Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 5726 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 16 of 145 (467619)
05-22-2008 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wumpini
05-04-2008 6:26 PM


If one believes that God has dictated every wave of a leaf in the wind, they have lost the true nature of God. Much is recorded in the Bible that our religious leaders aren't able to explain. John records that many went around performing miracles. Moses throws his rod down and it becomes a snake that eats the snake that was the rod of the Pharoah's magician. Miracles?
Scientist can only theorize on the birth of the universe. Fossils are found but the best we can do is form a timeline of events that happened long after the creation of the earth. A problem doesn't occur until arguments ensue about something that isn't even dealt with in the Bible or scientist insist that something that is in the Bible could not have happened. If the universe was created from nothing why couldn't God have been?
We argue in our ignorance of the things that might or might not have been. The only benefit we obtain is the exercise of the gray material in our craniums. Jesus often tested his apostles.
I am interested in why you don't feel that scientist can believe in the existence of God and whether you arrived at your conclusion independently or basing your conclusion on the interpretations of others. You may find that you already know the answers to the questions you asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wumpini, posted 05-04-2008 6:26 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 05-22-2008 11:06 PM Libmr2bs has not replied
 Message 18 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 8:01 AM Libmr2bs has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 145 (467627)
05-22-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Libmr2bs
05-22-2008 10:21 PM


Libmr2bs writes:
I am interested in why you don't feel that scientist can believe in the existence of God and whether you arrived at your conclusion independently or basing your conclusion on the interpretations of others. You may find that you already know the answers to the questions you asked.
Isn't it obvious? His god is god of the gaps. Basically, he doesn't want people like scientists to figure out what's what in nature. By figuring out what's what, they effectively remove god as the immediate explanation. Essentially, he wants us all to go back to the dark ages when "goddunit" was the only acceptable explanation for everything.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Libmr2bs, posted 05-22-2008 10:21 PM Libmr2bs has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 18 of 145 (467772)
05-24-2008 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Libmr2bs
05-22-2008 10:21 PM


Scientists and Belief in God
Libmr2bs writes:
I am interested in why you don't feel that scientist can believe in the existence of God and whether you arrived at your conclusion independently or basing your conclusion on the interpretations of others. You may find that you already know the answers to the questions you asked.
I have never said that a scientist cannot believe in God. It is obvious from research that I have done that at least 45% of scientists believe in God, and most of these also believe in the evolution of man. My questions were an attempt to determine how scientists have reconciled these seemingly contradictory beliefs of God as the Creator and evolution.
It is obvious to me that a person cannot take a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe in macroevolution as defined by science; that all living things derived from a common ancestor. It also appears to be the case that many of these scientists believe in abiogenesis and a naturalistic origin of the universe. This also conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I am familiar with different theories regarding the Genesis account of creation that attempt to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Bible to science (i.e. Gap theory; Day Age theory). I was curious whether these scientists who believed in theistic evolution attempted to utilize these theories to reconcile evolution as their Creator. I have not had that indication from the responses I have received. It seems more likely that most scientists who believe in the God of the Bible have allowed science to change their belief in the Biblical accounts of creation, and the flood.
What must be recognized is that there seems to be a line that cannot be crossed. It is not as easy as saying that a few chapters in the book of Genesis should not be taken literally. The New Testament does not treat creation, the fall of man, and the flood as mythical stories. Adam and Noah are included in the genealogy of Jesus (Luk 3:36-38). Jesus refers to both Adam and Noah in His ministry (Mat 24:37; Mat 19:4). Other New Testament writers such as Paul, Peter, Jude, and the Hebrew writer also mention Adam and Noah in their New Testament writings.
You cannot tear apart the Bible and throw out all those portions that include events that could only be explained from a supernatural viewpoint. If you believe in God, you must include the power of God when you consider the history and origins of the universe. It seems that many scientists who believe in God have been tricked into believing that they can accept a completely naturalistic viewpoint of the universe and the world. I think we know who would be responsible for this deception. Someone else found at the beginning of the Bible in the book of Genesis called "Satan."
Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.
Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Libmr2bs, posted 05-22-2008 10:21 PM Libmr2bs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 05-24-2008 9:15 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 24 by Blue Jay, posted 05-24-2008 5:18 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 29 by Libmr2bs, posted 05-24-2008 10:01 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 19 of 145 (467778)
05-24-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wumpini
05-24-2008 8:01 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
I have never said that a scientist cannot believe in God. It is obvious from research that I have done that at least 45% of scientists believe in God, and most of these also believe in the evolution of man.
American scientists. 45% of American scientists.
From the NCSE article;
quote:
While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows...
...according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science.
Emphasis in the original.
That may or may not be a fair representation of the opinions of scientists worldwide.
It seems that many scientists who believe in God have been tricked into believing that they can accept a completely naturalistic viewpoint of the universe and the world. I think we know who would be responsible for this deception. Someone else found at the beginning of the Bible in the book of Genesis called "Satan."
But that doesn't make sense. Even if we accept your idea that Satan exists and wants to trick us, it is clear that the reason why so many Christians are persuaded by the theory of evolution is the abundance of evidence in the natural world.
The appearance of distinct strata, with distinct life forms appearing in them, with not a single fossil so positioned that it disproves evolution or an old Earth, is a good example. This is compelling evidence that evolution is real, but Satan wasn't responsible.
If we accept the common creationist position that these strata were laid down in the flood, then it seems pretty clear that God arranged them like that, because the formations we see are just not otherwise compatible with a flood. For sedimentary rock formations to form in the wake of a global flood would require a huge chain of miracles of staggering proportion. Are we to believe that Satan was responsible for this?
Scientists are persuaded by the evidence. To suggest that Satan planted that evidence is to suggest that Satan created our genes, our chromosomes, all fossils, all sedimentary rocks and so on. It just doesn't make sense. It certainly makes less sense than simply plucking up the courage to cross that line you mentioned and begin to accept the fact the Biblical creation myth is just that; a myth.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 8:01 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2008 12:51 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 22 by brendatucker, posted 05-24-2008 5:05 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 23 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 5:14 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 20 of 145 (467794)
05-24-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Granny Magda
05-24-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
quote:
While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows...
...according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science.
Emphasis in the original.
Actually, I believe that that was not emphasis, but rather a form of quotation, showing that that was the title of a publication.
However, it is still true that the results are from a survey of American scientists (now that was emphasis, BTW).
To suggest that Satan planted that evidence is to suggest that Satan created our genes, our chromosomes, all fossils, all sedimentary rocks and so on. It just doesn't make sense. It certainly makes less sense than simply plucking up the courage to cross that line you mentioned and begin to accept the fact the Biblical creation myth is just that; a myth.
So why should Satan do so much work planting plentiful and consistent false evidence? It would be much easier for Him to have created a false theology which taught that if the world were really as we find it, then God could not exist. Than all He'd have to do would be to give it to some Christian fundamentalists and sit back while they'd zealously do His work for Him.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 05-24-2008 9:15 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 05-24-2008 3:05 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 21 of 145 (467797)
05-24-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
05-24-2008 12:51 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Actually, I believe that that was not emphasis, but rather a form of quotation
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to make sure that Wumpini doesn't think I'm trying to bludgeon him into submission with italics. That tends to come across as preachy and overbearing.
So why should Satan do so much work planting plentiful and consistent false evidence? It would be much easier for Him to have created a false theology...
Even easier, just stage a really showy and public miracle and associate it with some false religion. Fake an angelic visitation over Mecca during the Hajj, that should do it. Even I might convert to Islam then. Even Buzsaw might be tempted!
Certainly no need for all that tedious messing around with rocks.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2008 12:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 22 of 145 (467813)
05-24-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Granny Magda
05-24-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Smarter apes hmmmm yes, well, I read a book that exists in the theosophical library that describes scenes which occurred during the 7th human race of the 7th round. At this time humans and animals both are reaching the critical point of passing into the next kingdom for to begin again 7 rounds of 7 globes as a kingdom of nature.
In the book called (to the best of my recollection): MAN, WHENCE, HOW, AND WHITHER, there were apes serving humans and living in the same house with them.
Two points:
1) Those apes (like the ones living on earth today) could be angelic and involving lives occupying a form that is also instrumental to the evolving animal lives at some point in their development (arguably towards the end or 7th round).
AND 2) We see a certain balance at this point in time (4th round 5th race) due to the apex or turning point creating a balance. When we are in the 7th round, 7th race, we very well could be accompanied by evolving animals. It isn't too clear in the literature.
As we are currently today, we are still too muddled in our thinking. Even eastern religions warn us about the illusory nature of maya, causing many to perhaps not place too much stock in what they find happening here on earth. Why?
To be fair, a simplified presentation of evolution based on the writings found in The Saint Germain Foundation and The Theosophical Society is not all inclusive. A set of channelled books by Maurice Cooke given to him by an Ascended Master Hilarion include a book that describes some of the lives in the animal kingdoms that we see on earth today being brought here as visitors from another system.
I always hate to bring this up when we are just learning the "easy version" of this evolutionary scheme, but it was quite a surprise to me that each species or kind needs careful examination and placement and we aren't doing that currently.
If we have to accept what we are told (as a way to value truth as opposed to seeking for it), then unfortunately we need to compromise and work with two distinct methods: science and religion. Very valuable information can be obtained for us to use by proper channelers.
I actually consider it a small miracle that I, Brenda Tucker, a novice with a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology am entrusted with this work and that I, cannot yet, after 13 years, find an associate to work with me. I am still working without assistance and on my own laurels. I can tell you I deciphered this 7 race code (or writings) to mean that a higher kingdom ascends the lower kingdom and that our future will involve greater and greater degrees of contact with the mind and bodies of that kingdom. We will change and evolve due to their influence. The way that we again manifest on an earthly globe what we learn from them is up to us to decide at the next descent through the animals and into form. Through association with the lower (or higher) kingdom vast changes occur in the lower kingdom and very little change occurs in the higher kingdom except for their taking of form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 05-24-2008 9:15 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 23 of 145 (467814)
05-24-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Granny Magda
05-24-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Granny Magda writes:
That may or may not be a fair representation of the opinions of scientists worldwide.
That is true. It would be interesting to know the beliefs of scientists from different parts of the world. I am sure the percentage that believe in God in Africa would be much higher.
Scientists are persuaded by the evidence. To suggest that Satan planted that evidence is to suggest that Satan created our genes, our chromosomes, all fossils, all sedimentary rocks and so on. It just doesn't make sense.
That thought did not actually cross my mind. I was not trying to imply that Satan had planted false evidence. I was thinking more along the line that Satan was affecting the way scientists interpret the evidence.
The more I study and learn about evolution and the more of this overwhelming evidence that I see, the more convinced I become that the theory, as it is being applied to the past, is false. Now I wonder why that is the case?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 05-24-2008 9:15 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2008 8:39 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 05-24-2008 9:46 PM Wumpini has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 24 of 145 (467815)
05-24-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wumpini
05-24-2008 8:01 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Hello, Wumpini.
Wumpini writes:
It seems that many scientists who believe in God have been tricked into believing that they can accept a completely naturalistic viewpoint of the universe and the world.
John 1:3 states:
quote:
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
"Him", of course, referring to God.
So, there isn't a literal biblical case for the deception-of-Satan argument for physical evidence. Any appeal to the Bible as literally true must either concede that Satan created nothing or that there are parts of the Bible that are not covered by the "literal truth" insurance.
So, we have established that either God created everything, or the Bible's truth is not universal. Our next action is to examine the evidence (which we assume to have been created by God), and determine what it is saying. The ID and creationist movements are very adamant that they can find evidence against evolution in the natural world, but people who know how to work with such data have overwhelmingly decided against them, making their case very fragile, at best.
We must then conclude that either God created the earth in the manner that the evidence suggests, or that the evidence (which was created by God) does not match the history of the earth (which was also created by God). If you (generic "you") can believe in a God of contradictions, or in a God who would deliberately mislead us, this poses no problem for you.
I personally don't favor this interpretation. And, frankly, if the real God actually "planted" the evidence to purposely lead us to a wrong conclusion, I do not believe such a God is worth worshiping anyway, regardless of the power that He, She or It has over me. Unless, of course, He did it so we would have a theory on which to unite and build our scientific theories and increase in intellectual capacity (which would be very hard to prove, and would still rather hurt my feelings).
So, to me, the options are to believe in evolution, or to believe in a deceitful God.
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 8:01 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 5:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 25 of 145 (467817)
05-24-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Blue Jay
05-24-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Hi Bluejay,
Bluejay writes:
So, there isn't a literal biblical case for the deception-of-Satan argument. Any appeal to the Bible as literally true must either concede that Satan created nothing or that there are parts of the Bible that are not covered by the "literal truth" insurance.
Satan can lead a person to deception without planting or altering physical evidence. Satan deceived Eve by changing the words that God had spoken. He did not change the evidence. Satan knows the Bible, he knows the world, and he knows human nature. Satan can play upon the desires and lusts of human beings. He can lead people to the wrong conclusions based upon the evidence that is there. He can encourage a "naturalistic" viewpoint that omits God. Satan is a "liar."

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Blue Jay, posted 05-24-2008 5:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Blue Jay, posted 05-24-2008 6:20 PM Wumpini has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 26 of 145 (467822)
05-24-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Wumpini
05-24-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Wumpini writes:
Satan can lead a person to deception without planting or altering physical evidence.
He can do it even better if you don't have any evidence at all, which is what all religions have.
Wumpini writes:
He can lead people to the wrong conclusions based upon the evidence that is there.
So, you're saying that the evidence actually supports the Flood and Creationism and other literal-Bible concepts, and that we are just not able to see it because Satan is leading us astray?
Prove it.
And, simultaneously prove that you're not the one being led to the wrong conclusion by the antithesis of some other religion's God.
By bringing in the possibility of supernatural distortions, you've effectively rendered all points of view equally evidenceless: you cannot prove that any evidence of any sort in support of any concept could ever have any sort of meaning at all, because it could have been influenced by an evil spirit. Even "evidence" for a Flood or God! The Mount of Olives could crack in half tomorrow, and you still couldn't definitively say that the Bible was right, because it might have been us misinterpreting the evidence. At best, this puts the literal-Bible position on equal grounds with non-biblical positions. But, even then, I have just as much likelihood of being right as you do.
So, I'll stick with the concept that makes more sense, rather than the one that requires Satan to be actively ****ing with scientists' minds in order to even be on equal grounds with the one that makes sense.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 5:40 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Wumpini, posted 05-25-2008 10:21 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 145 (467837)
05-24-2008 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Wumpini
05-24-2008 5:14 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
The more I study and learn about evolution and the more of this overwhelming evidence that I see, the more convinced I become that the theory, as it is being applied to the past, is false. Now I wonder why that is the case?
Because Satan is messing with your brain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 5:14 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 145 (467846)
05-24-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Wumpini
05-24-2008 5:14 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
It would be interesting to know the beliefs of scientists from different parts of the world. I am sure the percentage that believe in God in Africa would be much higher.
I don't doubt it. Indeed, I almost mentioned that likelihood in my last post, but it slipped my mind. I was also going to point out however, that the percentage was very likely to be lower in Europe.
I was not trying to imply that Satan had planted false evidence. I was thinking more along the line that Satan was affecting the way scientists interpret the evidence.
OK, so Satan didn't plant the evidence. This raises some awkward questions, mostly covered by Bluejay.
Did God create misleading evidence? If so, how can that gel with the concept of a benevolent and loving God? You seem to be saying that God did not create misleading evidence, we are merely misinterpreting it, due to Satanic interference.
Is this true? Is our ability to observe the physical world and make judgements about it really that bad? To what extent is Satan altering our perceptions or conclusions, and how? How would we tell?
The great biologist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what might constitute evidence against evolution, grumpily relied "Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." He was being somewhat flippant, but this oft-quoted point remains a good one. We never find rabbits in pre-Cambrian deposits. We never find them in the Cambrian period either. There are no fossils of rabbits in the same strata as dinosaurs. Not one. From this, I conclude that the total lack of such anachronistic fossils represents a strong piece of evidence for evolution.
How am I misinterpreting this? How has Satan led me astray in coming to this conclusion? You have already said that he did not plant the evidence himself, so I can only assume that you don't believe that Satan has gone around hiding pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils either!
Has the evil one warped my mind in some way, in order to lead me to this conclusion? If so, how, and what other possible conclusion could I reach? In your model, God made the Earth. If this is so, then he seems to have deliberately arranged the fossils in such a way that trilobites are never found alongside sharks and rabbits are never found alongside dinosaurs. To suggest that we are mistaken in this simple observation of what we find in rocks is surely to doubt our senses to such an extent that we can't trust anything we see or touch. This way, madness lies.
The fossils are real. They are not Satanic illusions and we are not imagining them. If God made these fossils, and they genuinely do not include anachronistic fossils such as pre-Cambrian rabbits, how do we explain this contradiction between the account in Genesis and the testimony of the rocks themselves?
The more I study and learn about evolution and the more of this overwhelming evidence that I see, the more convinced I become that the theory, as it is being applied to the past, is false. Now I wonder why that is the case?
I wouldn't know, although I could hazard a few guesses. All I can suggest is that, if you have any problems with any aspect of evolutionary theory, that you bring up your concerns on this forum, or do some more research and see if you can find an answer.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 5:14 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 5:51 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 5726 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 29 of 145 (467849)
05-24-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wumpini
05-24-2008 8:01 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
I see. You don't want to know that the story of Noah is told in three different languages with the names and events very similar. You don't want to know that two preceeded the record presented in the Bible. You want to think the that Bible is infallible. Or is it what you've been told? Try to reconcile the following:
The following originated in a reply I penned in another forum on discussing the end times and what the Bible says or rather what the writers said. It goes against what many think about the end times and whether all scripture is God inspired.
Mark 13-
1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"
2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"
From this we know that only four apostles actually heard the question and reply. Andrew has no passages in the Bible. James doesn’t address the subject in his writings. When one reads the works of these and others, Mark must have obtained his interpretation of the question and response from Peter. Luke and Matthew copied the work of Mark (see Misstatement section below). To obtain the best information regarding the subject, one must turn to writings of John and Peter. John and Peter are consistent that Jesus will return on a cloud and separate the good from evil. Peter says that God will destroy the earth. Where did the rest of the tale come from? Peter says:
2 Peter 3-
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Mark 13-
26 "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.
30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
And John says:
1 John 2-
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
What was the subject of discussion - the destruction of the temple and not the end of time as the Christian Church teaches. By following the most reliable scriptures one can easily reach this conclusion. Finally, all events that Jesus predicted did occur before the end of the generation when this context is used. The relevancy of Revelations has nothing to do with prior writings and its inclusion is being questioned by believers.
Misstatement:
Matthew 24-
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Mark 13-
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Luke 21-
32 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Note here that Heaven is singular and not plural. The plural form refers to stars, sun, moon, etc. If Heaven passes away, what then? Where will Christians go. From this we find that the text in Luke and Matthew came from Mark - not God.
Even though I understand that men make mistakes, I accept that the Bible was written by fallible men to provide God's guidance for our lives. In thinking such I commit myself to the same banner as the men whose writings I cited - I am fallible. I understand that you may not agree that you might be fallible. If the knees of your pants are without cloth you may be.
Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wumpini, posted 05-24-2008 8:01 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 30 of 145 (467852)
05-24-2008 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wumpini
05-04-2008 6:26 PM


indoctrination
I am going to throw my 2cents into this and say that I feel the reason that some scientists still believe in god is that they, like me, were indoctrinated into whatever religion their parents held, almost from infancy. With the statement "you must believe and don't ask questions about it for all the answers are in the Bible." This is why I remained a religious person until I was nearly 50.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wumpini, posted 05-04-2008 6:26 PM Wumpini 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