DescentBB

You asked for something remotely similar. I gave it to you. You spent the last umpty posts inventing reasons why I am wrong.

End of conversation sonny, although I do enjoy your creativity.

I lost sight of the fact that I'm just throwing rocks here. Hell I actually googled

Bunny wins.

Stryker wrote:Seriously. You guys haven't produced one shred of evidence that the religion of Evolution is true. Until I see evidence, Evolution is hereby classified as a religious faith.

Faith: Definition: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

I think I speak for all of us here when I say, if you're that convinced why don't you go into scientific circles and prove to the people that really matter.

Until it's popular scientific belief that what you say is true, we're going to take it as "not bloody likely" simpy because, with scientific review and all that fun academic research, it doesn't seem to have a shred of support outside strong religious circles.

No I don't have evidence to back it up. No I don't want to spend the time to try to learn armchair biology. But other people have spent their lives looking at these sorts of things and are much more versed in this area than I, and they agree that evolution is scientific fact. It's simply a matter of retracing history and learning more about the mechanics of it at this point.

Sure, I have faith. Faith in the system. And the system tells me that you're spewing [probably out of context] facts in an attempt to bury the opposition beyond saying anything else. All these random quips you're giving out are doing nothing more than proving you have a lot of free time on your hands and not the will to put your money where your mouth is.

WarAdvocat wrote:Ford, from what I can see, Stryker (and possibly some others) have fallen victim to the media, in the form of "ID", which is short for Intelligent Design. ID is creationism wrapped in pseudo-science for the explicit purpose of generating controversy (ahem: "presenting an alternate viewpoint").

For the record, ID isn't creationism. More correctly, creationism is ID. ID is a larger idea that can include creationism, theistic evolution, and directed panspermia. It basically says, "someone made [life on earth/the universe/this feature of life on earth] happen." The only idea it logically opposes is naturalistic evolution: "Nature/nobody made life on earth happen."

It is certainly a mistake to call their literature 'pseudo-scientific' or 'creationism dressed up in scientific language'. Beware of propaganda on your own side--that's what they say about it, but it isn't true. I may not be convinced by ID's arguments, but they are arguments and not vacuous. Dembski's "design inference" really is heavyweight philosophy with a substantial twist of math. It took me a full year of thought, analysis, reflection, and research to finally discard it. And even so, I am not sure how deeply flawed the idea is. I think maybe it can be salvaged. I am thinking more of how to repair the idea and make it work, not so much of discarding it.

Don't suppose there isn't a debate over ID, either. In the scientific world, there isn't a debate over evolution, but in the philosophy world, there certainly has been a fierce debate over ID. Not a widespread one, perhaps, and a one-sided one, perhaps. But there are a couple professional philosophers who make careers out of refuting ID. It is my personal opinion that right now ID's on the losing side of the argument--but with a bit of a revolution and some scholastic integrity, they might be able to win it.

The ID people do pull some serious scientific crap from time to time. And it frustrates me no end that they put more energy into political outreach and polemics than into meaningful research and apologetics. But they do have real arguments, real things to say. The "an intelligence did it" line is not a cover-up for "God did it." Well... for some people it is. For Hugh Ross, it is. But for the movement as a whole, it isn't. It's what they're actually arguing--with limited success.

Now, ID arguments do tend to be anti-evolutionary, but most often, they're anti-random-evolution. This is because of a logical dependence--ID can't be true if undirected evolution is, so they have to try to prove it false somewhere. For some, that classifies it as creationism. Fair enough, I suppose, but that's sure a misleading way to say things. There are a lot of different breeds of creationists out there (if all you mean by the term is those who think evolution can't do it all--even those who think aliens did it). IDers are definitely more respectable than most views the word 'creationism' calls to mind.

Drakona: Perhaps I wasn't rigorously fair in my descriptions, however the fact remains that ID is an attempt to put a moderate face on a radical issue in an effort to generate popular support.

Any scientific or philosophical validity which may subsequently be brought forth is, unfortunately, tainted by virtue of its origin.

Think of it as a sort of Scientific original sin if that helps.

Mmm. Perhaps. I don't think IDers are being disingenuous, though. Even if they are, I like to think their arguments stand and fall on their own, not based on who wrote them or what they believe. Sort of like... there are irreligious folks who hate Christianity and want to prove the Bible false--and they come up with some arguments about its origins through textual criticism. Regaurdless of the motivation, those arguments should stand and fall on their own--Christians shouldn't just dismiss them because of who wrote them.

I guess it's kind of a moot point though, since I think the arguments *are* falling on their own...

Since you guys are too complicated, I came up with this....Let's see, God wanted to come down to earth to try to straigthen out what he goofed up, but didn't want to reveal his true identity. So, he put himself into the womb of a young virgin without any sex being involved so as to make people think it was Joseph. He whispered in her ear that he wanted to be called 'Jesus' and when he grew up he gave himself a job as a carpenter. He didn't like carpentry so began to preach, mostly about himself way "up there" and finally gets 12 other guys to help him talk to himself.

Later, however, something goes wrong and Jesus is crucified, but not before pleading with himself "up there" to forgive the one's who killed him "down here". (I would be ticked off). After three days of trying to figure out what to do, God has yet another idea. He will bring himself back up where he came from and tell everyone that "it's alive", and combine it with a secret "ghost" that he was already working on in case the Jesus idea choked.

So he tells moses to pass the word and eventually it gets approved, but not without an argument. The catholics didn't like the word ghost because it frightened them, so bible writers, after 1900 years changed it to Spirit after watching Casper.

So, now that god has two aliases, Jesus and Holy Spirit, to keep his true identity hidden, I can only guess that God is a bighead too.......does this sound like a guy who created a universe?

Please don't yell at me because this was going thru my mind while listening to my religious instructor two days ago. Sorry.

Bettina

A few long essays on science and engineering (in general) and evolution (in particular) for Stryker:

One that discusses what science actually is and explains why we can rely on it. As an aside, it also discusses how genetic algorithms have proven that evolution can work.

Another that poses the question "How do genetic engineers rely upon evolution when they produce human insulin in vats?

Get back to us after you understand the concepts presented in these essays. Taken together those two essays show that evolution is too strong a theory to simply dismiss it out-of-hand.

I don't see why acceptance of evolution has to contradict your faith in any way. So, before you write off the author, here is an essay where he argues that atheism is only a belief and cannot actually be proven true.

WarAdvocat wrote:You asked for something remotely similar. I gave it to you. You spent the last umpty posts inventing reasons why I am wrong.

Hey cool! I invented math! Yeehaw! Look at it this way WA: We both have biases. We both see the structure of the animals differently because of those biases. You see the similarities. I see the differences. For instance, I have never seen a fossil even remotely depicting anything between a seal and a fish, or a seal and a dog. For the record, I'm not an IDer. I believe in the Bible as the Word of God, and I am a Christian. I am simply trying to prove that evolution could never have occurred, at least without God seriously intervening.


Tetrad:
Creationists have been showing evidence to evolutionary scientists from the beginning of the evolutionary theory. Many prominent scientists are Christians. Heck, MOST prominent scientists have been Christian, from Isaac Newton to Louis Pasteur. Of course, evolutionists refuse to acknowledge any modern Bible-believing scientist as a "true" scientist, so there's absolutely no point in even trying to name them to you.

It's kind of like the situation with Nader. No one wants to vote for Nader because they know he won't win. Yet he can't win without people voting for him.

Evolutionists won't recognize creation scientists because of their own personal bias. Therefore, what an evolutionist defines as a "scientific circle" cannot by definition have a Christian in it. Therefore, they can say that their Scientific Circles have no Christians in them, therefore Christianity is wrong.

The fact that I'm "spewing [probably out of context] facts" at least trumps the spewing of insults that is mostly all I've seen from evolutionists on this board. Facts are better than spewing hate and yelling "you're wrong!", which is exactly what would happen if I tried to approach a so-called "scientific circle" with the facts I have here stated.

In response to the first article:

I have heavily studied the scientific method. The way I've heard it described is not by conjectures, hypothesis, and theories, but by hypothesis (according to the dictionary, "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.") Theories ("An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.") and Scientific Facts ("A well-known theory that is constantly being tested and has not been found to be contradicted by any known evidence.").

When I use the word theory, I am referring to the second step in the process. A theory to me means a hypothesis, or conjecture, that has been tested by and is compatible with a fair amount of data. If an amount of data is found which contradicts the theory, it is put back into the hypothesis stage until it has been revised to make itself acceptable to all known data. It takes years of testing and data recording for ANYTHING to become scientific fact. Evolution has reached the level of theory before, but every iteration of it that I have seen thus far has had some part of it inconsistent with known data. Thus, evolution is pretty much still a hypothesis (or as the article would say, a conjecture).

And here we come to the point: if an A-bomb is capable of exploding, then radioactive dating is correct. There's no way the two can be separated; they're based on the same theory and the same information. Either both work or neither does. There's no other choice.

While not the main point of the article, I must correct this: what is said there is 100%, pure, patent BS. Radioactive dating has thousands of variables including but not limited to the evironment the rocks being dated have been previously exposed to, how the rocks were formed, what type of rock it is, what type of isotope is being used, etc etc etc. Atomic bombs have one main variable: the isotope involved. Radioactive dating is imprecise at best. However, there are several other dating method available. Date something using all of them and average the results, and you'll get a better idea.

I am willing to admit that the earth may be old, but this does not remove the possibility for a God. Top Gun should be able to explain that to you.

As far as the second article:

The reason that genetic engineers can use E. Coli to reproduce human insulin is because E. Coli interprets DNA exactly the same way that a human does. Suppose that E. Coli had a different chart. In that case, while that genetic sequence could be inserted into the E. Coli, the E. Coli would interpret it entirely differently and produce something else entirely -- probably something completely useless, but whatever it was, it wouldn't be insulin. It's like that cook who only speaks Russian trying to work from a Spanish-language cookbook to try to make that chocolate cake. Maybe he won't make anything at all, maybe he'll make a mess, but he's not going to make that cake because he won't understand the recipe.

Using the same chart means literally nothing other than the fact that God made one chart, liked it, and decided to use it in more of His creations.

Even in that article they specifically say that Christianity is unfalsifiable.

The fact that we don't know whether or not life exists on Europa doesn't do diddly squat to prove that evolution is true.

Otherone, thank you for the post. It's the first one besides Drakona's that I've been able to see a presentation of solid facts. I like facts, in case you can't tell. There's been enough flames in this thread to burn Rome, and I very seriously thank you for at least making the effort to do some research.

bet51987 wrote:Since you guys are too complicated, I came up with this....
Bettina

LOL

You said earlier:

But the point is, I'm not guilty of anything. I prayed to him more than any other person I think, and I never did anything to God. I'm not guilty of any wrong except in God's eyes who condemns me by association. If that's the truth then I have no use for him even if he turns out to be real. I rather just die and be dead than live with a bad role model with that attitude.

Guilt by association? Not by association, by inheritance. Adam willfully chose to rebel against God. God knows Adam's progeny are born into imperfection, and there is nothing they can do about it. So God decided to do something about it. God's "justice" demanded that the rebels (Satan and Adam) be given enough time to prove themselves capable of succeeding, without God's interference (as discussed in my earlier post). His "love" demands that Adam's offspring be given a way back to perfection, because they did not willfully choose to be in this condition. How would that be accomplished? God's justice demands that a misdeed can only be redeemed with something given of equal value (soul for soul, life for life, etc.). Adam willfully gave up his perfection through disobedience- resulting in death for himself and all his offspring. To redeem Adam's progeny, another perfect life would need to be given freely as a ransom to buy back what Adam had lost. This is what Jesus did, he gave up his perfect life, and the possibility within him to father a perfect race of humans, for all of Adam's imperfect children (Jesus is even call the "last Adam" at 1 Corinthians 15:45). This sacrifice, this ransom, makes possible a way back to perfection for all of us. There is no greater gift than when a man gives his life for another. Jesus gave his life for everyone, even those who never knew him. This provision of God shows us his love, his justice, and his power. Once all the rebels have been removed, then the real life will begin. Jesus said that all those in the grave will hear his voice and come out. There will be a grand resurrection. Everyone will be given an opportunity to live in a perfect world once this current mess is over with, and it is established for all time that the rebellion led by Satan was a complete failure.

For all you evolutionists and creationists:
The Bible does not insist that the Earth is young (created in six days about 6000 years ago).
Please note that the first verses in Genesis say that in the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, and that's all it says; there is no time period placed on this event.

So the Earth probably is billions of years old. When the text moves on to the "creative days" it is simply discussing how God prepared the already existing Earth as a home for man . And the viewpoint of observation of the events is not from space looking down at the Earth. The viewpoint is from an observer standing on the Earth. How do we know this?
Example: Light came to be. The heavens were created "in the beginning", which would include our sun, but verse 2 says that "darkness" covered the surface of the earth (which at that time was covered with water), so no sunlight could reach the surface. So the first "creative" thing God did to prepare Earth for man's habitation, was to make light reach the Earth's surface. So from the standpoint of an observer on the Earth, "Light came to be" as is mentioned in verse 3. So you see, the Bible does not mandate that "creation" took a very short time. It simply states that the time period God took to prepared the Earth was in six "days" or "periods of time."

And by the way: if Evolution is correct, then Christianity is a religion without a reason. For Jesus ransom to be valid (as mentioned above) then Adam had to exist, and he had to exist as a perfect human, as the first human created by God. Without Adam, the necessity for God to send Jesus does not exist.

Watch out, Bettina. You're picking and choosing your scriptures, and making fun of gaps that aren't there. You make it sound like you're just filling in gaps where the story doesn't give an explanation, but it does on several points.

You can't say Jesus' birth was because "God wanted to come down to earth to try to straigthen out what he goofed up, but didn't want to reveal his true identity." At least, if you do say that, you're ignoring what the Bible says on the topic. Hebrews 2:14-18 gives several explanations:

The author of Hebrews wrote: Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. . . . For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

In plain English, God became a man and died, so that he might prove to us--as mankind--that death is something that can be overcome, which we don't have to fear. He became a man in order to be our high priest--someone who could speak to God on our behalf, as one of us, and someone who could speak to us for God, on his behalf, as God himself. That is, he became an intermediary--that's what priests are. He became a man because having suffered the same things we do, and having gone through the same temptations we do, he's able to help to us when we suffer. And of course ultimately, he became a man in order to die on our behalf.

Boiling all of that down to 'to hide his identity' is either bitterness or ignorance. You can make fun of the idea of the incarnation if you want, but at least be aware of what Christians think it was for, before you go laughing up reasonable speculations.

Likewise, you can't say "something goes wrong and Jesus is crucified" when, at least according to Christian tradition, the reason for his coming and death were prophesied 700 years before.

Isaiah, in chapter 53, wrote: Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

You can hardly call it 'something gone wrong' when it was planned from the beginning, in a plan prophesied hundreds of years in advance. Nor can you suggest that it was a back-prophesy--something written after the fact. Isaiah is a Jewish book; it was verifiably around hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

And again, you can hardly suggest that the idea of sending the Holy Spirit was a back-up plan, "in case the Jesus idea choked." Jesus himself explains it.

John, in chapter 16, beginning in verse 7, wrote:
[Jesus said,] I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment....

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

You can make fun of things if you want, but watch out. Distorting things in order to make fun, or ignoring pieces in order to make them sound rediculous, is a bad mental habit. As fun and games, it's not so bad, but if everything you hear is filtered through that cynicism, you'll never be able to listen long enough to make a fair judgement on anything.

People do this in politics all the time. People get an image of a politician--i.e., "He's a liar, an evil villian"--and whenever they watch that politician give a speech, there's a little voice in the back of their heads, mocking every word, twisting every meaning. Even when the politician is evidently being sincere, evidently being graceful, evidently saying something very classy, they can't see past the image they have of him, and twist every word into something ugly.

Watch out for this. I've seen you do it before (with your judgements about fellow Descent players as 'bigheads.') I don't know if these are just jokes for you, but be careful. If you're serious, or even semi-serious, this habit is a good way to destroy your judgement.

... Adam willfully gave up his perfection through disobedience- ... yadda yadda

edit: I should really preface this with "IMHO..."

If he was "perfect" he wouldn't have done that, now would he? Clearly, God screwed up. His creation failed to do as he intended. But instead of fixing the problem, he decides to let it continue? He allows generations of "imperfect" children to be born and insists that they "redeem" themselves with no direct intervention from him? Talk about holding a grudge. Good lord. Either God lacks the power to fix the situation, or he's quite sadistic. Given that he supposedly created the whole bloody universe from nothing, he should certainly have the power to fix a few malfunctioning humans.

I'll have to agree with Bettina on this. Even if you could prove to me that this God exists, he's not a god I'd be willing to worship.

And by the way: if Evolution is correct, then Christianity is a religion without a reason.

No no, it has a reason. Humans fear what they don't understand. Religion provides an explanation for a complex and often frightening world. Moreover, it provides hope, a reason for life, a reason to live. It provides structure to a chaotic existence, guidelines to follow, and the promise of a reward for proper behavior. Religion provides many things humans instinctively need, hence we are willing to overlook the flaws in the logic. We don't care if the explanations don't always make sense, because that isn't usually as important psychologically as having an explanation to believe in.

You're welcome. A couple things in response to some of your points though.

- I am not attempting to show there is no God. I don't actually believe it is possible to prove or disprove his existance either way. I just want to point out that science is not easilly dismissed even when it leads to conclusions (such as the theory of evolution) that are not to our liking. It is much better to incorporate them into your world view. I have never understood why most Christians are so threatened by the theory of evolution, after all "God works in mysterious ways". As the second article points out, evolution only talks about what happened after that first self-organizing molecule came into existance. It says nothing about the conditions that led up to it.

- An unfalsifiable theory is simply one that cannot be tested, and therefore provides no valid insight into the universe. I think he has another whole article somewhere on unfasifiability. Note that as he mentions that atheism is unfasifiable in that third article (i.e. there is no way to either prove or disprove atheism so therefore the theory of atheism can't teach us anything). Like me the author of these articles believs that neither Christianity nor atheism can be proven either way.

- The bit about the correlation beetween nuclear weapons and radioactive dating in the article is actually correct. The composition of the rocks etc are just details. At heart, both carbon dating and thermonuclear weapons are in fact based on the same theory (i.e. the theory that matter is made of up atoms). There is currently no theory (that I am aware of) that explains one w/out the other. Like evolution, it is best to at least accept the possibility that radioactive dating is correct rather than dismiss it as out-of-hand. Radioactive dating, btw, is a falsifiable theory in that scientists can devise experiments that would disprove it if they worked. So far they haven't managed to.

Stryker wrote:Of course, evolutionists refuse to acknowledge any modern Bible-believing scientist as a "true" scientist, so there's absolutely no point in even trying to name them to you.

Therefore, what an evolutionist defines as a "scientific circle" cannot by definition have a Christian in it. Therefore, they can say that their Scientific Circles have no Christians in them, therefore Christianity is wrong.

I see, so all modern biologists, paleontologists, and their ilk are all godless atheists.

Take it further than that, Tet. Because they're godless atheists, they're misguided and obviously wrong.

scottris wrote: If he was "perfect" he wouldn't have done that, now would he?

Perfection in the Bible means that Adam was without flaw - and thereby existed in complete harmony with God's purpose for man, and had the prospect of living forever because of this. Being flawless does not remove the possibility of acquiring flaws at some future point in time. To remain "perfect" Adam had to continue living under the guidelines established by his Creator. By rejecting God's authority Adam sinned; he lost his perfection by willfully going outside the boundaries set by God. Sin is lawlessness - Adam broke the law, and the corrupt world we live in is the result. How so? By accepting Satan's authority, Adam made Satan his god, that's why Satan is called the ruler of the world and the God of this world in the Bible.

Clearly, God screwed up. His creation failed to do as he intended. But instead of fixing the problem, he decides to let it continue?

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts to Bettina, God's justice must let it continue until there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that Satan was wrong in his accusations. And "anyone" includes all the angels. If God had wiped out all the rebels from the start, that would only have proved that God was more powerful, not that he was right. When any accusations are brought against anyone in court, evidence must be presented from both sides before a decision can be made based on fact. When Adam sided with Satan, thereby insinuating that he did not need God, justice demanded that he be given an opportunity to prove himself. Adam eventually died. But Satan is still alive, and it was he who proclaimed that Man did not need God. So God is allowing Satan enough time to demonstrate the validity of his argument; enough time so that in the end their can be no doubt as to who is right, because once the final verdict is in, it ramifications will be everlasting.

He allows generations of "imperfect" children to be born and insists that they "redeem" themselves with no direct intervention from him?

Man cannot redeem himself. God sent Jesus to be the sacrifice for all of Adam's imperfect children. Contrary to your opinion that was direct intervention from God. God did not need to do that, but he did, out of love for those who never knew perfection; for those who never had the same choice Adam had.

Scottris, another way to look at the Adam and Eve issue is thus. God created humanity, represented by Adam and Eve in Genesis, as perfect human beings, without physical suffering, without sickness, and without the fear of death. In fact, as the famous verse goes, "though they were naked, they were not ashamed;" they were almost child-like in their innocence and purity. However, with all of this, God gave them something arguably more monumental than everything else: free will. You asked, "Why would God not 'fix' humanity?" Let me ask you this: what would it prove if God were to just snap his fingers and make the entire world perfect? Yes, it would show once again that God is all-powerful, but it would also regard humanity as having absolutely no importance, as being something like a set of code that could be programmed one way or another. God didn't create humanity to have a race of beings that would blindly follow his will; that doesn't allow any meaningful relationship to develop. Instead, God created a race of beings with the free will to choose to love him on their own. Choosing to love and obey someone as Creator is infinitely more meaningful than being compelled to do so. As in the Genesis story, for a time humanity did choose to perfectly obey God. However, when humanity gave in to temptation and sin, that bond was broken. God still loved humanity dearly, but things could never go back to how they had been, at least not while this world last. You mentioned God "directly intervening" to save humanity; as Shoku mentioned, to Christians, Christ represents this direct intervention. God took flesh in the person of Jesus to reverse the mistake of Adam, to conquer death, and to allow all of humanity to experience eternal life. I can't think of an intervention that could be more profound than this.

Stryker, I still can't understand why you think that evolutionists are fundamentally opposed to Christianity. I am a practicing Catholic with a strong faith in Christ, and yet I accept the theory of evolution. How so, you may ask? You can call it "intelligent design" or whatever you want, but I am of the opinion that the varied and wonderful forms of life on this planet could not have come forth from single-celled organisms, or indeed that those single-celled organisms could not have formed at all, without something bigger in the background guiding the process. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Darwin himself a Christian?) As Shoku mentioned, Genesis is not meant as a scientific text; it is meant as an allegory for creation. Does believing that the Earth came to its present state over billions of years take anything away from your Christian faith? Does believing that complex organisms came forth from simple ones completely exclude the idea of God? I, for one, think not. I am a scientist by choice, and eventually by career; I'm working my way toward a major in physics. I share the views, if certainly not the genius, of such scientists as Copernicus, Mendel, Galileo, and even Einstein, that the natural wonders of this universe are proof of the Unseen.

Being flawless does not remove the possibility of acquiring flaws at some future point in time.

Why does that possibility exist? Surely God has the power to prevent that. Unless he doesn't want to.

If God had wiped out all the rebels from the start, that would only have proved that God was more powerful, not that he was right.

What defines what is "right"? If "right" is what God says it is, then obviously he is right. That would go without saying. Why should God need to prove that he's "right"? Who does he need to convince? Are you saying that I get to judge God? Well then...

Man cannot redeem himself. God sent Jesus to be the sacrifice for all of Adam's imperfect children. Contrary to your opinion that was direct intervention from God.

Then what are we still doing here? Apparently Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough.

God didn't create humanity to have a race of beings that would blindly follow his will; that doesn't allow any meaningful relationship to develop...

I find this an interesting argument. Will post more on this later..

God still loved humanity dearly, but things could never go back to how they had been, at least not while this world last.

Why not? Just click Delete and start over. Millions of people are suffering while God stands by and watches this scenario play itself out. Guilt by inheritance? Please. What kind of kind and loving God would allow children to suffer for the sins of their parents?

BTW Stryker Tuna are fish and are warm blooded.

Too bad this debate only includes the Christian version of God. I would like to hear from a Muslim on how he/she is assured of God's existance.
I understand the Buddhist version of God. They do not believe there is a God that has any involvement in this world. There is a oneness that cannot be described in words but can be experienced through meditaion. This oneness is separated from this material world and in their view this world exists only because our "soul" or "Buddha nature" has somehow become aware instead of blissfully unthinking. This awarness leads through a process that ends up in birth, suffering and death. Should the "soul" not have learned how to be blissfully unthinking the cycle will be repeated. Except time is an illusion just as this material world is and illusion so the cycle can be considered to have all occured and be occuring at once. Suffering is a natural consequence of a world based on attchment to physical things.
Oddly the 2500 year old Buddhist description of the basic make up of the material in this world is strangely very much like what has been discovered about matter in the high energy cyclotrons and other atom smashers. (Read "The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" )

I'll await your response to my first quote, then. As for your second point, this isn't as simple as reinstalling a computer program. God created human beings as the pinnacle of all creation, as his greatest act. Would wiping out every human being and starting from scratch be a sign of God's love? If anything, it would be a sign that God doesn't give a damn about humanity, that we're simply some little "mistake." Let me put it to you this way: would a sculptor destroy and re-make their masterpiece, their best work, just because it may not have been perfect? (Maybe if you're George Lucas, but that's beside the point. ) This isn't the best comparision to use, but it does give you a general idea. God created humans with free will, and with this free will, we have chosen to turn away from him. About being punished for the sins of our ancestors, it may help to step away from the Adam/Eve story for a bit. The world is imperfect not because the first human being screwed up, but because all of us are inherently flawed as humans. We were initially made perfect, but due to that all of us choose to turn away from God, we are flawed. This is what is known as the concept of "original sin." I'll admit, it's a hard thing to put into words; I don't think I'm really doing the best job of it, but I hope at least something came across. As for the part about Jesus' sacrifice not being enough, Jesus' death and resurrection wasn't meant to suddenly make the world perfect. That wasn't the point of his life. Jesus died to conquer death and to give us admittance to an eternal life, free of the pains of this world. God isn't standing by; his greatest gift to humanity, Jesus, ensures us that there is something for us beyond suffering and pain, so long as we live good lives and have faith. It is in suffering that faith is tested the most, and if we hold onto it, we can look forward to an eternal life of joy.

P.S. I'm glad to see a thread in here with both sides of the issue being relatively respectful of the other's opinions. It's refreshing that we're able to have intelligent discussions here.

P.P.S. Boy, I've got to start making some divisions in these uber-paragraphs.

Shoku wrote:Guilt by association? Not by association, by inheritance.

Call it what you want, but no god is going to blame me for something I personally didn't do. Your god is not anybody I want to know.

Drakona wrote:the reason for his coming and death were prophesied 700 years before.

This doesn't prove a thing. If enough words are written, some of it is bound to fit. Take nostradamus for example.

Sooner or later, advancing science will make the theory of evolution stronger thru FACTS and mathematics making the creationists struggling for answers.....maybe writing more words to arrive at yet another interpretation of this so called god of yours.
Since this forum is for expressing opinions, I don't feel I have to watch what I say. Like I said, I was on the god wagon, but I jumped off for good.
I read that Carl Sagan the famed cosmologist didn't believe in god either once he learned about the universe.

Sorry to offend anyone
Bettina

I don't know what I believe, when it comes to God.

What I do know is that any God worthy of my reverence wouldn't plant evidence to mislead us, and then expect us to believe something different despite the evidence.

Of course, I suppose nothing says that God has to be benign. What if Jehovah is merely another face of Loki, and Loki is the actual temperament of Jehovah, when he's not pretending to be nice?

Stop being sorry for offending Bettina. This is an internet forum, people expect to be offended.

Glad you have a place to express yourself. It is hard to be in a dependent situation that restricts your freedom to be who you want to be. Here you can vent anytime you like and we will just roll our eyes and post snarky rebuttals.

Ford Prefect wrote:Stop being sorry for offending Bettina. This is an internet forum, people expect to be offended.

Glad you have a place to express yourself. It is hard to be in a dependent situation that restricts your freedom to be who you want to be. Here you can vent anytime you like and we will just roll our eyes and post snarky rebuttals.

Kiss for you...

bet51987 wrote: Call it what you want, but no god is going to blame me for something I personally didn't do. Your god is not anybody I want to know.

Prejudice is based on ignorance, on belief in twisted facts. . . so is slander directed at God. Humans have a tendency to think they know better regarding just about everything, but what we think is sometimes irrelevant when more facts are complied. And this is especially true regarding God.
Closing our minds to reality has never been the best option. We are guilty, in God's eyes, of being imperfect. We inherited this lack of goodness from Adam - you are correct, it's no fault of our own, but it nevertheless is here, in every one of us. God made a way to erase that imperfection, out of his love for mankind. We can ignore it, or we can acknowledge it, and strive to put our lives in harmony with his will. The road is broad that leads off to destruction, and many are the ones who take it. Narrow is the road that leads to eternal life, and few are the ones who find it. God has reached out his hand to us all . . . we can grab hold if it or we can ignore it. It's that simple. I encourage you to seek wisdom in your life, because if you really want it, and ask God for it, you'll find it.

There are many principles involved as to why God has allowed a corrupt system to continue for so long. Not knowing what the Bible says in depth about this can be cause for confusion and resentment. The only way to really know why is to set aside personal opinion and investigate the Bible for yourself - find out who God really is and what motivates him, only then will you truly know the answer.

Sorry to offend anyone
Bettina

LOL - never may that happen! By the way, there is a proverb in the Bible that says: "The taking of offense is with the stupid ones." And we know that no one who posts on the DBB is stupid.

Bettina wrote:

Drakona wrote:the reason for his coming and death were prophesied 700 years before.

This doesn't prove a thing. If enough words are written, some of it is bound to fit. Take nostradamus for example.

You missed my point. I wasn't trying to prove to you that God exists, through prophecy. I was saying that the existence of the prophecy--and its Christian application to Jesus--undermine your suggestion that Jesus death was a mistake. My full sentence was,

Drakona wrote:Likewise, you can't say "something goes wrong and Jesus is crucified" when, at least according to Christian tradition, the reason for his coming and death were prophesied 700 years before.

I was telling you that you didn't have your facts straight. You were making fun of Jesus' death being unplanned and not making sense. I was telling you that from a Christian perspective, it was planned in the extreme. It was an event important enough to prophecy about centuries before. Far from making Christians look rediculous, then, what you said makes you look rediculous to Christians!



If we had just had this conversation on the topic of evolution, it might have gone this way:

Person 1: Because the theory's too complicated, I made some stuff up in Biology class. There was some goo, and then some magic happened and it made cells. And then more magic happened and the cells became plants and fish, and then the fish got tired of swimming and turned themselves into mice. Oh, oops! There are no such things as fish-mice!

Person 2: Uh, that's not what happened. I know you don't believe in evolution, but that's not even what evolutionists say happened. For one thing, fish didn't turn directly into mice--in fact, fish never even eventually turned into mice. Rather, fish and mice share a common ancestor, which might not have looked a lot like either one. Nobody is saying there ever was a fish-mouse. If you're going to make fun of the theory, at least get your facts straight.

Person 1: That doesn't prove anything. If you just say 'everything had a common ancestor' and you get to make up what the common ancestors are, you could say anything. It's a theory without proof.

Person 2: I wasn't trying to prove it to you. I'm just saying--you're making fun of it, but you don't have your facts straight. It just makes you sound bitter and silly to those who know the thing for real.


That's all I was saying. You're distorting things in order to ridicule them. No doubt the picture you painted sounds ridiculous to you--God has aliases? Puhleeze. Only, it sounds ridiculous to me too, and I am a Christian. That's because what you're saying is nothing like what I believe; you're making fun of something that doesn't exist, and calling it Christian.

That's foolish. Done in good fun, it doesn't do any real harm, but done seriously--or in the back of your head all the time--it really damages your ability to make sound judgements. Not that you're the first or last person to do it, or that it's even a rare mistake. Most people do it to some degree. People of various political viewpoints see each other as caricatures. Creationists often fight with a distorted, rediculous version of evolution. And there are a lot of people out there who argue with Christianity as a distorted thing.

Almost any time an entire worldview seems rediculous to you, you can be sure you're distorting it. People are intelligent, and though they make a lot of mistakes, the things they think generally make sense to them. And though it feels good to distort things--to tell yourself that Christians are stupid or evolutionists are liars--it doesn't help you learn anything. And worse, it guarantees that if that side is right--or if not fully right, if it even has a thing or two it could teach you... you'll never let yourself see it.

That's, um... well, it's not a good way to live. That's all I'm saying.

Shoku wrote:

bet51987 wrote: .....Call it what you want, but no god is going to blame me for something I personally didn't do. Your god is not anybody I want to know.

We are guilty, in God's eyes, of being imperfect. We inherited this lack of goodness from Adam - you are correct, it's no fault of our own, but it nevertheless is here, in every one of us.

Understand that death was introduced into creation when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's a type of "illness" that now exists from a single act.

And as Shoku said. It is pasted down through the generations. Did you do that? no. But if you are born with a mole, it is there eventhough you did nothing to cause it to be there other than simply existing.

Bet, this is basic Christian docterine. I KNOW they teach this in your school as 2 of my cousins also went to Catholic School all 12 years. Heed Drakona's advise.

Flaming God will get you no where except all worked up.

Drakona wrote: Almost any time an entire worldview seems rediculous to you, you can be sure you're distorting it. People are intelligent, and though they make a lot of mistakes, the things they think generally make sense to them. And though it feels good to distort things--to tell yourself that Christians are stupid or evolutionists are liars--it doesn't help you learn anything. And worse, it guarantees that if that side is right--or if not fully right, if it even has a thing or two it could teach you... you'll never let yourself see it.

That's, um... well, it's not a good way to live. That's all I'm saying.

LOL sounds like a few conversations i've had with my daughter lately if you substitute christians and evolutionists with almost any other subject.

As promised..

God didn't create humanity to have a race of beings that would blindly follow his will; that doesn't allow any meaningful relationship to develop...

So, God wanted other beings with which he could have a relationship of some sort? Not unlike a father might want to have with his son? Hello, how have you been? How are the wife and kids? How's your new job? What's wrong? You did WHAT?? How many times have I told you...

I can see how it might be less rewarding to try to have a relationship with something that always did exactly as you expected. I have a pet frog. I like him. It's fun to watch him chase bugs. But he isn't much of a conversationalist. Were I stranded on a deserted island, even a thousand frogs would do little to ease my loneliness.

Indeed, I've often heard the relationship between God and man likened to that of a father and his children. But again, where is God when something goes wrong? If you knew your son was going to shoot his wife and baby girl before turning the gun on himself, would you not do all you could to stop him? Human parents often blame themselves for the misdeeds of their children. Yet for some reason the misdeeds of God's children are their own fault?

Where's the responsibility? On a larger scale.. Bush has been criticized for going to war with Iraq without a good plan to "win the peace". Yet no one is criticizing God for setting in motion a chain of events that has sent millions of soles to Hell? Forget Hell, Hell's existence is debatable. How about Earth? There's no denying the suffering on Earth. And the suffering of children. How is that justified?

Would it be so detrimental to our ability to have, as you say, a meaningful relationship with God if he were to keep us on a slightly shorter leash? Step in now and then to prevent us from making some of the more severe mistakes? Perhaps it would. If I want to talk about responsibility.. What kind of message would it send if God did prevent us from making mistakes? No consequences, woohoo! I can do whatever the hell I want and God will keep me from making too big a mess! Yeeaah. Ok. That wouldn't work so well either.

Ok. I'll agree that if we were in some way prevented from making mistakes, our lives would be much less meaningful. Given the choice I would not want to be, as you say, like a simple computer program. (Although in truth I believe free will is really an illusion and we are indeed much like a computer program, albeit a very complex one. That belief basically renders this point moot, but that's a debate for another time.)


Now. If I may go back to Adam for a moment...

It's been said here that the world was originally created to be perfect. Adam and Eve were perfect. Their perfect design however, included free will, and with it the capacity to deny God and thus throw away his perfection and send himself down the road to Hell, etc etc. (Frankly, I still think "perfect" is a misnomer here. I see the fact (and I use that term rather loosely here) that Adam chose to throw away his "perfection" to be a sign of "imperfection".) But for now I'll proceed under the assumption that whatever you call it, Adam's ability to choose to deny God was given to him by design. So, God did not know what Adam was going to do, correct? He gave Adam a choice, and the ability to make up his own mind. But, God must have known it was a possibility that Adam was going to choose to break from His will. Yes? So, what was his contingency plan? To consider (or allow) all Adams children to "imperfect" and to be born into a world that is often very cruel seems at best shortsighted, and at worst shortsighted and spiteful!

Here's another thought:

Why allow humans to have children? That whole issue would be irrelevant if humans were not able to reproduce. Start with Adam and Eve. They live happily until Adam decides to turn against God. Bad things happen, Adam eventually dies. Eve eventually dies. So... Game Over. New World. I mean, why not? Reset the world, create another "perfect" human or humans and give them the same choice. Rinse, repeat. That sounds fair. Now everybody gets the same chance. Everybody starts out with a perfect world, and they get to keep it as long as they continue to follow God. Nothing wrong with that, right? That's what would have happened if Adam hadn't screwed things up in the first place, so surely that would be a situation that God could "live with". No?

There. I just solved all the World's problems! No generations of "imperfect" children! An end to human suffering! Well, at least an end to innocent humans suffering. They could still make the same choice Adam did, but at least they get to make that choice for themselves. Hey God! Hello God, are you listening! I've got it! Impotence! The answer is impotence! *tap* *tap* Is this mic on? Hello?

scottris wrote:to be born into a world that is often very cruel seems at best shortsighted, and at worst shortsighted and spiteful!

Thank You Scottris. This is exactly the way I feel only I couldn't put it as nicely as you and the quote above I like the most.
When a parent looks at a newborn baby, he/she sees perfection but "God" sees me as imperfect. What a Dad he is!
Bettina

Is there a God? Wasn't that the question?
Well first I suppose we need a definition of God. In this thread it all seems to be about the Christian God but what about the others?
Describing God and heaven can be likened to describing a twelve dimensional object in language created in a three dimensional world. We can describe hight, depth, width (maybe age as a fourth dimension) but the other dimensions have no words so whatever you use is inaccurate and possibly meaningless. Look at the Christian heaven. We will all be reunited with the ones we love and experience joy in the presence of God. What if our first spouse died and we remarried years later. We love them both so we will be reunited with both. But if we retain our human jelousy and envy the two spouses will not get along so we must be substantialy changed from our human personality. So what is heaven and what of us will be welcomed there? Well it's not really describable is it? Is there a difference between the Buddhist Nirvana and the Christian heaven? When examined from that stand point; not really. The Paradise of Islam seems based on very physical pleasures but we know how bored people get after a decade or so and so we can imagine that we must be very changed to endure eternity in a physical world.
Maybe Nirvana, God, Allah, Krishna etc. are just human attempts to describe the indescribable. Flawed because we do not have the words or concepts to describe or even imagine them. Maybe they all lead to the same place along different paths.

Is there a God? Damned if I know. (Talk about an appropriate phrase )

And please don't refer me to the Bible for information. Written by Christians hundreds of years after the events (new testament), translated by Christians and edited by Christians all you get is Christianity. The writings of heretics didn't make the final cut did they? So all there is in it, is self referenced philosophy. And the old testatment, well I sure don't go for the first book so the rest are just more religeous writings edited to say what the priest class wanted. (Question: Since the old testament is the history of the Jewish people and Jesus was a Jew are the books I would find in the Torah of the local synagogue identical to the books of the King James version of the Bible? If not why not)

Ford Prefect wrote:Maybe Nirvana, God, Allah, Krishna etc. are just human attempts to describe the
indescribable.

Great reading Ford....and the above quote to me is more like "Maybe Nirvana, God, Allah, Krishna, etc. are just human attempts to create a saviour that will give them life after death".

I don't have any problem with what people believe, I'm really happy for them except those nuns on TV that are brainwashed to the point of praying all day and are just throwing their lives away. I feel sorry for them.

What I do have a problem with are Creationists trying to debunk Evolution. There are several in our school like that and are way over zealous. I personally believe that Darwin was right and we all arrived here thru natural selection over millions of years. That is textbook material, and is continually being updated as science advances.

The theory of creationism, on the other hand, is based on the bible which is basically a closed book which I believe can't go any farther so the only thing left for them is to try to undermine what is being found, or come up with yet more interpretations. No....I don't believe in the god of the bible or the bible itself period. This "god" of the bible is crude, cruel, unjust, unworthy, and well, just unbelievable.

If there is a different creator who started evolution, we haven't met it yet, and it doesn't know how bad things are because it's trying to hold the universe together, but hopefully will be able to fix, and restart it so things will end up the way it should have been. That's what I hope.

Bettina

Ford Prefect wrote:Question: Since the old testament is the history of the Jewish people and Jesus was a Jew are the books I would find in the Torah of the local synagogue identical to the books of the King James version of the Bible? If not why not

Yes, in some ways, and no in others.

The list of books is the same. The Christian "old testament" is the same set of books as the Jewish Tanakh (sciptures). (btw, the Jewish Tanakh is made up of the Torah (law), Neviim (prophets), and Kethuvim (writings), not just the Torah as the common misconception has it.) Well, mostly--the Jews have a few books stuck together into one. (e.g., they have "Samuel" while we have "I Samuel" and "II Samuel", but the text is the same. They just have them stuck together.)

The Jewish Tanakh is in a different order than the Christian old testament. The Christian books are arranged topically--History, Poetry, Prophecy all together in sections. I don't recall right off how the Jewish books are arranged, but I remember that it's different. And of course, the books in the Hebrew Bible tend to go by their Hebrew names, whereas the Christian ones tend to go by English (for some values of 'English'--I mean, "Leviticus"? "Deuteronomy"? ) names. So the Christian "Exodus" is the Jewish "Shemot"... but it's the same book. I think the a lot of the Jewish names are better, really. Like the book of "Numbers." It's only got a couple chapters of numbers in it--it's like somebody just took a look at chatper 1 and said, "Oh, it's all numbers..." In Hebrew it's "BaMidbar" -- "In the wilderness." Which is exactly what the book is a history of. And don't even get me started on "Deuteronomy." I don't know who named the English books, but... well... don't take the names too seriously.

Also, I think the verses and chapters are different. The numbering systems were added after the two groups diverged, and weren't in the original text. Though in a lot of modern Jewish Bibles I've seen, they've adopted the Christian system. (And occasionally the Christian book order, too). It's probably just a standards thing, so everyone means the same thing when they refer to a verse. (Incidentally, it's worth noting that the chapters and verses often don't correspond to natural breaks in the text. They're for indexing purposes only.)

You won't find the books of the New Testament in a Jewish Bible. These are Christian books, and never held any weight with the Jewish scholars. You might think of Christianity as a Jewish cult--though the original members were mostly Jews, most of the Jews were never on board with the whole thing. There's still a bit of overlap today, actually--you have congregations of Messianic Jews, people who are both Jews and Christians.

Anyway, the New Testament consists of books written mostly to and for the early church, and certainly isn't very Jewish. (Though a couple books, such as the first book--Matthew--were written to Jews, and are Jewish books, culturally speaking--but decidedly Christian as well.)

You wouldn't find the King James version of the Bible in any Jewish Synagogue that I know, not even the old testament. That translation was made in 1611, LONG after Christianity and Judaism had diverged. And anyone will tell you that the theology of the translator affects the translation--and the Jews have their own scholars and translators, thank you very much.

(I have a Jewish Bible in Hebrew with a translation by Jewish scholars on my bookshelf. Though in my not-so-humble opinion, it is El Suckimundo. The translation's mostly accurate, though pretty darn whimsical sometimes, but the English is garbled all to heck... ) Though I'm not really familiar with Jewish translations, I know that you'll often find Hebrew Bibles without any translation at all... simply written in Hebrew.

Also, there are a number of different manuscripts for the Tanakh floating around. I think most modern Christian translations are done off of BHS, but I'm not sure what the Jews use. In any case, the manuscript differences are not usually very substantial.

The upshot of it is that the texts of the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament are one and the same, more or less. But that text is arranged differently, indexed differently, translated differently, and called by different names. None of that really matters, though--the contents are pretty much the same.

Probably way more information than you wanted, I'm sure...

Ford Prefect wrote: (Question: Since the old testament is the history of the Jewish people and Jesus was a Jew are the books I would find in the Torah of the local synagogue identical to the books of the King James version of the Bible? If not why not)

Question: Why King James? and how long ago? Current or the New King James. Really, the whole argument about the accuracy of the Bible is antiquated. There are 10's of thousands of people, Christian and "non" alike that watch this very closely.

I don't know Hebrew so I can not answer your question with certain accuracy. For most current translations such as the New King James and New American Standard or the NIV, the answer would be yes.

Ford Prefect wrote: And please don't refer me to the Bible for information. Written by Christians hundreds of years after the events (new testament), translated by Christians and edited by Christians all you get is Christianity. The writings of heretics didn't make the final cut did they? So all there is in it, is self referenced philosophy. And the old testatment, well I sure don't go for the first book so the rest are just more religeous writings edited to say what the priest class wanted.

You know what's funny about this... the old testament is not terribly flattering to the Jews. Through the whole thing, the people are corrupt, unfaithful, immoral, and incapable of doing anything right. And the priests are worse--extremely corrupt, leading the people in unfaithfulness, completely immoral. And the kings are WORSE! The history stops, actually, right about the point where (if it kept going) it might start to get flattering for the Jewish people.

And the prophets! My word, you never read such scathing flames on any internet forum. I can sum up the theme of that entire section of the Bible for you like this: "The people are CORRUPT! The priests are CORRUPT! God is going to DESTROY YOU if you don't change!"

In fact, there are very few heroes in the old testament that are painted in unhesitatingly flattering light. Most have done something evil and foolish, and it's recorded.

Make of that what you will!

The same is actually true of the new testament. The apostles--who can be considered the founders of the church after Jesus, men whose every word was prized for its spiritual content--are almost all portrayed terribly unflatteringly. Paul makes a living KILLING CHRISTIANS before he's converted. Peter is famous for DENYING JESUS, as Jesus was going to trial. Jesus teaches clear, elementry lessons, and the disciples all stand around staring stupidly at each other, wondering what he meant. And so forth.

And the early churches--full of heresy and immorality! You'll barely find a single letter in the new testament that isn't full of mourning and admonition for the churches!

Again, make of that what you will. I'll tell you though, it isn't the stuff of teary-eyed worked-over religious fairy tales. Everyone's too stupid. There are no heroes, and no one can do anything right. The only one it really flatters is God.

scottris, the misdeeds of God's children are their own fault, not God's. God does not cause anyone to commit murder, theft, rape, genocide, or any other crime. (Radical fundamentalism doesn't count here, since those people have so warped and twisted the idea of God that it barely resembles what God truly is.) Now, you may say right back that God is still responsible, since he has the power to step in and stop anything. God doesn't work like that, though. He doesn't operate under the principle of "deus ex machina." Yes, God could step in in an instant and end all evil throughout the world, but as you said yourself, that would reduce human beings to the role of ants, mindlessly following the whims of a leader. God doesn't want this relationship with humanity; he wants humans to love him and to live good lives of their own accord. Forcing people into this relationship belittles it. Going back to the father and child example, as a father, would you want your children to simply obey you as a figure of authority, or would you also want them to love you for being a loving influence in their lives? You could attempt to stop your children from doing anything wrong, ever, but that would reduce them to something like slaves. Part of the process of being a human is learning good and evil for oneself. This same concept applies to humanity's relationship with God. And, as I've said before, God's gift of Christ and his salvation to the world represents an alternative to suffering, a life after death that is an escape from suffering. Christians have been described by some as "just passing through" the world; we believe that there is something out there beyond this world, and so we know that, no matter how bad things get, we will always have the hope of something better.

Since you went back to Adam, I guess I'll follow suit. God knew full-well what Adam was going to do. God is omniscient; no deed can be hidden from him. However, God still had to give Adam the opportunity to make that decision; otherwise, his free will would mean nothing. As for a "contingency plan," you could make the case that Christ was that contingency plan. Without Adam's sin, there would be no need for Christ's life; however, since humanity fell to sin, a savior was needed. So, as you can see, God wasn't as "shortsighted" as you might think. As for having a universal "reset button," once again, this isn't a computer. If, as Christians believe, humanity is the pinnacle of God's creation, it wasn't something that could simply be re-done. That would take all meaning out of the uniqueness of the human race. We were God's greatest work, and it would make absolutely no sense for God to just treat us as a "mistake." As for having children, Adam and Eve were able to reproduce before they left Eden (thus, the issue of nakedness and shame). Also, at least to the Christian viewpoint, the reproduction of the human race is a sharing in God's divine act of creation. It is the most intimate bond of a married man and woman. Plus, would God want to have a relationship as a father to just two human beings for all of eternity? Just as any human father rejoices every time he has another child, so God rejoices every time a new human being is born. Thus the phrase "be fruitful and multiply." I hope that some of this has made some sense.

Ford, since this debate is largely about the Christian viewpoint of God, you really can't get away from making reference to the Bible, since it is held by Christians as the divinely inspired word of God. It would be like asking a person to explain a computer program without making reference to its source code; at best, you'd get something surface-level. As for "other gods," I'm not sure what all Christians believe, but I know that my Catholic faith, at least, teaches that every religion has at least some sense of truth inherent to it. In other words, things like the concept of Nirvana, the Hindi gods, or even the Greek pantheon are really just different human descirptions of some greater power. Of course, my view has an inherent bias, since I believe that my faith represents the fullest unveiling of God's truth to humanity, but I'm not going to bring that in here, and I don't necessarily expect anyone else to believe this. Getting back to the different views of heaven, have you ever considered that they all sound similar because they're all referring to the same thing, but from different viewpoints? (A side note: the Muslim Allah and the Christian/Jewish God are really one and the same; all three religions believe in one single deity.) You asked about the similarities of the King James version's Old Testament to the Torah; it is my understanding that they are identical except for language differences. (I have read neither the King James version of the Bible nor the Torah, but I do know that the KJV does exclude 7 or so books that were originally part of the Christian scriptures and are included in the Catholic Bible.)

Bettina, I, at least, don't believe that God looks at humanity as "fundamentally flawed." Yes, we are imperfect, but God still has unconditional love for us. No matter what evil actions we commit, God still continues to loves us and wants us to turn back to him. IN that sense, God is a true father to all humanity. You say that every human parent looks at a baby as "perfect," and I'll agree with you. But does any parent actually believe that this baby will never do anything wrong over his/her own life? Of course not. This sense of perfection is really related to the parent's unconditional love for their new child, just as God has unconditional love for each and every one of us. I also deeply resent you saying that the religious are "wasting their lives;" they are devoting their lives to God, and whether you believe in him or not, you have to acknowledge this fact. As for the Bible being a closed book, far from it. As Drakona has said in the past, humanity is nowhere near a comprehension of all that it contains. I urge you to at least give it a chance. One last note: God is not "crude, cruel, unjust, unworthy, and unbelievable;" your understanding of the concept of God, and what people mean by God, is what is flawed.

Edit: Forget the Bible vs. Torah part; Drakona owned me there.

Thank you Duper and Drakona. Drakona as usual an excellent job of explaining. I was a horrible student in the two years I spent in university (theater no less) and now I am part of a team that designs custom industrial air conditioning units. I am in awe of your clarity of expression and scholarship. I can barely write a coherent start up instruction list.

Duper you ask why the King James version- Simple I am 53 years old and raised in the Presbyterian church. I am shocked whenever I read a bible that is not King James, it seems like Shakespear done as rap. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Ford Prefect wrote: Duper you ask why the King James version- Simple I am 53 years old and raised in the Presbyterian church. I am shocked whenever I read a bible that is not King James, it seems like Shakespear done as rap. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Ah, That makes sense. LOL Shakespear done Rap.
When a scripture is translated there are two schools fo thought. One translates in a Transliteral style; that is word for word. This can get wierd if taken to its strictest sense, particularly when it comes to prophecy.

The second takes the context of the passage and finds the best suited word. The "Living Bible" is the extreme example of this. btw, what is the living bible was a transcript a man wrote for his son so to make it a bit easier to read. I would imagine he was used to reading a KJ version as well.

Why so many different translations? take a look at this forum. Everyone one of us see things differently. Top Gun, Drakona, Stryker and I ...to name a few, are all Christians. We don't all share the exact same views. Many of the texts that are used in creating a translation are very old. Very VERY old. well over a thousand years in some cases. Much of the Old testiment used is old Aramic and some of the meanings are uncertain. Translations are done with panels of experts and consultants, not by just one or two people.

Why go into this? I'm sure you are of most of this, but there will be some how do not, nor care for that matter.

I do know that the KJV does exclude 7 or so books that were originally part of the Christian scriptures and are included in the Catholic Bible

Ahh, you refer to the "Apochrypha." Some of these books were considered canon in the very early church, but by the time the issue of canon was settled in the 4th or 5th century, none of them were. Nonetheless, the early church saw them as valuable--useful for instruction in spiritual things, if not actually scripture. Though they were distributed, often with the canon, they weren't scripture. Though some of the books are of Jewish origin, to my knowledge, the Jews never even considered them for admission to their canon.

That changed at the Council of Trent, in 1545. This was a Catholic council, and Catholics and Protestants will tell you different stories about it. Protestantism was on the rise, and many distinctive Catholic teachings found support, not in the canonical scriptures, but in the Apochrypha. At that council, the Catholic church added the Apochrypha to its the sciptures. The Protestants sort of went into labor and delivery over this...

The KJV was finished in 1611, and I think that version did include the Apochrypha, at the end of the old testament. I'm not sure why they did that, nor do I know when they stopped printing them together.

While we're on the topic of the KJV, here's some interesting trivia:

The KJV we have today isn't the 1611 version. It's actually been revised many times--in fact, it began to be revised almost before they finished printing the first copies! It has underwent four very large revisions, in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769.

Some think that the KJV is the oldest Bible translation. In fact, this isn't true--it was rather the official translation of England, which all the churches used. The first complete English translation of the Bible is the Wycliffe Bible of 1382. There are five or six others before the King James was done in 1611. In fact, the King James Bible itself is thought of by some as a revision of Tyndale's translation (1534).

Some also think the KJV is an inspired or perfect translation. This certainly isn't true--though the scholarship at the time was very good, its age shows. In my opinion, a more modern translation--based on better manuscript scholarship--is a better choice.

The language is beautiful, though. To some people it is very churchy language. (LOL @ Ford Prefect -- "I am shocked whenever I read a bible that is not King James, it seems like Shakespear done as rap.") That's fine, I suppose--just don't get carried away, 'kay?

(A good, if decidedly critical, article on the history and scholarship in the KJV (and the basis for most of this post) can be found here.)

[Edit: A further thought...

Tradition has a funny way of making some things seem more holy than they are. In the ancient world, marginal notes explaining scripture occasionally were rolled into the next transcription as part of scripture. Biblical heroes--though portrayed as very human in the stories--are painted surrounded by ethereal light, their misdeeds downplayed or ignored. Things like pews, robes, steeples--all so culturally convenient and changeable when they appeared--become entrenched in tradition as holy. Old English is like that, too--people come to regaurd it as holy, not because the church teaches that it is, but because it's how past generations prayed and the language the scriptures were translated into.

I say, we ought to stick to the essentials of the gospel. Not that I'm saying we should throw everything else away--what is beautiful is beautiful, and what is useful is useful. But let's reserve the 'holy' for the things that actually are. ]

I've grown up on the New American translation of the Bible, which I believe was translated as best as possible from some of the better ancient sources. It's written in pretty much plain English, and I personally find it much easier to read than any selections I've read from the KJV, which has way too many frilly "thees, thous, shalts, and thys." Even so, there are times when I think it does create a better verbal picture; see Linus's speech in "A Charlie Brown Christmas" for a good example.