PHILOSOPHY IS KING

Born2Preach :This will be only the second time I have commented on somebody's name/handle.Because you chose such a name, would you mind providing me some links of posts that contain your preachments so I can read them and see if your sermons/theology matches the claim of your name ?

The entire tone of this post ASSUMES the Bible to be some scribblings of retarded cave men.You assume as fact the slander created by your worldview that the Bible is somehow illogical, inaccurate, and untrustworthy. The only persons who hold the Bible in such regards are persons who hate christianity, do not believe in the existence of miracles, also known as revisionists/frauds.The only thing circular is the foundational argument against the claims of the Bible (which are supernatural), and that circular argument is as follows :12:00 O'clock : Miracles cannot happen.12:15 : and anyone who says they do is not to be listened to.12:30 : because miracles cannot happen.12:45 : and anyone saying otherwise is a nut.12:00 O'clock : Because miracles cannot happen.Thats the entire dismissal of the claims of the Bible.The Bible CLAIMS to be the word of God, the claim is verified by the truth contained therein.I do not have to prove everything contained in scripture to be accurate. It is a given that the word of God is inerrant when possessed by God Himself. When that word is transferred to certain persons for recording it instantly becomes tainted with error.
Only fundementalists claim Biblical inerrancy - I am not a fundementalist. I have enough primary knowledge to know the sources themselves contain errors.Whats the point ?Anyone who immediately dismisses the Bible because of errors reveals their massive ignorance and/or dishonest intent. There are literally thousands of source manuscripts written and copied across Africa and Eurasia over hundreds and hundreds of years. These sources were written in Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, etc,etc. Yet the common denominator amongst all these sources is a maximum 5% variation of content and this 5% variation never touches anything but very minor controversies.Would you dismiss evolution over previous errors and minor controversies ? Would you dismiss evolution because of peppered moths and Pilt Down Man ?You have 12 frickin manuscripts for the entire works of Herodotus yet everything he says is gospel truth. The Bible is accurate, its just that the powers that be do not like what it says.However, I have only cited 2 books/passages and this is a philosophical discussion.The best scholarship are all in agreement : The Book of Esther is an inspired work. It is the only book of the Bible where God's name does not appear - not even once. It is a perfect source to evidence that God is in control under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.
That is my argument to counter the evolutionist claim that accident, fluke, and chance are indications that a Creator was not involved.My Romans argument points out WHY so many people interpret evolution to disprove the God of Genesis. If you willfully deny God simple credit and thanks He will react by eventually incapacitating your ability to see/know Him.The proof of this truth is in our society.Higher Education, Scientism, Law, and the Media have willingly embraced the atheist agenda, WHY ?Because God has reacted to their rejection of Him, they are suffering His wrath of God sense removal.You would probably explain the success of atheist agenda in euphemistic terms, but I am only pointing out what Romans says and it certainly makes perfect sense to all honest and intelligent observers.
The irony of the truth contained in Romans; that the refusal to simply acknowledge God as God and to be thankful (so little) gets violators a shove towards hating God. Thats what the previous cited segments of our society do : they hate God.You need to evidence how the Romans passages are wrong. There is no source manuscript that varies on these verses to any noticeable degree.Lam, you want to dismiss the Bible because of translation problems. Theologians exist to explain these things and there are plenty of brilliant ones in this world.There is a way to know for sure if you really want to. Persons only interested in destruction make the ever so common criticism/excuse of Biblical translation errors as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-07-2004]

I am simply amazed to how well you were able to dodge completely some of my points. Further more, you continued to use the bible as both premise and conclusion in your argument, which proves my point about circular argument.I will come back and write in more details after my freaking migraine is gone.

Please note I'm still becoming a preacher and have contacts with local churchgoers and pastors that help me understand the job and the walk with God that intensifies with it. What, do you expect some webpage talking about my holy exploits? Even if there was, I don't use my real name on here so how would you know it was me?I am not a pastor yet. I will not claim to be. You wanna know what I am? A sophomore in highschool with a 3.0 GPA. There, I said it. I don't have a mountain of degrees under my belt, and I have never(and will never) get straight As in my lifetime.HOWEVER that shouldn't make anything I say less legitimate. Think about what was said, not who said it. We're all mortals here.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

I will not dodge.I will answer.Thanks for your participation.

But aren't you the people who suggest it is 66 seperate books, in which Esther is now not supposedly part of it? If they are all seperate, then information in the bible CAN confirm itself IF the books are seperate.Migraine is caused by an evolutionistic worldview and ant-biblism.

quote:

---

But aren't you the people who suggest it is 66 seperate books, in which Esther is now not supposedly part of it? If they are all seperate, then information in the bible CAN confirm itself IF the books are seperate.

---

The bigger question is whether or not these separate books were written as to not conflict with the other books. Also, if certain books did conflict with the accepted cannon, were these books discredited and removed from the collection? I think both scenarios are legitimate, and so the Bible should be considered one cohesive unit that has been constructed to remove any internal conflict. The New Testament was probably more susceptible to this than the Old Testament, given the selective nature by which New Testament cannon was made. For example, the Gospel of Thomas and possibly some books written by Paul and other figures were left out of the New Testament Cannon. Not only that, but New Testament Cannon might have been influenced by one ruler (forgetting specifics, but might be able to find them, Solon or something like that). Exclusion/inclusion or special editing may have resulted in a cohesive and non-contridictory cannon that we see today instead of the mish mash of privately held letters and gospels that belonged to early christians.

Loudmouth quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. Notice that God has "invisible attributes." My translation is that by "invisible", Paul is saying that man can never detect these attributes directly. Therefore, untestable by science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I said God can be deduced from what is seen/made. Then I supplied the source of this belief (Romans 1:20). Then Loudmouth replies with the above quote.But the verse plainly declares the obvious : God is invisible, so are His attributes, BUT the verse immediately goes on to declare that these invisible attributes are "clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."Therefore, what is seen/made becomes a mirror to deduce His invisible attributes.Science deduces the existence of the unseen via the behavior of what they can see. Celestial bodies that cannot be seen are postulated to exist by the wobble of bodies that can be seen. What about quantum mechanics ?, gravity ?, etc.etc. The unseen is deduced by its impact and effects on the seen.The inability to make the same deductions concerning the effects and impact of the invisible God is a punishment from God FOR excluding Him from the creation table. Romans tells us, by interpretation, that the Divine neutral clauses in RE and MN are really exclusionary, and that this hostile act of rejection is what triggers God's response of removing the capacity to deduce Him in what is seen/made.Loudmouth quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This doesn't apply to cultures who never heard of Jesus. They never had a chance to deny God but yet come to different conclusions with respect to the supernatural. Secondly, this is a circular argument. Breaking it down, the argument is thus. "If you believe in God, then you will believe in God. If you incapable of believing in God, then you won't believe in God." Kind of stating the obvious, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------I just want to state that my arguments about God sense removal do not require a belief in Jesus. They require a deistic belief in God to forestall any eligibility for the punishment.Your reference to circular argument doesn't make sense.The Romans argument says to deny credit to God as the Creator (and be genuinely thankful - you can't fool Him) has God reacting in anger with the aforementioned punishment. In essence, God is being "plagarized" via brilliant persons/any given person who assign what is seen to be the product of dunces like chance, randomness, fluke, accident, instead of God getting the credit. Why is randomness interpreted to say a Creator isn't/wasn't involved ?Because that is an "a priori" decision, a malicious thrashing/conclusion against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.The point is that when Darwinism emerged and scientific enquiry crested; these pioneers wanted to eliminate the Church and their God; they didn't want to deal with a Creator - they want to be God; the ones everyone goes to for the answers - just like their predecessors the religionists.God said "fine". Reject Me and I will reject you.Loudmouth, you applauded me for accurately stating the Divine neutral clauses of RE and MN. Understand this : Romans says those clauses are really intended as exclusionary not neutrality, hence the punishment and the explanation of why so many atheists populate the halls of evolution.

You must first acknowledge that my previous reply DOES indeed satisfy against your assertions that the Bible is errant and therefore unreliable to base an argument upon.Next: You dismiss the Bible because there is supposedly no way to confirm/corroborate that it is the word of God.I only ask that it be ASSUMED the word of God; that this is the CLAIM of the Church. There is no harm to assume this. IF you seek to evade the content of this topic based upon this objection then allow me to remind you that this is not a Biblical inerrancy topic. But I have already addressed this inerrancy issue.The veracity of the claims and content of the Bible is confirmed by what it says being true.I have argued that the Book of Esther to be an excellent example/demonstration of the way God controls/operates. That m.o. is via the appearance of chance, fluke, and accident, which if true, evidences against any argument that might claim that chance, fluke, and accident to be indications that a Creator wasn't involved.LAM quote :----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the best example of why the bible today might not be accurate is the discovery and translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars have long suspected for centuries that the book of Esther was not part of the original OT, that it was added on later on by God knows who. The Dead Sea Scrolls justified this suspicion when scholars couldn't find the book of Esther anywhere, even though everything else was there. If part of the OT couldn't be trusted, what about the rest of the OT and perhaps the NT?
----------------------------------------------------------------------How/why do you associate the missing (Book of Esther) to be a basis to not trust what is not missing ?Because the DSS discoveries lack a Book of Esther; you conclude all the O.T. cannot be trusted ? Why ?If you cite the DSS as a basis to dismiss the Book of Esther THEN you are recognizing the source (DSS) and its remainder books to be assumed genuine.You cannot cite a source to dismiss a lacking component and then dismiss the entire source altogether.I could go to Genesis and demonstrate just as easily that God operates via the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.Your post then addresses translation problems, which I have already answered.LAM quote :----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited: Forgot to mention the fact that the NT was first put down on paper almost a generation after the death of Christ. The books were later named after the orginal apostles of Christ by the Vaticans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Negative : That is an unprovable opinion. This is a Jesus Seminar subjective invention created to slander the content of the N.T.
Evidence this outrageous claim or withdraw it.Lets not lose track of the issue at hand.Romans says God can be deduced from what is seen/made. Failure to make this deduction qualifies violator to be stripped of ability to recognize God in what is seen/made.Conclusion :Whoever interprets scientific evidence to say a Creator was not involved is suffering the wrath of God/sense removal as a penalty for excluding Him as a possibility.Scientism/atheism/evolution numerical population is explained by the Romans verses/declarations, which then becomes EVIDENCE that the source is what it claims to be : The eternal word of God.I have not forgot about your "Part 2" reply. I will answer it next/asap.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-08-2004]

WILLOWTREE Ok Willowtree Go For It!Let us see if you can back up this claim.Bet you try to squirm out of it though.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Hi WT,I'm not really sure I can (or am interested in) addressing the OP substantively. I am untrained and unexperienced in exegesis and/or philosophy. I replied initially because you had requested a response. In truth, the only comment I have is on the first two lines of the OP: These statements appear to be based on a false premise (or at least one that has not been shown to be true), i.e., that evolution disproves God. If your premise is false, then your conclusions concerning filters are also false. You go on later in the post to indicate that you believe God CAN be proved empirically, but as yet have offered no evidence other than a quote from Romans to bolster the claim. I am quite happy if you wish to believe whatever you want. However, once you make an evidential claim - for example that the fingerprints of God are empirically testable - then you leave philosophy and enter the empirical world. In which case, you run afoul of the necessity of providing evidence to support your claim. Otherwise you're using the old "heads I win, tails you lose" form of argument.

Your reply will be the very next one - I promise/Asap.

quote:

---

Your reference to circular argument doesn't make sense.
  —Willowtree

---

Perhaps it is not a circular argument, but it is still seriously flawed. How about this:If you deny the Leprechaun's place as the divine creator, then he will strip away your Leprechaun sense so that you can no longer sense him.Or better yet, If you deny that I, Loudmouth, am the creator, then I will strip away you Loudmouth sense so that you will not be able to sense my purpose in nature.In fact, why don't you insert any person or any diety you want into that phrase. And guess what, the statement works equally well proving that I, a leprechaun, or God created the earth. If it works equally well for any person/spririt/diety, then it works for none of them.And before you ask, if you think that I am uncapable of creating a universe, this is only because I have stripped away your Loudmouth sense, so don't even go there.

I agree; insert the name of any deity and it "works equally well" to use your words.But we are debating philosophically. Romans 1:18 begins the wrath of God, which means the following verses unfold what the wrath is and what triggers it.God wants credit as the ultimate Creator/thanks - nothing else/period.The reportive and emotive defintion of "evolution" and its accompanying adjectives (random, chance, accident, fluke, mindlessness, purposeless ) all have the dual meaning that a Creator/God of Genesis WAS NOT involved. This is the message that the atheists of evolution are proclaiming. Evolution is INTERPRETED to mean/say that the God of Genesis is not the Creator.Romans, under the claim of being God's word, reveals WHY so many people fail to deduce God as the ultimate Creator : Because God has removed their "God sense" as a penalty (His wrath) FOR rejecting Him.IF you say "science takes no position concerning the Divine" then you are ignoring previous posts and clinging to that which has been refuted.Sidelined : This was a non-time consuming reply. Yours is forthcoming

quote:

---

The reportive and emotive defintion of "evolution" and its accompanying adjectives (random, chance, accident, fluke, mindlessness, purposeless ) all have the dual meaning that a Creator/God of Genesis WAS NOT involved.

---

You forgot selection, adaptation, increased fitness, and under the influence of universal laws. These are non-random, non-chance attributes of evolution that you seem to ignore. Also, are we denying god when we randomize study groups in a drug testing protocol? Are we denying God when we use Newtonian physics for measuring inertial forces? Are we denying God when we look for disease causing bacteria? Simply put, there is not a reliable way to apply God to any scientific law, and hence is applied in none.

quote:

---

Romans, under the claim of being God's word, reveals WHY so many people fail to deduce God as the ultimate Creator : Because God has removed their "God sense" as a penalty (His wrath) FOR rejecting Him.

---

We are arguing about philosophy, but this doesn't mean we can abandon logic. My word says that I, Loudmouth, am the creator, and if you deny me I will take away your Loudmouth-sense. Now, how are we to test, philosophically, which statement is the TRUTH? How, through the philosophy of science, are we to judge the two statements? This should be the focus of your argument. Not what God said, but how can it be a reliable platform for scientific investigation given the fact that any diety or person can make the same claim as creator.

quote:

---

IF you say "science takes no position concerning the Divine" then you are ignoring previous posts and clinging to that which has been refuted.

---

Maybe I should clarify. Science takes no position concerning which is the correct diety. In doing so, science must ignore all dieties and rely on the only objective set of observations available to it, repeated observations that can be shared between observers. Dieties and religious revelations do not fit this criteria. Science would consider a dieties influence if the diety were observable through physical senses and effected nature in a predictable, repeatable fashion. Since the only example of organisms being created ex nihilo is from an ancient text whose veracity can never truly be tested, we have no observations to go from.