Evidence for God from Science

Just looked it up -- shrimp and some of the other smaller water life are scavengers and , even though are good, have all kinds of toxins , etc in them and are not really good for us to Eat.

crochet1949 wrote:Just looked it up -- shrimp and some of the other smaller water life are scavengers and , even though are good, have all kinds of toxins , etc in them and are not really good for us to Eat.

It was no doubt because of this, and because they have a tendency to gather where the sources of nutrients are plentiful, which can include the outfall from sewers, that the ancient Jews were instructed to avoid them. However, if one can avoid getting them from unsavoury sources, shrimp and other crustacea are extremely good to eat, being high in all sorts of useful proteins, vitamins and minerals, and very low in carbohydrates and fats. Pigs too are particularly susceptible to various internal infections which was the reason they were banned, and very sensible it was at the time. However, circumstances change, and as the bible was in places written for particular circumstances, parts of it are very properly largely ignored today. The story of Adam's rib, and various other simplistic descriptions of the development of man are to be treated similarly.

hughfarey wrote:Well all that's very practical and a sensible interpretation of the fact that bits of the bible applied to scientifically illiterate nomads in the years BC, but simply don't apply to us any more. Pork, prawns and clothes of mixed materials - banned for the Jews but OK for us. Thou Shalt Not Kill, Steal and Tell Lies; that's for us too. And it's an interesting if illogical idea that having been specifically told to keep the commandments, sell what he owns, give to the poor and follow Jesus, you think that it's not what we do that makes a difference. What happened to the young man? Did it matter whether he did anything or not? But what I really don't understand is why you think it OK to reinterpret Leviticus and Deuteronomy to the limits of their intelligibility, but you don't think it OK to do the same for Genesis. Or why you think that your authority to do so is somehow greater than mine.

hugh
I'm not reinterpreting anything in Leviticus or Deut. For instance, if a person is Jewish they will be reading those books in a somewhat different light than I do. There Are people who do Not accept any Scripture other than those first five books. They don't accept the first coming of Christ / birth in the manger. They are Still waiting for Christ to come as a grown man / leader as in a millennial reign on earth as His 1st coming.
So, you're saying that the Children of Israel were a bunch of scientifically illiterate nomads. Well, compared to the sciences we have Now, but there's more to life than being scientifically Literate. They were people just like 'us' of now days. Different culture, yes. And back then there were no trains, planes, or ocean liners.
But have our modern gadgets, Smart phones, etc, really brought closer to God? Internet Has made it possible to spread God's Word all over the world. That is Very important. Because the Gospel unto Salvation Needs to be heard around the world.
Of course it matters what a person does in life. We need to be responsible citizens and teach our children to be the same. Maybe it's what is motivating a person to do what he does.
We're not told what happened to the young man. Actually we Are told what happened to him -- vs 22 "he went away sorrowful , for he had great possessions." Going back to the passage --Matthew 19: 16 "Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life". The point being made is that it's NOT the 'good things' that we do that give us eternal life. The young man was doing all sorts of 'good things' -- they'd Never be Enough. It is Only a 'God thing' that makes eternal life possible.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Just looked it up -- shrimp and some of the other smaller water life are scavengers and , even though are good, have all kinds of toxins , etc in them and are not really good for us to Eat.

It was no doubt because of this, and because they have a tendency to gather where the sources of nutrients are plentiful, which can include the outfall from sewers, that the ancient Jews were instructed to avoid them. However, if one can avoid getting them from unsavoury sources, shrimp and other crustacea are extremely good to eat, being high in all sorts of useful proteins, vitamins and minerals, and very low in carbohydrates and fats. Pigs too are particularly susceptible to various internal infections which was the reason they were banned, and very sensible it was at the time. However, circumstances change, and as the bible was in places written for particular circumstances, parts of it are very properly largely ignored today. The story of Adam's rib, and various other simplistic descriptions of the development of man are to be treated similarly.

Yes -- we now have better methods of cooking pork and refrigeration and such. And there are still people who Won't eat pork for other reasons. And, yes, some of those things Are pretty much ignored these days.

But, No, the story of Adams' rib Is still here. Eve came from Somewhere -- as did Adam. 'Man' -- 'Wo-man' coming From man. Man was created and then woman came From -- Adam's rib. And, this information Is largely ignored today -- but not for the same reasons. I Do see what you're trying to say -- the world of evolution --lots of people would rather have Adam and Eve as some 'story' that's fun to listen to but not taken seriously. Because 'science' is trying to tell us that it's not Really possible -- believable.

No, Crotchet. There is no possible way that the first woman was generated, by God or anyone else, from a man's rib. The bible is quite simply wrong on this point. There is no need for any Christian, Jew or Muslim to think it might in some way be correct. A more sensible approach to the story would be to ask why such a fantasy should be included in the bible. Instead of fumbling to make scientific sense of clumsy biological guesswork, we should ask ourselves - why that story rather than another? The meaning of the bible is above all theological, not literal. It doesn't matter a hoot whereabouts the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, or how many fishes turned into how many fish dinners, what matters is why those stories are important now.

hughfarey wrote:No, Crotchet. There is no possible way that the first woman was generated, by God or anyone else, from a man's rib. The bible is quite simply wrong on this point. There is no need for any Christian, Jew or Muslim to think it might in some way be correct. A more sensible approach to the story would be to ask why such a fantasy should be included in the bible. Instead of fumbling to make scientific sense of clumsy biological guesswork, we should ask ourselves - why that story rather than another? The meaning of the bible is above all theological, not literal. It doesn't matter a hoot whereabouts the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, or how many fishes turned into how many fish dinners, what matters is why those stories are important now.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

-Darth Vader

hughfarey wrote:No, Crotchet. There is no possible way that the first woman was generated, by God or anyone else, from a man's rib. The bible is quite simply wrong on this point. There is no need for any Christian, Jew or Muslim to think it might in some way be correct. A more sensible approach to the story would be to ask why such a fantasy should be included in the bible. Instead of fumbling to make scientific sense of clumsy biological guesswork, we should ask ourselves - why that story rather than another? The meaning of the bible is above all theological, not literal. It doesn't matter a hoot whereabouts the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, or how many fishes turned into how many fish dinners, what matters is why those stories are important now.

Theological but Not literal ? Then why not simply throw out the Bible Totally? What actual good Is it?
Except that we Do celebrate Christmas and Easter -- and that we hold the Ten Commandments in either high esteem or want to throw them out. Because they are the root of morality -- thou shalt Not steal, kill, commit adultery, lie -- it's God's Word to mankind. A lot of people would Rather live by their own set of rules -- no higher authority to be accountable to.
Those stories show us God's power -- God provided the escape route for His children of Israel. That God is able and willing to use that which We are willing to give to Him to work that which We Can't. This world isn't about Us -- it's about what God has Given us.
What about the virgin who conceived and bore Jesus Christ and that He actually Did die on the cross and that He has provided for our salvation. Is there Really No heaven or hell in anyone's future?
Good question --Why are those incidence talked about in God's Word -- why does He share those things with mankind.
Why does God tell us Where the Jewish nation came from. And, yes, there are still thousands of Jews in this world -- even though there was a horrible effort to destroy them as a people.
God's Word tells us About ourselves -- and some of it isn't very pretty. But He Has provided a way to live Better -- more rewarding lives. He gives us Good guidelines to live by - but what do We do ? We laugh at Him -- we want to do it Our way -- and then wonder why we have guilty consciences -- and unneeded STD's and unwanted babies aborted or abused. Our lives become such a mess and we wonder Why. We blame the Messes We've Made on God.
I need to get some breakfast.

No, Crotchet. There is no possible way that the first woman was generated, by God or anyone else, from a man's rib.

Correct, how can the creator and sustainer of all existence do something like that?
Impossible I say !!

Now, on a serious note, even as one that believes that the genesis story is NOT to be taken as literal and concrete, it would be silly for me to say that God CAN'T create a living being from a rib ( or anything else).

crochet1949 wrote:Theological but Not literal ? Then why not simply throw out the Bible Totally?

Brilliant. Exactly what I thought you'd say. Just because I deny the literal truth of one particular chapter of one particular book, I ought to throw out the whole library as useless. This is the standard literalist response to any non-literal comment about the bible, and is trotted out automatically, saving the literalist from bothering to understand what the non-literalist is actually saying. That's like researching, say, Chinese history in a public library, and on hearing someone a couple of shelves away saying that he thinks Harry Potter might not have actually existed, marching out of the library assuming it to be useless.
There is, of course, another standard response to my comment above, invariably in the form of a question, but I will couch it as a statement. Because it is not always possible to say how literally true any particular book is, it is best to assume that they all are. Nobody bothers to ask: why? If I find a Harry Potter book among my researches into Chinese history, should I assume it must be true? Of course not. I should judge each book on its merits.

Although you seem to have agreed that the injunction against pork can be validly discarded, you say that the Ten Commandments "are the root of morality -- thou shalt Not steal, kill, commit adultery, lie -- it's God's Word to mankind." And yet there is a graven image of my God in almost every room in my house! "Ah, but," say the literalists, "what that commandment means is not that you shouldn't make such images, but that you shouldn't worship them." And that's a very sensible interpretation, although it is not in fact what the commandment says.

As usual, of course, you misunderstand my basic point. In fact you do it so often I'm beginning to wonder if it's deliberate. My point is that it is illogical for you to permit yourself to explain to me your interpretations of passages of the bible, even if they are contradictory to what it actually says, and at the same time expect me to take every word of Genesis as scientific fact.

PaulSacramento wrote:It would be silly for me to say that God CAN'T create a living being from a rib.

Oh indeed; God can do what he likes. But in this case, he didn't like, and he didn't do anything of the kind.

Oh indeed; God can do what he likes. But in this case, he didn't like, and he didn't do anything of the kind.

Indeed, BUT that is NOT what you said, you said:

There is no possible way that the first woman was generated, by God or anyone else, from a man's rib

Which, IF God IS God, is simply not correct.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Oh indeed; God can do what he likes. But in this case, he didn't like, and he didn't do anything of the kind.

Indeed, BUT that is NOT what you said, you said:

There is no possible way that the first woman was generated, by God or anyone else, from a man's rib

Which, IF God IS God, is simply not correct.

Yes. My first comment was clumsily worded. Mea culpa. I didn't mean that he couldn't have done it like that if he wanted, but that there is no way in which he would have wanted it like that.

hughfarey
So Now you are a spokesman for what God Really Wanted?!

And you Also said that you have a graven image of God in most every room in your house.
Well -- God is a Spirit -- so I don't think that's what you really mean. Maybe you Do have a picture of Jesus Christ in every room of your house.
The commandment that you're referring to Is --"You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness to anything that is in heaven above , or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; And you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."
It sounds like God is telling us that if we are going to worship 'something' -- worship Him - Not that which He created. Because He is the creator Of.

crochet1949 wrote:So Now you are a spokesman for what God Really Wanted?!

Why not? You have been tireless in explaining the meaning of his book since the beginning of this thread. My authority is as least as good as yours.

crochet1949 wrote:And you Also said that you have a graven image of God in most every room in your house.
Well -- God is a Spirit -- so I don't think that's what you really mean. Maybe you Do have a picture of Jesus Christ in every room of your house.

And Jesus Christ isn't God? Interesting.

The commandment that you're referring to Is --"You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness to anything that is in heaven above , or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; And you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." It sounds like God is telling us that if we are going to worship 'something' -- worship Him - Not that which He created. Because He is the creator Of.

It could be interpreted like that; but that's not what it says. So Now you are a spokesman for what God Really Means?!

Because there's a difference between Your comment that God Would Not want it that way -- and my sharing Scripture -- which Is His Word to us. You're suggesting that You know God's Mind Before the fact.

Jesus Christ is part of the Godhead -- He was the Earthly form -- God is Spirit. So the Godhead contains God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit. Which Also means that a person can't have a graven image of the Holy Spirit in their home. Any more than having a graven image of God in your home. It IS a graven image of Jesus Christ , the Son, that you Do have.

So -- what do You interpret that verse to say. That particular commandment.