Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 4:29 AM
28 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,816 Year: 4,853/19,786 Month: 975/873 Week: 331/376 Day: 8/116 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Why'd you do it that way, God?
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 16 of 137 (528018)
10-03-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Kitsune
10-03-2009 3:26 PM


Re: God is Lawful Good
LindaLou writes:

Would that perfection include humanity that, according to the Bible, pissed God off so much that he committed genocide apart from Noah and a few relatives?


Actually, I personally believe that the Bible, as far as the Old Testament is concerned, while having a nice set of stories, is not true. Thus the stories of creation, the flood, Job and whatnot, in my mind are not historical fact, except those that can be backed by historical data.

Also, my idea of God is a bit different than the Judeo-Christian belief. I hesitate to speculate upon the nature of God, and Meldinoor's #2 point assumed a Omnipotent God, but my belief is that while God is an extremely powerful being, God might not be perfect and maybe even God makes mistakes. Perhaps God, like us, does the best that God can with what God has.

LindLou writes:

God interferes a lot in the Bible. Maybe these questions don't bother you because you are a deist? I don't know what you believe but I'm assuming you're a Christian since you seem to be going along with aspects of God described in that faith.


Since I don't really believe in the Old Testament, except for those parts that can be historically verified, I don't think about it much. The truth is, I believe in God, but I don't know what God is or know that God exists. And I admire the teachings of Christ because what I've read makes sense. Things like helping the poor, and the guy who prays on the street is not a better person than the person who prays in private, and that it's not how strictly you follow the rules but how you live your life that matters. But was Jesus divine? I believe it, but I'd be hard-pressed to explain why without resorting to "it's what I've been taught."

LindaLou writes:

I wonder how you would define "the direst of circumstances." Slevesque has asked about a God that can allow evil and suffering to occur, sometimes on grand scales. If God made the rules himself then he has the power to break them. Did he not think that the Holocaust was a dire circumstance? This is one reason why I would have difficulty believing in a personified God. If he loves everyone then how can he allow them to suffer? What is the point of a baby being born to a starving, impoverished family and living a hungry, sickly, unloved existence for a few days before going back to where it came from?


I think the quote from God in Futurama is one of the best I've heard. When Bender meets God, they have a little chat. Bender tells God how he had an opportunity to be God, but nothing he did seemed to go right. When he interfered, he increased the suffering of his people. When he didn't do anything, the people wiped themselves out in nuclear war because of differences in belief. It's quite an amusing episode - the Futurama episode is entitled, "Godfellas." Then the exchange goes like this
quote:
God: "Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket."
Bender: "Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!"
God: "Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Why did I go into that story? I couldn't tell you how powerful God is. I do believe that while God can, and probably does, interfere with our lives in small ways, in the end, we need to rely upon ourselves. And perhaps that's what God does - God provides opportunities. Again, going to the entertainment industry, a quote from the movie "Evan Almighty":
quote:
God: Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for the family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?

God provides the opportunities and it is up to us to act upon them. To quote Bender once again, "You can't count on God for jack, he pretty much told me so himself!"

LindaLou writes:

But if God is omniscient, then he already knows the outcome of any such experiment.


I don't really believe in an omniscient God.

Also, I'm always happy to talk about religion in a dignified manner. My beliefs have evolved quite a bit and aren't what you would call mainstream. And I'm always willing to consider new ideas. In fact, I really like the Buddhist philosophy of the Middle Way. So don't be afraid to ask questions, even about your own faith. Otherwise, if we didn't ask questions, how would we learn and grow?

Also, this can describe why a Deity might create the Universe the way it is now. A Deity, being a little wiser than us, would feel doing too much or too little is bad, and that perhaps only a light touch is needed, allowing the creations to make the right choices.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Kitsune, posted 10-03-2009 3:26 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2745 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 17 of 137 (528022)
10-04-2009 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Meldinoor
10-03-2009 6:52 PM


Ok, I just wrote a beautiful reply before everything crashed and I lost it ...

I won't rewrite the God is weak part. To make a summary of what I wrote,The christian God using natural forces to creat out does not make him any weaker or stronger, because he remains the christian God. Many christians believe in evolution, and that this is how God chose to make things, whil still believing that God is omnipotent, moniscient, etc. just as described in the Bible.

But if you start from the point that God used natural laws to create us, and then makes assumptions about God such as 'well maybe God didn't know what was going to happen, and just started the machine to see', etc. then obviously this version of God is a weaker one, and in fact it is no longer the God described in the Bible, but rather your own personnal opinion God who is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, etc. etc.

But I also do think, for theological reasons, that the christian God cannot have used death and suffering to create humans. This is because it has immense theological implications.

Suppose the genesis account is literal. Then death is the consequence of sin, which in turn was caused by Adam and Eve breaking the relationship with God by disobeying. Death becomes and intruder in this world, one that is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 corinthian 15:26) Jesus Christ comes to die for our sins, in order to restore this relationship so that we can once again have direct access to God. He defeats death through his ressurection. With death the consequence of sin, the christian message is crystal-clear and coherent.

But suppose the genesis account is metaphoric. Then death was always an integral part of God's will for our universe. In fact, since death and suffering is no longer the consequence of sin, then there are no consequences to sin. In fact, it means that sin also was planned by God for this universe. And why then does Jesus have to come and die for our sins ? Why do we even have to be saved from anything ? Why would God judge us for something he himself had planned for us ? If death really was God's intention, then christianity becomes nothing more then good morals at best. Which really is just a terribly watered-down version of what it really is.

Ironically enough, atheists comprehend this much, much more then christians usually. For example, here is a quote from Prof. Dawkins:

Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasnít it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!

Also from Richard Bozarth writing in American Atheist:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesusí earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.

That last quote is one of my favorites, because Bozarth clearly understands the deep theological implications of such a position.

This is why I think the idea of death and suffering being the intentions of the creator for the universe theologically excludes the christian God, or to try to reconcile both is the first step to a series of theological compromises that, in the end, looks nowhere near the christian message. This can be often seen here on EvC, where the theistic evolutionist christians usually compromise on the authenticity of the Bible, on the nature of the christian God, on the resurection of Jesus christ, on the reality of Hell, etc.

So hey, if someone wants to believe that some God used evolution to create us, fine by me. But it cannot be the christian God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Meldinoor, posted 10-03-2009 6:52 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Arphy, posted 10-05-2009 1:02 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 22 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2009 11:24 AM slevesque has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 137 (528082)
10-04-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
10-03-2009 12:43 PM


Taz writes:

I have a problem with the 3rd assumption. It presupposes a deity that is narcissistic, selfish, and absolutely unworthy of our worship.


That presupposes that narcissism, selfishness, and your general moral feelings are universally applicable. Don't you think this is awfully arrogant for a mere mortal? It seems clear that your concept of what a deity *must* be is entirely dependent on what you *want* a deity to be.

A deity is already fundamentally different from humans on many levels, so there is no particular reason to conclude that they must share our same sense of morality. Gods may delight in throwing their children into dungeons, or enjoy pain suffered in their name. Betrayal may be par for the course, who can say?

Taz writes:

A creator that poofed everything into existence by magic and then throw the created that are "rebellious" into the pit of eternal damnation is a narcissistic creator and thus does not deserve to be worshiped or loved.


Ok? So if that was so, you wouldn't worship or love that creator. But that does not seem to be what you are saying; you seem to be implying that because you don't approve of such a deity, it cannot be so. Is reality subject to your approval?

Taz writes:

So, according to the religious doctrine, why did god create a big ass mother fucking universe?


Why make a universe more than ~6000 light years beyond the Earth, given that we cannot exceed the speed of light and thus could not possibly reach any of those locations even starting immediately upon creation? Good point; it seems the only reason would be to rub in our insignificance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 10-03-2009 12:43 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 137 (528084)
10-04-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by slevesque
10-03-2009 4:22 PM


slevesque writes:

You only have to see a mourners grieving over the death of a loved one, and you can see that it brings more pain than joy.


Well that makes no sense. I can see that mourning a lost loved one is sad and all, but is it less pleasant than being neck-deep in Velociraptors? Perhaps if nobody ever died those loved ones would be in pitched battle over enough food to satisfy their hunger.

Concluding that removing death from the equation would result in an overall better world is unreasonable without other extensive changes to reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 10-03-2009 4:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 20 of 137 (528162)
10-05-2009 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
10-03-2009 4:24 AM


quote:
So, if you had to make these assumptions, what reasons do you see for the Creator to choose gradual naturalistic processes, as opposed to an undeniably divine creation event?

For a theist (neither an atheist or a deist) a "naturalistic process" is simply the normal way that God works in His universe. A "supernatural process" is an unusual, abnormal way for Him to work. So why shouldn't God use His normal processes to create the universe? I don't see an a priori reason that either one would be strongly preferred over the other.

Here aret two reasons/advantages for God to use natural processes in creation:
1) Using "naturalistic processes" helps to establish them as "normal," and to underscore God's consistency and reliability as He runs His universe.
2) The vast time periods used for "gradual naturalistic processes" convey a similar message to vast size of the universe. As David said in Psalm 8, this reveals to us our insignificance. We are insignificant in the vast size of the cosmos, and likewise we are insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos. Our significance comes from God, not from our spatial or temporal place in the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 10-03-2009 4:24 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Peepul, posted 01-05-2010 9:16 AM kbertsche has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2537 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 21 of 137 (528163)
10-05-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-04-2009 12:03 AM


Amen
Amen to that slevesque. You are spot on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2009 12:03 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 22 of 137 (528252)
10-05-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-04-2009 12:03 AM


quote:
But if you start from the point that God used natural laws to create us, and then makes assumptions about God such as 'well maybe God didn't know what was going to happen, and just started the machine to see', etc. then obviously this version of God is a weaker one, and in fact it is no longer the God described in the Bible, but rather your own personnal opinion God who is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, etc. etc.

Yes, this version of God is not biblical. You are describing the god of Deism. Biblical Christianity has no room for the concept of the universe as a "machine." The universe, and its functioning, are sustained instant-by-instant by the God who created them.

quote:
But I also do think, for theological reasons, that the christian God cannot have used death and suffering to create humans. This is because it has immense theological implications.

Suppose the genesis account is literal. Then death is the consequence of sin, which in turn was caused by Adam and Eve breaking the relationship with God by disobeying. ...



What you say is true regarding the death of man only. There is no biblical or theological basis to extend this to animals or plants. In fact, God is praised for feeding animals to the carnivores that He created (Ps 109, Job 38-42).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2009 12:03 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 10-05-2009 4:42 PM kbertsche has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2745 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 23 of 137 (528298)
10-05-2009 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by kbertsche
10-05-2009 11:24 AM


Yes, this version of God is not biblical. You are describing the god of Deism. Biblical Christianity has no room for the concept of the universe as a "machine." The universe, and its functioning, are sustained instant-by-instant by the God who created them.

Of course, I totally agree. Note that this presupposition (That God upholds his creation) is one of the primary why science developped in a christian background. ''Since the Christian God never changes and he upholds his creation, then we can observe it and deduce laws that we know will not change, etc. etc.''

What you say is true regarding the death of man only. There is no biblical or theological basis to extend this to animals or plants. In fact, God is praised for feeding animals to the carnivores that He created (Ps 109, Job 38-42).

I find however, that you cannot say that death and suffering applied only to humans without doing some serious eisegesis. Paul clearly says that:

quote:
Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
(romans 5:12)

So death entered the world through sin, and this is why 'the world has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time'' (romans 8:22)

Sin had a universal effect on all creation, this is seen throughout the Bible, and in fact was pretty much as much a Theological truth throughout christianity as ''Jesus rose from the Dead''. This only changed when the ToE came along, and christians started to compromise the biblical teaching, weaving eisegesis into it.

Wanting to apply death as the result of sin only to humans is one such example. Not only does it not fit with biblical teaching, it is also very difficult to apply to Evolution. When, in the human-ape lineage, did homos stop being animals subject to death, and started being humans not subject to death until they 'sinned' ? Where do you draw the line ? Is the attempt to draw any kind of line anywhere reasonable, considering everything that in evolution, everything is gradual to soem extent (even in ponctuated equilibrium) ?

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2009 11:24 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2009 8:14 PM slevesque has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 24 of 137 (528333)
10-05-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
10-05-2009 4:42 PM


quote:
I find however, that you cannot say that death and suffering applied only to humans without doing some serious eisegesis. Paul clearly says that:

quote:

Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

(romans 5:12)

Exegetically, Paul was speaking only of man here, not of plants or animals. This is quite clear from the context and argument of Rom 5 (see, e.g., v. 14). "World" here refers only to the human race (as in Jn 3:16). Paul is setting up an analogy: sin and death came through the original Adam; grace and life come through the New Adam (Christ). If you try to interpret Rom 5:12 to include death of animals, then you would have to conclude that Jesus also offers eternal life to animals!

quote:
So death entered the world through sin, and this is why 'the world has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time'' (romans 8:22)

Rom 8 is difficult to interpret, and I'm not sure what the best interpretation is. I am sure that most readers bring lots of unexamined presuppositions to the text. For example, 8:20 says that God subjected the creation to futility, but what does this mean? How much of the cosmos is in view by Paul here? (Could he again be only referring to man?) When did God do this--at the original time of creation? at the Fall? How did God do this--by changing the structure of the creation? by allowing man to wreck it by being a poor steward of creation? All of these seem plausible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 10-05-2009 4:42 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 10-05-2009 10:19 PM kbertsche has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2745 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 137 (528358)
10-05-2009 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by kbertsche
10-05-2009 8:14 PM


First, it would be nice if you could say a bit what position you are proposing here, and with what objective. It seems it is to say that animal death was there before the sin entered the world, but is this in order to make evoluton compatible with the bible ? or is it simply to say 'well the bible doesn't really specify this ...'. It's a bit confusing for me since I asked a question about how you could the fit this even with the ToE without a response. Anyhow:

Exegetically, Paul was speaking only of man here, not of plants or animals. This is quite clear from the context and argument of Rom 5 (see, e.g., v. 14). "World" here refers only to the human race (as in Jn 3:16). Paul is setting up an analogy: sin and death came through the original Adam; grace and life come through the New Adam (Christ). If you try to interpret Rom 5:12 to include death of animals, then you would have to conclude that Jesus also offers eternal life to animals!

I thought about this as soon as I had posted my post. The thing would be to check in the original language the word 'world'. I don't have a greek bible however (internet site?)

And of course, it would not surprise me that Paul put the emphasise on death relating to humans, since he is talking to non-jews who knew absolutely nothing about the fall, sin etc. etc. and how it relates to their current situationas humans, This does not exclude animals, and in fact I think that including strictly humand death in this verse, and nothing else, puts it at odds with the greater scope of christian doctrine on the fall. Because, extending the effects of when sin entered the world to animals and the whole of creation by that matter, does not mean they can be 'saved' and have 'eternal life' by Jesus's sacrifice, but it does mean that this creation will one day be restored to its pre-fall state, which is exactly what the Bible teaches about the new earth etc. in apocalypse.

The fact also that God said everything was 'very good' in Genesis does not correlate well with the idea that animal death was existent, and by inference this means cancers, etc. which would mean God would consider these things to be 'very good'.

Rom 8 is difficult to interpret, and I'm not sure what the best interpretation is. I am sure that most readers bring lots of unexamined presuppositions to the text. For example, 8:20 says that God subjected the creation to futility, but what does this mean? How much of the cosmos is in view by Paul here? (Could he again be only referring to man?) When did God do this--at the original time of creation? at the Fall? How did God do this--by changing the structure of the creation? by allowing man to wreck it by being a poor steward of creation? All of these seem plausible.

Interpretations will remain interpretations, but my view is that the sin of man had an effect on all the creation, which would be why it is groaning with pain (In my french version, it says 'the whole of creation is groaning as in the pains ...'').

If this is not so, then this means it was God's desire that his creation would be in such a condition. Clearly this is in opposition to the nature of God, which made everything initially very good. I find that the Bible is much more consistent with itself, with the nature of God, with it's representation of the world, when looked in this way. Trying to make it seem as though maybe the animals and the rest of the creation is not included poses much more problems and dichotomy in the christian worldview, in my humble opinion.

And as I've said, this was the universal position of the church throughout it's history, up until ToE became 'fact' and the Bible had ti be 'reinterpreted'. This means that it is the clear and simple meaning of it, and that trying to make it otherwise is eisegesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2009 8:14 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by kbertsche, posted 10-06-2009 5:18 PM slevesque has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1055 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 137 (528381)
10-06-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
10-03-2009 4:24 AM


Hi Meldinoor,

So, if you had to make these assumptions, what reasons do you see for the Creator to choose gradual naturalistic processes, as opposed to an undeniably divine creation event?

I'm an atheist, but I've always thought that a good reason for "God" (if such a word actually means something) to use naturalistic processes would be so only intelligent beings with a highly evolved sense of curiosity can finally "find him," so to speak.

By pushing said intelligent creatures to find natural explanations to phenomena, "God" is removing the trivial things attributed to him, and perhaps leading these intelligent creautres to find "him" in the most complex, and yet unknown, regions of reality.

A "God" like this would find it pathetic to know that people still thought "he" was responsible for an eclipse. I also feel this type of "God" would find creationists' arguments about the first cellular life and the Big Bang pathetic as well - (The Big Bang and first cellular life being our days eclipse)

A "God" like that would use naturalistic processes because that way he would insure that only curious, intelligent, hopefully less aggressive and more humain, creatures, such as what I hope humans one day evolve to, can finally "know" what it/god/unknown force in the universe really is.

* I'd like to note as an example of my position on the Pseudo-thread: Whether I happen to be right about this "unknown force," the concept I just gave you about God was completely made up in my mind. Even if I happen to have nailed it right on the head, and that's exactly what God is, what I just gave as a description is completely imagined... and can be rejected on that basis alone. I can honestly say that I have no idea what I'm trying to describe when I describe a "God".

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 10-03-2009 4:24 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 27 of 137 (528705)
10-06-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
10-05-2009 10:19 PM


quote:
quote:
Exegetically, Paul was speaking only of man here, not of plants or animals. This is quite clear from the context and argument of Rom 5 (see, e.g., v. 14). "World" here refers only to the human race (as in Jn 3:16). Paul is setting up an analogy: sin and death came through the original Adam; grace and life come through the New Adam (Christ). If you try to interpret Rom 5:12 to include death of animals, then you would have to conclude that Jesus also offers eternal life to animals!

I thought about this as soon as I had posted my post. The thing would be to check in the original language the word 'world'. I don't have a greek bible however (internet site?)

"World" in both Jn 3:16 and Rom 5:12 is kosmos. This has a wide range of meanings; the actual meaning must be determined from context.

quote:
...this creation will one day be restored to its pre-fall state, which is exactly what the Bible teaches about the new earth etc. in apocalypse.

Can you show us where the Bible teaches this? I see it teaching something very different. Rather than restoring the earth to its "pre-fall state," God will completely destroy the present creation and make an entirely new, different, and better heaven and earth. This is analogous to personal salvation; God does not restore us to the "pre-fall state" of Adam and Eve, but to an entirely new, different, and better state.

quote:
The fact also that God said everything was 'very good' in Genesis does not correlate well with the idea that animal death was existent, and by inference this means cancers, etc. which would mean God would consider these things to be 'very good'.

I'm not sure how you infer (human) cancer from animal death. And it seems that you are reading your own preconceptions into "very good." God's created order is presented as something good in Ps 109 and Job 38-42 yet includes animal death.

quote:
If this is not so, then this means it was God's desire that his creation would be in such a condition. Clearly this is in opposition to the nature of God, which made everything initially very good.

Again, you are eisegetically reading your own ideas into "very good." The Hebrew says "very good," not "perfect," even though they had words for "perfect".

quote:
And as I've said, this was the universal position of the church throughout it's history, up until ToE became 'fact' and the Bible had ti be 'reinterpreted'.

False. Nearly all conservative Bible scholars from the early to mid-1800s thru the mid-1900s believed that the earth was old and that animals had died before man was here. These scholars included Scofield, Spurgeon, Barnhouse, Ironside, Unger, J Vernon McGee, and many, many others who did not accept the ToE as "fact."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 10-05-2009 10:19 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 5:57 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 32 by Sky-Writing, posted 10-06-2009 9:47 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2745 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 137 (528716)
10-06-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by kbertsche
10-06-2009 5:18 PM


"World" in both Jn 3:16 and Rom 5:12 is kosmos. This has a wide range of meanings; the actual meaning must be determined from context.

So I guess I determine that this would include the whole of creation, while you determine it to be only humans ?

Can you show us where the Bible teaches this? I see it teaching something very different. Rather than restoring the earth to its "pre-fall state," God will completely destroy the present creation and make an entirely new, different, and better heaven and earth. This is analogous to personal salvation; God does not restore us to the "pre-fall state" of Adam and Eve, but to an entirely new, different, and better state.

Yeah, that's probably more what I had in mind. My use of the expression 'pre-fall state' was probably not good. It happens sometimes since french is my first-language, I sometimes have difficulty expressing a particular idea.

Anyhow, it does not really change the point I was trying to make: God will also restore the whole creation, not just humanity, to an entirely new, different, and better state, Which means that the whole of creation was impacted by sin.

I'm not sure how you infer (human) cancer from animal death. And it seems that you are reading your own preconceptions into "very good." God's created order is presented as something good in Ps 109 and Job 38-42 yet includes animal death.

I was infering animal cancer. And coud you give specific verses in ps 109 and job 38-42 ?

Again, you are eisegetically reading your own ideas into "very good." The Hebrew says "very good," not "perfect," even though they had words for "perfect".

I don't read perfection when I read very good, since only god is perfect. I rather read some sort of 'right on target' kind of expression, similar maybe to how Paul uses the greek word that means 'to miss the target' when talking about sin.

False. Nearly all conservative Bible scholars from the early to mid-1800s thru the mid-1900s believed that the earth was old and that animals had died before man was here. These scholars included Scofield, Spurgeon, Barnhouse, Ironside, Unger, J Vernon McGee, and many, many others who did not accept the ToE as "fact."

Since Darwin published in 1859, and that the idea of evolution was present before that (see Lamarckianism), and the idea of an old earth even before that (see Cuvier, etc.) I have no doubt that the early-to-mid 1800's is precisely the time where the compromise was made. Try finding earlier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kbertsche, posted 10-06-2009 5:18 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 10-06-2009 7:57 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 29 of 137 (528743)
10-06-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
10-06-2009 5:57 PM


quote:
So I guess I determine that this would include the whole of creation, while you determine it to be only humans ?

Only if you are doing eisegesis. The context unambiguously refers only to humans. Animals are not addressed in Rom 5.

quote:
God will also restore the whole creation

No, it is not a restoration. It is instead a replacement.

quote:
And coud you give specific verses in ps 109 and job 38-42 ?

Oops, typo! I meant Ps 104.
Ps 104:20-22 writes:

You make it dark and night comes,
during which all the beasts of the forest prowl around.
The lions roar for prey,
seeking their food from God.
When the sun rises, they withdraw
and sleep in their dens.


Job 38:39-41 writes:

Do you hunt prey for the lioness,
and satisfy the appetite of the lions,
when they crouch in their dens,
when they wait in ambush in the thicket?
Who prepares prey for the raven,
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?

quote:
Since Darwin published in 1859, and that the idea of evolution was present before that (see Lamarckianism), and the idea of an old earth even before that (see Cuvier, etc.) I have no doubt that the early-to-mid 1800's is precisely the time where the compromise was made. Try finding earlier.

You seem to have the tail wagging the dog here. Evidence for an old earth (and animal death) was seen long before Darwin. This was popularized by James Hutton, and was seen as consistent with conservative Christianity before Darwin wrote (see e.g. Thomas Chalmers and William Buckland). Darwin's views were based largely on Lyell's geology, which was in turn based on Hutton's.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 5:57 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3256 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 30 of 137 (528747)
10-06-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by slevesque
10-03-2009 4:22 PM


" Finally, a 6000 year old universe is just as vast, and just as beautiful as 14billion year old universe."

I doubt that the earth was real soft and mushy on day 8. Any planet 8 days old would be real soft and mushy. Likewise, Adam wasn't sucking milk from anyone's breast. Nor were the animals still wobbly on their legs. Why would they be? They were not born....they were made.

So, assuming that the beginning started as it is written, then the earth has all the "scientific" attributes of a well aged planet. Not to say that it is.....just that, in order to avoid being soft and mushy and unsuitable to life, it was created "Ready to go".

Fast food style.

Jesus is credited with a number of "miracles". A "miracle" is a direct result of God touching mankind and delivering results that are "Ready to go". Blind seeing, lame walking, Wine drinking....all kinds of RTG events. Things that seem to have taken place out of our normal time frame. When God has revealed Himself to me, it was just this type of thing that happened. Things were RTG when there was no way for it to have happened in real time. Not mushy. Firm.


- Sky-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 10-03-2009 4:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 8:36 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019