What would it take?

[SolusCado]

So you're saying genesis is not necessarily how it occurred?
That God didn't necessarily command nature to bring forth life?

Genesis say's that God commanded the earth to bring forth life after
their own kind.

Evolution say's that life came about through blind natural
processess.

If you argue that God set things up for evolution to occur, then you
aren't talking about evolution, as evolution is a blind process. No purpose,
no intelligence.

If you accept evolution, then why bother to believe in God?

jan.

I'm saying that Genesis doesn't give a "how". I'm saying that evolution is the means by which God's word was carried out. The very concept of "blind" natural processes doesn't even make sense. Evolution describes a method for which God's creatures come about according to infallible processes. IOW, through evolution life, in all its kinds, is a requisite. Evolution DEMANDS that life occur.

Regarding the idea that God "set things up" for evolution to occur doesn't recognize the full totality of God's creation. He didn't just create a starting point for the universe and then let it run its course. Our universe consists of every moment in time, from the beginning to the end. THAT is God's creation, so everything that will happen (or has happened) from our perspective IS God's creation. He didn't set things up and then watch it unfold. He created everything that will unfold.

As for your last statement, my faith in God is far more powerful than a need to understand some physical processes. God moves my spirit, my soul, in such a way that nothing physical could ever address. I am filled with a patience, love and joy by God. I MUST believe in God because I FEEL God in my life. While I recognize that there may indeed just be a series of biochemical reactions that cause such experiences, I still believe it to be the nature of God's creation, and the image of God described in the Bible is so perfect that I recognize it to be true whether there is really a creator or not. The truth in the spirit is the purpose of belief, and to feel it as I do is the only reason to believe - not in some vain attempt to explain something that science may not yet be able to answer. For science will eventually explain everything there is to explain in our universe (given enough time), but scientific knowledge will never reveal anything about God.

 

[wynn]

As for your last statement, my faith in God is far more powerful than a need to understand some physical processes. God moves my spirit, my soul, in such a way that nothing physical could ever address. I am filled with a patience, love and joy by God. I MUST believe in God because I FEEL God in my life.

How do you know it is indeed God who "moves your spirit, your soul"?
How do you know you feel God (and not something or someone else)?

(If you say that God is (in) everything anyway, then your qualifying "in such a way that nothing physical could ever address" becomes nonsensical).

 

[Jan Ardena]

SolusCado,

I'm saying that Genesis doesn't give a "how".

On the contrary, it gives a "how" as clear as a bell.

I'm saying that evolution is the means by which God's word was carried out. The very concept of "blind" natural processes doesn't even make sense.

Then you're not talking about "evolution" as in common ancestory.
You're just talking about an intelligent mechanism.

Evolution describes a method for which God's creatures come about according to infallible processes. IOW, through evolution life, in all its kinds, is a requisite. Evolution DEMANDS that life occur.

But where did "that life" come from?

Regarding the idea that God "set things up" for evolution to occur doesn't recognize the full totality of God's creation. He didn't just create a starting point for the universe and then let it run its course. Our universe consists of every moment in time, from the beginning to the end. THAT is God's creation, so everything that will happen (or has happened) from our perspective IS God's creation. He didn't set things up and then watch it unfold. He created everything that will unfold.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?
How does the bible validate this conclusion?

...and the image of God described in the Bible is so perfect that I recognize it to be true whether there is really a creator or not.

That doesn't make much sense Solus.

The truth in the spirit is the purpose of belief, and to feel it as I do is the only reason to believe - not in some vain attempt to explain something that science may not yet be abe to answer. For science will eventually explain everything there is to explain in our universe (given enough time), but scientific knowledge will never reveal anything about God.

Science can only reveal God, if you believe in God.
But the revelations are of a materialistic nature.
Or the material energy of God.

jan.

 

[SolusCado]

How do you know it is indeed God who "moves your spirit, your soul"?
How do you know you feel God (and not something or someone else)?

As I said in my post:

While I recognize that there may indeed just be a series of biochemical reactions that cause such experiences, I still believe it to be the nature of God's creation, and the image of God described in the Bible is so perfect that I recognize it to be true whether there is really a creator or not. As to whether it might be another supernatural entity, I rely on spiritual discernment. In studying and getting to know the character of God, one can learn to discern His influence vs. something (or someone) else's. This is analaogous to studying the works of Van Gogh, so that one can recognize a Van Gogh painting whether it is signed or not.

(If you say that God is (in) everything anyway, then your qualifying "in such a way that nothing physical could ever address" becomes nonsensical).

I merely made that clarification to distinguish between a theist and an atheist point of view. So you are correct, the atheist point of view becomes nonsensical.

SolusCado,
On the contrary, it gives a "how" as clear as a bell.

Please share the verse(s) that you believe do so. I would be looking for something along the lines of "God did X by doing y". Without that second phrase, you are only told WHAT God did, not HOW he did it.

Then you're not talking about "evolution" as in common ancestory.
You're just talking about an intelligent mechanism.

That is a philosophically irrelevant point to the natural processes that occurred.

But where did "that life" come from?

I'm not sure I understand your statement. The first life came from organic molecules that combined to form a living molecule.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?
How does the bible validate this conclusion?

This is the logical result of special relativity, which is in itself validated every day through the continued functionality of GPS satellites. Because GPS satellites travel through space at different speeds, they travel through time at different speeds. Every day those satellites stay in orbit, they move further and further into the future, leaving us behind. It is only because we purposefully slow their clocks that we are able to remain in synch with them. But that doesn't change the fact that they are indeed further into the future than we are - a future that must exist simultaneously with us for them to be in it. There is a book by Brian Greene called "The Fabric of the Cosmos" that goes into significant more detail if you want additional information.

The Bible doesn't necessarily validate the conclusion (which needs no external validation), but the conclusion is in line with things the Bible says. Concepts such as the Book of Life already having every name in it, or the statement that a million years is but a moment in the eyes of God, make a lot more sense when you understand the relationship of time and the rest of our universe.

That doesn't make much sense Solus.

What I am saying is that everything I experience, that I ascribe to the Spirit of God, and everything the Bible says about the Spirit, and how it impacts us, IS TRUE. So whether God really exists or not, there are these fundamental aspects of reality - that we perceive as spirituality - that are just as true and real whether God exists or not. IOW, I cannot prove that God exists, but I know the lessons learned to be true.

Science can only reveal God, if you believe in God.
But the revelations are of a materialistic nature.
Or the material energy of God.

jan.

Science will never reveal anything about God that isn't already revealed through the Spirit, which means Science doesn't really reveal it at all. Science can tell us about the physical nature of the Universe, and as a creation of God it does in a way tell us about God's character - but again, in no way that isn't already revealed by the Spirit.

 

[dhcracker]

I think the point is that Paul should be trusted when he said that the Scriptures are complete. One of the core tenants to the Christian theology is that man no longer needs intercession by others to speak to God directly. We are now capable of being guided by the Spirit without needing more scriptures to educate us.

This is why I am angry at you, you pick and choose what is to be trusted or not.. if it lines up with your common sense its fine.. if it don't or is a contradiction then it has to be an error. If you treated it all as "ify" you would be a more intellectually sound personality. I'll stop short of repeating dishonesty because I think its really not easy to drop beliefs one has had for long periods and has much invested in.

Point being we can't trust any of it as accurate data, we can only take what we know from experience is good doctrine and keep that as truth because we know it in our own lives.. we have evidence for example that being kind is good and treating people as you like them to treat you is pretty solid.. however when someone makes a claim that only a God can make.. IFY no evidence to support it.

The torah may be complete but we need to interpret a set of ethics for religion based on todays society. Some things back then were probably tolerated because of culture shock alone, you can see rules changing from beginning of the bible to the end.. what makes you think they should stop did our societal evolution just stop?

Paul for all we know didn't exist at all... same for almost all characters in the bible.

 

[quadraphonics]

How do you distinguish the two [mind & soul]?

Depends on what you consider a "soul," but most of the conceptions of such that I've encountered include the property of existing independently of the body. Specifically, a soul is supposed to still be around after the brain is dead, and all associated electrical activity (and patterns thereof) have ceased. If your soul is the pattern of electrical activity in your brain, then it follows immediately that there is no afterlife. This is not something that most proponents of the concept of a soul would accept, in my experience. Indeed, such is the primary role of the soul.

 

[SolusCado]

This is why I am angry at you, you pick and choose what is to be trusted or not.. if it lines up with your common sense its fine.. if it don't or is a contradiction then it has to be an error. If you treated it all as "ify" you would be a more intellectually sound personality. I'll stop short of repeating dishonesty because I think its really not easy to drop beliefs one has had for long periods and has much invested in.

This is precisely what annoys me about atheists as well. They only want to allow explanations that they can dismiss as contradictions, instead of being open to re-interpret in light of contradictions. If someone says 2y = 4, and y=3, then ONE of the two statements is wrong. If and/or when I witness such a thing, I try to identify where the mistake is and move along. I don't dismiss the entirety of math and algebra - which would seem to be the only acceptable approach from most atheists.

Point being we can't trust any of it as accurate data, we can only take what we know from experience is good doctrine and keep that as truth because we know it in our own lives.. we have evidence for example that being kind is good and treating people as you like them to treat you is pretty solid.. however when someone makes a claim that only a God can make.. IFY no evidence to support it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here. The only difference is that when faced with something that cannot be true, most people align behind "science must be wrong" or "religion must be wrong" and I choose a third option "our understanding of religion must be wrong". Why does that third option revile you so?

The torah may be complete but we need to interpret a set of ethics for religion based on todays society. Some things back then were probably tolerated because of culture shock alone, you can see rules changing from beginning of the bible to the end.. what makes you think they should stop did our societal evolution just stop?

I don't think they should at all. Once again, I think we are in agreement. From a religious perspective, my only comment on this is that we no longer need scriptures from God to grow and move on. We are now capable of communing with God directly (call it listening to our consciences), in order to form a better society.

Paul for all we know didn't exist at all... same for almost all characters in the bible.

That is another annoying position I here every now and then. Atheist scholars seem to accept every other bit of literature and historian writing from the past as evidence to historical events, but always dismiss the Bible as fiction. Why does it take the epic of Gilgamesh to acknowledge that there probably was a great flood, but the story of Noah would just be fiction otherwise? IOW, there is absolutely no reason to think Paul DIDN'T exist.

 

[SolusCado]

Depends on what you consider a "soul," but most of the conceptions of such that I've encountered include the property of existing independently of the body. Specifically, a soul is supposed to still be around after the brain is dead, and all associated electrical activity (and patterns thereof) have ceased. If your soul is the pattern of electrical activity in your brain, then it follows immediately that there is no afterlife. This is not something that most proponents of the concept of a soul would accept, in my experience. Indeed, such is the primary role of the soul.

That's kind of my point - it isn't the electrical activity itself, but rather the mathematical construct that descibes the activity. Basically the inverse of what you are saying.

 

[quadraphonics]

That's kind of my point - it isn't the electrical activity itself, but rather the mathematical construct that descibes the activity. Basically the inverse of what you are saying.

If I read you right, you're saying that the mind is a manifestation of the soul. In which case, sure, fine. But that still lacks a definition of what the soul actually is.

 

[dhcracker]

This is precisely what annoys me about atheists as well. They only want to allow explanations that they can dismiss as contradictions, instead of being open to re-interpret in light of contradictions. If someone says 2y = 4, and y=3, then ONE of the two statements is wrong. If and/or when I witness such a thing, I try to identify where the mistake is and move along. I don't dismiss the entirety of math and algebra - which would seem to be the only acceptable approach from most atheists.

Or possibly BOTH are wrong, and we are not dealing with mathmatical proofs that would be easier to hash out.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here. The only difference is that when faced with something that cannot be true, most people align behind "science must be wrong" or "religion must be wrong" and I choose a third option "our understanding of religion must be wrong". Why does that third option revile you so?

No, we have to deal with religion as it is today we cannot just pick and choose as we wish from a document that could be used to justify evil acts.. you will pick and choose for example you take Pauls word that the scripture is complete yet you accept the entire new testament as you obviously are not jewish. Paul didn't have a new testament to call complete, he was refering to the torah.

I don't think they should at all. Once again, I think we are in agreement. From a religious perspective, my only comment on this is that we no longer need scriptures from God to grow and move on. We are now capable of communing with God directly (call it listening to our consciences), in order to form a better society.

But you can't do that with a divine book that is capable of launching crusades and being manipulated to look down on "non-believers". The bible just has to go and if chrisianity holds onto it then it will die because our logic is stronger and more correct than ancient mans.

That is another annoying position I here every now and then. Atheist scholars seem to accept every other bit of literature and historian writing from the past as evidence to historical events, but always dismiss the Bible as fiction. Why does it take the epic of Gilgamesh to acknowledge that there probably was a great flood, but the story of Noah would just be fiction otherwise? IOW, there is absolutely no reason to think Paul DIDN'T exist.

Not true really, we hold them all with equal scrutiny unless we find historical evidence. There is also an equal "no reason" to think unicorns and pink dragons DIDN'T exist. And it wasn't simply an epic or alternate flood myth, science has known of those for years and every single civilization has one.. there was also a discovery that the black sea was flooded at a point in time that maybe touched the ancestors of all these civilizations.

And I doubt most scientist are actually atheists I think they are agnostic, as in maybe maybe not.. leaning towards maybe not. Active atheism promotes that there cannot be a god, that is unscientific. Science can only say we have no evidence to make any judgments..we can only speculate. Also some scientists speculate that there may be a creator or intelligence capable of such things. Its a part of the process, we are open to being proved wrong.

Atheism sometimes hijacks science in a way to support killing God in a sense.. not what science is about.

 

[SolusCado]

If I read you right, you're saying that the mind is a manifestation of the soul. In which case, sure, fine. But that still lacks a definition of what the soul actually is.

Correct, and agreed.

 

[SolusCado]

Or possibly BOTH are wrong, and we are not dealing with mathmatical proofs that would be easier to hash out.

Sure, that's possible - but so far I haven't found something that cannot be explained with the basic recognition that the authors of the Bible (Old or New) wrote things from a perspective that lacked the modern scientific knowledge we have today. So, Adam being created from the dust of the earth as an example may have been their best analogue to Adam evolved from microscopic molecules.

No, we have to deal with religion as it is today we cannot just pick and choose as we wish from a document that could be used to justify evil acts.. you will pick and choose for example you take Pauls word that the scripture is complete yet you accept the entire new testament as you obviously are not jewish. Paul didn't have a new testament to call complete, he was refering to the torah.

Agreed, which is why I DON'T accept the entire NT. I recognize it as very much a definition of Christianity (in addition to other texts from the time period), but I don't recognize it as divine. But you throw the term "justify evil acts" around as though that was the intentional message of the Bible, and it isn't. It never has been. ANYTHING can be corrupted to be used to justify evil acts, in the hands of evil people. So I do not agree with you that one must toss out a book that teaches love because some people have used it to justify evil, and I think that you are naive if you believe any new religion couldn't be used for evil just as easily.

But you can't do that with a divine book that is capable of launching crusades and being manipulated to look down on "non-believers". The bible just has to go and if chrisianity holds onto it then it will die because our logic is stronger and more correct than ancient mans.

See above.

Not true really, we hold them all with equal scrutiny unless we find historical evidence. There is also an equal "no reason" to think unicorns and pink dragons DIDN'T exist. And it wasn't simply an epic or alternate flood myth, science has known of those for years and every single civilization has one.. there was also a discovery that the black sea was flooded at a point in time that maybe touched the ancestors of all these civilizations.

Again, if you are trying to tell me that the Bible is held with equal scrutiny to say, the writings of Josephus, then you are either uneducated on the subject, naive, or both.

And I doubt most scientist are actually atheists I think they are agnostic, as in maybe maybe not.. leaning towards maybe not. Active atheism promotes that there cannot be a god, that is unscientific. Science can only say we have no evidence to make any judgments..we can only speculate. Also some scientists speculate that there may be a creator or intelligence capable of such things. Its a part of the process, we are open to being proved wrong.

I agree, and I didn't say anything about most or all scholars. I specifically said Atheist scholars.

Atheism sometimes hijacks science in a way to support killing God in a sense.. not what science is about.

I agree 100%.

 

[NMSquirrel]

the ppl looking for 'evidence' or proof, seem to be the ones who do not want to take responsibility for their choice to believe..they seem to want it spelled out for them so they don't have to be 'wrong' about their decision..these are the same ppl who scream about inaccuracies in the bible,and ironically argue with the christians who say it shouldn't be taken so literally..

so what they are really saying is 'we can't trust the bible to tell us what to do'
or more to the truth..'we can't trust anyone to tell us what to do'

and they are RIGHT!

which is why non-believers have a hard time learning to 'think for yourself'
is because they still haven't gotten used to the idea of them being ABLE to think for themselves.

our whole lives ppl are there to tell us what to do..
we as humans have a tendency to rebel at that, but that does not exempt the fact that 'do as you are told' is much easier to accommodate,and subjective to repercussions (IE.Boss)..

as kids we should be allowed to make mistakes and learn how to recover from them..as parents we want to train our kids in the reality of the world (to an extent)
this usually comes in the form of us teaching our children what is right..this by itself is NOT bad..

but when accompanied by an excessive need for our children to be right (and by extension,for us as parents to be right) we tend to over criticize them, making it about 'do as your told' as opposed to 'think for yourself' (specially if the childs actions cost us money)

forgiveness is at the heart of these issues,the world does not teach forgiveness it teaches penalties..jesus and the bible teach about forgivness..if you go into a church and feel judged by them, you will not learn anything but bitterness in that church..leave and find another church..

when our attention can be diverted from how bad we are messing up to how well can we fix it..
how much farther as a species can we go??
(not technological)


SOLUS

reading your post

Adam evolved from microscopic molecules

made me think about the story of adam and eve and how they got kicked out of the garden..of how the story can be that of 'in the garden' could be a metaphor for us as a species when we were still microbes and such..at a stage where we did not have to think for ourselves, we did not have the ability as of yet..The time when we got 'kicked out' could be the time where we actually were at the stage were we had to start thinking for ourselves..(science Q:What stage could that be?)
just a thought..


and i'm all for recanonizing the bible,
i also think a thread should be started with the appropriate links to start a discussion of what should or should not be considered ,i have no clue as to what books were left out or not(much less know what to look for).. this should be started by someone with a working knowledge of such scripts/scrolls and books..

Atheism sometimes hijacks science in a way to support killing God in a sense.. not what science is about.

in light of what i said above...

Atheism wants to kill god so they could live as they please without fear of consequences...
ironic..

 

[gmilam]

made me think about the story of adam and eve and how they got kicked out of the garden..of how the story can be that of 'in the garden' could be a metaphor for us as a species when we were still microbes and such..at a stage where we did not have to think for ourselves, we did not have the ability as of yet..The time when we got 'kicked out' could be the time where we actually were at the stage were we had to start thinking for ourselves..(science Q:What stage could that be?)
just a thought..

My personal allegory for Adam and Eve is that it is a description of when man first climbed down out of the trees, stood up, looked around and said, "Whoa dude." Unfortunately, with this new-found intelligence comes the realization of our own mortality.

 

[NMSquirrel]

My personal allegory for Adam and Eve is that it is a description of when man first climbed down out of the trees, stood up, looked around and said, "Whoa dude." Unfortunately, with this new-found intelligence comes the realization of our own mortality.

specially when he realized there was a lion on the other side of the tree...

 

[gmilam]

specially when he realized there was a lion on the other side of the tree...

Does make more sense than a talking snake.

 

[NMSquirrel]

does make more sense than a talking snake.

doh!

 

[lightgigantic]

How do you distinguish the two?

the mind dictates what is desirable and what is undesirable and the soul is the force that animates life.

IOW the mind is contingent on the soul (since dead entities don't have desires full stop).

So for instance, if one is awarded any one of the millions of life forms they are first and foremost (in most cases anyway) given a mind that befits the body.

So for instance if a person takes birth as a pig they are not sitting around thinking it is such a drag to eat stool, but rather of fine refinement preferring the warm stuff to the cold stuff.

 

[SnakeLord]

Come on man, don't drop into rhetoric now

Apologies, I considered it a valid thought.

I once again refer you to the nature of God as described in the Bible - He is perfection

Meaningless. The word "perfection" here doesn't seem to have any consistent definition but is always strangely used to justify and condone the slaughter of humans whenever a god so desires.

So, if what you see as acts of barbarity actually serve to strenghten one's soul

A common and shoddy excuse to the POE. I won't address it further because it's not based upon anything.

While his omnipotence may make that TECHNICALLY possible, his perfection makes it PRACTICALLY IMpossible.

So it is "practically impossible" for god to perform any miracle that would convince Cat?

The physical suffering so many complain about is simply irrelevant to him

Feel free to quote specific verses that declare that suffering is irrelevant to god.

As I said previously, miracles are only recognized as such who are moved by the Spirit

Nonsense. Countless born agains will explain how they were completely unreligious and unbelieving yet then having witnessed a 'miracle' came to belief.

IOW something that would actually break the rules God instantiated when he created the universe

What rules are you referring to?

Post 97

Ummm.. post 97 isn't my post.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SolusCado,

As I said in my post:

Please share the verse(s) that you believe do so. I would be looking for something along the lines of "God did X by doing y". Without that second phrase, you are only told WHAT God did, not HOW he did it.

The first few verses of genesis says " God SAID let there be.... ....and ther was."

Very basic i'll admit, but it tells you "how" He did it.

I'm not sure I understand your statement. The first life came from organic molecules that combined to form a living molecule.

That contradicts the creation story.
In fact there is nothing in the bible to indicate abiogenesis or the evolutionary
process took place. But it does say beings were created from their own kind which implies species have already been made.

Science will never reveal anything about God that isn't already revealed through the Spirit, which means Science doesn't really reveal it at all. Science can tell us about the physical nature of the Universe, and as a creation of God it does in a way tell us about God's character - but again, in no way that isn't already revealed by the Spirit.

If God exists then knowledege is a quest to understand Him.
In the bible we can understand that God has full control over material nature. Science seeks to gain more knowledge in a quest to understand nature.

jan.