This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
My Quandry with Judeo-Christian Beliefs
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Queggy
How can it be a test if you're sincerely asking for help and dying?
While it's not a phrase actually found in the Bible, I do put some stock in the phrase, "God helps those who help themselves."
If you're a biblical literalist, does that mean you believe no two Christians have ever got together and prayed for world peace? (In before Free will, it says anything). And how exactly did god give us medical knowledge? Last time I read the bible I saw no mention of the germ theory of disease, pharmacology, accurate human anatomy, immunology, neuroscience et cetera. As I recall, humans went out and learned about these things for themselves after thousands of generations of people dying in fear, pain and ignorance.
I'm not a literalist.
And if we believe that all things come from God (which I do), then I would rightly say (in my own mind) that God gave us that medical knowledge.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
So nothing has ever or could ever be achieved by anything or anyone except god?
I suppose you could phrase it that way, yes.
And if god did it (and presumably planned this ahead of time), why did it wait for so much suffering to occur before revealing this knowledge?
Suffering, free will, and God's omni-power has already been discussed in this thread. I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has already been talked about earlier, there's no need to bring it up again.
Do you not feel devalued believing you will never have an original thought or be able to help without assistance?
I would say I have original thoughts. God merely allowes me to have them. Just because everything comes from God doesn't mean He does everything for us. Sometimes it is merely the lack of something that comes from Him.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
If you're not a literalist, how do you choose which parts are literal and which parts are allegorical?
For example, do you believe that people literally lived for ~900 years a long time ago? If so, what makes the literal account of Genesis any less believable? And if not, why was it put in the book?
And another thing... if God gave Gideon direct proof on demand (not to mention the voice that everyone heard), why not me?
Post by
Queggy
If you're not a literalist, how do you choose which parts are literal and which parts are allegorical?
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm not a literalist like Church of Christ or anything (who due to certain passages, believe God hates music made with instruments and that you have to be baptized to be saved), but I do believe that the Bible is all true. You have to read and place things in context.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
And how to your rectify the idea that all creation was created some 6-10,000 years ago in its present state with the empirical data that would suggest that the universe originated some 13.7 billion years ago and all extant life evolved from simpler forms?
Post by
Queggy
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm not a literalist like Church of Christ or anything (who due to certain passages, believe God hates music made with instruments and that you have to be baptized to be saved), but I do believe that the Bible is all true. You have to read and place things in context.
How do you deal with passages that contradict each other then? An easy example: Matthew says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the empty tomb, Mark says Salome was there too and John says Mary Magdalene was alone. Or one which is less ambiguous (and has been answered hilariously by an apologist), did Judas hang himself (Matthew) or fall off a cliff (Acts)? Oh, and in the book of Judas the other disciples stone him to death.
Where Jesus' last words "It is finished" (John), "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke) or "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Matthew)?
Can I have the specific location of the passages please? I'd like to look these up.And how to your rectify the idea that all creation was created some 6-10,000 years ago in its present state with the empirical data that would suggest that the universe originated some 13.7 billion years ago and all extant life evolved from simpler forms?
I have never seen any "data" that would make me believe in evolution or a few billion years old universe.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Can I have the specific location of the passages please? I'd like to look these up.
In the order I mentioned them: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, John 20:1. Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18. Matthew 27:46-50, Luke 23:46, John 19:30.
Were you not aware of these passages? If not I question how you can honestly say:
I do believe that the Bible is all true
I've read all of those passages before, it's been awhile however, and I don't remember any confliction the previous times I read them.
I have never seen any "data" that would make me believe in evolution or a few billion years old universe.
Oh wow.
/shrug
I can say the same of you. I've seen plenty of empirical "evidence" as to why I believe God exists, but apparently you haven't.
Oh wow.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Ok, I've read over the passages and I still don't believe they contradict each other.
For the first example of the people that go to the Tomb:
It is likely that all of those people went, but the various apostles only listed who they thought to be important. When I tell a story, it's unlikely that I'd list everyone who was with me at the time, but merely the characters of main importance. Therefore one apostle listed who he thought to be important, while another listed who he thought was more important.
Second example of Judas killing himself:
One says he hung himself, another said his body burst asunder after he fell. I think that he probably hung himself, and as his body rotted, it fell from the rope and splattered on the ground. Both stories seem to contradict each other, but they're really telling the same story from a different point of view.
Third example of Jesus crying out on the cross:
I would imagine that Jesus said all of those things, but the various apostle's only recorded the portions of the speech that they thought were important.
Post by
Queggy
I can say the same of you. I've seen plenty of empirical "evidence" as to why I believe God exists, but apparently you haven't.
Oh wow.
If any scientist could provide evidence that a god exists, they would instantly become the most famous human that ever lived, but please feel free to link me to this evidence. However it must take serious effort to ignore the genetic, archaeological, radiometric and historical evidence that supports the fact that the Earth was not created after the agricultural revolution and the divergence of species.
I never spoke of scientific evidence as to why God exits, I was thinking more along the lines of other types of evidence. However, scientific evidence for God does exist.
It takes thousands/millions/billions of years for evolution to occur, right? So how have
various species
survived that process?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Empirical evidence is scientific evidence, which you claimed there is plenty of.
I apologize then, I misunderstood the meaning of empirical.
Wrong. There are bacteria capable of digesting nylon, a substance which was only invented in the 50s (Flavobacterium, Sp. K172).
That doesn't mean that bacteria evolved. It could have always had the ability to digest certain polymers such as nylon. Although, I do believe in micro-evolution, so on the other hand . . .
/shrug
Thanks for the laugh. It's very clear from that article that Jobe has no clue how evolution works, he makes the ridiculous assumption that evolution would have a beetle containing chemicals before a mechanism to protect itself from them or a giraffe would have a long neck before a capacitor system or that woodpeckers would peck in their manner before they were able to survive doing so. Additionally he fails to realise that characteristics can be co-opted for multiple uses. For example the rete mirabile mentioned which is also used in the heat regulation of the brain.
There are some very interesting articles out there with studies attached (rather than dentists claiming they can't work out x and therefore it didn't happen) that adequately explain the talking points raised.
And what exactly do you mean survived the process? Are there giraffes in pre-Cambrian rock? Or woodpeckers in devonian rock?
Why would a beetle evolve a mechanism for something it never had before? How did the beetle survive being eaten after it had evolved out of its previous stage and before it evolved a new defensive mechanism? Why would a giraffe know to evolve a capacitor system if it didn't know it needed one beforehand? How would woodpeckers peck in a different manner? One tiny little peck at a time? That will really help them get enough food to survive.
And when I say survive the process, I mean the process of evolution. Abandoning one feature and gaining another. Ie - giraffes short neck transition to long neck.
Surely every witness of a supposed miracle is important?
It would take a long time to list the names of the over 500 people that saw Jesus after his resurrection.
So he hung himself from a tree, then when the rope snapped his body did a 180 degree flip before hitting the ground? Acts very clearly says he fell head first. Also, how long must have the person who witnessed the even have been standing in that field to watch the moment of impact?
I don't think the rope snapped. I think it more likely that the body rotted away from the rope and then fell. Also, falling head first doesn't necessarily mean you hit head first.
And how many bodies do you know that burst open when they hit the ground? Another reason why I think it likely that the body rotted.
As to how long someone stood there: They wouldn't have HAD to stand there, because the Spirit would have told them what to write.
They all clearly say it was the last thing though, even if they only recorded what they felt was important, last words are last words.
Yeah, exactly. They could be saying that the phrases he uttered were his last words (which would be true), and then listed the "important parts", still making it his "last words." You don't have to list everything for it to be something. If that grammar makes sense . . .
Honestly, I'm not trying to convert you or anything, I'm merely trying to show you the viewpoint from a different perspective. No amount of "evidence" I give you would ever change your mind without faith, and no amount of "evidence" you give me would change my mind.
Post by
DarkOpeth
wow.... I could be playing the AMAZING xpac, but this discussion is far, far more interesting. Unfortunately, Queggy, being an Atheist myself, I tend to side with DoctorLore when discussions like this come on the boards. The whole genetic, archaeological, radiometric and historical evidence
kind of kills the Bible for me..
As for my two cents, DL, I think that an all-powerful god that didn't want to make himself discoverable or provable would make it so, because come on, a diety that can violate the laws of nature, physics and everything on a whim.... would most likely work in ways that defy and violate our logic, because he can.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
That doesn't mean that bacteria evolved. It could have always had the ability to digest certain polymers such as nylon. Although, I do believe in micro-evolution, so on the other hand . . .
/shrugGah! Micro-evolution, applied over millions of years,
is
macro-evolution!
I would definitely suggest reading some books on evolution. Perhaps "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "The Greatest Show on Earth," both by Richard Dawkins... or, if you choose to ignore an argument simply because of its author, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of books that do a good job of explaining the concept.
And no, they didn't always have the ability to process nylon. That's ridiculous.
If you want a better example, we have living proof of evolution in
Richard Lenski's E. Coli experiments.
E. Coli cannot normally process citrate as an energy source. That's actually one of the ways we normally use to detect E. Coli.
However, around generation 33,127, the bacteria in the experiments somehow "learned" to make use of it. By going back and unfreezing earlier generations, Lenski observed that they had randomly picked up "parts" of the necessary equipment, and around the 33 thousandth generation, one of the twelve populations happened to get the correct combination to do it.
That's evolution, my friend.
Why would a beetle evolve a mechanism for something it never had before? How did the beetle survive being eaten after it had evolved out of its previous stage and before it evolved a new defensive mechanism? Why would a giraffe know to evolve a capacitor system if it didn't know it needed one beforehand? How would woodpeckers peck in a different manner? One tiny little peck at a time? That will really help them get enough food to survive.
And when I say survive the process, I mean the process of evolution. Abandoning one feature and gaining another. Ie - giraffes short neck transition to long neck.The gaining of one feature is necessarily accompanied by its partner feature. Giraffes grew longer and longer necks to reach higher and higher trees. If one of them had his head explode when he went down to drink, he's naturally penalized by natural selection. So the giraffe hovers over the sweet spot of maximum benefit to detriment ratio. If long necks penalize them too much, they won't grow much longer. But if short necks penalize them even more by making it harder to find food, them selection pressure will push them against the negative pressure, until a balance is found. After that balance is found, further evolution in other areas (such as a rudimentary capacitor system) will let the balance shift a little bit more, letting them get a further advantage by growing their necks a little bit longer. And the more advanced and efficient the capacitor system grows, the longer a giraffe is "allowed" to grow its neck without upsetting the balance.
It would take a long time to list the names of the over 500 people that saw Jesus after his resurrection.I could theoretically list the names of dozens of people who participated in the Trojan War and saw Achilles strike down Hector, but that doesn't mean he was the son of a deity.
Honestly, I'm not trying to convert you or anything, I'm merely trying to show you the viewpoint from a different perspective. No amount of "evidence" I give you would ever change your mind without faith, and no amount of "evidence" you give me would change my mind.Like DoctorLore said, this is just sad.
The idea of faith is contrary to common sense. "Believe this, not because there's a good reason to, but because it's 'faith' and that makes it okay to not have a good reason."
I don't have blind faith in anything. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, but that's because I and many other have observed it coming up every day, and we have several good, empirically-tested explanations for why the earth rotates around the sun, and we can find no reason to think that the sun or earth would suddenly stop obeying the observed and tested laws of physics to stop coming up in the morning.
However, with faith, the idea is simply "Believe this because a book tell you to."
If you were to give me some good scientific, falsifiable data that suggest that God was real, I would probably be hesitant to outright believe it at first, but I could certainly come around if the data was compelling enough.
However, for you to say that your mind is shut, no matter what evidence to the contrary the univere has to offer you, is the pinnacle of human ignorance. "Sorry, I know everything already. It's quite enough. It's all in this book, you see. What's that? You have evidence that the book is incorrect? Ha! That's ludicrous! The very thought that a book written by bronze age nomads could be less correct that objectively-tested data that we have observed from the universe with more advanced tools is simply laughable! What's that? You have more data? I'm afraid I can't hear you. You can't change me mind. LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Post by
Queggy
Apart from religion, can you think of anything you had to believe before you could find out whether or not it's true?
Sure, anything I've never seen with my own eyes. For example, high end scientific experiments I could never conduct due to lack of funding and/or the scientific know-how. Scientists tell me that have observed certain things under an electron microscope, but I've never seen it for myself, and I probably never will. Yet, I still have faith that they are telling the truth and not just falsifying evidence to get paid.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.