Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 106 of 1324 (699017)
05-13-2013 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by AZPaul3
05-12-2013 6:42 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
Resurrection. To arise from the dead. Keyword - dead. Not just dead but, if the story is to be believed, three days dead.
Actually there supposedly was a second episode with Lazarus. One thing we know and have seen quite well in this universe is that if it has happened once (twice) there will be more. There aren't any more that anyone knows. But this is weak considering it was supposed to have been done by a god of infinite power. But still physical law violation #1.
What happens to dead things? Rigimortus, decay. The laws of thermo dynamics shift from entropy caused by bodily maintenance to a full runup on fast entropy increase in bodily breakdown.
After this sets in we have resurrection. The entropy process is reversed, in an enclosed darkened cave with very little, if any, thermodynamic excess available. Physical law violation #2.
Decay is reversed, cells are reconstituted complete with previously lost moisture, structure, cytoplasm, ribosomes, mitochondria, organ function restored and brain function restored all requiring an enormous input of energy to spontaneously recreate what was destroyed. Physical law violation #3.
There is a distinction here between Lazarus and Jesus. Lazarus was resuscitated whereas Jesus was resurrected. There was a belief in large parts of the Jewish community that at the end of time they would all be resurrected into a new physical life in a new resurrected body. Paul wrote in Ephesians 1 that:
quote:
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In the case of Jesus we have the one who was resurrected in the middle of time. A resuscitated person is still going to die at some point but Jesus was resurrected into a new and non-entropic existence.
I understand that this isn’t going to convince you but I just wanted to make the distinction between the two.
The only other point I’d make out of interest is that I have read books like Quantum Enigma that look at the question of consciousness and the role it plays in our reality. There are those like Julian Barbour who believe that the key to our understanding of the universe is our lack of understanding about time or how things change.
There is a lot of stuff that regardless of our theistic or atheistic beliefs that we don’t understand but science has shown us over the last century that our world is a lot stranger place than we ever imagined.
I'm sure you enjoyed the Hagen Dazs although you their vanilla is better than their chocolate.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 6:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AZPaul3, posted 05-13-2013 1:42 PM GDR has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 1324 (699022)
05-13-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by GDR
05-11-2013 9:12 PM


I have no problem with the idea that once life was started that it could have evolved on its own.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that your problem with the idea of life emerging by itself is arbitrarily placed.
Inorganic molecules forming into organic molecules, and then those organic molecules combining into pre-life, and that pre-life chemically changing into real life is just normal spontaneous chemical processes that happen all by themselves.
I'm way out of my depth as far as the process itself is concerned but to get us from mindless particles to sentient life by natural causes requires a great deal of good fortune.
Since you're way out of your depth, there's no way for you to know how much good fortune it would take. And I'm trying to explain to you that you're wrong when you make the statements that it must have taken a lot of it.
OK, but as a theist that is part of the design.
This doesn't have to be a challenge to the theist position. You could easily just slide the bar back a bit and include the formation of life form inorganic molecules as part of the design.
I'm just trying to get you to understand that you're argument that it would take too much "chance" to happen on its own is incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 11:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 108 of 1324 (699030)
05-13-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by GDR
05-11-2013 2:42 AM


The writers of the Gospels and for that matter the epistles make specific claims. That is evidence and we subjectively believe or reject their claims.
Claims and evidence are two different things.
The fact that we exist or even that this universe exists is objective evidence that something happened for us to exist, and we can subjectively choose what to believe about the how and why of what that something is.
When you make these subjective choices it is not based on evidence. There is simply no reason to include any deities in any explanation other than personal, subjective needs that there be a deity. That's it.
That's what you said before and I don't agree that it is. I asked for you to explain how it qualifies as such and you just repeat your assertion.
"Tu quoque" is latin for "you, too". That is exactly what you are doing in this quote:
"I agree that my beliefs are unfalsifiable but I don’t see that my beliefs are any more dogmatic than yours."--GDR
You are arguing that while your beliefs may be unfalsifiable it is negated by the fact that my beliefs are dogmatic as well (even though you didn't actually spell out what my dogmatic beliefs are). It is a classic tu quoque fallacy.
Well obviously you know your beliefs better than I do but, as I understand your views you seem to reject the notion of God, while allowing for the unlikely possibility that He actually exists.
That sounds like the very opposite of dogmatic. I do not believe in the gods that men have made claims about, but like you say I still leave the possibility open.
I on the other hand reject the idea that our existence could be the result of non-intelligent origins although I do allow for the unlikely possibility of that actually being the case.
From what I have seen, your belief that God created us precedes any consideration of evidence. This differs from my approach where conclusions are only drawn after evidence is presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 2:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by GDR, posted 05-14-2013 12:14 AM Taq has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 109 of 1324 (699031)
05-13-2013 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by GDR
05-13-2013 11:24 AM


I'm sure you enjoyed the Hagen Dazs although you their vanilla is better than their chocolate.
Ehhh Well ... I suppose I can claim success and say I managed to make the pint last more than one evening. Until your message I’d forgotten it is still in the freezer unopened. Regardless, I hereby claim successful attainment of my stated goal. Rah.
Lazarus was resuscitated whereas Jesus was resurrected.
No, GDR, you cannot go redefine words to fit a favored myth. According to the story Lazarus was in the tomb 4-days dead. You do not resuscitate a 4-day dead body. From unconsciousness or near death, ok, resuscitate. To re-animate from dead, and not just dead but 4-days dead, rotted, desiccated, putrefied, this is called resurrection.
I understand the distinction you would like to make between the two occurrences, and the why of it, but this defies the accepted meanings of the words and the logic of their usage. It doesn’t work. Nice try, though.
Doesn't change the analysis, anyway. Neither occurance is viable.
There is a lot of stuff that regardless of our theistic or atheistic beliefs that we don’t understand but science has shown us over the last century that our world is a lot stranger place than we ever imagined.
Indeed it is.
However,
This does not allow us to expect some strange quirk of QFT or M-theory or Quantum Gravity will rescue any of our pet beliefs. Some have already assumed that undiscovered bits of strangeness exist in such form and with such properties that all the present impossibilities of their beliefs are magically accommodated.
One of the stranger attributes of this universe is that it constantly defies our expectations and assumptions.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 11:24 AM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 110 of 1324 (699032)
05-13-2013 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by GDR
05-11-2013 2:42 AM


GDR writes:
I on the other hand reject the idea that our existence could be the result of non-intelligent origins although I do allow for the unlikely possibility of that actually being the case.
Shouldn't the pre-existence of a BIG intelligence be much less likely than the development of a little one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 2:42 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 111 of 1324 (699040)
05-13-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
05-12-2013 9:08 PM


Re: The Gospel Message
Faith writes:
And I'm saying it does, and I gave you verses in Jeremiah and Isaiah to demonstrate that the Messiah was prophesied to be God Himself.
One of the verses you gave was Jer 33:16. How about we look at both vs 16 and 17.
quote:
16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.' 17 For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,
It is like I told you. Jeremiah is talking about Judah being called The Lord our Righteousness and that it will be a MAN on the throne. It is about a messiah that will reign in place of their enemies which at the time of Jesus was the Romans.
Here is your other Jeremiah quote from chap 33.
quote:
5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. 7 "So then, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when people will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' 8 but they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' Then they will live in their own land."
In this case Jeremiah is calling the individual The Lord of Our Righteousness which supports your case if you apply your interpretation to what the term meant. However, even in the same book you have discrepancies.
Here is your Isaiah quote in a larger context.
quote:
1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-- 2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. 3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. 4 For as in the day of Midian's defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor. 5 Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.
It is obvious that this is about establishing the nation of Israel. Isaiah is saying that The Lord will give them a King to rule over the land by the sea and along the Jordan and that he will rule in peace, justice and righteousness.
As I said the Jews were looking for someone to rule a very Earthly Israel and that could only happen if the Romans were ousted. That was the expectation of a messiah. I mentioned all of the failed messiahs as it is obvious that they all saw the role of messiah to be to oust their enemies.
Faith writes:
If His Kingdom is not of this world, it is also not FOR this world. This world is pas sing away, says scripture, and some day it will be gone altogether, replaced by a completely new Creation. In John 17 Jesus specifically says He's praying for His own, not for those of this world. Your focus on the Roman occupation is extremely strange to me. That was the concern of the unregenerate Jews, but it was certainly not the focus of Christ or His followers.
Paul writes this in Ephesians chap 1:
quote:
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
Paul includes all things on Earth.
Matthew quotes Jesus in Chap 19:
quote:
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jesus talks of the RENEWAL of ALL things. This world will be renewed.
I agree that there is ambiguity in the various verses of the Bible but if you go right back to Genesis the point is that we are to be good stewards of our portion of creation. If this world is going to completely cease to exist then why worry about stewardship. Also, the resurrected Jesus, who is the example of a resurrected creation will be like, was able to be physically present in this world which is a pretty strong indication that when the resurrection of all things happens this world will play a big part in it.
However, how that will work out is a mystery and we aren’t going to come up with certainty so in the meantime the important thing is to plug away at being agents of God’s love, peace’ forgiveness, mercy and justice, and we’ll have these and other answers in the next life.
Faith writes:
In John 17 Jesus specifically says He's praying for His own, not for those of this world.
You cherry pick this verse but let’s carry on in the same chapter. Here is verse 22-23:
quote:
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
He is praying for them because they have a message for the world. Read again the about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. It is about having hearts that humbly love and serve others without thought of reward. The sheep who fed the hungry etc didn’t know they were doing it for Jesus.
Faith writes:
Your focus on the Roman occupation is extremely strange to me. That was the concern of the unregenerate Jews, but it was certainly not the focus of Christ or His followers.
You just totally disregard the message of Jesus. In one sense because they took a non-militaristic approach in dealing with the Romans the message was not as obvious as it was with the revolutionaries, but just something as simple as love your enemies would be understood very clearly by any Jew. It would be akin to saying to the citizens of Holland while they were occupied by the Nazis that they were to love their enemies. Do you really think that the average Dutch citizen wouldn’t have looked at whoever said that as being nuts? Jesus had a very political message. The message was essentially saying that it isn’t the Romans who are the enemy but evil itself.
Faith writes:
We ARE called to be "salt and light" to the world, however, to keep the word of God as much the standard as we are able, to prevent the world's falling too deeply into the corruptions and evils of the sin nature. Looks like we're now in the time of the last of the last days, however, when evil is finally going to win, have its last hurrah before Jesus returns.
With all of its problems the world is a more humane place than it was just a few centuries ago so it seems to me that God is winning. As far as the last days are concerned there have been those like you in every generation suggesting it’s going to happen any day now. As a Christian my hope is that this world goes on for millions of years yet so that there will be as many people as possible to take part in whatever it is that comes at the resurrection of all things at the end of time.
Faith writes:
It's up to God how to treat individuals. Some believe infants are saved, some believe at least the infants of believers are saved. Scripture doesn't say so I don't say. And I don't worry about it. God will do the just thing.
Same with the other categories. There is, however, Romans 1 which claims that even those who haven't heard the gospel have enough light from nature to obey the natural law and to be "without excuse" for not obeying it, but that too is not spelled out with enough distinctness for me to make my own judgment about it, and again, I leave such decisions to God, they aren't mine to make. What I DO know for sure is that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are utterly without excuse.
But you have said that people have to believe to be saved, but now you are allowing that it may be that you don’t have to believe. Again, how about people who have never heard the Gospel, or those born before the time of Christ, or those with mental illness, or those born where other religions are practised and yet know in their hearts in the way that Paul talks about in Romans 2 and so on. Once you allow an infant in who didn’t have the right beliefs because they couldn’t then you have to consider others because they couldn’t.
You talk about those who reject the Gospel. How about those who have been part of churches preaching the Gospel and then have been abused by church leaders?
However I do agree that God is perfectly just and in the end perfect justice will be done.
GDR writes:
Your brand of evangelism is so focused on being saved or going to hell that you miss out on the Gospel message of serving God’s Kingdom.
Faith writes:
I don't miss that at all, it's what we do WHEN we are saved, and nobody can do it who isn't saved although they may deceive themselves about that.
Read Romans 2 again. It is by having loving hearts that we are saved not by having the right theology.
GDR writes:
You turn faith into a work. We are made right with God by having loving hearts and by grace He gives us His own love so that we in turn can love.
Faith writes:
You cannot have that without being born again, i.e., saved.
Read the Bible in large chucks and not in little bites. That is not the message of the Bible when taken as a hole. Yes, the concept of being born again is a process that sees God touching our hearts so that we are more attuned to His ways, but that does not mean that there aren’t those who have loving hearts without being a Christian. Even Jesus tells us:
quote:
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Faith writes:
Note "created in Christ Jesus UNTO GOOD WORKS" -- there's your serving of the Kingdom of God, which is the RESULT of salvation by His death on the cross in our place.
I agree that it isn't by our works that we are made right with God. It is by His grace. However the good works are the result of having a loving heart. And all love, whether we know God or not, is a gift of God to which we can respond.
I see you made a bunch more edits and except for the last paragraph the response was to the e-mail I received which would be your original post and I'm now out of 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 05-12-2013 9:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-13-2013 5:34 PM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 112 of 1324 (699042)
05-13-2013 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by GDR
05-13-2013 3:53 PM


Re: The Gospel Message
And I'm saying it does, and I gave you verses in Jeremiah and Isaiah to demonstrate that the Messiah was prophesied to be God Himself.
One of the verses you gave was Jer 33:16. How about we look at both vs 16 and 17.
16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.' 17 For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,
It is like I told you. Jeremiah is talking about Judah being called The Lord our Righteousness and that it will be a MAN on the throne. It is about a messiah that will reign in place of their enemies which at the time of Jesus was the Romans.
Where are you getting this "in the place of their enemies?" That's not particularly important but I don't see where you are getting it. But of course He is a MAN: The man on the throne of David is the LORD Jesus, who is both man and God. That's what the prophecy to David of always having a man of his lineage on the throne ultimately looked forward to: the eternal reign of the Messiah who is both Jehovah God and man.
As for its being Judah going by the name The LORD our rightouesness all the commentators say Judah is going by the Messiah's name when He reigns. I'll quote a couple farther down.
Here is your other Jeremiah quote from chap 33.
5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. 7 "So then, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when people will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' 8 but they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' Then they will live in their own land."
In this case Jeremiah is calling the individual The Lord of Our Righteousness which supports your case if you apply your interpretation to what the term meant. However, even in the same book you have discrepancies.
[/qs]
What discrepancies are you finding here? This is again the name of the Messiah, the LORD [who is] our righteousness, and the LORD IS the righteousness of those who believe in Him. It's not, the LORD OF our righteousness, but the LORD [who is] our righteousness.
Here are the quotes about the name's being applied to the whole country:
Matthew Henry:
That which was before said to be the name of Christ (says Mr. Gataker) is here made the name of Jerusalem, the city of the Messiah, the church of Christ. He it is that imparts righteousness to her, for he is made of God to us righteousness, and she, by bearing that name, professes to have her whole righteousness, not from herself, but from him. In the Lord have I righteousness and strength, Isa. 45:24. And we are made the righteousness of God in him. The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall have this name of the Messiah so much in their mouths that they shall themselves be called by it.
Charles Spurgeon (Spurgeon and Henry are two of the greatest orthodox teachers of the Bible in case you didn't know that):
16. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith the shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
What a wonderful unity there is between Christ and his Church! She actually takes his name: "The Lord our righteousness."
17, 18. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel, neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
This shows that the covenant was not a literal and fleshly one, made with David and his seed according to the flesh, or with the priests and their seed according to the flesh. There is a Kingdom that can never be moved, and our Lord sits on that throne; there is a Priesthood which is everlasting, it is held by that great High Priest who hath offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, and who abides a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisdec.
I don't see that expandibng the context has gained you anything. The point still stands that the Messiah was prophesied to be God.
Here is your Isaiah quote in a larger context.
1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-- 2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. 3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. 4 For as in the day of Midian's defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor. 5 Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.
It is obvious that this is about establishing the nation of Israel. Isaiah is saying that The Lord will give them a King to rule over the land by the sea and along the Jordan and that he will rule in peace, justice and righteousness.
I'm really not at all sure what you think you are proving here. The great light is of course the Messiah who will be a light not only to the Jews but to the Gentiles, those walking in darkness. This is about establishing the Kingdom of God, which is what the nation of Israel always symbolized, reigned over by the Messiah who is to be called by the names of God: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
As I said the Jews were looking for someone to rule a very Earthly Israel and that could only happen if the Romans were ousted. That was the expectation of a messiah. I mentioned all of the failed messiahs as it is obvious that they all saw the role of messiah to be to oust their enemies.
Well presumably you believe Jesus WAS the Messiah and yet the Romans were NOT ousted were they? After Jesus' death they overthrew Jerusalem completely and the land remained the province of foreigners until the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948. Those who interpreted the prophecies of the Messiah in that way wre wrong. That is not what the prophecies meant. The false messiahs DID have that worldly fleshly notion, but they were wrong. The prophecies I gave you were of Jesus whose Kingdom is not of this world or FOR this world, the Kingdom that would never end.
Yes, the message of the Messiah was to be for the entire world, of course, but not all are going to believe, some are going to simply be shown how wrong they are.
I can't finish this post right now. I'll come back for the rest later.
LATER: I'm not up to finishing this post so I'm going to bow out of this discussion, except for one last comment:
agree that it isn't by our works that we are made right with God. It is by His grace. However the good works are the result of having a loving heart. And all love, whether we know God or not, is a gift of God to which we can respond.
I'll just say it again: The only way we can be "made right with God" is through faith in the death of Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins -- that is salvation, and everything we do to obey God beyond that is based on it. You determinedly avoid this one central element of the gospel so I must continue to emphasize it.
All love is not the same. The kind of love an unregenerate fallen person, i.e., an unbeliever, has is not the kind of love one receives through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us when we are saved by the blood of Christ, and not otherwise. EVERYTHING in the Christian life hinges on the crucifixion.
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hbr 9:26 ...but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;
1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;
1 Pet 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Oh one last comment: you accused me of taking back my constant claim that we must believe (in the death of Christ) to be saved, because I tried to answer your challenge about those who don't have the ability or the opportunity to believe. It ought to be obvious enough from context that I'm suggesting that God has the prerogative to save whomever He pleases so that those without the opportunity to believe may be saved too, especially infants, for which there is the scriptural example of King David's expectation of eventually meeting his infant son who died. That's the example of infants of believers being saved. Such speculations about those who lack the opportunity to believe in no way changes the basic fact that those who do have the ability and the opportunity to believe MUST believe to be saved and won't be saved otherwise.
======================================================================================
Edited by Faith, : to add last remarks
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 3:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 8:56 PM Faith has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 113 of 1324 (699061)
05-13-2013 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Straggler
05-13-2013 7:31 AM


Re: Chance Entities
Straggler writes:
Something, rather than nothing, exists. This is our starting point.
Is the 'something' that just exists simple but capable of evolving such that greater complexity in the form of moderately intellgent beings (i.e. us) may eventually arise?
Or is the 'something' that just exists a super-intelligent-bewilderingly powerful entity that chooses to bring simpler things (e.g. us) into existence?
I don't see it in the light. As long as we are dealing with a universe where time only flows in one direction then there has to be a cause or reason for that universe to exist. And although a basic particle may be simple compared to a human cell when we look at particles in the standard model they aren't all that simple either.
We know that we are part of a greater reality as we only perceive about 4.5% of the universe. There are various theories about dark matter and dark energy. It sure seems to me that the more science advances our knowledge the more mysterious it becomes and it just raises a whole new set of questions.
I don't think that the idea of greater intelligence apart from the intelligence that we possess existing outside of our perception is at all far fetched. We seem to be fine with speculating about intelligent beings on other planets that it seems only to exist because we perceive them. It seems to me that speculation of intelligence outside of our perceivable universe isn't nearly as far fetched.
Straggler writes:
Can you see why your advocacy of (highly complex -> less complex) as more likely than (simple -> moderately complex) seems both to defy the observational evidence available and common sense?
Not at all. Take this computer I'm working on. Which is more likely?
(A) It came into existence because it was created as the result of a greater intelligence or:
(B) It came into existence because somebody left a bunch of minerals around and they eventually began to get together piece by piece until -voila- it's a computer.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2013 7:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2013 10:50 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 114 of 1324 (699062)
05-13-2013 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
05-13-2013 11:58 AM


CS writes:
What I'm trying to explain to you is that your problem with the idea of life emerging by itself is arbitrarily placed.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. (I'm sure that's my fault and not yours.)
CS writes:
Inorganic molecules forming into organic molecules, and then those organic molecules combining into pre-life, and that pre-life chemically changing into real life is just normal spontaneous chemical processes that happen all by themselves.
Then why don't we see that happening around us all the time? Why can't we observe the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials.
CS writes:
Since you're way out of your depth, there's no way for you to know how much good fortune it would take. And I'm trying to explain to you that you're wrong when you make the statements that it must have taken a lot of it.
Well I have read books that give the odds against it happening as some unmeasurably huge number to one, but I'm not sure how meaningful that is. However, do you really think that out of a soup of mindless particles, with no intelligent input, to wind up with the world we know doesn't require a considerable amount of good fortune?
CS writes:
This doesn't have to be a challenge to the theist position. You could easily just slide the bar back a bit and include the formation of life form inorganic molecules as part of the design.
I'm just trying to get you to understand that you're argument that it would take too much "chance" to happen on its own is incorrect.
As I say, I'm probably missing the point here but I didn't say that it took too much "chance" to happen on its own, but that the odds against are longer than the idea of an external intelligence existing that provided the impetus is more plausible IMHO.
Is that addressing your point?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2013 11:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 10:24 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 115 of 1324 (699064)
05-14-2013 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Taq
05-13-2013 1:17 PM


Taq writes:
Claims and evidence are two different things.
From a scientific point of view yes, but in a study of historical documents no.
Taq writes:
When you make these subjective choices it is not based on evidence. There is simply no reason to include any deities in any explanation other than personal, subjective needs that there be a deity. That's it.
It has nothing to do with personal needs. I believe it to be the truth regardless of any needs I might have.
Taq writes:
You are arguing that while your beliefs may be unfalsifiable it is negated by the fact that my beliefs are dogmatic as well (even though you didn't actually spell out what my dogmatic beliefs are). It is a classic tu quoque fallacy.
That isn't what I did. I am not saying that the fact your position is unfalsifiable negates the fact that my position is as well. The only point is that we are dealing with something for which there is no falsifiable answer. I agree that it is a valid argument against what it is that I believe and I don't question that. However it also holds true for anyone who makes any claim about the existence or non-existence about a deity.
Taq writes:
That sounds like the very opposite of dogmatic. I do not believe in the gods that men have made claims about, but like you say I still leave the possibility open.
Which repeats what I said about your opinion and I have previously stated that I leave open the possibility that there is no god or gods.
Taq writes:
From what I have seen, your belief that God created us precedes any consideration of evidence. This differs from my approach where conclusions are only drawn after evidence is presented.
I don't agree with that. I don't see any difference between how I look at the evidence as opposed to an atheist. If there is solid physical evidence for something such as evolution then I accept it as how God did it, whereas the atheist will just assume that it happened naturally. That makes no difference in how we view the evidence itself.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 05-13-2013 1:17 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 05-14-2013 11:13 AM GDR has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 116 of 1324 (699080)
05-14-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by GDR
05-13-2013 11:53 PM


I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. (I'm sure that's my fault and not yours.)
You have a problem with the early chemical reactions that lead to the emergence of life but they were not different enough from ones that you don't have a problem with for you to make the distinction.
You think they were somehow different and required an intelligent input, but they weren't.
Then why don't we see that happening around us all the time? Why can't we observe the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials.
Well, we do and we don't. Your body is currently employing inorganic non-cellular calcium metal atoms into new cells in your bones. That's only tangential to the point but its worth pointing out that the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials happens all the time.
Regarding the emergence of life, itself, the environment was radically different and there weren't already living organisms to exploit the proto-lifes that would be gradually emerging. The ones that are emerging today are quickly getting gobbled up.
If you're asking why we haven't seen it in the lab, that's just because we haven't gotten there yet. But we will one day.
However, do you really think that out of a soup of mindless particles, with no intelligent input, to wind up with the world we know doesn't require a considerable amount of good fortune?
It could easily be that the emergence of life is an inevitability given the conditions suitable for it. I mean, that's what we see here on Earth... no matter what kind of crazy-ass environment you go to, volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, air pockets under miles of ice, a poisonous cave deep underground that has been sealed off from the surface for millennia.... no matter where you go, if life can exist, then it does.
I didn't say that it took too much "chance" to happen on its own, but that the odds against are longer than the idea of an external intelligence existing that provided the impetus is more plausible IMHO.
And I'm trying to explain to you that you've got the odds against wrong.
ABE:
Like I said before, this isn't a challenge to your theist position. You just need to slide the bar to the left a little bit so that the emergence of life falls under the Big Plan rather than needing the direct hand of god tinkering with it.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 11:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 117 of 1324 (699082)
05-14-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
05-13-2013 11:41 PM


Re: Chance Entities
GDR writes:
I don't see it in the light.
Something (rather than nothing) exists. Do you agree that this is as good a starting point for analysis as we can hope to achieve? If so - Then it becomes a question of what is this 'something' that just exists (i.e. uncaused).
Is it a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of universe creation? Or is it something less elaborate....?
GDR writes:
As long as we are dealing with a universe where time only flows in one direction then there has to be a cause or reason for that universe to exist.
Actually I would suggest that is quite obviously wrong. Think about it. If causality is an internal emergent property of the physical laws of our universe then there is absolutely no reason to expect it to apply to the origins of the universe itself. Think about it.....
GDR writes:
And although a basic particle may be simple compared to a human cell when we look at particles in the standard model they aren't all that simple either.
It may be that we can construct a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt. Or it may be that such a theory (concise or otherwise) is simply beyond us. We humans have been around but for the blink of an eye (not even that in cosmological terms). Yet even at this early stage we have developed a model that has allowed us to accurately predict and discover new constituents of matter. In this sense these things are "simple" in that we have good reason to consider them comprehensible, predictable and discoverable.
GDR writes:
We know that we are part of a greater reality as we only perceive about 4.5% of the universe. There are various theories about dark matter and dark energy. It sure seems to me that the more science advances our knowledge the more mysterious it becomes and it just raises a whole new set of questions.
But why is that either surprising or a reason to invoke mysticism?
If you look at the history of human knowledge you see that it is one long chain of expanding horizons. To the earliest humans lands across the seas would have seemed like inaccessible other worlds full of strange beasts, plants and inhospitable alien landscapes. Moving forward down the centuries and we find humans happily sailing the seas and exploring the most remote parts of this Earthly world but still under the impression that Earth with "the heavens" above (and hell below) constituted the entirety of the cosmos. To us in the 21st century notions of the Solar system, rockets to the moon (and even neighbouring planets) as well as concepts such as galaxies and our Sun as just one star amongst a multitude of such objects are widely accepted and understood. To us it is the far reaches of space and the possibility of other dimensions, parallel universes and suchlike that provide us with the same sense of awe and mystery that our ancestors felt about things we now take for granted.
I really don't understand why you consider the possibility of new horizons put forward as a result of scientific advancement as anything other than a continuation of the same pattern we have seen throughout the progression of human knowledge. I don't understand why you think it is justified to insert god into these new horizons in exactly the same way that our ancestors inserted god into the mysteries of their time.
Why do you think are you any more likely to be correct with your godly insertions than they were?
GDR writes:
We seem to be fine with speculating about intelligent beings on other planets that it seems only to exist because we perceive them.
We know for an absolute fact that intelligence can evolve in this universe. That is the concrete basis for all such speculations.
GDR writes:
I don't think that the idea of greater intelligence apart from the intelligence that we possess existing outside of our perception is at all far fetched.
That other moderately intelligent beings may have developed from simple and humble beginnings as we have (whether in this universe or another - if such other universes do exist) can be speculated on the basis of our known existence. We know for an absolute fact that such develoment of intelligence is a possibility because (Hello!!) here we are!!
Conversely the uncaused "just is" existence of a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of universe creation isn't even evidenced as a possibility (never mind an actuality)
GDR writes:
Take this computer I'm working on. Which is more likely?
(A) It came into existence because it was created as the result of a greater intelligence
If I told you that your computer was directly created by an uncaused complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of computer creation would you say this was "likely"....?
GDR writes:
or: (B) It came into existence because somebody left a bunch of minerals around and they eventually began to get together piece by piece until -voila- it's a computer.
Based on the observable evidence both the computer and this entire concept of an uncaused super-intelligence were most likely constructed by a developed but limited intelligence which itself arose from simple beginnings (AKA a human).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 05-13-2013 11:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 1:19 PM Straggler has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 118 of 1324 (699083)
05-14-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by GDR
05-14-2013 12:14 AM


From a scientific point of view yes,
No, from a rational point of view.
It has nothing to do with personal needs. I believe it to be the truth regardless of any needs I might have.
Then what does it have to do with? Why propose that a deity exists to begin with?
The only point is that we are dealing with something for which there is no falsifiable answer.
What is that something?
I don't agree with that.
Then describe how you reached the conclusion that God exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by GDR, posted 05-14-2013 12:14 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 1:32 PM Taq has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 119 of 1324 (699170)
05-15-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by New Cat's Eye
05-14-2013 10:24 AM


CS writes:
You have a problem with the early chemical reactions that lead to the emergence of life but they were not different enough from ones that you don't have a problem with for you to make the distinction.
You think they were somehow different and required an intelligent input, but they weren't.
Thanks CS. I'll have to take your word for it. I have to say though that with all of the complexity of a living cell with all of its strands of DNA etc is quite a leaps from mindless particles but then again it is quite a leap from single celled life to Catholic Scientist as well.
CS writes:
Well, we do and we don't. Your body is currently employing inorganic non-cellular calcium metal atoms into new cells in your bones. That's only tangential to the point but its worth pointing out that the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials happens all the time.
I love this forum. I didn't know that. That's the new thing I've learned today. Thanks.
CS writes:
Regarding the emergence of life, itself, the environment was radically different and there weren't already living organisms to exploit the proto-lifes that would be gradually emerging. The ones that are emerging today are quickly getting gobbled up.
If you're asking why we haven't seen it in the lab, that's just because we haven't gotten there yet. But we will one day.
Actually I was talking about it happening in nature. The example you used for the emergence of new cells from inorganic materials does require the pre-existence of cellular life though.
It does seem to me that when it is done in a lab it will be an example that it took sentient life to make it happen.
CS writes:
It could easily be that the emergence of life is an inevitability given the conditions suitable for it. I mean, that's what we see here on Earth... no matter what kind of crazy-ass environment you go to, volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, air pockets under miles of ice, a poisonous cave deep underground that has been sealed off from the surface for millennia.... no matter where you go, if life can exist, then it does.
Life seems to be very adaptable, so adaptable in fact that you would almost think that it has been designed that way.
CS writes:
Like I said before, this isn't a challenge to your theist position. You just need to slide the bar to the left a little bit so that the emergence of life falls under the Big Plan rather than needing the direct hand of god tinkering with it.
That seems to me the position of Christian Biologists such as Francis Collins and Denis O. Lamoureux and as they and yourself just might know more about stuff than I do I guess I'll go along with it. From my perspective it seems that even for God to be able to put together a system that designs itself right from the start seems like a lot, which made me think that tinkering would be necessary. Just goes to show that I shouldn't underestimate God.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 05-15-2013 12:47 PM GDR has replied
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2013 1:07 PM GDR has replied
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 05-16-2013 12:17 PM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 1324 (699172)
05-15-2013 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by GDR
05-15-2013 12:19 PM


sentience needed?
GDR writes:
CS writes:
Regarding the emergence of life, itself, the environment was radically different and there weren't already living organisms to exploit the proto-lifes that would be gradually emerging. The ones that are emerging today are quickly getting gobbled up.
If you're asking why we haven't seen it in the lab, that's just because we haven't gotten there yet. But we will one day.
Actually I was talking about it happening in nature. The example you used for the emergence of new cells from inorganic materials does require the pre-existence of cellular life though.
It does seem to me that when it is done in a lab it will be an example that it took sentient life to make it happen.
Why would you think that?
If I make ice in my freezer does that mean it takes sentience to freeze the pond?
Does it take sentience to make new cells for your body?
And we really have absolutely no way of knowing whether new forms of life are being created even today. The problem is that any new forms of life created today must immediately compete with all those forms of evolved living stuff existing today that have had billions of years of selection for critters that are really good at eating.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 12:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 5:03 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024