Poll: Would you prefer being out of nothing, or being made out of clay?
Nothing
Clay
[Show Results]
 
Question for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2012, 12:56 PM
RE: Question for creationists
I've a list of my own questions

So if Genesis can be regarded by many Christians as a fairy tale, not to be taken literally - doesn't that make "Original Sin" a fairy tale as well?

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2012, 01:28 PM
RE: Question for creationists
(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I've a list of my own questions

So if Genesis can be regarded by many Christians as a fairy tale, not to be taken literally - doesn't that make "Original Sin" a fairy tale as well?
Naaah, 'original sin' is a fairy tale in its own right.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2012, 02:21 PM
RE: Question for creationists
Original sin is original...

Actually for all the creative ways of fucking up your life he came up with chomping on an apple??? How delightfully random. And mundane. Cain at least tried, I mean slotting your bro is still regarded as pretty rude. That should have been the original sin. Not fucking chewing a fruit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: Question for creationists
(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I've a list of my own questions

So if Genesis can be regarded by many Christians as a fairy tale, not to be taken literally - doesn't that make "Original Sin" a fairy tale as well?
KC argues that God created the "original sin" as part of his perfect plan.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: Question for creationists
(16-06-2012 07:56 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 09:38 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  There is a lot here to look at before jumping to "commonly referred to as made man out of clay."

First, take a look at the word dust (`aphar )...

Oh, you Christians crack me up. Whenever something doesn't seem to work in the obvious context, you try to change the wording to fit your conclusion.

Hello Starcrash, and thanks for the response. You raise some good points worth examining, and I hope the response is not taken as offensive, but merely intended to address the points raised.

The obvious context is the formation of man from existing material. However, we look at the use of the word used to describe what man is made from, and then understand the general puropse of the word in that context.

As an example of this, If I say John loves Susan, it is general and many things could be contrived from it. But, if I place within "Compared to how he treats Linda, John loves Susan."

Or, "John loves Susan but He would never marry her because she believes Christ is God and he is an atheist."

Or, "No-one can question whether John loves Susan...all you have to do is see them together to know that."

Now we can increase the difficulty of understanding "John loves Susan" taken by looking at what the intended understanding of "love" is in the context of the statement. In the first, it would seem that sarcasm is present, and love as understood in sentence three is not in view. In sentence two, love as seen in sentence three is also not seen because a love that is dependant upon another submitting to one's own ideals would be by most rejected as love as seen in sentence three.

Now in regards to "dust," it is a general term that is translated so that the composition of man and where that came from is given in easily understandable terms. If it said "God created man from calcium, phosphorus, sulphar..." and went on to list all the components of man's make-up, would that have been more convincing? Seeing that man was not aware of this composition nor had in fact given them these names at this time would have led to confusion, right?

Lastly, what I sought to do was simply address the fact that the word translate dust was not intended to viewed as literal household dust, and the fact that the word is translated by other words representing other materials points this out. For example, when filling in a well, did they sweep their homes, collect the dust, and then fill in the well, or, are the ashes of a burnt heifer to be confused with the dust that produces iron?

In short, no "wording has been changed," simply the understanding of "dust" examined in light of biblical usage, even as we would examine in context what our modern usage of the word "cool" intends:

He is not cool because he studies scripture.

Compared to an attic on a hot day, our house is cool even though the AC is not working.

He needs to cool his heels.

Same word, but if we do not examine the usage in context, we will make the mistake of thinking that scripture describes the creation of a golem.

(16-06-2012 07:56 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  The bible isn't meant to be untranslated and then re-translated.

The use of the LXX and the fact that it is quoted in the New Testament lends credibility to the position that translation is acceptable. Furthermore, even if one knows the original language, scripture was always intended to be for all men, regardless of their language. God has not withheld His will from a single person.

(16-06-2012 07:56 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  If God was actually involved in the process of bible-writing and bible-transcription, then it should read in a way that someone without access to the original language and manuscripts (such as a tribal person in a 3rd-world country) can still understand it.

And you give the very reason why so many translations are available, because this simple concept is believed by many.

This has been the effort of many sincere believers for millennia. The process has had it's challenges, of course, but, the usual intent of translation into another language is that it might be made understandable to a people in their own language. A reading of the KJV 1611 Preface shows that the KJV translators understood this.

One search result says...

Quote:Translations of at least part of the Bible have been made into more than 2,530 languages, including complete Old or New Testaments in 1,715 languages, and the ...


...and that is a lot of languages. There will be problems, such as in the case where the symbolism of the sacrifice faces difficulties for the people that have never seen a lamb, for instance. One said that a certain missionary used "guinea pigs" in their place, and the fallout when people of this tribe learned about sheep was disastrous (though I think he exxagerates a little).


(16-06-2012 07:56 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  The humor is compounded when you realize that Christians believe that the problems in translation actually originated with God in an attempt to stop the Tower of Babel from being constructed (besides the fact that an all-powerful God could've made a world in which language was truly universal to begin with).

Language was universal when God created the world. How many languages would on think would be among two people and their offspring?

Babel was the result of judgment on those that were disbodient to God. The languages were "confounded" at this time, and scripture presents the intent of the "confounding" as well as defines it by giving the intent within the same verse:


Genesis 11 (KJV)

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.




(16-06-2012 07:56 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Even if we are to assume that you're right and the translation isn't what it appears to be from a common-sense perspective,

That is just it: it is what it appears when approached with common-sense. But where common-sense is left behind is when context and intent is overlooked.

Another example would be the "heaven" that they sought to reach with their tower: does it refer to the sky, or does it refer to the Kingdom of God? The spiritual realm which is taught elsewhere in scripture to be where God resides?

If we look at the fact that this follows a worldwide flood, and these people are openly disobedient to God, the likely interpretation would be that the sky is in view, and the tower meant to be a "safety" should God destroy the earth again by flood, their hope being to build it high enough that they would survive such another event, thereby making God's ability to impose judgment obsolete.

The simple intent of man's creation would be that God created man from the elements of the earth. Common-sense would take this for what it means, rather than seeking to ridicule it because the actual elements we have identified through science are not mentioned, and, to make it seem ridiculous because the thought that man was made from houselhold dust can be shown to be scientifically incorrect.

(16-06-2012 07:56 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  then the problem lies with God's inability to get across the concepts that he meant to get across.

If this were true, then why is it that many are opposed to that which God did get across?

Do you not understand that God's word teaches that He created man? Of course you do. The fact that this knowledge is rejected does not change the fact that you understand this, right? You understand the concept of sin, right? The concept of the flood? The concept of the Savior? The level of understanding does not change the fact that you have understood them, and rejected them.

And understand this, Starcrash, this is not said to call anyone's intelligence into question, it is simply a matter of examining the issues in a little more detail. I can understand that viewing this in the strictest literal sense and placing it in a modern context would cause some confusion, but unless it is held to it's intent within the context, as in the examples above, common sense really does not play a part, nor is a consideration.

Just as "John loves Susan" could be easily placed into a context of our own desire, even so dust, when placed in a context that it might be ridiculed can be also.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 12:08 PM
RE: Question for creationists
(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I've a list of my own questions

So if Genesis can be regarded by many Christians as a fairy tale, not to be taken literally - doesn't that make "Original Sin" a fairy tale as well?


Hello Seasbury, and thank you for the question, as well as the "questions" of the link. My answer to this one would be that for those Christians that take a liberal view of scripture and designate the contents of Genesis to be fairy tales, you are correct...they are for them nothing but fairy tales.

Now the flip-side of that question is, "What do you do with the belief that many Christians hold that Genesis gives an account of how the world began, as well as events in the lives of men following it?"

So for the one viewing this to be fable (not allegory), there is liberty to present whatever they wish to be fable, or untrue, simply one way to point out truths. But for those that are literal in their beliefs (which unfortunately, is construed to mean everything is literal despite the fact that scripture usually makes it clear as what is symbolic, figurative, metaphorical, et cetera) that view this as quite different from fable or allegory, meaning, Adam was a real man, not just a "picture of the first man," and the events that are given represent the events themselves, the account of Genesis describes "Original Sin" as this particular man's disobedience to God. And that disobedience resulted in separation from God which would be true of his descendants also.

In the video posted at the end of this work (and I did not watch it all: if you would like to discuss the statements within it I am afraid it will have to wait until my next visit) it is stated "to the baby" that he is worthless. If this were biblical teaching, in the most literal sense, then csripture would collapse because scripture is both implicitly and explicitly clear that God does not consider man, even in his fallen state...to be worthless.

If that were true, then God would not have sent His own Son to die, that man might live. That an end to the separation that began in the Genesis account might be neded, and man reconciled to God. No-one puts effort into that which is considered worthless.

Okay, I will briefly address your article, which by the date seems to be a recent work.

Quote:Original Sin?

Posted on June 17, 2012


OK, I know many Christians that are not Bible literalists – they see the Bible as the God’s interpreted word, filled with allegories, inspired stories, all intended to help guide Christians closer to their God.


First you need to understand that just as one would not take a statement found in secular literature such as Sherlock Holmes' statement "The mind is like an attic" to be literal. It represents a view that the mind should not be overstocked with meaningless information that will do, in this case (no pun intended), the deductive reasoner no earthly good.

For example:



Genesis 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
[/quote]

It is assumed that all literalists would view this to mean warfare between the descendants of Eve and serpents. However, when viewed with the entirety of scripture I myself regard this to be the first promise of God's salvation through Messiah. The promise being that One will be born that will deliver man from the judgment that Adam's disobedience has brought upon the human race.

And just as in the case of the discussion about "dust," this can be ridiculed from a perspective of "common sense" simply by noting that there are those among the human race that actually have a respect and even a love for snakes.

But keeping in mind that an overview in scripture of this event reveals that it was Satan, not a reptile, that is in view. Consider:


[size=large]
Revelation 12:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


The "serpent" is held, even by us literalists (lol), to be Satan, a fallen angel. The exact nature of the serpent in Genesis is indicated to be a literal creature, and the judgment that falls upon the creature is often viewed to explain "why snakes have no legs," but, for myself, because there is so little to work with, I am left to conjecture concerning explicit details of this event. Did animals have a greater intelligence then? Was speech possible for them? I don't know, so, I do not present speculation as something that was intended to be derived from the account.

What I do not have to theorize about is what is given, and at the front would be the account of why man is born separated from God. And that there are now conditions in the world that were not present before Adam's disobedience.


Quote:But there are those out there — many in fact — that believe the Bible is God’s word and that every single thing in the Bible happened exactly as it appears in the book.

This is misleading. It does not give a proper description of interpretational efforts by those that rightly divide the word of God.

The literal intent of a passage has to be confined to what is written. Because I believe lterally that God created the world in six days, that man became separated from Him spiritually through disobedience, that there was a global flood...does not mean that I believe that every single word is literal.

Within the creation account, for example, we see examples of general statement, such as the expanse which separated the waters, I do not have to limit this to water in liquid form, but can take a view that it represents liquid water upon the earth, and perhaps water in a gaseous state surrounding the earth.

Another example that could be given would be the statements by individuals in scripture. One of the biggest errors in interpretation is to view every statement to be truth. What is recorded as having been said by someone has to be measured according to the direct statement of God. Satan's tempting of Christ, for example, contains quote from scripture, but, was what he said...true?


Quote:Gallup Poll — July 2011

If the poll is to be viewed as reliable, then more detail as to what is meant by "The Bible is the inspired word but not everything should be taken literally." This would describe me, but the impression that is given is "there are parts of the Bible that are not true." And this is not the view I take, but rather that scripture has to be viewed in context so that the intent is discovered. I do not take the verse given above to mean that Satan is literally a dragon, but this speech represents the creature that is a fallen angel, even as we would call a serial killer...a monster.

Quote:I was reading Genesis the other night, for the hundredth or so time, and I couldn’t help but wonder how anyone can read that text literally. Aesop himself would have found it silly!

First, would you be honest enough to admit bias? That perhaps you are looking for points to criticize, rather than looking at the text itself? This is understandable, and I admit that, we all do it.

I guess the "silly aspects" are found in the following questions, and I will address those best as I can.


Quote:I know, Genesis has been deconstructed a million times – and all the weird inconsistencies contained throughout have been exposed a similar number of times.


Could you illustrate this? I hope it is not thought that the following questions do so.

Quote:Questions I always had, even when I was a Christian included:

■Why did God have to mark Cain after killing Abel so that others would not harm him?




Genesis 4

King James Version (KJV)

13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.



The assumption is to place events in a period or sequence of time that has Adam and Eve having two children, the next day Cain slays Abel, and then wonder who in the world will kill Cain? Why not assume that if Cain is worried that revenge will be taken on him...it is evident that there are more than four people on the earth?

But just as the creation account is thought to cover about a week of history, including the expansion of ch.3, here no thought is given to the fact that these two brothers have become men of trades, which does not happen overnight. At the least we can see one season, enough for a garden to be planted and harvested for Cain to bring an offering which, just as we are not told what is to be brought, is found to be in disobedience by the fact that Abel's offering...is accepted.

Now, if we allow for at least one season, and the content of the account demands this at least, we can also say that because of Cain's fear that others will take revenge, it is not only likely but probable that many seasons have passed, and that in this time there has been an increase in population that accounts for Cain's fear of revenge. Just because we are not given a genealogy that includes the offspring of either Abel or the "other sons of Adam" and that he had other children comes after this account, it is assumed that it is silly to think that there were others in existence at this time. When the reasonable conclusion one should come to is that if Cain was fearful of others taking revenge upon him fr the sake of Abel...this indicates the exostance of those very people.

But as I said, we are inclined to eisegete the text when our motivations are for personal reasons rather than an honest desire to know the intent of the passage. This is committed far more by bible students than atheists, by the way.


Quote:Weren’t the only others around his mom and dad?

This would be an unreasonable conclusion. There would be no need for Cain to fear revenge if this were the case.

Quote:This gets explained by apologists all the time that god simultaneously created other humans –

And I would reject that assertion as well. There is no reason to believe that God created more than one man and woman and scripture actually states this is not the case:



[b]Genesis 3:20[/b]

King James Version (KJV)

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.


And if we keep in mind how to view scripture in a "literal" sense, we would not take this to mean, contrary to it's teaching, tht Eve was the mother of sea creatures, birds, and beasts as well. "All living" is a reference to mankind only.


Quote:which would make sense, except that’s NOT IN THE BIBLE!

It might make sense to some. There are those that take this view, but, I take the account to be literal in the sense that all of mankind descends from Adam and Eve. And that...is in the Bible.


Continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 02:33 PM
Continued response:
(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  ■If murder is a capital offense, and one of the, much later commandments, why didn’t God smote Cain for murdering his brother?

Because until the Law was instituted, God did not enforce that which was not commanded. That God was displeased with Cain's actions can be seen, but, the "mean god" that atheists wish to portray is not the God of the Bible. We see God being merciful to Cain, as it is unlikely that death for Cain would have been worse than his remaining alive. Now while we do not have an account that sacrifice was to be carried out in specific terms, we can deduce that Abel followed the command of God which made his offering pleasing, and Cain did not, making his offering displeasing. At this time, God seeks to encourage Cain to obedience, rather than "throwing the book at him." Have you given much consideration to this part of the story?

But it is apparent that when it is convenient, God is blasphemed for judging and imposing death, and ridiculed for not imposing death. This exposes the bias with which this is approached, and the conclusions are forced to conform to personal belief.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  ■Who did Cain have sex with to start his own people? Mom was the only one around…

Can you see the derision such a statement carries?

While I lean to the probability that there were other sons and daughters after Cain and Abel despite the fact that ch.5 indicates that Adam had them after Seth's birth (which would imply there were no other siblings from which to draw a wife), we still have no difficulty here despite the attempts to create one.

It could be that 1) the length of time between Cain's curse and his taking of a wife was a considerable amount of time, which, for the ages given that men lived to would have been a brief amount of time; 2) the error of limiting the events to a short period in which there could have been enough time to see a population increase is the only reason a difficulty arises.

I think Cain's fear evidences other people on the earth, all descended from Eve. Because we have no distinct mention of other siblings does not give us cause to reject the notion, just as we cannot reject the notion that God had commanded sacrifice for sin already, though we do not have a direct statement such as we find when the First Covenant was instituted.


(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Getting past Eden and moving on…
■In a relatively short period of time, there are tons of people milling about and god finds his creation extremely wicked and doing ungodly things — so he floods the earth killing everything except Noah, his three sons, and their wives. Now the world needs repopulating again! Was Noah part of Cain’s line?

No. While the names are similar, it is clear that Noah descends from Seth.

And I just have to ask: in light of the population explosion in the past century, why would it be thought strange that the population of the earth would greatly increase in the time given before the flood?

If I have done my math correctly, Adam died 126 years before the flood, Methusaleh, Noah's father, outlives his son (Noah's father) by five years to die...the year of the flood. A question that arises from this, supposing I have done my math right, is...did Methusaleh die of old age, or did he die in the flood itself?

If he did die in the flood, this would, in my opinion, show the impartiality of God in judgment.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  wasn’t he (and his line) marked for protection?

For the revenge of Abel. It did not mean that Cain would never die, nor did it give him license to sin without fear of judgment. Keep in mind Cain was a farmer, and the curse made it impossible for him to continue in that pursuit. His punishment, as I said, was probably far more severe than if he had been put to death, from his perspective, that is.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  This mark of Cain justified centuries of racism and slavery…my heads hurting…

How this conclusion is reached I would not care to guess. Could you expand on this?

This type of reasoning assumes that everyone has a veangeful spirit and not capable of forgiveness for Cain. It also denies the possibility of his interaction among people that were unaware of the events that transpired.

But again, I am sure there must be a basis for this conclusion which makes your head hurt, and I would be curious to see it.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  ■From here, Noah and scion get down to the business of repopulating — and sure enough, the world is full again in no time.

Why does this seem strange? See here for a chart (updated by Nat. Geo.).



(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Now people decide the best way to get to god is to build a tower.

This is if you view the actions of these people as "trying to get to God."

Some Bible Scholars view Nimrod to be a rebel, and that in fact he was an enemy of God. The account would back this up, as well as the conusing of languages which caused them to spread out.

Now Genesis 10 and 11 should be enough to give one enough material to look at in itself. And rather than calling scripture into question, it could in fact be viewed to strengthen the position of the believer.

For example, we see here:


Genesis 10

King James Version (KJV)

5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.


32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.


It may have escaped your attention but this (emboldened) indicates multiple languages, with the account of how languages became multiple given...after this information is given. Just as in the case of Cain finding a wife, the fact that the information is not given in a chronological order, the conclusions of some would be to find this contradictory...or silly. But the existance of diversity of nations is given before the account of how they became diverse. A timeline apart from the lineage is not given, and we must work within what we are specifically given, pointing out specualations we might personally believe.

The similarities found between the biblical account and the Epic of Gilgamesh also lead some to believe that Gilgamesh was in fact Nimrod. If you are interested in those similarities, let me know, but, you can easily find this information...if you want to.


(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  God gets a bit freaked out – kind of like people do when undesirables try to get into a gated community –

Very poor analogy.

Rather than obey God's command to fill the earth, they set up camp in an act of defiance, thus bringing the judgment of diversity of peoples and tongues upon themselves. Had they not rebelled and sought to establish their own path of salvation, which would be to build a tower that could withstand another flood thereby negating their dependance upon God (which was surely the basis for their actions), then they would not have been (at this time) dispersed.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  so me waves his magic wand and everyone now speaks a new language –

Pretty cool, yes?

Well, apart from the magic wand...God need only speak His will and it happens.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  distracting them from their tower building.

Not distracting from this, but a clear sign that God's will takes precedence over man's. It was a sign to them to forego their rebellious nature, and one that shows His mercy. He could have simply destroyed them...again.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  If God hadn’t intervened, would they have made it to heaven?

Did those that built the Empire State building...make it to heaven?

Whether they progressed enough to consider they "made it into the sky" or not is not given, but it is doubtful they got very far. The "heaven" in view is the sky, not the spiritual Kingdom of God. There is no reason to place honorable intentions on these people, but in fact to see them in rebellion to God.

Consider:


Genesis 11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech
.

Keep in mind that in chapter ten we see statement to diversity among man. Here, it is clarified that "the whole earth was of one language," literally a reference to the fact that there was one tongue/language only.



2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.


... lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Why would this be significant, if not open rebellion to that which was God's will for them?

And it is this...


Genesis 9

King James Version (KJV)

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.


...that they rebelled against.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Did he relocate it after the fact – load up the truck and giddy-up Clampett style?

Did He relocate the sky? No...it is still there.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  ■Oh, back to Noah — so the physical properties of a rainbow never existed until after flood?

Remember that until the flood, it is said that there was no rain as of yet. And while I have seen rainbows in even a )seemingly) cloudless sky, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that "the physical properties of a rainbow never existed until after flood" never existed until after the flood. However, that it became a sign that God would never again flood the earth remains intact and this is known to many.

If I had a dispute with you over a property boundary, wherein we bickered over ownership of an apple tree that was on both of our lands, and I decided to cede to your claim of total ownership, I could say, "From here on out this tree belongs to you" and you take the sign in your yard that says "The Seasburys'" on it, does it preclude that this sign could not have pre-existed? Poor analogy, I know, but, if you look at it from the perspective of giving something a meaning that it previously did not before, then you might also include this in your reasoning concerning rainbows. Their physical properties, even as man's when it is said that he was made from the "dust" of the earth, are not in view. It is popularly held that there were no rainbows because their was no rain, but, I cannot with the information available be dogmatic upon this point. I tend to think that this was new, but I also look at the fact that before this event, there was no rain and the association of the "bow" was before this not in place as a sign of the promise of God.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I could go on, but you get the point.

I do. Which is why I responded to this post.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Bible literalists are often referred to as Young Earth Creationists (YEC).

Again a generalization that is in error. There are those that consider themselves "bible-literalists" in the truest sense of the term that believe the earth is millions of years old. The "Gap Restoration Theory" is embraced by many.

A YEC is simply a term for one that believes the earth is not that old. And I am one without shame. I believe this world to be approaching six thousand years old, and that when it does, the final millenium will begin and this thousand year period will be the "rest" promised to the people of God. Not just the Jew, but for all those that trust in Christ. We are told that in this period we will see a restoration of the earth that while it will not be identical to conditions of earth in it's original creation, we will see some remarkable changes.

One could be a YEC yet still embrace a more liberal theology than what is usually associated with those that typically are called YECers.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I know a few – they are friends AND well-educated people, yet they believe humans hung out with dinosaurs (Flintstones anyone?),

Why is that strange? Has science identified Behemoth, or Leviathan?

Again we are dealing with a limited amount of information, but, we can see in man's mythology a clear pattern of belief in dragons, for example. Are they a construct of man's imagination? Or did a knowledge of beasts that dragons so resemble get passed down through history?

And yes, I was a flinstones fan when I was a kid. Particularly liked the vitamins Fred and Wilma made.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  reject the notion of evolution (seeing it as a satanic myth),

Well, I believe that most beliefs have some aspect of truth to them. Take UFOs and ghosts: I would not doubt the integrity of someone that told me they saw either, but...I would doubt what it is they saw. I know demonic activity is laughed at, however, if one does accept the existance of these beings, is it so ridiculous that they would credit these beings with deceiving people? If they can take on the appearance of whatever it is they choose, would it seem strange that they would take on these appearances, for whatever reason? In the case of UFOs, we could guess that this would feed into a belief in evolution, as aliens might answer one of the biggest questions for the religionist: where did we come from?

And since no mention is made in scripture of existance on other planets, this would kill two birds with one stone.

As far as evolution being a satanic myth, I don't overlook the fact that people and animals can adapt to new surroundings, bringing about physical changes that can be documented. but as far as man evolvong from the primodial ooze, I view it as a theory only in which far more money has been spent on in searching to verify this belief than on probably any other pursuit of man.

It is much how most belief systems are created: believe something...then go find the proof for what you believe. What proof did Darwin have? Was it not considered a theory back then? Why would it be strange that I still consider it a theory, and man's attempt to both prove it and disprove scripture at the same time?

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  and believe that carbon dating is unreliable.

And this I do.

So how do we prove it? Will not those that believe in it and place great faith only bring forth evidence to strengthen their position? And those that do not...the same thing?

So it becomes for the layman a matter of faith.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I asked one friend who brought up the unreliability of carbon dating if he could then explain how light from distant stars takes millions of years for us to see it.

There is no difficulty in this question: God created light and it was there. This occurs on the first day according to Genesis. It is not until the fourht day that at the very least...the bodies of heaven in our galaxy were created. And this to mark time.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Apparently YECs have been busy trying to figure this problem out.

Perhaps some of them.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Creationism is big nowadays! And profitable! Which makes it worth pursuing in America. Wherever there is a buck to be made, you will always find some snake oil salesman there to capitalize on it. If you can throw in a little good time religion on top of that – especially when you’re able to tap into people’s prejudices – you can make a mint — like these guys!

Everything is profitable, and there will be those that will seek to make money, even in areas of religion. They show their unbelief when they do this, being contrary to that which scripture teaches.

I see that most of the examples you give a primarily from Charismatic faiths, as most of the charlatans on TV are.

How about posting some of the sincere ministers of the New Covenant that make very little for their efforts? How about making it known that there are those that minister at their own expese, as Paul exampled?

But you post people that are obviously fraudulaent with making an effort to examine their doctrine and determine if they are in fact true believers.

The "Health/Wealth movement" is a good example: does God mean for all believers to be healthy and wealthy? Contrary to a promise of tribulation whilst we are in this world? Contrary to the persecution that even to this day goes on daily?

This is just a cheap shot that has no real integrity, and is given specifically for the intent of generalizing all Christians into a picture that many nurse their anger and hatred with.

And it is shameful.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Oh yeah, back to my title! Original sin — so if you don’t buy into creationism, but still believe the bible to be inspired by god, if you don’t believe the Adam and Eve story as literal – then why did Jesus have to die? What was his sacrifice for?

Ask someone that denies that Adam was a literal, historical figure.

I myself see both the First Adam and the Last Adam, not allegories, but literal men that scripture gives details about.

"Original Sin" is a term that is batted around so much that even in your own article, Seasbury, it is so convoluted that what scripture teaches concerning sin and the means of redemption through the Sacrifice of Christ rarely enters the conversation.

And it is really not that complicated.

(17-06-2012 12:56 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  If the “original sin” was that bitch Eve biting the apple, ruining it for every human being after her – but she was a fairy tale – what exactly was the original sin that we are all guilty of? Why was a sacrifice required in the first place?

Eve is not branded as the one that committed "original sin." It is Adam that is said to have sinned, the implication being that he with full knowledge...disobeyed God's command not to eat of the tree. I do not necessarily designate "magical properties" to this fruit, and it is unnecessary to do so. Just as an animal sacrifice did not cure disease, neither was it the consumption of this fruit that separated man from God.

It was disobedience.

Okay. I will end this here. I could not get the video or the links in your article to appear in this, so if you wish to pursue any points you feel you made by posting them, just let me know. I would be curios to know why you give the definition of fable for allegory as well.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:14 PM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2012 10:41 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Question for creationists
(19-06-2012 10:13 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  If this were true, then why is it that many are opposed to that which God did get across?

Do you not understand that God's word teaches that He created man? Of course you do. The fact that this knowledge is rejected does not change the fact that you understand this, right? You understand the concept of sin, right? The concept of the flood? The concept of the Savior? The level of understanding does not change the fact that you have understood them, and rejected them.

And understand this, Starcrash, this is not said to call anyone's intelligence into question, it is simply a matter of examining the issues in a little more detail. I can understand that viewing this in the strictest literal sense and placing it in a modern context would cause some confusion, but unless it is held to it's intent within the context, as in the examples above, common sense really does not play a part, nor is a consideration.
Can you even look at scripture without begging the question? I know you're working from an assumption that things *had* to be the way they are, but it's logically inconsistent.

I think I made a rather good point about language and our difficulty with it. You're familiar with the story of the disciples "speaking in tongues" in the book of Acts, correct? This is merely one example of how the bible could not only prove the miraculous power of God but also be understandable by everyone -- if everyone could read it in his or her own language without need for translation. This is merely one example of how God could have done things better. And yes, I can judge God's actions and call into question whether he did it the "best" way. I'm not going to throw away rational thinking just to assume that God is perfect. He clearly isn't.

I think you know the answer to why "many are opposed to what God did get across"... we don't believe that it's true. It's the same reason that you, STranger, are "opposed to what Allah did get across" via the Q'uran. You don't accept that it is a holy book filled with truth, and thus you hardly care about the rationalizations of Muslims trying to defend the infallibility of their scripture. Foolishness can always be rationalized. Bias makes it happen.

So every time you want to defend the bible when it clearly makes an impossible or irrational claim, feel free to "put it in context". Just be aware that every religion does the same, and we hardly care about those rationalizations... you and I both see them for what they are. But you're either incapable or unwilling to turn that same critical eye on your own religion.

Finally, in anticipation of a rebuttal along the lines of "but you're incapable or unwilling to turn a critical eye on atheism", it's just not true. Doesn't the idea of Christianity appeal to you? It sure appeals to me. I'd love to spend an eternity in Heaven, and I'm very open the idea of such a thing being true. I've always argued with hopes that my opponent can convince me with something besides rationalization. Surely if you wanted convincing truth, God would give it to you. He hasn't. In fact, He doesn't seem to lend you very much help here. He doesn't ever post anything Himself. He doesn't speak to us directly. He doesn't give your words the power to change hearts. It's like He isn't even there. It would be great if He were, because I could use that kind of assistance myself, but I guess I'll just have to stick to arguments because they've been proven to have some limited power to persuade, and I guess you probably will, too.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:34 PM
RE: Question for creationists
(11-06-2012 07:52 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I've actually heard an answer to this. Allow me to provide it and refute it (efficiency at its best).

Some YECs say that we were made out of "the dust of the ground" because God wanted to make us naturally. You see, they claim that all of the elements that make up humans can be found in dust, and that's absolutely true... because a significant portion of dust is made up of dead skin cells.

The original dust of the ground would not have contained these skin cells because there was no one to shed them, and without those cells the raw materials for humans would disappear, too.
That might hold true if there weren't two completely different accounts of the creation of mankind.

In one Adam and Eve are created at the same time. In the second one Eve is created after the fact and from a rib.
The Bible starts contradicting itself pretty much immediately.
Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:40 PM
RE: Continued response:
a YEC Wrote:A YEC is simply a term for one that believes the earth is not that old. And I am one without shame. I believe this world to be approaching six thousand years old, and that when it does, the final millenium will begin and this thousand year period will be the "rest" promised to the people of God. Not just the Jew, but for all those that trust in Christ. We are told that in this period we will see a restoration of the earth that while it will not be identical to conditions of earth in it's original creation, we will see some remarkable changes.
You probably think jesus is going to suddenly be seen floating around above Jerusalem too, but that is never going to happen my silly friend. I thought fairy tales were cool too when I was a child and even still kinda like Jack & the Beanstalk .... doesn't mean I go around spilling beans outside my windows at night.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: