Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[wahrheit]

Is that a request? :cool:

Not really, but it would certainly prove that only because something contains "http" in the address does not necessarily mean it can be used as a source to support one's argument. I'm sure you remember the "source" he recently used (in the Jefferson-Thread IIRC), where he claimed he didn't notice what the site was about and hadn't even noticed Adolf's picture.

[DOC]

This one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3458941#post3458941).
And this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3458896#post3458896).
This one is good (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3455013#post3455013).
Pretty horrible, even for DOC (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3426693#post3426693).
My favorite (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3363538#post3363538).

The first 4 are much ado about nothing. And as far a the last one, the fact that the influential atheist Peter Singer was asked to come to Princeton and given tenure played a big role in my thinking. But a argument could be made that since I'm so anti-Singer, I"m actually anti-Fascist because so many people compared Singer's ideas to Nazism, the Wall Street Journal for one...

The only one I really had second thoughts about my was my statement that schools would be optional for all children. That one just popped into my mind for some reason. But that is rather tame compared to atheist Singer's ideas.

And I guess the fact that the vast majority of Americans are against homosexual marriages would make them Fascists too, according to your thinking.

And by the way voicing personal opinions has nothing to do with propaganda.

[Safe-Keeper]

You've got to admit, DOC threads are some of the longest of the non-time-wasting threads on the boards.Of course they are, he resurrects them every time they die.

[DOC]

Not really, but it would certainly prove that only because something contains "http" in the address does not necessarily mean it can be used as a source to support one's argument. I'm sure you remember the "source" he recently used (in the Jefferson-Thread IIRC), where he claimed he didn't notice what the site was about and hadn't even noticed Adolf's picture.

Many of you are just upset that I found quotes where Jefferson says he is a Christian. I noticed no one has shown the Jefferson quotes are incorrect...

And I can't remember saying anything about Hitler, regarding that site. What post are you talking about. I have condemned Hitler as as a Madman and anti-Christian in at least 2 threads. Your accusations are absurd.

[wahrheit]

Many of you are just upset that I found quotes where Jefferson says he is a Christian. I noticed no one has shown the Jefferson quotes are incorrect...

And I can't remember saying anything about Hitler, regarding that site. What post are you talking about. I have condemned Hitler as as a Madman and anti-Christian in at least 2 threads. Your accusations are absurd.

Please read my post again. I didn't say anything about your position regarding Hitler.

I complained about the abysmal quality of some (most?) of your sources. And one of those sites which you used not only hosted the most questionable content, but also pictures on the very page you linked to which would have alarmed even the laziest of all researchers.

Apparently, you don't care about the quality of your sources and links, as long as they seem to support your claims.

Also, LOL @ paragraph one of your above post.

[joobz]

The first 4 are much ado about nothing. Oh, Hi DOC. Some would consider sexist statements which place man above woman as not "nothing". Indeed, such ready willingness to devalue one person over another is exactly equal to what you claim you find abhorent in Singer's philosophies.


But be that as it may, perhaps you'd like to shed light on this:
God did not invent evil.
Also one could argue by creating evil God allows free will.

So, which is it? Did god create evil or did man? You originally Said man created evil, then you now admit god did. So, were you wrong before or are you wrong now? Will you admit error and apologize, or will you pretend that both statements are true? (A feat of logic I would love to see).

[DOC]

So, which is it? Did god create evil or did man? You originally Said man created evil, then you now admit god did. So, were you wrong before or are you wrong now? Will you admit error and apologize, or will you pretend that both statements are true? (A feat of logic I would love to see).

There are different kinds of evil. If you look at the fire bombing of Tokyo during WWII that killed a 100,000 civilians -- that in and of itself can be considered evil. But when you factor in it was during war and ultimately played a big part in winning the war it is not evil.

___

God invented the capacity for man to do evil. I believe this was so man could be made in God's image and also so man could have perfect free will (and thus not be programmed to do only good). But it is man who actually invented the "act of doing" evil. If man never acts in a evil manner, then the capacity for evil that God created will never be manifested and thus be totally harmless.

[Filippo Lippi]

There are different kinds of evil. If you look at the fire bombing of Tokyo during WWII that killed a 100,000 civilians -- that in and of itself can be considered evil. But when you factor in it was during war and ultimately played a big part in winning the war it is not evil.





So god invented "good" evil, and until "bad" evil was invented by someone/thing else all the bad things that happened actually made the world a better place?

[slingblade]

There are different kinds of evil. If you look at the fire bombing of Tokyo during WWII that killed a 100,000 civilians -- that in and of itself can be considered evil. But when you factor in it was during war and ultimately played a big part in winning the war it is not evil.

Situational ethics, DOC? Is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" a command or just a suggestion? :jaw-dropp

[joobz]

There are different kinds of evil. If you look at the fire bombing of Tokyo during WWII that killed a 100,000 civilians -- that in and of itself can be considered evil. But when you factor in it was during war and ultimately played a big part in winning the war it is not evil.

___

God invented the capacity for man to do evil. I believe this was so man could be made in God's image and also so man could have perfect free will (and thus not be programmed to do only good). But it is man who actually invented the "act of doing" evil. If man never acts in a evil manner, then the capacity for evil that God created will never be manifested and thus be totally harmless.
You're talking about differences in quality, but that distinction is not made in the bible.
Did god invent evil or did man? If god invented evil, you were wrong to say man did. If Man invented evil, you are wrong for saying god did.

You must choose and decide which one it is. You can't have it both ways.

yet God took the credit for creating evil in Isaiah 45:7http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.25/t.gif (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:7;&version=9;) Man had know knowledge of Good and Evil before the serpant (which God created).

How could Man know the difference between Good and Evil if Evil didn't yet exist, how could Man have created evil prior to knowing what it was?

It only makes sense to me if evil existed before Man ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Genesis 3:22http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.25/t.gif (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22;&version=9;)
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "

IT is clear that god is the inventor and original source of evil. Now the only question that remains is

Will you do the honorable thing and admit error and learn or continue to deny a simple fact?

[six7s]

This one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3458941#post3458941).
And this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3458896#post3458896).
This one is good (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3455013#post3455013).
Pretty horrible, even for DOC (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3426693#post3426693).
My favorite (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3363538#post3363538).

You Rock!

And I have a new sig :)

[lupus_in_fabula]

There are different kinds of evil. If you look at the fire bombing of Tokyo during WWII that killed a 100,000 civilians -- that in and of itself can be considered evil. But when you factor in it was during war and ultimately played a big part in winning the war it is not evil.

…and then there’s the evil of stupidity: “winning the war”, any war, is obviously a perspective regarded as good for the winning party. It’s doesn’t make the suffering go away, nor does it make it any less evil. If you have any regard for the fairytale you describe to, you wouldn’t make such conclusions.

[ush]

There are different kinds of evil. If you look at the fire bombing of Tokyo during WWII that killed a 100,000 civilians -- that in and of itself can be considered evil. But when you factor in it was during war and ultimately played a big part in winning the war it is not evil.

___

God invented the capacity for man to do evil. I believe this was so man could be made in God's image and also so man could have perfect free will (and thus not be programmed to do only good). But it is man who actually invented the "act of doing" evil. If man never acts in a evil manner, then the capacity for evil that God created will never be manifested and thus be totally harmless.

Good and evil are relative terms, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they concepts which emerge from the human consciousness? There is no intrinsic good or evil in nature, nature is indifferent. So it doesn't really mean anything to say that God invented the capacity for man to do evil.

If your god did create man in his image then no wonder the world is in such a mess. That god of yours must be a major wanker.

[DOC]

You're talking about differences in quality, but that distinction is not made in the bible.

The term "Separation of Church and state" is not in the US Constitution, but you have no problem believing in it.

Did god invent evil or did man? If god invented evil, you were wrong to say man did. If Man invented evil, you are wrong for saying god did.

My response in post 1007 stands. If you (and Hugo Black and Leo Pffefer) have the right to make distinctions with regard to the Constitution than I have the right to make distinctions with regard to the bible.

[DOC]

Good and evil are relative terms, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they concepts which emerge from the human consciousness? There is no intrinsic good or evil in nature, nature is indifferent. So it doesn't really mean anything to say that God invented the capacity for man to do evil.

Well, then (as the author Norman Geisler states) atheistic Jews should believe the Holocaust was not intrinsically evil, but he never met one who felt that way.

[godless dave]

The term "Separation of Church and state" is not in the US Constitution, but you have no problem believing in it.

The US Constitution does not claim to be the complete word of God.

[wahrheit]

The US Constitution does not claim to be the complete word of God.

Also, the US Constitution is not a work of fiction, but serves a real practical purpose.

[joobz]

The term "Separation of Church and state" is not in the US Constitution, but you have no problem believing in it.
The constitution is a man made document, designed to be amendable based upon the changing demands of the society. As a man made document, it is less then perfect and can always be improved. We must admit there are some things that aren't clear in it and make our best logical guess as to what would be the best/most fair application of it's words. Hence, my support of "church-state" legislation. If we assumed that the constitution was an inerrant document which remains perfect and could not be changed, then my interpretations would likely be wrong. We'd also still have slavery and count slaves as 3/5ths a person, but that's another story.

What I want to know is:
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SAY THE BIBLE IS A FUNCTIONAL EQUAL TO THE CONSTITUTION????

I mean, I'd fully agree with you then, and would have no problems with the distinctions you draw.

My response in post 1007 stands. If you (and Hugo Black and Leo Pffefer) have the right to make distinctions with regard to the Constitution than I have the right to make distinctions with regard to the bible.
Are you sure you want to? If you hold to your distinction than you are saying that the bible is an amendable document which is prone to error. That's a view I could agree with.

If you don't think the bible is amendable and or error prone, than an admission of error still stands. Either god made evil or man made evil. You said man did, but the Bible has quoted god as saying, I made evil. It didn't say, "I made the good kind of evil, but man made really really evil kind of evil."

DOC, why do you find it so hard to admit wrong? You really paint yourself into corners when you act as you are infallable. You are as human as we are. Mistakes will happen. Let your ego go.

[DOC]

The US Constitution does not claim to be the complete word of God.

To my knowledge nowhere does the 4 gospels claim to be the "complete' word of God. There is a thing called Revelation. Christ implied it existed when He said to the apostles shortly before the time of the crucifixion that he could not tell them more because they could not bear it. He also said He would send the Holy Spirit who would teach all things. I along with others believe the Holy Spirit is still active in the world today.

[joobz]

To my knowledge nowhere does the 4 gospels claim to be the "complete' word of God. There is a thing called Revelation. Christ implied it existed when He said to the apostles shortly before the time of the crucifixion that he could not tell them more because they could not bear it. He also said He would send the Holy Spirit who would teach all things. I along with others believe the Holy Spirit is still active in the world today.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SAY THE BIBLE IS A FUNCTIONAL EQUAL TO THE CONSTITUTION????

If you believe the bible is an amendable error prone document, then let the healing begin. Let's start with Leviticus...

[DOC]

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SAY THE BIBLE IS A FUNCTIONAL EQUAL TO THE CONSTITUTION????

Explain what you mean by functional equal.

[joobz]

Explain what you mean by functional equal.
certainly, if you read my earlier post, I explain:
The constitution is a man made document, designed to be amendable based upon the changing demands of the society. As a man made document, it is less then perfect and can always be improved. We must admit there are some things that aren't clear in it and make our best logical guess as to what would be the best/most fair application of it's words. Hence, my support of "church-state" legislation. If we assumed that the constitution was an inerrant document which remains perfect and could not be changed, then my interpretations would likely be wrong. We'd also still have slavery and count slaves as 3/5ths a person, but that's another story.

What I want to know is:
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SAY THE BIBLE IS A FUNCTIONAL EQUAL TO THE CONSTITUTION????


By this I mean that you think the bible is a man-made document, designed to be amendable based upon the evolving changing demands of society and societal ethics.
As I said, if this is the case then....
I mean, I'd fully agree with you then, and would have no problems with the distinctions you draw.

My response in post 1007 stands. If you (and Hugo Black and Leo Pffefer) have the right to make distinctions with regard to the Constitution than I have the right to make distinctions with regard to the bible.
Are you sure you want to? If you hold to your distinction than you are saying that the bible is an amendable document which is prone to error. That's a view I could agree with.

If you don't think the bible is amendable and or error prone, than an admission of error still stands. Either god made evil or man made evil. You said man did, but the Bible has quoted god as saying, I made evil. It didn't say, "I made the good kind of evil, but man made really really evil kind of evil."

DOC, why do you find it so hard to admit wrong? You really paint yourself into corners when you act as you are infallable. You are as human as we are. Mistakes will happen. Let your ego go.
So, is the bible an amendable, man-made document or is it the inerrant word of god?

[Darth Rotor]

Situational ethics, DOC? Is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" a command or just a suggestion? :jaw-dropp
*Jack Sparrow voice*

Guidelines

DR

[Tony]

God did not invent evil.

This is a shameless lie. According to the Bible, God created EVERYTHING. To suggest that there exists something that was created outside of God's creation is to imply that there is another creator. So which is it?

[James Fox]

This is a shameless lie. According to the Bible, God created EVERYTHING. To suggest that there exists something that was created outside of God's creation is to imply that there is another creator. So which is it?

Remember, the rational non believer is not allowed to use “throw back” arguments. ;) If there’s no god, then there’s no discussion regarding god’s involvement in evil. Only a discussion regarding the internal contradictions of the believers doctrines and beliefs.

It’s like horse racing. One can bet on the outcome for entertainment and pleasure, but only the horse owner has any real investment in the outcome (foolish gambling aside). I don’t find any reason to believe in the supernatural. Therefore I have no stake in arguments regarding who made or did not make evil or the traits of a god that in all likelihood does not exist.

Saying god did not create evil is likely someone being true to their beliefs, not an act of lying. However that doesn’t mean their whole belief system isn’t demonstrably false based on available evidence.

[DOC]

God did not invent evil...

This is a shameless lie. According to the Bible, God created EVERYTHING. To suggest that there exists something that was created outside of God's creation is to imply that there is another creator. So which is it?

There is a difference between inventing the capacity to do evil. and inventing the act of doing evil. God invented the capacity to do evil, in order to give us perfect free will so we weren't just robots programmed to do good only.

But God did not invent the actual act of doing evil. Humans did that. And are continuing to do that.

[DOC]

So, is the bible an amendable, man-made document or is it the inerrant word of god?

Well Christ amended the Old Testament. So if a behavior is good enough for Christ its good enough for me.

[joobz]

Well Christ amended the Old Testament. So if a behavior is good enough for Christ its good enough for me.
excellent! I'm glad we agree. Then in that case, I say we start by completely dropping leviticus from biblical teaching. Indeed, the bible's claim of homosexuality being an abomination is simply a prejudice of the people who wrote the bible and it doesn't truly reflect god's intent.

Man, I'm glad you are open to this, DOC!

[Hokulele]

excellent! I'm glad we agree. Then in that case, I say we start by completely dropping leviticus from biblical teaching. Indeed, the bible's claim of homosexuality being an abomination is simply a prejudice of the people who wrote the bible and it doesn't truly reflect god's intent.

Man, I'm glad you are open to this, DOC!


That means we can also amend Genesis to include the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution by natural selection. Hey, if amending the OT is good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!

[joobz]

That means we can also amend Genesis to include the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution by natural selection. Hey, if amending the OT is good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!
Exactly! I'm happy that DOC realizes the shortcomings of the bible and is willing to change it to reflect reality. Maybe we could also get rid of talking snakes, the thought of Noah and the flood, jesus turning water into wine, really the whole divinity of Jesus.

ETA: Actually, why don't we first simply adopt the Jefferson bible. He did a lot of the work for us already!

[Hokulele]

Gah! You did NOT invoke the "Thread That Will Not Die"! Did you?

[arthwollipot]

There is a difference between inventing the capacity to do evil. and inventing the act of doing evil. God invented the capacity to do evil, in order to give us perfect free will so we weren't just robots programmed to do good only.

But God did not invent the actual act of doing evil. Humans did that. And are continuing to do that.See, this whole evil thing reminds me so much of a briar patch.

God creates the world, invents people and puts them in this beautiful garden. He says "everything in this garden is yours to do with as you will. All of the animals, all of the plants, except for this big tree in the middle of the garden which you are not allowed to eat the fruit of. You can eat any other fruit except the fruit of this tree, which is extra special."

And then it's all surprising when they eat the fruit of the tree. Did the authors of genesis ever have children??

[six7s]

There is a difference between inventing the capacity to do evil. and inventing the act of doing evil. God invented the capacity to do evil, in order to give us perfect free will so we weren't just robots programmed to do good only.

But God did not invent the actual act of doing evil. Humans did that. And are continuing to do that.

DOC, please imagine that you just heard on the news that some 16-year-old punk, whacked out on drugs, committed some heinous crime against 'innocent' people

On a scale of zero to 100, how much responsibility does your god bear for the act?

The reason that I ask is that I am very curious, assuming you can answer that hypothetical question, to know if your answer to the above differs in any way from the amount of blame you would lay at the the feet of the punk's parents?

And, if so:

By how much?
and

Why?

[Worm]

There is a difference between inventing the capacity to do evil. and inventing the act of doing evil. God invented the capacity to do evil, in order to give us perfect free will so we weren't just robots programmed to do good only.

But God did not invent the actual act of doing evil. Humans did that. And are continuing to do that.

Woah...what else did God 'not invent'? Is there some sort of list somewhere? Seems like a kind of important issue to me.

That's one hell of an clause in the smallprint, if God can claim credit for the whole of creation (apart from the bits that are bad....that's your own problem..don't blame me)

[joobz]

Woah...what else did God 'not invent'? Is there some sort of list somewhere? Seems like a kind of important issue to me.

That's one hell of an clause in the smallprint, if God can claim credit for the whole of creation (apart from the bits that are bad....that's your own problem..don't blame me)
Hey, guys. Forget about all of that. DOC agreed that the bible is an amendable man-made document. So, this debates over whether or not god created evil is moot.

[Mister Earl]

There is a difference between inventing the capacity to do evil. and inventing the act of doing evil. God invented the capacity to do evil, in order to give us perfect free will so we weren't just robots programmed to do good only.

But God did not invent the actual act of doing evil. Humans did that. And are continuing to do that.

So if I were a bio-engineer, and designed a virus that would utterly wipe out all life on Earth, and sealed it into a little container, I would not be evil? Even if I deliberately gave that container to someone I knew for a fact WOULD use it?

[DOC]

excellent! I'm glad we agree. Then in that case, I say we start by completely dropping leviticus from biblical teaching. Indeed, the bible's claim of homosexuality being an abomination is simply a prejudice of the people who wrote the bible and it doesn't truly reflect god's intent.

But Christ didn't amend anything specifically about homosexuality. And Paul who wrote much of the New Testament was against it.

[DOC]

So if I were a bio-engineer, and designed a virus that would utterly wipe out all life on Earth, and sealed it into a little container, I would not be evil? Even if I deliberately gave that container to someone I knew for a fact WOULD use it?

Sin according to Billy Graham is anything contrary to the will of God. God has a will ( for your life) which is in your best long term interest. When step out of God's will for your life you will ultimately fail. It is my belief that all atheists are not following the path that is in their best long term interest. This also goes for some who claim to be Christians.

The bio engineer above is out of God's will for his/her life and a price will ultimately be paid for that sin. And as the bible says the "wages of sin is death"

[MRC_Hans]

Sin according to Billy Graham is anything contrary to the will of God. God has a will ( for your life) which is in your best long term interest. When step out of God's will for your life you will ultimately fail. It is my belief that all atheists are not following the path that is in their best long term interest. This also goes for some who claim to be Christians.

The bio engineer above is out of God's will for his/her life and a price will ultimately be paid for that sin. And as the bible says the "wages of sin is death"The catch is, obviously, that we can't know God's will. You can't know if I, as an atheist, am actually following God's will. Maybe God wants me to be an ahteist.

Hans

[joobz]

But Christ didn't amend anything specifically about homosexuality. And Paul who wrote much of the New Testament was against it.
Doesn't matter. You agreed that the bible is a man-made, amendable document. Which means, anything can be changed.

This whole issue started because you refused to admit that you were wrong about the bible (and god being the creator of evil) and decided to compare biblical interpretation to constitutional interpretation.

So, you have only several options here:
1.) The bible isn't an amendable document and you must admit you were wrong about god's being the source of evil

2.) The bible is amendable, just the amendments are only permited by Jesus. Which would mean that you must admit you are wrong about god's being the source of evil. (Jesus didn't amend that claim).

3.) The bible is amendable, but only jesus and DOC are allowed to amend the bible. Such a position would be laughably arrogant and transparently hypocritical.

4.) The bible is amendable, and anyone would be free to amend it. This would simply mean that other parts of the bible (e.g., homosexuality as sin) aren't god's true but actually the prejudices of the people who wrote the bible. We allowed ourselves to argue that the bible was against slavery. We allowed ourselves to argue that the bible isn't chauvinism, even though it clearly is. I would say the next logical amendment would be homosexuality.

So DOC, which choice do you prefer? 1, 2, 3 or 4?

[Worm]

*disappears in a puff of logic*

[Mashuna]

The bio engineer above is out of God's will for his/her life and a price will ultimately be paid for that sin. And as the bible says the "wages of sin is death"

Unfortunately, the salary of virtue is the same.

[six7s]

But Christ didn't amend anything specifically about homosexuality

Yet further evidence that, instead of being the incarnation of an all-knowing, all-everythinging god, Christ was simply another ignorant man of his time

And Paul who wrote much of the New Testament was against it.

All this proves is that Paul was (like all too many people who cherry-pick myths to fill in the god-sized and god-shaped holes in their understanding of reality) driven to the circular (il)logic of using fear-fueled ignorance to demonise people he didn't understand

[DOC]

Doesn't matter. You agreed that the bible is a man-made, amendable document. Which means, anything can be changed.

Where did I say the bible is man-made?

And only Christ (the Son of God) or the Holy Spirit can amend (better wording is "give increased revelation") any spiritual issues in the bible.

[joobz]

Where did I say the bible is man-made? right here

So, is the bible an amendable, man-made document or is it the inerrant word of god?
Well Christ amended the Old Testament. So if a behavior is good enough for Christ its good enough for me.
which can easily be seen as an agreement to my question. But you then say



And only Christ (the Son of God) or the Holy Spirit can amend (better wording is "give increased revelation") any spiritual issues in the bible.
Now you are not only denying that you agreed to the bible being a man-made, amendable document. you contradicted yourself by saying that only god (jesus) can amend the bible. Even though your previous post clearly has you saying that you believe you are allowed to do so as well.


Now, If you believe that only christ and the holy spirit can amend the bible, then that means you selected option two from below:

So, you have only several options here:
1.) The bible isn't an amendable document and you must admit you were wrong about god's being the source of evil

2.) The bible is amendable, just the amendments are only permited by Jesus. Which would mean that you must admit you are wrong about god's being the source of evil. (Jesus didn't amend that claim).

3.) The bible is amendable, but only jesus and DOC are allowed to amend the bible. Such a position would be laughably arrogant and transparently hypocritical.

4.) The bible is amendable, and anyone would be free to amend it. This would simply mean that other parts of the bible (e.g., homosexuality as sin) aren't god's true but actually the prejudices of the people who wrote the bible. We allowed ourselves to argue that the bible was against slavery. We allowed ourselves to argue that the bible isn't chauvinism, even though it clearly is. I would say the next logical amendment would be homosexuality.



So you must now, honorably, admit you were wrong and admit that god clearly states that he is the creator of evil.

[DOC]

The catch is, obviously, that we can't know God's will. You can't know if I, as an atheist, am actually following God's will. Maybe God wants me to be an ahteist.


Christians believe you find God's will for your life through prayer. Some believe through fasting and prayer. But before you can pray to God you have to accept the existence of God. Or at least be open to the idea that God might exist.

[Upchurch]

And only Christ (the Son of God) or the Holy Spirit can amend (better wording is "give increased revelation") any spiritual issues in the bible.

http://cectic.com/comics/146.png
(source (http://cectic.com/146.html))

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

Where did I say the bible is man-made?

Joobz: right here

Posted by joobz

So, is the bible an amendable, man-made document or is it the inerrant word of god?

Posted by DOC

Well Christ amended the Old Testament. So if a behavior is good enough for Christ its good enough for me.

Posted by DOC

And only Christ (the Son of God) or the Holy Spirit can amend (better wording is "give increased revelation") any spiritual issues in the bible.
_______


DOC: I've never amended any spiritual truths in the bible, nor do I believe I can. Can you name one time in my 1700 posts where I amended any spiritual truth in the bible.

Saying "if a behavior is good enough for Christ its good enough for me." might be confusing. Saying "if a behavior is good enough for Christ that's good enough for me" would have been closer to what I meant.

[Hokulele]

DOC: I've never amended any spiritual truths in the bible, nor do I believe I can. Can you name one time in my 1700 posts where I amended any spiritual truth in the bible.


Nice shifting of the goal posts. This thread is about scientific truth in the bible, not spiritual truth (whatever the heck that may be).

[joobz]

DOC: I've never amended any spiritual truths in the bible, nor do I believe I can. Can you name one time in my 1700 posts where I amended any spiritual truth in the bible.Yes you have. I referenced such points.

God didn't invent evil, man did.

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

[DOC]

Nice shifting of the goal posts. This thread is about scientific truth in the bible, not spiritual truth (whatever the heck that may be).


The thread asks is science getting "closer" to God and the Bible. Are you saying spiritual issues
don't have anything to do with God or the Bible.

[joobz]

Nice shifting of the goal posts. This thread is about scientific truth in the bible, not spiritual truth (whatever the heck that may be).
that's true, but this argument does surround his willingness to redefine god as he sees fit (even if it contradicts the bible).

To summarize the debate that I'm addressing:

DOC: God's awesome,man sucks. Man created evil not god.
JOOBZ: No, god admitted to creating evil(see bible)
DOC: Well. Yeah, but. God created evil to allow evil, but man makes evil. God's awesome.
JOOBZ: Which is it? God created evil or didn't?
DOC: Well, if you can say that constitution permits seperation of church and state, then I can say that god didn't create evil.
JOOBZ: Really? You want to say the bible and constitution are the same. both are amendable man-made documents.
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
DOC: What do you mean by the same
JOOBZ: That both are amendable man-made documents.
DOC: Well if it's good enough for Jesus...
JOOBZ: Alright! We can finally get rid of all the stupid stuff in it.
DOC: But no, I didn't say that... Only Jesus can amend the bible.
JOOBZ: So then you are saying that you can't amend the bible, and now you must admit that god created evil.
DOC: *Whistles* um, ahh, when did I ever try to amend the bible?
JOOBZ: Just now. In this conversation. In this very thread. that we are having right now. The whole reason why you brought up the stupid constitution analogy.

[DOC]

Yes you have. I referenced such points.


DOC: God didn't invent evil, man did.

Posted by joobz Isahiah 45:7
form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

------


DOC: You might not have read post 1026. I've already responded to this issue:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3684833#post3684833

[joobz]

DOC: God didn't invent evil, man did.

Posted by joobz Isahiah 45:7
form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

------


DOC: You might not have read post 1026. I've already responded to this issue:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3684833#post3684833
ACtually, I responded to that answer. It was vapid and I dealt with it as such. Remember, this WHOLE CONSTITUTION VS BIBLE DIVERSION was a direct result of you trying to wiggle out of admitting that god created evil and that the Bible says so.

[Elizabeth I]

But Christ didn't amend anything specifically about homosexuality. And Paul who wrote much of the New Testament was against it.

Sin according to Billy Graham is anything contrary to the will of God.

I'm curious about why you will accept the interpretations of some non-divine, fallible men (the Apostle Paul and Billy Graham) and not of others.

By the way, doc (and I apologize in advance if this has been asked before), do you eat shrimp? Do you wear 60/40 blend clothing? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," how can you live with yourself?

[DOC]

By the way, doc (and I apologize in advance if this has been asked before), do you eat shrimp? Do you wear 60/40 blend clothing? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," how can you live with yourself?

Well Jesus gave "increased revelation" concerning such Old Testament beliefs when He said in Mathew 15: 17 - 20

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mat 15:20 These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

[Hokulele]

Well Jesus gave "increased revelation" concerning such Old Testament beliefs when He said in Mathew 15: 17 - 20

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mat 15:20 These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


So Jesus is the thought police. Ick.

[Fitter]

<snip> but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Not big on germ theory was he? One could almost say that modern science was moving away from the bible with this example you cite.

[Elizabeth I]

I'm curious about why you will accept the interpretations of some non-divine, fallible men (the Apostle Paul and Billy Graham) and not of others.

By the way, doc (and I apologize in advance if this has been asked before), do you eat shrimp? Do you wear 60/40 blend clothing? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," how can you live with yourself?

Well Jesus gave "increased revelation" concerning such Old Testament beliefs when He said in Mathew 15: 17 - 20

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mat 15:20 These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Answer my questions, please. Don't quote the Bible at me. Do YOU eat shrimp? Do YOU wear clothing made of fabric blends?

[joobz]

Well Jesus gave "increased revelation" concerning such Old Testament beliefs when He said in Mathew 15: 17 - 20

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mat 15:20 These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.Funny thing is that Jesus also never denied that God created evil. Nor did jesus say slavery was an abomination. But some how you do not condone slavery and you deny that god created evil.

So, again, if Jesus is the only one who can amend the bible, why are you allowed to make claims that are in clear contradiction to what the bible says.

[joobz]

Not big on germ theory was he? One could almost say that modern science was moving away from the bible with this example you cite.
that's true. You'd think the son of god would have been mindful of disease transmission. Afterall, god created disease.

[six7s]

Afterall, god created disease.

Indeed... clever bugger, ain't he?

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


:D

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by DOC http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3691655#post3691655)
<snip> but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


Not big on germ theory was he? One could almost say that modern science was moving away from the bible with this example you cite.


Now, that's funny. I developed the habit of leaving the last bit of a hamburger uneaten ...the part I held onto it with using unwashed hands..when I was a kid. I still find it hard to eat the last bite. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Answer my questions, please. Don't quote the Bible at me. Do YOU eat shrimp? Do YOU wear clothing made of fabric blends?

This is a tactic we really need to quit using. There's nothing in Christianity which says the Levitical rules must be kept. In fact Jesus said the old covenant is gone and here's the new one. Asking people if they follow rules their religion doesn't say they have to follow is an uneffective tactic.

It's like asking a modern soldier if he knows how to load a musket and then asking him why he doesn't when he replies in the negative. The answer is he doesn't have to.

[DOC]

Answer my questions, please. Don't quote the Bible at me. Do YOU eat shrimp? Do YOU wear clothing made of fabric blends?

So I'm criticized for occasionally saying "I believe" and I'm criticized for giving specific quotes.

As to what I eat and wear, I'll let Unre. Sinner's previous post be my answer.

I do believe though that its important to eat healthy. Christ ate a lot of fish. He even ate fish after his Resurrection. He also was also not adverse to some good wine. And neither was Paul, he thought it was good for the digestion.

[DOC]

Funny thing is that Jesus also never denied that God created evil. Nor did jesus say slavery was an abomination. But some how you do not condone slavery and you deny that god created evil.

So your implying Abraham Lincoln was wrong to invoke God and the Lord so much in his 2nd inaugural address when talking about the evil of slavery because Jesus and God are indifferent to slavery. And your implying the Rev. Martin Luther King was wrong to be a Reverend since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And your implying that King made a mistake to found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to deal with civil rights because of God's and Jesus's indifference to slavery.

And I assume your Believe the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson made mistakes in becoming Reverends since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And I assume you believe Barack Obama make a mistake in claiming to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, since Jesus is indifferent to slavery.

[wahrheit]

DEFINE argument_by_authority AS NUMBER(VERY_BIG_INTEGER);

WHILE (post_submitted_by == "DOC") {
SET argument_by_authority += random(5);
}

[joobz]

So your implying Abraham Lincoln was wrong to invoke God and the Lord so much in his 2nd inaugural address when talking about the evil of slavery because Jesus and God are indifferent to slavery.
And your implying the Rev. Martin Luther King was wrong to be a Reverend since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And your implying that King made a mistake to found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to deal with civil rights because of God's and Jesus's indifference to slavery.

And I assume your Believe the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson made mistakes in becoming Reverends since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And I assume you believe Barack Obama make a mistake in claiming to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, since Jesus is indifferent to slavery.They pick and choose which parts of the bible they believe. As everyone does.

Are you admitting that you pick and choose which parts of the bible you agree with and don't agree with? Or are you admitting that god is the creator of evil?

[UnrepentantSinner]

(No, this isn't pennance for agreeing with DOC that raising the Levitical laws is rediculous, but I saw this delicious post on another forum, thought it was contextually perfect and had to cross post it here. It's by my buddy shernren who is a very devout TE which should explain some of the language he uses.)

Is God and the Bible getting closer to Science?

Well, it appears that some Creationists who cannot deny the evidence are trying to make that so...

I was looking for one of the classic baraminology papers in which the authors use their baraminology criteria to sort all life into "baramins", conclude that based on genetic evidence alone chimpanzees and humans should be in the same "baramin", and then invoke theological special-pleading to say this can't be the case.

What I actually found was infinitely better.

http://www.creationbiology.org/conte...odule_id=36954
(abstract containing link to PDF)

This is a paper written by baraminologists (creationists trying to replace evolutionist systematics with a consistent creationist alternative, for those unaware) in the wake of the Chimpanzee Draft Genome in 2005. The abstract is plain enough:

Evidence for the great similarity between chimpanzees and humans was recently reinforced with the publication of a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome. The sequence is in >361,000 pieces with a median length of 15,700 nucleotides. The sequence differs from the human genome by 35 million nucleotide mismatches (1.23%) and 10 million alignment gaps (~3-4%). Rather than attempting to explain this similarity, I here propose principles that can guide creationist research in this area. I find that creationist genomics requires three important theories that still need to be developed before fruitful research can commence. The first need is a theory of biological similarity. The level of similarity observed between the human and chimpanzee genomes cannot be adequately explained simply by the will of the Creator, unless a theory can be developed to explain why the Creator would will such similarity. The most promising candidate for explaining biological similarity is a modified form of ReMine's message theory. The second greatest need for interpreting genomes is a theory of the genome, particularly its importance and biological function. The third need is a better understanding of baraminology and historical development of organisms.

(bold emphasis added - italics in original)

The paper itself begins, oddly, with an anecdote from a late 17th century biologist demonstrating an early Christian response to the obvious intermediate status of chimpanzees between lower primates and humans. The authors then spend 6 pages making an excellent review of the genetic similarities between apes and humans, including a good wrap-up of the chimp genome draft project and its implications.

They then go on to drive creationist explanations of this similarity into the mud. These are not evolutionists. Nevertheless, they make scathing claims about fellow creationists that would probably sound militant coming from an evolutionist:

The question is not how similarity arose but why this particular pattern of similarity arose. To say that God could have created the pattern is merely ad hoc. The specific similarity we observe between humans and chimpanzees is not therefore evidence merely of their common ancestry but of their close relationship. (pg 7 - responding to the "common design explains similarity" argument)

While common design could be a reasonable first step to explain similarity of functional genes, it is difficult to explain why pseudogenes with the exact same substitutions or deletions would be shared between species that did not share a common ancestor. (pg 9 - after reviewing pseudogenes)

However, emphasizing these differences [between the chimpanzee and the human genome] does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. Listing the differences between the genomes does not alter the overall pattern. If anything, the differences are more striking because of the overwhelming similarity. (pg 9 - in response to creationist attempts to emphasize the differences)

The authors also state:

Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual - not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) - distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.

Indeed!

Good to see that some creationists are doing their work with their eyes wide open ...

So it appears, much like my TE friend has concluded, that those working on "Baramins" are desperately trying to explain the appearance of common ancestry between humans and our fellow apes rather than just trying to explain it with the ad hoc "common design" excuse.

I await their further wafflings and explanations. :)

[Elizabeth I]

This is a tactic we really need to quit using. There's nothing in Christianity which says the Levitical rules must be kept. In fact Jesus said the old covenant is gone and here's the new one. Asking people if they follow rules their religion doesn't say they have to follow is an uneffective tactic.

It's like asking a modern soldier if he knows how to load a musket and then asking him why he doesn't when he replies in the negative. The answer is he doesn't have to.

Not as long as the Old Testament continues to be included in the Christian Bible. Not as long as they continue to push the "homosexuality is an abomination" theme.

It's more a question about the hypocrisy of saying, "This is true, and this is not," when referring to a book that is supposed to be the inerrant word of God. If it is, it is, and you can't say, "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to that part."

And don't forget that Jesus also said something about coming to fulfill the laws and the commandments.

So I'm criticized for occasionally saying "I believe" and I'm criticized for giving specific quotes.

As to what I eat and wear, I'll let Unre. Sinner's previous post be my answer.

I do believe though that its important to eat healthy. Christ ate a lot of fish. He even ate fish after his Resurrection. He also was also not adverse to some good wine. And neither was Paul, he thought it was good for the digestion.

I was criticizing you because I asked you a specific question about your behavior to which you responded with a quote from the Bible. It made about as much sense as responding with "Jack and Jill went up a hill..."

And of course it is important to eat healthful food. You don't need the Bible to know that.

So...

Back to you, doc:

Do you eat shrimp? Do you wear clothing made of blended fabric?

If so, how do you look at yourself in the mirror every day?

[arthwollipot]

This is a tactic we really need to quit using. There's nothing in Christianity which says the Levitical rules must be kept. In fact Jesus said the old covenant is gone and here's the new one. Asking people if they follow rules their religion doesn't say they have to follow is an uneffective tactic.And don't forget that Jesus also said something about coming to fulfill the laws and the commandments.Matthew 5:18-19

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

That Jesus, he loves his jots and his tittles.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not as long as the Old Testament continues to be included in the Christian Bible. Not as long as they continue to push the "homosexuality is an abomination" theme.

Well then you're being as selective as the fundamentalists you're trying to criticize. You're focusing as myopically on one of 613 laws as they are. I'm sorry, but I think trying to extrapolate that out into "do you eat shrimp or wear mixed fiber clothing" is a pretty stupid argument. A more germane one would be asking them why, if homosexuality was such an important issue, didn't Jesus address it more in the gospels. The new testament homophobia came out of Paul's writings, which were more influenced by his Zealot upbringing, than the actual (supposed) words of Jesus.

And don't forget that Jesus also said something about coming to fulfill the laws and the commandments.

Yeah, that was my point. I'm surprised you missed it. Jesus claimed to have done away with the Levitical laws and insituted a handful of new ones with the 10 Commandments preserved. Therefore as long as a Christian didn't worship other gods it was o.k. to eat shrimp or wear mixed fibres and thus the "why don't you follow Levitical laws" argument is negated.

It's as stupid to ask a Christian why they don't eat shrimp as it is to as a Muslim why they don't celebrate Passover.

Matthew 5:18-19

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

That Jesus, he loves his jots and his tittles.

You bolded the wrong part. "till all be fulfilled" is the part you should have bolded. Jesus "fulfilled" the law (whatever that means) and thus set new ground rules... which leads to an interesting apologetical argument I've heard from Jews.

I have no idea where to find it now, but I once read an analysis by a Jew of the prophecy for what the Messiah would usher in vs. what Jesus accomplished and it was rather scathing. The Jewish Messiah would not do away with the Law, but would rather ensure universal adherance. Messiah brings not a new heaven or earth, but an ancient Levitical Isreal spread across the planet. That is why zelots like Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva were heralded as Messiah's in the 1st Century... they were going to bring about that Isreal.

Elizabeth, I'm sorry, but this argument is much more complex than "why do you eat shrimp" and thus should be abandoned as insipid and ineffectual when there are so many more richer arguments to be drawn from.

I've been monitoring DOC's threads for the last few months and there is pattern of behaviour that is not in the spirit of the Forum. I.e. DOC's threads fall off the front page of the section and he then bumps them by just regurgitating the same discredited opinions and information that have already been gone over literally dozens of times. Therefore I am closing this and the other threads.