The New Atheist Crusaders

john8verse32 · 05-10-09 9:45 am

I will not reject the Biblical account of creation and I will not reject the obvious facts of science ...and how do you take those lithium supplements....(with a few grains of salt???) http://www.pharmaceutical-drug-manufacturers.com/pharmaceutical-drugs/anti-psychotic-drugs.html (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 10, 2009)

bob_2 · 05-10-09 10:05 am

John, how do you do with paradoxes, enigmas and conundrums, oh, and let's throw in parables and analogies. Toss them away because one has to understand the culture from whence they came???? John, you do a lot of mocking of the Bible and God, maybe if it is the vechicle, which I believe it is, to tell us more about God and his personality traits, you are really shaking your fist at the sky. Discernment goes deeper than that. If eternal life is fiction to you, yes, the Bible is no better than the novel the Mormons have produced.

don · 05-10-09 4:27 pm

...and how do you take those lithium supplements....(with a few grains of salt???) I am not opposed to a few grains of salt, but find no need for the lithium. It does help to let go of always needing to have the final answer and to not take myself too seriously. When I first started teaching thirty-five years ago, one of my most empathetic of students, a senior, said to me, "Mr. Sands, You try too hard." Now, I find it quite satisfying to face matters squarely and honestly and to develop patterns of thought which help me get through the mine fields of my own mind. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

john8verse32 · 05-10-09 9:35 pm

I was a teacher too....back in SoCal for a few yrs...math to 6-7-8.... and the nicest reward was the occasional grin on a kids face when they said (after my prolonged and detailed explanations were finally met with success)... "OH..NOW I GET IT MR Alfke!!!! I'm still waiting for good explanations about SDAism in particular (andReligion in general) which will provide a similar grinning Eureka moment. how do you do with paradoxes,..? the "paradox' of whether God is loving or a mass murder, based on whom one chooses to believe, might be resolved by checking behind several different doors: door #1) believe the OT...because those people claimed to actually TALK and WALK with God...so they should know his character well....presuming you believe their stories....and that they were sane and not smoking weed at the time....and not just imagining or exaggerating things. door #2) believe the New Test, which claims God is love, and which kinda minimizes or overlooks the mayhem listed in the Old Test... but this would mean that the angry God of the Old Test changed into the loving God of the new test... and Don and various verses in the written explanation claim that God never changes... so how could this be? door #3) maybe the people who wrote about the stuff in the Old Test either exaggerated, misunderstood, or wrote down old campfire tales which were used to justify their ancestors warlike ways and their ignorant superstitions. or maybe there were actual truths hidden behind some of the tales...if we only reinterpret someof the stories as parables, tales, edutainment, and not literal. ...the worldwide flood...probably occured!!! but if happened along sea coasts and inland estuaries as rising sea levels happened due to global warming and the milutin milankovitch cycle ...the pillar of fire the children of Israel followed? probably true!! but it was a smoldering fire smoking by day, and a burning fire at night held aloft at the head of their marching columns in a container held high above the head of the "Point guard" in order to provide guidance....as Moses learned from the Egyptian army who used the idea themselves. ...the "40" yrs lost in the desert? probably an exaggeration, based on the use of the special #40...which seems to represent the limit to which two ignorant goat herders could count on their combined digits.... ...babies rafting the great river in a reed basket?....probably a made up story , first about Sargon of Akkadia, and later borrowed by the Hebrews to aggrandize their hero, Moses.... ...when Joshua wanted to motivate his troops to attack and "liberate" the holy land ...he could tell them about how the Moabites were SOB's, and as such were illegally squatting on land which should be Hebrew land, tracing their roots LEGALLY back to Abe... while theMoabites resulted from some sordid magic in a cave, and could not inherit the land in dispute. Thus one may be reading a made up story with a purpose....either concocted before the alleged "conquest" as motivation, or written AFTER as the Hebrews way of excusing themselves for having killed everybody, except the virgins they planned to use without understanding how this would dilute their genes. ...and the alleged divine command to kill everybody but save the virgins? probably standard operating practice back then.... genocide was the word of the day....probably NOT directly ordered by god.... door #3 opens up the possibility to accept the "stories" of the Old Test without making them the responsibility of a God....and therefore leaves the Loving God of the new Test as a possibility. door #4) however, opens up the posibility that neither the Old Test nor the New Test writers knew much of what they were writing about... wringing a birds neck to cure leprosy? The devil taking Jesus to a mountain so high that they could see ALL the kingdoms of the earth? Door #4 asks why Matt tries to prove Jesus geneology with mistaken numerology...and why he tries to have Jesus mounted on two donkeys at the same time....and how the gospel writers differ on Jesus flight to Egypt.... and how many times thecock crew, and what Jesus said on the cross, and who was the first to visit the tomb...and..etc and the answer? door #4 opens up the possible viewpoint that even in the New Test some of the stories may be exaggerated and manipulated if not completely made up. and therefore even if we dismiss the OT as the musings of superstitious goat herders and occasional "inspired" prophets, the problems continue into the New Test, and one now has a wide open horizon to explore after opening this door..... what is truth and what is exaggeration, what are facts, and what are "parables", is still to be understood. Since I don't have the answers,<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/120/1220.gif" alt=""> but am still looking for them, it may seem I've chosen door #4 until someone gives me more info to return to the other choices. Door#5, however, might be the back door for those who find absolutely no good answers to all the questions .... and may therefore have stopped asking....or listening to those who claim to have all the answers. it wudda been so nice if all the directions had been written more clearly, consistantly, concisely, and confirmably <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/120/1221.jpg" alt="">

bob_2 · 05-11-09 12:49 am

Written so John Alfke wouldn't have to ponder too much??? Jesus actually used parables to put off His death, did you realize that, had he spoken forthrightly they would have put him to death sooner, I've been told. He actually nearly got thrown off a cliff after synagogue one Sabbath for speaking frankly, if you remember. There may be a reason for the mystery, you just want all the ancients to be a modern guy like you. Ain't going to happen now they have passed on, eh???

neal · 05-11-09 9:09 am

Science by definition can never answer the question if there is a God. That is false. First, if a god ever actually did anything then it would be observable. Anything observable can be studied by science. Second, the "God" of the Bible was asserted to have done specific, observable, testable things in the recent past such as create the world with a dome, create man, flood the earth, destroy a tower the ancients were building to God's home on the dome, etc. We can look at evidence to see whether God (one of thousands of gods from different cultures through history) to determine whether the genocidal maniacs who wrote the Bible actually had some inside scoop about this planet and biology or not. After studying ALL the testable evidence it has been discovered that the genocidal maniac's theories about a sky god are no more plausible than the sky deities of the Aztecs, the Hindus, the Native American Indians, or the spirit beliefs of the tribes in the Amazon. If you want to claim that science cannot, at this time, test actions currently being performed by your god, there is a reason for it. No actions can be determined to be without a natural explanation. Its exactly the same as you would expect if gods did not exist at all. Sorta like tooth fairies, or voodoo spirits. Why would scientists study tooth fairies? If you can come up with a reason why they should study tooth fairies then maybe we can come up with a reason they should study any particular god claimed by ancient ignorant cultures. But, because there is nothing to study currently about any god does not mean you or me or scientists cannot study the claims made about gods in ancient times. Every testable claim (creation a few thousand years ago, the sun/moon standing still over a particular valley, a global flood, flat earth, foundation of 12 pillars that the earth stands on, a dome over the earth with an ocean on the other side, etc) have proven to be false assertions either that they were ever accomplished or that they are just not outright false and preposterous.

neal · 05-11-09 9:24 am

Bob Put on your Discernment Glasses for this one: <blockquote>Elephants’ wings Posted on: May 10, 2009 2:31 PM, by PZ Myers Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant. Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. "It has a tentacle," he said. "I think we have found a giant squid!" Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. "It's a wall," he said, "A big, bristly wall." Curly, at the back, touched the tail. "It's nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail." Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues." The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path. "Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort," said Moe. "Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod," said Larry. Curly seems distressed. "It's a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children's story, I will defer on reporting the details." Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire." The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant! "I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It's prehensile! Amazing!", said Moe. Larry presses his ear against the animal's flank. "I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It's very loud and large." There is a squishy plop from the back end. "Oh, no," says Curly, "I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath." "You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings," sneers Eagletosh, "While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life." "No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either," says Moe. "Philistine," says Eagletosh. "Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they aren't quantum." The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much. Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry. Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world. Curly's experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of the biome. Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant. Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, the Eagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn't he realize that he can't possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets of wingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound. When that book was quickly followed by Moe's The Elephant Walks and Curly's Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant's wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuous wingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn't deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking. And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question. Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?</blockquote> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/elephants_wings.php" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/elephan ts_wings.php</a> **You keep on believing in the magic wings and I'll stick to the findings of the reality-based Truth Seekers.

john8verse32 · 05-11-09 9:31 am

I'm still waiting for good explanations...John and that above post wasn't it. blaming things on There may be a reason for the mystery math student:"why does 2 + 2 always equal 4, Mr Alfke? Mr Alfke: "well, 2 + 2 in base 3 actually equals 11 (base 3).... so things are not always as they seem, and the whole thing is a mystery. But there might be a reason for mystery, kid... do you get it now?" math student.... "no....I don't get it.....it's too, too, compoicated and mysterious and you didn't explain it well" Mr Alfke...pretending to be the God that a classroom teacher is: "then I may have to kill you if you don't understand....in order to separate you from the good students who paid attention to my ramblings and think they do understand.... do you prefer to be burned to death, or would you like the mountains to fall on you?" (ya, Bob...that's a parable)

don · 05-11-09 11:43 am

Second, the "God" of the Bible was asserted to have done specific, observable, testable things Well, the Biblical report of God is not so linear as you contend. Consider this story about King Saul<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chron%2010&version=31" target="_blank">1 Chronicles 10</a> 1 Now the Philistines fought against Israel; the Israelites fled before them, and many fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2 The Philistines pressed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malki-Shua. 3 The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him. 4 Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. 5 When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died. 6 So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together. 7 When all the Israelites in the valley saw that the army had fled and that Saul and his sons had died, they abandoned their towns and fled. And the Philistines came and occupied them. 8 The next day, when the Philistines came to strip the dead, they found Saul and his sons fallen on Mount Gilboa. 9 They stripped him and took his head and his armor, and sent messengers throughout the land of the Philistines to proclaim the news among their idols and their people. 10 They put his armor in the temple of their gods and hung up his head in the temple of Dagon. 11 When all the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead heard of everything the Philistines had done to Saul, 12 all their valiant men went and took the bodies of Saul and his sons and brought them to Jabesh. Then they buried their bones under the great tree in Jabesh, and they fasted seven days. 13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.</blockquote>If we could bring in the social scientists, the historians, all they could have "observed" would have been what was reported up to verse 12. Verses 13 and 14 would have been unobservable. As a theist, I see truth in the assertions found in those two verses, but I cannot demonstrate their truthfulness by observations of science. I submit, that the whole of the actions of God (except for those of Jesus while living among us) are of the nature of this story of Saul. This also is the problem. Some people cannot put God into their expectations and thus proclaim that He doesn't exist. I understand such a stance but believe it is possible to have a very active, yet unobservable (invisible and apparently silent) God. From a social scientist (historian) point of view, the closest we can get to God is what the people of God assert about Him. These assertions, eg. by the Biblical prophets, are a mixture of God's thoughts and their thoughts. I believe that God has set this up as He has to force me to think for myself. All my communication with Him is by faith alone. Of course, the Bible also contends that the invisible God can be known well-enough through His works of nature: <blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-25;&version=65;" target="_blank">Romans 1:18-25</a> (The Message) But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand. 24-25 So God said, in effect, "If that's what you want, that's what you get." It wasn't long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. And all this because they traded the true God for a fake god, and worshiped the god they made instead of the God who made them—the God we bless, the God who blesses us. Oh, yes! </blockquote> (Message edited by Don on May 11, 2009)

neal · 05-11-09 12:10 pm

Of course, the Bible also contends that the invisible God can be known well-enough through His works of nature: I agree. The problem is that when they saw a blue sky they saw an ocean. Likewise, when they saw lightning they saw an action of their god. When they saw life, they saw God. When they saw death they saw God. They saw God in everything. Nature is natural. They mistook the natural universe for their God. Now that we understand much more about nature theists are left with the claim that their God is transcendent and unobservable. The Biblical God was very observable. El-is-Yah was whisked to the dome on a chariot. People believe Enoch went to the dome to live with God (and both, I might add, without the need of Jesus' death and resurrection). This God came and gave them laws IN PERSON. This God led them around the desert. This God arm wrestled with them. He helped them in battles by stopping the sun in it's little track across the dome. To claim that God is not of this universe, unobservable by science, is to say the same as this God does not exist. What does not exist has the same characteristics as your theories about your God.

don · 05-11-09 2:57 pm

To claim that God is not of this universe, unobservable by science, is to say the same as this God does not exist. One icy evening my mother was walking home; slipping, walking precariously. A man came along, took her by the arm and helped her home. When she arrived at home, went inside and then looked out, she could not see him anywhere. To her, this was an angel. The Bible reports special moments when the divine enters into observable space and action. Theologians call these appearances theophanies. Here are some further readings about this idea:<blockquote><a href="http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume3/theoph.htm" target="_blank">When God is One of Us.</a> <a href="http://www.cruxcommunity.org/uploads/Theophany%20in%20the%20Old%20Testament.doc" target="_blank">Theophany and the Angel of the Lord</a> (a doc file) <a href="http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Theophany/id/578375" target="_blank">Theophany</a> </blockquote>I agree that successive generations have had to modify their conceptions of God's actions based on the discoveries of science. When Jesus said that God sends the rain, He was right. If I deny the natural science of how rain is formed and what happens with it because God sends it, then I am misapplying my theology. But I will not allow my knowledge of science to negate my faith in God. .

john8verse32 · 05-11-09 5:43 pm

interesting, Don, that you should bring up the death of Saul in your defense of things..... the story on the contrary is even more evidence for my point... ..that its too bad the message wasn't presented in a clearer, more consistant, convincing, and confirmable manner.... can you explain the 4 very different deaths for King Saul? and if you can explain the divergent explanations, tell us why there should be divergent explanations in a divinely inspired set of ancient texts failing to believe which our loving God is going to burn us alive/dead? 1 Samuel (31:4) says that Saul "Took a sword, and fell upon it". 2 Samuel (1:2-10) says Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite. Later in 2 Samuel (21:12) we read that Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa. But then in 1 Chronicles (10:13-14) we learn that Saul was slain by God Himself!!!! if God really was inspiring these tales, why couldn't he have told at least one of the writers to get the story straight!!! "God, in His infinite wisdom and inability to forgive in the Old Test, which may or may not have changed by the time of the New Test, decided to punish Saul for past sins, and also because God had changed his mind about Saul after God Himself had put Saul in as king.... so God didn't help Saul with a battle against the Philistines, and after not helping many of His favorite tribesmen avoid falling to the sword of the Philistines, God watched without helping as they defeated Saul, maybe even wounding him, and in his agony, Saul tried to commit hari kari on his own sword, but needed help from an Amalakite standing nearby to complete the job." thus we can create a story which takes into account the 4 divergent ways Saul died... question: why do WE have to rewrite the Bible to understand it? when the ancients wrote down the campfire stories, did they maybe introduce at times non-factual events and "facts" which sounded good to them at the time? the camel crossed the desert sands, in one of those mighty caravans, the camels bed was full of lumps, that's how the camel got his humps.... more, more, tell us more.... That's what Uncle Remos said, that's what uncle Remos said... the camels bed was full of lumps, that's how the camel... got his humps.... and that's how it was.... .....Walt Disney. Song of the South.

elaine · 05-11-09 7:03 pm

Don, why should the Bible be completely "off limits" for the same type of study that is regularly given to contemporary ancient literature? Is it solely because we Christians needed the Hebrew Scriptures to "prove" from their prophecies that Christ of the NT was also a god? For those who accept completely everything written in the Bible, how do they account for the many errors, contradictions, and anachronisms? Shouldn't that be evidence that there were many human authors and that they were neither infallible or free of errors? When was it decided that both the Old and New Testaments were sacred and holy and should never be scrutinized for possible errors? Historically, it has numerous errors; genealogically there are errors: The NT is the only account of the census preceeding Jesus' birth; there is no secular account whatsoever of Herod ordering the killing of all male infants. These were added to correlate with an OT prophecy of a messiah to be born in Bethlehem, and to duplicate, and symbolize the plague of the Egyptians of killing of the first born males. Why did the eariest writers, Paul and Mark, know nothing of a miraculous virgin birth, and all the surrounding magical events? Where did the writers of Matthew and Luke learn of these? Or, did the make them up to justify their beliefs? Why is it necessary to believe in a virgin birth to follow Christ's principles? Long before the Hebrews and the NT was conceived, people looked to Nature and it revealed to them that there was a god of supernatural being in charge of all that they saw and observed. Men came along later and began developing rituals and observances to recognize the moon, sun, and seasons as evidence of the benefits of Nature. The ancients believed in God, they simply had different ways of describing her. And the first goddesses were female, as similar to the earth which gave life, they knew that females were also life-givers. Shouldn't these and many more, indicate that the writers did not write factual history, but theological attempt to prove that Jesus was the fulfillment of the many messianic prophecies? In so doing, they "doctored" the history to fit their previous conclusions. There is a word for this presenting conclusions prior to the evidence. Because there is no other evidence whatsoever of many of the things recorded in the Bible, there is no way to document the truthfulness, and it all hinges on total faith. It is similar to the child who believes in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus: don't disturb his illusions--it's all he has.

pilgrim99 · 05-11-09 8:55 pm

Someone said:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Is it solely because we Christians needed the Hebrew Scriptures to "prove" from their prophecies that Christ of the NT was also a god?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Christians do not believe that Christ was "a god." That is a Jehovah Witness position. The orthodox Christian position is that Christ "is God."

pilgrim99 · 05-11-09 9:25 pm

Someone asked:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Why did the eariest writers, Paul and Mark, know nothing of a miraculous virgin birth, and all the surrounding magical events? Where did the writers of Matthew and Luke learn of these? Or, did the make them up to justify their beliefs? Why is it necessary to believe in a virgin birth to follow Christ's principles?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>In the United States of America, people are free to choose what they believe. I personally find it amazing that despite mountains of reasonable evidence and after centuries of critical examination of God's Written Word, that some people choose unbelief in God. It's also amazing to me that some people choose unreasonable explanations from atheists and agnostics, instead of the reasonable positions taken by acknowledged Bible believing scholars. Jesus spoke in parables to prevent some people from understanding, I guess those same types of people still don't, or can't understand. A historical figure, who was once enamored with his own learning and lineage wrote:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. Think about the circumstances of your call, brothers and sisters. Not many were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were born to a privileged position. But God chose what the world thinks foolish to shame the wise, and God chose what the world thinks weak to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world, what is regarded as nothing, to set aside what is regarded as something, so that no one can boast in his presence. He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>But like I said earlier, in the USA we are free to choose our beliefs. As for me and my house, we have chosen to believe and follow God. We're just simple people made out of dirt after all, considered foolish by those who follow the worldly wise men.

don · 05-11-09 9:28 pm

Elaine, certainly you are aware that you have moved away from an objective dealing with the facts and have spoken from a chosen bias, a conclusion based on certain scholarly moods. As we consider the Scriptural account it seems important to recognize it for what it is. It is "sacred" writing. "Sacred" writing is only one linear presentation of history. Those who adhere to the account presented do so recognizing spiritual value; believing it to be inspired of God. (I don't consider it necessary for the accounts to be inerrant or infallible to be valued spiritually. If errors can be clearly demonstrated, the responsible thing to do is to admit it.) History is not a linear exercise. Nor is the valuing of "sacred writings", I suppose. Consider this:<blockquote>The other, and more central, problem with the decision to prohibit the intrusion of historians into narrative is that it avoids letting students in on the messiness of history. As Keith Barton (1996) reminds us, History isn’t a story; stories are simply one way of talking about the past, and any single story invariably involves selection, simplification, and distortion . . . . Much of the business of history, in fact, is argumentation over whose selective interpretation is best; presenting history to children as ‘a story’ independent ofhuman intention is an unconscionable misrepresentation of how historical knowledge is created. (p. 403), page 1049 (page 11 on this pdf site) <a href="http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-4/CJE-4-BryantClark.pdf" target=_top>http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-4/C JE-4-BryantClark.pdf</a> </blockquote>

elaine · 05-11-09 10:37 pm

Don, I submit that to believe that everything in the Bible is literally true is a very subjective position. Perhaps it was not always so, but then superstition and magic have been believed until recently, while some still believe in it. Isn't it more correct that we both have a chosen bias? Yours is based on faith with some or no evidence as supporting that position; while I look for historical facts and when they cannot be confirmed, I do not accept things written, no matter by whom and how old, as being a very subjective (and yes, biased) position. Surely, you do not believe that all the stories and characters in the Bible were not biased and the reports were events that all occurred as reported? Faith needs no evidence. Which is it: Faith, or objective reasoning? Faith does not need to explain or even give evidence, any more than a parent must give "evidence" for Santa, Little Red Riding Hood, or Cinderella, or even "Uncle Arthur's Bedtime Stories," or Aesop's Fables, or the Grimms Brothers Tales. The Bible is replete with stories that often tell a "moral" and many times do not (see Judges).

john8verse32 · 05-11-09 10:37 pm

Jesus spoke in parables to prevent some people from understanding,...Devon is that a good technique to educate people? and modify their behavior? by confusing them? and doesnt that smack of favoritism? save some people, but deliberately confuse others in order to "prevent" them from understanding? but that is exactly what the good book says Jesus did!!! (Luke 10.21,22) 25At that moment Jesus said: My Father, Lord of heaven and earth, I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people. and Mark 4:11-12 (New King James Version) 11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that ‘ Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’” in other words, the message is given in confusing parables in order to make sure that some folks do NOT understand, for fear that their sins will be forgiven!!!! here Jesus claims that he and God deliberately pick and chose whom they want to understand the message.... Should I fear I wasn't picked???!!!! maybe God doesn't want people in Heaven who ask too many questions. and if you believe Paul, there's nothing you can personally do about it.... its all chosen by God... Romans 9:15-18 (Contemporary English Version) 15The Lord told Moses that he has pity and mercy on anyone he wants to. 16Everything then depends on God's mercy and not on what people want or do. 17In the Scriptures the Lord says to Pharaoh of Egypt, "I let you become Pharaoh, so that I could show you my power and be praised by all people on earth." 18Everything depends on what God decides to do, and he can either have pity on people or make them stubborn. and in 2Thes it is claimed: 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (Contemporary English Version) 11So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie. 12All of them will be punished, because they would rather do evil than believe the truth. so, apparently, God will deliberately fool people into believing Satans lies.... just like back at the legendary garden of Eden where God never warned Eve about the magic talking snake, and allowed her to be "deceived" so He could punish His creatures.... are we supposed to "worship" a God who deliberately fools people so he can punish them? andDon't blame me for this problem....its Pauls explanation in 2nd Thess: 11So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie. 12All of them will be punished, so there you have it...the angry God of the OT is still the unforgiving, vengeful God of the New... just like He made the Pharoah "hardenhisheart" in order to "shew" His works and shew off more plagues, and eventually kill Egypts first born sons, if you believe paul, God is going to make sure some people are FOOLED into believing lies in order to punish them!!!

elaine · 05-11-09 10:41 pm

John, and exactly where John Calvin got his major message. God has "predestined" some to be saved, and others lost, and no one could be certain which group he was in. The church has believed and taught many strange things since its inception, and some that are still strange.

bob_2 · 05-11-09 10:53 pm

Don, inerrancy is about concepts, not just the correct words. What is the context and what was the concept the writer was putting forth. That is what is inerrant. If you get Neal started, he will tell you that I believe in a dome over the earth, well, that is where I believe that Neal fails, because he does not grasp the inerrant concept not accuracy of words or science, what was the writer saying conceptually, and I will cling to the Bible any day over what Neal is touting, with all due respect. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0> After all, where else can you read about your own salvation and how it is obtained or received?

john8verse32 · 05-11-09 10:59 pm

heres the memory verse we all should remember from the KJV from Romans 8:28-30 (King James Version) 28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. but we never were told about the rest of the verse: 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and in modern English: Romans 8:28-30 (Contemporary English Version) 28We know that God is always at work for the good of everyone who loves him. [a] They are the ones God has chosen for his purpose, 29and he has always known who his chosen ones would be. He had decided to let them become like his own Son, so that his Son would be the first of many children. 30God then accepted the people he had already decided to choose, and he has shared his glory with them.

bob_2 · 05-11-09 11:00 pm

I like this guy's explanation of predestination so well that I wanted to share it: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:God wants all men everywhere to be saved; however he knows from the foundation of the world that many will refuse the offer of salvation. Any view of predestination that has God creating someone, with the full prior intention of not permitting him to repent and believe, must be a wrong view. I think it is better to refrain from trying to express a systematic view of this subject, since we all too often misrepresent God through our efforts. In the end, it is the responsibility of every man to turn to Christ and be saved and the Spirit aids anyone who wants to do that. However, once we are saved we should acknowledge that without his help we could not have been saved, and certainly that it is no merit of ours that we are saved. In thinking about predestination it is always helpful to remember that God is outside time, so his perspective is very different from ours. He sees the end from the beginning. It is a bit like a man looking down at a patterned rug. He can see the entire pattern; a small insect crawling among the fibres of the rug could see very little of it. The man can not only see all of the rug but can also design the rug to take into account all the details of it together, including the actions of the insects in it. Similarly, God sees all of creation and our choices made as we live in it. But even though he sees what our choices will be, he has to create us in order for those choices ever to be made so that he can see them. I don't think it is meaningful to say that God could predict the result of, say, a football match that never takes place. If it never happens there will never be a result to predict. In the same way, God cannot predict the free choice of someone whom he does not choose to create, since there will be no one in existence to make that choice.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://ja-jp.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2358719220&topic=6853" target=_top>http://ja-jp.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2358719220 &topic=6853</a>

bob_2 · 05-11-09 11:05 pm

Timothy 2:3-7 "...God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle - I am telling the truth, I am not lying - and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles." GOD WANTS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED <a href="http://www.alfredplacechurch.org.uk/Sermons/1tim8.htm" target=_top>http://www.alfredplacechurch.org.uk/Sermons/1tim8. htm</a>

john8verse32 · 05-11-09 11:23 pm

inerrancy is about concepts, not just the correct words....Bob so, doesn't that mean that the ancients held the concept that the sun went over the flat earth since god stopped if for a while tohelp the Hebrews continue the massace of their neighbors? and since the ancients did not understand that a woman provides half of the genetics for children, doesnt that prove the "concept" that they were ignorant about procreation, and that is how the "concept"of male supremecy came about? and the "concept" of permission for males to fool around, but females needed to preserve teir virginity? the statement in the NewTest that claims Jesus was taken to the top of amountain so high that Jesus (and the Devil) were able to see "all the kingdoms of the world"... doesn't this errant unscientific statement suggest that their concept was of a flat earth? and the "concept" of the (now we know non-existant) DOME is clearly stated in Genesis.... and to cure leprosy or mold, you had to kill a coupla birds, and sprinkle their blood around.... not just errant science, but an ignorant concept attributed to God Himself who gave the instructions!!! similar to how God allegedly helped Jacob get rich while cheating his uncleLaban by making the goats do it while staring at striped sticks. so, I agree.... errancy is not limited to mistakes in writing or translation....or bad math.... it is exemplified over and over by mistaken concepts as well. meaning, what we are reading is the work of fallible men!!! not a supernatural, infallible divinely inspired scribe transcribing from God's dictaphone.

don · 05-12-09 5:23 am

Jesus spoke in parables to prevent some people from understanding,...Devon is that a good technique to educate people? and modify their behavior? by confusing them? In a hostile environment, perhaps. If we accept the story as told, Jesus' environment was so hostile it got Him killed eventually. Those three momentous years were rather a brief time to bring about change. (Notice, as a believer, I look for ways to affirm what the reports say. The proactive unbeliever does the opposite.) .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 05-10-09 9:45 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#27 05-10-09 10:05 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#28 05-10-09 4:27 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#29 05-10-09 9:35 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#30 05-11-09 12:49 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#31 05-11-09 9:09 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#32 05-11-09 9:24 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#33 05-11-09 9:31 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#34 05-11-09 11:43 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#35 05-11-09 12:10 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#36 05-11-09 2:57 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#37 05-11-09 5:43 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#38 05-11-09 7:03 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#39 05-11-09 8:55 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#40 05-11-09 9:25 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#41 05-11-09 9:28 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#42 05-11-09 10:37 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#43 05-11-09 10:37 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#44 05-11-09 10:41 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#45 05-11-09 10:53 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#46 05-11-09 10:59 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#47 05-11-09 11:00 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#48 05-11-09 11:05 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#49 05-11-09 11:23 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#50 05-12-09 5:23 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

Board footer