Contradictions in the Bible?

[liberalogic]

You mean before or after men get a hold of it and try to explain it?

What do you mean?

 

[dilloduck]

What do you mean?

stuff happens--it just happens. It's men who attempt to understand it or control it.

 

[Annie]

stuff happens--it just happens. It's men who attempt to understand it or control it.

Follow up, and your point is?

 

[liberalogic]

stuff happens--it just happens. It's men who attempt to understand it or control it.

When that "stuff" happens, we try to understand its root cause in order to attain a better comprehension of the world around us. That's the goal of science. While I've never ruled out any divine intervention, I think we need to explore all possible causes that are rational and reasonable; otherwise we're just giving up.

 

[dilloduck]

When that "stuff" happens, we try to understand its root cause in order to attain a better comprehension of the world around us. That's the goal of science. While I've never ruled out any divine intervention, I think we need to explore all possible causes that are rational and reasonable; otherwise we're just giving up.

Excellent point and I think you've nailed it !!! People who claim to be of science, reason, logic, etc. seem to think that people of religion have given up and accuse them of being sheep that have bought a pile of mystical horse manure as a means of understanding things yet how many times throughout history have men of science (etc) assured us that something was a fact when it was indeed another pile of mystical horse manure? Need examples?

 

[Joz]

..... I'm just attempting to clarify the difference between faith and science. Faith is okay, but don't declare it as a universal truth when you are unable to do so.

Have you ever purchased something over the Internet? Have you gotten on a site and decide to buy something? Can you prove that there is a store/warehouse that exists? Not from where you sit. But you have so much faith that it's true you actually send money to this place. And then you receive your merchandise. You are able to hold something tangible but can you still prove that the store is a reality?

You want proof. But you can't prove to me that He doesn't exist any more than I can prove He does. There were people who saw His miracles yet didn't believe. That was their choice.
I think you have had religion forced upon you so badly you are VERY h*ll bent on proving that God doesn't exist. But in you're heart you know that isn't right.

 

[Joz]

It's not. It's nature adapting to its environment...

You're probably right. But where did that ability come from?

 

[Dr Grump]

Have you ever purchased something over the Internet? Have you gotten on a site and decide to buy something? Can you prove that there is a store/warehouse that exists? Not from where you sit. But you have so much faith that it's true you actually send money to this place. And then you receive your merchandise. You are able to hold something tangible but can you still prove that the store is a reality?

But if I really wanted to I could trace the warehouse, get on a plane and go find it. Plus I have tangible evidence that the warehouse exists (or a source at least) due to the fact that I have the product delivered. You can't say that same for a god. It is all faith.

I think you have had religion forced upon you so badly you are VERY h*ll bent on proving that God doesn't exist. But in you're heart you know that isn't right.

Not speaking for liberalogic, but in my heart I know that it is right (there is no god)...

 

[Dr Grump]

You're probably right. But where did that ability come from?

Chemicals and molecules interacting. Just like putting oil on water. Oil will float. Why is that? Because it is lighter than water. Nothing strange about it. Just like if you jump out of a plane without a parachute you'll fall to your death. You're heavier than air. Nothing other worldly about it. You weigh more than air. Simple.

 

[liberalogic]

Have you ever purchased something over the Internet? Have you gotten on a site and decide to buy something? Can you prove that there is a store/warehouse that exists? Not from where you sit. But you have so much faith that it's true you actually send money to this place. And then you receive your merchandise. You are able to hold something tangible but can you still prove that the store is a reality?

You want proof. But you can't prove to me that He doesn't exist any more than I can prove He does. There were people who saw His miracles yet didn't believe. That was their choice.
I think you have had religion forced upon you so badly you are VERY h*ll bent on proving that God doesn't exist. But in you're heart you know that isn't right.

Actually, my intent is not to disprove the existence of God, not at all. In fact, I personally do believe that there is a God. But I do not believe in organized religion because I feel that it taints and manipulates the core message of faith in order to achieve immoral ends. That's my personal opinion and I've never attempted to force it on others or tell them that they can't be part of an organized religion. Can I prove my belief? Can I disprove my belief? No, but I'm still entitled to believe it. And notice that I only criticize Christianity when it is infused with public policy. At that point, it is open to criticism.

When belief (which can't be proved or disproved) intersects with science and is claimed to be a truth, then I have a problem. We are working off of something that has been witnessed by others, but has left NO EVIDENCE to analyze. Does this mean that we should abandon creationism because there's no evidence? Well, I would hope that most Christians find the entire creation of Adam and Eve (as stated in the Bible) as improbable. It doesn't coincide with any principle of biology and, at the same time, mixes up the age of the Earth. The idea that human beings just sprang into existence seems implausible as well.

Yet, there is the lingering question of how the Earth, the universe, and everything else out there started. Science has not yet acquired the tools necessary to form a cohesive conclusion (nor do we know if it ever will). To me, this is where the line between science and the supernatural is blurred. To rule out the role of God or some other force would be self-defeating because then we rely on science to tell us how we got something from nothing. But to rely on the supernatural as an unquestionable fact is even more self-defeating because we are then limiting the future of scientific discoveries. If, in the future, we find reasonable, testable, evidence that justifies some sort of creationism, I would jump right behind it. But until that day, a belief has to remain a belief.

 

[Joz]

....but in my heart I know that it is right (there is no god)...

You know what, Grump? You may be right. So let's leave it at this. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

 

[Joz]

..... But I do not believe in organized religion because I feel that it taints and manipulates the core message of faith in order to achieve immoral ends.

I have a problem with some of them myself. Man is fallible. You act like because a person calls themselves a Christian that they are above & beyond reproach. That they don't make mistakes or hurt or bleed the way everyone else does. So why don't you find a religion that goes strictly by the Bible?

And notice that I only criticize Christianity when it is infused with public policy. At that point, it is open to criticism.

You're referring to the displaying of the Commandments & things like that, correct?

When belief (which can't be proved or disproved) intersects with science and is claimed to be a truth, then I have a problem. We are working off of something that has been witnessed by others, but has left NO EVIDENCE to analyze. Does this mean that we should abandon creationism because there's no evidence? Well, I would hope that most Christians find the entire creation of Adam and Eve (as stated in the Bible) as improbable. It doesn't coincide with any principle of biology and, at the same time, mixes up the age of the Earth. The idea that human beings just sprang into existence seems implausible as well.

Ah,Dear Lib. You see, the Bible says that the earth was without form & void. We have no clue as to how long the earth just hung there in space until God decided to put life upon it. So the mere fact that earth samples dated back millions of years ago does not coincide to the record of how long man has been on earth isn't really a contradiction. And with that you add the Flood and things get all screwed up.

....... But to rely on the supernatural as an unquestionable fact is even more self-defeating because we are then limiting the future of scientific discoveries. If, in the future, we find reasonable, testable, evidence that justifies some sort of creationism, I would jump right behind it. But until that day, a belief has to remain a belief.

That is such a load of BS, I can't believe that you even said that. You're too smart to have uttered such a statement. The belief in creation has not kept scientific discoveries at bay nor will it ever do so.

 

[liberalogic]

I have a problem with some of them myself. Man is fallible. You act like because a person calls themselves a Christian that they are above & beyond reproach. That they don't make mistakes or hurt or bleed the way everyone else does. So why don't you find a religion that goes strictly by the Bible?You're referring to the displaying of the Commandments & things like that, correct?

Ah,Dear Lib. You see, the Bible says that the earth was without form & void. We have no clue as to how long the earth just hung there in space until God decided to put life upon it. So the mere fact that earth samples dated back millions of years ago does not coincide to the record of how long man has been on earth isn't really a contradiction. And with that you add the Flood and things get all screwed up.


That is such a load of BS, I can't believe that you even said that. You're too smart to have uttered such a statement. The belief in creation has not kept scientific discoveries at bay nor will it ever do so.

You're right-- in a way that is a bit exaggerated and you nailed me on it. But on the other hand, if we're going to teach Intelligent Design in school, even if it's alongside evolution, we're still defeating the purpose of science. If creationism becomes a widely accepted scientific theory, then many might become complacent and disregard scientific explorations. We should be eager to learn and explore, not just call something a fact because the Bible says it. Alexander Pope once wrote: "Whatever is, is right." Meaning just accept everything as it is because that's how God created it. Anyone who adopts that attitude is not worthy of life: we have so much potential as human beings and it would be a shame if anyone wastes it accepting everything at face value.

I will say this, though-- arguing over the particulars of creationism is meaningless. Whether or not it happened or it didn't, none of us knows for sure. But again: we can all believe anything we want. My problem is not with your or anyone else's belief in creationism, it's when you try to pass it off as science. I haven't ruled it out in the least bit (well, I consider creationism to be God creating the universe and then the evolution of the human being following that); but until we gather more tangible evidence, it is way too early to start claiming it as a fact.

So I guess it boils down to this: Do you consider creationism (in its current form, with the little evidence that we have) to be a science or a belief?

 

[dilloduck]

You're right-- in a way that is a bit exaggerated and you nailed me on it. But on the other hand, if we're going to teach Intelligent Design in school, even if it's alongside evolution, we're still defeating the purpose of science. If creationism becomes a widely accepted scientific theory, then many might become complacent and disregard scientific explorations. We should be eager to learn and explore, not just call something a fact because the Bible says it. Alexander Pope once wrote: "Whatever is, is right." Meaning just accept everything as it is because that's how God created it. Anyone who adopts that attitude is not worthy of life: we have so much potential as human beings and it would be a shame if anyone wastes it accepting everything at face value.

I will say this, though-- arguing over the particulars of creationism is meaningless. Whether or not it happened or it didn't, none of us knows for sure. But again: we can all believe anything we want. My problem is not with your or anyone else's belief in creationism, it's when you try to pass it off as science. I haven't ruled it out in the least bit (well, I consider creationism to be God creating the universe and then the evolution of the human being following that); but until we gather more tangible evidence, it is way too early to start claiming it as a fact.

So I guess it boils down to this: Do you consider creationism (in its current form, with the little evidence that we have) to be a science or a belief?

What is the purpose of science?

 

[liberalogic]

What is the purpose of science?

Science is the study of the world around us. That's the simplest definition that I can give and it seems all-encompassing.

But again, just remember that I'm not saying that creationism is wrong or even impossible for that matter. But before we legitimize it as a scientific theory, we need some more testable evidence. If we get that, I'd be more than happy to call it science and put it in schools. But right now it is more of a philosophy.

 

[dilloduck]

Science is the study of the world around us. That's the simplest definition that I can give and it seems all-encompassing.

But again, just remember that I'm not saying that creationism is wrong or even impossible for that matter. But before we legitimize it as a scientific theory, we need some more testable evidence. If we get that, I'd be more than happy to call it science and put it in schools. But right now it is more of a philosophy.

Then I guess one could say that science is studying the world instead of accepting it as it is

 

[Fisherking]

I dont believe that God ever intended to be proven by tangible things.
God and his word has to be accepted by faith.
If I was to point out the clouds in the sky or the dust of the earth as tangible evidence that God existed, do you think the unbeliever would come any closer to believing? Probably not.
It is something that must be accepted by faith.
When Christ walked the earth with his desciples, he did many miracles for people.
The blind receaved their site
The deaf receaved their hearing
The dead were raised

There was plenty of evidence of Christ being who he said he was, but most people still could not accept. They still demanded a sign of further proof.
But it is something that must be accepted by faith because tangible evidence would just be explained away now as it was then.

Im not sure, but I dont think God wants to have to keep proving himself , but would rather us just believe by faith that he is who he says he is.

 

[Dr Grump]

You know what, Grump? You may be right. So let's leave it at this. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

Ditto..

 

[Dr Grump]

I dont believe that God ever intended to be proven by tangible things.

Why?

God and his word has to be accepted by faith.

Why?

Im not sure, but I dont think God wants to have to keep proving himself , but would rather us just believe by faith that he is who he says he is.

...and why? This is the crux of the matter for me.

 

[LOki]

Excellent point and I think you've nailed it !!! People who claim to be of science, reason, logic, etc. seem to think that people of religion have given up and accuse them of being sheep that have bought a pile of mystical horse manure as a means of understanding things that something was a fact when it was indeed another pile of mystical horse manure? Need examples?

Like Galileo Galilei?