Dear Christians..

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

It usually comes down to whether something is being interpreted literally or allegorically.

Well I don't know where you stand, but I read with objectivity, and I think thats the problem a lot of people have when it comes to interpretation. Whenever we pick up a book thats not the Bible we don't have this debate, because we go based of linguistic style. For example, if I pick up Homer's Iliad it becomes quite clear that I am reading epic poetry and I should probably expect so metaphor and things that aren't to be taken literally. So when I pick up the Bible I read it the same. Psalms is obviously poetic literature. Most likely a lot of stuff not to be interpreted literally, but is used to convey deeper meanings behind the text. Luke, as well as the other three Gospels and Paul, are all written as historical narrative so I address them as such.

If Genesis is to be taken as literal truth then there are serious scientific blunders.

I believe all of it depends on the frame of reference you start with before getting to the acts of creation. I believe the literal truth depends on how you interpret the word Day. It depends on how you understand the words "heaven and earth" in genesis 1:1. Simply put I believe what your reading in Genesis is a reformation of our particular area of the galaxy. Not quite where I stand on the interpretation of Day yet. It can either mean eras or 24 hour period of time. I believe eras is the most accurate at current state in time, but there is a compelling case that can be made for 24 hours.

What would be sufficient evidence for you in order to warrant believe in Anubis?

I find it funny that you ask me about an Egyptian God as we are talking about Genesis. Genesis was aimed directly at the God's Egypt in attempt to demythologize them. Compare and contrast the creation stories and you should easily see what I am talking about. However Anubis is not a creator God. So in order to believe in Anbuis one would have to show me that there is a God outside of space and time that created him. Why does it have to be outside of space and time? We both know the majority of scientist believe there was a point in which time and space were equivalent to zero. No space, no time, no matter.

Then you have Noah's Ark, the lifespans of early humans, Jonah and the Whale. All of which have implications very much non-congruent with science.

Noah's Ark could have happened as a strong case can be made for it. The lifespans of early humans are odd, but I don't think they are something that is impossible nor do I think they are outside the realm of eventually being explainable.

One theory on life spans:
www.reasons.org...

I don't think there is a Christian alive who believes that Jonah and the Whale wasn't a supernatural interference by God. So to reject that as possible is based on a philosophical bias not necessarily a scientific one.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Believing in Jesus' sacrifice is not necessary for anything except for a belief in Christianity's version of salvation. That's all it comes with, belief in a certain version of salvation, nothing more. Jesus blatantly contradicts this line of reasoning on several occasions in the gospels, yet adherents to Jesus' sacrifice cannot and will not see it for fear of going to hell.

Why don't I go ahead and call you on your BS now.....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It's not just a time discrepancy. My points were about the order in which things are said to occur. You're not going to find a cosmologist, religious or secular, that thinks the science supports all stars forming after Earth had already been formed. A Day being thousands, million, or billions of years doesn't negate that issue. Implicit to Day 3 is thriving plant life, including fruit-bearing trees, on a frozen planet void of any sunshine. Then there is the bit about the birds. The science shows birds evolved from land-based animals, not that they were flying above the oceans prior to them.

There is a verse where Jesus refers to Jonah having lived in the whale for 3 days. It appears literal to me.

Matthew 12:40 NIV

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So sure you could say that event was a supernatural interference by god. How is that a scientific discussion? My point is that the Bible and science are in disagreement with each other. If the solution to these 'scientific blunders' is that god is all-powerful, then it stands to reason the existence of that god should be proven scientifically to begin with.

I know Anubis isn't a creator god. Fair enough for calling that out. However I didn't mean it like that. I meant it more loosely. What kind of evidence would you need in order to believe in any being you currently lack belief in?. Now it would be fitting for you to insert any creator god you disbelieve into that question.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You're not going to find a cosmologist, religious or secular, that thinks the science supports all stars forming after Earth had already been formed.

Nope, and I take it you believe it means all the stars were created then. So my question to you is what is your frame of reference for before getting to the creation days? What is your interpretation of what Genesis 1:1-2 means specifically the "the heavens and the earth?" Did something happen to earth to cause its condition in 2? These are all answers you needed before we continue about the other issues.

Matthew 12:40 NIV For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So sure you could say that event was a supernatural interference by god. How is that a scientific discussion? My point is that the Bible and science are in disagreement with each other

My point was is that this is not a scientific discussion. You reject this as being possible not because of science but because of a philosophical bias, that being the God of the Bible doesn't exist. So you can say that Jonah and the Whale is a philosophical blunder that leads to a scientific blunder, but you must first justify why it is a philosophical blunder.

If the solution to these 'scientific blunders' is that god is all-powerful, then it stands to reason the existence of that god should be proven scientifically to begin with.

Its not the solution for scientific blunders. It is the philosophical reasoning for accepting the possibility of a miracle claim in history. Now I would like to take a moment and point that that you said it stands "to reason the existence of god should be proven scientifically to begin with." Science is the studies mechanisms, how things work.

This statement of yours is the equivalent of saying that by studying the mechanics of the first telephone I could prove the existence of Alexander Bell. God is an external agent that created the universe you see around you. So while you should expect to see evidence of design, expecting to see hard mechanical evidence of the creator's physical existence is philosophically speaking unreasonable.

What kind of evidence would you need in order to believe in any being you currently lack belief in?.

Well for me currently as a person who holds a belief in one God I would need someone to show me that their worldview was more rational than my biblical world view.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
It appears to me that you have a very narrow and quite limited knowledge of salvation.
a reply to: Elementalist

If it appears so it must be so!

Thanks for.your contribution

a reply to: CirqueDeTruth

Hi CdT, nice to see you drop by my thread

Your mother is a wise woman, sounds like she is dedicated to her internal truth, I admire that.

Thanks for your input, relates well with the OP

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I appreciate the effort you are putting in, to type a lot. But it seems you are just safeguarding your belief, while whipping others who don't agree, or you disagree with their views. Your post shows judgment, you are a Christian right?

Too many holes in a couple of your posts, to respond in an elaborate manner. Hmm.. thanks anyways.

BTW Christ/Messiah is still a title given to a man in regards to his state of being. Not sure where you were going with that :/

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I take it you believe it means all the stars were created then

That's what it explicitly says.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So my question to you is what is your frame of reference for before getting to the creation days? What is your interpretation of what Genesis 1:1-2 means specifically the "the heavens and the earth?" Did something happen to earth to cause its condition in 2?

I don't quite follow. Genesis clearly is saying the Sun and all stars were made on Day 4. Sunshine reaching the Earth occurred for the first time on Day 4. Day 3 has plant life growing. Obviously this implies the Earth is formed by Day 3. Hence the issues.

1. Lots of stars were formed prior to Earth forming according to science. Yet the Bible says otherwise.

2. Fruit trees growing to maturation on what would be a frozen planet without sunlight since the Sun hasn't been made yet according to Genesis. I'd hope I wouldn't need to elaborate why this is contrary to science.

My point was is that this is not a scientific discussion.

You insinuated I was making a 'scientific blunder' by having the worldview I do aka being a non-believer. You made this a scientific discussion.

You reject this as being possible not because of science but because of a philosophical bias, that being the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

I do not reject the possibility of god. I have no idea if 'god' does or does not exist. Not something we can address scientifically since we can't observe it. I lack belief in gods existence, but I make no claim to have knowledge that my position is absolutely correct. If we can disprove the religious descriptions then it's reasonable to disbelieve in that particular deity.

Now I would like to take a moment and point that that you said it stands "to reason the existence of god should be proven scientifically to begin with." Science is the studies mechanisms, how things work.

Of course it stands to reason. You attempted to resolve the unscientific aspect of Jonah and The Whale by evoking god as an all-powerful agent capable of intervening in the Universe in ways that defy the known natural laws. How would that be agreeable to science when the being itself has not been proven an objective truth? If Yahweh's existence was an accepted fact by science then yes it would be logical to think he could have 'interfered' and allowed Jonah to survive. His existence is far from proven.

I would need someone to show me that their worldview was more rational than my biblical world view.

I think I am doing just that.

I fear no amount of rationality will sway.

As you said "truth is not always something we like". People have a tendency to turn their mind away from things they do not like. Especially if it's counter to something as deeply rooted as religious belief.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What BS? You are dug in aren't you? You don't seek because you already have your answer.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You handled that very well, and gave great input and references to back up.

Good work, thanks for being here

a reply to: Elementalist

I appreciate the effort you are putting in, to type a lot. But it seems you are just safeguarding your belief, while whipping others who don't agree, or you disagree with their views. Your post shows judgment, you are a Christian right?

The post above has simply restated in simple terms biblical teachings. No its not judgment. I am not saying I know which people are going to hell, because I don't. I can however say if you believe this or this then your will go to hell cause the Bible teaches it. I am not doing anything other than trying to get you to explain what is evil about the concept of hell.

Too many holes in a couple of your posts, to respond in an elaborate manner. Hmm.. thanks anyways.

You know what this is? Your using a form of an argument from authority called dismissal of evidence. Basically what you have done is say that I said something, and it was wrong without providing any additional information. Its obvious that you don't want to talk about truth.

BTW Christ/Messiah is still a title given to a man in regards to his state of being. Not sure where you were going with that :/

You tried to act like the word Christ in the bible was a reference to a mans state of being. When really the title was a reference to what the man was here to do. The title give to Christ is a title given to one man in all of history as I explained earlier. He is the savior of mankind, the redeemer of sin, the perfect lamb. See what I did here. How I said you were wrong and directed you to a spot where I gave an explaination of such.....

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

That's what it explicitly says. And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Thats what it says when you start with your frame of reference and your definition of sky here. I told you I read with objectivity. The frame of reference for this chapter is set up in Genesis 1:1-2. If you would have talked about that before the creation days we wouldn't have to waste time with me explaining to you that the word for vault of the sky is from the Hebrew word raqa which directs attention to the area of sky that can be seen as a visible arch not the entire universe. So what it seems like to me, is that you take the first two verses almost like a title. Then the seven creation days are the story. Thats simply not how the verses read nor is it how they were meant to be taken. So my questions remain the same. What do you think "the heavens and the earth" is talking about in Genesis 1:1. and did something cause the earth to become in its described condition in verse 2? Is let there be light the first act of creation God ever did?

1. Lots of stars were formed prior to Earth forming according to science. Yet the Bible says otherwise.

You sure the Bible says otherwise? Why don't you continue discussing the verse two verses then we will move down. Your frame of reference is important here.

2. Fruit trees growing to maturation on what would be a frozen planet without sunlight since the Sun hasn't been made yet according to Genesis. I'd hope I wouldn't need to elaborate why this is contrary to science

At what point did you understand the planet being spoken of in Genesis to be frozen? Again you keep jumping ahead without first establishing an accurate frame of reference.

You insinuated I was making a 'scientific blunder' by having the worldview I do aka being a non-believer. You made this a scientific discussion.

To be fair I said, one of us has either made a philosophical blunder or a scientific blunder. My response to you has never been that the blunder you made was scientific. In fact I think its quite obvious by our conversation about Jonah and the Whale is that you don't like my philosophical reasoning for believing in miracle. I call it philosphical because I have already explained to you how silly it is to ask me to proven YHWH's existence with the mechanics of YHWH's creation. You didn't show me how the mechanics of the telephone prove the existence of Alexander bell. So he must not have existed either.

f we can disprove the religious descriptions then it's reasonable to disbelieve in that particular deity.

I would agree.

How would that be agreeable to science when the being itself has not been proven an objective truth?

Have you not figured out yet, that the question of God's existence is a philosophical question and not a scientific one? Please really think about my telephone analogy. So if you want to talk about miracles we first have to decide whether or not a creator is more rational than not. But I'd like to stay on Genesis 1.

His existence is far from proven.

I also hope you know that while I have been using the word prove right along with you for sake of conversation, surely you are aware its silly to think you can prove anything especially in a world view devoid of a creator which is what you currently hold to.

I think I am doing just that. I fear no amount of rationality will sway.

I don't think you've done that at all. I asked you some key questions about the entire passage and you just wanted to jump the gun. If you want to understand why I think your interpretation of those passages is incorrect you need to understand my frame of reference. To do so you need accurate answers to those questions.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What BS? You are dug in aren't you? You don't seek because you already have your answer.

I don't have to seek to realize that what you said about Jesus's teachings on salvation is completely contradictory to statements made by him.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

He agrees loving others and God is greater than any sacrifice, meaning loving others and God is more important than his sacrifice. Believing in him does not mean believing in his sacrifice. He says that if you follow his commands (loving others and God) that you will remain in he and his Father's love.

Does God send those who love him and others to hell if they don't believe in Jesus' sacrifice? If so, your beliefs contradict the words of Jesus.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

He agrees loving others and God is greater than any sacrifice, meaning loving others and God is more important than his sacrifice. Believing in him does not mean believing in his sacrifice. He says that if you follow his commands (loving others and God) that you will remain in he and his Father's love.

He has also denied the deity of Christ. You sit here now and deny his work on the cross. Yea and if you don't love the one true God then your not keeping his commandments. If you think that by a work of yourself you will get into heaven you are not trusting in his work on the cross. You know nothing of the true Jesus, and you don't even actually trust the Bible. Your intentions are simply to mislead.

Does God send those who love him and others to hell if they don't believe in Jesus' sacrifice? If so, your beliefs contradict the words of Jesus.

And here we go again. Non-believers cherry picking rather than letting the bible interpret itself. your just lazy bro...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So your beliefs contradict what Jesus said. Tell me, how does Jesus agreeing that love is more important than any sacrifice mean his sacrifice is more important than love?

I'd have to say you are the lazy one "bro", you have dug yourself in and refuse to move, that's laziness if I've ever bears of it. Those who do not work are lazy, you do not see working as important, so you are lazy. Stop protjecting your own qualities in to me. I see work as necessary, hence I am not lazy as you say.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
John 15
12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do what I command you. "

The context of this passage is that Jesus is the vine, and nothing bears fruit apart from the vine. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches;

Apart from the grace of Jesus your acts of love are as filthy rags before God. He who has ears let them hear.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Jesus calls them friends, a.k.a. equals. Jesus did not see himself as superior to anyone, yet Christians see him as THE God. If you see yourself as superior to someone you are not their true friend.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus calls them friends, a.k.a. equals. Jesus did not see himself as superior to anyone, yet Christians see him as THE God. If you see yourself as superior to someone you are not their true friend.

You notice how your entire idea is based of the word friend rather than reading the text for what it says.

"15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. " Those who know that apart from Christ you bear no fruit are called friends. Not everyone is called a friend. As you can see at one point Jesus considered them "slaves"

continue down in the chapter and you find "20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you;"

This analogy Jesus is the master and we are slaves. Your just not reading man.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Thanks for derailing and taking over my FIRST thread on ATS



Its "Christians" as your self who give the community a bad name, and why people think Christians are whackos half the time. You ignore research, other opinions, experiences, faith etc.. because you think the book some men wrote, has all the answers.

Unbelievable. Thanks for nothing... Hope the rest enjoyed the rest of the thread before this guy bombed it away