Ed and God

Jeanie

slightofjeff wrote:

Because he claimed to be the Son of God. Actually, he claimed to BE God. And said anyone who did not believe him and follow him would die in the pits of hell.

He is either a false prophet, leading people astray, a crazy person who really believes this stuff, or actually who he said he was. Liar, lunatic or Lord ... he leaves no room for any other alternative.

You've missed my point.

None of us were there and even supposing we were we'd all have a different eye witness statement to make about the events that unfolded.

So what you're saying he said is only 2000 years of chinese whispers.

He could just be a naughty little boy.

slightofjeff

Jeanie wrote:

So what you're saying he said is only 2000 years of chinese whispers.

It's not like the Gospels were written 2000 years later, by people who were not there. They were written almost immediately, by people who were.

Jesus said what he said. It's as much an historical fact as the Magna Carta or Declaration of Independence.

I'd be willing to concede some things could get lost in translation, but not everything.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

i disagree with you jeanie. how can you be an atheist and still consider the possibility that you are incorrect about the existence of God? thats what i call agnosticism.

up until the age of 11 i was entertaining the idea that God was possible. then i guess i had a revelation of sorts and decided for myself through reading and conversation that i could not reconcile the existence of a God with what i felt inside. it just made zero sense to me. and it still makes zero sense to me. i have never wavered in this opinion and never ever considered that i could be wrong. i guess my extreme conviction is the only thing i have in common with believers.

You can label me anyway you like cate.
I consider myself an athiest. I don't believe in God but then I don't believe in absolutes either. So as far as I'm concerned I'm 99.999999999999% sure there is no God but I don't have the zeal for extreme conviction when it comes to anything, even athiesm, that doesn't make me agnostic.
No revelation here, just a growing questioning over the years about a higher power, with me being here now, not believing. But like I always say, I could be wrong ( I highly doubt it ) I've been wrong before.

Jeanie

slightofjeff wrote:

It's not like the Gospels were written 2000 years later, by people who were not there. They were written almost immediately, by people who were.

Jesus said what he said. It's as much an historical fact as the Magna Carta or Declaration of Independence.

I'd be willing to concede some things could get lost in translation, but not everything.

Yes, they were written at the time and subjectively, filtered through the belief system of the people doing the writing, not to mention there was probably political motivations at play. So before we even look at how they've been interpreted over the eons, we have to make allowances for who wrote them and their motivations and filters at the time.

Which is much like taking for gospel what Eddie wrote and what he meant when he wrote the songs that he did.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

You can label me anyway you like cate.
I consider myself an athiest. I don't believe in God but then I don't believe in absolutes either. So as far as I'm concerned I'm 99.999999999999% sure there is no God but I don't have the zeal for extreme conviction when it comes to anything, even athiesm, that doesn't make me agnostic.
No revelation here, just a growing questioning over the years about a higher power, with me being here now, not believing. But like I always say, I could be wrong ( I highly doubt it ) I've been wrong before.

i wasnt labelling you an agnostic jeanie. knowing you, i just figured you were putting that possibility out there, for others. i just questioned your statment is all.
i too have been wrong before, but only when it comes to humans and their and my frailties. but i dont doubt my conviction or my opinion when it comes to this subject.

grazman

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't think evolution necessarily contradicts what the Bible said. It just depends on how you interpret it.

yeah, if you've been on the wakky bakky. How does the evolution of simple celled animals, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to primates to man not contradict the bible where Man was supposedly made from some dust by God and woman from one of adam's ribs.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

i wasnt labelling you an agnostic jeanie. knowing you, i just figured you were putting that possibility out there, for others. i just questioned your statment is all.
i too have been wrong before, but only when it comes to humans and their and my frailties. but i dont doubt my conviction or my opinion when it comes to this subject.

Yeah, I know, when I said "you" I meant anyone can label me anyway they like, it's not going to change who I am, only how I am perceived.

I guess for me it all boils down to conviction. I'm a fence sitter on most things, as you know, so to hold an unwavering conviction that god does not exist seems almost as foolish a thing for me to do as hold an unwavering conviction that he does exist. Knowing that I can and have been wrong about things, I need to make the allowance for it. Granted when it comes to the existence of God it's only a minute allowance, but I make it non the less because I am well aware that I don't know everything absolutely.

When it comes to Eddie and his lyrics and the interpretation of his lyrics my thought is that we should all continue to place the meaning upon his work that makes the most sense to us as he has invited us to do so, numerous times. I think that's a really precious gift that he has given. One that not all artists are able to give.

Jeanie

grazman wrote:

yeah, if you've been on the wakky bakky. How does the evolution of simple celled animals, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to primates to man not contradict the bible where Man was supposedly made from some dust by God and woman from one of adam's ribs.

I gotta say though, that the running about neked in paradise and eating apples is a much more appealing story than you were once a fish.

slightofjeff

grazman wrote:

yeah, if you've been on the wakky bakky. How does the evolution of simple celled animals, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to primates to man not contradict the bible where Man was supposedly made from some dust by God and woman from one of adam's ribs.

Perhaps not everything in the Genesis story -- or the entire Bible, for that matter -- was meant to be taken literally.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ..." could still take place via evolution.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Yeah, I know, when I said "you" I meant anyone can label me anyway they like, it's not going to change who I am, only how I am perceived.

I guess for me it all boils down to conviction. I'm a fence sitter on most things, as you know, so to hold an unwavering conviction that god does not exist seems almost as foolish a thing for me to do as hold an unwavering conviction that he does exist. Knowing that I can and have been wrong about things, I need to make the allowance for it. Granted when it comes to the existence of God it's only a minute allowance, but I make it non the less because I am well aware that I don't know everything absolutely.

When it comes to Eddie and his lyrics and the interpretation of his lyrics my thought is that we should all continue to place the meaning upon his work that makes the most sense to us as he has invited us to do so, numerous times. I think that's a really precious gift that he has given. One that not all artists are able to give.

well you know me jeanie i make no allowances for the possibility that i could be wrong about something i have such a strong opinion on. to even entertain the possibility that God exists would be a betrayal to my self. and that is my truth.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

well you know me jeanie i make no allowances for the possibility that i could be wrong about something i have such a strong opinion on. to even entertain the possibility that God exists would be a betrayal to my self. and that is my truth.

Yes, I understand. I admire you for it too.

I'm just wired different I think.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Yes, I understand. I admire you for it too.

I'm just wired different I think.

were all wired differently. imagine if we were all sheep.

grazman

slightofjeff wrote:

Perhaps not everything in the Genesis story -- or the entire Bible, for that matter -- was meant to be taken literally.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ..." could still take place via evolution.

It doesnt matter which way you interpret it and how much spin you put on words in the bible to make them fit, you cannot make the line 'God made Adam out of dust' into 'human beings evolved from primates'. Thats the contradiction, thats the basic arguement of Darwinism vs Creationism.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

were all wired differently. imagine if we were all sheep.

Australia! Where men are blokes and sheep are nervous!

ajedigecko

Jeanie wrote:

Yes, they were written at the time and subjectively, filtered through the belief system of the people doing the writing, not to mention there was probably political motivations at play. So before we even look at how they've been interpreted over the eons, we have to make allowances for who wrote them and their motivations and filters at the time.

Which is much like taking for gospel what Eddie wrote and what he meant when he wrote the songs that he did. [/QUOT


there was nothing for the authors to gain but death, by recording what they witnessed.

slightofjeff

grazman wrote:

It doesnt matter which way you interpret it and how much spin you put on words in the bible to make them fit, you cannot make the line 'God made Adam out of dust' into 'human beings evolved from primates'. Thats the contradiction, thats the basic arguement of Darwinism vs Creationism.

Moses, who wrote Genesis 4,000 years ago, had never heard of evolution, so he put it in words he could understand. Genesis could be seen as a parable, just like there are parables in the New Testament.

Again, not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Saying "God created Adam out of dust" could mean God created Adam out of single cells that evolved, yada yada yada. Ie ... the "dust" isn't literal "dust." Just like the six "days" of creation weren't literal "days."

There is a whole school of thought that seeks to reconcile the scientific evidence that points to evolution with the creation story in Genesis.

If you want to interpret Genesis as word-for-word literal, that's fine. But it isn't the only way Christians -- even many mainstream Christians -- choose to interpret it.

Jeanie

ajedigecko wrote:

There was nothing for the authors to gain but death, by recording what they witnessed.

Well I don't think that's probably accurate. For some maybe, but I can imagine that there were all kinds of interested parties wanting to put a spin on the events. Not unsimilar to now and right throughout history really. Regardless of whether the man himself was actually the son of god or simply someone who gathered a following, he was clearly a threat to the powers that be at the time and very obviously someone that made an impact during his time on earth. My point being that "recording what they witnessed" is subjective. You only have to look at conflicting witness statements to understand that about human nature.

slightofjeff

Jeanie wrote:

Well I don't think that's probably accurate.

Pretty much every single author of the New Testament ended up executed. So, I'd actually say it's pretty accurate. These guys had no incentive to write what they wrote, other than they believed it.

PJammin'

slightofjeff wrote:

Did you read anything that I posted, or did you just see David Koresh and Jesus in the same sentence and lose your freakin' mind?

nope, didn't lose my mind...YET.

This is often the problem with talking to irrational Christians. They don't listen and react purely on emotion. I'm basically on your side here, and you're jumping down my throat.

i'm not an irrational Christian and i don't react purely on emotion. you don't even know me and it's a message board so posts can be taken the opposite way of the way they are intended. i wasn't jumping down your throat. i quoted you but i was making a general statement on the subject. it wasn't an attack on you at all. basically, i've heard the whole comparison with Jesus and david koresh and i was simply stating what made Jesus different from him.

Go back and read my post that you quoted (really, I'll wait). I specifically said he's NOT just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff." He can't be. He went out of his way to make people get off the fence and make a decision about him.

i'd say raising someone from the dead would make people get off the fence about him.

Liar, lunatic or Lord -- those are the only options available.

if this is a multiple choice, i'll take "c."

timsinclair

I know you are sincere slightofjeff, and I respect your view but I think it is mistaken. The idea of God and Darwin as mates is like a horse pulling a tractor. The tractor was created to replace the Horse, it has no need of the horse cos it can do the job all by itself. Darwinism was dreamed up as an alternative to the Genesis account and as I have said it is based entirely on the philosophy of naturalism, which explicitley rejects any divine cause for the natural world. Theologically, the problems of trying to fit the two together are massive. Genesis is clear that God's origional creation was 'very good', so evil, no sin, no death. Everyone, man and animal was vegetarian - no lions tearing Zebras apart with their teeth, as gen 1:30 says they were given 'every green plant for food’. Now, however much you try to allegorize these texts one vital thing is clear from the whole Bible: the entrance of pain, suffering, and death into the world is a consequence of Adam and Eve's rebellion against God. You can see this in Romans ch5: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men… death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses'. Without this foundation, the whole mission of Jesus is meaningless since he was sent to reverse the effects of Adam's sin, as Rom ch5 goes on to say:

'For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.’

The problem is that if, when Adam and Eve were walking about in the garden of Eden, and God said it was all 'very good', they were walking on top of hundreds of feet of sedimentary layers brimming with dead animals and protohumans, death did not come through Adam's sin so the work of Jesus is useless. If death and bloodshed, the suvival of the fittest, are the way that God created the world, then he is squarely responsible for all the suffering in the world, not us. What kind of all-powerfull God would design a world that can only progress through the strong destroying the weak, to me this kind of world is not 'very good'. If what Jesus did on the cross was really to reverse the effects of Adam's sin and so defeat sin and death, then all the sedimentary layers full of dead creatures MUST be post-eden. How could this be? well the answer is found 5 chapters later in genesis. If their really was a global flood that drowned the entire stock of life on earth (except those on the ark), then hundreds of feet of fossil-filled sediment all over the world is exactly what we should expect to find, and guess what - we do.
Peace.