|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion or Science - How do they compare? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes:
OK. Give me a verse. According to you. It’s up to you to support that claim. I very much doubt that it is true of any verse in the Tanakh.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Faith writes: It is your fallible judgement that the Bible should be understood the way that you do. It is your fallible judgement that says that the Bible is essentially dictated by God and is inerrant.
I'm not saying my mind is infallible, I'm saying that's why God gave us the Bible, BECAUSE we can't trust ourselves to get it right. I trust the Bible, you trust your own fallible mind. Faith writes:
Do you think that I haven't? I have shelves full of theological books that I have read. I am currently reading a book of over 1600 pages all on Paul. I too have read authors with various view points including those who think like you do.
Yes I do know what it really means because I spent a lot of time, a LOT of time, since becoming a believer, studying theology, Bible exegesis, and listening to preachers galore, mostly traditional but I also read a lot of heretical and cultic and fringey stuff. Faith writes: While actually there is a nation of Christ followers. It just isn't defined geographically or culturally.
We live in the Christian era and there is no nation that is God's chosen people so laws are made with different purposes in mind.Faith writes:
Then why don't you do that? Most of the Bible is not directed to the reader, it's meant to be read in context and applied according to relevance.You have decided that with the new covenant that some of the OT laws are no longer in force and some are. You pick and choose according to what you believe. There are numerous laws about the sacrifice of animals in the OT but Jesus said that He desires mercy and not sacrifice. He corrects the law that Moses, (not Yahweh) gave on divorce. He corrects the law concerning an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and says instead to turn the other cheek. You pick and choose and rationalize away all that does not fit your understanding of how the Bible is to be understood. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes:
Read through Genesis 1 and just look at the number of times where it says God said let there be whatever the next act of creation was. The Hebrews used the idea that God spoke the world into existence. That is the Word of God which metaphorically includes God’s wisdom, creativity, nature etc.
So you can’t find any ? Any verse in the Tanakh where the context clearly indicates that it means the Logos rather than the more conventional meaning would do.quote: Then we come to the Gospel of John Chap 1.
quote: That is very different than how the term is used in this passage from 1 Kings 12. quote:If you notice too, when John uses it Word is spelled with a capital W whereas in 1st Kings it is spelled with a small w. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes:
OK. Here are the original 2 posts on this.
I note that Genesis 1 does not actually support your claim - you must read John into it for that. And of course, I already knew that John had the idea of the Logos in it.However, 1 Kings 12 clearly proves my point since it uses God’s word in a sense where the ordinary meaning of word is more appropriate than the Logos. GDR writes:
When the Biblical writers use the term "Word of God" it is not referring to the Scriptures. It is referring to the Logos and can be also translated as the "wisdom" of God. In Genesis it metaphorically talks about God speaking the world into existence, (such as in God said let there be light etc. ) and so it is in reference to that. The "Word of God" put another way is the essence, the wisdom and the power of God when used in the Bible.PaulK writes:
There is a big difference in the way it is used. When it uses the term Word of God with a capital W for Word where the 3 words form a noun on their own, it is quite different from this quote from Kings 1 but this word of God using a small w for word, and the word is a noun on its own with the of God part of the phrase acting as an adjective. Or it might refer to the words attributed to God in the Bible. While the Bible never claims divine authorship it does have sections that are claim to be God’s words, as set down by the human writers.However, you agree that John is referring to the Word as Logos so the point is pretty much moot anyway. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Faith writes:
I'm going to try this again but you are so focused on your own understanding that it is difficult for you to accept other points of view as having any possibility of value. OK, I believe you but then it's hard for me to understand HOW you are reading it because you seem to end up judging it all from some ingrained moral feelings of your own and denying the validity of what to my mind are the most believable positions. You seem to judge from your emotions rather than according to what is true. Objectivity is missing. Objectivity is practically defined by the suspension of one's own opinions and feelings and judging according to an external standard. In order to understand the New Testament you need the Old Testament. In order to understand what God has to say in the Old Testament, you need to look at it through the lens of the New Testament, and particularly the teaching of Jesus. Here is an example of understanding the new from the old. In Acts 1 it tells us that He (Jesus) was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Now with our 21st century way of reading this we see him disappearing into an actual cloud. However when we go to the OT we can see stories as in Exodus with God leading the Israelites in a pillar of cloud. Even more clearly we read again in Exodus the following 2 quotes. quote: quote:So now when we go back to the ascension we can see that it isn’t about Jesus going into a cloud but it is Jesus going into the presence of God. Now when I want to understand things like the claim that Yahweh had commanded genocide and public stoning I can look at it through the lens Jesus and the NT. We are to understand that people are capable of claiming vile things in the name of God to suit their own purposes. That tells us that we should be wary when people make those claims and keep our eyes focused on the true representative of God which is Jesus and not an inerrant Bible. The Word or nature that we see in Jesus with the message to love our enemy tells us that Yahweh would never have sanctioned, let alone commanded, either public stoning or genocide. It is clear in the Gospels that Jesus saw the enemy as evil itself and that the weapon against such evil, (in this case the Romans), was love. He told His followers to love them, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. He commanded His followers to infect, not just their fellow Jews, but the whole world with God’s love by allowing the love that He has for us, to flow through us, into the world. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
paboss writes: Absolutely, but so has nationalism, greed , lust for power etc. Actually I would say that when the Bible is used as justification for evil there is actually another motivation such as the ones I named behind it. In other words those atrocities, including those in the Bible, would have been justified by something else. Even the stories in the OT can be seen as lust for power and control over neighbouring tribes.
As I responded to Jar, who raised a similar point about the Bible not being the problem but the people who use the Bible to do bad things; yes, I understand is people that ultimately are responsible for what they do. But religion provides a justification for them to do what they have done.paboss writes: Yes, but slavery was not the same as we think of slavery from more modern history and in the case of the Jews was not usually race based. In many ways it was similar to what a paid employee is today. Also, if you read the short book in the Bible called Philemon you can see that Paul writes a letter to Philemon asking that he treat his slave Onesimus as no longer a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:16)
The New Testament says on the one hand nice things about Jesus. On the other hand encourages slaves to serve their masters with all their will, even the more if they are Christians too. paboss writes: Firstly it doesn’t say that women can’t teach men and when you read through the NT there are numerous cases of women holding authoritative positions in the early church. Also, Paul is part of his culture, but after he talks about wives submitting to husbands he goes on to say that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave up his life for it. In other words a husband is to put his wife’s interest above his own.
It tells women that they cannot teach men and must be submissive. These things have been excuse for a lot of inequalities. paboss writes: I think that is true in some cases in the bible but I don’t think that is always true. I do believe that God, with His still small voice or Holy Spirit, does speak into our hearts and I believe that to be the case in many of the writers of the OT. In the NT the picture of morality is based on the life and teachings of Jesus which I believe to be the embodiment of the moral nature of God. If that is correct then the moral values of the NT writers are based more upon Jesus than they are upon their own understanding. Just look at how Paul’s moral values were changed by his encounter with Jesus.
After all, as you say, religions are human inventions. They are made up after the moral values of the people who created them and that’s why they tend to provide such ill advice.paboss writes: But there is a criteria given to us by the Bible which fundamentalist Christians such as Faith ignore. The Gospel John starts out by telling us that in Jesus the Word, wisdom or nature of God became flesh, namely in Jesus. The question then is why do we give that statement credibility? I give it credibility because I believe that God resurrected Jesus into a life that is associated with, but distinct from the life that was taken from Him on the cross. God confirmed Jesus’ life and teaching. Taking that as a given, (which I am fully aware you don’t), then I can read through the OT where it has God commanding genocide and public stoning and be able to confidently say that those commands were not of God but of very fallible humans.
But then is you as an adult person with the capacity to tell right from wrong, who decide which parts of the Bible you take to inform your views. There is no criteria given by the Bible itself to tell you what is God-inspired and what is human construction. You have to decide by yourself. If you decide to take Jesus example is because you have a sense of empathy that tells you that the words attributed to him are (mostly) good advice. paboss writes: I’m not so sure that I agree with the last statement. I think in many ways that we are just as self centered as we ever were but it just looks different. However, we have no real evidence that our evolved set of social and moral standards are the result of an evolutionary process set in place by intelligence or by mindless processes. That sense of empathy has been the result of the evolution of our social and moral standards, which make us judge as obnoxious many of the things that appear on the Bible which are attributed to God. It is certainly a great relief that our moral standards of today are well above those of the times when the Bible was written.In order to accept the concept of an actual right and wrong ,then we pretty much have to accept that something beyond ourselves is a basis for that fact. If our understanding of right and wrong is simply evolved from mindlessness then there is no universal right and wrong and our views are then based on what seems to work best for us now. In the future we may come to the conclusion that it is morally right to commit genocide because our tribe needs the resources of some other tribe and that becomes our moral imperative. BTW. Your approach reminds me a lot of Chris Hitchens who in general I thought asked all the right questions, and in a lot of cases sounded more Christ like than a lot of Christians.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: However, we have no real evidence that our evolved set of social and moral standards are the result of an evolutionary process set in place by intelligence or by mindless processes.Tangle writes: I’m prepared to accept that social and moral standards can evolve through natural processes. I would even agree that these natural processes are the memes of Dawkins’ world. However the question that can only be answered by belief is whether the foundations for these evolutionary processes are intelligent or not. Once again, you believe,(as I understand you), that consciousness, intelligence, morality etc evolved by chance from mindless particles. I believe that these natural processes have come from an intelligent root.
Of course we have the evidence, you've been shown it many times. You might prefer to forget it but the evidence is there.GDR writes: In order to accept the concept of an actual right and wrong ,then we pretty much have to accept that something beyond ourselves is a basis for that fact.Tangle writes: Different cultures have different ideas of what is right and wrong. If there is no universal standard then who are you or I to say that what ISIS terrorists do is wrong. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing to do. If there is no universal standard then it is only what we as individuals or to a lesser degree our own cultures decide what is right or wrong. If there is a universal definition for right and wrong then it means that there is an external basis for that.
We absolutely do not. You can believe something different but please stop making these silly claims on behalf of others.GDR writes: If our understanding of right and wrong is simply evolved from mindlessness then there is no universal right and wrong and our views are then based on what seems to work best for us now.Tangle writes: Morality changes because we as humans can adapt our sense of morality as to what works for us best right now, as individuals and societies. In my view universal morality is a morality based on a type of love that is able to always desire positive outcomes for others and to be prepared to act unselfishly to respond to that desire.
There is no universal right and wrong, morality does change over time and between societies. You can see that in the bible itself.GDR writes: In the future we may come to the conclusion that it is morally right to commit genocide because our tribe needs the resources of some other tribe and that becomes our moral imperative.Tangle writes: Well, we can look at different societies and see that isn’t true. However, let’s accept your statement as it stands. It only shows that nations can naturally evolve more empathy and compassion. The question still remains about why that is. Does it only involve processes that are mindless or is there an intelligent root cause for the them. The actual evidence tells us the exact opposite - as our societies evolve empathy and compassion for others increases at a nation level. I'd show you the charts but you'd just block them fom your mind and make the same claims in a month's time.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
The vast majority of people on this forum including most of us theists agree that we have evolved. However, this forum is called evolution vs creationism. If we want to say that creationists aren’t allowed to post their views because they’ve been proven wrong then just maybe the name of the forum should be changed. Calling someone a liar because they express their firmly held views, whether they are right or wrong, is just plain rude and IMHO doesn’t have a place on this forum.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Capt Stormfield writes:
Yet I imagine that telling scientists that their perceptions have been misdirected by an evil, invisible, magic space lizard is just what? Witnessing? Like I said, just plain rude. You make my point perfectly.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: If they express them as views or beliefs rather than facts then it's unlikely anyone would say they are lying.If Faith said "I don't believe Roman Catholics are Christians."; then she is just showing her utter ignorance. If faith says "Roman Catholics are not Christians."; then she is lying. C'mon jar, everyone knows that she is simply stating her beliefs. Edited by GDR, : missed a word as you can see in jar's quoteHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
It doesn't however constitute a lie.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: Repeating falsehoods, even if you believe them true, does constitute lying. No. Here is the Oxford definition.
quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Capt Stormfield writes: So you criticize things you don't be;ieve are true and call them lies and then you complain when you're proven wrong with facts. Why is it that religious people are so quick to reach for the dictionary and so slow to use their moral sense? Just what do you know about my moral sense?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
jar writes: They often shop dictionaries until they find one that agrees with their desired outcome.Just like they do with quotes from the Bible. If you want to believe that there is no difference between being wrong when you believe that you are right and being wrong when you know that you are wrong then so be it. Lying however, requires intentionality . As for your other comments it is typical of your method of debate to use put downs, disparaging remarks, insults and name calling such as liar.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes:
You called Faith a liar for posting what she believed to be true. However you are attributing a position to me that I have never espoused.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024