question about Christianity

#326
#326
ImTheCrew said:
Yes, the world being created by itself out of nothing..... Very magical..... Very hypocritical on your part.... Saying someone creating is magic... But all this coming out of nothing is magic.
Click to expand...

Within the laws of nature, it is self-evident that every effect has a cause. That said, there either exists and infinite regression of causes or their exists a (or, at least one) first cause. A cause cannot cause itself, therefore, that first cause must be not be confined to the laws of nature (and, is thus, supernatural).

I am not sure where I attacked anything for being "magic"; I have stated that according to reason, I cannot accept any of the religious creation myths (and, I have given my reasons).

None of my reasons were, "well, those myths are supernatural or magical and therefore I do not accept them".

When it comes to living in the world, though, I think it is prudent to trust reason as far as it will take you; there are certain things that reason cannot explain: whether or not the external world exists; how was I, ultimately, created/how was the universe, ultimately, created?

Reason can guide me to live morally; reason can argue that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient Being would not need human veneration, praise, and prayers.
 
#327
#327
That's the most important thing to me. If the creator is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, etc. Why in the hell would he need our praise? Is he one giant omnibenevolent drama queen?
 
#329
#329
So your intial belief is supernatural, disregarding religion because of its too absurd is ludicrous when youre belief has the same "mythical" foundation.
 
#331
#331
joevol320 said:
LOL, yeah it's a stretch. God allows being their own free will, that's why satan rebelled against God. however, your statement that God created an imperfect earth is not accurate because God had not cursed the earth until after adam and eve sinned. it was a perfect creation until humans sinned.
Click to expand...

Then why did God either create or allow this metaphorical absolute darkness? Why doesn't God refer to it as "good" as he does with every other act he takes in Genesis 1? Why must free will always involve the choice to do evil? Why couldn't an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good Being create free will without evil choices? What do cancer, earthquakes, and hurricanes have to do with human free will? Why is this suffering allowed? The argument of free will is a cop-out; I would rather you just state that there is no evil in the world (that position is at least somewhat defensible).
 
#334
#334
ImTheCrew said:
So your intial belief is supernatural, disregarding religion because of its too absurd is ludicrous when youre belief has the same "mythical" foundation.
Click to expand...

Yes, my initial belief is supernatural; and, it is an unadorned supernatural. It is, that there can be no natural explanation for a first cause, there must be a supernatural explanation. That is where I stop. Theology continues and adorns that supernatural with traits of personhood, properties of perfection, etc.

Saying that something cannot be explained naturally is not absurd; saying that something which can never be known has a set amount of properties, a personality, and a pact with a certain segment of humanity is absurd unless one has received personal revelation (not second-hand, historical revelation). If you have received that personal revelation, then congratulations. I have not and I think it more than prudent not to believe testimony of things which go against reason.
 
#335
#335
mtt2d said:
What? The Bible says God literally created man. You don't believe it?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to be an idiot or did you forget what the initial conversation concerned and why the two Genesis stories cannot be taken literally?
 
#339
#339
mtt2d said:
Why can't one take bother chapters creation of man literal? They are the same thing.
Click to expand...

One cannot take Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 literally; they are contradictory. Even if you want to focus solely on just the creation of man, they are still contradictory:

26 4 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

27

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."
Click to expand...


5

while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil,

6

but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground -

7

2 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

8

3 Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed.

9

Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

10

4 A river rises in Eden to water the garden; beyond there it divides and becomes four branches.

11

The name of the first is the Pishon; it is the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

12

The gold of that land is excellent; bdellium and lapis lazuli are also there.

13

The name of the second river is the Gihon; it is the one that winds all through the land of Cush.

14

The name of the third river is the Tigris; it is the one that flows east of Asshur. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

15

The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

16

The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden

17

except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

18

The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."

19

So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.

20

The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.

21

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

22

The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in order of creation; therefore, these stories cannot both be taken literally. Feel free to accept them both as allegorical truth.
 
#340
#340
therealUT said:
Yes, my initial belief is supernatural; and, it is an unadorned supernatural. It is, that there can be no natural explanation for a first cause, there must be a supernatural explanation. That is where I stop. Theology continues and adorns that supernatural with traits of personhood, properties of perfection, etc.

Saying that something cannot be explained naturally is not absurd; saying that something which can never be known has a set amount of properties, a personality, and a pact with a certain segment of humanity is absurd unless one has received personal revelation (not second-hand, historical revelation). If you have received that personal revelation, then congratulations. I have not and I think it more than prudent not to believe testimony of things which go against reason.
Click to expand...

I've never said I was a Christian, just an FYI. God can not be explained naturally.... Is that not the same?

How can one thing that obviously is unimaginable be more absurd than something that is a resemblance of mankind?

I just can't stand the one sided bashing, especially online, I understand if a person is trying to push a religion onto you, but that's not the case.
 
#341
#341
ImTheCrew said:
I've never said I was a Christian, just an FYI. God can not be explained naturally.... Is that not the same?

How can one thing that obviously is unimaginable be more absurd than something that is a resemblance of mankind?

I just can't stand the one sided bashing, especially online, I understand if a person is trying to push a religion onto you, but that's not the case.
Click to expand...

There is a fundamental difference between saying:

"P cannot be explained naturally" and stopping;

and,

"P cannot be explained naturally, but let's make it omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, personal, and genuinely interested in the eternal salvation of the Hebrews and European peoples".

The first is an admission of the limits of knowledge and reason; the second has nothing to do with reason, and is based on some perverse notion of privileged access to knowledge.

I care little whether you can "stand the one side bashing"; further, it is not genuine. You were the one mocking myself and KK with what you must have thought were witty remarks regarding magic dust.
 
#342
#342
ImTheCrew said:
I've never said I was a Christian, just an FYI. God can not be explained naturally.... Is that not the same?

How can one thing that obviously is unimaginable be more absurd than something that is a resemblance of mankind?

I just can't stand the one sided bashing, especially online, I understand if a person is trying to push a religion onto you, but that's not the case.
Click to expand...

I don't believe its one sided bashing. Someone talks about how they believe in god, and fellow believers are cool with it. Someone says I don't believe in god and then 'Christians' complain that they are spewing hate and Christian bashing. Obviously everyone isn't this way but as a whole that's how I see it. Plenty of people don't understand how someone can believe in god, plenty of people don't understand how someone can believe in the absence of god. Neither side is really any different from each other in that regard.

From what I understand, therealUT is saying the 'myth' of god is no more plausible or implausible than the 'myth' of other religions or the 'myth' of other theories regarding the beginning of the universe. To me he is simply saying that he would rather put his trust in an institution that searches for the answer with logic and reason.

therealUT, correct me if I'm wrong in misunderstanding your stance on the issue :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#343
#343
lumberjack4 said:
I don't believe its one sided bashing. Someone talks about how they believe in god, and fellow believers are cool with it. Someone says I don't believe in god and then 'Christians' complain that they are spewing hate and Christian bashing. Obviously everyone isn't this way but as a whole that's how I see it. Plenty of people don't understand how someone can believe in god, plenty of people don't understand how someone can believe in the absence of god. Neither side is really any different from each other in that regard.

From what I understand, therealUT is saying the 'myth' of god is no more plausible or implausible than the 'myth' of other religions or the 'myth' of other theories regarding the beginning of the universe. To me he is simply saying that he would rather put his trust in an institution that searches for the answer with logic and reason.

therealUT, correct me if I'm wrong in misunderstanding your stance on the issue :hi:
Click to expand...

I'd say you have it.
 
#345
#345
In Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

And...

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
 
#346
#346
lumberjack4 said:
I don't believe its one sided bashing. Someone talks about how they believe in god, and fellow believers are cool with it. Someone says I don't believe in god and then 'Christians' complain that they are spewing hate and Christian bashing. Obviously everyone isn't this way but as a whole that's how I see it. Plenty of people don't understand how someone can believe in god, plenty of people don't understand how someone can believe in the absence of god. Neither side is really any different from each other in that regard.

From what I understand, therealUT is saying the 'myth' of god is no more plausible or implausible than the 'myth' of other religions or the 'myth' of other theories regarding the beginning of the universe. To me he is simply saying that he would rather put his trust in an institution that searches for the answer with logic and reason.

therealUT, correct me if I'm wrong in misunderstanding your stance on the issue :hi:
Click to expand...

Your first half is waaay off, read just the first few pages... the thread as a typical theme.... its pokes fun at religion, speaking of morals, i know what places to walk on and make fun, Race, religon, etc... is not one of the topics... so by calling it "magical" is just trying to illicit a response.... from what i read.. theres about 40 post bashing religion.. then someone trying to explain their side, and being bashed again.



i understand what therealut is saying, but i don't understand, how his belief process is any different than that of religion... You believe in something that is unimaginable to natural laws, as is religion.


You have no basis what so ever, where as religion has one.
 
#347
#347
rjd970 said:
Actually I think it is Doctrine and Covenants, but it's all the same silliness.
Click to expand...

see comments like these, I'm sure this poster knows people hold their beliefs very dear, and for someone to purposely make fun of that, whether a believer or not, is about as ignorant as you can get.
 
#348
#348
mtt2d said:
In Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

And...

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
Click to expand...

Original...

Genesis contradictions?

Are you Don Batten?

Biography
I was born in 5 February 1951 and was raised in a rural area of Australia at a time of great family stability and security—at a time when locks were not necessary and divorce was rare. Almost everyone had two parents caring for them. I have seen the development of the rampant social decay which now afflicts Australia—where it is no longer safe to walk the streets at night or leave your house unlocked and where many children struggle with only one parent to raise them. This social decay accelerated with the introduction of systematic evolutionary indoctrination into school curricula in the 1960s—indoctrination which I received also.

I was converted as a result of a street preacher from the Open Air Campaigners at the young age of 10 years. As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that ‘science was facts’ and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that ‘God used evolution’, days-are-ages, ‘progressive creation’, etc. I could never see how the gap theory solved anything, or that it had any basis in the Bible. However, I really chose not to think about ‘science’ and the Bible because I guess I knew that evolution did not go with the Bible at all. I arrived at University with this attitude.

As an off-the-cuff remark a Professor of Zoology said in a lecture ‘Some of you are worried about this evolution stuff. Don’t worry too much about it, I don’t know whether I believe it myself.’ Something ‘clicked’ with me when he said this—I came to see, after considerable prayer and study, that evolution is really a belief system parading as science. It is an alternative religion designed to banish the creator God to the realm of abstract philosophy only (contrary to Romans 1:20). In the end I came to see the importance of the written Word of God. I had an unforgettable experience of being confronted with the challenge, almost like an audible voice from Heaven, ‘Are you going to believe My Word, or the words of men?’ In tears, on my knees, I confessed my unbelief and asked for forgiveness. My life has never been the same since. It was like being born again—again!

Since then I have endeavoured to understand the Bible and to defend it from all who would attack it. I have seen many lives turned around, friends converted, and Christians on fire for the Lord, through the creation message. That is why I am now working as a Creation evangelist. I am happily married to Lesley and blessed with three grown children.

Research fields
Plant physiology. Environmental adaptation of tropical / subtropical fruit species such as mango, lychee and custard apple (Annona spp.); floral biology, floral induction; breeding; environmental physiology (especially water requirements, effects of water deficits), plant taxonomy (especially at the sub-species level), and mineral nutrition. Dr Batten’s research in floral induction of lychee and mango has resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought on this (see Batten and McConchie, 1995), which was a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops.

Research Projects Funded by External Agencies
Study tour of India and Taiwan on lychees and mangoes, 1980 (CESG)
Provision of controlled-temperature glasshouse for propagation of tropical/subtropical fruit 1983–84 (RCDF).
Control of fruit set and retention in lychee, 1987–91 (RIRDC)—with C.A. McConchie, CSIRO Div. Horticulture, Brisbane.
Overcoming problems related to poor root health in custard apple and lychee, 1990–92 (RIRDC)
Regulation of cropping in lychee, 1991–1994 (RIRDC)—with C.A. McConchie, CSIRO Div. of Horticulture, Brisbane.
Education
1969–72: B.Sc.Agr.(First Class Honours)—University of Sydney
1973–76: Ph.D.—University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science. Thesis: Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)
Employment/Positions
1976–90: Research Horticulturist, NSW Agriculture, Tropical Fruit Research Station, Alstonville.
1991–1994: Senior Research Horticulturist, NSW Agriculture, Tropical Fruit Research Station, Alstonville (resigned January 1994).
1994–: Creation Ministries International, Brisbane, Australia + private horticultural consultant.
Click to expand...

Does he speak Hebrew? It is certainly not listed in any of his qualifications and he appears to have never researched or studied in Israel...

Maybe he knows it; maybe he doesn't. I'll trust the translators from the Vulgate.
 
#350
#350
ImTheCrew said:
Your first half is waaay off, read just the first few pages... the thread as a typical theme.... its pokes fun at religion, speaking of morals, i know what places to walk on and make fun, Race, religon, etc... is not one of the topics... so by calling it "magical" is just trying to illicit a response.... from what i read.. theres about 40 post bashing religion.. then someone trying to explain their side, and being bashed again.



i understand what therealut is saying, but i don't understand, how his belief process is any different than that of religion... You believe in something that is unimaginable to natural laws, as is religion.


You have no basis what so ever, where as religion has one.
Click to expand...

The difference is that I am not adding properties to an unknown and unexplained phenomenon. That is a distinct and material difference. I do not believe something that is unimaginable to natural laws; I see that natural laws and reason have a finite limit: that naturally leads to the conclusion that something that pays no heed to such laws is necessary. Then, stop.

I do not know how many separate times I must explain this distinction. It is fundamental. I am not conjuring up properties that I feel should belong to a necessary being; I am not creating stories or buying into stories about how this being likes animal sacrifices more than first fruits; I am not creating stories about how this being destroyed a city because its inhabitants were rapists.

I have said that these things are possible; I said that from the beginning. They are just as possible as the Hindu myths, the Greek myths, the Norse myths, etc. Where those myths really began, I stopped...the necessity of a supernatural force.

I have stated that it is absurd to believe in any of these religions without reasons for soundly and validly refuting all the others.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top