possible?

If you mean the Christian God that would severely go against damn near everything Christianity teaches.

Aside from that, why would God do something contradicting what He wants his people to believe? He'd basically be tricking many people into going to Hell.

[This message has been edited by Goat Saint (edited 08-23-2005).]

Why is it necessary to lie to everyone and say you made the earth in six dayswhen you made it by evolution? Its counterintuitiveand quite destructive to his case.

Besides, he would be lying straight to your face for absolutely no reason. Hes omnipotent, what can he gain by lying to you?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Besides, he would be lying straight to your face for absolutely no reason. Hes omnipotent, what can he gain by lying to you?

A bigger e-penis?

This is what many people tend to believe, they don't want to outright deny their faith but they can't hold firm in the face of such evidence so they mix it. It's called theistic evolution. It's possible but I'd like to see some evidence for a god before we use it as a mechanism.

The Qu'ran says that God did create the big bang and evolution " We created the universe and we are constantly expanding it."

Why not And biblical humans could live upto 900 years +

Wow, just think, you are smarter than a majority of US christians (not too hard a thing to do).

Yes, it's possible.

Goat Saint: Nope it doesn't go against what christianity teaches. It goes against what literalist fundy morons teach.

Again, it wouldn't be God who tricked people into hell, but moron followers.

ArgonPlasma: Ok, we will send you back in time, it is your job to teach nomadic sheep herders how to use a computer. Just try to explain how a computer works without them thinking you are crazy or burning you at the stake. Now remember, your main goal is to teach them how to use a computer, not how one works. Wouldn't you "lie" to get your point across?

Since the point of the bible is spiritual growth, why would God spend his time teaching people about quantum mechanics? Why not create a simple to understand story that holds moral lessons, and hope that when develop science we will read the book of creation (the universe, something he made) and realize his spiritual book is not a science book.

(note, I'm an atheist.)

quote:ArgonPlasma: Ok, we will send you back in time, it is your job to teach nomadic sheep herders how to use a computer. Just try to explain how a computer works without them thinking you are crazy or burning you at the stake. Now remember, your main goal is to teach them how to use a computer, not how one works. Wouldn't you "lie" to get your point across?

Fair point i guess. But even so, it is not necessary to lie to them to be able to use a computer. I would have to bend the truth a bit (since there are no concepts, let alone words) to describe the concept of cyberspace. Its not an impossible task however.

But the point yet remains, God cannot tell a lie or not tell complete truth.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

God cannot tell a lie or not tell complete truth.

Why do you say that?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Since the point of the bible is spiritual growth, why would God spend his time teaching people about quantum mechanics? Why not create a simple to understand story that holds moral lessons, and hope that when develop science we will read the book of creation (the universe, something he made) and realize his spiritual book is not a science book.

I agree in principle with much of this. (Note: I like to call myself a Christian)

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Fair point i guess. But even so, it is not necessary to lie to them to be able to use a computer. I would have to bend the truth a bit (since there are no concepts, let alone words) to describe the concept of cyberspace. Its not an impossible task however.

But the point yet remains, God cannot tell a lie or not tell complete truth.

Flash forward a couple thousand years to the present and those bending of the truth or symbolic ways to describe complex technology would look like lies if people took your writings literally.

If God never meant genesis to be an exact and literal explaination of the creation of the universe, then he didn't lie. Jesus spoke in parables, if they aren't literally true does it mean he lied?

Many christians in the past believed the bible says the earth is the center of the universe, yet few christians today want to throw the book away because that isn't true, or believe God lied to them.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Fair point i guess. But even so, it is not necessary to lie to them to be able to use a computer. I would have to bend the truth a bit (since there are no concepts, let alone words) to describe the concept of cyberspace. Its not an impossible task however.

But the point yet remains, God cannot tell a lie or not tell complete truth.

If it's looked at symbolically, then it does make sense. If you take what's in the bible as symbols then it would not be lying.

It's pretty musch putting the concept that God created everything into words that people who are not smart(of which there will always be many) can understand.

Anyways, wouldn't the important truth to God be that he created the universe, not how he created it?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Goat Saint: Nope it doesn't go against what christianity teaches. It goes against what literalist fundy morons teach.

Again, it wouldn't be God who tricked people into hell, but moron followers.

I never said it was impossible. I believe in evolution (not sure about the Big Bang). But it is possible that a God exists, and is the one who caused evolution/Big Bang.

My belief is that it is not our job as humans to try and figure this out; it's just our nature. If a God exists and wants us to believe in Him, it is through faith, not thorough investigation and fact finding. You find your own 'facts' [eventually] through faith.

However, if you take the Bible as the 'Inspired Word of God', like so many people do try reading Psalms 33:6-9, Isiah 40:26-28, and Hebrews 11:3.

Note: I'm an Atheist too.



[This message has been edited by Goat Saint (edited 08-23-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If it's looked at symbolically, then it does make sense. If you take what's in the bible as symbols then it would not be lying.

It's pretty musch putting the concept that God created everything into words that people who are not smart(of which there will always be many) can understand.

Anyways, wouldn't the important truth to God be that he created the universe, not how he created it?

Show me where God says he wants you to take his word exclusively as symbols.

Please dont drag parables into the mix either because most of them were about real people and everyday events, but all had a second,spiritual meaning. So even when he did present a fictional event, he wasnt saying that it ever happened literally, but only to convey a message.

The important truth IS that he created the world. But if he has to lie to you to get the point accross, he is not God.

God said he created the world in six literal days. Isnt that just as easy to believe if God said he made a bright light that made everything we see today?

Both can be presented and understood by children (as evidenced by sunday school and the public education system). So its pointless for you to say that he said something that he didnt do, but it was ok because he was trying to convey a message.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Show me where God says he wants you to take his word exclusively as symbols.

Good point. I guess the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

*Points at the universe* that is where God says genesis isn't literal. Unless God faked evidence just to mess with us. Unfortunately people don't like to mix intelligence with religion.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Show me where God says he wants you to take his word exclusively as symbols.

Why do you have to insert "exclusively" there? Either something is true or it is symbolic. Facts show it's not true, so it must be symbolic or just false if there's no way to see it symbolically.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



Please dont drag parables into the mix either because most of them were about real people and everyday events, but all had a second,spiritual meaning. So even when he did present a fictional event, he wasnt saying that it ever happened literally, but only to convey a message.

So either accept that Genesis tries to convey a message (apparently that God created the universe) or that it is utter rubbish.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



The important truth IS that he created the world. But if he has to lie to you to get the point accross, he is not God.

God said he created the world in six literal days. Isnt that just as easy to believe if God said he made a bright light that made everything we see today?

Sure. The writer liked his way better though. What did you expect to see written at 3000BC? Singularities and natural selection?

Why is Genesis so important to your faith anyway? There is no moral lesson it.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Sure. The writer liked his way better though. What did you expect to see written at 3000BC? Singularities and natural selection?

Why is Genesis so important to your faith anyway? There is no moral lesson it.

I got home alittle early from work tonight, so i'll try to work on a few posts for a little while.

First, to the topic starter: Theistic evolution is contra-biblical. It places death and suffering prior to the fall of man. Where as the Bible teaches that death and suffering is the result of Sin which entered the world at the Fall of man.

Elfstone:

If Christianity is correct in these:

1. none is good; all have Sinned and fell short of the Glory of God

2. that there was a literal Messiah (Jesus the Christ) sent to pay the penalty that God has demanded for us

3. Jesus is God

AND the fact that the New Testament writers depict Jesus as accepting Genesis as literal history.... In other words: If Jesus is God, and He accepts Genesis as literal, then it is literal.

Now, to try to answer your question, "Why is Genesis so important to your faith anyway?".

I think it is entirely possible for one to be saved, without understanding the first 11 chapters of Genesis as literal... all that is required for Salvation, is belief/trust that Jesus redeemed us.

One reason that i think it is important is that many choose to disbelieve God's Word as a result of trusting that science is correct concerning big bang and evolution. In otherwords, "if the Bible is wrong about this, then it must be wrong about the Savior rising from the dead". As Paradise Lost pointed out, "they don't want to outright deny their faith but they can't hold firm in the face of such evidence so they mix it." (Although i disagree that that 'evidence' is conclusive'). ((The purpose of creation science should be to show that there are other ways to look at the scientific evidence in light of the Truth of God's Word.))

The bottom line, in a nut shell: The reason that Genesis is important, is that it is foundational... all doctrine comes either dirictly from, or rests on Genesis. It declares God. It explains Sin (actually, not 'explains', but that is the closest word i can think of right now); and thus, death and suffering. And it fore-tells the Messiah.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Show me where God says he wants you to take his word exclusively as symbols.

How many authors tell the reader how to read the book? You're asking for too much. Is it really asking a lot to look at the bible symbolically?

quote:The important truth IS that he created the world. But if he has to lie to you to get the point accross, he is not God.

Symbolically he hasn't lied.

quote:God said he created the world in six literal days. Isnt that just as easy to believe if God said he made a bright light that made everything we see today?

Where does it say "literal days" in the creation story?

Do you think people lived into the 900's?

quote:First, to the topic starter: Theistic evolution is contra-biblical. It places death and suffering prior to the fall of man. Where as the Bible teaches that death and suffering is the result of Sin which entered the world at the Fall of man.

Circular logic. The bible only teaches that death is the result of Sin and that Sin entered the world at the fall of man if taken literally.

quote:3. Jesus is God

AND the fact that the New Testament writers depict Jesus as accepting Genesis as literal history.... In other words: If Jesus is God, and He accepts Genesis as literal, then it is literal.

Scripture please (I get the feeling it isn't as supportive as you think).

I bet if he was asked Jesus would have been a geocentrist as well. Why? Because his own worshipers might have put him on the cross themselves if he started making some crazy heretic claims. To repeat my earlier comment, it just wasn't important to Jesus. He wasn't a scientist but a spiritualist. What good does trying to explain complicated science do to try and spread the spiritual word?

quote:One reason that i think it is important is that many choose to disbelieve God's Word as a result of trusting that science is correct concerning big bang and evolution.

You are the one arguing that a literal genesis (and thus an anti-science genesis) is important and contra-biblical. So consider it your own doing.

quote:Where does it say "literal days" in the creation story?

The Hebrew manuscripts let on that they were literal solar days.

Really? I've never heard that before. You think if they say that, the discussion would have been put to rest.

Anyways, what about the other questions: Do you think people lived to 900? Is the earth flat? Is the earth the center of the universe? etc...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Anyways, what about the other questions: Do you think people lived to 900? Is the earth flat? Is the earth the center of the universe? etc...

<LI>I seriously doubt people lived that long. But I wasn't alive back then, and I'm far from even being ONE hundred years old. So it's anyone's guess.

<LI>It certainly seems flat doesn't it?

<LI>Of course Earth is the center of the universe. How could it not be when the human race thinks so highly of themselves?



[This message has been edited by Goat Saint (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Really? I've never heard that before. You think if they say that, the discussion would have been put to rest.

Anyways, what about the other questions: Do you think people lived to 900? Is the earth flat? Is the earth the center of the universe? etc...

The Bible states the ages of several people, some of whom lived past the 900 year mark.

If the Bible is to be true as it claims, then i can only say that i do believe that men at that time lived for 900 years.

Also where do you grab the idea that the Bible lets on that the world is flat? The four corners thing or something else?

As for that earth vs sun as the centerof the solar system, i can comment, however i can say that the Bible gave us a clue as to an outer space. In Job (probably the oldest book in the Bible), Job writes about God hanging the earth on nothing.

Outerspace isn't nothing. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

And the earth actually "hangs" on gravity. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Beta69,

How could this be circular logic?:



quote:First, to the topic starter: Theistic evolution is contra-biblical. It places death and suffering prior to the fall of man. Where as the Bible teaches that death and suffering is the result of Sin which entered the world at the Fall of man. /quote

Evolution (theistic or not) has things living and dying. Theistic evolution has the 'dying' part happening prior to man's arrival on the planet. If death entered the world prior to man, then it must have happened before the Fall of man.

And as you said, "The bible only teaches that death is the result of Sin and that Sin entered the world at the fall of man"

but then you add, "if taken literally." As far as death as a result of Sin goes, ... literal is the only way to take it (Biblically speaking).

quote:Scripture please (I get the feeling it isn't as supportive as you think).

First, let me re-itterate that i did say (even though i believe it), "If Christianity is correct in these".

It is way past bedtime, so i'm going to use someone elses work (it's not going to come out in "table" form, but you can see it that way at http://www.evidencebible.com/newtestament.shtml

it would be at John 10:36 (page 345- 347).

And speaking of John 10:36, check out John chapter 10.. especially verses 24-38.

quote:To repeat my earlier comment, it just wasn't important to Jesus. He wasn't a scientist but a spiritualist. What good does trying to explain complicated science do to try and spread the spiritual word?

How do you know what was or wasn't important to Jesus?

He may not have been a scientist, but as the Son of God.. and God, He is the Creator of all things that can be see by science. So, complicated science or not, that would not be a problem for Him... He could tell us the Truth as simplistically as He wills. Or He could have talked about "singularities and natural selection" without giving any context or time to learn about such things... but then i doubt that there would be any believers to this day, since there would have been none in the begining.

But, if you are asking ME, "What good does trying to explain complicated science do to try and spread the spiritual word?" then please re-read what i've already wrote:

quote:One reason that i think it is important is that many choose to disbelieve God's Word as a result of trusting that science is correct concerning big bang and evolution. In otherwords, "if the Bible is wrong about this, then it must be wrong about the Savior rising from the dead". As Paradise Lost pointed out, "they don't want to outright deny their faith but they can't hold firm in the face of such evidence so they mix it." (Although i disagree that that 'evidence' is conclusive'). ((The purpose of creation science should be to show that there are other ways to look at the scientific evidence in light of the Truth of God's Word.))

The bottom line, in a nut shell: The reason that Genesis is important, is that it is foundational... all doctrine comes either dirictly from, or rests on Genesis. It declares God. It explains Sin (actually, not 'explains', but that is the closest word i can think of right now); and thus, death and suffering. And it fore-tells the Messiah.



quote:You are the one arguing that a literal genesis (and thus an anti-science genesis) is important and contra-biblical. So consider it your own doing.

Sorry, i may be old, but i'm not old enough to have had that kind of influence.

As far as "anti-science", i've explained that that is (rather, should be) the reason for creation science... to show that there are scientific answers that agree with a literal understanding of Scripture.

I know that you have stated in the past that you disagree with creation science (AiG, in particular), but right now, that is not my point. My point right now is, it is the initial starting point of the person (i.e. belief that God is correct or belief that science is correct... and that one, rules out the other)

If you dont mind, may i ask you of your background? Student? Scientist? Years in your field -if you are a scientist? Age? Did you used to be Christian? Did you become atheist as a result of your belief in science, or did you already disbelieve God's Word before science became your "god"?

And just so you realize that i'm not going to use this as a way to bullshit you by pretending to declare somesort of "authority", i am a truck driver. Forty years old. Obviously, Christian.. no, i was not converted from unbelief. I had the privilege of being raised Christian. But i have done lots of reading and thinking on both subjects. I have had some college. Went to school for computer programming but when i was bored with it and was trying to decide what to change my studies to, a full-time driving position opened where i was employed, so i quit school. And believe it or not, i've been reading and studying both science and the Bible since i was about 5 years old. In first grade, they said that i was reading between 8th grade and sophmore college material. (i mention this because in the past, i said that i've been studying for about 35 years.. not that it matters, just a mention. And for what it's worth, i see people in this forum that are both more intelligent and more learned, not to mention..so much younger, that i am in utter amazement) But please concider this; most, if not all of the doctrine and ideas that i've posted on this board, have been based firstly on my own reading and understanding of the Bible. And most of the time, checked (with commentaries and doctrine) AFTER i've drawn my conclusion BUT BEFORE posting. And many (obviously, not creation science) have been drawn from expirience in my life (in other words, those 'doctrine and ideas' that were based off of my understanding of the Bible, have been conveyed here, with things that ive either expirienced first hand or witnessed during my life... God's Word applies to life.)

Sorry both to you, and myself, for the tangent. Gotta go to bed.. been putting in big hours at work. Should have gone to bed 3 hours ago.

Good night, and may God Bless You

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

How could this be circular logic?

Because you must believe the bible to be literal before you can show non literal theistic evolution is against the bible.

Thus you have to assume the conclusion before the problem fits it (sounds like creationism http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

I'm sure there is another fallacy that fits that better though.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

And as you said, "The bible only teaches that death is the result of Sin and that Sin entered the world at the fall of man"

but then you add, "if taken literally." As far as death as a result of Sin goes, ... literal is the only way to take it (Biblically speaking).

Um, no, it's not.

Ok, so God told all animals to go forth and reproduce. Made a limited size earth, but prevents them to die. That sounds like a fun place to live after a couple years. What a smart God.

I didn't really want to get into this, however...

What does God care about, the material or the spiritual? What did Jesus come to save us from, physical death or spiritual death? In genesis God is talking about spiritual death, not physical.

I have heard two interpretations of genesis based on a non literal understanding.

1) Adam and Eve are representative of the first Humans God gave souls too (since remember it's spiritual death), they sinned and brought "death" to the rest of us.

2) Adam and Eve represent every person and how everyone falls for temptation and sins against God.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[Me]Scripture please

I don't think John is what you are looking for. It's about Jesus being God. For evidence that Jesus believed in a literal genesis I think you wanted Mark 10:6 (It is similar, so being tired I could see how it could get mixed up.)

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6)."

Yep, that is the most Jesus ever said about a literal genesis.

If we don't quote mine but read the whole of Mark 10 we discover that Jesus wasn't stating this as a scientific fact but trying to make a point about divorcing your wife and your relationship with here. He also said,

"And they[Husband and wife] twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. Mar 10:8"

Yet I doubt many people think Jesus meant that when you marry you literally merge and become one person.

He is also technically correct in the view of evolution. Sex has been around for a long time. As far as Humans are concerned Male and female has been around since the beginning of creation (Yes I know it took billions of years, but to God that could all be the beginning. A Human and a mouse born at the same time, the mouse becomes old while the human is still at the beginning of it's life. Now let's compare a Humans understanding of time vs Gods.)



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

How do you know what was or wasn't important to Jesus?

Your right, I can't talk for Jesus. However we can take a look at what he did and make some assumptions. Jesus went around curing people, yet never (As far as we know) explained the science behind why they were sick and how to fix them. He never corrected any incorrect scientific belief what so ever. Thus we can infer an assumption that correcting science wasn't important to Jesus. Now, we again look at the bible and we see him spreading spirituality and how to treat each other. Assuming Jesus was God and could do whatever he wanted, we can get an understanding of what is important to Jesus and thus God. Incorrect science wasn't one of them, spirituality was.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Sorry, i may be old, but i'm not old enough to have had that kind of influence.

I was using "you" as a generic. Anyone who supports the idea of bible vs science, God vs science, etc. is supporting those who deconvert because they trust science more than the bible or creationists. This includes moron atheists.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

the reason for creation science... to show that there are scientific answers that agree with a literal understanding of Scripture.

And I've already explained they do this by lies and ignoring evidence. Hurting their foundation of christianity and other people's understanding of Christians.

If they need to sin to prove christianity, what is the point?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

If you dont mind, may i ask you of your background? Student? Scientist? Years in your field -if you are a scientist? Age? Did you used to be Christian? Did you become atheist as a result of your belief in science, or did you already disbelieve God's Word before science became your "god"?

Generally I don't give out much information. I'm in my twenties and an armchair scientists as it were. I've been able to get a bit of an education in some sciences for free thanks to the internet and nice professors. Most of my information comes from study and from multiple professors in biology, geology, astronomy. Many are christian and some were even creationists who were deep into the field of creation "science."

I was a christian, but realized I didn't believe, and no it wasn't because of science. Along those lines I have argued against atheists who try to use evolution and science as some sort of weapon against christianity. I very much dislike Dawkins because of that (arrogant blowhard).

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-24-2005).]