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.
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.
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.
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.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
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.
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.
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.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
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.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
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.
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.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
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.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
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.
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.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
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."
I died. I died and you just stood there. I died and you watched. I died and you walked by and said no. I'm dead.
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.
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.
So even supposing that was true, that they had no incentive other than they believed it and they knew they would be executed for doing so, wouldn't you have to agree that perhaps their logic on the subject might have been a little flawed? That pehaps their thought processes in general were flawed?
And again I still say it's their interpretation of the events written through their own filters.
to compare Jesus to david koresh is just absurd. not only did Jesus perform numerous miracles that were well documented by different eyewitnesses, but Jesus NEVER took advantage of people for his own gain...ala mr. koresh. Jesus talked the talk and walked the walk. He backed up what He said. If you read all of His words it's quite obvious that He's not just "a good guy who said a lot of neat stuff."
Well documented?
You have that bible, that's all. That's not exactly what I call well documented.
It's an account of people who believed something to be true. If anyone came up with stuff like that today, everyone, everyone would say you couldn't get a more biased source.
We don't know shit about Jesus. There's hardly any evidence he existed.
It's faith. Koresh, Jesus, Mozes, thousands of people who claim to have heard god, to be god or Jesus. It's all faith. No proof whatsoever.
Perhaps there are still some Koresh followers, maybe you should let them write about Koresh. Read it and you'll see how wonderful he is. What miracle he did. Read about his death as a martyr. And don't forget, all the writers were of course inspired by the divine word of god. Who's to say it's wrong?
Do you have any proof? Maybe they can even put references to the OT in it, you know, to make the prophecy sound more real or accurate, that's what they did in the bible.
Actually Darwinism does have observable facts in fossil evidence of animals that lived millions / billions of years ago which can be accurately dated by carbon dating the rocks, so actually the past can be observed, quite clearly. And i don't know what website you read that says that mutations reduce genetic information because that i complete b######s, mutations change (not reduce) the genetic information giving the animal/plant an advantage or disadvantage. A mutation that gives the animal an advantage means it has a better chance of survival than the rest and so has a good chance of replacing the population. Through fossil evidence and natural selection there is a clear map of how the animal kindgom evolved over 6.5 billion years ago. Do i believe that, or do i believe a fairy tale written by man 2,000 years ago that has more holes in it than a fishing net....hmmmm.
Think about what you are saying grazman. Where do we observe the fossils, in the past, or in the present? The ONLY way we can observe the past is to travel back in time. Of course there are many important clues in the present that the past has left for us to study but fossils are not dug up with those little stickers that say 'Jurrassic period 65 million years ago', these are interpretations of the evidence imposed by the currently dominant model of origins, i.e darwinism. Look there are only two ways that the sedimentary rocks could have got there: 1. gradually through milions of years of sediment falling down through the air. or 2. very quickly through a global flood. Which way you interpret the strata depends on your philosophical outlook. If you believe in evolution the when you look at the strata in a cliff you will say 'wow look these bottom layers must be so old' but if you are a creationist you will say 'wow that was a serious flood'. We all use filters when we look at the evidence, a new perspective can radically alter our understanding of the sediment from representing billions of years of death and struggle to one year of catastrophie. when I look at the strata, I see a snapshot of life 5000 years ago, suddenly snuffed out and frozen for us too see. All the fossils show overwhelming evidence of sudden catastrophic burial, not gradual burial. Without sudden burial, animals do not fossilize, they are consumed, they rot, they leave nothing behind. When you next observe a cliff face, see how the different stratas bend and warp together, this shows that they were all soft at the same time, were distorted at the same time, and hardened into rock at the same time. Also search for images of polystrate fossils and you will see tree trunks that stretch across layers that are supposed to be millions of years apart.
Actually Darwinism does have observable facts in fossil evidence of animals that lived millions / billions of years ago which can be accurately dated by carbon dating the rocks, so actually the past can be observed, quite clearly. And i don't know what website you read that says that mutations reduce genetic information because that i complete b######s, mutations change (not reduce) the genetic information giving the animal/plant an advantage or disadvantage. A mutation that gives the animal an advantage means it has a better chance of survival than the rest and so has a good chance of replacing the population. Through fossil evidence and natural selection there is a clear map of how the animal kindgom evolved over 6.5 billion years ago. Do i believe that, or do i believe a fairy tale written by man 2,000 years ago that has more holes in it than a fishing net....hmmmm.
Also grazman.
Yes mutations can reshuffle genetic data but darwinism requires the generation of new data and no mutation has ever been observed to do this. to get from an ameba to a man, the information has to increase over time. By analogy, lets say the ameba has the same information as a childrens book and man has the information equivalent of an encyclopaedia. If you are going to get from one to the other you have to generate ne information - that is the problem.
Wow, you've been busy.
ok. When I talk about evolution, I am refering to Darwinism, and to neo-Darwinism.
It's called evolution. Just a tip. If you're looking up Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism you'll find plenty of christian propaganda sites and creationism sites and ID sites.
Look up the modern evolutionary synthesis. A good starting point is the link I gave you earlier.
I really think you've been misled about what evolution is.
I agree that ID has a large amount of philosophy in it too, unlike darwinism, it is open about this. The problem is that we are all taught Darwinism as if it is an observable fact but it is not, the past cannot be observed. We can only make inferences about the past by what it has left us in the present.
Here's an interesting read. I suggest you look at it, because "Darwinism" isn't what you've been taught it is. It will explain what is meant by observable fact.
ID has many philosophers within its ranks because ID is proposing a wider definition of science that allows design to be considered as a plausible alternative to Darwinism. ID also has many prominant scientists within its ranks, such as Dean H. Kenyon, Michael Denton, and Micheal Behe, who are doing ID science, i.e looking for evidence of design in biological systems.
When scientists find information, data that doesn't fit their original hypothesis, they change their hypothesis. When ID "scientists" find data that cannot be reconciled with their theory... they have to drop it, distort it or ignore it. They're fixed, bound to a belief. You say evolution is an philosophy (the irony is just too big, by the way), but it's not. There are plenty of christian, moslim, hindu evolution scientists , there are, however, no secular, moslim, hindu ID scientists.
Evolution is not tied to a belief that god cannot exist. No one is saying god didn't create evolution.
Many peer reviewed scientific papers have been published to this end. Saying that ID is 'not science' is such a lame piece of rhetoric. If You are a Darwinist and you are not afraid of ID, engage with the evidence and argument, dont just repeat the worn out mantra of the establishment. free your mind.
Show me evidence that hasn't been rebutted several times before. In fact, just show me one of the many peer reviewed scientific papers. One.
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.
I sort of agree with this. God makes zero sense to me. Any god.
I could believe in a sort of Spinoza's god, but not even that. If there is something out there, I think it's a force, like gravity. Not a force that thinks, or has intentions, and certainly not one that has anything to do with human beings. It just is, it doesn't think, doesn't wish... So if that were to exist, I would not worship it, because to me it would be like worshipping gravity. Pointless.
So, there is a shred of doubt in my mind, but even that isn't anything close to the image of god most people have.
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.
Depends of course what you mean by almost immediately. Twenty years after his death and up to 120 years after his death, that's hardly what I'd call 'immediately'.
To say that the things in the bible are historical fact just as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence is absolutely absurd.
There no debate about these two documents, and that's what they are documents. What is in them is just what is in them; rules, guidelines, etc. What is in the bible are the supposed words of someone who died 20 years after it was written - and in an age where information wasn't easily stored, it was mostly passed on orally.
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.
Star dust, dude.
When stars explode elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen... are released. Then these elements turn into new stars, the planets around them and life on these plantes.
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.
Who cares if you're going to die in this hellhole, they all believed they were going to paradise.
How does their execution mean that they're writings are accurate at all? I don't see the link. Heretics were executed by the church too. Plenty of them. I guess all they wrote and said was accurate too, after all, what did they have to gain?
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.
It was not 'dreamed up' it is not entirely based on the philosophy of naturalism and it does not reject a divine cause.
Comments
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
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.
for the least they could possibly do
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
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.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
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.
for the least they could possibly do
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.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes, I understand.
I'm just wired different I think.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
were all wired differently. imagine if we were all sheep.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
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.
for the least they could possibly do
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.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
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.
for the least they could possibly do
nope, didn't lose my mind...YET.
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.
i'd say raising someone from the dead would make people get off the fence about him.
if this is a multiple choice, i'll take "c."
'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.
So even supposing that was true, that they had no incentive other than they believed it and they knew they would be executed for doing so, wouldn't you have to agree that perhaps their logic on the subject might have been a little flawed? That pehaps their thought processes in general were flawed?
And again I still say it's their interpretation of the events written through their own filters.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well documented?
You have that bible, that's all. That's not exactly what I call well documented.
It's an account of people who believed something to be true. If anyone came up with stuff like that today, everyone, everyone would say you couldn't get a more biased source.
We don't know shit about Jesus. There's hardly any evidence he existed.
It's faith. Koresh, Jesus, Mozes, thousands of people who claim to have heard god, to be god or Jesus. It's all faith. No proof whatsoever.
Perhaps there are still some Koresh followers, maybe you should let them write about Koresh. Read it and you'll see how wonderful he is. What miracle he did. Read about his death as a martyr. And don't forget, all the writers were of course inspired by the divine word of god. Who's to say it's wrong?
Do you have any proof? Maybe they can even put references to the OT in it, you know, to make the prophecy sound more real or accurate, that's what they did in the bible.
naděje umírá poslední
Think about what you are saying grazman. Where do we observe the fossils, in the past, or in the present? The ONLY way we can observe the past is to travel back in time. Of course there are many important clues in the present that the past has left for us to study but fossils are not dug up with those little stickers that say 'Jurrassic period 65 million years ago', these are interpretations of the evidence imposed by the currently dominant model of origins, i.e darwinism. Look there are only two ways that the sedimentary rocks could have got there: 1. gradually through milions of years of sediment falling down through the air. or 2. very quickly through a global flood. Which way you interpret the strata depends on your philosophical outlook. If you believe in evolution the when you look at the strata in a cliff you will say 'wow look these bottom layers must be so old' but if you are a creationist you will say 'wow that was a serious flood'. We all use filters when we look at the evidence, a new perspective can radically alter our understanding of the sediment from representing billions of years of death and struggle to one year of catastrophie. when I look at the strata, I see a snapshot of life 5000 years ago, suddenly snuffed out and frozen for us too see. All the fossils show overwhelming evidence of sudden catastrophic burial, not gradual burial. Without sudden burial, animals do not fossilize, they are consumed, they rot, they leave nothing behind. When you next observe a cliff face, see how the different stratas bend and warp together, this shows that they were all soft at the same time, were distorted at the same time, and hardened into rock at the same time. Also search for images of polystrate fossils and you will see tree trunks that stretch across layers that are supposed to be millions of years apart.
Also grazman.
Yes mutations can reshuffle genetic data but darwinism requires the generation of new data and no mutation has ever been observed to do this. to get from an ameba to a man, the information has to increase over time. By analogy, lets say the ameba has the same information as a childrens book and man has the information equivalent of an encyclopaedia. If you are going to get from one to the other you have to generate ne information - that is the problem.
It's called evolution. Just a tip. If you're looking up Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism you'll find plenty of christian propaganda sites and creationism sites and ID sites.
Look up the modern evolutionary synthesis. A good starting point is the link I gave you earlier.
I really think you've been misled about what evolution is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Here's an interesting read. I suggest you look at it, because "Darwinism" isn't what you've been taught it is. It will explain what is meant by observable fact.
When scientists find information, data that doesn't fit their original hypothesis, they change their hypothesis. When ID "scientists" find data that cannot be reconciled with their theory... they have to drop it, distort it or ignore it. They're fixed, bound to a belief. You say evolution is an philosophy (the irony is just too big, by the way), but it's not. There are plenty of christian, moslim, hindu evolution scientists , there are, however, no secular, moslim, hindu ID scientists.
Evolution is not tied to a belief that god cannot exist. No one is saying god didn't create evolution.
Show me evidence that hasn't been rebutted several times before. In fact, just show me one of the many peer reviewed scientific papers. One.
naděje umírá poslední
I sort of agree with this. God makes zero sense to me. Any god.
I could believe in a sort of Spinoza's god, but not even that. If there is something out there, I think it's a force, like gravity. Not a force that thinks, or has intentions, and certainly not one that has anything to do with human beings. It just is, it doesn't think, doesn't wish... So if that were to exist, I would not worship it, because to me it would be like worshipping gravity. Pointless.
So, there is a shred of doubt in my mind, but even that isn't anything close to the image of god most people have.
naděje umírá poslední
Depends of course what you mean by almost immediately. Twenty years after his death and up to 120 years after his death, that's hardly what I'd call 'immediately'.
To say that the things in the bible are historical fact just as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence is absolutely absurd.
There no debate about these two documents, and that's what they are documents. What is in them is just what is in them; rules, guidelines, etc. What is in the bible are the supposed words of someone who died 20 years after it was written - and in an age where information wasn't easily stored, it was mostly passed on orally.
naděje umírá poslední
Star dust, dude.
When stars explode elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen... are released. Then these elements turn into new stars, the planets around them and life on these plantes.
naděje umírá poslední
Who cares if you're going to die in this hellhole, they all believed they were going to paradise.
How does their execution mean that they're writings are accurate at all? I don't see the link. Heretics were executed by the church too. Plenty of them. I guess all they wrote and said was accurate too, after all, what did they have to gain?
naděje umírá poslední
It was not 'dreamed up' it is not entirely based on the philosophy of naturalism and it does not reject a divine cause.
naděje umírá poslední