Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[lookin4better]

I'll bet he's one of those manfan's that always gives me the creeps at airshows.

Hahaha too funny! You can spot those guys from a mile away! Same "types" at FBO's.... guys creep in those all over the country.

I once had one of them ask me if I had ever flown in the military.... after telling him I had, he mumbled something and also tagged on the end " at least you're white" ....

My response... " ok time to go! " .... there are some real pieces of work/(insert any word) out there.

But on topic.... if someone wants to worship a trash can, let them, its the price of living in a FREE country. Sometimes freedom is offensive

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

You ask great questions. I will try to address them briefly, but I would be happy to address them through PM on an in depth level as to not flood the thread too much. So feel free to PM me for a respectful debate anytime.

If the bible is the word of god and is inerrant, then you must assume that science's explanations are false. If you believe the bible is just a guide for greater introspection into your personal faith with a supreme deity, then what part of the bible is real, and what part is story?

There are a ton of issues wrapped up in this question, so I will try to answer in general terms. For more specificity about particular passages, feel free to ask. First, the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. However, that doesn't mean that it is a history or science textbook. One has to read the Bible, especially the Old Testament, in the context of the time in which it was written. Let's take Leviticus, for example, which you cited earlier. Leviticus is part of the Torah (Law) and is one of the earliest expressions of the Law of Moses. While the laws here seem arcane to us now, when you examine them in the context of the time in which they were written its importance is very apparent. These were not arbitrary laws or even there to satisfy some health or social need, by and large. They where specifically ordained to make the Hebrews completely separate from the polytheistic cultures that surrounded them- often at their peril. That exclusivity planted the seed for what later enabled the redemption of the whole world through Christ. There are many examples of where what is strange or even offensive to us makes sense when it is examined in a correct cultural/era context.

As for as the historical accuracy of the Bible, context is again important. Take the creation story. Would "God created the entire universe through the process of the Big Bang which we know is true because of redshift and the cosmic background radiation" have made sense to ancient people? I think that you will agree that it wouldn't. In those most early days, the fact that God was the creator was enough. The Books of Jonah, Ruth and Job are most likely fictional or partially fictional (actually Job is amazing poetry if you get the chance). But Jesus taught in parables and we use fictional examples to demonstrate absolute truths to our kids all the time. Just because an event did not occur exactly does not detract from the truth of the underlying message. Lack of historical or scientific exactitude does not affect the inerrancy of the Bible because the science and history isn't the point. The point is how God and man have related over time and God's ultimate goal of mankind's redemption.

It sounds to me like you put your mind in that "transcendental" state where you believe you are talking to someone and thus you are deriving the supernatural answers... We are able to map the chemical process in brain scans. It's explainable by science.

Remember I was an atheist. Achieving that transcendental state would have required that I had faith to begin with. As for the brain scans, of course faith and prayer produce scientifically measurable reactions! That only proves that something is going on that is affecting the person, not that God does or does not exist.

If you have "studied" this and came to the conclusion a creator is responsible for the universe, I'd be interested to hear your evidence.

Wow we could go on for days on this one, couldn't we? I don't have all of the answers, lets just get that straight now. And I still struggle with faith... But that is a good thing! Struggling with faith and scripture leads us into a deeper, more trusting relationship with God. It is when people become fearful of the questions or impatient for the answers that trouble arises.

As for my evidence, I will try not to type a book. First, the origin of life: I see no scientifically accepted or viable theory that can explain the outstanding complexity of life on earth. To explain it off as a warm pool of goo and some lightning and amino acids is a cop out. The chances against the perfect conditions occurring are so huge that it barely deserves a second thought. Sure there was a process... But it had to be controlled. To believe otherwise is to believe in the most complicated explanation imaginable... One that is completely unable to be replicated, by the way. And no, I don't think the world is 6000 years old! Anyone who thinks that needs to read my context spiel at the beginning of this post.

A purely scientific explanation also cannot account for our "human-ness." It would make no evolutionary sense for us to even contemplate faith. Why did our brains develop beyond what a dolphin has? Why do we even feel the need to love one another and to contemplate the existence of God? There is no advantage to it, as a matter of fact it is often antithetical to what our "survive and thrive" instincts should tell us. There exists as a common thread through nearly all cultures a sense of absolute right and wrong. That is what we call a conscience. What possible reason would that have to evolve unless there IS an absolute morality? Where would this absolute morality come from? Are we not hard wired for faith?

As for what is the "correct" religion, I think that is up to you to decide. Obviously you know my view. But I leave you with this: If asked Muhammed would say he was a messenger. Confucius would tell you to simply seek knowledge. Buddha would tell you to seek the Middle Way and Noble Truths. Jesus Christ is the only one who claimed to be God in the flesh and lived and taught as if he was. He was not a guy who was simply good with ethics; to say that is to water him down and make him "safe" for consumption. To borrow from C.S. Lewis a bit, Christ was either God made flesh or he was an absolute lunatic. There is no other possible explanations. You'll have to study him and judge for yourself.

 

[shagadelic]

First off, I've seen people claim who claim to have been atheists, and now are christian. Most of the time it is a bit of a stretch. It sounds to me you perhaps did not have religion before and have found it. There is a big difference between that, and someone who has become well versed in the science and the arguments, and has chosen atheism, then later in life rejects it and picks up religion. It is clear you don't have a firm grasp on the science, so I'm assuming you just may not have been very religious to start with and found religion.

The origins of life have nothing to do with the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that scientists generally accept. Notice I did not say theory, as it does not rise to that level, since it's not quite testable and falsifiable. They are close to recreating abiogenisis in the lab, and when they do, I believe it should once and for all put this question to bed. A great video on how abiogenisis works is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Now once life began, the theory of evolution kicks in, and explains the diversity of life. The theory of evolution is very well understood, it has stood the test of time, it's falsifiable but hasn't been, and it predicts; all important parts of a good theory. Darwin didn't have the fossils, just observation. When fossils began to be discovered, they fit perfectly with what the theory said. Then we finally found the mechanism for evolution in the 50s, DNA. I'm not a geneticist, but supposedly the entire theory of evolution would be iron clad just from what they know of genetic theory. My son is taking Honors DNA science next year, maybe I'll learn more about that and get back to you.

Scientists used to just dismiss creationists and felt the evidence would stand on its own. Unfortunately, through strategies such as the Wedge document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy), the religious right has introduced enough uncertainty that the common person is easily confused. I'm not going to sit here and regurgitate the reams of science that show how evolution is fact; if you're truly interested there are great books, like The Greatest Show on Earth, or Why Evolution is True, that spell it out in very easy to understand laymen terms.

There is a great video out there showing Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron explaining God's design and the banana and how perfect it is and how it must have been designed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 What's funny, is the banana he's holding is much different than the natural banana from last century. The banana was designed, but not by god, but by humans, through artificial selection; basically doing it through guided evolution. Kind of irrelevant to our discussion but it's ironic and funny.

(Edited: My son seems to think you may be a theistic evolutionist, and if so disregard my rant on evolution. I disagree with him and tend to think you don't accept it; it's unclear from your previous post so perhaps you could expand your thoughts on evolution.)

You're right about one thing, we do need to narrow the focus quite a bit. Let's start here:

First, the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

Ok, that's a BOLD statement. Where is the evidence for that? Because the bible says so? Oh of course, silly me. I am the word of god, and you know it to be true because I said so. Nice circular argument. We haven't come close to establishing there is some sort of god, yet you have in your hands the inspired word of God. No other "revealed" document in the world is the true word of god except the one you have? Can't you even begin to see how silly that sounds???

This one is great too:

Jesus Christ is the only one who claimed to be God in the flesh and lived and taught as if he was.

So he claimed to be god, (based on documents written well after his death), therefore it must be true. Joseph Smith had plates given to him by god, and after translating them discovered Jesus walked here in the US. Who's to say that's wrong? One of the most leading scholars on early Christianity wrote a book called Jesus Interrupted. In it, he lays out the evidence how much of the New Testament is likely forgery, and certainly none of it written when Jesus was actually around. Also, how does the unique fact that Jesus claimed to be god have any bearing on the truth? Does that make Mohammed's testimoney less truthful, or Joseph Smith's, or Budda's?

Christ was either God made flesh or he was an absolute lunatic. There is no other possible explanations.

No, there are myriad possible explanations. Many early gospels wrote about Jesus being a man, not a prophet. But those weren't chosen in 400 AD at the council of Nacea and destroyed, so we'll never know what those said about him. Jesus may have been legend and never actually existed, the stories could have just been myth, he could have just been a regular guy that people liked, like Mother Teresa, and we all know how great people get bigger and bigger over time. Just google inconsistencies in the New Testament, and it will make your head spin with all the things that don't match up with each other in just the first 4 books of the New Testament.

I would like to get in to the old testament debate as well, as I am curious why your god chose to slaughter so many, including women, children, and unborn, as well as the condoning of rape and slavery. I'm afraid the context argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Slavery built this country in the 1700-1800's and was widely accepted at that time, but that doesn't make it right. I can't even begin to understand your argument. Are you justifying these heinous acts by your god because they were needed to get people away from polytheism??? If so, it didn't work, as we still have polytheists around today, apparently some like in the title of this thread at USAFA.

Remember, the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim. If I tell you bigfoot exists, it's up to me to produce a body. I could show you a diary of a guy who spent his life tracking bigfoot, but that would not be evidence, just hearsay. I have to offer the proof. Or you could just have faith that I'm telling you the truth and spend your life believing in bigfoot. Your choice. One thing is clear, if you teach your kids bigfoot exists from the time they are infants, they are likely to always believe bigfoot exists.

I do enjoy the debate, and appreciate your civility. I sometimes write with a bit too much sarcasm, mainly to generate debate.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Well thought out post, shag… And thanks for responding. This turboscooter Captain is stuck in the snow and is lacking things to do. You have provided me with much needed entertainment. God bless you for it! This is going to get long, so I will have to post twice on this. On this post I think I will stick with the whole God vs. Science on creation thing and get to the rest later.


I didn't get all scientific on my previous post because I was trying to keep it light. You assume much when you make judgements on my ability to understand the science invovled... But, I'll let bygones be bygones and roll with the counter arguement.

For the record, I do find evolution to be a compelling theory and see no conflict between that and the existence of God. Call me an evolutionary theist, an intelligent design believer or whatever; the Bible is not supposed to be a “how to” manual on the mechanisms that God used to create all that we know. Sure, the Bible says 7 days, but what is a day to an eternal God? The Bible is meant to make God’s work understood in a human context. It is not a literal accounting of time and process because it doesn’t need to be. Why must we say that evolution cannot coexist with a creator? If there is a God, who are we to say how it was that he brought forth life on the earth and over what period of time? Science is good and is no threat to God.

As far as abiogenesis goes, I am very familiar with the hypothesis. My great-uncle is a rather well known evolutionary biologist (you may have read one of his books, it was a very big seller) so this is reasonably familiar territory for me. I have seen the YouTube clip before; I prefer to do my research using more scholarly sources but it is a nifty piece of work. The problem is that it ignores that the Law of Entropy and the fact that those chemical reactions can go both ways, quickly destroying any compounds created in the process. The funny part about that video is that it says abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, yet it details an evolutionary selection process (transfer of lipids from a low polymer vesicle to a high polymer vesicle).

You try to divorce the subject of abiogenesis from evolution, and for good reason. The vast majority of atheist evolutionary biologists refuse to discuss it because they realize that without an explanation for the initial existence of complex organisms a purely naturalistic evolutionary theory is implausible. You are obviously familiar with the proposed process of abiogenisis and thus you are familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment in which they created as many as many as 22 (IIRC) amino acids in what was thought to replicate an early earth environment. What Miller-Urey did not and could not explain is how these amino acids (and only some were the correct “left hand” variety) were able to organize themselves into proteins, and how the information was organized to get to complex cellular organisms. I know, I know, nature is replete with spontaneously organizing materials like crystals. But crystalline structures are highly simple. A crystal’s organization is like writing “me me me me me” on a page. Even the simplest cell’s organization is like putting the contents of thousands of Bibles (you know I had to use that!) onto a strand of DNA. Human science has never even approached that level of complexity, and I doubt very much that it will. What are the chances of that level of complexity could arise spontaneously using the crudest of raw materials in what the vast majority of scientists (faithful and atheist alike) would call an adversarial environment?

The atheist must rely on a long series of assumptions, happenstances and must outright ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to consider abiogenesis plausible. No wonder Richard Dawkins himself has disavowed it as a probablity. Yes, I have read his books… And I rather enjoyed them. Look, neither you nor I are chemists or biologists, but I think we can both agree that abiogenesis is simply spontaneous generation repackaged. Abiogenesis creates more problems than it solves and as such is actually powerful evidence for the existence of an author of life (God).

Oh yeah, and I totally agree with you about the Kirk Cameron video. Bad example!

Off to grab something to eat. I'll be back to finish my response later. I am enjoying the debate, but I will bet the mods will send us a warning shortly.

 

[shagadelic]

Several glasses of wine and I've been watching American Idol and the Bachelor this evening after my 4 day trip, so it's not the time to respond (intellectually I'm neutered for the night), but my son and I both agree we enjoy your response! More to follow... Thanks! You're actually intelligent, and we appreciate that. I have made a decision to quit arguing with YEC's as it's really like arguing with a rock. More to come.

(oh, but I do need to correct some really bad misconceptions of the second law of thermodynamics....ouch)

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

I am looking forward to my physics lesson! Although I did pretty well in those classes…

First, a little more background on myself in order to enhance your understanding of my faith. I was raised in a Roman Catholic household, and a devout one at that. By the time I reached my teens are early twenties, I had absolutely rejected all forms of faith. I was absolutely sure that it all was a sham put on for the benefit of those far less intelligent than I. Being the smart guy I was, I immersed myself in studying was to stupefy and humiliate those who held faith in a divine being. Of course, those studies included philosophy. It was in my late twenties that I became convinced of the logical impossibility of being an atheist. Without sound and absolute scientific evidence that indicated the presence of God, or lack thereof, the only logical conclusion was agnosticism. I determined that there was no way that I could know for sure either way. The curiosity remained and the study continued. I digested everything from C.S. Lewis to Dawkins and just about everything in between (you should see my library- it drives my wife nuts!). Today, I am a practicing Methodist, a servant of the church and a teacher in addition to being a lowly turboprop driver. At any rate, your initial assessment as to the nature of my journey is erroneous.

As for the Bible being the divinely inspired word of God, of course that is a statement of faith on my part and it is central to Christianity. If you are looking for a footnote on the title page that says “copyright: The I Am, year 0” than obviously you will be disappointed and the discussion could end there. Lacking that piece of information we have to analyze the Bible’s characteristics, compare it with other pieces of religious literature and determine the likelihood that such a document could or would be produced for any other purpose. I am currently teaching a class where we read 86% of the Bible over a 34 week period so this stuff is pretty fresh in my mind. I could write pages on this and books have been written about it but here goes the quick and dirty…

The unity of the Bible is for me the most incredible testimony for its authenticity. 66 books, at least 40 authors, 3 languages, 13 different countries on different continents… And one theme. That one theme remained unchanged for the 1500 years it took to produce the Bible. Remember it is not a science book in that it recounts the exact details of the universe’s formation and the earth’s creation. It is salvation history; it tells us the history of man’s relationship with and reconciliation to God. No other book in the history of the world from the Codex Gigas to Tom Clancy can match the extraordinary unity of the Bible as a document created over time. Remember, few if any of the authors knew each other. Most didn’t even live in the same period of time. Yet they managed to create a seamless book with a single unifying theme. What are the chances of that? When else has that occurred in history?

The second argument I will use is historical accuracy. You can google or wiki as well as I can, but I challenge you to find current, peer reviewed archeological evidence that suggests that the Bible is not an accurate historical document. Nearly all of the Bible’s historical claims (people and places especially) have been verified by archeology. If the Bible is so accurate in a historical context, doesn’t that raise the probability that its claims are also true? This historical accuracy is unmatched in any other religious document.

The third argument is the prophesies of the Bible. I know you are rolling your eyes at that one, but hear me out. There are over 300 prophesies concerning Jesus of Nazareth in the Old Testament. The rate of fulfillment? 100%. I know of no other psychic, mystic or even scientist whose rate of success even approaches this. How is that possible? This brings us back to the subject of unity; Jesus is the center of the Bible both before his birth and after his death. How would that be possible if the Bible was not divinely inspired? I am sure you can pull out some Old Testament prophesies you would like to debate. I welcome it!

As for the accuracy of the Old Testament text, the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much put any objections you may have there to bed. In short, it has remained unchanged.

As for your arguments against the New Testament, your logic and information is highly flawed. The earliest portion of the New Testament is not the Gospels, but the letters of Paul as the early church began organize. Christ was crucified around 33 AD. Paul’s conversion occurred between 33 AD and 36 AD. The earliest New Testament text, Paul’s letter to Galatia was written no later than 49 AD (some scholars believe the first was First Thessalonians about 50 AD, but I remain unconvinced). The Gospels themselves were all written before 90 AD. I actually think (supported by current scholarship) that the Gospels were complete by 70 AD as they lack any mention of the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem, an absolutely pivotal event in Jewish history. It is extremely unlikely this would have gone without mention since it fulfilled a well known prophesy.

You can get a sense of the New Testament’s remarkable immediacy when you compare it to other works that are considered accurate and dependable by scholars. Take the biography of Alexander the Great. Arrian’s biography of Alexander is considered reliable historically and was written 400 years after his death! In short, the New Testament was written far too quickly to allow for the legendary development of Jesus.

You can look at it this way: How is it possible that a man may have never existed (says you) spawned a movement that in less than a century caused thousands to turn from everything they ever believed was true and live in a way that put them at odds with established society to such a degree that their very lives were threatened? How is it possible that a lie of outrageous proportions could lure still thousands more and contribute to the fall of the greatest empire the world had yet known- and have the secret of that lie remain concealed? Does that not seem extraordinarily unlikely?

I will hit the Old Testament some more tomorrow, because that gets into justice, the morality of God and lots of other neat things I don’t have the energy for now. It sounds like I need to touch on the historicity Jesus and the “other gospels” as well. I am enjoying the debate, keep up the good work!

Just one last question for you to ask yourself: You are obviously a great dad. No doubt you teach your son right from wrong and he sounds like a smart kid. Where does all of that love come from? Is it simply the clicking of biologically predisposed responses? Or is there something far deeper? Isn’t life rather futile if there is not?

I know that despite all of my study and book learnin’, the greatest expression of God’s love I experience is when I hold my little girls’ hands walking into church on a Sunday morning. And while I can justify God’s existence with logic and scholarship, I know it through that one simple act.

 

[c141ip]

Word for word.

The interesting thing is my daughter claims she is an atheist but has no interest in why, she's just listening to her brother and I debate and discuss. I get on to her that she can't claim that if she has no interest in figuring out the answers for herself. I've come to the conclusion that's how most people are. They simply follow what their parents are and figure if it's good enough for their parents its good enough for them. That thinking drives me batty, but she seems content with it. Oh well.

I was a "fall in line with your parents way of thinking" kind of guy for a long time. I became a skeptic, a free thinker, very curious about the whys. I had to satisfy my curiosity, and I really mean HAD to, because the importance of the "meaning of life" to me took up a great deal of my brain power. I came to an opposite conclusion (from shagadelic) after my "due diligence" and that's ok. I guess the point of this post, being a free thinker may take you to a different place than what's normally associated with being a free thinker. I think...

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Interesting new developments I have been reading about lately:
DNA is a programming language.
Lamarck WAS right, and animals can change themselves (thanks to their DNA) while they're alive, in response to environmentul stimuli. Animals can also pass those changes on to their offspring.

More scientific evidence that God created the universe.

cliff
NBO

 

[partypilot1]

shagadelic, I hate to hit a raw nerve here but it seems that you really got a dog in this hunt. For as much energy you put into converting people into believing in nothing, truly if you believed in nothing, you could care less what other people thought.

 

[shagadelic]

No partypilot. I really don't care what people think, but I do care when the government tries to choose one religion to endorse or schools try to pass creationism off in the classroom as science. Keep religion in your church where it belongs and I could careless what you believe. I've said that all along.

DNA is a programming language.
Lamarck WAS right, and animals can change themselves (thanks to their DNA) while they're alive, in response to environmentul stimuli. Animals can also pass those changes on to their offspring.

There is some evidence that in some cases this is correct. There is much to learn and it is interesting.

More scientific evidence that God created the universe.

WHAT? That's a quite a leap. Let me pray about that and get back to you.

Lowlyprop, I'm not ignoring you, but your post requires more time than my wife will allow while home. I start a trip tomorrow.

 

[waka]

Would you rather be the person that doesn't believe in God and spends eternity in Hell, or one of the religious and faithful that are proven wrong by having absolutely nothing happen when they die?

Absolutely nothing"? I disagree. A life of denial and living in fairy tales would leave me cold. I'd rather "risk" going to this mythical hell place.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

No partypilot. I really don't care what people think, but I do care when the government tries to choose one religion to endorse or schools try to pass creationism off in the classroom as science. Keep religion in your church where it belongs and I could careless what you believe. I've said that all along.



There is some evidence that in some cases this is correct. There is much to learn and it is interesting.



WHAT? That's a quite a leap. Let me pray about that and get back to you.

Lowlyprop, I'm not ignoring you, but your post requires more time than my wife will allow while home. I start a trip tomorrow.

No prob, Shag. Unfortunately Christian apologetics isn't a paying job so I'm out flying myself. Fly safe!

 

[sstearns2]

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread. It's been an interesting read. I'd like to contribute to it a bit.

I've thought a lot about the question of why I care about other people’s religious beliefs. There's a line that when crosses brings fourth demons throughout history. That line is crossed when a person begins to believe that there is another person on this earth who knows the will of their God. Is there a person on this earth that you would believe if they revealed God's plan for you?

There is no more fundamental question is my mind.

Cheers,
Scott

 

[shagadelic]

Lowlyprop,

Because abiogenesis is just one of many competing hypotheses as to the origin of life, I won't argue the point. It's a compelling hypothesis, but has not been proven, yet. So I won't argue for what is today, unknowable. I am not trying divorce abiogenesis from evolution, they are divorced. No where does evolution seek to describe the origins of life, it describes the diversity of life, and the fact that life necessarily evolves from a common ancestor.

You really need to get off the Christian talking point websites when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Why is it that apologists can divorce themselves from science so quickly when it doesn't suit them, then when they think it helps them they try to latch on to science to prove their point? The Second Law of Thermodynamics ONLY applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as we have the sun. It's like a refrigerator that separates warm and cold air, but can only do it while plugged in (external power source). All of biology requires an external power source, so nothing is unusual with it growing more complex over time. The net entropy for the universe is still positive, at some point this power source will fizzle, and so will we.

The unity of the Bible is for me the most incredible testimony for its authenticity. 66 books, at least 40 authors, 3 languages, 13 different countries on different continents… And one theme. That one theme remained unchanged for the 1500 years it took to produce the Bible. Remember it is not a science book in that it recounts the exact details of the universe’s formation and the earth’s creation. It is salvation history; it tells us the history of man’s relationship with and reconciliation to God. No other book in the history of the world from the Codex Gigas to Tom Clancy can match the extraordinary unity of the Bible as a document created over time. Remember, few if any of the authors knew each other. Most didn’t even live in the same period of time. Yet they managed to create a seamless book with a single unifying theme. What are the chances of that? When else has that occurred in history?

Ok. Let's say I have more to add. Do I continue with the theme written before me and just add my twist, or do take what is written, throw it out and start over? It only makes sense to continue with the generally accepted rather than try to change everyone's mind. The followers of Mohammed continued the story of the Old Testament God, Joseph Smith added to the old and the new testament when he made up the Book of Moron.

The second argument I will use is historical accuracy. You can google or wiki as well as I can, but I challenge you to find current, peer reviewed archeological evidence that suggests that the Bible is not an accurate historical document. Nearly all of the Bible’s historical claims (people and places especially) have been verified by archeology. If the Bible is so accurate in a historical context, doesn’t that raise the probability that its claims are also true? This historical accuracy is unmatched in any other religious document.

If I were to add more to the bible today, I'd use 9/11, the wars in the middle east, and all kinds of current events in my writings. A thousand years from now, they'd read it and think how historically accurate it was. But that doesn't make my fantasy stories any more real. You seem to think the bible is historically accurate, therefore all the mythology it contains therefore is real. That's a logical fallacy...you assume because parts of the bible can be verified as true, it follows the whole compilation is true.

But, since you challenged me, there is plenty in bible that is historically inaccurate (I'm not even going to begin to start with the impossibility of the flood as historically accurate):

Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.

Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.

Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.

Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.

Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in

586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.

Here are several more inaccuracies:

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

The third argument is the prophesies of the Bible. I know you are rolling your eyes at that one, but hear me out. There are over 300 prophesies concerning Jesus of Nazareth in the Old Testament. The rate of fulfillment? 100%. I know of no other psychic, mystic or even scientist whose rate of success even approaches this. How is that possible? This brings us back to the subject of unity; Jesus is the center of the Bible both before his birth and after his death. How would that be possible if the Bible was not divinely inspired? I am sure you can pull out some Old Testament prophesies you would like to debate. I welcome it!

So I am writing a follow-on to the Old Testament. I can read the prophesies from the old testament myself. Would I not want to make my story fulfill those prophesies? If there were ever a driving force for shaping how those books were written I would say that's it. It has nothing to do with what actually happened, but everything to do with making this guy Jesus really appear to be what the old testament foretold. The last time the pope died, I remember they said there was some prophesy somewhere that the next pope, (after Benedict) would take the name Peter. Well, when Benedict dies, if that is supposed to be a true prophesy, then the new guy knows that. I wonder what name he'll choose if he happens to believe in the prophesy? And everyone will then talk about the miracle of that prophesy. (Having said all that, I don't know much more than what I saw on TV that day, so that little story could be inaccurate, but the point's the same).

The old testament is a cruel, hate filled, vengeful book that has no place being associated with the creator of the universe. If that's the best your god could inspire, I'm unimpressed.

I'll have to tackle the New Testament later. Cheers.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Thanks for the response, Shag. It gives me plenty to discuss!

I will agree to disagree on abiogenesis, but you must already be aware that no less than Charles Darwin disagreed with your point of view that evolution is divorced from the orgins of life. He recognized the origin of life was a weakness in his theory and in apparent exasperation, he hypothesized that life must have descended from some primitive form he called “the Creator”. If he saw the link between life’s origins and evolution, than so should you. Heck, his treatise was titled “The Origin of Species!” In my view, evolution without life’s origin is like building an airplane without knowing how to make aluminum.

Anyway, this link does a nice job of discussing what early earth’s atmosphere was probably like according to the most modern science. Note that it is nothing like the optimized atmosphere your Miller-Urey hypothesized existed. Your YouTube clip was strangely ambiguous on this subject. This is from Duke University:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/PBearth.html

(We can discuss organic compounds in space some other time).

Oh by the way, I don’t get all my info from apologist websites, no more than you get yours from YouTube (I am assuming).

Now, on to the OT!

As far as your characterization of the OT as being a vengeful and hateful book, I think your assessment is pretty far off the mark. In order to even discuss this, you would have to stipulate that God exists, which I am assuming you are for the purposes of this discussion. I am assuming that by calling the OT hateful you are referring to God ordering the deaths of the Amaleks, Cannanites and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. What you have to remember is that God (you must stipulate he exists!) by his nature must be omnipotent and must have justice. If the people in question were irredeemably bad (i.e. they completely rejected God), how else would God deal with them without messing with free will? Would not ending life that he created be entirely his right, especially if it enabled a greater good? Would not the preservation of justice be entirely consistent with his nature?

I will divert here to the subject of free will, as it is central to an understanding of man’s relationship with God. Man exists to love God, and God to love man. However, love cannot exist outside of free will. Love not given freely is not love at all, but a preconditioned response that is entirely without meaning. Free will is an essential part of being human and is a precondition of loving God.

If you really knew the Scriptures dealing with these “tough love” events, then you would know that even in these stories God shows restraint and compassion. In Joshua, the prostitute Rahab and her family are spared in Jericho. Lot is spared in the destruction of Sodom. The entire of Ninevah is spared in the story of Jonah; God indicates that he would have spared to the entire city for even one righteous person. It is also important to recall that Hebrews who went beyond God’s commands and profited from the spoils of war are punished by God, and punished severely. I could go on but I think you get the idea. By pulling out only the incidents themselves and not the context, you are proof texting, that is, finding Biblical passages that fit your preconceived notions.

Let’s put it another way: Take the WWII, for example. I am sure that you and I would be in agreement that the Nazi regime represented the personification of absolute evil. As a matter of fact they were irredeemably morally corrupt. We went to war with them to end that regime, ourselves killing many thousands of blameless women and children over the course of the conflict. Yet, it was necessary so that a greater good could be realized. Would you not agree that WWII was tragic, yet in the end it produced something better than what existed before it? Or should we have engaged in wishful thinking and compromised our own morality to placate Hitler? This is merely a human example and thus an imperfect one, but it provides a framework for understanding the necessity of the so called “atrocities” of the Bible.

Another important point about OT occurrences is to put them in historical context. Remember back then we (human beings) were barely urbanized and rather unsophisticated. Would the message of Jesus Christ have been resonate then? Not likely. In a society where the order of the day was mere survival those less tangible lessons would not have been learned. When a society is living that low on Maslow’s hierarchy, life and death is what is understood. Only with Christ and time would we eventually come to understand the great, deep lessons of God’s promise of forgiveness and redemption. With Israel the stage was set for the most extraordinary event in human history.

Now, on to your Biblical citations:

Daniel: Nebuchadnezzar is the name used to symbolize a succession of Babylonian kings. The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate the king in question is Balshazaar who was the son of Nabonidus (similar in Hebrew to Nebuchadnezzar). Balshazaar is a member of the Chaldean dynasty in Babylon and was the regent of Babylon beginning in 553 BC (ok, I had to look the year up! Near East History class was a long time ago!). “King” is simply the translation from the Hebrew word for “ruler” or “one with authority.” You need to brush up on your Hebrew and history if you want to debate me on this! At any rate, some of the names were probably adjusted in 2 BC when the original Aramaic and Hebrew (Daniel was written in both) were translated to Greek.

Hosea: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah his sores, then Ephraim turned to Assyria, and sent to the great king for help. But he is not able to cure you, not able to heal your sores”
…No Jareb here. I checked 7 different translations and the Hebrew. Jareb only makes an appearence in the pre DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) translations. With the NIV and NRSV translations the scholars went back to the DSS to ensure their accuracy. The Jareb reference is an old translation and is not present in Bibles that represent modern linguistic scholarship. Nice try, though.

Not sure what the character count limit is here... More to follow.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Next Daniel: That’s a softball one! Darius was the name of not one, not two but SEVERAL kings of both Persia and Media (the Northwestern Arabian Peninsula). Darius the Median was merely a way from separating him from all the other Dariuses.

Esther: This is an interesting case! Esther is one of what I like to call the “parable books.” The events in Esther did not occur- rather they were written as a parable to talk about how God works through man in the world for his glory. Does this affect the truth of the Bible? Absolutely not! Jesus taught in parables, and I am sure that you have used fictional accounts to convey truths to your own children. A book only needs to be historical if the “historicity” is the intent!

Jeremiah: This is a harder one to pin down and I had to go back to the good book on this one. You are correct; the time from the First Temple’s destruction to the restoration of Israel by Cyrus is about 49 years. However, the exile was not a singular event but began earlier with the transportation of select Israelites to Babylon (ref 2 Chronicles 36:6). Sometime during the reign of King Jehoiakim (about 597 BC) the Babylonian’s made Israel a vassal state. The exile probably began just prior to this with a trickle of people to Babylon during successive Egyptian and Babylonian conflicts. Cyrus restored Israel as an entity in 538 BC. Archeological evidence suggests that this was again a trickle rather than a flood. So, the 70 years of prophesy, while unproven, begins to look reasonable when you consider the actual character of the event. Good find though. If you pulled this out of scripture all by yourself I congratulate you on your scholarship.

It is important to note that there is a distinct difference in the character of the various books of the OT. The first five are Law (Torah) not history books. What follows are the historical books (Joshua, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles) and they are remarkably consistent with the archeological record. Then the prophetic and wisdom books, and finally the “parable books” I referred to earlier. You can only judge the “historicity” of those books that are meant to record history. To do otherwise is to misunderstand the context and apply a standard that exists nowhere else in scholarship.

As for your link which discusses Ai and the Exodus, there is a book we can write on that too but I will be very brief (because I am pooped!). Modern scholarship an only center on which city was Ai (it could be one of two), not on it’s existence. As far as the Exodus goes, I could easily counter with a ton of stuff in my brain, but owing to this posts epic length I will retort with my own link which gives a nice summary. Most of the conclusions I agree with, but not all (I think the location of Ai is still open to discussion based on the other pubs I read).

Cheers! I hope all is well.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

POSTSCRIPT: One last thought. You seem to be under the assumption that the books of the Bible were written on as follow ons to each other. That is simply not true, especially in the OT. Furthermore, your hypothesis that the NT as a planned follow on to the OT is false on it's face, as few of the authors knew each other and even wrote in different languages (Mark was probably writen first in Hebrew or Aramiac). To suggest that the NT is a planned diversion is to suggest a conspiracy of impossible dimensions.

Also, you never answered my closing question from earlier so I will try again:

Just one last question for you to ask yourself: You are obviously a great dad. No doubt you teach your son right from wrong and he sounds like a smart kid. Where does all of that love come from? Is it simply the clicking of biologically predisposed responses? Or is there something far deeper? Isn’t life rather futile if there is not?

 

[Huggyu2]

... well, that should cover the flybys.

 

[shagadelic]

Lowlyprop, so many times, these debates get bogged down by so many points that anyone can take away whatever they want to take away. Take for instance the mental giant Huggy, who sees a bunch of retorts and thinks it's game over. Let's break this down in to bite size chunks. One at a time. I'll answer your question, then you answer mine. We take it one question at a time, and try to parse out the truth, so even braniacs like Huggy can get it.

Just one last question for you to ask yourself: You are obviously a great dad. No doubt you teach your son right from wrong and he sounds like a smart kid. Where does all of that love come from? Is it simply the clicking of biologically predisposed responses? Or is there something far deeper? Isn’t life rather futile if there is not?

If you have 100 sets of parents who love their kids from a scale of 1 (no love) to 100 (complete love) would you not agree that those on the high end of the scale would have kids who have a better chance of survival? The ones on the low end don't get the food from the hunt, the ones on the high end not only get the food, but the warm clothes made from the hides of the kill. In other words, those loving genes survive while the unloving genes don't. It's not too hard to grasp. Go kill a female moose, and you will find a grieving male who's mate for life just died. Elephants grieve and love. It is extremely common throughout the animal kingdom. It's not that hard of a concept. It certainly is not something that had to be given by some almighty creator. Life is about caring about your offspring, because that ensures our immortality, through them. We have one life, this is it. I do my best to make it the best I can, and to make it the best for my offspring. If I knew we all lived for eternity by just graveling over some deity that was nailed to a cross, why would I care about my life and my kid's life on this planet? What's the point. Just hang out until I can ride my white horse in to the kingdom of heaven. It sounds so friggn stupid just typing that. Love is important, because that's all we have for our children. It's the thing that gives them the selective advantage. Classic evolution.



Ok, now to my question. The second law of thermodynamics. It has been shown, OVER AND OVER, the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. It does not apply to the origins of life, nor to the the complexity or diversity of life. Period, dot. But yet, go to any Christian apologist website, and they still out and out LIE about it. No honesty whatsoever, they just distort the truth to try to add some cred to their argument. The dumbass in the pews just accepts this as truth, and the lie gets perpetuated. Can we not agree this is a distortion of the truth and complete subterfuge? Please illustrate how the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to an open system, or admit the Christian arguments with regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics are a complete and utter misrepresentation and represent classic intellectual dishonesty. I look forward to your responses on these two questions.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Gee, I thought we were done with abiogenesis? Ah well, as you wish!

Now hold on there Shag, you can't have your cake and eat it too! You said that evolution are absolutely and irrevocably divorced, yet at that end of the day you seem to be pinning your entire argument against the evidence for God on the use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an evolutionary process that resulted in life. Personally, I see a bit of a disconnect there.

Now, as for the Second Law, let me see if I can state this simply. We agree that the Second Law states that net universal entropy is increasing. Similarly, we agree that it is possible for local entropy to decrease while increasing the entropy in the surrounding area (a refrigerator is a good example). In order for this to work, however, you need both something to isolate that small system from a random exchange of heat and some mechanism to transfer heat from the inside of the local system to the outside in an ordered fashion. Exactly what mechanism has been observed on earth that can provide these conditions?

Whether earth is an open or closed system makes no difference. When energy and matter freely interact net entropy increases unless there is a barrier to stop it (The insulating properties of a refrigerator and its ability to transfer heat from inside to outside). Are you saying that your random thermodynamic process is not random? Even if within our notional refrigerator we are able to decrease entropy, we still can't create life because we lack the information input required for complex organisms. I am surprised you haven't moved from abiogenesis to an "RNA world" hypothesis by now.

If you want to use evolution as a reason for the existence of love, that is weak. People perform loving actions all the time that have nothing to do with perpetuating their genes! The soldier who dives on a grenade, the man who risks his life by stepping out in front of a truck to rescue a child that isn't his, the person who gives money to charity for people they have never met... Not that these things are done for religious reasons only, but if we were exhibiting only evolutionary correct responses than they wouldn't take place. Or maybe that guy that jumps on a grenade to save his buddy is just stupid and is ending his genetic line so a more robust set of genes can replicate itself? Is that really what you are suggesting? Is a selfless act really that meaningless?

No sir, I don't think you are. I just don't think you have really thought through what being human really means. You use the animal kingdom to demonstrate that our emotions are not unique, yet you conveniently leave out how we as humans are unique in our ability to attempt to derive meaning from suffering. I fail to see how evolution explains the panoply of human emotions and mankind’s boundless ability to love even when that love is most disadvantageous to our well being.

I am a little disappointed that you have not yet responded to my response regarding the OT. I am looking forward to a vigorous debate… Struggling with Scripture is an edifying and faith building process for me.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

... well, that should cover the flybys.

I am afraid I don't get the flyby reference. Enlighten me!