Intelligent Design support letter to the editor [Archive]

Furi

7th January 2008, 02:30 AM

and a little more Python

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

AMEN.

UnrepentantSinner

7th January 2008, 04:05 AM

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

RobRoy

7th January 2008, 09:49 AM

So then if a creationist develops a serious illness, cancer for instance, no attempt at medical intervention should be undertaken.

Isn't that what the somewhat misnamed Christian Science church holds? Also, I believe, Jehovah's Witnesses have a less-drastic version of this concept.

The original letter is a nice work of irony. Unfortunate only that the author didn't delve further and deeper to draw some more outrageous conclusions.

shadron

7th January 2008, 10:13 AM

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

Ummmmmm, well, there is a strain of human cervical cancer cells calls "HeLa" (after the original donor, Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951. It is indeed a life form pretty much on its own. The existing mass of such cells now far outweighs it's original donor. It grows ferociously and without end in the lab. It couldn't live, likely, without help, but then again...

"Reporter Smith continued, "In the half-century since Henrietta Lacks' death, her ... cells ... have continually been used for research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and countless other scientific pursuits". HeLa was used to test human sensitivity to tape, glue cosmetics, and many other products."
--Wikipedia, "HeLa".

Wowbagger

7th January 2008, 10:40 AM

:D

Someone, please write in a refutation!! Here, I'll give you the opening line: "Mr. Elgison: I find it rather preposterous that you think the kind, and loving God would Create such misery, when you know perfectly well, that it is all part of an atheist plot to destroy all life on Earth!!!!!!1111!!!!!!one!!"

ebola

7th January 2008, 10:50 AM

He forgot to mention Ebola...

Somebody call?

Eric

fuelair

7th January 2008, 11:02 AM

Ummmmmm, well, there is a strain of human cervical cancer cells calls "HeLa" (after the original donor, Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951. It is indeed a life form pretty much on its own. The existing mass of such cells now far outweighs it's original donor. It grows ferociously and without end in the lab. It couldn't live, likely, without help, but then again...

"Reporter Smith continued, "In the half-century since Henrietta Lacks' death, her ... cells ... have continually been used for research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and countless other scientific pursuits". HeLa was used to test human sensitivity to tape, glue cosmetics, and many other products."
--Wikipedia, "HeLa".

But the help it needs is miniscule - move it somewhere and open it's container is pretty much it. Key point : her cells were used to test lots of things - but extremely often the experimenters thought they were using other lines from other body parts WHICH THE HeLa cells HAD TAKEN OVER!!

UnrepentantSinner

7th January 2008, 10:45 PM

Ummmmmm, well, there is a strain of human cervical cancer cells calls "HeLa" (after the original donor, Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951. It is indeed a life form pretty much on its own. The existing mass of such cells now far outweighs it's original donor. It grows ferociously and without end in the lab. It couldn't live, likely, without help, but then again...

"Reporter Smith continued, "In the half-century since Henrietta Lacks' death, her ... cells ... have continually been used for research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and countless other scientific pursuits". HeLa was used to test human sensitivity to tape, glue cosmetics, and many other products."
--Wikipedia, "HeLa".

Leaving viruses aside for a moment, does it exhibit the common characteristics of life? And are there any Pubmed articles that call HeLa a lifeform? (one will suffice for me to retract :))

rjh01

7th January 2008, 11:03 PM

Here is an article that says that in one case cancer is not part of the animal it infects.
Since Pearse and her colleagues finished the original study, they've analyzed chromosomes in 15 more animals, and all the tumors have shown the same distinctive anomalies. This result bolsters the theory that one rogue cell line was the original infective agent, Pearse says Link (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060204/fob1.asp)

I think this cancer has the characteristics of life.

Radrook

8th January 2008, 12:29 PM

The following letter to the editor appeared today in the Orlando Sentinel. At first, I was thinking "Another----------- idiot" and then..... Enjoy!!!:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/orl-le06_308jan06,0,1896306,print.story

:D:D:D:D:D

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.

BTW

Funny that you should mention the term idiot which is very close to the word fool.

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

quixotecoyote

8th January 2008, 12:50 PM

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.

RobRoy

8th January 2008, 01:04 PM

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.

Which calls to mind the following lovely exchange from Red Dwarf's Rimmer and Lister:

RIMMER: Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed
with my parent's religion, but I wouldn't dream of knocking it.
LISTER: What were they?
RIMMER: Seventh day advent hoppists. They believed that every Sunday
should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the
service, then hop back home again.
LISTER: What was the idea behind that, then?
RIMMER: Well you see, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve; the
snake and the apple... Took it word for word. Unfortunately, their
version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it
says "Faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop." So
that's what they did. Every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday
lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping round the table, serving soup --
we all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underpants.

I'm only surprised they didn't go the other way, and drink beer every sunday. Now that's a religion I could get into. The Catholics have never had enough wine in their chalice for me, and what are crackers without some cheese to top it off?

Radrook

8th January 2008, 01:06 PM

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.

No truth or consequences ploy being attempted. Only a reminder that the sword cuts both ways in terms of categorizing people as idiots. Of course I didn't have to cite scripture-but I'm funny that way sometimes. : )

Radrook

8th January 2008, 01:11 PM

Which calls to mind the following lovely exchange from Red Dwarf's Rimmer and Lister:

RIMMER: Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed
with my parent's religion, but I wouldn't dream of knocking it.
LISTER: What were they?
RIMMER: Seventh day advent hoppists. They believed that every Sunday
should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the
service, then hop back home again.
LISTER: What was the idea behind that, then?
RIMMER: Well you see, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve; the
snake and the apple... Took it word for word. Unfortunately, their
version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it
says "Faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop." So
that's what they did. Every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday
lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping round the table, serving soup --
we all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underpants.

I'm only surprised they didn't go the other way, and drink beer every sunday. Now that's a religion I could get into. The Catholics have never had enough wine in their chalice for me, and what are crackers without some cheese to top it off?

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

Jimbo07

8th January 2008, 01:21 PM

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

...except that before post #22 you weren't specifically addressed. I don't know your position in particular, but I hadn't understood you to be a Biblical literalist. Am I mistaken?

RobRoy

8th January 2008, 02:07 PM

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

Ummm . . . I wasn't speaking to you at all. I was speaking to quixotecoyote, which is why I quoted his post directly. :)

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

Err . . . I don't recall naming any names or riddling and ridicules. :boggled:

As for having "logical persuasive argumentative merit" I suppose I could have offered more information on how quixotecoyote's post triggered that Red Dwarf sense-memory, such as time, date, weather, location, witness depositions, etc. if that would suffice? Let me know. :D

PBTree

8th January 2008, 03:46 PM

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.
.

Sorry, not sure I understand this (bible dumb). Are you saying (based on the original theme of the thread), that cancer cells, cockroaches etc, weren't around prior to the two apple-eaters being chucked out of eden?

UnrepentantSinner

8th January 2008, 09:50 PM

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.

Ad Hoc.

BTW

Funny that you should mention the term idiot which is very close to the word fool.

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Perhaps, but the wise man not only says it aloud, he realizes his heart isn't the center of conviousness, unlike the writer of the Psalms.

quixotecoyote

9th January 2008, 12:01 AM

No truth or consequences ploy being attempted. Only a reminder that the sword cuts both ways in terms of categorizing people as idiots. Of course I didn't have to cite scripture-but I'm funny that way sometimes. : )

Do you disbelieve in the wisdom of post 23?

Remember, L1:P3 of the Post 23 clearly states that would be foolish.

SomeGuy

9th January 2008, 12:30 AM

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

You accuse us of namecalling and ridicule after quoting a bit of scripture that basically says: people that don't believe in god are fools.

Prepostorous!

Radrook

9th January 2008, 03:09 AM

You accuse us of namecalling and ridicule after quoting a bit of scripture that basically says: people that don't believe in god are fools.

Prepostorous!

The following letter to the editor appeared today in the Orlando Sentinel. At first, I was thinking "Another----------- idiot" and then..... Enjoy!!!:

Not at all. I accuse you of namecalling and ridicule after you namecall and ridicule.

BTW

The scripture was merely to show that from other people's standpoint the ones calling others idiots might be seen as idiots themselves and that calling other people idiots is really unnecessary. That was the motive for posting the scripture. Nothing more.

Radrook

9th January 2008, 03:17 AM

Do you disbelieve in the wisdom of post 23?

Remember, L1:P3 of the Post 23 clearly states that would be foolish.

Post 23 is irrelevant

Radrook

9th January 2008, 03:28 AM

Radrook

9th January 2008, 03:35 AM

...except that before post #22 you weren't specifically addressed. I don't know your position in particular, but I hadn't understood you to be a Biblical literalist. Am I mistaken?

Not specifically but indirectly perhaps? At least that's the way I perceived it then. If I was wrong then I apologize.

In any case, I was merely trying to point out that the argument in that article is flawed because it utilizes strawman. As for biblical literalist, that all depends on what that appellation encompasses from your particular viewpoint.

Radrook

9th January 2008, 03:41 AM

Ummm . . . I wasn't speaking to you at all. I was speaking to quixotecoyote, which is why I quoted his post directly. :)

Err . . . I don't recall naming any names or riddling and ridicules. :boggled:

As for having "logical persuasive argumentative merit" I suppose I could have offered more information on how quixotecoyote's post triggered that Red Dwarf sense-memory, such as time, date, weather, location, witness depositions, etc. if that would suffice? Let me know. :D

If I misunderstood you I sincerely apologize.

Furi

9th January 2008, 04:40 AM

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.

while I can clearly see that post 23 has been written, it does not offer any definate proof that it should be taken as absolute law, a very quick browse around even on this forum found other examples of post 23, that make no such claims.

So are these other post 23s to be thrown out and handwaved off because of your worldview and belief that this is the correct version of events. What research have you done to check that this is the true post 23.

=^..^=
Atwentythreeist until sufficient proof to the validity of its claim has been offered

So for example if a man wants to drink a bottle of orange juice but some indeterminate event interacted with his consciousness and caused him to drink a bottle of poison instead, that would qualify, in your view, as free will?

You are still avoiding because you are concentrating on the "non-determined" part and ignoring that it must also be non-random.

Born to be Wild.

Fender or Gibson?

and off another forum

i would say shikuramen in Kobe near Hankyu rokomichi station, i consider their ramen the best i had since my 3 year stint in Japan
http://teikoku.kamomeline.jp/gourmet/354.htm
http://gourmet.yahoo.co.jp/0002383906/M0028013223/
http://www.doko.jp/search/shop/sc40386903/

UnrepentantSinner

9th January 2008, 05:35 AM

fuelair

9th January 2008, 05:55 AM

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.

BTW

Funny that you should mention the term idiot which is very close to the word fool.

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.So, like the devil, you are fond of using scripture to "prove" a point. I said idiot, I meant idiot, if you prefer fool, so be it.

NobbyNobbs

9th January 2008, 06:10 AM

Sorry, not sure I understand this (bible dumb). Are you saying (based on the original theme of the thread), that cancer cells, cockroaches etc, weren't around prior to the two apple-eaters being chucked out of eden?

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

I'm still confused. In your belief, did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally?

I'm honestly curious. If your response is the first, then the original argument still applies, i.e., God is responsible for E.coli and viruses and etc. If the second response is your belief, he's still responsible, for letting it happen. If the third response is your belief, then why believe in God at all?

Spacetime Inhabitant

9th January 2008, 06:45 AM

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.
If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

Furi

9th January 2008, 06:50 AM

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

If God has no input or responsibility post Eden, what was with things like Floods Parting the sea Jeebus or even any form of latter design/action claims etc.

or am I missing something entirely here?

Spacetime Inhabitant

9th January 2008, 07:38 AM

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc.:D Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

Furi

9th January 2008, 07:54 AM

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc.:D Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

Oh Noes! :eek:

Where is a Frying Pan Spang Smilie when you need one

ponderingturtle

9th January 2008, 08:13 AM

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

Why not? There are certain animal cancers that are contagious and live far longer than any of the animal that they infect.

See the Tasmanian devil cancer outbreak.

UnrepentantSinner

9th January 2008, 09:04 AM

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

To play devil's advocate - he's not saying that God had no input/responsibility, he's saying that God allowed the world he created to play out under the auspices of free will after setting up the rules of the game. That's a B.S. ad hoc explanation as I've pointed out twice now, but different from saying that God had no input/reponsibility at all.

Why not? There are certain animal cancers that are contagious and live far longer than any of the animal that they infect.

See the Tasmanian devil cancer outbreak.

I've asked this once already and as yet haven't seen an answer - are there any papers on PubMed that describe cancers as "lifeforms." Shadron's HeLa example is very interesting, but I'm going to need to see scientists describing cancers not as "lifeform like", but as lifeforms before I accept it.

RobRoy

9th January 2008, 09:36 AM

If I misunderstood you I sincerely apologize.

No worries then, and thanks for the apology. :)

ponderingturtle

9th January 2008, 10:38 AM

I've asked this once already and as yet haven't seen an answer - are there any papers on PubMed that describe cancers as "lifeforms." Shadron's HeLa example is very interesting, but I'm going to need to see scientists describing cancers not as "lifeform like", but as lifeforms before I accept it.

Why would anything about a tasmian devil cancer be on PubMed? Why should PubMed and not biologists be the arbitrator of such a thing?

PBTree

9th January 2008, 03:44 PM

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me. ;)

quixotecoyote

9th January 2008, 03:50 PM

Post 23 is irrelevant

And how can you determine that in a way that doesn't invalidate your reference?

Wildy

9th January 2008, 06:36 PM

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me. ;)

Especially since they didn't put apples in the book.

On a slightly similar note I have seen in the Adelaide paper a bunch of letters that are arguing about this whole Evolution/Design "debate", starting right around the time this thread did...

PBTree

9th January 2008, 07:24 PM

Especially since they didn't put apples in the book.

On a slightly similar note I have seen in the Adelaide paper a bunch of letters that are arguing about this whole Evolution/Design "debate", starting right around the time this thread did...

Good point, should have mentioned fruit. But apple does get quite a few mentions in the book. Do a search on the KJv and you will find it. :)

As for the design debate, what annoys me the most is that their argument is based upon something that was made up. There is no other way to explain religion. It is made up, invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy. The antonym is real.

The irony of the article that spawned this thread showed how nonsensical ad is, yet I can guarantee that we will still get believers making more stuff up to explain away their silliness.

Religion will remain in this made-up state until the supposed author (ghost written by others) of this book comes along to disprove it. I won't be holding mybreath.

UnrepentantSinner

9th January 2008, 10:36 PM

Why would anything about a tasmian devil cancer be on PubMed? Why should PubMed and not biologists be the arbitrator of such a thing?

So you don't have a citation then?

O.k. thanks...

btw, 20 seconds...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17911263?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

RobRoy

10th January 2008, 10:19 AM

As for the design debate, what annoys me the most is that their argument is based upon something that was made up. There is no other way to explain religion. It is made up, invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy. The antonym is real.

While I understand and mostly agree with your points, I do disagree on the stance that the "argument is based upon something that was made up". You're right in pointing out that there is no way, short of the original author (or original inspiration) to show up and say, "I'll be signing copies of My book from 2 to 4 in the lobbey" to prove this. But by the same token, there's no way to prove that religion was made up. Even the most nonsensical, and more obviously (to me, anyhow) fabricated religions still have the plausibility of being divinely influenced.

So it is not "invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy". Or at least it's not provable that it is, just as it's not proveable that it's not. Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative. :D

Radrook

11th January 2008, 09:45 PM

I'm still confused. In your belief....

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

, ...did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally? I'm honestly curious.

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.

If your response is the first, then the original argument still applies, i.e., God is responsible for E.coli and viruses and etc. If the second response is your belief, he's still responsible, for letting it happen. If the third response is your belief, then why believe in God at all?

The issue of responsibility needs a rather detailed and an understanding of the issues that arose in Eden. First, God was accused of being a liar. His prohibitions were described as selfishly motivated. Mankind was described as being better off if they refused his guidance and did as they pleased. Our first parents willingly chose to go in that direction. God permitted their continued existence in order to grant them the opportunity to prove their point. Could they indeed govern themselves better without his guidance and blessing?
All heaven was watching. Destroying the rebels would not have answered that question but would simply raise suspicions that perhaps the rebels were right. So the issue had to be resolved by giving mankind and their angelic rebel friends the time sufficient to prove their point if they could.

With that in mind then you can think about responsibility with the needed background information.

The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

BTW
My original contribution to this thread was intended to be for informational purposes only-not for seeking of a debate concerning
religion vs atheism.

Radrook

11th January 2008, 09:57 PM

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me. ;)

No one is asking you to believe anything.
You totally misunderstood the purpose of my post as being one of evangelizing. The purpose of my post was merely to provide information. Beyond that you can believe whatever you wish.

As for the post above this one-I was asked for a response along
doctrinal lines and I provided one. That doesn't mean I am seeking or willing to engage is fruitless debates.

BTW

The misconception could have been a Hindu, Budhist, Shintoist, Islamic etcetera and I would have still provided a correction if I deemed it to be useful to a better understanding.

Radrook

11th January 2008, 10:06 PM

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc.:D Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

Does the United States not plowing into Korea militarily mean it lacks power?

BTW
Please try not to attribute things to me which I haven't said.
Thanx.

Radrook

11th January 2008, 10:13 PM

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

I did not say he had no input. As for responsibility, that's a slightly more complex issue.
Actually, by your tone you seem to be an atheist. Which means that no matter what answer I provide it will be perceived as silly evangelizing and rejected.

So I won't waste your time nor mine.

articulett

11th January 2008, 10:45 PM

I did not say he had no input. As for responsibility, that's a slightly more complex issue.
Actually, by your tone you seem to be an atheist. Which means that no matter what answer I provide it will be perceived as silly evangelizing and rejected.

So I won't waste your time nor mine.

Wow... will this work for all us atheists? I'm an atheist, and no matter what answer you provide I see you as silly and evangelizing. I've posted here too. Now, is this method useful for keeping all religious woo from preaching, opinion proffering and asking insincere questions on our forum... or is it just specific to you? Or are you just not going to waste some peoples' time, but you still plan on wasting other peoples' time still?

What percentage of forum members would need to have the "atheist tone" that makes you feel rejected for you to feel rejected enough to go to a woo forum instead of a skeptic's forum?

Inquiring minds want to know!

articulett

11th January 2008, 11:00 PM

While I understand and mostly agree with your points, I do disagree on the stance that the "argument is based upon something that was made up". You're right in pointing out that there is no way, short of the original author (or original inspiration) to show up and say, "I'll be signing copies of My book from 2 to 4 in the lobbey" to prove this. But by the same token, there's no way to prove that religion was made up. Even the most nonsensical, and more obviously (to me, anyhow) fabricated religions still have the plausibility of being divinely influenced.

So it is not "invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy". Or at least it's not provable that it is, just as it's not proveable that it's not. Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative. :D

I have yet to see a "theism" that is more likely to be true than say, Scientology, Moonies, or Mormonism. Yet everyone seems to think their beliefs contain more truths than that and that the others are "made up" or "wrong" or the believers are misperceiving, etc. (unless of course they are one of those 3). Let's face it-- we know for certain some religions are made up entirely out of "nothing"-- (see Randi's Carlos tape)-- what we don't know is if any of them have an iota of measurable evidence in their favor in regards to "higher truths". We have no evidence that there are even such things as higher truths-- though lots of guys seem to think they have such. Unfortunately they don't agree with each other. And some people mistake their conviction for truth. And the stakes are eternity. I'd say that makes it a sucky situation for all us rationalists out here.

DrBaltar

11th January 2008, 11:31 PM

I'm still confused. In your belief, did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally?
It's god's plan of course. We mere mortals can not understand god's plan, and we are not worthy to question it.

DrBaltar

11th January 2008, 11:38 PM

SezMe

12th January 2008, 12:33 AM

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.
So god's original plan somehow went astray. Why, if god is omniscient and omnipotent, did god not devise a better plan? What went wrong?

And is our current world Plan B? Why didn't god go to work on Plan A.1 rather than switching to godawful (sorry, couldn't resist) Plan B?

UnrepentantSinner

12th January 2008, 01:34 AM

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.

Ad Hoc. Locusts, rats, molds, roaches, zebra mussles, cane toads, etc. etc. existed long before humans.

The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

Actually we've terraformed huge swaths of the Earth's surface, and domesticated hundreds of wild species of plant and animals... even bananas. ;)

Henners

12th January 2008, 04:17 AM

Only a reminder that the sword cuts both ways in terms of categorizing people as idiots.

It must be nice to think that.

Henners

12th January 2008, 04:20 AM

H3LL

12th January 2008, 06:01 AM

Is this some sort of bizarre negative evolution.

Creatures "evolve" into ones less and less suited to their environment?

Is there a proper word for this negative evolution other than delusion?

.

ponderingturtle

12th January 2008, 07:54 AM

UnrepentantSinner

12th January 2008, 09:10 AM

So cancer just shows gods incompetence as a designer and not intention.

That's crazy talk. Everyone knows that cancer... along with mental illness like, say, post partum depression, are the result of Thetans inhabiting your psyche. After getting an e-meter check, taking vitimins an getting clear the cancer should go away.

The post-fall "argument" is at least theologically consistent with a unevidenced literalist reading of Genesis, but the data - as I noted with my pest list above - isn't consistent with the paleontological and archeological evidence (oh, and apart from it's fatal ad hoc nature). Most TE's I know consider pests and cancers to be the natural order of "Creation" and that "the fall" was a spirtual one rather than any physical act like eating an apple.

Radrook

12th January 2008, 01:12 PM

So all the suffering, sinning and death was a result of God's poor planning?

According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.

Radrook

12th January 2008, 01:17 PM

So cancer just shows gods incompetence as a designer and not intention.

You are free to opine that way if you wish. However, from a Christian standpoint it shows the consequence of trying to do things without his blessing and guidence. I guess that's where you and Christians differ.

Radrook

12th January 2008, 01:21 PM

It's god's plan of course. We mere mortals can not understand god's plan, and we are not worthy to question it.

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.

articulett

12th January 2008, 01:44 PM

According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.

Which god, in his omniscience, knew would happen... right? In fact, doesn't know how it will ALL end up... who will win the "happily ever prize" according to the "Christian viewpoint"... that doesn't sound like "free will".

Olowkow

12th January 2008, 03:15 PM

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

I agree, quite sad.

Ocelot

14th January 2008, 07:36 AM

ponderingturtle

14th January 2008, 07:53 AM

You are free to opine that way if you wish. However, from a Christian standpoint it shows the consequence of trying to do things without his blessing and guidence. I guess that's where you and Christians differ.

So everyone who gets cancer deserves it? Then why do faith healers try to cure it?

Ocelot

14th January 2008, 07:56 AM

First, God was accused of being a liar. His prohibitions were described as selfishly motivated. Mankind was described as being better off if they refused his guidance and did as they pleased.

Actually God told Adam and Eve that if they aite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would surely die. Eve ate the fruit and didn't die. To the unititated this would suggest that God was indeeed a liar.

The initiated of course knows that Adam and Eve once cast out from the garden of Eden lived to a ripe old age of about 9 centuries but eventually died. They suggest that if they hadn't have disobeyed God they would have been immortal.

However this then raises the question of why God was in such a hurry to cast them out before they ate the fruit of the tree of life which would grant them immortality.

There is no suggestion that this immortality would be a reaquisition but instead that it would be a new thing.

Curious semantics asside the possibility of eating first from the tree of knowledge and then from the tree of life (which hadn't been forbidden) cast much doubt of the surety of Adam and Eve's eventual death.

So arguably the God of Genesis wasn't so much accused of being a liar but demonstrated to be so.

At the end of the day a primitive creation myth with no independent coroberation just the same as the creation myths of many contemporary societies.

Ocelot

14th January 2008, 08:01 AM

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

Have you heard of false consensus bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect)? Would you be suprised to know that many denominations of Christianity, Judaism and Islam regard Genesis to be allegorical?

Many consider free will a gift rather than something stolen.

DrBaltar

14th January 2008, 08:43 AM

So all the suffering, sinning and death was a result of God's poor planning?According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.
Do you think it's right for God to blame his creation for what his creation does? If I write a program and it has a bug in it, or doesn't work as intended, do I blame the software or do I blame myself? If God created us, we behave as he designed us to behave.

DrBaltar

14th January 2008, 08:51 AM

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.Clearly? I don't think so. I bring up fallacies of Genesis, such as how the creation of the Earth and animals on the Earth are completely unlike what actually happened as demonstrated by fossil, geologic, and astrophysical record. I bring up the silliness of the Adam and Eve story. I am told that all this is metaphorical. If it were clear it would simply describe the creation of the Earth as it actually happened, and instead of the silly Adam and Eve story, the bible would simply state whatever it is that God wants that story to convey.

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

sphenisc

14th January 2008, 10:16 AM

Is this some sort of bizarre negative evolution.

Creatures "evolve" into ones less and less suited to their environment?

Is there a proper word for this negative evolution other than delusion?

.

Orthogenesis

From http://www.selfdesignedstudent.com/2008/01/irish-elk-neither-totally-irish-or-elk.html

Megaloceros was also used as an example in the theory of orthogenesis. Proponents of orthogenesis, according to Stephen Jay Gould, "claimed that evolution proceeded in straight lines that natural selection could not regulate. Certain trends, once started, could not be stopped even if they led to extinction." The antlers of the Irish Elk seemed to validate the theory. The animal evolved from smaller deer featuring small antlers and eventually, its antlers became so over sized that the deer could no longer function. Orthogenesis attributed the extinction of Megaloceros to the bulk of its head ornament. Unfortunately, modern creationists use the Irish Elk as an argument against natural selection.

RobRoy

14th January 2008, 10:24 AM

I have yet to see a "theism" that is more likely to be true than say, Scientology, Moonies, or Mormonism. Yet everyone seems to think their beliefs contain more truths than that and that the others are "made up" or "wrong" or the believers are misperceiving, etc. (unless of course they are one of those 3).

Agreed.

Let's face it-- we know for certain some religions are made up entirely out of "nothing"-- (see Randi's Carlos tape)-- what we don't know is if any of them have an iota of measurable evidence in their favor in regards to "higher truths".

Sorry, I disagree. Not that I want to step up and defend any particular faith. I believe, but cannot prove, that there are a number of faiths which were "made up entirely out of 'nothing'", but when dealing with faith, there's simply no way to prove that someone wasn't divinely inspired. There may be evidence that certainly leans in that direction, but at the end of the day, nothing that can conclusively say an individual was not visited by God or some other kind of messenger.

We have no evidence that there are even such things as higher truths-- though lots of guys seem to think they have such. Unfortunately they don't agree with each other.

No evidence, correct. But I like to believe that there are higher truths.

At a basic level, almost all religions have fundamentals that are, if not exactly the same, then founded on similar principles. It's when they get to the practicing, the walking of the path, and some of the other fun details that they tend to disagree.

And some people mistake their conviction for truth. And the stakes are eternity. I'd say that makes it a sucky situation for all us rationalists out here.

Sure does. Especially those of us who would like to believe in something higher than ourselves, and yet are torn by the problems of most organized religions, or most organized religions and their adherents.

PBTree

14th January 2008, 08:27 PM

Sorry, I disagree. Not that I want to step up and defend any particular faith. I believe, but cannot prove, that there are a number of faiths which were "made up entirely out of 'nothing'", but when dealing with faith, there's simply no way to prove that someone wasn't divinely inspired. There may be evidence that certainly leans in that direction, but at the end of the day, nothing that can conclusively say an individual was not visited by God or some other kind of messenger.

.

Well I believe that this is the part that marks it all as nonsense. How could someone be divinely inspired (by a non-interfering god I might add) and then not be able to show that he/she was inspired by this divinity, other than to state "god just spoke to me, you should all believe me and believe in him/her".

It even sounds unbelievable.

PBTree

14th January 2008, 08:32 PM

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

Correct. Either all of the words in the bible are god's words, or none of them are. Believers can't come along and say this part was spoken by god and these other parts are just some page notes or assumptions some believer made on god's behalf.

Now if all of the bible is true (based on the above), then let the stoning's begin. Whose first?

Radrook

15th January 2008, 01:31 AM

Clearly? I don't think so. I bring up fallacies of Genesis, such as how the creation of the Earth and animals on the Earth are completely unlike what actually happened as demonstrated by fossil, geologic, and astrophysical record. I bring up the silliness of the Adam and Eve story. I am told that all this is metaphorical. If it were clear it would simply describe the creation of the Earth as it actually happened, and instead of the silly Adam and Eve story, the bible would simply state whatever it is that God wants that story to convey.

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

How do we know it wasn't meant to be understood that way? We know because many of the OT prophets, the Apostles and most significantly, none other than Jesus himself repeatedly cited its contents, as the flood, the creation of Adam and Eve, the fall of humanity into a degenerative condition in a place called Eden, as well as many other Genesis events as historical fact.

Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.

Ocelot

15th January 2008, 04:18 AM

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

You're at odds here with the representatives of 1 Billion Christians.

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Pope Pius XII

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Pope John Paul II

NobbyNobbs

15th January 2008, 05:06 AM

Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative. :D

And a double positive!

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

So, God's plan went awry? So it wasn't a perfect plan? How does a perfect being come up with an imperfect plan?

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.

Two question about this: in which passage of the bible does mankind reject God's guidance? As I recall, Adam and Eve weren't too hip aout leaving the garden. Second, which neutral animal became the cockroach?

First, God was accused of being a liar. But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

So the issue had to be resolved by giving mankind and their angelic rebel friends the time sufficient to prove their point if they could.

How much time? If God's sitting around waiting to see if we'll meess up the earth, then I think the point has been proven well before now. How much worse does it need to get before He comes back and says, "I told you so"?

The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

Again, in which passage do Adam and Eve request the removal of God's blessings? I don't remember that part at all.

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.

I take exception to the bolded word above. If this were true, there'd be no debate. There'd be no need for interpretation of the bible. And in all likelihood, Christianity would be the only religion.

DrBaltar

15th January 2008, 08:54 AM

Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.
But the earth was not created in the beginning. In the first 9.2 billion years of the universe, there was no earth.

What was the light that god created if the stars, sun and moon were created on the 3rd day? There were stars before the earth anyway, and the sun was also mostly formed by the time the earth started to coalesce from matter in the solar system. The moon "rules" the night only sometimes. When it's a new moon, it's not visible. It is also in the sky during the day half the time.

Are you suggesting the animals of the earth were created in a day? Fossil records do not collaborate this.

In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?

What's up with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I put my porn mags under my mattress or in a box somewhere if I don't want my kids to see them. Why is god leaving knowledge of evil next to creatures he designed to be curious with 'free will', and then punishes them and every generation afterwards when they inevitably eat the fruit? That's just childish and sadistic.

BTW, how old do you claim the earth is?

Furi

15th January 2008, 09:19 AM

In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?

unlike yous lot God was a Scouser like us lot in mairseysiiiide. you know what I mean there like

And why 'Our' and not 'My Own',

Not to menttion that you must remember that god is a jealous god and will not tolerate the worship of other gods.

Did god sub contract? and was this agains the T&Cs of the original RFW (request for work)?

RobRoy

15th January 2008, 09:42 AM

And a double positive!

ROFL! I'll have to start using those more often.

But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

Errmm . . . yes she did. I get what you're saying, but God never states that the fruit is poison and that death will be immediate and instant. He simply says in Genesis 2:17, ". . . but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prior to eating the fruit, as I understand it, Eve and Adam would have lived forever in ignorant bliss. After eating the fruit, they were "doomed" to a life of toil, pain and eventually death. In Genesis 3:19 God promises them, for the sin of eating the fruit, ". . . dust you are and to dust you will return." Eve drops out of the narrative after Genesis 4:25, but Adam's death is listed in Genesis 5:5, and given God's previous statement, Eve died at some point as well.

So, God didn't lie.

NobbyNobbs

15th January 2008, 12:28 PM

ROFL! I'll have to start using those more often.

Errmm . . . yes she did. I get what you're saying, but God never states that the fruit is poison and that death will be immediate and instant. He simply says in Genesis 2:17, ". . . but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prior to eating the fruit, as I understand it, Eve and Adam would have lived forever in ignorant bliss. After eating the fruit, they were "doomed" to a life of toil, pain and eventually death. In Genesis 3:19 God promises them, for the sin of eating the fruit, ". . . dust you are and to dust you will return." Eve drops out of the narrative after Genesis 4:25, but Adam's death is listed in Genesis 5:5, and given God's previous statement, Eve died at some point as well.

So, God didn't lie.

If I said, "You may have dessert when you eat your dinner", the clear implication is dessert comes immediately after dinner.

If I said, "You may take the HDTV home when you pay for it", the clear implication is the TV goes home with you immediately after you pay.

If I said, "The hostages will be returned when you accede to our demands", the clear implication is that they are free to go immediately after you give me the briefcase full of money.

If God says, "When you eat it, you will die", the clear implication is that if you take a bite, you'll fall down dead. Didn't happen that way. Either...

a) God lies.
b) God is misleading

Either way doesn't bode well for a perfect being.

articulett

15th January 2008, 12:41 PM

Yeah... besides with the whole eternal soul thing he made actual death impossible... he just made it possible to live forever in agony.

RobRoy

15th January 2008, 01:28 PM

If I said, "You may have dessert when you eat your dinner", the clear implication is dessert comes immediately after dinner.[snip]

It's a nice attempt at semantic argumentation, but there is nothing deliberate or implied in what God told Adam and Eve regarding the tree, especially when we consider it on God's level. For the sake of fun with words, we have to include scope and scale. If immortality was the natural state for Adam and Eve, and then they crunched the munchies, and Adam dies 930 years later . . . well, to God who took eons to create life, the universe and everything, then Adam did pretty much drop dead shortly after his little trip to the Buffett of Knowledge. :D

a) God lies.
b) God is misleading

Either way doesn't bode well for a perfect being.

Let me be clear that I'm not making a case for or against. The argument was that God made a statement and that statement was a lie. It wasn't. God said if you do A then B will happen. There was no time-table stated or implied. Eve and Adam did A, and it's hardly in doubt from the evidence we have that B followed.

There are much better examples, and more defendable, of the Biblical God being flawed than this one. This one isn't it.

PBTree

15th January 2008, 06:30 PM

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

How do we know it wasn't meant to be understood that way? We know because many of the OT prophets, the Apostles and most significantly, none other than Jesus himself repeatedly cited its contents, as the flood, the creation of Adam and Eve, the fall of humanity into a degenerative condition in a place called Eden, as well as many other Genesis events as historical fact.

Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.

This is where the whole idea of a god falls apart. You don't know. You are supposing. Just because it is written in some book, does not mean it happened. It would be classed as hearsay in a court of law.

The same with "jesus himself repeatedly". That is also just more hearsay.

Nobody has yet explained why not one other author of that time period (other than a few illiterate fishermen), mentions anything about some chap called jesus, or anything about any miracles he may or may not have performed. I'm affraid that using his views to lend credibility to an ID argument, is wasted.

As for the time interval. You are making this up. There is nothing in the bible to suggest this and nothing in any other documentation that assumes that amount of time. It is the standard believer argument to state that the earth was made in 7 days but each day was really n millions years long. More supposition.

:)

Radrook

15th January 2008, 07:57 PM

You're at odds here with the representatives of 1 Billion Christians.

OK! : )

Pope Pius XII

Pope John Paul II[/QUOTE]

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.

Radrook

15th January 2008, 08:07 PM

This is where the whole idea of a god falls apart. You don't know. You are supposing. Just because it is written in some book, does not mean it happened. It would be classed as hearsay in a court of law.

The same with "jesus himself repeatedly". That is also just more hearsay.

Nobody has yet explained why not one other author of that time period (other than a few illiterate fishermen), mentions anything about some chap called jesus, or anything about any miracles he may or may not have performed. I'm affraid that using his views to lend credibility to an ID argument, is wasted.

As for the time interval. You are making this up. There is nothing in the bible to suggest this and nothing in any other documentation that assumes that amount of time. It is the standard believer argument to state that the earth was made in 7 days but each day was really n millions years long. More supposition.

:)
'
First, I was responding to a question-yours. If you have all the answers already and have decided beforehand to tag all responses as not acceptable-then why ask?

Second, as I explained previously, my only motive for participation on this thread is make sure that you aren't attacking your own ideas while attributing them to Christianity.

Third, each person has a right to either reject or accept based on whatever reason he or she feels justifies it. So I really see no reason to engage in any debating. You are happy. I am happy. Case closed!

: )

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 08:16 PM

I'll bet there are a lot of people who will totally miss the point.Christian Scientists, for example. :(

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 08:20 PM

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".I'm afraid it is you who loses the points this time.

Of Dogs and Devils, The Rise of Contagious Cancer (http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/of-dogs-and-devils-can-cancer-be-contagious/)These rogue cells have become parasites in their own right, evolving from a single ancestor into a dynasty that has colonised the globe aboard canine vessels. How this process began is still a mystery, but Weiss’s analysis provides some hints as to where and when.

The original cancer cell must have developed in either a wolf or an old Asian dog lineage, such as a Husky (left). It evolved anywhere between 200 and 2500 years ago and may well have been around for even longer.

In fact, the CTVT cancer cell is very likely to be the oldest lineage of mammalian cells still in existence. The cells that Weiss is studying today are most probably direct clone descendants of the same cells that Novinski identified 130 years ago – genetically identical great-granddaughters of the original tumour.

Edited to add, I see this was addressed. But what was your opinion then, US? After all, many argue that viruses are not life forms. Since then we've had transmissible prions thrown into the mix. Personally, I think once a tumor jumps ship and spreads out infecting other organisms it is reasonable to define it as a life form. Identical twins are not considered one lifeform.

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 08:25 PM

Not specifically but indirectly perhaps? At least that's the way I perceived it then. If I was wrong then I apologize.

In any case, I was merely trying to point out that the argument in that article is flawed because it utilizes strawman. As for biblical literalist, that all depends on what that appellation encompasses from your particular viewpoint.It's satire, Rad. :rolleyes: There is no need for concerns of straw men in satire. The point is not dependent upon addressing someone's argument.

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 08:32 PM

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. .....Right, after God got pissed off, the world became bad on it's own. :rolleyes:

The point is the people claiming ID also claim God made prefect designs. Most don't point out God made bad things after getting pissed off because that contradicts the other claims that God is loving. It is reasonable for you to interpret the Bible as explaining why God added the cockroaches. Perhaps you should present your hypothesis to ID proponents such as the Discovery Institute.

Radrook

15th January 2008, 08:42 PM

And a double positive!
So, God's plan went awry? So it wasn't a perfect plan? How does a perfect being come up with an imperfect plan?

Perfection is a subjective term which means that certain criteria are being met to the satisfaction of the one setting them. If the plan would have not given humans freedom of choice then from his viewpoint it would have been a flawed plan.

Two question about this: in which passage of the bible does mankind reject God's guidance? As I recall, Adam and Eve weren't too hip aout leaving the garden. Second, which neutral animal became the cockroach?

1. The events are recorded in Genesis.
2. In what passage does it say they weren't too hip?
3. I don't know.

But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

You mean on the very day? From God's standpoint she didn't last a day since 1000 years are as one day from his standpoint.

How much time? If God's sitting around waiting to see if we'll meess up the earth, then I think the point has been proven well before now. How much worse does it need to get before He comes back and says, "I told you so"?

How much time left?

Mark 13:
36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father

Again, in which passage do Adam and Eve request the removal of God's blessings? I don't remember that part at all.

Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway.

I take exception to the bolded word above. If this were true, there'd be no debate. There'd be no need for interpretation of the bible. And in all likelihood, Christianity would be the only religion.

Inability to comprehend doesn't mean that what was written wasn't written clearly. There are other factors which can prevent comprehension and thus lead to debate and multiplicity of views. There is even full comprehension followed by a decision to go contrary to what is being fully understood.

articulett

15th January 2008, 08:45 PM

Hawk one

15th January 2008, 08:49 PM

You mean on the very day? From God's standpoint she didn't last a day since 1000 years are as one day from his standpoint.

But this is still complete and utter weak apologism at work. See, if God inspired the bible, and intended it to be read by humans, then surely he would realise that he should keep the timeline accurate from the point of view of the reader. That's one of the first things you learn to do when you're in the business of communicating. So when the bible says "one day", then it should mean one day as it's felt by humans.

Of course, it's a moot point, since it's all a made-up story, but at least it should be an internally consistend made-up story.

Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway. Why do you assume they really knew what the consequences would be? They didn't have any knowledge of death. Heck, they didn't have any knowledge that what they did was "evil", because they had to eat the fruit to learn that.

And that's just one of the details that makes no sense. Take a read through this article (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html) showing just how silly that made-up story is.

articulett

15th January 2008, 08:51 PM

'

Third, each person has a right to either reject or accept based on whatever reason he or she feels justifies it. So I really see no reason to engage in any debating. You are happy. I am happy. Case closed!

: )

Sure... if the case is about happiness.

If the case is about truth, that's another story. There IS only one truth that is the same for everybody... but lots of people claiming to have some sort of access to some divine truth or other but no evidence than any actual divine truth exists much less that anyone has it. Scientology makes people happy. Is the case closed? Christians have no more evidence for their divine truths than Scientologists do... or Muslims or Moonies or UFO believers or astrologists, or priests that do exorcisms...

Skeptics usually prefer not knowing something rather than vapidly believing whatever it is they've been inculcated to believe by whatever culture they were born into. We like to hang out together on skeptic forums understanding the facts we humans are uncovering and sharing them with each other. Unfortunately, faithers need to prop up their beliefs by attempting to inflict them upon skeptics not realizing that skeptics require evidence while faithers think the "case is closed" so long as they are happy.

Truth doesn't give a crap about your personal happiness, Radrook... and evolution is a fact even if you think you are going to get happily ever after bonus points for denying it.

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 08:53 PM

You are free to opine that way if you wish. However, from a Christian standpoint it shows the consequence of trying to do things without his blessing and guidence. I guess that's where you and Christians differ.So when the person who lives as piously as possible and prays for guidance and God's blessings gets cancer, then God wasn't paying much attention to that free will thing I guess?

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 08:54 PM

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.Better to leave the little peons in the dark and then fault them for their lack of faith and poor decision making I guess.

PBTree

15th January 2008, 08:58 PM

'
First, I was responding to a question-yours. If you have all the answers already and have decided beforehand to tag all responses as not acceptable-then why ask?

Second, as I explained previously, my only motive for participation on this thread is make sure that you aren't attacking your own ideas while attributing them to Christianity.

Third, each person has a right to either reject or accept based on whatever reason he or she feels justifies it. So I really see no reason to engage in any debating. You are happy. I am happy. Case closed!

: )

Think you will find that I was responding to your response to DrBaltar.

Not engaging in debating. Hmm, tends to negate the reason for this forum.

To each his own I suppose. :)

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 09:02 PM

OK! : )Pope Pius XII

Pope John Paul II

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.As I see it, Ocelot's point is asking, "who made you Pope?" IOW, what makes your interpretation superior to the billion other interpretations of the Christian Bible?

Radrook

15th January 2008, 09:18 PM

Right, after God got pissed off, the world became bad on it's own. :rolleyes:

That's because the world was on its own due to the rebellious request via disobedience.

The point is the people claiming ID also claim God made prefect designs.

The claim isn't their idea. It's based on a biblical statement. As I mentioned on another post, perfection is a subjective thing dependent on the criteria by which we evaluate things. Adam and Eve had no physical nor mental flaws. They were designed to live forever in perfect health. The animals, were perfect for their purpose.

Most don't point out God made bad things after getting pissed off ....

Well, stated that way it would seem as you see it. It can also be said in this way:
After mankind chose to wing it on its own without God's help they encountered many difficulties which they later began blaming God for.

because that contradicts the other claims that God is loving.

A person doing that doesn't understand the Bible. There is a contradiction only if one accepts one scripture as annulling all the others which clearly inform the reader that God does certainly hate certain things and certain types of people. So that love is not totally unqualified or unconditional.

It is reasonable for you to interpret the Bible as explaining why God added the cockroaches Perhaps you should present your hypothesis to ID proponents such as the Discovery Institute..

I did not say he added cockroaches. I said that some animals became pestiferous after mankind decided to go about on its own. Man's destruction of natural habitats to be replaced by cities. His conglomerating in huge numbers under unsanitary conditions. Over-hunting, overfishing, destruction of natural predators, introduction of species to control other species, etcetera.

Radrook

15th January 2008, 09:36 PM

As I see it, Ocelot's point is asking, "who made you Pope?" IOW, what makes your interpretation superior to the billion other interpretations of the Christian Bible?

If an interpretation places human ideas over scripture then it is flawed-regardless of who is doing the interpreting.

What was the Protestant Reformation?

....A church or denomination’s teachings are authoritative and binding on Christians only if they represent the true meaning and clear teaching of Scripture. This is important in order to understand the connection between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church, and the reason that the Protestant Reformation took place.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant-Reformation.html

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 09:45 PM

.....
A person doing that doesn't understand the Bible. There is a contradiction only if one accepts one scripture as annulling all the others which clearly inform the reader that God does certainly hate certain things and certain types of people. So that love is not totally unqualified or unconditional......I don't want to get this thread off topic here, but this kind of crap makes me sick frankly, and right now I am particularly disgusted. No matter how you spin it, if your god beliefs were true, the horrendous tragedies that have been heaped on these innocent men, women and children because 6,000 years ago one person disobeyed and ate the fruit from a tree is pretty overwhelming proof your god is not "a loving god" by any possible farthest fetched stretch of your apologist brain.

Congo rape victims seek solace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3426273.stm)

A Brutal War's Machetes Maim Sierra Leone (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DF1239F935A15752C0A96F9582 60)

Subjected to horrific violence, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children are serving as soldiers for both rebel groups and government forces in current armed conflicts. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/crp/index.htm)

Child slave labor revelations sweeping China (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php)

Radrook

15th January 2008, 09:57 PM

I don't want to get this thread off topic here, but this kind of crap makes me sick frankly, and right now I am particularly disgusted. No matter how you spin it, if your god beliefs were true, the horrendous tragedies that have been heaped on these innocent men, women and children because 6,000 years ago one person disobeyed and ate the fruit from a tree is pretty overwhelming proof your god is not "a loving god" by any possible farthest fetched stretch of your apologist brain.

Congo rape victims seek solace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3426273.stm)

A Brutal War's Machetes Maim Sierra Leone (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DF1239F935A15752C0A96F9582 60)

Subjected to horrific violence, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children are serving as soldiers for both rebel groups and government forces in current armed conflicts. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/crp/index.htm)

Child slave labor revelations sweeping China (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php)

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.

BTW
You are entitled to your opinion. However, please try to refrain from any personal attacks. Thanks!

Radrook

15th January 2008, 10:01 PM

Deleted

UnrepentantSinner

15th January 2008, 10:05 PM

articulett

15th January 2008, 10:30 PM

I'm afraid it is you who loses the points this time.

Of Dogs and Devils, The Rise of Contagious Cancer (http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/of-dogs-and-devils-can-cancer-be-contagious/)

Edited to add, I see this was addressed. But what was your opinion then, US? After all, many argue that viruses are not life forms. Since then we've had transmissible prions thrown into the mix. Personally, I think once a tumor jumps ship and spreads out infecting other organisms it is reasonable to define it as a life form. Identical twins are not considered one lifeform.

tumors undergo natural selection... they evolve... they mutate fast... we blast them with chemo... if one develops a mutation that makes it resistant to that chemo, it starts a whole new chemo resistant colony... so we pull out the bigger guns...

cervical cancers are primarily spread via hpv virus... that's a clever trick... ride along your vectors primal instincts (sex drive)... and don't kill them too fast--let them feel healthy enough to spread you

Cancer cells are living things as long as they can reproduce themselves (passing on their information to a new generation). Things don't evolve... the information (genomes) to build those things evolves giving rise to new "things". A species dies the same species it is born ass. I'm giving back the one point US took away. :p

articulett

15th January 2008, 10:45 PM

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.

BTW
You are entitled to your opinion. However, please try to refrain from any personal attacks. Thanks!

Said the guy who readily engages in personal attacks AND thinks that he knows, not only that there is an invisible creator of the universe-- but also that he (radrook) KNOWS what book this dude inspired and how to go about interpreting it and what it "means"!-- talk about arrogant.

And I am not all loving, but I would never make a life form (have a child) if I thought there was even the remotest possibility that it could suffer forever... and you believe in an invisible all loving something or other who would have known in advance exactly which of his creations would be suffering forever AND why. The fact that he blames them, when he was the one who created and raised them and put their thoughts and language in their heads and then decided to punish their sentient beings forever if they didn't believe in his invisible ass is just sociopathic. And how did this magical god communicate with the people he poofed into existence? Was he distinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion? Was Jesus distinguishable from a mythological person or the "Mormon prophet" or a garden variety schizophrenic... many who seem to believe they are gods and/or sons of gods (and Jesus was both by some magical mystery of craziness).

I can't assume the genesis account is true anymore than I can assume Scientology's creation story is true... or Greek Mythology or any of the myriad of creation myths humans have been making up for eons. Why? because there is no evidence in support of any of that mumbo jumbo... none of the information given in any creation stories is the slightest bit prescient regarding knowledge that mortals took many years to accumulate regarding the nature of reality. God didn't mention DNA even. That's a big one to leave out if you're trying to impress your creations with your omniscience... don't you think.... and if he was benevolent--why not clue them in about germ theory--oh, and that females are as sentient as males and shouldn't be subjugated nor impregnated without their consent as god did.

I don't need to be thankful to your invisible illusion any more than I need to be thankful to Zeus or Mohummed or the Sun God that shines because people tossed virgins into volcanoes. What a self-important buffoon your faith has made you! And it's as unfixable as trying to talk suicide bombers out of whatever it is they think is going to land their eternal asses in Muslim paradise.

Ugh. Does it scare you to know that Scientologists and Muslims and Moonies and the assorted cults you don't believe in have as much faith (or more) in their higher truths than you do? Because it scares me. You cannot reason with faith.

Radrook

15th January 2008, 10:58 PM

But the earth was not created in the beginning. In the first 9.2 billion years of the universe, there was no earth.

The beginning is not referring to the Big Bang event alone. It is referring to what God did as a compendium or as a prelude to the creative week and his creation of man. In any case, notice that the sequence is heavens first and earth later. Created the heavens and the earth. There is a correct sequence there.

What was the light that god created if the stars, sun and moon were created on the 3rd day? There were stars before the earth anyway, and the sun was also mostly formed by the time the earth started to coalesce from matter in the solar system.

Very true. Light itself was present in the universe prior to the beginning of the creative week.
please keep in mind that immediately after the first words Genesis tells us that there was darkness on the earth's surface. So obviously no light was getting through at that stage.

The Hebrew word "created" allows the alternate translation of "made to appear." So the removal of whatever was hindering the light from reaching the surface would have made the stars moon and sun appear for the first time as viewed from earth.

The moon "rules" the night only sometimes. When it's a new moon, it's not visible. It is also in the sky during the day half the time.

Yes, I agree, it does appear during the day. But the operative word here is it would rule or predominate. Even when the moon is present during the day it cannot be said to rule the day since it is always eclipsed by the brighter glory of the sun. Neither does the sun challenge the moon's rule at night.

BTW

Why do you assume that the scripture meant the moon would have to be always present at night?

Are you suggesting the animals of the earth were created in a day? Fossil records do not collaborate this.

The original word used in Genesis for "day" isn't restricted to a twenty-four hour time interval.

How long were the days of Genesis 1?
http://people.ku.edu/~bthomas/Sci_Bible/age_bib.html

In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?

He was speaking to his Son, the Word of God.

What's up with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I put my porn mags under my mattress or in a box somewhere if I don't want my kids to see them. Why is god leaving knowledge of evil next to creatures he designed to be curious with 'free will', and then punishes them and every generation afterwards when they inevitably eat the fruit? That's just childish and sadistic.

It can be interpreted that way and some people do. It can also be interpreted in a different way-and some people do.

BTW, how old do you claim the earth is?

As old as science tells us it is.

articulett

15th January 2008, 11:05 PM

uggh... the brainwashing seems irreversible in radrooks case.

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 11:10 PM

Radrook

15th January 2008, 11:42 PM

I believe if you re-read what I said the only personal reference in it is a reference to the fact you apologize for the Christian God. I wasn't aware that was an attack. It's my understanding it is a legit description. And this post so illustrates that apologist behavior of yours.

God: "Sorry you got your limbs hacked off and a stick shoved into your vagina until a permanent fistula developed and urine and feces continually run down your legs and your children were kidnapped and will be tortured, raped, and forced to be part of the latest rebel army and your husband was locked in that church which was set on fire burning him alive, but what have you got to complain about? Without me you wouldn't even have a life in the first place.

Oh, and BTW, did I mention that you are supposed to demonstrate your faith by worshiping me now for all I've done for you?"

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.

articulett

15th January 2008, 11:46 PM

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.

But your god does...
he went a little lighter on Job and Abraham though.

skeptigirl

15th January 2008, 11:59 PM

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.Of course you don't. You don't want to think about the real facts compared to your god apologist facts. The real facts are too unpleasant.

Ocelot

16th January 2008, 05:16 AM

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.

Radrook,

I mention it because of false concensus bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect). We imperfect humans have a tendancy to oversetimate the popularity of our own opinions. I've noted on occasion that you make appeals to popularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) and claim to speak for billions of christians. Despite personally finding such appeals being unconvincing your use of them makes me wonder if they sway you. If so I feel it worth noting that your opinions are your own and not necessarily representative of christianity as a whole.

So when you say "that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood" and diminish the opinions of those who reject literalist interpretations I have to wonder what is you basis for doing so. Is it because you feel that's what every good christian believes? If so then you're wrong. If not I would ask you to make yourself clearer.

1 billion people subscribe to the idea that certain of the Pope's declarations are infalliable. I don't and clearly you don't. That doesn't mean I can't agree with the Pope when he makes a salient point. Bible literalism is unsubstantiated and demonstrably self contradictory.

Ocelot

16th January 2008, 05:43 AM

DrBaltar

16th January 2008, 07:00 AM

The claim isn't their idea. It's based on a biblical statement. As I mentioned on another post, perfection is a subjective thing dependent on the criteria by which we evaluate things. Adam and Eve had no physical nor mental flaws. They were designed to live forever in perfect health. The animals, were perfect for their purpose.Apparently Adam and Eve were either designed with severe problems with authority or were so retarded they couldn't understand simple instructions. And which ever mental problem was the case was bad enough not only to punish them, but all of humanity from that point on!

I did not say he added cockroaches. I said that some animals became pestiferous after mankind decided to go about on its own.So mosquitoes didn't live off blood before then? What did they eat?

The Hebrew word "created" allows the alternate translation of "made to appear." So the removal of whatever was hindering the light from reaching the surface would have made the stars moon and sun appear for the first time as viewed from earth.Nice try. The only things Genesis says were 'created' were heaven, earth, great whales, every living creature that moveth, and man and woman. BTW, do you have a reference for that translation? Were all things that were said to be 'created' in Genesis already there and only revealed at the time Genesis says they were revealed?

The original word used in Genesis for "day" isn't restricted to a twenty-four hour time interval.True, it is one revolution of the earth, which used to be shorter than 24 hrs. God knows what 'day' means to us. If day is said, then day is meant. If not then you've invalidated your claim that the bible is clear.

He was speaking to his Son, the Word of God.What son? Jesus did not come till later.

It can be interpreted that way and some people do. It can also be interpreted in a different way-and some people do.Again, you're invalidating your claim that the bible is clear.

As old as science tells us it is.I go to science for clear answers as well.

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.How many people and other animals are NOT here because of the flood? If Genesis is true, 6 billion people descended from Noah's family. Multiply that by all the other families that were wiped out and you have an idea of all who are not here because of God's wrath. Of course that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the animals that were killed.

NobbyNobbs

16th January 2008, 11:46 AM

Perfection is a subjective term which means that certain criteria are being met to the satisfaction of the one setting them. If the plan would have not given humans freedom of choice then from his viewpoint it would have been a flawed plan.

So perfection is a subjective term...and yet you claim to understand how God defines "perfection"?! You claim to know his viewpoint? I'm astounded.

If the bible is true, then according to at least one particular phrase, you certainly won't be among those inheriting the earth.

Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway.

Their disobedience may have mandated it, or resulted in it, but I don't see how it "requests" it. How did they know what the consequences would be? Until actually eating the fruit, they didn't know good from evil. So they couldn't have known that eating it was a bad thing.

Inability to comprehend doesn't mean that what was written wasn't written clearly. There are other factors which can prevent comprehension and thus lead to debate and multiplicity of views. There is even full comprehension followed by a decision to go contrary to what is being fully understood.

When speaking of a book that contradicts itself repeatedly, that uses multiple meanings for the same word, that has people killing each other across the world for centuries becuase a common understanding of its meaning can't be found....that's a book to which the adjective "clear" clearly does not apply.

Radrook

16th January 2008, 02:11 PM

Of course you don't. You don't want to think about the real facts compared to your god apologist facts. The real facts are too unpleasant.

Well, as I said previously, the only reason I began participating on this thread was to provide information and not to evagelize. However, since I was asked specific questions, I only thought it polite to answer in order to provide the info requested. Beyond that I really see no point in trying to persuade anyone on this forum about things which they have already made a firm decision. Actually, if I did, I would be accused of trying to shove my beliefs down people's throats. In any case, thanx for your sincere response and opinion.

Radrook

16th January 2008, 02:26 PM

Radrook,

I mention it because of false concensus bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect). We imperfect humans have a tendancy to oversetimate the popularity of our own opinions. I've noted on occasion that you make appeals to popularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) and claim to speak for billions of christians. Despite personally finding such appeals being unconvincing your use of them makes me wonder if they sway you. If so I feel it worth noting that your opinions are your own and not necessarily representative of christianity as a whole.

You are right. Thanx for pointing that out and my apologies for not having made that clear from the outset. Some of what you call my views, are not representative of the majority of people who claim Christianity as their religion.

So when you say "that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood" and diminish the opinions of those who reject literalist interpretations I have to wonder what is you basis for doing so. Is it because you feel that's what every good christian believes? If so then you're wrong. If not I would ask you to make yourself clearer.

Sorry that I gave that belligerent impression. From now on if asked for an opinion I will try to include other opinions as well in order not to give the impression you describe.

BTW
Individual Christian status before God isn't what I am discussing. Neither am I authorized to be tagging individual people as eternally approved or dissaproved by God. Why? Because I don't qualify for that job.

1 billion people subscribe to the idea that certain of the Pope's declarations are infalliable. I don't and clearly you don't. That doesn't mean I can't agree with the Pope when he makes a salient point. Bible literalism is unsubstantiated and demonstrably self contradictory.

Of course they do and have a right to do so as I have a right to disagree. Actually, I do agree wiuth the Pope on many views involving doctrine and morality. But on others I don't as other millions of people also don't. So it's not as you seem to think. As for Bible literalism, we obviously disagree. Which is OK by me.

Radrook

16th January 2008, 02:46 PM

Radrook,

Theer is an argument made popular by an urban legend regarding an atheist professor and a christian student sometimes identified as Einstein (in fact a secular jew). The argument goes that just as cold is the absense of heat, and darkness is the absense of light; evil is the absense of God's love.

As you get to know me I'm hope you'll come to realise that the soure of an argument is less convincing than the argument itself. As such its status as an urban legend does not, for me, nulify its elegance.

I like the argument, it works well to explan how God did directly not create evil. It seems to me that you make similar arguments about the imperfection of the world resulting not from God's activity but from his (temporary) acceptance of our rejection of him. These arguments are good for those who accept the bible as a document to be read in context rather than as the literal word of God.

However I wonder if you'd care to comment on the following verse from the perspective of one who does seem to believe in a literalist interpretation.

Isaiah 45:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:7;&version=9;)

God clearly acknowledges his direct role in benighting the world.

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Some people read verses such as this and claim that it means God creates sin. But their problem is in their knowledge and understanding of the word evil. They erroneously surmise that evil always means sin, but that is not the case. The word translated evil in scripture does not "necessarily" mean evil in the same sense that we understand evil in our day. We use the word evil today as a synonym for sin or wickedness, but that is not the case in scripture. The word translated evil is the Hebrew word [ra'], meaning something that is "not good." It is from a root word meaning to be spoiled, and by implication something that is not good. i.e., bad. It does not mean evil in the sense that we might think of the word today, but more correctly understood as bad or anything that is "not good" to us. For example, if a child receives a spanking, or we go through some adversity or anything which we deem not good for us, it is [ra'] or evil. e.g.:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/create_evil.html