Phrases That Breed Ex-christians

[Kevin H]

KH>These gods are easily traced to mythology with no historical evidence for their existence as actual beings.

 

Since they are limited, localized, and fallible (were they to exist) they would be subject to creation and therefore cannot account for creation. Therefore, any worldview that considers them anything other than myth fails to correspond to reality.

 

There is nothing in the mythology of these gods that serves as a defeater for Christian Theism.

 

Before I get what I really have to say I thought I address your points here but I'm not going to quote verses but "god" didn't know where Adam and Eve were in the garden (limited), he couldn't defeat the mighty chariots of iron (limited), he never seemed to show his face to anyone outside the Middle East (localized), and he repentented more than once for things he did (fallible). Also, many gods weren't subject to creation they simply created themselves. More than one god simply willed themselves into existance.

 

KH> I'll respond to your archeological contentions soon. In the meantime, I don't think we find a limited God in the accounts you mention, only one speaking in common, relatable language. The attributes of the God of the Bible fit the philosophical notions of Classical Theism; they are in fact identical.

 

But we do find anthropomorphic language in the Old Testament - much like a teacher saying, "Here are two apples and here are two apples - now I see there are four apples". She knew it all along however.

 

God knew from all eternity where Adam and Eve were, yet his response is couched poetically and with spiritual significance as to their state. The same for his "repentance", etc.

 

As to the chariot account, keep reading in chapter 2. God did not bestow full blessing against the well-armed enemy of Israel due to Israel's rebellion.

 

I'm sure you see the problem of creating or willing yourself into existence. For one would have to exist prior to himself in order to bring himself about.

 

Kevin H

 

First, if Christianity is true, then all views opposed to it are false. So if Christianity is true, then Islam is not. The reverse is also true. This would apply to Docetism as well.

 

C'mon Kevin. Let's cut to the chase. We all know that IF Christianity is true then blah blah blah. You are the only one in the conversation that BELIEVES it is true. So the onus is on you to present the case for the truth of christianity. I've seen nothing from you but IF's. Again I say, you do appear to be EXACTLY where I was about a year before deconverting. Keep coming, brother. You'll be free soon.

 

 

 

KH> The questions toward me have been almost exclusively internal questions, i.e. assuming the truth of Christianity, explain X. So that requires the IF.

 

I'd be glad to present the positive case for Christianity but perhaps you have a starting point for me.

 

 

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

KH> At least the Virgin Birth makes sense in the religio-historical context of the view (the Incarnation, prophecies, etc). Being born from a rock is not only more miraculous, it's stupid!

 

How much more stupid an idea is birth from a rock than a burning, talking bush, talking donkey, talking snake, unicorn, cockatrice, striking a rock with a stick and water pouring from it, a valley of bones coming to life to form an army, two of every single species of animal on the planet coming to a single point on earth and fitting on a single boat, rains flooding the entire earth so that even Mount Everest was under water, a "jealous" yet "loving" and also murderous Yahweh, and the list goes on and on. I'll tell you how much more stupid it is...not much. Is that your best argument? Something that isn't of the Christian myth is simply "stupid"? It certainly seems to be your most honest argument.

 

 

KH> I addressed these things in this thread. I'll do it again. You are describing theophanies. If God exists, theophanies are possible.

 

The "talking snake" was probably not the Middle Ages art portrayals of a talking Boa. The serpent was described as an intelligent, beautiful creature - one that may no longer be extant but perhaps is hominid in some way.

 

The Valley of Bones was a metaphor - a vision - of the restoration of Israel. Not a literal event.

 

I think the Flood was a huge Mesopatamian event that was universal but not global. I think the Bible itself indicates this and "all the heavens", can be interpreted from the point of the observer, not globally. And no, polar bears and penquins, etc. were not on board. Only those animals of particular relationship to man and the region.

 

There is a good case to be made that man had not moved beyond the Mespotamia, therefore the flood was a universal judgment. That's why we find ancient accounts of the flood in several cultures. By the way, "mountains" can be interpreted "hills", so no, Everest was not under water.

 

You'll have to show me where the God of the universe is murderous - though I know you'll go to the judgements against the Amelekites and Caananites. If God is the omnipotent, omniscient Creator, he knows when, how, and why to take life.

 

 

Kevin H

 

Statements that help preserve Bred Ex-Christians.

 

What exactly about faith in Christ is illogical or unreasonable?

 

The claims of Christ are not "touchy-feely", but the bottom line.

 

God does not torture anyone for eternity for failure to comply.

 

The Scriptures nowhere say by "simply believing one can heal the sick".

 

If Christ is who he claimed to be, then it is a requirement of God that everyone believe it.

 

One does not need to be a Christian or a theist to recognize moral values. But one cannot account for why they exist objectively if one is a Naturalist.

 

Facts provide support for warranted belief or faith.

 

the New Testament is reliable, the radical claims of Christ were recorded and preserved, extra-biblical sources on Christ,

 

And that relativism is the rub. It is tantamount to saying that there is nothing actually wrong, just whatever you happen to think is wrong or what a given society says is wrong. Relativism fails miserably.

 

Have you examined the evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

 

One does not need to be a Christian or a theist to recognize moral values. But one cannot account for why they exist objectively if one is a Naturalist.[/b]

 

I can account for them. Care to have a go in the arena?

 

 

KH> You can account for objective moral values outside of theism? Yes, I'll dialogue with you in the arena.

[Kevin H]

 

Hey Kevin...answer me this.

 

Where does "evil" come from?

 

KH> Evil is a lack of or twisting of something that ought to be. Or, it is a twisting or abuse of good. One cannot have a perversion without a version.

 

I'm sure you're thinking of Isaiah 45:7. The word means "calamity".

 

 

No, that's not where I was going with this. I guess I should rephrase my question. From whence did evil originate? What was the first act of evil? Was it Lucifer's defiance of God? Was it Adam's disobedience? Where does evil come from? Please restate your answer in these terms.

 

 

KH> I think evil orginated in Lucifer prior to mankind, but was exacerbated in man. The giving of free will resulted in the opportunity for evil.

 

Simplistically, I think the eternal options would be something like:

 

1). Withhold free will and therefore create a world devoid of God-like relationship and the depths love is capable of.

 

2). Give free will and let the resulting evil run it's course - defeating it via a process, wth the Cross at the epicenter, and true love and relationship therefore achieved.

 

Kevin H

[Dhampir]

God knew from all eternity where Adam and Eve were, yet his response is couched poetically and with spiritual significance as to their state. The same for his "repentance", etc.

See the problem with statements like this is it's like a leaky wall. Y'see, you have only two hands and two feet with which to cover 5 holes, and anytime you move a limb to address one hole, you expose another. This statement still does not account for the injustice associated with the forethought of God, and his foreknowledge that the actions he incited began a chain of events that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands at the hands of his people, as well as eternal condemnation for billions.

 

Everytime you answer one thing, it undoes the explanation of another thing. Why? Because there is no expanation which covers everything here. Except the one that says that this whole thing is is a fabrication.

[Kevin H]

KH> The Hebrew is better translated "adder".

 

 

 

Isaiah 14:29

Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

 

You may want it to be an adder, but adders and their offspring don't fly and breath fire. Sorry, try again

 

 

KH> Check any commentary on it. And here's the NIV.

 

Isa 14:29

Do not rejoice, all you Philistines,

that the rod that struck you is broken;

from the root of that snake will spring up a viper,

its fruit will be a darting, venomous serpent.

NIV

 

Isa 14:29

Don't rejoice, Philistines, that the king who smote you is dead. That rod is broken, yes; but his son will be a greater scourge to you than his father ever was! From the snake will be born an adder, a fiery serpent to destroy you!

TLB

 

Poetic language my friend.

 

You said:

 

ANSWER THIS AND QUIT SKIPPING THIS QUESTION!!!!!!

My real question is this. Do you see how we can reasonably disbelieve the bible or do you feel that only a fool wouldn't believe everything the bible says? Do you think it is reasonable or understandable that many people would have a hard time believe much of the bible with stories like these? Can it even seem slightly reasonable to dismiss the whole bible when it contains these stories that are often accepted as fact? Can you understand why people would not believe the bible as factual?

 

 

 

KH> A cursory reading and a Naturalistic worldview combined can cause dismissal of the Bible. I see that as a main reason the Bible can be viewed as unreasonable. Does that answer you?

 

Read "Miracles" by C. S. Lewis. You'll enjoy it even if you disagree.

 

Kevin H

 

God knew from all eternity where Adam and Eve were, yet his response is couched poetically and with spiritual significance as to their state. The same for his "repentance", etc.

See the problem with statements like this is it's like a leaky wall. Y'see, you have only two hands and two feet with which to cover 5 holes, and anytime you move a limb to address one hole, you expose another. This statement still does not account for the injustice associated with the forethought of God, and his foreknowledge that the actions he incited began a chain of events that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands at the hands of his people, as well as eternal condemnation for billions.

 

Everytime you answer one thing, it undoes the explanation of another thing. Why? Because there is no expanation which covers everything here. Except the one that says that this whole thing is is a fabrication.

 

 

KH> I disagree that it is a Leaky Wall or Leaky Bucket or whatever. No one knows all the answers but we can try to determine which Worldview best explains the data or works toward explaining the data of the universe. I tried to answer specific questions - not chase it all down exhaustively.

 

So, questions for you: what objective standard do you use to determine God's "injustice"? How did God "cause" the deaths of "hundreds of thousands" and where do you get those numbers? How do you know "billions" will be condemned and by what standard do you think God ought to save or condemn people?

[wideawake42]

 

KH> I think evil orginated in Lucifer prior to mankind, but was exacerbated in man. The giving of free will resulted in the opportunity for evil.

 

Simplistically, I think the eternal options would be something like:

 

1). Withhold free will and therefore create a world devoid of God-like relationship and the depths love is capable of.

 

2). Give free will and let the resulting evil run it's course - defeating it via a process, wth the Cross at the epicenter, and true love and relationship therefore achieved.

 

Kevin H

 

Okay. If evil originated in Lucifer prior to mankind, that means that God must have granted Lucifer free will. Did God create Lucifer, knowing that he was going to be evil and thus condemned for all eternity, and bringing along a substantial portion of his other creations with him? If God claims to know "good and evil" (as in Genesis) then was evil just an idea in God's mind before he created Lucifer?

[Dhampir]

KH> I disagree that it is a Leaky Wall or Leaky Bucket or whatever. No one knows all the answers but we can try to determine which Worldview best explains the data or works toward explaining the data of the universe. I tried to answer specific questions - not chase it all down exhaustively.

See that's my point. Everything you explain raises questions elsewhere in the whole spectrum. Trying to explain those questions raises yet more elsewhere; it's like those light puzzles where you have to turn out lights in a certain order, in search of a solution, but in this case, there is none.

 

So, questions for you: what objective standard do you use to determine God's "injustice"? How did God "cause" the deaths of "hundreds of thousands" and where do you get those numbers? How do you know "billions" will be condemned and by what standard do you think God ought to save or condemn people?

Is there a definition of Injustice? That. How is it that there are things god can do which if anyone else would do would be labeled unjust?

 

If what god does is good, no matter what it is, and the reasoning behind that is that he's god, then good necessarily equals power; he has the most power, he is therefore unimpeachable.

 

Either by ordering his people to kill non-believers, by killing them himself in certain instances, by ordering his people to kill amongst themselves or inciting it, or doing so himself, or by sending agents (read: angels) to perform the tasks. The number is perhaps underinflated, simply add the numbers that are given in the text, and extrapolate from the instances where those numbers arent given, and viola.

 

Of course billions will go to hell, as most of the world has never believed in Jesus, only a third of the worlds 6 billion poeple are christian, and most of them are nominal. It's been estimated that there have been 34 billion humans alive since the rise of modern humanity. Unless you don't believe in hell or that knowing Jesus is the only way to heaven. Of course you would have to substantiate that position, and explain how that position is more viable than others who believe that all infidels will burn.

[mwc]

KH> I'll respond to your archeological contentions soon.

No rush. I've got a pretty good idea what form it will take but I might be pleasantly surprised.

 

In the meantime, I don't think we find a limited God in the accounts you mention, only one speaking

Really? I'm surprised we don't agree.

 

in common, relatable language. The attributes of the God of the Bible fit the philosophical notions of Classical Theism; they are in fact identical.

gyptian Creat

But we do find anthropomorphic language in the Old Testament - much like a teacher saying, "Here are two apples and here are two apples - now I see there are four apples". She knew it all along however.

 

God knew from all eternity where Adam and Eve were, yet his response is couched poetically and with spiritual significance as to their state. The same for his "repentance", etc.

Okay. So you're reducing your argument to one of semantics. Does this hold true for god has to see the Tower of Babel and visit Sodom in person, after seeing Abraham, as well? Obviously he knew the state of these places through all eternity, and yet, was compelled to actually see them with his own literal human form eyes. These other two examples aren't "spiritual" in nature. They can't be explained in the same manner as A&E. No. Sadly, these are the acts of a limited being that has to visit a location to actually see what is going on in order to evaluate the situation.

 

Here's the part of Genesis 18 from's Young's Literal Translation:

20 And Jehovah saith, `The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah -- because great; and their sin -- because exceeding grievous:

21 I go down now, and see whether according to its cry which is coming unto Me they have done completely -- and if not -- I know;'

22 and the men turn from thence, and go towards Sodom; and Abraham is yet standing before Jehovah.

This story is great because, first of all, no one has ever seen YWHW face to face and lived. Ooops. Except for old Abraham here (and a few others). Second. The "cry" against the two cities "comes" to god. He is essentially told the cities are bad by word of mouth (maybe Satan told him?). Third, he has come to check it out and stops by to see Abraham on his way (that's pretty nice of him actually). He needs to see if the claims against the cities are as bad as the reports say they are. WHAT? The ALL KNOWING GOD has to check it out for himself?

 

Then, of course Abraham then barters with god. To see if he'll take out two cities if so many good people are found within. Could this be a test for Abraham? Please say it is. Go ahead and do it. It would show you didn't read the passage and just a few lines before god already said Abraham is a winner. There's no need to test him if he already won and got the prize. No, god hasn't determined the state of the cities yet because he hasn't been there. Of course the story continues with the rescue of Lot in the next chapter. Apparently, god didn't come up with enough decent folk (and the people he did find are questionable to say the least).

 

As to the chariot account, keep reading in chapter 2. God did not bestow full blessing against the well-armed enemy of Israel due to Israel's rebellion.

I see. So when I read Judges:

1:19 (KJV) And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

 

1:19 (YLT) and Jehovah is with Judah, and he occupieth the hill-country, but not to dispossess the inhabitants of the valley, for they have chariots of iron.

 

1:19 (NRSV) And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.

That when it says "the LORD was with Judah" that means he was only partially with them? Just sort of tagging along? Smiting but his heart wasn't really into it? And since he's already up in the air he took out the hill people but when it came to the low lands and those chariots he decided that was a little too much effort and wasn't into anymore and left? The context of this verse says otherwise. This verse says god was with them but he just could not defeat those chariots of iron. It does not say he allowed them to fail because of a rebellion. How about chapter 2 is a revisionist version of chapter 1 because nowhere in chapter 1 does god call them wicked or evil but rather god is with them and god is delivering other lands to them then suddenly it changes in chapter 2. Chapter 2 must have been written by someone else and/or at another date.

 

I'm sure you see the problem of creating or willing yourself into existence. For one would have to exist prior to himself in order to bring himself about.

I like it when people respond with this kind of answer. "Of course you see the problem with supernatural explation X but supernatural explantion Y is totally reasonable." Ummm. The INSTANT you invoke supernatural in any manner anything becomes possible and all things are equally reasonable. That's sort of the deal with the supernatural. If you want logic and reason you can't invoke the supernatural. That's the trade-off you make.

 

But since we're talking about gods and mythology I'm not sure where the problem lies exactly. We can't arbitrarily draw lines now can we? You seem to want to. Mithra can't be born from a rock. Why? That's stupid. Why? That's stupid. Being born from a virgin that had been impregnated via a "spirit" being. That's believable? Seriously? If your wife/mother/sister/girlfriend told you that you wouldn't want to see a DNA test? For some reason I think you would (especially if it were your wife/girlfriend and child support were on the line). So even though it might be more reasonable when compared to a rock that does not put it in the realm of reality. So when comparing one myth to another myth, which is what we are doing then you can't simply say that "since you can't create yourself then that god can't exist" because in the supernatural realm anything is possible. Isn't this the ultimate argument for anything god does/doesn't do?. So you'll have to come up with a way to falsify claims that can apply to all supernatural claims including those of your own myth in order for this claim of yours to be taken seriously other than "can't you see the problem with <...>?" Of course I can. I can see it with all the myths...including your own.

 

Anyhow, here's a rather long piece of text on one version of the Egyptian Creation myth (from the Encyclopedia of creation myths / David Adams Leeming with Margaret Adams Leeming):

Egyptian Creation

The civilization of ancient Egypt is among the longest lasting and religiously complex in the history of humanity. There is a prehistoric period about which not much is known. Then in about 3000 b.c.e. we have the beginning of the so-called Early Dynastic period, which is commonly divided into the first and second dynasties, the first beginning with the union of Upper and Lower Egypt under the ruler-ship of Memphis, a city in the north, near what is today Cairo. It was during this time that both writing and mythological systems were firmly established. The high god during the first dynasty was Horus in his form as Falcon. In the second dynasty, beginning in about 2850 b.c.e., the union collapsed, and Seth became the high god of the southern region, or Upper Egypt. The Old Kingdom, comprising the third through sixth dynasties, covers the period from about 2780 b.c.e. to about 2250 b.c.e. and is marked by the domination of the northern religious center, near Memphis, called Heliopolis. This is a period of great pharaonic power, the great pyramids, the greatest Egyptian art, the high god Atum or Ra, and the emergence of the cult of the resurrection godking Osiris and his wife Isis. It is also the period of the sacred Pyramid Texts, from which we get most of our information regarding the early Egyptian creation myths. A time of anarchy followed during the seventh through tenth dynasties, but the period is notable for its literary activity and the so-called Coffin Texts, which also supply information on the cosmogonies. During this time the southern city of Thebes (now Luxor) grew in power. That power was solidified and Upper and Lower Egypt reunified in the Middle Kingdom era, covering dynasties eleven through thirteen and the period of the high god Amun or Amun Ra. Amun reigned during an intermediate period of four dynasties leading up to the New Kingdom era, which began in 1580 b.c.e. and was marked at the end of the eighteenth dynasty by the religious rebellion of the monotheist sun pharaoh, Akhnaton. During the next three dynasties, beginning in about 1320 b.c.e. and including the rule of Tutankhamen (King Tut), the power of Amun was restored.

 

Egyptian creation takes many forms, depending on the period and the religious center in question. In prehistoric times it seems clear that a great goddess, sometimes called Nun, reigned supreme and was responsible for creation out of herself. It was said that she gave forth Atum, who then created the universe. There are remnants of this female creative power in such figures as Hathor, Nut (or Neith), and Isis, but by the time of the Pyramid Texts, in which we find the Old Kingdom creation myths, the male force has achieved dominance.

 

In spite of a constant development over the centuries, certain aspects of an Egyptian creation myth can be said to be relatively constant. These include a source of all things in the primeval waters, themselves a remnant of the Great Mother, and the presence of an Eye, the sun, that creates cosmos within the chaos of the surrounding waters. The sun, whether Atum, Ra, or Ptah, is also associated with a primeval mound or hill, much like the little fertile mounds left by the receding Nile after the annual floods and perhaps like the early sun coming over the horizon. The mound was symbolized by the great pyramids. The people of Heliopolis said their city was the primal mound, the center of creation. The primal mound is also equivalent to the clump of earth that is brought up from the primal waters in so many earth-diver creation myths.

 

At Heliopolis, over the centuries Atum took many forms, rather like the Indian concept of Brahman. Atum or Ptah was the original god; Khepri (spelled in various ways—for example, Khoprer) is Atum made visible, and Ra is god as the sun. The Pyramid Texts tell us that Atum existed alone in the universe and that he created his brother and sister, Shu (air-life) and Tefnut (moisture-order) ex nihilo (see also Creation from Nothing) by masturbating or, as some texts claimed, by expectorating (see also Creation by Secretion). In some places the original god as Khepri, the morning sun, was said to have created himself by word—by calling out his own name (see also Creation by Word).

 

Shu and Tefnut, in a sacred incestuous act to be repeated for centuries by Egyptian pharaohs (god-kings), produced the god Geb (earth) and the goddess Nut (sky) (see also Incest in Creation). All of this was watched over by the non-interfering Eye, the original god. Geb and Nut were the parents of Osiris and Isis, Seth and Nephthys, and the older Horus. Osiris and Isis would later produce the boy Horus. From the children of Geb and Nut came all the children of Egypt.

 

The best known and most frequently depicted event in the Egyptian creation is the separation of the world parents, Geb and Nut (see also World Parent Creation). Nut is typically seen arching as the sky over her prone brother, Geb. As the earth, he longs for the moist gifts of the sky so he may procreate, and frequently he is shown with an erect phallus. The world parents are separated by their father, Shu (air), presumably signifying the necessity of differentiation and order rather than total union or nondifferentiation (chaos) for creation.

 

An early version of what became the Geb and Nut story says that when they perceived the old age of Ra and suspected his weakness, the people began to rebel against him. Not pleased, Ra held a meeting of his Eye, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, and Nun (the primeval waters) and told them that he had decided to destroy the people for their arrogance. At Nun's suggestion, Ra sent out his Eye to terrorize the people, and they fled into the desert, most to their death.

 

Wishing to retire, Ra and Nun asked Shu to place himself beneath Nut and raise her up. When he did so, she became the great sky cow, and the earth formed as Geb. A new creation began

 

Among the many forms of the Egyptian cosmogonies is the familiar figure of the cosmic egg (see also Creation from a Cosmic Egg), a substitute for the primeval waters or the primeval mound. There were people who believed in the cosmic egg as the soul—perhaps the male soul, Atum or Shu—of the original maternal waters (a kind of ancient Animus, to borrow the Jungian term for the opposite sex projection of the energizing soul of the female).

 

One variant of the cosmic egg version teaches that the sun god, as primeval power, emerged from the primeval mound, which itself stood in the chaos of the primeval sea.

 

Sources: Brandon, 14–65; Clark, 35–67; Freund, 79–80; Hamilton, 111–115; Leach, 217–220; Long, 99–101, 183–184; Weigle, 73–75.

Ridiculous? No more than Atum and Eve (sorry Adam) and the snake and all that is to you. Take a look at this story and then see if you can spot just a few influences on your very own book. I'm sure some of the folks around here will be able to do it (I even bolded a paragraph to make it easy. Did you spot the influence for the story that never happened in real life but people think it did?). There's nothing really to respond to here other than it shows a god creating himself in mythology, and surprise, people believing it. Your own creation story is creation by word (god speaks everything sans himself) into existance. Your own creation story is primeval chaos, waters and land being formed into order by your god. The elements are there just arranged in their own fashion. Each writer has their own style after all but how many times have you seen the same stories told in the movies? 10's? 100's? It's the same thing just with a different subject matter.

 

mwc

[KT45]

You said:

 

ANSWER THIS AND QUIT SKIPPING THIS QUESTION!!!!!!

My real question is this. Do you see how we can reasonably disbelieve the bible or do you feel that only a fool wouldn't believe everything the bible says? Do you think it is reasonable or understandable that many people would have a hard time believe much of the bible with stories like these? Can it even seem slightly reasonable to dismiss the whole bible when it contains these stories that are often accepted as fact? Can you understand why people would not believe the bible as factual?

 

 

 

KH> A cursory reading and a Naturalistic worldview combined can cause dismissal of the Bible. I see that as a main reason the Bible can be viewed as unreasonable. Does that answer you?

 

Read "Miracles" by C. S. Lewis. You'll enjoy it even if you disagree.

 

Kevin H

I'm surprised how I'm upset with this answer. Your basically saying that if an educated person read this book (the bible) and all the strange events in it, it would be unreasonable to dismiss it. In other words even with all it's extraordinary claims a logical thinking person must accept it as truth no matter how many times the bible myths go against a naturalistic worldview or they are to be deemed unreasonable. But in this same thread you easily dismiss other religious supernatural events as quote "stupid" because of your naturalistic worldview. Your viewpoint is clearly one-sided and not even worth anyones time.

 

Meh since you are here then answer another one of my questions you skipped again

Where is the line drawn between miraculous and stupidity? How is Elijah ascending to heaven on a fiery chariot with flying horses a miracle but a baby born from a rock stupid?

[KT45]

KH> A cursory reading and a Naturalistic worldview combined can cause dismissal of the Bible. I see that as a main reason the Bible can be viewed as unreasonable. Does that answer you?

This still bothers me so I still have more to say. If a person goes into a book store to pick up this bible everyone is talking about and the first thing he reads is something like this.

2 Kings 2:11

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

it unreasonable for him to dismiss it according to you. Let me ask you this question. If you picked up a book a friend told you to get and you had no knowledge of it and it said

Venus 2:11

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a seat of fire and elephants of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Mike went up to Valhalla in a storm.

would it be unreasonable to dismiss the book as truth. Or what if the book said this?

Pope 13:49

This is how it will be at the end of the age. The pixies will come and separate the wicked from the righteous

(this is a direct passage out of the bible with only two words changed)

 

To go further. If a book of science, you know that stuff that can be tested, said that gravity was really little ghost that constantly pulled beings back to earth, would it reasonable to dismiss it? I'm pretty sure you would dismiss this since it is unnaturalistic. But according to you you can't dismiss this just because you have a naturalistic viewpoint. According to what you said you have to accept it as possiblity.

 

Lets go even further. If I picked up a book and the people inside the book constantly doubted the main person inside the book would it be unreasonable dismiss the book myself? Of course as you know jesus was doubted by the people who saw him first hand. Why is it unreasonable for me to do so as well?

 

Hypothetically, if you had picked up the quran before you ever touched a bible, and you read it, would you dismiss it? Would it be unreasonable?

[KT45]

Sorry just one more thing to add. I really just don't see how it's reasonable to dismiss things that don't agree with your theology(faith based) but unreasonable to dismiss things that don't agree with naturalistic viewpoint (things that can be tested and observed). The example is what I've basically been saying. Things that don't agree with your theology like Islam or other pagan religion you can dismiss. But when I bring up miracles that aren't realistic it is suddenly unreasonable to dismiss.

[Kevin H]

 

KH> I think evil orginated in Lucifer prior to mankind, but was exacerbated in man. The giving of free will resulted in the opportunity for evil.

 

Simplistically, I think the eternal options would be something like:

 

1). Withhold free will and therefore create a world devoid of God-like relationship and the depths love is capable of.

 

2). Give free will and let the resulting evil run it's course - defeating it via a process, wth the Cross at the epicenter, and true love and relationship therefore achieved.

 

Kevin H

 

Okay. If evil originated in Lucifer prior to mankind, that means that God must have granted Lucifer free will. Did God create Lucifer, knowing that he was going to be evil and thus condemned for all eternity, and bringing along a substantial portion of his other creations with him? If God claims to know "good and evil" (as in Genesis) then was evil just an idea in God's mind before he created Lucifer?

 

 

KH> To the first question, yes. God gave free will knowing the resulting evil, the consequences, and the process by which it will be defeated. Why? Because a world without free will as such is not, or does not lead to, the Best of All Possible Worlds.

 

Second question, no. I don't think evil was an idea in God's mind, but knowledge of the results of lack of good or a twisting of good.

[Kevin H]

Sorry just one more thing to add. I really just don't see how it's reasonable to dismiss things that don't agree with your theology(faith based) but unreasonable to dismiss things that don't agree with naturalistic viewpoint (things that can be tested and observed). The example is what I've basically been saying. Things that don't agree with your theology like Islam or other pagan religion you can dismiss. But when I bring up miracles that aren't realistic it is suddenly unreasonable to dismiss.

 

 

KH> Let me see if I can address your three posts here. In answer, the Christian must first defend:

 

1). If God exists, miracles are possible.

 

2). God exists.

 

3). Therefore, miracles are possible.

 

You need to defend:

 

1). If Naturalism is true, there is no God and miracles are impossible.

 

2). Naturalism is true.

 

3). Therefore, there is no God and miracles are impossible.

 

 

Because of the relative rarity of miracles, all of us approach accounts of them with caution. Hume's "self-cancelling miracles" indicates that since most religions claim miracles stories, miracles cannot confirm a religion. Hume also argued in a circle by saying in essence, "miracles don't happen therefore miracles don't happen".

 

What if Christian Theism has better evidence for its claims? I think this is the case. Therefore, there is little to none in the competing religious options that act as a defeater of my faith in Christ. There is nothing in Naturalism that defeats it because Naturalism hits the wall at the Big Bang, etc.

 

The miracles in the Scriptures have a religio-historical context, revelational function, moral dimension, symbolic and parabolic function, and are never as fantastical "parlor tricks" as we find in other accounts.

 

Also, I would defend this:

 

1). If Jesus is divinely authoritative, the Hebrew Scriptures are true because he affirmed them.

 

2). Jesus is divinely authoritative.

 

3). Therefore, the Hebrew Scriptures are true because he affirmed them.

 

Again, we are in agreement. If one's worldview will not allow X, then X seems unreasonable.

 

Also, I don't have a problem with a fiery chariot(s), that is nothing to God. But I think there may be more going on in the account. It seems Elisha may be getting a glimpse into the spiritual realm and the chariot (or it can be interpreted "chariots") are representative of God's protection of Israel. So it may not be as literal as we envision it. We can take the Bible literally, without a "wooden literalism". Even so, I don't have a problem with it given the context and the time period in salvation history.

 

The New Testament claims something similar will happen at the return of Christ, so we may be getting a precursor in 2 Kings.

[Kevin H]

KH> Some brief comments on each. I don't think Genesis teaches a global flood but a universal flood. I think the text itself shows that this was a huge local event. I know the text and "under all the heavens" etc. is probably from the viewpoint of the observer, "mountains" can mean "hills", etc.

 

So the flood occured in the Mesopatamia and we find accounts of it in other cultures. Penquins, polar bears, kangaroos, etc. were not on the ark. Only animals of special relationship to man and in the region were aboard.

 

Wrong. The bible clearly shows this is supposed to be a worldwide flood.

 

Genesis 7:19-23

 

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [a] , 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

Frankly....by even trying to pass this off as a local event, you just displayed that YOU find the global flood story impossible to swallow. Particularly as a flood of that magnitude would have left very specific evidence of it's passing (geological records in the ice cores in Greenland for example).

 

Not to mention trying to pass this off as a local event, you rip the miraculous right out of it. You've minimized an act you believe was attributable to god. Gee. How nice of you.

 

So either you believe this story is the fanciful description of a local event, therefore minimizing the work of god OR you believe this was a global event despite all geological evidence to the contrary.

 

What is it they say about having your cake and eating it too?

 

That is the only true temptation most religions have to offer on a wide scale. It is the ULTIMATE in having your cake and eating it too. In what other belief systems do you die, and live eternally at the same time?

 

 

KH> I thought I was clear. References to "all" the heavens, life, land, etc. can be from the viewpoint of the observer, horizon to horizon. I find a global flood hard to swallow bibilically and geologically.

 

Many get their Christianity from the toys in the church nursery: the little ark with giraffes and penquins. When that is easily shown preposterous even from a biblical standpoint, they end up on sites like this. Surely, I can be of some help to a few.

 

 

Kevin H

 

 

KH> A cursory reading and a Naturalistic worldview combined can cause dismissal of the Bible. I see that as a main reason the Bible can be viewed as unreasonable. Does that answer you?

This still bothers me so I still have more to say. If a person goes into a book store to pick up this bible everyone is talking about and the first thing he reads is something like this.

2 Kings 2:11

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

it unreasonable for him to dismiss it according to you. Let me ask you this question. If you picked up a book a friend told you to get and you had no knowledge of it and it said

Venus 2:11

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a seat of fire and elephants of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Mike went up to Valhalla in a storm.

would it be unreasonable to dismiss the book as truth. Or what if the book said this?

Pope 13:49

This is how it will be at the end of the age. The pixies will come and separate the wicked from the righteous

(this is a direct passage out of the bible with only two words changed)

 

To go further. If a book of science, you know that stuff that can be tested, said that gravity was really little ghost that constantly pulled beings back to earth, would it reasonable to dismiss it? I'm pretty sure you would dismiss this since it is unnaturalistic. But according to you you can't dismiss this just because you have a naturalistic viewpoint. According to what you said you have to accept it as possiblity.

 

Lets go even further. If I picked up a book and the people inside the book constantly doubted the main person inside the book would it be unreasonable dismiss the book myself? Of course as you know jesus was doubted by the people who saw him first hand. Why is it unreasonable for me to do so as well?

 

Hypothetically, if you had picked up the quran before you ever touched a bible, and you read it, would you dismiss it? Would it be unreasonable?

 

 

KH> Look at my other post for most of this but two things: The Christian worldview takes the natural world and science seriously; how the world and systems operates. This differs from Metaphysical Naturalism.

 

Second, I hope I would discount the Koran at first reading in that is says semen comes from a man's chest, the sun sets in a puddle of mud, and Christ was never crucified, etc.

 

Kevin H

[wideawake42]

 

Okay. If evil originated in Lucifer prior to mankind, that means that God must have granted Lucifer free will. Did God create Lucifer, knowing that he was going to be evil and thus condemned for all eternity, and bringing along a substantial portion of his other creations with him? If God claims to know "good and evil" (as in Genesis) then was evil just an idea in God's mind before he created Lucifer?

 

KH> To the first question, yes. God gave free will knowing the resulting evil, the consequences, and the process by which it will be defeated. Why? Because a world without free will as such is not, or does not lead to, the Best of All Possible Worlds.

 

Second question, no. I don't think evil was an idea in God's mind, but knowledge of the results of lack of good or a twisting of good.

 

Okay. Do good and evil exist outside of God? As in, does God know good and evil prior to their creation, and does he choose to be Good? Is he CAPABLE of doing evil, if he so chose?

 

Or is God the standard of good, and evil a result of a lack of God? (In other words, anything God does is good, and anything God does not do or condemns is therefore evil?)

[KT45]

Thanks for the answer but this is what I truely wanted to know. Why is it unreasonable to dismiss the bible after reading it? If I picked up any old book that talked about a world truth and the first thing I read was about horses that are flying and on fire then I don't see why I shouldn't be able to dismiss it. It is no different then when you dismissed a baby being born from a rock. I agree, I dismiss it too. But if you can dismiss a whole entire religion off of one supernatural account then why can't I? Why am I considered unreasonable just because I dismiss the bible but your not unreasonable?

 

Second, I hope I would discount the Koran at first reading in that is says semen comes from a man's chest, the sun sets in a puddle of mud

you believe it is okay to dismiss the whole Koran because of these accounts. Is it REASONABLE to do so? I dismiss the bible because of similar accounts like woman being born from a man's rib. Is it REASONABLE to do so?

 

All my questions are about if it's REASONABLE or not. It's not about if my view point is right and yours is wrong. It's just asking if I am within reason to believe what I believe. I few post ago you said it was unreasonable to do so, so please clarify!

[Ouroboros]

KH> Look at my other post for most of this but two things: The Christian worldview takes the natural world and science seriously; how the world and systems operates. This differs from Metaphysical Naturalism.

 

Second, I hope I would discount the Koran at first reading in that is says semen comes from a man's chest, the sun sets in a puddle of mud, and Christ was never crucified, etc.

Snakes talk, but the sun doesn't set in a puddle of mud.

 

KevinH, explain how scientific it is to have a story that claims that the sun "stood still in the sky".

 

And didn't you know, "sun sets in a puddle of mud" is just a figure of speech.

 

And the "semen from a man's chest" too, it is just to tell that the life comes from the heart of the man, he loves his offspring.

 

See, I can become a muslim apologetic if I'd like.

[white_raven23]

KH> Some brief comments on each. I don't think Genesis teaches a global flood but a universal flood. I think the text itself shows that this was a huge local event. I know the text and "under all the heavens" etc. is probably from the viewpoint of the observer, "mountains" can mean "hills", etc.

 

So the flood occured in the Mesopatamia and we find accounts of it in other cultures. Penquins, polar bears, kangaroos, etc. were not on the ark. Only animals of special relationship to man and in the region were aboard.

 

Wrong. The bible clearly shows this is supposed to be a worldwide flood.

 

Genesis 7:19-23

 

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [a] , 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

Frankly....by even trying to pass this off as a local event, you just displayed that YOU find the global flood story impossible to swallow. Particularly as a flood of that magnitude would have left very specific evidence of it's passing (geological records in the ice cores in Greenland for example).

 

Not to mention trying to pass this off as a local event, you rip the miraculous right out of it. You've minimized an act you believe was attributable to god. Gee. How nice of you.

 

So either you believe this story is the fanciful description of a local event, therefore minimizing the work of god OR you believe this was a global event despite all geological evidence to the contrary.

 

What is it they say about having your cake and eating it too?

 

That is the only true temptation most religions have to offer on a wide scale. It is the ULTIMATE in having your cake and eating it too. In what other belief systems do you die, and live eternally at the same time?

 

 

KH> I thought I was clear. References to "all" the heavens, life, land, etc. can be from the viewpoint of the observer, horizon to horizon. I find a global flood hard to swallow bibilically and geologically.

 

Many get their Christianity from the toys in the church nursery: the little ark with giraffes and penquins. When that is easily shown preposterous even from a biblical standpoint, they end up on sites like this. Surely, I can be of some help to a few.

 

 

Little problem with this idea Kevin H. The bible is supposed to be the inspired written word of god. So the perspective of the writer that this was a global flood, being such an incorrect assumption, should have rightly been overruled by the god inspiration spirit thingy in favor for accuracy and truth as that was obviously more important to posterity, and thus preventing this very discussion, and all those like it.

 

Might have prevented bats getting labelled as birds too.

 

Not to mention that whole ocean in the sky held up by the firmament loco bible-"science".

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Kevin_H;

 

Second, I hope I would discount the Koran at first reading in that is says semen comes from a man's chest, the sun sets in a puddle of mud, and Christ was never crucified, etc.

 

Well, I actually dont want to indulge in any fierece or troublesome debate to prove either side wrong or right but; I have some concerns regarding your aforementioned statement. I hope that you have made it by mistake and if i am wrong, i would like to see that what makes you to believe like this?

 

Regards

A well wisher

[mwc]

KH> I thought I was clear. References to "all" the heavens, life, land, etc. can be from the viewpoint of the observer, horizon to horizon. I find a global flood hard to swallow bibilically and geologically.

 

Many get their Christianity from the toys in the church nursery: the little ark with giraffes and penquins. When that is easily shown preposterous even from a biblical standpoint, they end up on sites like this. Surely, I can be of some help to a few.

You were clear that you thought the flood was a local flood. However, I find it odd that you belittle us when the general belief in the xian faith is still that it is a global flood. I willing to bet that if you took a poll you would find too many serious takers for a global flood. We just like to argue it is all.

 

That being said, the bible makes itself quite clear that it was a global flood. What was global is what is question. The earth was flat at the time. The earth was a supercontinent much like Pangea as well. If you'd visit the thread about the flood you'd see all this has been gone over before. So how do you localize something like that? You can't really. Once god says he wants to kill everything with the breath of life in it that is from god's point of view not Noah's. That means everything.

 

The local flood that likely did happen when the Black Sea flooded is the best for the origin of the myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh (and later the bible). There's no evidence that I've seen that shows it reached the area of Ararat so why the bible says that I'm not too sure but that would place the bible in error since the ark could not land there. The whole story becomes nothing more than allegory if it is a local flood since why make a 500 year old man labor 100 or so years to build a boat to save a few animals, after a year on the voyage of hell, when he and the animals could have just walked away? (Which they likely did if the local flood theory is true?)

 

Then everything that comes before the story is also called into question. Where are the giants? What of the "evil" that is non-stop in all mens hearts that had to be exterminated? And so on. None of these problems were solved. If the message is if we obey god then god will do right by us then the message works otherwise it's a mess. This is, of course, the message over and over in the OT but it just gets more and more elaborate.

 

mwc

[Kevin H]

 

Okay. If evil originated in Lucifer prior to mankind, that means that God must have granted Lucifer free will. Did God create Lucifer, knowing that he was going to be evil and thus condemned for all eternity, and bringing along a substantial portion of his other creations with him? If God claims to know "good and evil" (as in Genesis) then was evil just an idea in God's mind before he created Lucifer?

 

KH> To the first question, yes. God gave free will knowing the resulting evil, the consequences, and the process by which it will be defeated. Why? Because a world without free will as such is not, or does not lead to, the Best of All Possible Worlds.

 

Second question, no. I don't think evil was an idea in God's mind, but knowledge of the results of lack of good or a twisting of good.

 

Okay. Do good and evil exist outside of God? As in, does God know good and evil prior to their creation, and does he choose to be Good? Is he CAPABLE of doing evil, if he so chose?

 

Or is God the standard of good, and evil a result of a lack of God? (In other words, anything God does is good, and anything God does not do or condemns is therefore evil?)

 

KH> I really like this topic. You are referring to Euthyphro's Dilemma or Argument from Plato. Just in case you haven't read up on it, it presents a dilemma:

 

Is something Good because God declares it Good?

 

Or, is something Good because God recognizes it as Good?

 

Either option is unacceptable to Christian theology (or mitigates against it). The first option allows that God could call rape or murder of the innocent "good" arbitrarily - which is crazy!

 

The second option means Good is more ultimate than God and we can bypass him to get to the Good as well.

 

The answer? Plato saw it himself: God IS the Good. And as such he is in keeping with his own self-consistency and nature. Further, that good is expressed to us via various commands and revelation.

 

Various Divine Command theories of ethics fall prey to Euthyphro's Dilemma. But, they are not necessary.

 

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

Thanks for the answer but this is what I truely wanted to know. Why is it unreasonable to dismiss the bible after reading it? If I picked up any old book that talked about a world truth and the first thing I read was about horses that are flying and on fire then I don't see why I shouldn't be able to dismiss it. It is no different then when you dismissed a baby being born from a rock. I agree, I dismiss it too. But if you can dismiss a whole entire religion off of one supernatural account then why can't I? Why am I considered unreasonable just because I dismiss the bible but your not unreasonable?

 

Second, I hope I would discount the Koran at first reading in that is says semen comes from a man's chest, the sun sets in a puddle of mud

you believe it is okay to dismiss the whole Koran because of these accounts. Is it REASONABLE to do so? I dismiss the bible because of similar accounts like woman being born from a man's rib. Is it REASONABLE to do so?

 

All my questions are about if it's REASONABLE or not. It's not about if my view point is right and yours is wrong. It's just asking if I am within reason to believe what I believe. I few post ago you said it was unreasonable to do so, so please clarify!

 

 

KH> You may want to point me to where I talked about what was unreasonable - not sure I know the reference.

 

Let's try to clarify then. A person may arrive at a conclusion by doing his best to reason it out. So in that sense the person can declare himself reasonable and his view reasonable. The question then becomes, is he reasonable and is his view itself reasonable and by what standards?

 

Our reasoning can be rather subjective and flawed. A person who reasons the world is flat is perfectly reasonable to declare the moon landings hoaxes. I may acknowledge the guy is reasonable, but would declare his view unreasonable.

 

Since our reasoning and cognitive faculties can be wrong and we don't know all the answers, it gets back to which Worldview provides the best interpretive framework.

 

I want to stop here to see if I'm on track with your question. In the meantime, the Hebrew word does not necessarily mean "rib" but can mean "side". I have no problem with God using Adam's DNA as a template (a biopsy?) for woman. God often does things symbolically and parabolically. I can see how the whole "rib" thing can throw someone off unless he sees the theistic significance and the linguistic alternatives.

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

KH> Look at my other post for most of this but two things: The Christian worldview takes the natural world and science seriously; how the world and systems operates. This differs from Metaphysical Naturalism.

 

Second, I hope I would discount the Koran at first reading in that is says semen comes from a man's chest, the sun sets in a puddle of mud, and Christ was never crucified, etc.

Snakes talk, but the sun doesn't set in a puddle of mud.

 

KevinH, explain how scientific it is to have a story that claims that the sun "stood still in the sky".

 

And didn't you know, "sun sets in a puddle of mud" is just a figure of speech.

 

And the "semen from a man's chest" too, it is just to tell that the life comes from the heart of the man, he loves his offspring.

 

See, I can become a muslim apologetic if I'd like.

 

 

Hans, I've been over the "Boa with vocal chords" thing and reject it. I think something other than what is often depicted in Medieval art was going on.

 

The sun standing still in the sky was not a scientific event but a supernatural event and I don't know how God did it. But it would be easy for him wouldn't it? Did he use refraction via water particles to extend the light or did he just stop the whole rotation, at the same time preventing tectonic damage and activity? Not sure.

 

I think the Muslim can use that apologetic. Some apologetic answers are better than others. I prefer ones that don't overstate the case or stretch beyond consistency within the worldview itself. I think the "heart of man is really semen" apologetic would be a stretch. LOL!

 

For example, suppose someone said, "God sent a giant mosquito the size of the moon to suck up all the water from the Flood". God could do that, but it is not consistent with the Christian worldview and Scriptural pattern. It is more consistent that God operate using nature for the most part, being that he created nature and natural systems and declared them good.

 

That's why God sent a "great wind" in the Flood account. This shows me two things. He uses things he created and declared good and the Flood was local (fat lotta good wind would do a global flood! But it would facilitate evaporation and displacement even in a huge local flood).

[Kevin H]

KH> Some brief comments on each. I don't think Genesis teaches a global flood but a universal flood. I think the text itself shows that this was a huge local event. I know the text and "under all the heavens" etc. is probably from the viewpoint of the observer, "mountains" can mean "hills", etc.

 

So the flood occured in the Mesopatamia and we find accounts of it in other cultures. Penquins, polar bears, kangaroos, etc. were not on the ark. Only animals of special relationship to man and in the region were aboard.

 

Wrong. The bible clearly shows this is supposed to be a worldwide flood.

 

Genesis 7:19-23

 

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [a] , 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

Frankly....by even trying to pass this off as a local event, you just displayed that YOU find the global flood story impossible to swallow. Particularly as a flood of that magnitude would have left very specific evidence of it's passing (geological records in the ice cores in Greenland for example).

 

Not to mention trying to pass this off as a local event, you rip the miraculous right out of it. You've minimized an act you believe was attributable to god. Gee. How nice of you.

 

So either you believe this story is the fanciful description of a local event, therefore minimizing the work of god OR you believe this was a global event despite all geological evidence to the contrary.

 

What is it they say about having your cake and eating it too?

 

That is the only true temptation most religions have to offer on a wide scale. It is the ULTIMATE in having your cake and eating it too. In what other belief systems do you die, and live eternally at the same time?

 

 

KH> I thought I was clear. References to "all" the heavens, life, land, etc. can be from the viewpoint of the observer, horizon to horizon. I find a global flood hard to swallow bibilically and geologically.

 

Many get their Christianity from the toys in the church nursery: the little ark with giraffes and penquins. When that is easily shown preposterous even from a biblical standpoint, they end up on sites like this. Surely, I can be of some help to a few.

 

 

Little problem with this idea Kevin H. The bible is supposed to be the inspired written word of god. So the perspective of the writer that this was a global flood, being such an incorrect assumption, should have rightly been overruled by the god inspiration spirit thingy in favor for accuracy and truth as that was obviously more important to posterity, and thus preventing this very discussion, and all those like it.

 

Might have prevented bats getting labelled as birds too.

 

Not to mention that whole ocean in the sky held up by the firmament loco bible-"science".

 

 

KH> I'm not saying the writer thought it was global. The writer may well have known it was not global and used language available to him.

 

You really bring up some "goldie oldies" with the bats and the firmament. The answer is easy to find on many sites all over the web, or just get a good commentary.

 

We may also want to discuss the doctrine of inspiration and to what extent humanity is not bypassed in the proces. I get the feeling you're not really interested because of your "god... spirit thingy" comment.

[Dhampir]

So many holes, not nearly enough plugs. I'd like to address a couple things:

KH> To the first question, yes. God gave free will knowing the resulting evil, the consequences, and the process by which it will be defeated. Why? Because a world without free will as such is not, or does not lead to, the Best of All Possible Worlds.

 

Second question, no. I don't think evil was an idea in God's mind, but knowledge of the results of lack of good or a twisting of good.

First of all, is god not all powerful? Could he not have concieved of a way wherein free will would not have resulted in such evil, and have that be a better world than the one we have, or will have, as is your apparent implication? If not then the answer to the first question is no.

 

Second, is god omniscient? If so, then how could he not have had the idea of evil? If not, how do you justify that position?