the Bible for the purpose of disputing the contents.

For those who do not believe in God, reading the Bible to nitpick will not get you anywhere, because, being the Word of God, it first must lead you to God. Once you believe, then you can have all these nitpicky arguments. But the first and most important thing is for you to believe. Once you believe, you end up having all these nitpicky disagreements, which is how we end up with many different denominations, all Christian, all united in the basics, but differing in expression and other unimportant things...

Re: Evolution vs Genesis.

They are incompatible. Fortunately, the more science progresses, the more we learn how evolutionary theory does not explain how things got to be the way they are. When over 500 legitimate scientists are willing to sign a public document expressing their doubts about Darwinian evolution, there is definitely reason to doubt. Perhaps scientists will come up with a better theory someday.

If 500 scientists are against "Darwinian" evolution, then are around 100 years too late.

Genesis and evolution are only incompatible if you take Genesis literally. Not all Christians do, the largest Christian sect doesn't, for example.

Re: Genesis being ahistorical.

If Genesis is not historical, you can throw out the rest of the Bible. The origin of man as given in the Bible is the reason for the advent of the messiah. No Genesis=no need for redemption=no need for messiah. The Bible is the story of God's creation and redemption of that creation. That is what it is all about.
AKA the story of how God deals with free will.

I think you need to read about allegories.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allegory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

Genesis and evolution are only incompatible if you take Genesis literally. Not all Christians do, the largest Christian sect doesn't, for example.
Here here. I've never had any trouble believing evolution as a Christian.

When over 500 legitimate scientists are willing to sign a public document expressing their doubts about Darwinian evolution, there is definitely reason to doubt.
Well, if you can't trust an orthodontist's opinion on the theory of evolution, who can you trust?

snip

If you take the bible as absolute literal truth, evolution and the bible are incompatible.

However, christian churchs such as the Catholic Church believe that some parts of the Bible aren't necessarily literally true, but instead are useful because they contain moral truths and truths about the relationship between God and man.
If you don't believe that Genesis is literal truth (or was even trying to be literal truth), then there's no incompatiblity.
Thus, the Catholic Church hasn't spoken against it.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II called the Theory of Evolution "more than a hypothesis". Which is his way of saying that it is a viable scientific theory. The fact that he did not speak against it shows that he believes that it is "ok" for Catholics to believe in.
He also declared that science and Catholicism could not clash because "truth cannot contradict truth".

Re: Evolution vs Genesis.

They are incompatible. Fortunately, the more science progresses, the more we learn how evolutionary theory does not explain how things got to be the way they are. When over 500 legitimate scientists are willing to sign a public document expressing their doubts about Darwinian evolution, there is definitely reason to doubt. Perhaps scientists will come up with a better theory someday.

In the meantime, those of us who believe that the Bible is the Word of God will continue to believe that someday science will catch up with us

The Discovery Institute question was worded to look like it said "I don't believe in Evolution" to the lay-man, but to people who actually do more than glance mean it's possible that it's incorrect. Most of the scientists that signed were Computer Sciences and other fields that have nothing to do with Evolution. And "Project Steve" (http://www.natcenscied.org/article.asp?category=18) has over 700 scientists named Steve, of which nearly 2/3 are Biologists, who agree to the following:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.


“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” is what the DI had the people agree to. Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.

As a scientist by trade and a practising Catholic I have no difficulty. Genesis is people thousands of years ago trying to explain the world around them. God does not work by pulling magical tricks, leaving the answer written down for someone to find. There is an inspiried tradition leading us to God, but there was no magical crib sheet with the answers. Much devotion to the bible is from the reformation, when the Protestant Church split (quite rightly) and needed to point to an authority other than the Pope. This was done rather crudely in the case of Fundementalism, which ironically only seems to be interested in the superficial.

Secondly, there is a danger in seeing evolution as animals specialising and improving. From my own point of view, I find it easier to see the environment moulding what survives. There are not bad genes, something you clearly recognise by your quotation marks, the environment selects some then others. This is why species regularly appear and disappear.

My Priest sent out a sermon relating to this, but in particular about Noah's ark. If you are genuinely interested, I attach it at the end of this post.


"I don’t know how many of you are into modern art but I expect you all
know that the one thing you cannot do with such art is ask “What is it a
picture of?” Actually it’s true of all great art. Its meaning is more
than what you see on the surface. And great art uses all sorts of
symbols and subtle expressions to convey far more than a mere picture!
But sadly when we come to words, unless it is poetry, we 21st Century
people tend to be stuck with the idea that words can only have one
meaning. We fail to realise that words can be just as expressive as
pictures.

The people who wrote the Bible knew this, and today’s 1st Reading
(Genesis 9:8-15) when we hear of Noah and his ark and the rainbow is a
great example. If we ask “Did it really happen like that?” we miss the
point of the story altogether. But even if we are a bit more clued up
and know that things in the story like the ark and the flood and the
rainbow are symbolic, we can still miss a lot of the meaning because we
tend to think that such symbols only have one meaning. The truth is that the words and ideas these people use are far more complex for with
them they are trying to convey some of the mysteries of God.

In the same way we should think of the Mass, indeed the whole Christian
faith as a complex artwork with multiple meanings. Words.. images…
actions.. all are there to convey the mystery, and because the mystery
is God and us, there is an awful lot of mystery to think about.

Water is a good example today because it appears in our first two
readings, and in the 2nd (1 Peter 3:18-22) we actually hear a common
English word – type - used in a very unusual way. “Water is a type of
the baptism which saves you.” The point is that the water of the flood
is not just a symbol of baptism, it actually was a kind of baptism. God
worked to save Noah and his family through the flood just as he works to
save us through baptism.

This means that when we are baptised, and when we take holy water as we
enter a church, we are not simply receiving a sign of new life. New life
may be the most obvious symbol for water, but we only need to remember
the Tsunami a year ago, as well as Noah’s flood, to recognise that water
is also a symbol of death. We Catholics too often take the Holy Water
and make the sign of the cross with it on our foreheads without thinking
of the enormous significance of what we are doing. And then water is
also a symbol of birth – the waters of the womb, and of dramatic change
through danger – crossing the Sea or fording a swiftly flowing river.

Death and all these other powerful experiences are a part of life that
we cannot avoid. The world may spend its time trying to avoid such
things, but we Christians do the opposite. So we actually mark ourselves
and our churches with signs of death both at the door with the Holy
Water, and at the the font in Baptism, and then, even more obviously,
in the midst of the church for all to see, in the great image of Jesus
hanging and dying on the cross. And then we take two other great symbols
of life – bread and wine – and link them to that death as Jesus told us
to – so that in a strange way we eat, we receive within us, the death of
Jesus. We then proclaim that this facing up to and passing through
death with Jesus, is the way, to life, and not just life as it’s lived
now, but to eternal life – life with and in the force that underlies and
sustains the Universe.

But there is one more image to consider today, the image of the
wilderness, from our Gospel, (Mark 1;12-15) Here is another of these
“types”. For the wilderness is both the place of despair and death –
something most of us will experience at one time or another – and also
the place of new beginnings, new life. So when Jesus goes into the
wilderness he is already beginning the process of entering into death
and sin and despair which will come to its climax with his death on the
cross. God in Jesus enters into the darkest experiences of our human
life, and says, “I am there.. I am with you.. Do not be afraid.” As St
Peter says, “Christ himself, innocent though he was, died once for sins…
to lead us to God.”

And all we need to say is “Yes Lord.. Amen. I will walk with you in
the wilderness. I will face the flood, I will take up my cross. I will
follow you. Because whatever all this means only your presence can make
any sense of so much tragedy and suffering and death in our world.” "

If you don't believe that Genesis is literal truth (or was even trying to be literal truth), then there's no incompatiblity.
Thus, the Catholic Church hasn't spoken against it.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II called the Theory of Evolution "more than a hypothesis". Which is his way of saying that it is a viable scientific theory. The fact that he did not speak against it shows that he believes that it is "ok" for Catholics to believe in.
He also declared that science and Catholicism could not clash because "truth cannot contradict truth".

Quite, indeed the present Pope has spoken out against creationism/intellegent design.

I am glad too. It promotes the idea of a chess player God, like the ones in '70s films based around Greek legends, Jason and the Argonauts and all that.

When over 500 legitimate scientists are willing to sign a public document expressing their doubts about Darwinian evolution, there is definitely reason to doubt. Perhaps scientists will come up with a better theory someday.

:rolleyes:

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was responded to by having over 600 legitimate scientists sign it, but the catch is that all of these scientists were named "stephen" or "stephanie", so there are more scientists in the world named stephen or stephanie than there are scientists who doubt darwinian evolution. :D

Besides, I have no problem with the Bible or religion in particular. In order to be compatible with evolution and religion, one could say that god created the beginning of organisms with evolution and natural selection already in place.

Re: copying of the Bible.

What we call the Old Testament was the holy scriptures for the Hebrews, and they faithfully copied it down to the jot and tittle. If when copying, they made a mistake, they had to throw away the whole scroll and begin again. So the copies were pretty perfect.

Re: Evolution vs Genesis.

They are incompatible. Fortunately, the more science progresses, the more we learn how evolutionary theory does not explain how things got to be the way they are. When over 500 legitimate scientists are willing to sign a public document expressing their doubts about Darwinian evolution, there is definitely reason to doubt. Perhaps scientists will come up with a better theory someday.

In the meantime, those of us who believe that the Bible is the Word of God will continue to believe that someday science will catch up with us.

Re: Genesis being ahistorical.

If Genesis is not historical, you can throw out the rest of the Bible. The origin of man as given in the Bible is the reason for the advent of the messiah. No Genesis=no need for redemption=no need for messiah. The Bible is the story of God's creation and redemption of that creation. That is what it is all about.
AKA the story of how God deals with free will.

Re: reading the Bible for the purpose of disputing the contents.

For those who do not believe in God, reading the Bible to nitpick will not get you anywhere, because, being the Word of God, it first must lead you to God. Once you believe, then you can have all these nitpicky arguments. But the first and most important thing is for you to believe. Once you believe, you end up having all these nitpicky disagreements, which is how we end up with many different denominations, all Christian, all united in the basics, but differing in expression and other unimportant things...

I love the pride of this post. If they don't believe exactly what you believe they might as well throw out the Bible, huh? Speaking of lessons of the Bible doesn't one of those stories teach about the issue of pride. What happened to the proud one in the Bible?

Quite, indeed the present Pope has spoken out against creationism/intellegent design.

I believe the earliest to Pope to take a stand regarding evolution was Pius XII

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Humani Generis 36).

So, Catholics are allowed to believe that the physical body of Homo Sapiens was a result of evolution, but have to maintain that the soul was created by God.

Well, if you can't trust an orthodontist's opinion on the theory of evolution, who can you trust?

How about the opinion of Giuseppe Sermonti, retired Professor of Genetics at the University of Perugia, who discovered genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicilium and Streptomyces and is Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest still-published biology journals in the world, and was Vice President at the XIV International Congress of Genetics (Moscow 1980)?

I just got through reading his book Why is a Fly not a Horse? subtitled "Dimenticare Darwin"/"Forget Darwin", whose prologue is named "Evolution is Dead."

Not an American, not a Christian Fundamentalist. Just a world-class scientist.
Guess since he goes against the orthodoxy, he must be the equivalent of an orthodontist?

I love the pride of this post. If they don't believe exactly what you believe they might as well throw out the Bible, huh? Speaking of lessons of the Bible doesn't one of those stories teach about the issue of pride. What happened to the proud one in the Bible?

Pride?

Just stating the facts as I see them.

If you won't allow the premises into the discussion, then why have the discussion?

If there was no "first Adam", why call Christ the "last Adam?"

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.

I think it all has to do with the fact that the Bible is intended to be taken metaphorically. Someone who takes it literally, like so many dumbnut Christians do, can't believe in evolution as well without being hypocritical. But when has being hypocritical EVER stopped ANYONE who believes in a religion? ;)

he must be the equivalent of an orthodontist?

Judging by some of the reviews I have read about the book, he may as well be.

Sorry if this has been said before, but here I go.

As a Catholic, I was taught (and am being taught, at a Catholic school) that evolution is a perfectly possible theory. The creation story in Genesis usually isn't to be taken literally, it is just to show symbolism of God's power. Each "Day" may have been 10 billion years, because, after all, he is God... It is entirely possible that we have evolved from apes or whatever else (I don't know a whole lot about evolution, sorry), but at one point God made us different from every other species by giving us a soul. God may have evolved us to a form that he thought was pleasing, over millions of years, and then decided to make us whole. This is the way I was taught it last year in religion class, and that is how I look at it. This isn't to say that evolution 'stopped' after God gave us a soul, it is just that God gave us something that evolution could not. That said, evolution is still entirely possible, and if you believe in it, good for you, because understanding life and how it began is the greatest question mankind has ever asked.

Judging by some of the reviews I have read about the book, he may as well be.

And as long as we're doing Appeal to Authority, Stephen Hawking supports evolution. But I guess according to Ruolah, he's the one who's the equivalent of an orthodontist.

EDIT: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

He's lectured on the origin of life before.

And as long as we're doing Appeal to Authority, Stephen Hawking supports evolution. But I guess according to Ruolah, he's the one who's the equivalent of an orthodontist.

EDIT: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

He's lectured on the origin of life before.

Actually, I was just responding to the Appeal to Authority which is always used to support evolution, and the automatic denigration of anyone, no matter how well qualified, who disputes the current paradigm.

I believe that on the subject of evolution, we are overdue for a major paradigm shift...

Actually, I was just responding to the Appeal to Authority which is always used to support evolution,

I thought you were the one to use appeal to authority. :confused:

Supporting an idea becuase it has large amounts of evidence for it and no evidence against isn't appeal to authority, Ruloah.

To Christians who believe in evolution: If you do not believe in Creation, then what do you accept as evidence of God's existence?

To Christians who believe in evolution: If you do not believe in Creation, then what do you accept as evidence of God's existence?

I thought the whole thing about believing in God was one had to have faith.

Quite, indeed the present Pope has spoken out against creationism/intellegent design.

I am glad too. It promotes the idea of a chess player God, like the ones in '70s films based around Greek legends, Jason and the Argonauts and all that.

Well, I haven't heard if the pope has spoken out against creatitionism or ID. However, I know the vatican astronomer spoke out against teaching ID as science. Likewise, maybe a month or two ago, there was an article in the vatican newspaper that spoke out against taking ID as a science. So one might say that these things portray the Vaticans general inclinations toward ID and creationism, especially about how they feel about teaching them as science, as opposed to teaching about them in religion classes.

That said, I don't believe the pope or vatican have never said that it was bad to believe in creationism or ID. Afterall, their job consists of teaching about faith and morals (the church has learned its lesson about making snap decisions about scientific theories). One of, perhaps the only, stipulation that the vatican has given to catholics about believing in evolution is that they have to believe that God's creating humans was no accident and that humans are special among God's creations.

On a different note, I've talked to one guy before (he was a protestant) who believed in creationism (the earth being only a few thousand years old and so on) saying that God purposely put evidence of evolution, such as fossils, on the earth. Now, I have no idea why God would do that, though, "technically" it can't be disproven. Heck, maybe the earth is only one second old, and God created us all with memories of a whole lifetime that didn't happen. Heh.

But personally, I dislike ID. It, and its main parts, like "irreducible complexity" just don't come anywhere close to being good science, from what I've seen. As far as I can tell, evolution makes sense, has good evidence to back it up, and seems to give a sensical history of life on the world.

On a different note, I've talked to one guy before (he was a protestant) who believed in creationism (the earth being only a few thousand years old and so on) saying that God purposely put evidence of evolution, such as fossils, on the earth. Now, I have no idea why God would do that, though, "technically" it can't be disproven. Heck, maybe the earth is only one second old, and God created us all with memories of a whole lifetime that didn't happen. Heh.


I think a Bill Hicks quote is fitting.

Does it worry anyone, the idea that God is fucking with out heads

To Christians who believe in evolution: If you do not believe in Creation, then what do you accept as evidence of God's existence?
The world around me and all of the observations of science. The more one looks at nature and the more science looks at nature the more organization is found and the less randomness is found. Organization is the sign of intelligence. Randomness is a sign of luck, unguided, without cause, a roll of the dice (which really isn't random). Seeing a pattern and organization to the development of life is far more of a sign of Intelligent Design, than a random plopping of animals here and there could ever hope to be. I believe God gives us information that we can understand. Can you understand a billion or even a million years? I doubt if many paleo-scientists can either. That's why they always explain things in terms of a year or day or week. Something a human mind can understand. If a paleo-scientist uses this crutch to get his mind around his observations, why wouldn't God realize the limits or the human mind and do the same thing?

The world around me and all of the observations of science. The more one looks at nature and the more science looks at nature the more organization is found and the less randomness is found. Organization is the sign of intelligence. Randomness is a sign of luck, unguided, without cause, a roll of the dice (which really isn't random). Seeing a pattern and organization to the development of life is far more of a sign of Intelligent Design, than a random plopping of animals here and there could ever hope to be. I believe God gives us information that we can understand. Can you understand a billion or even a million years? I doubt if many paleo-scientists can either. That's why they always explain things in terms of a year or day or week. Something a human mind can understand. If a paleo-scientist uses this crutch to get his mind around his observations, why wouldn't God realize the limits or the human mind and do the same thing?

Why must there be intelligence for order?

Why must there be intelligence for order?
Order is the basic way that science determines if something was created by humans (intelligence) or nature (somewhat less orderly until you look closer). How does an archaeologist determine if a pile of rocks is a pile of rocks or a wall? Is it ordered? How would you determine if a scrap picked up along the road is natural or manmade (intelligence)? Does it show order beyond nature?

The more science looks the more orderly the universe. To the point were there is really no such thing as randomness. Without order there would be no "laws" of science or nature. If there were just randomness (everything just unmindfully thrown into the universe), light would be different in different places, chemistry would work different in different places, physics would work different in different places, gravity would work different in different places...........

Re: copying of the Bible.

What we call the Old Testament was the holy scriptures for the Hebrews, and they faithfully copied it down to the jot and tittle. If when copying, they made a mistake, they had to throw away the whole scroll and begin again. So the copies were pretty perfect.

And, with most of it, before it was scripture, it was passed on by word-of-mouth and storytelling for centuries.

Re: Evolution vs Genesis.

They are incompatible. Fortunately, the more science progresses, the more we learn how evolutionary theory does not explain how things got to be the way they are. When over 500 legitimate scientists are willing to sign a public document expressing their doubts about Darwinian evolution, there is definitely reason to doubt. Perhaps scientists will come up with a better theory someday.

How many of those "legitimate scientists" were actually biologists?

Re: Genesis being ahistorical.

If Genesis is not historical, you can throw out the rest of the Bible. The origin of man as given in the Bible is the reason for the advent of the messiah. No Genesis=no need for redemption=no need for messiah. The Bible is the story of God's creation and redemption of that creation. That is what it is all about.
AKA the story of how God deals with free will.

I love how little faith people have. This could basically be paraphrased as, "If my particular interpretation is not correct, then all hope is lost and I will lose faith."

First of all, there are two origins of humanity laid out in Genesis - which do you believe? Based on what you said here, I'm assuming you're all about the Yahwist story, including Adam and Eve. Of course, Adam and Eve could be allegory for humanity realizing its own responsibilities and that its actions have consequences that must be dealt with - becoming aware of sin. Not to mention that you obviously hold to Augustine's idea of redemption incredibly strongly - so much so that you can't see a need for it if Augustine wasn't right.

To Christians who believe in evolution: If you do not believe in Creation, then what do you accept as evidence of God's existence?

One can believe in creation and feel that the evidence for evolution supports the fact that it happened. One simply cannot believe in either of the literal creation stories in Genesis (or pretty much any other religion's creation stories) and still support evolutionary theory.

Pride?

Just stating the facts as I see them.

If you won't allow the premises into the discussion, then why have the discussion?

If there was no "first Adam", why call Christ the "last Adam?"

You determine what people can and cannot get out of the Bible and you don't think that's Pride. Because Adam represents man. If Christ didn't come last why call Christ the "last Adam"? Christ often used analogies, allegories and metaphors. I'm sorry you missed that.

Order is the basic way that science determines if something was created by humans (intelligence) or nature (somewhat less orderly until you look closer). How does an archaeologist determine if a pile of rocks is a pile of rocks or a wall? Is it ordered? How would you determine if a scrap picked up along the road is natural or manmade (intelligence)? Does it show order beyond nature?

The more science looks the more orderly the universe. To the point were there is really no such thing as randomness. Without order there would be no "laws" of science or nature. If there were just randomness (everything just unmindfully thrown into the universe), light would be different in different places, chemistry would work different in different places, physics would work different in different places, gravity would work different in different places...........

But it depends on that order is explained by natural law or not. That's the variation. We don't think it must be man-made when a raindrop hits the ground and makes a circle or a solution reaches equilibrium. You're making a circular argument. You are defining it as unnatural and then using it as proof it's not natural. You're starting with your premise already decided. Your argument isn't convincing in the least and I believe in the involvement of God.

To Christians who believe in evolution: If you do not believe in Creation, then what do you accept as evidence of God's existence?

I know this has been said, but it's unfortunate that put so little stock in faith and a personal relationship with God.

But it depends on that order is explained by natural law or not. That's the variation. We don't think it must be man-made when a raindrop hits the ground and makes a circle or a solution reaches equilibrium. You're making a circular argument. You are defining it as unnatural and then using it as proof it's not natural. You're starting with your premise already decided. Your argument isn't convincing in the least and I believe in the involvement of God.
Actually, the scientific arguement is IF every factor could be found the location of every raindrop could be predicted. The reason this can't be done is that the inputs are so many and so varied. But as science looks at more and more inputs they find more and more order.

Because one must look more closely at nature to see the order there are levels of abstraction as to what is ordered and what isn't. Layers of rock are ordered but at the level of abstraction of an archaeologist, layered rock is not as orderly as a rock wall. The archaeologist would then say that intelligence had not effected the layered rock. But if we look at a different level of abstraction it is obvious that the layered rock was ordered not random.

It is not a circular arguement. It is a comparison between how science determines if something has been subject to intelligence and using that same arguement, factor, in observation of nature. An Astronomer finds order everywhere s/he looks. But it is at a different level of abstraction than the Archaeologist. Show me one scientist that is NOT finding more and more order.

Now, the question becomes--Is there anything in nature that is not ordered? If all of the universe were randomly thrown into whatever existed before, some parts would operate under different "natural laws" than in other areas of the universe. That would be random at the most precise levels of abstraction. We do not see this. Light is light, gravity is gravity, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics......it matters not where Hubble points.

Because one must look more closely at nature to see the order there are levels of abstraction as to what is ordered and what isn't. Layers of rock are ordered but at the level of abstraction of an archaeologist, layered rock is not as orderly as a rock wall. The archaeologist would then say that intelligence had not effected the layered rock. But if we look at a different level of abstraction it is obvious that the layered rock was ordered not random.

How so? I've been in the archaeologist's shoes before, and I could probably look at most any cutaway of a site and see how random factors contributed to the stratigraphy of that site. At what level of abstraction is there an order to flooding, run-off, bedrock, soil types, and the effects of habitation? For that matter, why is there even order in stratigraphy?


Now, the question becomes--Is there anything in nature that is not ordered? If all of the universe were randomly thrown into whatever existed before, some parts would operate under different "natural laws" than in other areas of the universe. That would be random at the most precise levels of abstraction. We do not see this. Light is light, gravity is gravity, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics......it matters not where Hubble points.

Just because we can observe what we already know does not mean there isn't anything else out there. There are areas of the universe that may bend or break fundamental properties of nature, but we simply don't have the means or understanding to observe them.

How so? I've been in the archaeologist's shoes before, and I could probably look at most any cutaway of a site and see how random factors contributed to the stratigraphy of that site. At what level of abstraction is there an order to flooding, run-off, bedrock, soil types, and the effects of habitation? For that matter, why is there even order in stratigraphy?

Exactly


Just because we can observe what we already know does not mean there isn't anything else out there. There are areas of the universe that may bend or break fundamental properties of nature, but we simply don't have the means or understanding to observe them.
We only know what we know, but only one exception would indicate randomness and destroy the arguement. We keep looking but find no exceptions.

Actually, the scientific arguement is IF every factor could be found the location of every raindrop could be predicted. The reason this can't be done is that the inputs are so many and so varied. But as science looks at more and more inputs they find more and more order.

Um, you missed the point. Circles are considered to be order. If you found a rock face with a perfect circle usually you would consider it to be the work of intelligence. Raindrops make circles but the explanation is perfectly natural. Intelligence is only indicated when the 'order' cannot be explained by natural means. When people use the religion of the gaps argument as you do, you are just looking for someone to destroy your gap with new knowledge. Some Christians are upset because the explanation for the development of life from 'simpler' organisms has been found in nature and now they are struggling to defend their gap. So they lie about the theory of evolution rather than realizing the gap was NEVER there.

Because one must look more closely at nature to see the order there are levels of abstraction as to what is ordered and what isn't. Layers of rock are ordered but at the level of abstraction of an archaeologist, layered rock is not as orderly as a rock wall. The archaeologist would then say that intelligence had not effected the layered rock. But if we look at a different level of abstraction it is obvious that the layered rock was ordered not random.

You are assigning order. That's the problem. You assign order and then declare it must be intelligent. Then you use the order you assigned to prove that the intelligence must be there. Every one of your assumptions is circular.

Lots of things are not random that are natural. Your basic premise is flawed. What we describe as random is only because we are missing variables. Could one of those variables be God? Certainly, but there is no reason it has to be so. It only has to be so if you assume it to be so. Now I happen to think God had a hand in creation. However, if natural explanations weren't scientifically available, then faith would not be necessary. Since, faith is the point, God uses entirely natural means to make things happen. Suggesting that natural laws cannot have been the tools by which God created everything demonstrates a lack of faith. And if you think the previous sentence is true, then you have no beef with science because it doesn't exclude God, it simply does not address God.

It is not a circular arguement. It is a comparison between how science determines if something has been subject to intelligence and using that same arguement, factor, in observation of nature. An Astronomer finds order everywhere s/he looks. But it is at a different level of abstraction than the Archaeologist. Show me one scientist that is NOT finding more and more order.

Yes, except the definition of the order you are describing is that it does not have a natural explanation. You are trying to using a more arbitrary definition of order in order to disprove a natural explanation. The basis of your argument is flawed because one must first accept your premise of order. I do not.

Your flaw is that you assume that the only other choice than randomness is intelligent order. That's an unsupported premise. A magnet causes order in metal filings but it does so according to natural laws. Find a single scientist that says that the only explanation for order is intelligence. They will laugh at you. There is no such premise and you keep acting like your premise is a foregone conclusion.

Now, the question becomes--Is there anything in nature that is not ordered? If all of the universe were randomly thrown into whatever existed before, some parts would operate under different "natural laws" than in other areas of the universe. That would be random at the most precise levels of abstraction. We do not see this. Light is light, gravity is gravity, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics......it matters not where Hubble points.
Order is often explained by natural laws. You are using order differently than the way scientist use it to show a responsible intelligence. You intentionally ignore this argument over and over because it tears your argument to shreds. Unless one initially assumes that there is an order that is unexplainable by nature then one cannot use it to argue against natural arguments. It is completely circular.

I'll tell you what, write it like a mathematical proof. Write your assumptions. Write how you draw your conclusion in an order fashion and I'll show how it's circular. Because trust me, everyone else sees it.

Why must there be intelligence for order?
Because the faculty that determines that what is seen is 'organization' is the same faculty that finds order in chaotic pattern ('luck').

Edit: Oops. Forgot to say: it is our imagination.

It is not a circular arguement. It is a comparison between how science determines if something has been subject to intelligence and using that same arguement, factor, in observation of nature.

However, we can only determine whether or not something has been "subject to intelligence" if we assume that there was an intelligence that could have done it. In the case of human beings, we know we exist - so we can posit that an explanation for a weird rock formation or for a chip of pottery is a human being. This is a valid hypothesis because it is falsifiable (we could find evidence either that human beings cannot/could not make the thing we are looking at) and it is based in an assumption we can back up - that humanity exists.

To look for "intelligence" in all of nature, however, requires an assumption that there is an intelligence outside of nature - in the supernatural. This is an unfalsifiable proposition. We could attribute anything and everything to a supernatural intelligence, and can never find evidence to falsify it, as we cannot measure the supernatural. On top of that, it is based in an assumption that cannot be backed up by evidence - that there is a supernatural intelligence in the first place.
Sane Outcasts
Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Outside the Asylum
Posts: 123
Send a message via MSN to Sane Outcasts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Lifes
Because one must look more closely at nature to see the order there are levels of abstraction as to what is ordered and what isn't. Layers of rock are ordered but at the level of abstraction of an archaeologist, layered rock is not as orderly as a rock wall. The archaeologist would then say that intelligence had not effected the layered rock. But if we look at a different level of abstraction it is obvious that the layered rock was ordered not random.

How so? I've been in the archaeologist's shoes before, and I could probably look at most any cutaway of a site and see how random factors contributed to the stratigraphy of that site. At what level of abstraction is there an order to flooding, run-off, bedrock, soil types, and the effects of habitation? For that matter, why is there even order in stratigraphy?

Just because we can observe what we already know does not mean there isn't anything else out there. There are areas of the universe that may bend or break fundamental properties of nature, but we simply don't have the means or understanding to observe them.

For the record, there cannot (at least not under the assumptions inherent in the scientific process) be anywhere in the universe that the "fundamental properties of nature" are broken. The fundamnetal properties of nature run things. Now, we may not know what those are - we may be completely incorrect on what we think they are - which would appear to be a breaking of the rules.

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.

1) Most Christians cherry-pick the bits of the Bible that happen to support the moral and intellectual decisions they have already decided to hold. If a part of the Bible does not resonate with them, they do not follow it or recognize it as "Truth."

2) The Bible contradicts itself so explicitly on the subject of Creation that even if somebody really wanted to follow the Biblical view they would end up having to ignore at least one part of the Bible.

3) Many people who identify as Christian believe that it is not necessary to believe/follow everything written in the Bible to be a good Christian. Belief in Jesus is what "really matters," and as long as you do that much you don't have to necessarily go along with the Bible.

4) A great many people (both Christian and otherwise) have no clue what evolutionary theory actually states.

5) A great many people (both Christian and otherwise) have never actually read the Biblical Creation stories. Some have read them but did not understand the material. Others have only learned these stories second-hand, and the accounts can be garbled or misrepresented.

6) When talking about superstition, good old fashioned cognitive dissonance is never far away. Superstitious individuals routinely must reconcile their supernatural and irrational beliefs with empirical evidence and reality, even when reality runs directly counter to their superstitions. They become accustomed to doublethink strategies that allow them to simultaneously believe in two incompatible ideas.

1) Most Christians cherry-pick the bits of the Bible that happen to support the moral and intellectual decisions they have already decided to hold. If a part of the Bible does not resonate with them, they do not follow it or recognize it as "Truth."
This is total and utter nonsense. It is not a question of 'picking one verse and ignoring another' at all. It is a question of taking the entire Bible in context and understanding overriding themes throughout the whole book. I know many moderate evangelicals, for example, and they do not base their objections to homosexuality on the verses in the Bible, the base it on the theme throughout the Bible of marriage as the only place within which sex should take place. On the other hand, I would base my support of homosexuality on the theme of tolerance and love, not the odd verse here or there.

Taking the Bible in context there is no reason to follow creationalism as absolute truth. The message of the Bible is one of God created the world, that humans are intellegent beings created in God's image, and that God loves us all. He would not, therefore, give us overwhelming evidence for evolution simply to tempt us into not believing in him and go to hell.

It's not 'cherry-picking,' it is bringing faith and reason together rather than acting as if they must be opposed.

Exactly
I wasn't trying to agree with you there, I was asking a question. You claim that that there is order to what I have seen as the product of a random series of natural events. So I want you to show me where the order is, or at least tell me why the strata is ordered.


We only know what we know, but only one exception would indicate randomness and destroy the arguement. We keep looking but find no exceptions.

My point was that we we probably wouldn't recognize an execption until it walked up and bit us in the ass. As some other posters have pointed out, we see order because we assign it, not necessarily because it exists in nature. As you said in the example of rock strata, you claim to see order because you believe that at some level there is order, and so you assign it to the strata. On the other hand, I see no order and thus view strata as the result of random forces of nature, with no inherent order.

This is total and utter nonsense. It is not a question of 'picking one verse and ignoring another' at all. It is a question of taking the entire Bible in context and understanding overriding themes throughout the whole book. I know many moderate evangelicals, for example, and they do not base their objections to homosexuality on the verses in the Bible, the base it on the theme throughout the Bible of marriage as the only place within which sex should take place. On the other hand, I would base my support of homosexuality on the theme of tolerance and love, not the odd verse here or there.

Taking the Bible in context there is no reason to follow creationalism as absolute truth. The message of the Bible is one of God created the world, that humans are intellegent beings created in God's image, and that God loves us all. He would not, therefore, give us overwhelming evidence for evolution simply to tempt us into not believing in him and go to hell.

It's not 'cherry-picking,' it is bringing faith and reason together rather than acting as if they must be opposed.
Probably best for us to agree to disagree and drop this tangent, since I'm somebody who believes that faith exists because reason fails. :)

For the record, there cannot (at least not under the assumptions inherent in the scientific process) be anywhere in the universe that the "fundamental properties of nature" are broken. The fundamental properties of nature run things. Now, we may not know what those are - we may be completely incorrect on what we think they are - which would appear to be a breaking of the rules.

That's what I was trying to say, it was just a problem of communication on my part.

Probably best for us to agree to disagree and drop this tangent, since I'm somebody who believes that faith exists because reason fails. :)
lol, I wasn't referring to why faith exists, I was referring to how one can hold views that don't stick with the Bible word for word. I'm not claiming that reason can 'prove' the existence of God; that is a step of faith, and I see little point getting into arguments with people about that because you either believe it or you don't.

This is total and utter nonsense. It is not a question of 'picking one verse and ignoring another' at all. It is a question of taking the entire Bible in context and understanding overriding themes throughout the whole book. I know many moderate evangelicals, for example, and they do not base their objections to homosexuality on the verses in the Bible, the base it on the theme throughout the Bible of marriage as the only place within which sex should take place. On the other hand, I would base my support of homosexuality on the theme of tolerance and love, not the odd verse here or there.

A theme does not actually exist, but hey, why should one actually read what they're throwing around, right? You kind of made her point for her.

Taking the Bible in context there is no reason to follow creationalism as absolute truth. The message of the Bible is one of God created the world, that humans are intellegent beings created in God's image, and that God loves us all. He would not, therefore, give us overwhelming evidence for evolution simply to tempt us into not believing in him and go to hell.

It's not 'cherry-picking,' it is bringing faith and reason together rather than acting as if they must be opposed.

Again, you're kind of helping her point.

A theme does not actually exist, but hey, why should one actually read what they're throwing around, right? You kind of made her point for her.
I was not trying to contradict the other points; I only highlighted the first one.

There are many themes that run through the Bible and by taking an understanding of these themes along with how we rationally see the world we can try to build a better understanding of God.

I'm afraid I missed the inverted commas around the word 'truth' which is why I wrote what I did; fundamentalists often deny the religious legitimacy of anyone who does not follow the word of the Bible literally.

As you rightly say, our positions are not contradictory. But hey, why should one actually read what they're throwing around, right?

I was not trying to contradict the other points; I only highlighted the first one.

There are many themes that run through the Bible and by taking an understanding of these themes along with how we rationally see the world we can try to build a better understanding of God.

I'm afraid I missed the inverted commas around the word 'truth' which is why I wrote what I did; fundamentalists often deny the religious legitimacy of anyone who does not follow the word of the Bible literally.

As you rightly say, our positions are not contradictory. But hey, why should one actually read what they're throwing around, right?

It must have been when you accused her of 'total and utter nonsense' that I assumed you were disagreeing. Perhaps you actually often agree with total and utter nonsense, but I assumed not. I'm sorry for the assumption. ;)

It must have been when you accused her of 'total and utter nonsense' that I assumed you were disagreeing. Perhaps you actually often agree with total and utter nonsense, but I assumed not. I'm sorry for the assumption. ;)
And I apologise to Bottle for calling it nonsense. It wasn't, I just jumped to conclusions from the first bit.

I was given some good advice once, to 'be extreme' when debating. Only if you do this will people pay attention to you. It doesn't mean that you have to believe the extreme position, just use it to get your case on the agenda. When it works it works welll; the trouble is that when it doesn't and you misread the point, you can look a little harsh in your criticism. Sorry. :(

When talking about superstition, good old fashioned cognitive dissonance is never far away. Superstitious individuals routinely must reconcile their supernatural and irrational beliefs with empirical evidence and reality, even when reality runs directly counter to their superstitions. They become accustomed to doublethink strategies that allow them to simultaneously believe in two incompatible ideas.

I agree fully, Although I point out the issue by just noting that it is bad luck to be superstitious. :)

I wasn't trying to agree with you there, I was asking a question. You claim that that there is order to what I have seen as the product of a random series of natural events. So I want you to show me where the order is, or at least tell me why the strata is ordered.

But in saying what you said you made my arguement for me.

At one layer of abstraction you as an archaeologist pick up a hard piece of something. How do you determine if it was effected by a human? Has it been purified? Has it been shaped? Has it been physically or chemically altered beyond natural science? In other words has it been ordered beyond that of the surrounding earth? This is the comparison of orderliness between human (intelligent) formation and natural formation.

Then there is the second level of abstraction that you pointed out. That between nature and between a universal randomness which would occure if the universe were randomly shot into nothingness. As you said, the earth and rocks were placed around the artifacts in an orderly fashion through the laws of nature. Those laws work every time. If there were even one example where someplace, anyplace, in the entire universe where natural laws would operate differently then we would have to argue that nature was formed in total randomness.

One example of randomness would destroy the arguement. Instead we are given things like "string theory" that says that everything may be exactly the same, only vibrating at different frequencies.

But in saying what you said you made my arguement for me.

At one layer of abstraction you as an archaeologist pick up a hard piece of something. How do you determine if it was effected by a human? Has it been purified? Has it been shaped? Has it been physically or chemically altered beyond natural science? In other words has it been ordered beyond that of the surrounding earth? This is the comparison of orderliness between human (intelligent) formation and natural formation.

Then there is the second level of abstraction that you pointed out. That between nature and between a universal randomness which would occure if the universe were randomly shot into nothingness. As you said, the earth and rocks were placed around the artifacts in an orderly fashion through the laws of nature. Those laws work every time. If there were even one example where someplace, anyplace, in the entire universe where natural laws would operate differently then we would have to argue that nature was formed in total randomness.

One example of randomness would destroy the arguement. Instead we are given things like "string theory" that says that everything may be exactly the same, only vibrating at different frequencies.

I am consistently amused by your position because you keep yourself so close to it that you can't see it's inherent flaw. The funny part is that people have asked you to step back and take a look since you arrived on site and you have yet to do so. When does niavity become willful ignorance?

I am consistently amused by your position because you keep yourself so close to it that you can't see it's inherent flaw. The funny part is that people have asked you to step back and take a look since you arrived on site and you have yet to do so. When does niavity become willful ignorance?
Exactly

One example of randomness would destroy the arguement.

you mean like quantum mechanics?

Exactly

I'm amused by your implication as well. You do realize that I hold God to be responsible for the universe and everything in it. My faith requires me to give God the credit to be able to create the universe with fully natural explanations so that acceptance of God was, is and always will be faith-based. I find people who try to scientifically prove God to have a very limited view of what God can and cannot do.

you mean like quantum mechanics?

Well, to be fair, many hold that not to be random but a problem of not knowing all of the factors.

you mean like quantum mechanics?
While the quantum level operates on different laws, every timethe quantum level follows the same laws. A scientist in Russia or China can duplicate an experiment by a British scientist, even at the quantum level because the rules are not random, just different.

But in saying what you said you made my arguement for me.

At one layer of abstraction you as an archaeologist pick up a hard piece of something. How do you determine if it was effected by a human? Has it been purified? Has it been shaped? Has it been physically or chemically altered beyond natural science? In other words has it been ordered beyond that of the surrounding earth? This is the comparison of orderliness between human (intelligent) formation and natural formation.
What is "natural science" in this context? (Nature doesn't do science, we do.)

Then there is the second level of abstraction that you pointed out. That between nature and between a universal randomness which would occure if the universe were randomly shot into nothingness. As you said, the earth and rocks were placed around the artifacts in an orderly fashion through the laws of nature. Those laws work every time. If there were even one example where someplace, anyplace, in the entire universe where natural laws would operate differently then we would have to argue that nature was formed in total randomness.

One example of randomness would destroy the arguement.
What is "randomness" in this context? Do you mean like a magical event, where something forms out of nothing? Cause and effect is order, hence the universe is ordered. Are you arguing in favour of magic? At what point do we determine if the order is man-made or natural? Simply recognition of what man is capable of.

What is god capable of?

I'm amused by your implication as well. You do realize that I hold God to be responsible for the universe and everything in it. My faith requires me to give God the credit to be able to create the universe with fully natural explanations so that acceptance of God was, is and always will be faith-based.
At what point did I disagree with this? I'm going by the biblical explanation of God. John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos and Logos was with God. and Logos was God. Logos is the word that came into English as Logic. More properly a reasonable arguement as in the words used in Greek debate. In other words God is a reasonable being.


I find people who try to scientifically prove God to have a very limited view of what God can and cannot do.
Exactly where did I limit God? I gave god the credit for the entire universe, everything in it, and every rule that makes it run and exist. What I have heard is God is not in control of a random nature. And yet, not one person can show the one randomness that would disprove the theory even though I have admitted that just one randomness would totally and utterly destroy the theory.

At what point did I disagree with this? I'm going by the biblical explanation of God. John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos and Logos was with God. and Logos was God. Logos is the word that came into English as Logic. In other words God is a reasonable being.


Exactly where did I limit God? I gave god the credit for the entire universe, everything in it, and every rule that makes it run and exist. What I have heard is God is not in control of a random nature. And yet, not one person can show the one randomness that would disprove the theory even though I have admitted that just one randomness would totally and utterly destroy the theory.

Who is arguing that God is not in control of nature. The isue doesn't address it at all. See, God made the laws of nature and they are responsible for what occurs. However, the lack of randomness does not prove God. There is no 'proof' for God. The basic assumption that you hold is flawed. Order does not evidence intelligence.

What is "natural science" in this context? (Nature doesn't do science, we do.)
You came in in the middle. There are levels of abstraction when we look at order. At one level something that has been handled by an intelligence (man) seems to be more ordered than the dirt it's buried in. But at another level of abstraction the dirt is also ordered by nature. But nature isn't random, it follows set laws that work every time.

What is "randomness" in this context? Do you mean like a magical event, where something forms out of nothing? Cause and effect is order, hence the universe is ordered. Are you arguing in favour of magic? At what point do we determine if the order is man-made or natural? Simply recognition of what man is capable of.

The whole point is there is no such thing as "random". Everything, everywhere follows the same laws.

Who is arguing that God is not in control of nature. The isue doesn't address it at all. See, God made the laws of nature and they are responsible for what occurs. However, the lack of randomness does not prove God. There is no 'proof' for God. The basic assumption that you hold is flawed. Order does not evidence intelligence.
How does an achaeologist determine if something is man-made?

How does an achaeologist determine if something is man-made?
Recognition of what man is capable of.

How does an achaeologist determine if something is man-made?

Natural explanations do not account for it. Order has nothing to do with it, particularly order in the way you use the term.

Steel isn't more "ordered" than tin, but it is not naturally-occurring as far as we know so we assume it's source is unnatural. However, our reasoning for assuming this is not because we decided it must be unnatural, but because we know man is capable of creating steel.

You came in in the middle. There are levels of abstraction when we look at order. At one level something that has been handled by an intelligence (man) seems to be more ordered than the dirt it's buried in. But at another level of abstraction the dirt is also ordered by nature. But nature isn't random, it follows set laws that work every time.
My apologies. I have done my best to follow along from where you began two pages back, but a couple things baffle me. Not being an expert on archaeology or anything, it still seems to me that the difference between the artifact that is 'man-made' and the one that is natural is manufacture. Being aware of man is capable of (weaving, pottery, sculpting, metallury), we can label a particular artifact that fits as 'man-made'.

How can we be aware of what god is capable of?

The whole point is there is no such thing as "random". Everything, everywhere follows the same laws.
There is such a thing as randomness when one introduces a subjective viewpoint to the picture. Randomness, the unknown, order --all of these things exist with an agent, who necessarily has a subjective viewpoint. The comparison of "orderliness between human (intelligent) formation and natural formation" only occurs via an agent who recognizes (labels) one thing as "made by not-me" and the other as "made by me". Randomness is in the making of the object thing being unpredictable.

When seeds are blown off a tree by the wind they fall on the ground randomly around the tree. The wind, the gravity, the height of the tree, things in the way, and creatures passing by --all contribute to the placement of the seed on the earth. What is random about it is that we, the intellgent agent/observer, cannot account for all the variables. Even with science, there is always something that cannot be accounted for, because the unknown exists to the agent with the subjective viewpoint.

My apologies. I have done my best to follow along from where you began two pages back, but a couple things baffle me. Not being an expert on archaeology or anything, it still seems to me that the difference between the artifact that is 'man-made' and the one that is natural is manufacture. Being aware of man is capable of (weaving, pottery, sculpting, metallury), we can label a particular artifact that fits as 'man-made'.

How can we be aware of what god is capable of?


There is such a thing as randomness when one introduces a subjective viewpoint to the picture. Randomness, the unknown, order --all of these things exist with an agent, who necessarily has a subjective viewpoint. The comparison of "orderliness between human (intelligent) formation and natural formation" only occurs via an agent who recognizes (labels) one thing as "made by not-me" and the other as "made by me". Randomness is in the making of the object thing being unpredictable.

When seeds are blown off a tree by the wind they fall on the ground randomly around the tree. The wind, the gravity, the height of the tree, things in the way, and creatures passing by --all contribute to the placement of the seed on the earth. What is random about it is that we, the intellgent agent/observer, cannot account for all the variables. Even with science, there is always something that cannot be accounted for, because the unknown exists to the agent with the subjective viewpoint.

More importantly, if we are going to assign this argument where does it end. Nature is to orderd so God created it. But certainly God is more ordered so who created God. It's the same problem that always occur when people try to claim that there is scientific support for God is that you are simply taking the process and dropping it back a step and declaring an endpoint. If one says that nature MUST have a purpose or a DESIGNER because it is too ordered or too complicated or too beautiful or whatever, then one must argue that God is completely random, simplistic, not beautiful, etc. in order to not have to also have a creator. It's flawed reasoning and circular logic.

Natural explanations do not account for it. Order has nothing to do with it, particularly order in the way you use the term.
So it is random or not?

Steel isn't more "ordered" than tin, but it is not naturally-occurring as far as we know so we assume it's source is unnatural. However, our reasoning for assuming this is not because we decided it must be unnatural, but because we know man is capable of creating steel.
Tin is naturally occuring. Iron is naturally occurring. Clay is naturally occuring. What is the difference? Is it purified? Is it formed? Has it been subject to non-naturally occuring chemistry or physics? Has it in some way gained an order that nature would not give it?-----------One level of abstraction, is it ordered beyond nature.


Will steel or tin always melt at a certain point? Will water at the same pressure always boil at the same point? Will the chemistry and physics that makes steel work the same every time? Does gravity work the same every time or do you randomly weigh more some days then others without a change in diet or exercise? Does light work the same on Alpha Seturi (sp?) than on Solar 1?------We both seem to agree that nature is 100% non-random. If nature just came to be what explanation do you have for 100% any where we look? What are the odds of 100% on anything much less the entire universe.-----------Another level of abstraction that you want to say is "just faith".

There are things that are "just faith". Prayer is "just faith". Worship is "just faith". The love of my family and friends is "just faith". I can't find a single reason for any of these. But you deny that which can be proven because you want it to be "just faith". I guess this is the explanation of the beginning of this thread. The Jews didn't want a reason. They wanted "just faith". Since that time, every scientist in the world has had to fight those that didn't want to know. They wanted the sun to come up through "just faith".

My apologies. I have done my best to follow along from where you began two pages back, but a couple things baffle me. Not being an expert on archaeology or anything, it still seems to me that the difference between the artifact that is 'man-made' and the one that is natural is manufacture. Being aware of man is capable of (weaving, pottery, sculpting, metallury), we can label a particular artifact that fits as 'man-made'.

How can we be aware of what god is capable of?


There is such a thing as randomness when one introduces a subjective viewpoint to the picture. Randomness, the unknown, order --all of these things exist with an agent, who necessarily has a subjective viewpoint. The comparison of "orderliness between human (intelligent) formation and natural formation" only occurs via an agent who recognizes (labels) one thing as "made by not-me" and the other as "made by me". Randomness is in the making of the object thing being unpredictable.

When seeds are blown off a tree by the wind they fall on the ground randomly around the tree. The wind, the gravity, the height of the tree, things in the way, and creatures passing by --all contribute to the placement of the seed on the earth. What is random about it is that we, the intellgent agent/observer, cannot account for all the variables. Even with science, there is always something that cannot be accounted for, because the unknown exists to the agent with the subjective viewpoint.
Exactly

So it is random or not?

That's the point. Random and ordered are subjective views held by us, not nature. It does not come into account in the scientific analysis, though you keep claiming otherwise. Order is not how we assign the difference between that which comes from intelligence and that which doesn't.

Tin is naturally occuring. Iron is naturally occurring. Clay is naturally occuring. What is the difference? Is it purified? Is it formed? Has it been subject to non-naturally occuring chemistry or physics? Has it in some way gained an order that nature would not give it?-----------One level of abstraction, is it ordered beyond nature.

Will steel or tin always melt at a certain point? Will water at the same pressure always boil at the same point? Will the chemistry and physics that makes steel work the same every time? Does gravity work the same every time or do you randomly weigh more some days then others without a change in diet or exercise? Does light work the same on Alpha Seturi (sp?) than on Solar 1?------We both seem to agree that nature is 100% non-random. If nature just came to be what explanation do you have for 100% any where we look? What are the odds of 100% on anything much less the entire universe.-----------Another level of abstraction that you want to say is "just faith".

There are things that are "just faith". Prayer is "just faith". Worship is "just faith". The love of my family and friends is "just faith". I can't find a single reason for any of these. But you deny that which can be proven because you want it to be "just faith". I guess this is the explanation of the beginning of this thread. The Jews didn't want a reason. They wanted "just faith". Since that time, every scientist in the world has had to fight those that didn't want to know. They wanted the sun to come up through "just faith".

Not 100% non-random, actually. We just have no reason to believe it is random at this time. It is a fact that simply because gravity existed yesterday it does not mean it will tomorrow, but given that we have never seen it go away we use the ASSUMPTION that it will remain so.

It can't be 'proven' unless you start with an assumption with no basis, that ONLY intelligence begets order. There is no evidence that assumption is true. This is your failure.

First, you make the assertion that order is how we decide whether something is the result of intelligence or not. This is fundamentally untrue. Yet, you repeat it OVER and OVER, no matter how many times and how many people tell you that order is not how they decide whether intelligence is responsible for something. The way we decide if something is man-made is if we have no natural explanation for its existence and we have seen similar things made by sentient beings in the past. That's called evidence.

Second, you use the initial flawed assumption to extrapolate a further flawed assumption. Have you seen other universes? By what measure do you establish that there is a being capable of creating the universe and that only creation by that being explains the universe? You keep claiming order, but that is not a factor in how anything else is decided.

Exactly
Good! So you agree with me that Intelligent Design is nothing but divination in disguise.

My apologies. I have done my best to follow along from where you began two pages back, but a couple things baffle me. Not being an expert on archaeology or anything, it still seems to me that the difference between the artifact that is 'man-made' and the one that is natural is manufacture. Being aware of man is capable of (weaving, pottery, sculpting, metallury), we can label a particular artifact that fits as 'man-made'.

How can we be aware of what god is capable of?

Good Lifes, since you agreed with her post, I think you should not that she completely nailed your argument that order evidences intelligence to a tree.

You determine what people can and cannot get out of the Bible and you don't think that's Pride. Because Adam represents man. If Christ didn't come last why call Christ the "last Adam"? Christ often used analogies, allegories and metaphors. I'm sorry you missed that.

I cannot determine what people can and cannot get out of the Bible. But I can point out what seems to be plain to me.

Of course, Adam represents man. But he was also one man. Just as Jesus Christ was one man. According to the Bible, these are separate, actual individuals, not archetypes, allegorical or metaphorical people.

Romans 5 (NIV):

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I cannot determine what people can and cannot get out of the Bible. But I can point out what seems to be plain to me.

Of course, Adam represents man. But he was also one man. Just as Jesus Christ was one man. According to the Bible, these are separate, actual individuals, not archetypes, allegorical or metaphorical people.

Romans 5 (NIV):

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Ah, yes, Paul. You're not going to make much ground with me. Paul was simply a religious leader that reintroduced Judaism into Christianity (Judaism that Jesus fundamentally changed) and is only in the Bible because a violent, imperialist decided that Paul's passages would better allow him to control his empire than some of the gospels. Paul belongs in the Bible as much as my teachings do.

Good Lifes, since you agreed with her post, I think you should not that she completely nailed your argument that order evidences intelligence to a tree.
Isn't it interesting how people can look at the same tree and see different leaves.

Ah, yes, Paul. You're not going to make much ground with me. Paul was simply a religious leader that reintroduced Judaism into Christianity (Judaism that Jesus fundamentally changed) and is only in the Bible because a violent, imperialist decided that Paul's passages would better allow him to control his empire than some of the gospels. Paul belongs in the Bible as much as my teachings do.
Didn't Jesus actually "overrule" the Old Testament in favour of the New Testament? To me, the OT has little more than historical significance, and most things in the NT not said by Jesus are largely irrelevant and inconsequential (like much of what Paul said).

More importantly, if we are going to assign this argument where does it end. Nature is to orderd so God created it. But certainly God is more ordered so who created God. It's the same problem that always occur when people try to claim that there is scientific support for God is that you are simply taking the process and dropping it back a step and declaring an endpoint. If one says that nature MUST have a purpose or a DESIGNER because it is too ordered or too complicated or too beautiful or whatever, then one must argue that God is completely random, simplistic, not beautiful, etc. in order to not have to also have a creator. It's flawed reasoning and circular logic.
Which leaves one question open. How did everything begin? Created or not, what is our origin? How did we come out of nothing, defying nihil ex nihilo?

And yet, not one person can show the one randomness that would disprove the theory even though I have admitted that just one randomness would totally and utterly destroy the theory.

Of course they can't, at least not scientifically. Why? Because science is based in the assumption that there is no true randomness - that there are basic rules which run the universe that cannot be broken - that, given all the variables, we can accurately predict what will happen, even in those phenomena we call "random" for lack of knowledge.

A lack of randomness doesn't provide evidence for God - it demonstrates that either science is right, or that we are looking at randomness and assigning order to it because of our assumption that such order exists. Even if a scientist observed true randomness, he would not assess it as such, but would try to alter current theory to include the new measurements - as the base assumption is that there is an explanation that fits.

Didn't Jesus actually "overrule" the Old Testament in favour of the New Testament? To me, the OT has little more than historical significance, and most things in the NT not said by Jesus are largely irrelevant and inconsequential (like much of what Paul said).

Sort of. That's kind of a simplification, but it's not wholly inaccurate.

Which leaves one question open. How did everything begin? Created or not, what is our origin? How did we come out of nothing, defying nihil ex nihilo?
Personally, I don't believe there was ever not something.

Of course they can't, at least not scientifically? Why? Because science is based in the assumption that there is no true randomness - that there are basic rules which run the universe that cannot be broken - that, given all the variables, we can accurately predict what will happen, even in those phenomena we call "random" for lack of knowledge.

A lack of randomness doesn't provide evidence for God - it demonstrates that either science is right, or that we are looking at randomness and assigning order to it because of our assumption that such order exists. Even if a scientist observed true randomness, he would not assess it as such, but would try to alter current theory to include the new measurements - as the base assumption is that there is an explanation that fits.

Isn't it odd that some argue that order is the flawed assumption of science and shows that religion is better and other argue that order IS the reason religion is better and they are talking about the same religion?

That's the point. Random and ordered are subjective views held by us, not nature. It does not come into account in the scientific analysis, though you keep claiming otherwise. Order is not how we assign the difference between that which comes from intelligence and that which doesn't.



Not 100% non-random, actually. We just have no reason to believe it is random at this time. It is a fact that simply because gravity existed yesterday it does not mean it will tomorrow, but given that we have never seen it go away we use the ASSUMPTION that it will remain so.


Wow, aren't we reaching.

Having spent many college hours in logic classes. I can say without a doubt that nothing can be proven. Everything is based on an assumption.

I guess we can say that gravity is an assumption. Light is an assumption. Everything we know about chemistry is an assumption. Everything we know about physics is an assumption. It is an assumption that water will always boil at the same temp at the same pressure. It is an assumption that nature can't refine iron ore and create an auto. It's an assumption that a river full of clay can't create a pot. It's an assumption that gravity causes planets to orbit, not just around solar1 but everywhere it exists (even around minor astroids.) It's an assumption that a non-repeatable experiment was wrong because after all, maybe it was the very evidence that nature and the universe is totally random.

Sort of. That's kind of a simplification, but it's not wholly inaccurate.
It is, I know. My point simply was to those who keep claiming that the OT is sacrosanct, that whilst Jesus did accord it some significance, he entered an entire new set of "rules" into what would become Christianity. Dismissing the OT altogether would mean he was instituting an entirely new religion, yet he didn't do that. He altered it significantly, on the other hand.

Which leaves one question open. How did everything begin? Created or not, what is our origin? How did we come out of nothing, defying nihil ex nihilo?

I know of no claims that something came out of nothing. I believe we are a result of God's work, but that still leaves the question of God. One way or another there was always something (though always is a spurious word outside of time).

Personally, I don't believe there was ever not something.
It goes beyond human logic I suppose. We assume that there is a starting point for everything. Perhaps in this case there is not, and existence is indeed without start. I remember the description of God as being "anarchic", as in its literal meaning, that being without a beginning.

I know of no claims that something came out of nothing. I believe we are a result of God's work, but that still leaves the question of God. One way or another there was always something (though always is a spurious word outside of time).
This is what I maintain as well. I am just wondering, if we did indeed defy all logic and come out of nothing, how was this so?

Isn't it odd that some argue that order is the flawed assumption of science and shows that religion is better and other argue that order IS the reason religion is better and they are talking about the same religion?
I have to repeat:

Isn't it amazing how people can look at the same tree and see different leaves.

Didn't Jesus actually "overrule" the Old Testament in favour of the New Testament? To me, the OT has little more than historical significance, and most things in the NT not said by Jesus are largely irrelevant and inconsequential (like much of what Paul said).

Actually, a lot of Jesus' words are quotations or paraphrases of OT passages.

And of course, the NT would not be understandable without the foundation of the OT.

And I guess that I must be out of it, because I don't understand the antipathy towards Paul's writings. Where from did that come?

Actually, a lot of Jesus' words are quotations or paraphrases of OT passages.

And of course, the NT would not be understandable without the foundation of the OT.
Which is why I said it would be an entirely different religion if he wasn't using the OT as a foundation to institute his new principles.

And I guess that I must be out of it, because I don't understand the antipathy towards Paul's writings. Where from did that come?
Paul is particularly misogynistic and homophobic. He also diverged on Jesus, and with the other Apostles post-ascension, on a number of issues.

Ah, yes, Paul. You're not going to make much ground with me. Paul was simply a religious leader that reintroduced Judaism into Christianity (Judaism that Jesus fundamentally changed) and is only in the Bible because a violent, imperialist decided that Paul's passages would better allow him to control his empire than some of the gospels. Paul belongs in the Bible as much as my teachings do.

Wasn't the canon of Scripture discovered, rather than ordered? In other words, wasn't it a matter of finding out which books were divinely inspired and consistent with the whole, versus simply picking out any old thing and sticking it in?

And wasn't Paul an apostle, having met the risen Christ?

Acts 26 (NIV):

13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

15"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'

" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

And didn't Peter recognize Paul's writings as scripture?

2 Peter 3 (NIV):

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Why is everyone pickin' on Paul?

Wow, aren't we reaching.

Having spent many college hours in logic classes. I can say without a doubt that nothing can be proven. Everything is based on an assumption.

I guess we can say that gravity is an assumption. Light is an assumption. Everything we know about chemistry is an assumption. Everything we know about physics is an assumption. It is an assumption that water will always boil at the same temp at the same pressure. It is an assumption that nature can't refine iron ore and create an auto. It's an assumption that a river full of clay can't create a pot. It's an assumption that gravity causes planets to orbit, not just around solar1 but everywhere it exists (even around minor astroids.) It's an assumption that a non-repeatable experiment was wrong because after all, maybe it was the very evidence that nature and the universe is totally random.

That was a bit of a side note. The point of the post is that you are making an assumption that order = intelligence that is unfounded, using the actions of archeologists as your evidence, even though your assessment of their actions are completely wrong, and then extrapolating order = intelligence to prove there is intelligence that is responsible for order. The entire problem is flawed. The randomness point was simply a side-note.

Wasn't the canon of Scripture discovered, rather than ordered? In other words, wasn't it a matter of finding out which books were divinely inspired and consistent with the whole, versus simply picking out any old thing and sticking it in?

And wasn't Paul an apostle, having met the risen Christ?

Paul has met Christ as much as I have. And no, they were chosen based on what they liked. That's why several gospels were tossed (and when people continued to follow those gospels and consider them inspired they were ordered to be destroyed). This is also why they decided to celebrate the birthday of Mithras rather than that of Christ because it would draw more people in. Don't you think celebrating the birth of a Pagan god is a little odd for a group that is supposed trying to spread truth and divinity rather than simply garner power?

And didn't Peter recognize Paul's writings as scripture?

Why is everyone pickin' on Paul?
Here, let's play a game. Would you argue that all of the scripture written by Paul in the Bible is divinely inspired?

I love the pride of this post. If they don't believe exactly what you believe they might as well throw out the Bible, huh? Speaking of lessons of the Bible doesn't one of those stories teach about the issue of pride. What happened to the proud one in the Bible?

It seems to me that you put so much emphasis on pride. You can't hear the tone of his/her voice. What if s/he is not a very good writer (I'm not) and is unable to choose the best words to properly explain him/herself?

It seems to me that the one with the pride is the one going around trying to convict everyone of it.

Paul has met Christ as much as I have. And no, they were chosen based on what they liked. That's why several gospels were tossed (and when people continued to follow those gospels and consider them inspired they were ordered to be destroyed). This is also why they decided to celebrate the birthday of Mithras rather than that of Christ because it would draw more people in. Don't you think celebrating the birth of a Pagan god is a little odd for a group that is supposed trying to spread truth and divinity rather than simply garner power?


Here, let's play a game. Would you argue that all of the scripture written by Paul in the Bible is divinely inspired?

That thing about dates always seemed specious to me. Every day means something to someone, so if my birthday is also the birthday of some pagan god, does that mean anyone who celebrates my birthday is really celebrating a pagan god's birthday? I thought that was why we aren't supposed to judge people based on which day of the week they worship?

As far as Paul, there are places where he says that God gave him permission to write his own opinions, rather than divine commands. I would hope that what he wrote was divinely inspired, even if not divinely commanded.

Sorry to have begun this and then left.

I am an unhappy member of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA). The growing dispute doctinal disputes are ready to tear apart the denomination. The 4 groups (Traditionalists, conservatives, neo-orthodox [ought to be called neo-liberals], and the liberals) are so far separated from each other in faith that a split is probably going to come after this summer's General Assembly (some church leaders are expecting the ordination of unrepentant homo/bisexuals). This situation prompted this thread.

I don't understand how Christians can not accept the Bible as the word of God. If one claims to be a Christian, one claims to have confessed one's sins to Christ, declared Him Lord of One's Heart, and have repented (turned away or begun to turn away) from one's sins, yes? The only places that teach or even support that are in the Bible or in works based on the Bible's teachings.

If then, the Bible is the word of God, then it must be perfect, yes? For Jesus to have died for one's sins, he must have had no sins of His own. Or that is the traditional teaching of the Church and what is presented in the Bible. And if Jesus had no sins, then he must have been perfect? And if He was perfect, His words must have been. And because He said "I and the Father are One," (sorry, I don't have the exact verse) He must have had the same authority as God the Father.

Finally, if God the Father is perfect, then is it not to say that His words are perfect?

Where is there any basis for one's faith, if one doesn't believe that the only places that teach the founding principle of one's faith (the death of Jesus), which are in the Bible or in other works based on the Bible, are not true?

How can one, a fallible human being (another basic doctrine of Christianity) have the strength to say that this part is true and this part isn't? It doens't make sense.

As far as Paul, there are places where he says that God gave him permission to write his own opinions, rather than divine commands. I would hope that what he wrote was divinely inspired, even if not divinely commanded.

Where, please?

Isn't it odd that some argue that order is the flawed assumption of science and shows that religion is better and other argue that order IS the reason religion is better and they are talking about the same religion?

The order vs. randomness argument is an interesting one. Most people seem to, when you really get down to it, believe that the universe is deterministic. However, views are very broad on what that fact indicates. My fiance and I have had this discussion. He thinks that a universe with true randomness would be evidence (not in the empirical sense, but in the sense that it would convince him) of a God, but fully believes that the universe is deterministic. I think that a deterministic universe points more towards the existence of a God - a force behind the rules, as it were, whereas a random one would not necessarily support that idea. Neither speculation is scientific, of course, but its an interesting subject to discuss.


Wasn't the canon of Scripture discovered, rather than ordered? In other words, wasn't it a matter of finding out which books were divinely inspired and consistent with the whole, versus simply picking out any old thing and sticking it in?

Not really, no. The goal was to try and find the Scriptures that were used in every church, from the very beginning of their writing. Problem was, there were no such scriptures. So basically, it was a political process. Whichever scriptures were being used by the most churches, and by the most powerful churches, were put into canon. Less popular scriptures or those with the most power in the church didn't like, didn't.

If you study the history of the church, it has been largely political.

Paul has met Christ as much as I have. And no, they were chosen based on what they liked. That's why several gospels were tossed (and when people continued to follow those gospels and consider them inspired they were ordered to be destroyed). This is also why they decided to celebrate the birthday of Mithras rather than that of Christ because it would draw more people in. Don't you think celebrating the birth of a Pagan god is a little odd for a group that is supposed trying to spread truth and divinity rather than simply garner power?


Here, let's play a game. Would you argue that all of the scripture written by Paul in the Bible is divinely inspired?

There was criteria that was used to decide which books were inspired and which weren't. Those books written by the Apostles, persons once removed from the Apostles (Mark was a travelling companion of Peter), and those other persons who were directly called by God or Jesus Christ.

If you know the book of Matthew is divinely inspired, why would you accept the book of What's-his-name, whose inspiration is in doubt, when it clearly goes against what Matthew says (no, I don't have any examples)?

And yes, the early Church leaders attempted to destroy the Gnostic gospels. Wouldn't you, if people were being lead astray by them? If you say no, consider this: aren't you trying to do the same thing now? Aren't you trying to destroy the arguments of those who disagree with you, so that others might not be deceived?

I don't understand how Christians can not accept the Bible as the word of God. If one claims to be a Christian, one claims to have confessed one's sins to Christ, declared Him Lord of One's Heart, and have repented (turned away or begun to turn away) from one's sins, yes? The only places that teach or even support that are in the Bible or in works based on the Bible's teachings.

So you don't believe in a personal relationship with the savior? Does one need to be taught to search for God? Does one need an entire story to be true to find truth in it? Can one not get direction directly through the guidance of God?

If then, the Bible is the word of God, then it must be perfect, yes?

If it is the "literal" word of God, then yes. If it is an inspired work, of course not. If human beings are inspired, that doesn't suddenly make them infallible. They will still read the inspiration through their own viewpoints, biases, and knowledge - and may see some of those things as divinely inspired. None of us are perfect.

For Jesus to have died for one's sins, he must have had no sins of His own. Or that is the traditional teaching of the Church and what is presented in the Bible. And if Jesus had no sins, then he must have been perfect? And if He was perfect, His words must have been. And because He said "I and the Father are One," (sorry, I don't have the exact verse) He must have had the same authority as God the Father.

This assumes that the followers of the disciples who recorded what they had been taught were recording the exact words of Christ. They didn't exactly have tape recorders back then.

Where is there any basis for one's faith, if one doesn't believe that the only places that teach the founding principle of one's faith (the death of Jesus), which are in the Bible or in other works based on the Bible, are not true?

You need to learn the distinction between truth, and TRUTH. There can be truth in something that is not completely facutally correct.

How can one, a fallible human being (another basic doctrine of Christianity) have the strength to say that this part is true and this part isn't? It doens't make sense.

No fallible human being can do that. How can a fallible human being have the strength to determine whether or not the entire Bible is literally true? We can't. This is why we must ask for God's guidance in these things. In the end, because we are all fallible, we will most likely never all agree - but we will all be trying to reach God's word.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]So you don't believe in a personal relationship with the savior? Does one need to be taught to search for God? Does one need an entire story to be true to find truth in it? Can one not get direction directly through the guidance of God?

The confession of sins, the acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, and the repentance are the relationship with Jesus. It's not a one time thing: one does it continuously. Yes, one can get direction from someone other than God: Satan, the other demons, yourself, soceity, etc. One cannot get direction to the Truth without God (this a denominational belief, that is very much debateable using Scripture and regarding it as infallible).


If it is the "literal" word of God, then yes. If it is an inspired work, of course not. If human beings are inspired, that doesn't suddenly make them infallible. They will still read the inspiration through their own viewpoints, biases, and knowledge - and may see some of those things as divinely inspired. None of us are perfect.

Is there a difference? If God inspires someone to write the word the, then there is no difference. That is what divine inspiration is. Perhaps if we were discussing some Muse or something, where inspiration would be general then of course there is a difference. But not with specific inspiration.


This assumes that the followers of the disciples who recorded what they had been taught were recording the exact words of Christ. They didn't exactly have tape recorders back then.

See above.

You need to learn the distinction between truth, and TRUTH. There can be truth in something that is not completely facutally correct.

Again, is there a difference? Truth is really just TRUTH that is murky or shrouded by human convention and error. Look at Lord of the Rings or the Chronicles of Narnia and you will see truth, glimpses of TRUTH.

No fallible human being can do that. How can a fallible human being have the strength to determine whether or not the entire Bible is literally true? We can't. This is why we must ask for God's guidance in these things. In the end, because we are all fallible, we will most likely never all agree - but we will all be trying to reach God's word.

I'm not determining. I'm relying on God to say what is true and what isn't. I'm relying on Him to have revealed His will and His Word as and how He wanted to reveal them. If that means the use of fallible humans, then He can do so. But if He really wanted us to know, don't you think He would have made it clear what His will and word are? Not all of us try to reach God's word. Some try to make God's word what they want it to be. I hope and pray that isn't you.

The confession of sins, the acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, and the repentance are the relationship with Jesus. It's not a one time thing: one does it continuously. Yes, one can get direction from someone other than God: Satan, the other demons, yourself, soceity, etc. One cannot get direction to the Truth without God (this a denominational belief, that is very much debateable using Scripture and regarding it as infallible).

i didn't ask if you can get direction from something else. I asked if you think you can get direct guidance from God - through a personal relationship.

Is there a difference? If God inspires someone to write the word the, then there is no difference. That is what divine inspiration is.

That isn't inspiration. That is dictation. The two are hardly the same.

Again, is there a difference? Truth is really just TRUTH that is murky or shrouded by human convention and error. Look at Lord of the Rings or the Chronicles of Narnia and you will see truth, glimpses of TRUTH.

How can you ask if there is a difference and then point out what you think the difference is?

TRUTH is absolute truth. Truth is a lesson you can get, even if the details aren't correct. Even if there was no actual Adam and actual Eve, you can get a lesson out of the story. There was no prodigal son - it was a parable - but there is quite a bit of truth in the story.

i didn't ask if you can get direction from something else. I asked if you think you can get direct guidance from God - through a personal relationship.

That isn't inspiration. That is dictation. The two are hardly the same.

How can you ask if there is a difference and then point out what you think the difference is?

TRUTH is absolute truth. Truth is a lesson you can get, even if the details aren't correct. Even if there was no actual Adam and actual Eve, you can get a lesson out of the story. There was no prodigal son - it was a parable - but there is quite a bit of truth in the story.

It would be dictation if God audibly (sp?) said "Write the!" But He didn't do that. He placed a need, a desire, an inspiration on each person's heart so powerful that they could not refuse. He didn't take control of them. But He was so powerful over them, because of their love, devotion, etc. to Him, that they could not refuse. This is an answer I haven't thought much about so please don't place too much emphasis on it or accept it as TRUTH.

I was making the point that I don't think the difference between truth and TRUTH is a large as you say. Truth is not only a lesson: a lesson can be good or bad. I've had many lessons that were heretical. Have you read The Stranger? That had a lesson: it didn't agree with the TRUTH. Truth is a lesson, the ultimate meaning of which agrees with TRUTH. But that ultimate meaning can be clouded by the fallibility of Man.

Sorry if I'm making to big a deal out of what seems to be a small thing. But, sometimes the small things are where the problems lie. You must define everything exactly, or you may confuse someone to the point where they err in the "big" things.

Not really, no. The goal was to try and find the Scriptures that were used in every church, from the very beginning of their writing. Problem was, there were no such scriptures. So basically, it was a political process. Whichever scriptures were being used by the most churches, and by the most powerful churches, were put into canon. Less popular scriptures or those with the most power in the church didn't like, didn't.

If you study the history of the church, it has been largely political.
I'll second this. There were several Popes that set up committees to make the selection. Different committees chose different books. That last committee chose 4 gospels because at the time 4 was considered a perfect number. They almost left out Hebrews because there were no longer any Hebrews in the church. They did leave out revelation because apocoliptic books were no longer in fashion. Then the last day they decided to include one just as an example, so the grabbed the Revelation of John and slapped it on the back. This committee assumed that if they were wrong on any of the books that future committees would make any changes, as they had done.. But then the printing press was invented and that locked in the final decision. A lot of the church traditions that people swear are in the Bible but aren't are in the books left out. That is how powerful some of them were.

It's also interesting that the Christians cannonized their scriptures before the Jews. And when the Jews made their final selection their list was different from the Christian list. Caused some problems for a while.

There was criteria that was used to decide which books were inspired and which weren't. Those books written by the Apostles, persons once removed from the Apostles (Mark was a travelling companion of Peter), and those other persons who were directly called by God or Jesus Christ.

If you know the book of Matthew is divinely inspired, why would you accept the book of What's-his-name, whose inspiration is in doubt, when it clearly goes against what Matthew says (no, I don't have any examples)?

That's because there aren't any examples. You really should look into this because your claims are way off.

And yes, the early Church leaders attempted to destroy the Gnostic gospels. Wouldn't you, if people were being lead astray by them? If you say no, consider this: aren't you trying to do the same thing now? Aren't you trying to destroy the arguments of those who disagree with you, so that others might not be deceived?

They were gospels testifying to Jesus Christ. No one was being led astray. They were simply being led away from that Church and to a more intimate relationship with Jesus rather than holding the political positions of the Church.

No, I'm not trying to destroy their arguments. I'm trying to expose them. If the gnostic gospels were wrong, hold them up and explain why. Don't burn them. Ignorance is only the friends of those who are unable to sustain their position with logic.

Basically, the Bible cannot be taken literally for several reasons:

How would Kane know what death was before anyone had died?

How would Kane find a wife if Adam and Eve were the first people?

Why would Kane worry about being found? There's only two other people in the whole damned world.

The only way I could see it being taken semi-literally is that when it says first man, it refers to the Jews only, as they are Gods chosen people, and this the first God created "men." People could exist alongside them, just not actually chosen people.

That thing about dates always seemed specious to me. Every day means something to someone, so if my birthday is also the birthday of some pagan god, does that mean anyone who celebrates my birthday is really celebrating a pagan god's birthday? I thought that was why we aren't supposed to judge people based on which day of the week they worship?

It's not specious. It's a fact that they intentionally chose a day that was not the birthday of Christ but was a popular Pagan holiday to better assimilate pagans. It's not a rumor or a conspiracy theory. It's a fact.

As far as Paul, there are places where he says that God gave him permission to write his own opinions, rather than divine commands. I would hope that what he wrote was divinely inspired, even if not divinely commanded.

Well, inspired is a funny word. I believe that my beliefs are divinely inspired, but that does not give the weight to be in the Bible. That's the point. And Paul had a habit of saying some things I don't think jives with the words of Jesus and I definitely don't think sound very divine. Like suggesting that you get married so you can have sex and that you give yourself over to your spouse at their whim so they don't end up being unfaithful. It treats us a bit like animals.

It would be dictation if God audibly (sp?) said "Write the!" But He didn't do that. He placed a need, a desire, an inspiration on each person's heart so powerful that they could not refuse. He didn't take control of them. But He was so powerful over them, because of their love, devotion, etc. to Him, that they could not refuse. This is an answer I haven't thought much about so please don't place too much emphasis on it or accept it as TRUTH.

If he didn't take control of them, then they were still fallible - and thus what they wrote is still fallible.

I was making the point that I don't think the difference between truth and TRUTH is a large as you say. Truth is not only a lesson: a lesson can be good or bad. I've had many lessons that were heretical. Have you read The Stranger? That had a lesson: it didn't agree with the TRUTH. Truth is a lesson, the ultimate meaning of which agrees with TRUTH. But that ultimate meaning can be clouded by the fallibility of Man.

Not so much "can" as "will." We are all fallible - and we will all be clouded. The trick is to try and avoid that as much as possible by listening to the guidance of God.

That's because there aren't any examples. You really should look into this because your claims are way off.

They were gospels testifying to Jesus Christ. No one was being led astray. They were simply being led away from that Church and to a more intimate relationship with Jesus rather than holding the political positions of the Church.

No, I'm not trying to destroy their arguments. I'm trying to expose them. If the gnostic gospels were wrong, hold them up and explain why. Don't burn them. Ignorance is only the friends of those who are unable to sustain their position with logic.

Even Spock realized there was more beyond logic. Is it what ought to guide us the most of the time? Yes, but is there logic to loving the woman who has broken one's heart time and time again? No, but we are not logical creatures. Just look at the man still in love with that woman.

Are you able to provide any examples of how my claims are off? If so, please do.

Basically, the Bible cannot be taken literally for several reasons:

How would Kane know what death was before anyone had died?

How would Kane find a wife if Adam and Eve were the first people?

Why would Kane worry about being found? There's only two other people in the whole damned world.

The only way I could see it being taken semi-literally is that when it says first man, it refers to the Jews only, as they are Gods chosen people, and this the first God created "men." People could exist alongside them, just not actually chosen people.

Animals had proably died before Cain killed Abel.

Adam and Eve had other children and God had not yet forbid incest.

And if you were Adam or Eve wouldn't you be pretty angry, maybe angry enough to kill Cain? Not to mention the other children. I'm not sure if there were any other siblings alive then or not.

Adam and Eve had other children and God had not yet forbid incest.
So... God changed his mind?

My belief is that the all scripture is the insipired word of God, but I'm not sure that all scripture is in the Bible. The Catholic church at the time that the Bible was compiled was one of the most powerful and most corrupt polical bodies in human history. Much of what was placed in the bible was what backed the churches teachings at the time, while anything that may have gone against that was declared a herasy.

Animals had proably died beforeCain killed Abel.

Adam and Eve had other children and God had not yet forbid incest.

And if you were Adam or Eve wouldn't you be pretty angry, maybe angry enough to kill Cain? Not to mention the other children. I'm not sure if there were any other siblings alive then or not.
You really take this litterally? Ok, let's say that Cain had a sister. Why would they just up and leave their parents? And yeah, the world is pretty big. At this point, a few weeks of hiding and he'd never be found. And, why would his siblings need to see a mark to know not to kill him? Couldn't God tell them?

Yes, I am a Jew by Birth, and a Christian by belief, but the Bible wasn't written when the world was created. Even if you take it literally, you must realize that human memory can fail, and that story tellers can add flair to a story for dramatic purposes.

It's not specious. It's a fact that they intentionally chose a day that was not the birthday of Christ but was a popular Pagan holiday to better assimilate pagans. It's not a rumor or a conspiracy theory. It's a fact.



Well, inspired is a funny word. I believe that my beliefs are divinely inspired, but that does not give the weight to be in the Bible. That's the point. And Paul had a habit of saying some things I don't think jives with the words of Jesus and I definitely don't think sound very divine. Like suggesting that you get married so you can have sex and that you give yourself over to your spouse at their whim so they don't end up being unfaithful. It treats us a bit like animals.

Yah, I know about the using pagan holidays to better assimilate converts.

And what is wrong with getting married so that you are not having sex outside of marriage?

And what is wrong with giving your honey pleasure when they need it, so that they are not tempted to stray (or at least keep them from whining so much)?

The fact is, we can all be tempted. And if a husband or wife is withholding sex for some reason, that will probably tempt their partner to do something wrong...

I guess people just don't like some things Paul said. But what about the fact that people don't like some things Jesus said? Should we then say that He must not have said them? Or that they should not be included in the Bible?

I have been reading the Bible for many years, and there are words said by Jesus that still sting...

Even Spock realized there was more beyond logic. Is it what ought to guide us the most of the time? Yes, but is there logic to loving the woman who has broken one's heart time and time again? No, but we are not logical creatures. Just look at the man still in love with that woman.

Are you able to provide any examples of how my claims are off? If so, please do.

The gnostic gospels. I can't show you that they are similar in almost every way except tone to the other gospels. I can't lead you down that path. Jump out there and educate yourself on the issue before you make assertions you admit you have no evidence for. You've been informed in this thread of why and how the Bible was formed.

And what is wrong with getting married so that you are not having sex outside of marriage?

Because that is hardly the only reason one should have for getting married? A marriage based in, "I want to have sex with you, so now I'll marry you," is doomed to end badly.

And what is wrong with giving your honey pleasure when they need it, so that they are not tempted to stray (or at least keep them from whining so much)?

First of all, you shouldn't be having sex just because you are afraid your significant other might leave if you don't. Second of all, you can't be expected to have sex *any* time your partner wants it.

I guess people just don't like some things Paul said. But what about the fact that people don't like some things Jesus said? Should we then say that He must not have said them? Or that they should not be included in the Bible?

Paul was a preacher, much like any other preacher. Christ was the Messiah. The two carry different weight, I should think.

I have been reading the Bible for many years, and there are words said by Jesus that still sting...

Like what? It is certainly hard to follow some of Christ's teachings, but none of them "sting". They are things that most of us know anyways, and simply have trouble living up to.

Yah, I know about the using pagan holidays to better assimilate converts.

And what is wrong with getting married so that you are not having sex outside of marriage?

That's not the point. He was suggesting that if you are horny then you should get married. I have a distinct problem with a 'prophet' who suggests horniness is a legitimate reason for marriage. I don't find that to be very divinely inspired. He also suggested that 'good' Christians would stop having sex altogether. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians didn't reproduce.

And what is wrong with giving your honey pleasure when they need it, so that they are not tempted to stray (or at least keep them from whining so much)?

The fact is, we can all be tempted. And if a husband or wife is withholding sex for some reason, that will probably tempt their partner to do something wrong...

That's a load. Some women aren't interested in sex during pregnancy or menopause, is this an excuse for straying? It's ridiculous to suggest that one should give up sex forever to worship God, but a spouse can't do without sex or they're going to hop into bed with the next person walking by.

I guess people just don't like some things Paul said. But what about the fact that people don't like some things Jesus said? Should we then say that He must not have said them? Or that they should not be included in the Bible?

No, and I hope you're not comparing Jesus and Paul. Jesus wasn't just divinely inspired, he was divine. It's completely different.

I have been reading the Bible for many years, and there are words said by Jesus that still sting...

I love reading the red text. It's pretty much the only text that has any really meaning in the world.

Where, please?

1 Cor 7:

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

and

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Because that is hardly the only reason one should have for getting married? A marriage based in, "I want to have sex with you, so now I'll marry you," is doomed to end badly.

And it has a bad start. A woman once proposed to me on those very grounds, that her religious beliefs would not allow her to have sex outside marriage, so I had to marry her. Sounded like a very bad idea, besides her not being my type, so I said no way.



First of all, you shouldn't be having sex just because you are afraid your significant other might leave if you don't. Second of all, you can't be expected to have sex *any* time your partner wants it.



Paul was a preacher, much like any other preacher. Christ was the Messiah. The two carry different weight, I should think.



Like what? It is certainly hard to follow some of Christ's teachings, but none of them "sting". They are things that most of us know anyways, and simply have trouble living up to.

And of course, the words of Christ carry more weight. I was just against picking and choosing.

And yes, there are some things He said that I still have trouble with after many years. For example,

Matt 5:

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Won't say what that's about

and

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Yes, I married a divorced woman. And we wrestled with that passage before we got married. Oh well, I could go on and on and on...

That's not the point. He was suggesting that if you are horny then you should get married. I have a distinct problem with a 'prophet' who suggests horniness is a legitimate reason for marriage. I don't find that to be very divinely inspired. He also suggested that 'good' Christians would stop having sex altogether. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians didn't reproduce.



That's a load. Some women aren't interested in sex during pregnancy or menopause, is this an excuse for straying? It's ridiculous to suggest that one should give up sex forever to worship God, but a spouse can't do without sex or they're going to hop into bed with the next person walking by.

Why do people always assume that it's the woman who is unable or unwilling, and the man is excessively horny?

It can be the other way around.:(


No, and I hope you're not comparing Jesus and Paul. Jesus wasn't just divinely inspired, he was divine. It's completely different.



I love reading the red text. It's pretty much the only text that has any really meaning in the world.

Love the red text.

OK, I reccomend that both sides watch and research the History Channel's recent show "Banned Books of the Bible" Based on that show, which I have now watched 3 times, and my own research, as well as my belief in the death and ressurection of Jesus and claim to being a Christian, I assert the following:

1. The first 5 books of the bible (the Torah) as we have them now, traditionally ascribed to Moses, were likely written during Daniel and his contempararies time during the Babylonian exile. It is likely they used and synthesized existing Hebrew texts as well as oral traditions and mixed in some Babylonian ideas in creating those books, particularly the book of Genesis. Jewish "history" really doesn't matter or count until at least the story of Joseph and IMHO until the story of Moses. Until the Exedous from Egypt Jewish identity and their culture was of no consequence anywhere. After the Exedous though, they conquered important territory and what happened then became important. Running all that together in the best, logical fashion, in an effort to establish and preserve a national identity is what the Torah is all about.

2. After the Exedous and the establishment of the Jewish state, the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon became important as they united the area under a common and acknowledged leader. From the books of Joshua on, the historical descriptions of what happened politically, can be accepted as being relatively accurate as far as what they describe and the time period within the history of the Jewish heritage that they describe it as happening in. By way of explanation, the book of Judges might describe something that on it's face says it took place in 500 BC. However, an analysis shows that while it may be 500 BC by our calender and according to our dating system, in reality what was being described was something that took place during the 15th year of Samuel's ministry, and whether it was 500 BC, 800 BC or 100 BC doesn't matter since it was the 15th year of Samuel that is what counts.

3. The Bible can have historical accuries as to what happened without historical accuries as to when (according to our calendar) it happened. As a general rule, WHAT happened is much more important in history as to WHEN it happened. Would the attack on Pearl Harbor be any less important if it happened on January 13th, 1942? probably not. It is WHAT happened, not when, that matters the most. During the time frames in question involved in the OT, accurate descriptions of "when" could not be made and were not as important to the people as were accurate desrciptions of "why" and "what."

4. The council of Nicea's main goal was to discuss and decide the issue of Christ's divinity. At the time, some Christian sects did not accept the idea that Christ was both God and man at the same time. The Council of Nicea, after debate, decided he was God and man both, primarily on the idea that he was raised from the dead and their unwillingness to alienate a major portion christians from the church state they were creating by declaring he was not divine. Even those who did not believe in the God/Man idea, could agree that Christ was "special" and the values he represented were appropriate.

5. It was years later, 6 at least, before Constatine wrote church leaders about the idea of a text, the bible, that would be consistent for all. The idea of such was considered and discussed at Nicea, but it was years later that Constatine told anyone to put together the books that should serve as the Cannon. They books put together as the "official" cannon were adopted as "the Bible."

I could say more, but I won't for now, this is more that enough to get me targeted for flames and argument (and I 'll try to address reasonalbe agurments on the issues I raise).

Also, don't forget that for one and a half millennia before the advent of movable type, the bible was copied out by hand by generations of monks, and told and re-told orally alongside the legends of numerous cultures with their own storytelling traditions and metaphors, while being translated through several languages.

Whether it was the Word of God or not, it sure as hell isn't any more.

One only has to compare the 'Christian' version of the Old Testament with the Jewish Scriptures to see that those 'generations of monks' were actually quite accurate in their copying, and that despite several translations, the general message and meaning of the text remains remarkably comparable to the Jewish one (from what I have read).

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.

Some people try to reinterpret the Biblical 'facts' to fit with the speculations of popular evolutionary theory, while others try to reinterpret the evolutionary story to fit with the Biblical 'facts'. And then there are others that try to reinterpret both to fit with each other.

What you are doing is raising the point of how some points in the Bible seem to be rather inconsistent with popular evolutionary theory. I mention popular evolutionary theory, because there are very many different ideas of the story of the beginnings, and every person is entitled to his own. But general evolutionary theory holds that species (including man) developed from one common ancestor, as opposed to the idea that God created man through a special intervention (literally from the dust).

It seems to me that most people take the modern popular evolutionary theory as being more true than the Scriptural accounts, and thus the interpretation of the Biblical origins of life is more often the glove that fits the hand of scientific 'truth'. However clever your points are, someone will always find a way to fit the two accounts of origins together. The question is whether this 'fitting together' can be done in a way that does not ignore any 'facts' in either source.

The Biblical account appears to rely on miracles if we read it in a literal way. On the other hand, the evolutionary account is committed to naturalistic explanations. What never ceases to amaze me is the number of people who assume that naturalistic explanations could somehow prove that miracles have not or can not occur. If the world and life was began through a miracle of God (what is considered the literal interpretation of the Bible), then modern science that is committed to naturalistic explanations would never detect this. It would certainly not be in any position to discount miracles, since it never investigates this possibility. Anyone who says that modern science has disproven the literal reading of the Biblical account is spouting nonesense, as far as I can see.

On the other hand, if the origins of the world and life came about pretty much as popular evolutionary theory imagines it, then there are many points in the Bible that will need to be reworked. It actually introduces quite a lot of instability with regards to 'trusting' the text. For example, if God did not create the world through a miracle, then perhaps He did not raise Jesus from the dead through a miracle either. At least, how can we trust the claims of the writers when they talk about miracles?

My solution to this is to look carefully at the claims of both the Bible and that of popular evolutionary theory. From my own continuing search, I have never found in my personal experience anything that is false in the claims of the Bible (as far as personal experience goes), while I have found things in evolutionary theory that is false, although not all. (Such is the nature of science, which discards ideas which turn out to be unlikely.) Thus I have become more skeptical of popular evolutionary theory than I have of the Bible. However, the journey continues.

Some people try to reinterpret the Biblical 'facts' to fit with the speculations of popular evolutionary theory, while others try to reinterpret the evolutionary story to fit with the Biblical 'facts'. And then there are others that try to reinterpret both to fit with each other.

What you are doing is raising the point of how some points in the Bible seem to be rather inconsistent with popular evolutionary theory. I mention popular evolutionary theory, because there are very many different ideas of the story of the beginnings, and every person is entitled to his own. But general evolutionary theory holds that species (including man) developed from one common ancestor, as opposed to the idea that God created man through a special intervention (literally from the dust).

It seems to me that most people take the modern popular evolutionary theory as being more true than the Scriptural accounts, and thus the interpretation of the Biblical origins of life is more often the glove that fits the hand of scientific 'truth'. However clever your points are, someone will always find a way to fit the two accounts of origins together. The question is whether this 'fitting together' can be done in a way that does not ignore any 'facts' in either source.

The Biblical account appears to rely on miracles if we read it in a literal way. On the other hand, the evolutionary account is committed to naturalistic explanations. What never ceases to amaze me is the number of people who assume that naturalistic explanations could somehow prove that miracles have not or can not occur. If the world and life was began through a miracle of God (what is considered the literal interpretation of the Bible), then modern science that is committed to naturalistic explanations would never detect this. It would certainly not be in any position to discount miracles, since it never investigates this possibility. Anyone who says that modern science has disproven the literal reading of the Biblical account is spouting nonesense, as far as I can see.

On the other hand, if the origins of the world and life came about pretty much as popular evolutionary theory imagines it, then there are many points in the Bible that will need to be reworked. It actually introduces quite a lot of instability with regards to 'trusting' the text. For example, if God did not create the world through a miracle, then perhaps He did not raise Jesus from the dead through a miracle either. At least, how can we trust the claims of the writers when they talk about miracles?

My solution to this is to look carefully at the claims of both the Bible and that of popular evolutionary theory. From my own continuing search, I have never found in my personal experience anything that is false in the claims of the Bible (as far as personal experience goes), while I have found things in evolutionary theory that is false, although not all. (Such is the nature of science, which discards ideas which turn out to be unlikely.) Thus I have become more skeptical of popular evolutionary theory than I have of the Bible. However, the journey continues.
*tries not to giggle during your speech*

Science doesn't investigate certain things but it certainly falsifies them if they are counter to science. The idea that man was present within the first week of the creation of earth is very much something that science can and has addressed. Unless one turns a completely blind eye to science, it is quite clearly falsified.

However, if one is going for a completely literat translation of the text, then there are problem already since their are several stories of our creation and they don't occur in the same order each time.

Now, given there are better, more rational, readings of the Bible that don't require one to ignore inconsistencies, the style of story-telling within the bible and the fact that these were visions, I somehow doubt that unless your rather limited and illogical reading of the source is correct the miracles of Jesus are called into question. I don't limit God nor the text in the way that you do, nor do many of the people in this thread and in the world.

Now as far your falsification of parts of the evolutionary theory. Please, publish your findings. Scientists love to see things falsified. It's opens the doors to tons of grants and new work. Sometimes, it is responsible for completely new venues in scientific research. I wish you the best of luck.

What never ceases to amaze me is the number of people who assume that naturalistic explanations could somehow prove that miracles have not or can not occur. If the world and life was began through a miracle of God (what is considered the literal interpretation of the Bible), then modern science that is committed to naturalistic explanations would never detect this. It would certainly not be in any position to discount miracles, since it never investigates this possibility. Anyone who says that modern science has disproven the literal reading of the Biblical account is spouting nonesense, as far as I can see.
Only if we want to be scientific about it, and the rest of your paragraph indicates that we do. If we are being scientific, then miracles cannot be given any consideration. So in the context of science they cannot and do not occur. Of course, this says nothing about nonscientific contexts.

It also says nothing about "proof".

So... God changed his mind?

God didn't change His mind. He just didn't tell them that incest was a sin. So the question is would incest be a sin if the Fall never happened? I don't know. I'm leaning towards no. If things were only perverted after the fall, then is it possible that certain sexual acts would become sinful, particuraly sexual intercourse with close relations? It's possible. Whether it's true or not I don't know.

There are more examples of this in Genesis. There was when Lot slept with his daughters. To be fair, the got him drunk first. That took place before God told them it was sinful, so how are they to know? Incest is only identified as a sin much later: Exodus identifies that there are sexual sins (Thou shalt not commit adultery) and Leviticus begins to go more in depth about which acts are sins. These laws were given by God to Moses and he was alive several generations after Lot and even more generations after Cain.

Simply because God doesn't tell you something at 10:00 doesn't mean He changed His mind when He tells you at 11:00.

Simply because God doesn't tell you something at 10:00 doesn't mean He changed His mind when He tells you at 11:00.
But it does mean that God can be present with sin. At least for an hour.

You really take this litterally? Ok, let's say that Cain had a sister. Why would they just up and leave their parents? And yeah, the world is pretty big. At this point, a few weeks of hiding and he'd never be found. And, why would his siblings need to see a mark to know not to kill him? Couldn't God tell them?

Yes, I am a Jew by Birth, and a Christian by belief, but the Bible wasn't written when the world was created. Even if you take it literally, you must realize that human memory can fail, and that story tellers can add flair to a story for dramatic purposes.

You forget why Cain fled: he had just killed his brother! That would make me flee. And so what if he never would have been found? Most sane persons who have just committed murder would be pretty paranoid about justice being made upon them. What if he happens to run into one of his other siblings and s/he decides to avenge his/her big brother Abel?

And we are not told that the mark was physical. It could have been a physical mark. Or it could have been supernatural, a mark that would detter action against Cain because of laws only God understands.

Everyone forgets that God inspired Moses to write Genesis (according to traditional Christianity). Even if the stories had survived the Flood and the wickedness of Babel, they would have been broken beyond repair by human weakness. It is only by God that any of the stories would be as they are.

If they weren't inspired by God, wouldn't Moses or whoever have tried to correct some of the questions? Wouldn't the identity of Cain's wife been made clear? Wouldn't the question of how all the animals fit on the ark been explained in some mystical way?

I believe the fact that they aren't shows that God's hand must have been in the preservation of these stories.

I have been reading the Bible for many years, and there are words said by Jesus that still sting...

Yeah, same here.

The gnostic gospels. I can't show you that they are similar in almost every way except tone to the other gospels. I can't lead you down that path. Jump out there and educate yourself on the issue before you make assertions you admit you have no evidence for. You've been informed in this thread of why and how the Bible was formed.

I see no evidence to believe what you say about why and how the Bible was formed. Have you studied it? If you have, it is most likely that you studied all the newest books by the newest teachers, yes?

Most of those persons are looking for any way to destroy the authority of the Bible. Just as others look for any way to support the authority of the Bible.

I have not studied how the Bible was finally established as well as I ought to have. That doesn't change the fact that simply because what I have read must be wrong because it disagrees with what you have read. Is it not possible that what you have read is wrong? Remember that fallibility of humans!

And you ought to try to lead me down that path. It is your responsibility to me and to God to try to turn me away from what you view as sin or heresy!

You forget why Cain fled: he had just killed his brother! That would make me flee. And so what if he never would have been found? Most sane persons who have just committed murder would be pretty paranoid about justice being made upon them. What if he happens to run into one of his other siblings and s/he decides to avenge his/her big brother Abel?

And we are not told that the mark was physical. It could have been a physical mark. Or it could have been supernatural, a mark that would detter action against Cain because of laws only God understands.

Everyone forgets that God inspired Moses to write Genesis (according to traditional Christianity). Even if the stories had survived the Flood and the wickedness of Babel, they would have been broken beyond repair by human weakness. It is only by God that any of the stories would be as they are.

If they weren't inspired by God, wouldn't Moses or whoever have tried to correct some of the questions? Wouldn't the identity of Cain's wife been made clear? Wouldn't the question of how all the animals fit on the ark been explained in some mystical way?

I believe the fact that they aren't shows that God's hand must have been in the preservation of these stories.

Actually, according to the book of Jubilees, which was rejected for inclusion in the canon after the council of Nicia states that Cain had 9 brothers and sisters and that he married one of his sisters. Also, as noted in one of my earlier posts, the book of Genesis as it exists today was most likely written during the Babylonian exile and drew on oral traditions, earlier texts (some of which may or may not have originated with Moses) and some Babylonian material as well.

I see no evidence to believe what you say about why and how the Bible was formed. Have you studied it? If you have, it is most likely that you studied all the newest books by the newest teachers, yes?

Most of those persons are looking for any way to destroy the authority of the Bible. Just as others look for any way to support the authority of the Bible.

I have not studied how the Bible was finally established as well as I ought to have. That doesn't change the fact that simply because what I have read must be wrong because it disagrees with what you have read. Is it not possible that what you have read is wrong? Remember that fallibility of humans!

And you ought to try to lead me down that path. It is your responsibility to me and to God to try to turn me away from what you view as sin or heresy!

I don't believe you are sinning and I don't believe it is my job. I believe it is my job to suggest to you look to God for answers rather than me or any other human, particularly humans who have gain politically by you following what they say.

I have studied it. It was worthwhile. It doesn't add a lot other then telling us that Constantine rejected gospels that have equal authority becuase they didn't like some aspect (I don't see how Constantine can claim that gospels are infallible and reject some, but that's me.) Constantine was a pagan who used Christianity for personal gain. It doesn't make the Bible wrong. It makes some things that were added by the Church suspect.

Why do so many Christians believe that one is able to support Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) and Biblical Christianity?

I think it's pretty obvious, even if you believe that the six days of Genesis were really millions of years. Firstly, the plants were created before the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.

Secondly, the way I understand the theory of evolution is that animals that were unable to adapt to changing enviorments died out while those that possessed genes that allowed them to adapt survived eventually becoming new species as "bad" genes were eliminated and mutations occured.

But how does that fit with the Biblical idea that physical death is the result of the spiritual death of Adam and Eve? Following that idea, which Christians claim to uphold, there could be no deaths for the bad genes to be eliminated.

And what about the verse that says God created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22)?

Somone please explain how these two can fit together, if as a Christian, one believes the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God.
Genesis is an allegory, not to be taken literally. End of story.

But it does mean that God can be present with sin. At least for an hour.

Would you please explain what you mean by this.

Actually, according to the book of Jubilees, which was rejected for inclusion in the canon after the council of Nicia states that Cain had 9 brothers and sisters and that he married one of his sisters. Also, as noted in one of my earlier posts, the book of Genesis as it exists today was most likely written during the Babylonian exile and drew on oral traditions, earlier texts (some of which may or may not have originated with Moses) and some Babylonian material as well.

Will you please tell me where you read this so that I may read it and then promptly reject it!:p

I don't know about the theory that Genesis was written by the Babylonians. I do know that it would completely destroy the idea that the book may be trusted more than any other human writing (which the source of the Babylon theory is) which would throw a wrench into my entire theology. Therefore, I am cautious towards it.

Genesis is an allegory, not to be taken literally. End of story.

Again, a statement with nothing to back it up.

The Chronicles of Narnia is an allegory. I can make that claim because one can look at traditional Christianity and see how Narnia parallels it. When you say Genesis is an allegory, what is it an allegory to? Show me what it's an allegory to and I may change my mind! But as it is, I see nothing concrete (anything beyond theory) for Genesis to be considered an allegory.

I don't believe you are sinning and I don't believe it is my job. I believe it is my job to suggest to you look to God for answers rather than me or any other human, particularly humans who have gain politically by you following what they say.

I have studied it. It was worthwhile. It doesn't add a lot other then telling us that Constantine rejected gospels that have equal authority becuase they didn't like some aspect (I don't see how Constantine can claim that gospels are infallible and reject some, but that's me.) Constantine was a pagan who used Christianity for personal gain. It doesn't make the Bible wrong. It makes some things that were added by the Church suspect.

And who gains politically from what I believe? If you are referring to George Bush and Iraq or something like that, I've been saying go to war since 2000!

Would you please explain what you mean by this.
Here is God, and here is the god-fearing righteous person. This person thinks they are being good, thinks they are doing the right things to be right with their God, following in his proverbial footsteps as it were, but then 11:00 rolls around and suddenly God says, "I'm sorry, this thing you regularly do here with your sister is a sin." Oops!

God didn't change His mind. He just didn't tell them that incest was a sin. So the question is would incest be a sin if the Fall never happened? I don't know. I'm leaning towards no. If things were only perverted after the fall, then is it possible that certain sexual acts would become sinful, particuraly sexual intercourse with close relations? It's possible. Whether it's true or not I don't know.

There are more examples of this in Genesis. There was when Lot slept with his daughters. To be fair, the got him drunk first. That took place before God told them it was sinful, so how are they to know? Incest is only identified as a sin much later: Exodus identifies that there are sexual sins (Thou shalt not commit adultery) and Leviticus begins to go more in depth about which acts are sins. These laws were given by God to Moses and he was alive several generations after Lot and even more generations after Cain.

Simply because God doesn't tell you something at 10:00 doesn't mean He changed His mind when He tells you at 11:00.

Um. Remember how God told humankind to "be fruitful and multiply"? And how childbirth was a punishment for Eve because of the fall? Thus, the order must have been after the fall, if we are taking things literally. But wait, according to you, Adam and Eve were the only human beings at all. That means that God ordered human beings to be incestous, as that is the only possible way they could "be fruitful and multiply".

Later, God said incest was sinful. Do you think God is in the habit of regularly telling people to commit sins?

Everyone forgets that God inspired Moses to write Genesis (according to traditional Christianity).

According to tradition? Yes. Of course, Moses was also supposed to have wrote the very book that details his own death - I'm not sure how that would work. Biblical scholars have posited no less than two authors for the first 5 books of the Bible, and they don't restrict it solely to Moses as either of them.

If they weren't inspired by God, wouldn't Moses or whoever have tried to correct some of the questions? Wouldn't the identity of Cain's wife been made clear? Wouldn't the question of how all the animals fit on the ark been explained in some mystical way?

I believe the fact that they aren't shows that God's hand must have been in the preservation of these stories.

This doesn't make any sense. The stories have details left out and that is somehow evidence of God having dicated them? Why wouldn't a perfect God have tried to make the story perfectly clear?

I see no evidence to believe what you say about why and how the Bible was formed.

So history means nothing to you?

Have you studied it? If you have, it is most likely that you studied all the newest books by the newest teachers, yes?

I have studied it, but no it wasn't "all the newest books and newest teachers."

Most of those persons are looking for any way to destroy the authority of the Bible. Just as others look for any way to support the authority of the Bible.

I highly doubt that my theology teacher or a Catholic historian were looking for any way to destroy the authority of the Bible.

Remember that fallibility of humans!

You mean the one you keep forgetting when you place your faith in the works of humans?

The Chronicles of Narnia is an allegory. I can make that claim because one can look at traditional Christianity and see how Narnia parallels it. When you say Genesis is an allegory, what is it an allegory to? Show me what it's an allegory to and I may change my mind! But as it is, I see nothing concrete (anything beyond theory) for Genesis to be considered an allegory.

The Adam and Eve fall story could be an allegory of human beings gaining knowledge of the results of their actions - and thus gaining responsibility for them. Human beings could no longer be as most of the animals - without empathy and without regret - because we know better.

Cain and Abel could be allegory relating to agricultural societies that began to try and wipe out the entirety of nomadic cultures. Remember that the ancient Hebrews were largely nomadic herders. When more settled, agricultural societies were formed, there were societies that tried to wipe out or totally integrate other "tribes" for the first time. Have you ever wondered why Cain could work so hard on growing his crops, but God would not accept them as a sacrifice? Could it be because the ancient Hebrews thought God was on their side - the side of the herders who could sacrifice livestock, rather than those who relied upon crops?

Here is God, and here is the god-fearing righteous person. This person thinks they are being good, thinks they are doing the right things to be right with their God, following in his proverbial footsteps as it were, but then 11:00 rolls around and suddenly God says, "I'm sorry, this thing you regularly do here with your sister is a sin." Oops!

Considering that God ordered human beings to multiply, It's actually:

10:00 "Have sex with your sister. I command it."

11:00 "Having sex with your sister is sinful. Don't you dare do it!"

Will you please tell me where you read this so that I may read it and then promptly reject it!:p

I don't know about the theory that Genesis was written by the Babylonians. I do know that it would completely destroy the idea that the book may be trusted more than any other human writing (which the source of the Babylon theory is) which would throw a wrench into my entire theology. Therefore, I am cautious towards it.

Book of Jubilees (http://www.piney-2.com/ApocJubileeBook.html) - There is also a very good show called "banned books of the bible" that discusses the book that airs on the History channel from time to time (there may be stuff about that show on their web site, I didn't check that).

Also, I didn't say Genesis was written by the Babylonians, I said the version of Genesis found in the bible was written during the time the Jews were in exile in Babylon. It was almost certainly written by a Jewish author, possibly even Daniel or one of his contemperaries at the time. and in writing it various sources, including earlier texts, were used. Some of those earlier texts may or may not have their orign with Moses or even earlier.

Also, I'd like to add (though not in reply to your post exactly) that the people who criticize the bible due to its years of being copied, translated, etc. You need to remember that the books of the bible were, for the most part, considered important and divinely inspired works by the people involved in copying them and it was important to copy them exactly right. The fact the dead sea scrolls have so few differences in what they say and the bible as it exists lends testament to that fact and the idea that generally speaking little would change over the years in the text of the books of the bible.

Has anyone mentioned that Moses wrote about his own death and burial?

Duet. 34:5

One word, inside of the quotes that is, "Doublethink."

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm
What an awsome site!