Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
44 online now:
Aussie, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (8 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,396 Year: 20,432/19,786 Month: 829/2,023 Week: 337/392 Day: 27/41 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?
Mikael Fivel
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 03-23-2007


Message 106 of 154 (412883)
07-26-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Greatest I am
07-26-2007 3:57 PM


Re: A Perfect God
"You say you believe in a Perfect God and from this Perfection only imperfection comes. Strange."
-that's not what i said, or meant.

God is Perfect, point said. Not even God said the universe was perfect either. All his creation as he said was "good" or "very good".
I get the feeling sometimes that if the world and the universe were perfect, there wouldn't need to be a God after that.

"At no point in time can God look at His reality and say oops I screwed up."
-only half correct. He did, however look at the world and feel sorry for creating man, and thus flooded it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Greatest I am, posted 07-26-2007 3:57 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Greatest I am, posted 07-27-2007 9:26 AM Mikael Fivel has responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 107 of 154 (413009)
07-27-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Mikael Fivel
07-26-2007 4:41 PM


Re: A Perfect God
So God said the world was good and then broke his own law of killing with a genocidal flood.

I like your God less and less.

My God did not need to fix what was not broken. No flood.

He started us on the right tract and we remain in the right tract. God would have it no other way.

Only those who do not believe in Jesus believe that the end of this earth will be a cataclysmic culling of mankind.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Mikael Fivel, posted 07-26-2007 4:41 PM Mikael Fivel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Mikael Fivel, posted 07-27-2007 5:04 PM Greatest I am has responded

  
Mikael Fivel
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 03-23-2007


Message 108 of 154 (413106)
07-27-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Greatest I am
07-27-2007 9:26 AM


Re: A Perfect God
Lol.

Since you didn't point out what God you follow, it makes no sense to say you think he's better.

Gen 6:9-14
This is the account of Noah.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
NIV

Noah was righteous, but he was the only one, so God saved him and his family, and told him that He was going to set up his covenant with Noah. God DID start us on the right track. Mankind's selfish nature led to its own demise.

If your god is the one of the Bible, i believe you need to read more.

"Only those who do not believe in Jesus believe that the end of this earth will be a cataclysmic culling of mankind."

-Those who don't believe in Jesus don't go to heaven. Doesn't matter what the end of the world is, if you aint In Him, you aint In the Kingdom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Greatest I am, posted 07-27-2007 9:26 AM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Greatest I am, posted 07-30-2007 4:31 AM Mikael Fivel has not yet responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 109 of 154 (413250)
07-30-2007 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Mikael Fivel
07-27-2007 5:04 PM


Re: A Perfect God
I follow the philosophy of Jesus.

The flood did not happen. God would not break His own law of killing man.
If He were to adjust mankind I'm sure it would be successful. You believe He adjusted us with a genocidal act against His own creations and failed miserably in His efforts.

Why, if we are talking of the same God is tour version such a looser when mine wins?

If God is to cull as you say at end time then the Hell created would forever be a blemish on God's record. Is this realyy how you view God at end time.

Do you see Him tallying His Perfectly created souls two for me four for hell, 14 for me 19 for hell.

Look again at God for the first time and give Him a little ability to do things right the first time and every time.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Mikael Fivel, posted 07-27-2007 5:04 PM Mikael Fivel has not yet responded

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4366 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 110 of 154 (416664)
08-17-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
01-24-2006 8:22 PM


One can't refute what he doesn't understand. So no one can claim the bible is errant until he first understands everything in the bible.

But as you admitted, the bible isn't understandable. Therefore it can't be refuted any more than one can claim to refute Einstein while at the same time claiming that Einstien didn't exist and/or that he doesn't undertand Einstein's theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 01-24-2006 8:22 PM DeclinetoState has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 08-17-2007 10:01 AM Refpunk has responded
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 08-17-2007 12:24 PM Refpunk has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 111 of 154 (416670)
08-17-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Refpunk
08-17-2007 9:48 AM


But as you admitted, the bible isn't understandable.

He admitted no such thing, at least not in the OP to which you are replying.

But more to the point: if the Bible is not understandable, then it is useless as a guide to the divine, to morality, or to anything. That is what "not understandable" means.

If the Bible is alleged to be a guide, then it must be understandable, hence potentially refutable.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 9:48 AM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 10:06 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 10:09 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4366 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 112 of 154 (416671)
08-17-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chiroptera
08-17-2007 10:01 AM


(Quote)The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear,(Quote)

Are you claiming that the OP said that the bible is very clear, which would then be the oppositie of his quote above?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 08-17-2007 10:01 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4366 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 113 of 154 (416676)
08-17-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chiroptera
08-17-2007 10:01 AM


The bible is as understandable to Christians as Einstein's theories are to people who understand math and physics.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 08-17-2007 10:01 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Chiroptera, posted 08-17-2007 12:40 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17522
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 114 of 154 (416706)
08-17-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Refpunk
08-17-2007 9:48 AM


Refpunk writes:

Therefore it can't be refuted any more than one can claim to refute Einstein while at the same time claiming that Einstien didn't exist and/or that he doesn't undertand Einstein's theories.

If Einstein had said that the earth is flat, that could be refuted by somebody who doesn't understand Einstein's theories at all. Similarly, we can refute bits and pieces of the Bible without understanding the "big picture".


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 9:48 AM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 3:21 PM ringo has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 115 of 154 (416710)
08-17-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Refpunk
08-17-2007 10:09 AM


The bible is as understandable to Christians....

But this is false, isn't it? Different Christians have very different understandings of the Bible. The Catholics' understanding is very different from the Lutherans', Anglicans' understanding of the Bible is very different from that of Baptists, Mormons have a different understand than the Methodists, and so forth.

I suppose that one can claim that only one particular Christian sect has a "true" understanding of the Bible, but what would make this different than any other cult? Every cult claims that their understanding of their scriptures is the true understanding -- in fact, that is one of the signs of being a cult.

The difference with Einstein is that anyone can do the mathematics and anyone can check the results of the mathematics with actual observations. So, whether one has the "same understanding" of General Relativity as Einstein is really beside the point -- the Theory of Relativity makes definite statements about what we should actually see in the real world, regardless of what one's "understanding" is.

This is very different than what is being claimed here. Different Christian (and barely Christian) denominations have very different ideas of what the real world is going to look like based on their different understandings. Traditional Baptists see a world that is degenerating, filled with sinners who have the free will to choose to become Christians, Reformed Christians don't see any free will whatsoever, and Anglicans tend to have a more optimistic view of human progress.

So, not only is Christianity very different than General Relativity, but this claim that "the Bible is understandable to Christians" sounds more like a cult-like cop-out than a serious attempt to acknowledge theological difficulties.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 10:09 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4366 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 116 of 154 (416739)
08-17-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ringo
08-17-2007 12:24 PM


So then I can claim that Einstein's theories are wrong and also claim that Einstein didn't exist and claim that I don't understand math and physics and you would believe me. Is that correct? If so, then Einstein's theories are wrong because I say so. So that makes me right.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 08-17-2007 12:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2007 3:42 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 118 by ringo, posted 08-17-2007 3:54 PM Refpunk has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1771 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 117 of 154 (416742)
08-17-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Refpunk
08-17-2007 3:21 PM


Refute, Not Claim
quote:
So then I can claim that Einstein's theories are wrong and also claim that Einstein didn't exist and claim that I don't understand math and physics and you would believe me. Is that correct? If so, then Einstein's theories are wrong because I say so. So that makes me right.
No, Ringo said refute; not claim.

The point being that if I am talking with Einstein and he claims that the earth is flat, I don't have to understand Einstein's theories or any other science for that matter to prove him wrong. We just have to take a trip around the world. When we don't fall off, I have disproven his claim. We probably don't even need to go around the world.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 3:21 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17522
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 118 of 154 (416744)
08-17-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Refpunk
08-17-2007 3:21 PM


My point was that you don't have to understand everything to refute something.

For example, we can test the flood story by looking for a genetic bottleneck in every single species around 4500 years ago. If even one species doesn't show that bottleneck, the flood story is refuted. We don't have to understand the symbolism of the Revelation to do that.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 3:21 PM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Refpunk, posted 08-18-2007 10:30 AM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 154 (416756)
08-17-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
01-24-2006 8:22 PM


1. If the Christian god (as defined in footnote [2]) exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
2. If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true.
3. The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable.
C. The Christian god does not exist.

Couldn't we also conclude, or instead, that the erroneous parts of the Bible are not god's revelation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 01-24-2006 8:22 PM DeclinetoState has not yet responded

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4366 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 120 of 154 (416879)
08-18-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by ringo
08-17-2007 3:54 PM


You assumption is based on the claim that one species came from another. But since evolutionists ignore the fact that most species have to have the following characteristics in order to survive in the world that God created, then they leap to the erroneous and impossible conclusion that one species bred another species which is IMPOSSIBLE as anyone who udnerstands the birds and the bees knows. So most species have to have:

1)A heart
2)lungs
3)Some form of digestive system
4)A brain
5)A circulatory system
6) A nervous system
7) An endocrine system
8) 4 limbs
9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth
10) A reproductive system

And many, many, other similar characteristics, then their DNA is going to be much more similar than different. In fact, all one has to udnerstand is the reproductive system to see how impossible it is for one species to breed another species. Then they won't make the wrong conclusion about the similarities between animals and humans.

And more importantly, there are no historic accounts of ancient peoples who talk about their ancestors being apes ANYWHERE in the world. But there are accounts of over 300 cultures describing a global flood where only one family lived.

So claiming that the genes of animals being passed down exculdes the possibility of a flood is as ludicrous as claiming that there couldn't have been a flood since King Kong couldn't have then passed his genes along to my neighbor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ringo, posted 08-17-2007 3:54 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 08-18-2007 11:21 AM Refpunk has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019