Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did God say it, or did you say it?
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 121 of 127 (550544)
03-16-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Peg
03-13-2010 4:37 PM


opinion and source
Hi Peg,
I totally understand your reasoning, although I do not necessarily agree with you, but you seem to have a problem:
btw, this is just my own opinion
I realise you're being honest, also with yourself, which is wonderful - but if your reasoning is coloured by your own opinion, then your words are your words, not your god's.
quote:
The universe could have been created slowly over time becaues its simply the bringing together to matter.
quite, but if god is all-powerful, he could snap his noodly appendages and zing! universe. Or he could warp time itself so 13.4 billion years or so happened in literally moments for him. There's quite a lot of what-if's there, and those two ignore last-thursdayism.
But, unless you believe God used evolution, how could he have done so with living creatures considering living creatures require all their parts to be working for life to exist?
Peg, I feel you do not understand evolution, or have your perception coloured by the lies and inadequacies of Behe and his ilk. The magic words you are missing is "scaffolding", and the magic words you did not use is "irreducibly complex".
The former has been proved to work. The latter has not been proved to exist. Just because you cannot comprehend it does not by any stretch of the imagination mean it cannot happen. And please, I am not attempting to be mean, but you have fallen head-first into the traps left for you not by Darwinists but by creationists.
Why could god, most powerful, most high, omnimax being that he is, not know how to use evolution? After all, the classic christian believes that god made man from dirt! i find that a lot more absurd than chemistry!
This is why I said that he must have created Adam instantaneously, but the universe and the earth over long periods of time.
indeed, but these are YOUR words, not god's - I'm not arguing that your interpretation cannot be correct, but I am pointing out that you HAVE an interpretation, and that it (the bible) MUST be interpreted since it is not a recording, audio or visual, it was not written by god himself, it does not come with authorized explanational footnotes from god and has been passed down through many thousands of years from people who were, to all intents and purposes, ignorant and illiterate peasants.
You may talk about context, but contradictory sentence is contradictory (to balderize a meme or two)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 4:37 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 03-17-2010 5:22 PM greyseal has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 122 of 127 (550564)
03-16-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Peg
03-16-2010 3:37 AM


In other words
It is all subjective and up to everyone's personal interpretations, biases and preconceived ideas.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Peg, posted 03-16-2010 3:37 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 123 of 127 (550734)
03-17-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by greyseal
03-16-2010 8:40 AM


Re: opinion and source
greyseal writes:
I realise you're being honest, also with yourself, which is wonderful - but if your reasoning is coloured by your own opinion, then your words are your words, not your god's.
quite right. If im giving my own opinion, then i'm expanding which is definately not Gods words.
But this is what happens when people start asking questions that the bible does not provide an answer to. They have to speculate. Now I dont mind them doing that so long as they let people know they are speculating or giving their own opinion.
greyseal writes:
Why could god, most powerful, most high, omnimax being that he is, not know how to use evolution?
Here you are asking a question to a subject which is not mentioned in the bible. This is going to cause me to speculate... just warning you in advance.
God did not say "I did not use evolution" but i'm going to 'speculate' that he did not use it based on what he DID say.
The genesis account tells us that God 'created' living things according to their kinds. He first made the sea creatures 'according to their kinds' . Nowhere does genesis say that evolution was a part of the process. Nowhere does it say that God made a living organism that slowly became a multitude of other creatures and eventually turned into the flying creatures and the land animals.
So there is no way im going to attribute this idea of evolution to Gods creations. According to Genesis he made them whole. He made them male and female which indicates, not evolution, but creation.
greyseal writes:
indeed, but these are YOUR words, not god's - I'm not arguing that your interpretation cannot be correct, but I am pointing out that you HAVE an interpretation
yes this is true. But you have to understand that when people start asking quesitons about things not mentioned in the bible, then a little speculation on those subjects is required to answer the questions.
Perhaps it would be best for believers to just not answer such quesitons...but this means then that only those who are non believers will be speculating on the bible...a book that they generally do not understand and know little about. I think believers would rather speculatate in order to defend the bible rather then allow others to rubbish it. (i'm not saying you are doing that btw)
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by greyseal, posted 03-16-2010 8:40 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by greyseal, posted 03-18-2010 5:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


(1)
Message 124 of 127 (550742)
03-17-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Peg
03-16-2010 3:37 AM


Re: Context or Not
"Peg" writes:
You study the bible, you find out what its message is, you learn what Gods purpose is. Then, based on your understanding thus far you consider any teachings/doctrines in light of the original meaning of the language used, you compare that to the context of the passage, you corroborate that with other passages that discuss the same subject and after doing all that you should be able to determine if the teaching you've learnt is true or not.
So let's summarize...
For someone to test claims that organization/church knows the "truth" about the bible and thus what God means (not just what they think God means)... you say we must go back to the bible (which by the way completely negates the need for any kind of interpretative organization/church) and corroborate this with other passages of the bible, language and context...
Round and round in circles we go -> how do you know the rules you have just mentioned (i.e corroborative passages, language and context) are the correct test for meaning? Are you 100% sure this is what God applied as rules in the bible when it was written?
If we look at the other thread in this forum ("Literal vs Non Literal") it is clear that those rules simply don't work, otherwise that thread wouldn't be longer than 1 page, right? because everyone would clearly know that 6 days means 6 days or 4 billion years... instead we see a sea of confusion.
Edited by killinghurts, : Grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Peg, posted 03-16-2010 3:37 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 125 of 127 (550771)
03-18-2010 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peg
03-17-2010 5:22 PM


Re: opinion and source
Hi Peg,
greyseal writes:
I realise you're being honest, also with yourself, which is wonderful - but if your reasoning is coloured by your own opinion, then your words are your words, not your god's.
quite right. If im giving my own opinion, then i'm expanding which is definately not Gods words.
But this is what happens when people start asking questions that the bible does not provide an answer to. They have to speculate. Now I dont mind them doing that so long as they let people know they are speculating or giving their own opinion.
No, no, that's fine. I'm just trying to get a handle on how come you (and others, not picking on you particularly here) speak with such strident certainty over things like the age of the Earth, with wildly differing viewpoints, all claiming to be using the same "evidence", all claiming to be correct, when the honest among you (that's you, Peg, take a bow) admit that the source is inadequate by itself.
The genesis account tells us that God 'created' living things according to their kinds. He first made the sea creatures 'according to their kinds' . Nowhere does genesis say that evolution was a part of the process. Nowhere does it say that God made a living organism that slowly became a multitude of other creatures and eventually turned into the flying creatures and the land animals.
So there is no way im going to attribute this idea of evolution to Gods creations. According to Genesis he made them whole. He made them male and female which indicates, not evolution, but creation.
But, but...we've already covered that the most obvious way that "yom" is used means "day", yet you rather gallantly acknowledge that science has proved for your satisfaction that the Earth is older than that, and that the universe probably was created by (I am assuming) something that looks like the big bang.
Why do you have a problem with looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that evolution was god's tool as much as the big bang was?
big bang? not a problem.
4.5 byo earth? not a problem.
abiogenesis - problem if it's "naturalistic", not a problem if it's magical
evolution - problem if it's "naturalistic", not a problem if it's post-special-creation
have I summed you up right?
I mean, I can show you that apes and humans share over 98% of the genome, and that the banana shares something like 50% of our DNA, indicating a high degree of common ancestry or that god used the same code during his special creation.
the evidence is just as strong yet you deny one and embrace the other, and I'm not sure why. In your old-earth belief, where does the dinosaur fit in? How do ice ages fit? God doesn't talk about ice ages, yet we can readily prove there were ice ages. We can readily prove not only tectonic drift but how the continents looked in the past - yet you state that god wouldn't do nothing for billions of years when the evidence that you yourself agree with indicates that he must have.
Why is it not possible, even most likely given the evidence, that the book collection we call "the bible" was written by ignorant illiterate savages attempting to scribe knowledge handed down from a being so far advanced that even we, now, cannot comprehend his greatness?
Is it just, be honest now, that you feel it likely your faith could not take holding that viewpoint?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 03-17-2010 5:22 PM Peg has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 126 of 127 (550840)
03-18-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Peg
03-13-2010 4:48 PM


Re: Context or Not
Gday,
"Peg" writes:
i noticed your bible.org are focusing on the word 'is'
You mean you noticed that the Greek does NOT have the word 'is', which changes the entire meaning of the passage?
"Peg" writes:
really they should be focusing on the greek expression 'god-breathed'
Why?
To avoid the problem with the word 'is' ?
Or the other problems I pointed out, that you ignored?
Such as the fact that the letter is a forgery?
Or that 'scripture' did NOT include itself?
K.
Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 4:48 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by killinghurts, posted 03-25-2010 1:36 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 127 of 127 (551889)
03-25-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Kapyong
03-18-2010 5:49 PM


Re: Context or Not
Hi Kapyong, can you please summarise your argument, it sounds like you have touched on an important issue here, I'd like to understand it a little more clearly.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Kapyong, posted 03-18-2010 5:49 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024