Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,038 Year: 5,295/9,624 Month: 320/323 Week: 164/160 Day: 0/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assuming the flood was real
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 52 (24968)
11-29-2002 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Quetzal
11-29-2002 10:43 AM


hi Q
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Actually, that's a pretty fair way of looking at the differences between the OT and NT. I'd heard the bit about Paul before - the early evangalists were looking to convert the Jews, and in fact explicitly excluded everybody else. It wasn't until later that Christianity expanded its mandate as it were. If I was of a cynical bent, I'd wonder if it wasn't because they weren't have a lot of success with the Jews of the time...
actually no, that isn't quite accurate... not sure where you got that, but this is closer to what happened... paul was called by Christ to be the apostle to the gentiles... not the jews... and that's what he did, however paul had a real burden for his brethren the jews... once he even said "i'd gladly be accursed if my brothers would believe" or something like that..
so what he did, he'd go to a new city and go to the synagogue before going to the gentiles.. he never planned on *not* preaching to the gentiles, he stated quite often that this was the reason Christ chose him... the time he spent with the jews varied... some listened, some didn't... some were intellectually honest, were truly seeking the truth (notably the bereans), some weren't.. but no matter the length of time, he'd always set up shop in the city proper and teach the gospel
peter, otoh, was an apostle to the jews, as were most of the others... man there is *so* much teaching i could do ... but it's a vast subject and would lead me too far afield.. now there is some truth to what you say above.. out of pride, a segment of the early church (even in the highest places, james the brother of Jesus being the focal point) couldn't accept the "simplicity" (as paul called it) of Christ, preferring to keep God as 'the God of israel' and forcing gentiles to obey at least parts of the law..
paul blasted this thinking, and they truthfully didn't understand imho... but you are correct as to the reasons the gospel very quickly spread among gentiles and not jews... most jews just did not believe... they expected a kingdom 'of this world', they expected Messiah to destroy their enemies... many did, but far more didn't believe...
quote:
~~snip for space reasons~~ Unfortunately, that gets modern Christians in a real bind when they have to try and rationalize the OT with the NT - not to mention with the findings of the new idea of scientific inquiry. Which, all things being equal, has probably cost more than a few (de)converts. Like I said, without the OT, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place - because only by insisting on the absolute immutability of the WHOLE bible - OT and NT combined - that the opposition has anything to argue about.
well the truth is, it's "the gospel of Christ that is God's power unto salvation" and the gospel can be found in the n.t. .... the o.t. is interesting, to me, from the views it gives of Jesus (prophecies) and the beauty and wisdom even its worst critics will grant... but as far as simply loving to read and learn, i stick to the n.t.
quote:
However, by the statement "he *can't* act counter to his nature", you are definitionally placing constraints on his omnipotence. Look, I'm not trying to get into one of those endlessly spiralling arguments about "could God create an immovable object that even He couldn't move?". I'll leave that to the Jesuits - who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing things like this.
yeah, silly argument alright.. as c.s. lewis said when speaking of the 'can God create a rock too big for him to lift?', "nonsense is still nonsense, even when the subject is God"... so in that vein, i have to disagree that it limits his omnipotence in any way... see, he holds *all* his attributes in perfection.. he simply can't *not* be less than perfect in any one of them... this is why i tabled my opinion on whether or not God *had* to create us... it may well be that he did have to from the sense i'm trying to convey
quote:
I'm not sure the question even HAS an answer - it appears to be one of those things that just "has to be taken on faith". I'll buy that defense, believe it or not. However, before you jump at the opportunity, remember my original, oft-repeated contention: taking something on faith automatically removes it from the realm of science. If it isn't science, it can't by definition be taught in science class.
no argument here... i don't believe i've ever argued differently... faith, by the very definition God gives it, can't be science... however i would like for "science" books to point out more often, and more strongly, the difference between something that is actually science and something that is merely hoped to be... imo a subject such as abiogenesis requires every bit as much faith as a belief in creation... the o.t. is God's word tho, it just isn't applicable to the christion life... that doesn't mean it can't benefit christians, the bible tells us (even in the n.t.) that it can...
yes, seeing my viewpoint is acceptable... it's the only rational way to discuss anything... here are a few good links, they give both sides of the story, unfortunately (for you, i guess) bill craig is the most proliferate and vocal champion of some of this
middle knowledge discussion
a good link, a little history
craig's chief intellectual foe, quentin smith
newcomb's paradox.. if you can follow the logic (not that easy) craig should show you what i've been saying
that's enough i think

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2002 10:43 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 12-02-2002 4:32 AM forgiven has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5977 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 52 (25215)
12-02-2002 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by forgiven
11-29-2002 4:13 PM


Thanks for your reply. I'll work my way through the links you provided and get back to you if I have questions.
I stand corrected on the Paul/Peter thing. I always get those two confused.
Just one additional comment:
quote:
Q: I'm not sure the question even HAS an answer - it appears to be one of those things that just "has to be taken on faith". I'll buy that defense, believe it or not. However, before you jump at the opportunity, remember my original, oft-repeated contention: taking something on faith automatically removes it from the realm of science. If it isn't science, it can't by definition be taught in science class.
F: no argument here... i don't believe i've ever argued differently... faith, by the very definition God gives it, can't be science...
I think I was referring to your comment in the "Is America a Christian Nation" thread where you mentioned you felt that creation science and evolution were equally valid (or words to that effect). Obviously, if you agree that faith isn't science, then we're in agreement.
quote:
however i would like for "science" books to point out more often, and more strongly, the difference between something that is actually science and something that is merely hoped to be... imo a subject such as abiogenesis requires every bit as much faith as a belief in creation...
Weeell, I don't know which text you're referring to, but both the high school texts I've seen and my very own "bible" (using the vernacular meaning ), Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology", make a pretty good differentiation between what is "known" and what is "speculated". I certainly won't claim that all high school texts are very good - most are not reviewed or approved by scientists (usually a panel of educators), and are published by commercial publishers. There's been enough evidence of old, out-dated, or even erroneous stuff in textbooks for the masses that you might have something of a case in specific instances. I also wouldn't, however, extend that to ALL textbooks.
As for abiogenesis - most of the specifics are pretty speculative (and are usually so identified) except the basic observation that there's nothing disproving the idea. Who knows, we might find out ultimately that we can't show how life was created (or duplicate the feat). Still doesn't mean it didn't happen - or in the absence, that a divine supernatural creation DID happen. For the latter, you'll need the same kind of positive evidence as for abiogenesis. I won't argue that a deity couldn't have created the first replicator. I won't argue that it DID, either. Given that everything ELSE we observe once life happened is based on natural processes, I'd have to say the odds of a natural explanation being correct are higher than a supernatural one. But I stress that's my opinion, and can rightfully be laid at the doorstep of my particular philosophy and worldview. The good news is that there are a lot of really sharp scientists working on the issue. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be a lot of really sharp scientists working the creation angle.
quote:
the o.t. is God's word tho, it just isn't applicable to the christion life... that doesn't mean it can't benefit christians, the bible tells us (even in the n.t.) that it can...
I won't argue the OT isn't an interesting book from an anthropological and sociological sense - maybe even some history. I would argue - as I have - that it doesn't make sense for modern Christians to insist on its inerrancy. You're losing converts when it conflicts with both the sociology and science of modern people. Simply focusing on the NT - to the exclusion even of the parts of the OT which "document" the messaianic claims or foretell the coming of the Son of Man (which are unlikely to be of interest to any but biblical scholars anyway and were included by the early Christians simply to try and legitimize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah) - you'll save a lot more souls if that's your aim, IMO.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by forgiven, posted 11-29-2002 4:13 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-02-2002 11:25 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 34 by forgiven, posted 12-02-2002 3:04 PM Quetzal has replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 33 of 52 (25259)
12-02-2002 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Quetzal
12-02-2002 4:32 AM


I'm uncertain if this is something I should be doing in "Admin mode", but I am going to.
I would like to compliment both forgiven and Quetzal for doing what has impressed me as being a fine series of messages.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 12-02-2002 4:32 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by forgiven, posted 12-02-2002 3:08 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 12-03-2002 5:00 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 52 (25284)
12-02-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Quetzal
12-02-2002 4:32 AM


hi Q...
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Just one additional comment:
quote:
Q: I'm not sure the question even HAS an answer - it appears to be one of those things that just "has to be taken on faith". I'll buy that defense, believe it or not. However, before you jump at the opportunity, remember my original, oft-repeated contention: taking something on faith automatically removes it from the realm of science. If it isn't science, it can't by definition be taught in science class.
F: no argument here... i don't believe i've ever argued differently... faith, by the very definition God gives it, can't be science...
I think I was referring to your comment in the "Is America a Christian Nation" thread where you mentioned you felt that creation science and evolution were equally valid (or words to that effect). Obviously, if you agree that faith isn't science, then we're in agreement.
i was just stating that evolution is taught as a theory and that others had theories also... since that post i've done some thinking on this subject and the jury's still out... according to God, faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"... i don't think, however, that means faith is without reason, or that reasonable men and women can't also have faith
quote:
As for abiogenesis - most of the specifics are pretty speculative (and are usually so identified) except the basic observation that there's nothing disproving the idea. Who knows, we might find out ultimately that we can't show how life was created (or duplicate the feat). Still doesn't mean it didn't happen - or in the absence, that a divine supernatural creation DID happen. For the latter, you'll need the same kind of positive evidence as for abiogenesis. I won't argue that a deity couldn't have created the first replicator. I won't argue that it DID, either. Given that everything ELSE we observe once life happened is based on natural processes, I'd have to say the odds of a natural explanation being correct are higher than a supernatural one. But I stress that's my opinion, and can rightfully be laid at the doorstep of my particular philosophy and worldview. The good news is that there are a lot of really sharp scientists working on the issue. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be a lot of really sharp scientists working the creation angle.
yes, but i do believe abiogenesis is "hoped for" ie., hoped to be true by some... and if so, i have a suspicion that not all of the ones so hoping are doing so merely in a quest for knowledge... true, that's a motivation... but you tell me your opinion, do you believe at least some are motivated by a hope that, if abiogenesis is proven true, God no longer becomes necessary as a Creator?
quote:
the o.t. is God's word tho, it just isn't applicable to the christion life... that doesn't mean it can't benefit christians, the bible tells us (even in the n.t.) that it can...
quote:
I won't argue the OT isn't an interesting book from an anthropological and sociological sense - maybe even some history. I would argue - as I have - that it doesn't make sense for modern Christians to insist on its inerrancy. You're losing converts when it conflicts with both the sociology and science of modern people. Simply focusing on the NT - to the exclusion even of the parts of the OT which "document" the messaianic claims or foretell the coming of the Son of Man (which are unlikely to be of interest to any but biblical scholars anyway and were included by the early Christians simply to try and legitimize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah) - you'll save a lot more souls if that's your aim, IMO.
as far as "saving souls" goes, the o.t. doesn't enter into it very often... evangelism rightly concerns itself with "Christ and him crucified" for our sins... the o.t. helps one understand the whys of it, and as such will always be needed for those who desire such knowledge... but i will never deny it as scripture, nor deny that it is inspired by God...
let me say a word about "losing converts"... i hope this doesn't come across as harsh, i don't think it will but one never knows... a big problem i used to have was in thinking that God had somehow put me in charge of 'soul saving'... that simply isn't true at all... he's the only one who can save a soul, he's the only one who can add to his kingdom... all i can, and should, do is share the gospel message... i can try to answer questions the best i can, i can try to show others the reason i have this blessed hope... i haven't done a very good job of that lately, my pride has caused me to become far too argumentative and abrasive... but with God's help that sort of thing will not happen in the future, i sincerely hope
i will still defend my faith as i'm called to do, but only in the way i'm called to do it... God is, he exists, and he assures me that he's given everyone more than enough evidence of this... it isn't my job to prove something that he's told me is already proven... it's my job to get a person to at least acknowledge the possibility that such a thing as 'self-deception' exists, and to hopefully examine his or her concious and to seek God... it's my job to get others to sincerely wonder if Jesus Christ can change lives, if having a relationship with the Son of God is a real possibility... so that's what i'll try to do

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 12-02-2002 4:32 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 12-03-2002 5:54 AM forgiven has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 52 (25285)
12-02-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Adminnemooseus
12-02-2002 11:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
I'm uncertain if this is something I should be doing in "Admin mode", but I am going to.
I would like to compliment both forgiven and Quetzal for doing what has impressed me as being a fine series of messages.
Adminnemooseus

Q is a reasonable person who asks very insightful questions... i'm partially reasonable with some answers... we may never agree on some things (then again, one never knows), but that's not a good reason to abandon etiquette... i've enjoyed our interaction very much... unfortunately i recently took on a new job and i'll be very limited in time from now on... will try to drop by as time allows
thank you for saying such a nice thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-02-2002 11:25 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5977 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 52 (25332)
12-03-2002 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Adminnemooseus
12-02-2002 11:25 AM


Aww shucks (*embarrassed*). Thanks, Moose. The discussion with forgiven has been quite enjoyable. He definitely manifests the "sharp mind, civil tongue" that I throroughly appreciate. Hopefully we'll be able to continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-02-2002 11:25 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5977 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 52 (25335)
12-03-2002 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by forgiven
12-02-2002 3:04 PM


Hi forgiven,
quote:
1. i was just stating that evolution is taught as a theory and that others had theories also... since that post i've done some thinking on this subject and the jury's still out... 2. according to God, faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"... i don't think, however, that means faith is without reason, or that reasonable men and women can't also have faith(numbers added for clarity)
1. As I pointed out in the other thread, the meaining of a "scientific theory" differs substantially from the common usage definition of the term. Whereas a scientific theory may not be Truth , it is quite a strong contender for being a very good, solid explanation for something - linking a huge number of observations, facts, ideas, and questions into a comprehensive, internally-consistent, well-tested framework. This is a bit different from the every-day useage of "theory" being "speculation". This is the main reason I am so opposed to "ID Theory" or "Theory of Creation" being given equal billing with the "Theory of Evolution". The latter is a theory in the scientific sense, with a huge cast of supporting evidence from multiple disciplines. It has been constantly tested over the last 150 years - and has yet to be falsified. Modified, certainly, as new data and new techniques arise, but there has been no evidence uncovered to date that would show it to be completely or mostly wrong. Contrast with the other two theories - which are unquestionably using the term in the vernacular sense in an explicit attempt to "hyjack" the cachet of a scientific theory and confuse those who don't really understand the difference. ID has NEVER developed one single piece of verifiable, positive evidence in support. Almost all ID publications are geared around attacking evolution. IC, for example, is simply another way of phrasing Paley's watch argument - it couldn't evolve therefore it was designed. Specified Complex Information is simply a re-definition of the appearance of design using spurious statistical/probability methods to enable IDists to proclaim design at whim without evidence. The "Theory of Special Creation" is, as you pointed out, faith-based. These three theories are NOT equal.
2. I completely and totally agree with you here. By the same token, I would suggest that men and women can be quite reasonable without faith, as well.
quote:
yes, but i do believe abiogenesis is "hoped for" ie., hoped to be true by some... and if so, i have a suspicion that not all of the ones so hoping are doing so merely in a quest for knowledge... true, that's a motivation... but you tell me your opinion, do you believe at least some are motivated by a hope that, if abiogenesis is proven true, God no longer becomes necessary as a Creator?
I won't argue with the "hoped for" part, except to say that the negative aspect you mention is by no means universal. I would venture to say most of the folks actually working on abiogenesis really DO see it as a quest for knowledge - an intricate puzzle, and possibly the ultimate puzzle. If someone is "hoping" for abiogenesis to bolster their worldview - well, I have to say I pity them for having such weak convictions. As to my personal opinion, I'm ALREADY pretty much convinced that a supernatural explanation - God - is unecessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth.
As an aside, and further to the last statement, IF it was shown that the first replicators were "created" ex nihilo, I would very likely modify my stance to something resembling a deistic (or maybe pantheistic) viewpoint. I honestly don't think it would change much about the way I live my life, or the way I look at biodiversity for instance. It certainly wouldn't mean that I would perforce become a Christian, for example. It is possible to accept the existence of a Designer (*shudder*), without presupposing that the Designer is the Christian God, and that the whole idea of salvation, eternal life, etc is ALSO true. No offense.
[edited to add: Let me throw that question back at you: IF abiogenesis were to be shown as possible, what, if anything, would that do to YOUR belief?]
I like to think of it in these terms:
quote:
...it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. (Michael Denton, "Nature's Destiny", page xvii-xviii).
Although I currently don't agree with the Anthropic Principle espoused here, it would likely be my default stance if abiogenesis is falsified.
quote:
as far as "saving souls" goes, the o.t. doesn't enter into it very often... evangelism rightly concerns itself with "Christ and him crucified" for our sins... the o.t. helps one understand the whys of it, and as such will always be needed for those who desire such knowledge... but i will never deny it as scripture, nor deny that it is inspired by God...
True enough. However, I still think it's bad tactics The OT is, after all, the main bone of contention that causes the disconnect between science and inerrantist Christians. MOST Christians (non-inerrantists) simply don't agree that the OT was anything more than an allegory (I like the way some of the theists on this board have put it).
quote:
let me say a word about "losing converts"... i hope this doesn't come across as harsh, i don't think it will but one never knows... a big problem i used to have was in thinking that God had somehow put me in charge of 'soul saving'
Absolutely delighted to hear you say that. No, it wasn't harsh at all - quite honest and refreshing, in fact, and consistent with your willingness to "discuss" rather than "preach". Unfortunately, there are quite a few Christians, notably fundamentalists, who simply see it as their mission to prosyletize the ignorant heathens like me. Wanna see a nasty response from me? Try preaching at me sometime .
Congratulations on the new job! Best of luck, and hope to see you here from time to time.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by forgiven, posted 12-02-2002 3:04 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by forgiven, posted 12-05-2002 7:30 AM Quetzal has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 52 (25543)
12-05-2002 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Quetzal
12-03-2002 5:54 AM


hi Q... sorry for delay, but they'll only get longer i think
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
quote:
yes, but i do believe abiogenesis is "hoped for" ie., hoped to be true by some... and if so, i have a suspicion that not all of the ones so hoping are doing so merely in a quest for knowledge... true, that's a motivation... but you tell me your opinion, do you believe at least some are motivated by a hope that, if abiogenesis is proven true, God no longer becomes necessary as a Creator?
quote:
I won't argue with the "hoped for" part, except to say that the negative aspect you mention is by no means universal. I would venture to say most of the folks actually working on abiogenesis really DO see it as a quest for knowledge - an intricate puzzle, and possibly the ultimate puzzle. If someone is "hoping" for abiogenesis to bolster their worldview - well, I have to say I pity them for having such weak convictions. As to my personal opinion, I'm ALREADY pretty much convinced that a supernatural explanation - God - is unecessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth.
i hope you mean "pretty much"... i can't convince you otherwise, i know... i would say that, given what we know about the precarious balance that had to exist and has to exist for life to be here and now, i think God *is* necessary... but of course i don't need those things... i never did, i guess... it just all makes perfect sense to me, has since i heard the gospel
quote:
As an aside, and further to the last statement, IF it was shown that the first replicators were "created" ex nihilo, I would very likely modify my stance to something resembling a deistic (or maybe pantheistic) viewpoint. I honestly don't think it would change much about the way I live my life, or the way I look at biodiversity for instance. It certainly wouldn't mean that I would perforce become a Christian, for example. It is possible to accept the existence of a Designer (*shudder*), without presupposing that the Designer is the Christian God, and that the whole idea of salvation, eternal life, etc is ALSO true. No offense.
then there's no way for me to "win" is there? ... if you became convinced of a deity's existence, i believe that fact alone would cause you to look at the world's religions... but more than that, i hope it would cause you to reach out to the Father of Jesus... if you ever do reach that point, then the things i have to say to you might make much better sense to you
[edited to add: Let me throw that question back at you: IF abiogenesis were to be shown as possible, what, if anything, would that do to YOUR belief?]
i don't know... i honestly don't know... i understand the ramifications, believe me... it might destroy my faith... it would at the very least cause me to do some very deep soul searching
quote:
let me say a word about "losing converts"... i hope this doesn't come across as harsh, i don't think it will but one never knows... a big problem i used to have was in thinking that God had somehow put me in charge of 'soul saving'
quote:
Absolutely delighted to hear you say that. No, it wasn't harsh at all - quite honest and refreshing, in fact, and consistent with your willingness to "discuss" rather than "preach". Unfortunately, there are quite a few Christians, notably fundamentalists, who simply see it as their mission to prosyletize the ignorant heathens like me. Wanna see a nasty response from me? Try preaching at me sometime .
how sweet are the words of the preacher ... as in every walk, as with all proponents, there are the reasonable and there are the irritating... when i preach i try to make it appear as if i wasn't lol... take care Q, thanks for your well wishes... i have much to learn and won't be around as often as i'd like
{I have done no editing, other than adding this message (in red). My intent is not to pick on forgiven, but the above message is a fairly good example of quote structure problems. Read through it, and try to determine which statements are forgivens, and which are Quetzal's. Which are replys to what previous statement? Kind of hard to tell, isn't it. - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 12-03-2002 5:54 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 8:13 AM forgiven has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 52 (25547)
12-05-2002 8:07 AM


quote:
i don't know... i honestly don't know... i understand the ramifications, believe me... it might destroy my faith... it would at the very least cause me to do some very deep soul searching
I was genuinely interested in this - why would it damage your faith to learn that God used natural processes to create the first life?

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-05-2002 9:41 AM Karl has not replied
 Message 46 by forgiven, posted 12-06-2002 6:49 AM Karl has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5977 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 40 of 52 (25548)
12-05-2002 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by forgiven
12-05-2002 7:30 AM


Hi forgiven,
Just a couple of quick comments.
quote:
then there's no way for me to "win" is there?
Never really considered it a competition. Other than the primarily US-based attempts to squeeze science - IMO, the ultimate human endeavor - into a tightly controlled authoritarian religious mold based on a literal interpretation of the religious text of an ancient tribe, there's no loser to be seen in a rational, reasoned discussion between two people. Winning beyond that isn't an issue (or shouldn't be).
quote:
Q: [edited to add: Let me throw that question back at you: IF abiogenesis were to be shown as possible, what, if anything, would that do to YOUR belief?]
F: i don't know... i honestly don't know... i understand the ramifications, believe me... it might destroy my faith... it would at the very least cause me to do some very deep soul searching
I'm sorry you think that, I truly am. Why would your belief in God be shaken if the OT of the bible (specifically Genesis and the creation accounts) was found to be less than absolutely accurate? God, for those who believe (or so I've been told), doesn't live in an old book. The history of science is littered with the discarded remains of old protests: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and the telescope destroyed the literal reading of the Earth as the center of the universe and the crystalline vaults of heaven idea - and Christianity didn't suffer. Newtonian mechanics destroyed the idea of the separate creation of planets in their orbits and the celestial spheres - and Christianity didn't suffer. Lyell and the other 18th Century Christian geologists destroyed the young earth idea - and Christianity didn't suffer. And Darwin and the later evolutionary biologists destroyed the idea of separate creation and the scala naturae - and from what I can see, Christianity hasn't suffered. And now, Orgel, Miller and the other abiogenesis scientists are working to destroy the idea of the supernatural beginning of life. Why should Christianity suffer? For those who believe in it, I don't understand how this could shake their faith in salvation and eternal life any more than the other advances that have occurred in the past. After all, if God didn't want us to find out, He wouldn't have given us the tools to do so...
In any case, again I wish you the best in your new job. Drop by when you can. More than likely, I'll still be here...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by forgiven, posted 12-05-2002 7:30 AM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John, posted 12-05-2002 9:48 AM Quetzal has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 52 (25561)
12-05-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Karl
12-05-2002 8:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
quote:
i don't know... i honestly don't know... i understand the ramifications, believe me... it might destroy my faith... it would at the very least cause me to do some very deep soul searching
I was genuinely interested in this - why would it damage your faith to learn that God used natural processes to create the first life?

Just guessing, but probably because that isn't the was the Bible said it happened. If you take the Bible literally, there is a big problem there.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Karl, posted 12-05-2002 8:07 AM Karl has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 52 (25562)
12-05-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Quetzal
12-05-2002 8:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
The history of science is littered with the discarded remains of old protests: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and the telescope destroyed the literal reading of the Earth as the center of the universe and the crystalline vaults of heaven idea - and Christianity didn't suffer. Newtonian mechanics destroyed the idea of the separate creation of planets in their orbits and the celestial spheres - and Christianity didn't suffer. Lyell and the other 18th Century Christian geologists destroyed the young earth idea - and Christianity didn't suffer. And Darwin and the later evolutionary biologists destroyed the idea of separate creation and the scala naturae - and from what I can see, Christianity hasn't suffered.
I disagree, Quetzal. Go figure
It seems to me that every one of these discoveries has taken its toll.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 8:13 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 10:47 AM John has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5977 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 43 of 52 (25577)
12-05-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by John
12-05-2002 9:48 AM


quote:
I disagree, Quetzal. Go figure
Hey, it could happen.
quote:
It seems to me that every one of these discoveries has taken its toll.
Only on dogmatic inerrantism, my friend. You'll note, I hope, that there seems to be a fair selection of Christians still floating around. Second largest religious belief system in the world, and all that. Probably hang around for a long time. I don't care - as long as the rabid, carpet chewing fundies are removed from the equation - as they are forced to retreat one discovery at a time. That's what they get for clinging blindly to a book, instead of faith - an attitude that has been basically irrelevant since the Middle Ages...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John, posted 12-05-2002 9:48 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by John, posted 12-05-2002 2:18 PM Quetzal has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 52 (25601)
12-05-2002 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Quetzal
12-05-2002 10:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Only on dogmatic inerrantism, my friend.
Nah, those are ones least effected. Those are your conspiracy theorists and your flat earthers
quote:
You'll note, I hope, that there seems to be a fair selection of Christians still floating around.
Yup, I have noticed a few. I have also noticed them drifting further and further from the foundations of their religion with each and every discovery. The conflict between what you know and what you are supposed to believe must be awful.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 10:47 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-05-2002 6:54 PM John has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 52 (25635)
12-05-2002 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by John
12-05-2002 2:18 PM


quote:
Yup, I have noticed a few. I have also noticed them drifting further and further from the foundations of their religion with each and every discovery. The conflict between what you know and what you are supposed to believe must be awful.
I have found myself more drifting towards the foundations of my relationship with Jesus Christ. Scientific discoveries have yet to shake my faith in that science is the interpertation of data, it's all very tenative. One major discovery could change everything. It is very interesting stuff, but it has yet to take God's hand off my life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by John, posted 12-05-2002 2:18 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John, posted 12-07-2002 11:05 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024