Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

I didn't say that this was what you meant, Mike, but this line of thinking represents the foundation for the logic I mentioned...

If I'm understanding your point, I still disagree. My original point was that our wisdom and justice is not perfect. In that light, we may want to reconsider killing any one at anytime for any reason. On the other hand Gods wisdom and justice is perfect therefor whoever is deserving of Hell will end up there...not one person too many nor one too few.

To "kill them all and let God sort it out", IMO, would be to demonstrate a lack of trust in the one who is in control and to try to force His judgement to take place on our time when, in fact, it will take place in His time.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I doubt anyone has claimed that Napoleon rose from the dead. If they have, well maybe they need some Thorazine.
Ancient writings from EYEWITNESSES is what we have for Alexander, Napoleon, etc... This is very different from writings of dubious authorship and forgeries written decades and centuries later.
Your source set up for defeat his own apologetics in the first paragraph you quoted and then knock it out in the last one.

Who says that eye witnesses wrote about Alexander? Why are you so willing to assume that what you read was writen by an eye witness and not fabricated at a later date by some one who wasn't there?

That's just it. Who says the authorship is "dubious"? I have and do contend that theories of the secular "historians" that question the authorship is what is most dubious especially in light of the fact that there is almost no two of them that can agree on any of it. Each has his own theory.

You also bring up a good point that I brought up earlier in the thread and that is the resurection and other miracles. In some cases , the historians " seem to discount the gospel accounts largely on the basis they they don't believe that the events described are possible. If those acts are not possible then the gospels must be false. If there is no God then the gospels MUST be false because no one can raise the dead, turn water into whine or rise from the dead themselves. That's a prejudice rather than evidence. On the other hand, if there is a God, he can do as He pleases.

 

[Kevrumbo]

If it bores or offends you, you do not have to participate.

You offend me Thalassamenia (sic):
There is no socially redeeming value to your argument & viewpoint --other than a subtle but nonetheless vile bigotry all under the guise of "Academic Discourse". . .

Tell me . . .what's your fascination with being Evil???

 

[H2Andy]

You say that like it's proven fact. It's not, And in fact, the authorship of all of those documents isn't disputed at all. Some of Pauls letters and the book of acts for example.

the only (i'll say it again, the ONLY) books in the New Testament whose authorship is undisputed are the early Pauline letters: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Phillipians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans. we know Paul wrote them, and we know when (within a few years).

all the other books in the New Testament are "authorship unkown." I don't know of a reputable Bible historian who still thinks that the "historical" Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the respective Gospels that bear their name. in fact, it would be almost impossible for that to have happened. you need to research this, i can't go into it.

as to Acts, it is undisputed that whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts. however, again, the author of Luke-Acts is almost certainly not the "historical" Luke. when i say "almost certainly" i mean that it is pretty much a given, but you can't say 100% certain and still be honest about this stuff.

Who says the authorship is "dubious"? I have and do contend that theories of the secular "historians" that question the authorship is what is most dubious especially in light of the fact that there is almost no two of them that can agree on any of it. Each has his own theory.

that's not correct. you really need to research this stuff. other than minor disagreements, there is concensus among Bible historians about the authorship issues.

like anything, any oddball can come along with a weird theory, but that doesn't make it accepted in the field.

you can think it's dubious. that's your right. but it does'nt reflect the reality of where scholarship is at this point.

 

[Soggy]

You say that like it's proven fact. It's not, And in fact, the authorship of all of those documents isn't disputed at all. Some of Pauls letters and the book of acts for example.

But that's the problem, you speak as if what is written in the bible is fact, when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points otherwise.

In the historical and scientific community, it is pretty well agreed upon that most of the gospels were written decades after Jesus lived. There is some contention over the Pauline letters and it seems that 7 of them may have been written by him while the rest were pseudepigraphal (yay, I learned a new word). In a courtroom, I certainly wouldn't try to argue that the entire new testament is truth based on a couple of anecdotal letters when science has shown the majority of the rest of the document is far younger than the age they would need to be.

Personally, I don't doubt the existence of the man Jesus. I also imagine that there was a Robin Hood at some point in time. There is just far too much 'non-fiction' written about both characters for them never to have existed. The problem is that the writings are primarily second, third, or worse-hand so the credibility of what is written is suspect. Even if the sources were all primary, how is the testimony of one man (Jesus) any better than the testimony of the leader of any other cult? Why shouldn't I have believed that there was a spaceship hidden in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet which was taking our souls away to eternal salvation? That sounds absurd to most people, but it's really no more absurd than the son of God being put on this earth as a savior. What reason would you have to believe that one religion is correct where another is not? Are the buddhists wrong? What about the Hindi? or the Muslims? There are a lot of religions out there that all have their own answers to life's problems.

This is all above and beyond the main topic at hand, creation, which is an old-testament best document for which there are no primary sources. I mean, who wrote Genesis and how did they collect this information? They heard voices? The old testament also claims that there were a huge number of men who lived to be several centuries old and begot hundreds of children...I hope we can all agree that at least that portion of the document is exaggerated. And if that piece is a huge exaggeration, what of the rest of the document?

 

[H2Andy]

while the rest were pseudepigraphal (yay, I learned a new word)

me too ... i didnt' know that was a valid variant of pseudepigraphical

GEEKS, ALL OF YOU, GEEKS!!!

 

[mislav]

If I'm understanding your point, I still disagree. My original point was that our wisdom and justice is not perfect. In that light, we may want to reconsider killing any one at anytime for any reason. On the other hand Gods wisdom and justice is perfect therefor whoever is deserving of Hell will end up there...not one person too many nor one too few.

To "kill them all and let God sort it out", IMO, would be to demonstrate a lack of trust in the one who is in control and to try to force His judgement to take place on our time when, in fact, it will take place in His time.

OK, to keep it simple...

How is:

...Gods wisdom and justice is perfect therefor whoever is deserving of Hell will end up there...not one person too many nor one too few.

not the foundation of:

Kill them all. God will know his own.

I'm talking about the second part. Clearly it's there.

You've just said again that God has the perfect post mortem traffic regulation. No one misses their destination. I say this makes it easier to justify killing in the name of God through religious wars and conquests and I have history on my side to prove this.

 

[fire_diver]

I think we're repeating portions for the benefit of new commers.

the interesting thins is that those of us that were here through most of it remember it different. LOL with everyone thinking that their point was proven.

I just found this thread today. Could everyone repeat the last 900+ posts for me?

FD

 

[fire_diver]

On a more serious note.....

I think the problem with both sides of the arguments presented is one of rigidity and intollerance. Some people saying, 'There is no proof of God, so I don't think God exists,' with the other side saying 'I see the evidence of God all around me every day.'

As for the whole bible topic... :shakehead

It's a book. It is a compilation of writings from many authors. Some of these writing have been transcribed and translated over and over. Errors in such occured. Hundreds of years ago, a bunch of guys got together and threw out what writings and authors they didn't like. For any christian (myself included) to take the words of the bible as verbatim, is a farce of a sham of a travesty. Read the book, look at the intent, be a good person.

So much squabbeling over minutia.

FD

 

[OHGoDive]

I just found this thread today. Could everyone repeat the last 900+ posts for me?

FD

:lol:

Please, allow me to save you time. The premise of this debate is "God exists".

On one side is the entirely unprovable argument "Does not!"

On the opposing side is the equally unprovable argument "Does too!"

One side considers the other side to be comprised of undereducated heathens.

The other side considers their counterparts to be comrpised of undereducated zealots.

There, consider yourself up to date. You're now ready to enter the debate on either, or both, sides.