The Philosophy, Science & Religion forum has been created as an unmoderated forum. The issues discussed here can and will get very intense. Please show respect and appreciation to alternative views posted here. We appreciate your consideration.
Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4,792
Joined: 20-Jun-2003 Zodiac: Holly
Realm: The frontier of Penn's Woods
What is the Golden RUle of the Bible? What is the Rule of Three?
They both contain the same message!
Bible: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
Rule of Three: What ever you do to others comes back to you thrice!
There is not much different between those beliefs.
--------------------
I support the separation of church and hate!
IMAGINATION - the freest and largest nation in the world!
One can not profess to be of "GOD" and show intolerence and prejudice towards the beliefs of others.
Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh. He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.
"We're all in this together , in the parking lot between faith and fear" ... O.C.M.S.
“Beasts feed; man eats; only the man of intellect knows how to eat well.”
"Without food we are nothing, without history we are lost." - SHADOWS
Is iomadh duine laghach a mhill an Creideamh. Religion has spoiled many a good man.
Right Shadows! I have seen those books you have mentioned. Have not gotten them yet, I confess, but I believe your message. It is not a secular love...........to me it is a spiritual love that can come from no where else!
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 377
Joined: 02-Sep-2004 Zodiac: Oak
Realm: Tasmania, Australia
QUOTE (ANNHAM @ 13-Sep-2004, 10:13 AM)
There is something about Genesis that makes me believe that if God inspired men to write it down, His importance was to emphasize the main point - God created the heavens & the earth & all that is here. For one thing, in Genesis, there are actually two slightly conflicting versions of the creation. Another is that Genesis is said to have been very similar to an ancient Babylonian folk tale which originated long before the Bible was written. I tend to think it is best not to take all the details literally because in translation and telling and retelling of any story or even history before it is written down there are bound to be things that just aren't understood exactly as the original inspiree or God intended.
Anne
ANNHAM, I agree that Genesis is a very compelling account. May I add that Gen. 1 and 2 are not conflicting, but complimentary accounts. Chapter 1 tells us the 'when' of creation week, chapter 2 gives us the 'how'.
As far as the idea that things were not written down until much later, that's true, but don't forget that they lives to a great age in those days before the flood.
Adam would have known Methuselah, and Methuselah died the year of the Flood and would have known Noah, so that's only two generations.
There is enough evidence for us to conclude that Adam most probably was the author of Genesis 2:4-5:1, and that this is his record of his own experiences with respect to events in the Garden of Eden, the creation of Eve, the Fall, and in the lives of Cain, Abel, and Seth.
remembering that all Mankind came from Eden and then Noah after the Flood it is understandable that a Flood account would find it's way into various cultures and survive. Tho' as some tribes departed from the Living God, their accounts were likewise distorted.
It is interesting that most culture still have a Flood account and also observe a seven day week - which came from Genesis rather than from obvious movements of the heavenly bodies such as from whence we measure a day, month, and year.
This all goes to prove the true origins of Mankind.
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 166
Joined: 13-Aug-2004 Zodiac: Oak
Realm: northern Canada - somewhere between the treeline and civilisation
First, I like Deckers' point about using an item (ie. the Bible) to prove itself. I guess that is why Fundamentalists (whether Christian or Muslim or whatever) are hard to reckon with because they simply cannot allow themselves to question the source.
As per the Babylonian flood tales, yes I have read often about them and they date further back than the 4 millennia BC. In North America we often have flood tales in our aboriginal stories. Some Christians have also used this as "proof" of Noah's flood. More scientific interpretations tend to suggest these floods can be attributed to the retreating glaciers of our last ice age - some 15-20,000 years ago.
I don't think God would want us to totally abandon our senses. Nor does he want us to get too mired down in debate. What I do feel that stands up to historical criticism is the life of Christ. The gospels are a much better source of history than the early books of the OT.
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 377
Joined: 02-Sep-2004 Zodiac: Oak
Realm: Tasmania, Australia
QUOTE
don't think God would want us to totally abandon our senses. Nor does he want us to get too mired down in debate. What I do feel that stands up to historical criticism is the life of Christ. The gospels are a much better source of history than the early books of the OT.
So senses are abandoned in the study of the Bible, Jesus didn't think so either since He studied it and quoted prolifically from the OT. He would not quote what He did not believe, that I am sure of.
This is not debate, but discussion. Since this is a Christian room I guess this is the place I assume those who come here will be interested, as I am, but I'm still new here.
The OT is recognised as a wealth of reliable historical data, even from the non-Christian scholars! Genesis is very condensed stuff, only 2 chapters to describe the Creation of the world and Universe! Whereas 13 chapters in Exodus are used to simply describe the Temple and its contents and construction! amazing.
Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4,792
Joined: 20-Jun-2003 Zodiac: Holly
Realm: The frontier of Penn's Woods
QUOTE (Tassiecelt @ 14-Sep-2004, 12:46 AM)
This is not debate, but discussion. Since this is a Christian room I guess this is the place I assume those who come here will be interested, as I am, but I'm still new here.
This particular topic is not in the Christian part of these forums and is open to all to express ideas and thoughts, that is why it is call "Philosophy, Science and Religion".
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 166
Joined: 13-Aug-2004 Zodiac: Oak
Realm: northern Canada - somewhere between the treeline and civilisation
Tassie, thanks for seeing this discussion as just that, and not debate. I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind. Do you believe that our knowledge changes over time? Facts, in fact, change over time as we gain new data don't they? For example, if Jesus was giving a geography lesson based on the knowledge of his time, he probably wouldn't have taught about Antarctica, or North America. Don't you think? (and yes, as God he knew they existed, but it wouldn't be somthing he'd have talked about).
I think Jesus quoted the OT because most of it is true, all of it inspiring, and it would serve no purpose to give a detailed explanation of the creation of the world and all of its geology and emergence of organisms, etc. to a people whose intellectual development was simply not ready. I guess what I am saying, by not abandoning our senses, is that as we develop as a (human)race and we learn the scientific truths than may replace our early myths or assumptions, it does not have to take away from our belief in Christ.
One more question - how old do you think the world is? Just curious.
Group: Founder
Posts: 304
Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Zodiac: Oak
Realm: Orlando, FL
QUOTE (MacAibhistin @ 15-Sep-2004, 12:32 AM)
One more question - how old do you think the world is? Just curious.
Millions upon millions of years old. I think dinosaurs were real, and they existed millions of years ago. I don't think the Great Flood wiped them out or that the Earth is only 4000 years old.
--------------------
[color=blue][b]Erik Deckers Visit my weekly humor blog Laughing Stalk[COLOR=blue]
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 377
Joined: 02-Sep-2004 Zodiac: Oak
Realm: Tasmania, Australia
QUOTE (MacAibhistin @ 15-Sep-2004, 03:32 PM)
Tassie, thanks for seeing this discussion as just that, and not debate. I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind. Do you believe that our knowledge changes over time? Facts, in fact, change over time as we gain new data don't they? For example, if Jesus was giving a geography lesson based on the knowledge of his time, he probably wouldn't have taught about Antarctica, or North America. Don't you think? (and yes, as God he knew they existed, but it wouldn't be somthing he'd have talked about).
I think Jesus quoted the OT because most of it is true, all of it inspiring, and it would serve no purpose to give a detailed explanation of the creation of the world and all of its geology and emergence of organisms, etc. to a people whose intellectual development was simply not ready. I guess what I am saying, by not abandoning our senses, is that as we develop as a (human)race and we learn the scientific truths than may replace our early myths or assumptions, it does not have to take away from our belief in Christ.
One more question - how old do you think the world is? Just curious.
Thanks, Rory.
Rory, I've not time right now to answer your question as it deserves (even if I can!) but please accept a quick reply for now.
All of the questions here arise from and are answered according to our foundational belief. Mine, is that God exists, He sent His Son, Jesus to show the world His love, to offer a way that mankind can return to a relationship with the Creator and live according to truth and reality instead of the lies of materialism, hatred, heathenism and evolution!
I believe the Bible as we have it today to be an accurate and reliable "manual for Life" given by Inspiration of God and miraculously preserved for our benefit.
So on that basis I believe...
1.yes mans' knowledge changes, sometimes for good, sometimes not. God's knowledge is perfect, complete and unchanging. I would rather rely on that knowledge than my own. That is submission to God, willingly.
2. As our mans knowledge changes, often it is found that what the Bible says was true anyway, and that our understanding was faulty, if I had time I would give many examples of that. So where science and Bible collide, it's usually science that has not caught up yet.
One such example is the age of the earth question, enquiring minds should check out http://christiananswers.net but..
3. I believe the Bible record and Bishop Usshers chronology of 6-10,000 years at most. There is a lot of evidence for a young earth and the co-existence of man and dinosaurs together. To show this takes heaps of writing and that's been done by the Creation Science people to save me time The Creation Science Foundation are made up of scientists, teachers and other professionals from a range of fields, who are also creationists.
For the sake of my faith and my beliefs, I absolutley MUST believe in a literal 6 day creation. I don't believe in playing all of these word games with the Bible. I must take it literally. If I can't trust God or His word enough to be able to believe it when it says "And the evening and the morning were the first DAY," or when it says "And on the seventh DAY God ended His work," then how can I trust Him when He says "For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
I must be able to trust EVERY SINGLE WORD, because if I can't then I can't trust ANY of it.
I believe that scientists pursue their studies backward. They say "We know that the Bible can't be true, so we must look at things and try to figure out for ourselves where these things came from." If they would look at things and say "Okay, we know God's word must be true so lets look at things from a Biblical perspective and see how things fit," then I think a lot of their holes in theory would disappear.
Take for example the flood. The Bible says it happened; that it was a world-wide flood that resulted from rain falling for forty days and forty nights. The scientist says "That's not possible, so how else can we explain things?" so they go to great lengths to come up with ways and means to explain away obvious results of the flood. Then when the Bible pans out and even they must admit htat there was a flood, they try to minimalize it as much as possible. "Okay, so maybe there WAS a flood, but it didn't extend any farther than the basin of THIS river."
If they would look at it from a Biblical perspective, then they could avoid all of their fact juggling. "Oh look at this - we found the fossil of a sea-based creature on top of this mountain! Well we KNOW it didn't come from a world wide flood, so obviously, at one time this mound of dirt must have been raised up by something - perhaps an earthquake or plate tectonics or some thing else." DUH! They have to wrangle all of this stuff to make it fit THEIR perceptions and their science, when all a Christian has to do is read the Bible and it tells him, in plain language that any 6 year old could understand, EXACTLY how that fossil got there!
"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools." Sounds like modern science to me!
--------------------
Slàn agus beannachd, Allen R. Alderman
'S i Alba tìr mo chridhe. 'S i Gàidhlig cànan m' anama. Scotland is the land of my heart. Gaelic is the language of my soul.
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 166
Joined: 13-Aug-2004 Zodiac: Oak
Realm: northern Canada - somewhere between the treeline and civilisation
Fascinating! Thank you for your honesty, Tassie. Clearly, you are not a geologist!
Anyway, I trust we can have diverging beliefs on some of these things, yet still accept each other as Christian brothers. As you have figured out, I cannot accept the authority of the Bible as the literal word of God, since it has gone through the hands of "primitive man", especially the early books. However, "inspired" word of God, I do accept.
I have read the "christian answers" website in the past and find some of their stuff makes sense, but when in comes to a young earth, their explanation of fossil fuels, and attempts to populate all of the continents of the earth (except Antarctica) within 4000 years, I simply cannot accept their "answers". They seem absolutely ridiculous. I think the problem is when you don't take a rational, scientific approach to study, but you create the answer ahead of time and then try to explain the process with the answer already determined. It compromises the study! It is like a backward form of the scientific method.
Anyway, glad we can agree on Christ and God's attempt to draw humankind to Him.
Amen, Rory
P.S. There really is no reason why God could not have used evolution as a process of creation.
Fascinating! Thank you for your honesty, Tassie. Clearly, you are not a geologist!
P.S. There really is no reason why God could not have used evolution as a process of creation.
Hi MacA!
Actually, Tassie did not write this! I, WizardofOwls, did! And I agree that we can agree to disagree as brothers!
And, yes, I do disagree with your last statement! I DO believe in a literal Biblical translation!
Genesis 1:20 says that the waters brought forth fowl and whales, not microscopic critters. In Genesis 1:24 the earth brought forth cattle and creeping things. And Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed life into the NOSTRILS of the man that He had just created from the dust of the earth, not into some mythic primordial soup!
And yes I believe that the earth is actually the oldest thing in the universe! According to Geneses 1:1 the earth was created on the first day, while the sun moon and stars were not created until the fourth day!
Your brother in Christ
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)