Evidence for God from Science

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. TEaching all day and can't get time to get to the forum

1. You ask about salvation and it being "finished": I believe that Christ's work on the cross absolves of of the guilt of sin. We are no longer condemned for our sins. In that regard it is finished. Accepting Christ as one's savior, believing in Him, removes our sinfulness from us and we are declared righteous in God's eyes. Our guilt has changed. We have been imputed with CHrist's righteousness. In this regard, at the moment of salvation we are saved....it is finished. Because we are a new creation in Christ, however, I believe that we are changed so that we are no longer under the guilt and power of sin. It is that "newness" that creates in us a new "modus operandi", so to speak. We do good works and love each other not because it finishes salvation but, I believe, is the result of salvation. After all, the criminal right before his death on the cross was declared righteous before he could do any good works.

2. I do believe scripture teaches us that we ARE freed from both the power and the guilt of sin. Sanctification, I think, is a reflection of this process of us learning that we are no longer slaves to sin. Just as a slave may still behave as a slave even after being freed from the slavery, I think we too often place ourselves back in the chains of sin simply because we are still i nthe process of sanctification. We still sin after being born again, but we have been freed from the pwer of sin. Simply, we are freed slaves who must look to a new Lord, the Lord that has saved us.

3. The need for salvation and sacrifices in the Old Testament: Others have addressed this well, but thought I would give my two cents. I think this is where we see that beautiful harmony between the Old and New Testament and goes towards establishing the uniqueness of the scriptures. Atonement for sin is seen throughout the earliest pages of the New Testament. IT was established that an atoning sacrifice be made for sin. And notice the requirements for this animal, for instance, a "perfect lamb", a spotless animal needed to be sacrificed. And for the time in the Old Testament, as Canuckster said, this was established as the requirement for a redeemer. Every atoning was a reflection upon the payment needed for sin and a realization of the requirements for that payment. And the prophecies written in the Old Testamant looking forward to that redeemer (again showing the wonderful harmony between Old and New Testament and between multiple authors) reflect both the "spotless" requirement and the need for an atoning sacrifice.

There is a fundamental difference, obviously, in how we view CHrist's death ans resurrection. It is much more than simply a symbol, or a reminder of what we should do.

Anyway, I must confess I can't remember other questions so please just let me know what I have forgotten A little cross-eyed and jumbled brain today (you may have taken exams, I have been grading them !)

Sleep,

I think scripture makes the case just as I stated it. I take the scripture literal in most cases, in fact in all cases except where it is obvious that I should not. But you have to be real careful. Like the Olivet discourse is in scripture in two places. But they are actually two different talks. One talks about the destruction of Jerusalem and the other talks about the end times. Most people think they are the same talk but different views. To unlock scripture I found it helpful to know the ancient Jewish traditions because the scripture is written through the vocabulary of the feast and traditions. In fact the feast were a foreshadow of the future. God being outside time had all Jews act out the future so when they saw it they would understand. Please see my post in - Bible and Scripture - Time of the Gentiles.

Scripture sometimes operates at two levels of communication. For instance my commentary on the Book Of Job describes what I believe is a second level of communication through Job's friends. Another is the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation. They do address the churches but they also lay out the history of the church in advance. The woman with child in the book of Revelation with the 12 stars and the sun and moon under her feet, the meaning of this is found in the Book of Genesis when Jacob interprets Josephs dream. The interconnections are a pleasure to see.

Anyway, if you would like I can lay out the verses I think make this case. Just let me know.

the sleep of reason wrote:gman,

about murder:
i do not pretend to know when killing is or is not ok. i pray i never have to make the decision. all i am saying is all of this stuff about when it's ok to kill and not ok to kill is NOT outlined in the bible. it just says "dont kill." even if it said "dont murder"--what does that imply? to only not kill unless you have a good enough reason. without a list of even potential reasons (if not every possible correct reason) to kill, it leaves it kind of wide up.

You need to look closer at the laws given in the Bible. There are corporate and individual laws given there... Under NO circumstances is it EVER permitted for an individual to take someone's else's life.... Period. If an individual takes a life, then they are judged under the corporate laws... The Bible offers a framework. Obviously it does NOT have an answer for every type of murder that is out there.. It simply states that murder, taking someone else's life in your own hands, is wrong and is subject to judgement...

the sleep of reason wrote:you ask if i think our laws cover this nicely--i dont know, that's serious stuff i have not the wisdom to deligate. does everyone that kills anyone else deserve to die? no. do all murderers? no.

We don't always know. What may look like murder may be something else. In some cases death is not served as a punishment. I don't think this is a black or white issue either... But do we let wolves live in chicken coops? At what point do we say enough is enough when it comes to murder? What about the Hitler types? And what about the other innocent in our prison walls... Where is their protection?

the sleep of reason wrote:what about police that accidently shoot the wrong kid, thinking he had a weapon? that's murder, no? it's accidental murder, but murder.

No I disagree... Accidents happen all the time. If we went by this then we all should be in jail.... Words can kill people's spirit as well... I'm confused. Are we talking Biblically or what our opinions are?

By the way, many people who kill others accidentally often take their own lives later because they feel so guilty or they punish themselves for life.

the sleep of reason wrote:legally he should be absolved. does that mean he is morally absolved? perhaps more patience would have manifested the child to be not a threat. what if someone breaks in your house for an emergency, seeking help, but you kill the intruder before learning they had a wife dying, in labor in their car? i can say i would storm through someone's door to get help in a situation like that, it's not unlikely for it to happen.

Are you asking what my opinion is or what the Bible says?

the sleep of reason wrote:mistaken killings are murder, minus malice. no? it's unjustified killing--

in hebrew they translate "dont kill" into "do not kill without justice." but again this is broad, 'i have justice--he slept with my wife. so i killed him. see? justice." no. but "i have justice--he killed my wife because he hit her, driving drunk. so i killed him." yes? no? maybe?

Again, the Bible would not address such a specific issue such as driving drunk... There are corporate and individual laws given there. If an individual takes someone else's lives then they are judged corporately.... It does not matter if they said they were sorry, had a bad hair day, or were late for work. They took a life, then they are judged in a court of law..... They just weren't instantly killed or blew up in puff of smoke, they went to court. If they were innocent then they were set free. If guilty then they paid the consequences... Whatever that was...

the sleep of reason wrote:see how iffy this all gets? i just think there should be elaborations in the bible on issues so important like this.

Murder cases are aways iffy... Look at OJ's case and how long that dragged on... How could the Bible hold all the different types of elaborations out there? It only provides a framework to build off of. The Bible does NOT mandate a life for a life in every case...

the sleep of reason wrote:to be honest i'm not so sure ANY human has the right to choose another human doesnt deserve to life anymore. i dont believe war is a solution to anything.

From what I can tell neither does the God of the Bible...

the sleep of reason wrote:but at the sametime, i DO believe violence is a language and some people only speak that language. you can tell them to act right,but if they only speak violence, i guess you might have to talk to them in their native tongue.
but war is the end result of human uncooperation. it's not necessary if we love each other and seek to understand each other and find solution. and it's not something i like.
but again, at the same time--if i had a way to stop someone from killing me in the moment they tried to kill me, i would kill them. yes. but i think my moral soul would be damaged and i would expect rammifications, morally. so.

Any type of war, weapons, killing, are a horrible sad practice. As a Christian I'm appalled by war and did NOT vote for the current war we are in as well... But yes I would agree with you that if someone came after me or a loved one with a knife, I too may have to defend myself.

the sleep of reason wrote:about bombs:
i'm sorry, but i'm going to go ahead and say any inventions humankind has made for the purpose of more efficient killing of other humans is worthless. guns and bombs alike.

The Bible was provided to the Jews as a foundation of their civil and corporate practices.. In it you will find recipes on how to make bread or build a tabernacle, but you will NEVER find a way to fashion or create a weapon. I guarantee it....

the sleep of reason wrote:should we not have weapons to protect us? no. i dont think we should give up our armies. but how can you call that device anything but evil? it's a life-taking machine. maybe we need them for insurance against zealots and killers, but that doesnt mean they are good things. nor do i want a part of it. ugh.

Having certain weapons may be one thing, but stock piling weapons, absolutely not....But I'm in agreement with you that I don't want to have any part of it... And look at all the violent video games out there.

the sleep of reason wrote: about God's call to war:
the OT is FULL of wars. i have a book that calculates the amount of people God killed either directly or because He called other's to war or to kill. such as sampson. there's actually quite a bit of carnage back there.

It is not a huge blood bath as you may seem to think... Yes there are wars, but not after many years of warnings and not very often did it result in a war.. Sometimes wars are forced upon you whether you like it or not. Also my understanding of the Bible is that God hates war and mourns for the dead on both sides...

the sleep of reason wrote:about casualties of war: do they go to hell? i dont know. it sounds like you are talking about martyrdom. do they simply get access to heaven for dying accidently in rough bombings? that's martyrdom. do you believe in martyrdom?

I wasn't talking about martyrdom.. I was just trying to show you that ultimately we don't know what happens to those that oppose us. Maybe they will go to heaven and we will go to hell...

About martyrdom... It's not for us to judge if we have lived a martyr's life. That is up for God and others to judge... Not ourselves. Ever...

frankbaginski wrote:Sleep,
Scripture sometimes operates at two levels of communication.

i've heard scripture actually operates on four levels of communication. i have also heard that the fourth level is, for a lack of a better term, like zen or nirvana--total spiritual understanding, and is what we should seek. the first level, of couse, is face-value historical novelization.
i have heard that the first three levels will not make logical sense as these three levels are anti-logic but are rather 'what you see is what you get--dont ask' kind of interpretaions.

this intrigues me, because it makes me think there's perhaps a level of spiritual understanding that transcends my stupid logical hangups.

You need to look closer at the laws given in the Bible. There are corporate and individual laws given there... Under NO circumstances is it EVER permitted for an individual to take someone's else's life.... Period.

gman, i 'm confused about these things--

are you saying no one ever has the right to take another's life? not even through due process of law?

are you saying you dont believe God ever called anyone to war or granted power to people in order to kill?

you pose questions about wolves in chicken coups or hitler types. this methodology from you indicates there are only two solutions: kill the hitler type or let the hitler types run amok.
i dont think it's either kill bad people or inaction. solitary confinement for a murderous psycho could be ok and keeps everyone's hands clean for killing. killing begets killing, to me. to live by the sword is to die by it. right? hitler was awesome. but he was also insane from syphillus. power and insanity sucks. but some (certainly not me) make the argument hitler is a victim to his insanity and disease.

i guess that's a slippery slope and i dont really want to go down it, so i'm rerouting here--.there were and are ways to stop hitler (and saddam and terrorists) that WILL work without war. i just dont believe it's either war or inaction. there's a thrid non-violent way that will work.

but all of this is philosophical. my initial point is not about the outlying of corporal law elsewhere in the bible, it's the simple commandment "thou shalt not kill." it doesnt ammend it to "unless a judge orders a criminal to death and you're the guy who has to pull the electric swith" or "unless someone is hitler" or "unless" anyway.

as i said before, i think the reason for this black and white stance is to prevent humans from rationalizing their way into sin. the bible would have to say "JUST DONT KILL" or it would have to cover almost ever "UNLESS" possible. because people'd kill for reasons like infidelity and rationalize it as ok due to 'well it's one of the unlesses, God just didnt think of it." a hardline stance HAD to be taken, just dont kill, ever.
rationalizing-- which we DO. aka iraq. aka blackwater. civillian death. casualties of war. "it's ok, it's just a byproduct of our moral war. sorry those kids got blown to bits. but that's part of war, folks." i dont think it's ok. i think it conflicts "thou shalt not kill with a black black period." we already try to morally justify death, i cant imagine how much worse it would be if the bible said "unless."

but all of this is philosophical. my initial point is not about the outlying of corporal law elsewhere in the bible, it's the simple commandment "thou shalt not kill." it doesnt ammend it to "unless a judge orders a criminal to death and you're the guy who has to pull the electric swith" or "unless someone is hitler" or "unless" anyway.

What's your basis for making this claim? Are you familiar with Hebrew and the word used in the 10 commandments for "Kill?"

You're committing a category error in your reasoning here. You're applying a particular contextual meaning of the word "kill" as it used in English (and that not exclusively) and extending that meaning to equate with the original Hebrew in its contextual cultural setting thus superimposing your understanding rather than examining the text on its own merits and allowing it to speak for itself both in the context of the immediate passage and the overall context of Old Testament Law which clearly mandated the death penalty in specific instances as administered through the institutions of society and not personal revenge.

That is called eisogesis, not exogesis.

Are you here to ask questions to learn and discourse, or are you simply asking rhetorical questions to provide a platform to argue an already espoused point of view?

Sleep,

Please don't look at scripture for buried meaning. Many have gone down this path and it had lead them into new age thinking. You must first know scripture and know that scripture never never has a conflict with itself. When man sees buried messages the tendancy is to make these say things in direct conflict with scripture. Many religious organizations have done this. It of course is so sad to see.

Sometimes I bring things up on these boards that can be a stumbling block. Without a whole study of a subject a partial exposure can lead to odd interpretations of scripture. Don't get me wrong I am no Bible scholar. But I do know in my heart to trust scripture and when I see something that looks to go another way I reject it as my error. Many have been trapped by their own intellect. You are a smart guy, don't let your intellect lead.

Bart, thanks for the clarification...

the sleep of reason wrote: gman, i 'm confused about these things--

are you saying no one ever has the right to take another's life? not even through due process of law?

All I've been saying is that if an individual takes someone's life, they fall into judgment. It doesn't matter what the motive was... Good or bad..

the sleep of reason wrote:are you saying you dont believe God ever called anyone to war or granted power to people in order to kill?

No.. Obviously if you read the Bible, God actually commands those to go into war. But it is not a gun blazing, all hell breaks out glorified kind of thing... According to scripture, God hates wars... Which raises the question, if God was behind the Jews, why didn't they turn out more powerful than the Romans? What about all the weaponry and the huge armies? Why didn't the Jews have that stuff?

Sometimes we are forced to do battle. Take the jews and genocide of WWII, or the genocide in the Sudan at darfur. At what point do we say enough is enough?? 6 million, 10 or 15 million deaths? Of course war is wrong, everyone knows that, but what else are we going to do before more of the innocent dies? Likewise, should we tell cops that they can no longer carry a gun? Are we just going to stand there, grab our popcorn and watch the bloodshed?

the sleep of reason wrote:you pose questions about wolves in chicken coups or hitler types. this methodology from you indicates there are only two solutions: kill the hitler type or let the hitler types run amok.

No I don't think that killing the Hitler types is always an answer, and I don't think that war is always an answer either. The issue here is that at what point do you say enough is enough? Corporately (not individually now) let's say you try being nice first, pay them off, send them to a trip to Hawaii, try to reasoning with them, console with them, laugh with them, cry with them, try to understand their motives but one day you catch them behind a garbage dumpster trying slit the throat of an 8 year old girl? What would you do? I know that may be kind of dramatic, but that is what cops can face in a given day... Performing it may be one thing, but glorifying it is another...

the sleep of reason wrote:i dont think it's either kill bad people or inaction. solitary confinement for a murderous psycho could be ok and keeps everyone's hands clean for killing. killing begets killing, to me. to live by the sword is to die by it. right?

Yes, those are the words of Christ...

the sleep of reason wrote:hitler was awesome. but he was also insane from syphillus. power and insanity sucks. but some (certainly not me) make the argument hitler is a victim to his insanity and disease.

i guess that's a slippery slope and i dont really want to go down it, so i'm rerouting here--.there were and are ways to stop hitler (and saddam and terrorists) that WILL work without war. i just dont believe it's either war or inaction. there's a thrid non-violent way that will work.

It looks like this has turned into an argument about capital punishment now. Is it right or wrong? I think it is hard to judge one way or another. In some cases maybe yes, in others no... And not without looking at the hard facts..

the sleep of reason wrote:but all of this is philosophical. my initial point is not about the outlying of corporal law elsewhere in the bible, it's the simple commandment "thou shalt not kill." it doesnt ammend it to "unless a judge orders a criminal to death and you're the guy who has to pull the electric swith" or "unless someone is hitler" or "unless" anyway.

Again you just can't pull a text out of the Bible and say "thus says the Lord" and then do it... We have to be careful with the words.

the sleep of reason wrote:as i said before, i think the reason for this black and white stance is to prevent humans from rationalizing their way into sin. the bible would have to say "JUST DONT KILL" or it would have to cover almost ever "UNLESS" possible. because people'd kill for reasons like infidelity and rationalize it as ok due to 'well it's one of the unlesses, God just didnt think of it." a hardline stance HAD to be taken, just dont kill, ever.

It's not a black or white issue... Sometimes the Gandhi approach may work and sometimes it might not. We don't always know and the Bible isn't always clear on it either...

the sleep of reason wrote:rationalizing-- which we DO. aka iraq. aka blackwater. civillian death. casualties of war. "it's ok, it's just a byproduct of our moral war. sorry those kids got blown to bits. but that's part of war, folks." i dont think it's ok.

Like I've been saying before... If you take a life, you fall into judgement... In any case, in any world, in any war, in the basement, at your house, at a baseball game, etc....

the sleep of reason wrote:i think it conflicts "thou shalt not kill with a black black period." we already try to morally justify death, i cant imagine how much worse it would be if the bible said "unless."

No it doesn't because the words have a different meaning as Bart has already stated. You can't just read something at face value and then ignore the rest..

Without looking at all the other posts, (I did scan over most of it) but the point is this post is in reply in a solitary manner in response to the title of the post.

You believe the Bible is the word of God, breathed by God and correctly written by man...........or you don't.

I do believe.

Even if it has been rewritten in other languages, to many things have come forth from the Bible with correct prophecy, and the continuance of the history written books written separately, and by different authors at vastly different times, but it still goes together smoothly.

For a book full of “contradictory” statements, and “mistakes” it sure is pretty accurate and amazing. Only God could do that.

If you do not need a Bible to be a good Christian, then more power to you. Hope things go well with that. As for me.. I get my information about God from Hisbook.

2 John 1:10-11

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

I believe this goes for people who want to toss out the use of the Bible as well as Mormon who use their book, or JW who have their other stuff.

I am not going to debate with you on this, because it is a belief, you can call me wrong but I have the Bible to back me up, you have nothing because you want to toss out his word. The only thing that could back you up is what you want to get rid of.

EDIT:


Point

Mormons went out of the flock of Christianity when they decided they did not need his Book. They wrote their own.

They now have made up many ideas that do not go with Christianity, due to LACK of the word of God.

That is something you may want to consider before you feel you could be a Better Christian with out Gods Word.

JCSx2 wrote: Point

Mormons went out of the flock of Christianity when they decided they did not need his Book. They wrote their own.

They now have made up many ideas that do not go with Christianity, due to LACK of the word of God.

That is something you may want to consider before you feel you could be a Better Christian with out Gods Word.

True... As another example... Mormon's believe that blacks were cursed by God so that he gave them blackness of skin as a marker. Whites are NOT allowed to interbreed with them. Blacks were not even allowed into the institution until 1978, after the IRS threatened to take away their tax status.

As for Islam, it claims that men are superior to women and that it is ok to beat your wife. Paradise can be obtained "automatically' with no judgment at martyrdom.

Are these values that we hold dear to ourselves? If I found such things in the Bible, I would not have become a Christian.

Canuckster1127 wrote:
What's your basis for making this claim? Are you familiar with Hebrew and the word used in the 10 commandments for "Kill?"

You're committing a category error in your reasoning here. You're applying a particular contextual meaning of the word "kill" as it used in English...

1. yes. i am familiar w the hebrew commandments. it stresses the word "ratsakh" refers to illegal, premeditated malicious killing. i didnt know the english word for kill was different. kill: to keep from living.

the debate we have had, if you were keeping up, is clearly about "murder is wrong, but when is killing ok?" the bible, in hebrew NOR in any other language clarifies this; it just says no murder.

also, in hebrew they say to defame someone in public is the same as killing. do you believe that is just as bad as killing as the hebrew bible says it is? does that, by capital punishment standards, mean that biblically we should electrocute anyone that wrongly defaces another verbally in public? by this law, by this BIBLICAL law, we should punish every frivolous lawsuit plaintiff just as we would a murderer. no?


2. why is it MY responsibility to research what the heck the HEEEEEBREW meaning of ANYTHING is? i'm american, oklahoman no less. if the BIBLE is God's infallible word, then my KJV babtist hipster bible should be the word of God just the same, it very broadly and without any caveats says "dont kill."

now this philosophical debate ensues, to which one must further seek out extraneous sources to determine hebraic translations of words like "ratsakh" and kill and whatever else.

do you see the point i'm making here? God's word sure is confusing and sure requires an extra amount of research outside the bible just to make sense of it. why is that my responsibility if the book is so flawless and righteous?

this 'dont kill' commandment debate started because i said there's no other way for the bible TO be. i argued that i UNDERSTOOD why it is so over-simplified--because basic human intelligence wont look past it and if they DID give a caveat to kill they'd have to write two bibles just to clear it all up. so "dont kill" is naturally the only solution. which is what my KJV is, which is what 27 years of existence has been shoved down my throat as infallible truth. i was never told i had to learn hebrew or go outside the box to see what God's word REALLY is.

(i just did that on my own.)

3. i've explained clearly and concisely why i'm here asking these questions in at least 3 posts in this thread. i'll not answer here again. but i will ask something no one has yet--why are YOU here, if not to discuss these interesting things, same as you? does it irritate you that some n00b is asking such difficult questions? this isnt for the sake of itself, it's for the sake of spiritual growth.

frankbaginski wrote:Sleep,
You are a smart guy, don't let your intellect lead.

thanks but i have you fooled. without any hummility i can say i'm really barely smart enough to realize i'll never be smart. i cant spell or do math and dont know what have* of anything means. *see? honest to God typo. HALF!
all i know for sure is there is a loving Creator God and i want to please Him. all of this is me trying to figure out what i can trust on this earth that He gave us. men are misleading and selfish, i dont want to get caught up in something that will lead me down the wrong path. so im trying to find a balance between go it alone, 'it's between me and God' and religious docturine.

Gman wrote: True... As another example... Mormon's believe that blacks were cursed by God so that he gave them blackness of skin as a marker. As for Islam, it claims that men are superior to women and that it is ok to beat your wife. Paradise can be obtained "automatically' with no judgment at martyrdom.
Are these values that we hold dear to ourselves? If I found such things in the Bible, I would not have become a Christian.

man i have been taught from the pulpit from many dominations some of this same stuff--i have asked "are bible-belt Anglo Americans more prone from birth to make heaven based on the majority religion in that area than, say, people in rural Africa?" and from many different church leaders in many churches i have been told YES we are more 'prone' to heaven because those black Africans are babblin' language-barricaded geographic outcasts from God due to the sins of their ancestors--hence the tower of Babel and God's separation of people culturally and linguistically (which resulted also in skin coloration to suit them to their environments).

that's what i've honestly been told. sounds racist to me. sounds REALLY racist. sounds like they are calling God racist, too. that's nuts. but it's a christian teaching, from assemblies of God to at least 4 groups of babtist to nazarene to church of God and Christ. i have heard it many times over.

I dont believe that anyone is more 'prone to heaven.' nor do i believe women are anything BUT equal. but
as for subservience of women, again, i have been taught it's true in just as many churches. some churches i have been in have literally split due to women seeking the pulpit--something believe unbiblical by many Christians i know. no man-pants, no short hair, and no preaching for women, they say. historically wife-beating has been a christian tradition as well. laws were in place only limiting the size of the stick you could use. they say God told the man to be the head of the household, to be in control, and to have the final word. they teach "tough love" and "leadership" which has been translated over and over into spousal abuse, wrongfully backed up by 'scripture.' it happens.

Christians as well believe "we have dominance over the land" have been some of the worst environmentally pillaging monsters in history, ravaging this planet because they believe God gave it to us to rape and plunder as we see fit. i have done 19 page sociological profiles on this research.

and finally, fundamentalist Islam does not preach violence. sects of radical Islam has bastardized the religion into the Jihad terrorism that pop media calls "ALL Islam" but rest assured, it's no different than timothy mcvey in okc or the michigan militia. christians kill in the name of their God and quote scripture to back up their radical zealot murders. they blow up abortion clinics and conduct crusades of war and inquisitions of torture.

the bottom line is crazy people LOOOOOVE to kill in the name of their religion. but they are just crazy people backing up crazy ideals with flawed grasps on religious fundamentalism. it's not always inherent to the doctrines of those believes, just as it is not in Islam, Christianity nor Judaism.

i had to take a break from all this to get some perspective. but i'm kind of back on the forum now.
i have talked to some hebraic christian friends as well as read a little bit more on biblical history (of the text, not the history of the region as portrayed in the book itself.)

i also saw a few interesting documentaries.

all this has backed up my skepicism in infallible text.

the bible as we know it is the amalgamation of many scrolls and writings that was standardized by the early church.

anyone beg to differ? because you can research it.

so i ask: what about all the other scripture excluded from the bible? executive decisions were made to the content we now know as "God's word." why cant there be more, considering the political and empirical history of the written text over time?

largely americans read KJV. how can this, THIS standardized version of anglo interpreted religion be considered te infallible word of God when so many generations of men made the decision about what was to be translated and how and what was to be included and why?

the president of the bible preservation society wrote a book about the documentary hypothesis of the jahwehist, Elohim, priestly, deuteronomy variances of the same biblical texts, each with their different personalities of God, words for God, and other discrepancies, combined or filtered at the whim of men to create what we now call the BIBLE. so many decisions based on so many wordly reasons went into the current version of the Bible, and so many other versions exist with so many vastly interpretted meanings of the bible. geometric interpretations of the first book of the bible from spoken to understood to written hebrew come up with vastly different meanings.

i have three king james bibles, one with cross referrences to further back scripture that show the creation story as actually saying the earth existed for untold amounts of time prior to adamite man. hebrew backs this up.
most christians think there was nothing, that in the beginning is when earth started, 6000 years ago.

this is so fundamental to believing and understanding this book and it's purpose, but it's so complex to find the actual truth. many here just water down the whole book to "God is great and jesus died for us and i have faith in that." basically most christians say "john 3:16 is what it's all about. this is God's unarguable word. sure the rest of the bible is confusing and complex and i dont get it all, but THIS part is vital. THIS part defines christianity, THIS part is all that matters." just the same, you're not learning hebrew or going back to GOD's languages and studying original texts in assyrian, greek or hebrew. you're just grasping to one part of a massive book.

that being said, i again pose the question if not 100% of the book is historically infallible truth from the mouth of GOD with NO MISTAKES in translation or transcription, needless of interpretation past face-value meanings-- or if you do not fully understand the whole book, how can we say it's ok to derive religious infallibility on a book we dont fully understand? why would God want the included data (and not the excluded extraneous books of the bible not included in modern bibles) as a WHOLE book if that WHOLE book wasnt important? why not just make the book "john 3:16" if that's the only part anyone really understands?

i surmise that the whole book is meant to be valid but i also surmise that at this point God's word has been corrupted. so if i dont understand ALL of the WHOLE book that God said is valid, how can i create some dogmatic doctrine from parts of it?
what of the forgotteb books, the gospel of judas, the controversial books such as ester which is just as unlikely but happened to make the final draft? these scrolls were independent and written over hudreds of years by countless scribes. it's not like God sat down and started talking and one person wrote it all (save for the pentateuch, largely believed to be written solely by moses, lending to the larger scale belief that the Torah is most likely the ONLY infallible part of the bible that is actually God's unaltered word.) this opens the door for such debate and controversy, mishandling, loss of text, loss of meaning, inclusion/exclusion and personal insight/alteration by particular authors.

what about all that?

I believe this topic is actually more philosophical in nature than dealing directly with science... It's funny that stuff like this happens when we address origins. Interesting huh?

the sleep of reason wrote:man i have been taught from the pulpit from many dominations some of this same stuff--i have asked "are bible-belt Anglo Americans more prone from birth to make heaven based on the majority religion in that area than, say, people in rural Africa?" and from many different church leaders in many churches i have been told YES we are more 'prone' to heaven because those black Africans are babblin' language-barricaded geographic outcasts from God due to the sins of their ancestors--hence the tower of Babel and God's separation of people culturally and linguistically (which resulted also in skin coloration to suit them to their environments).

that's what i've honestly been told. sounds racist to me. sounds REALLY racist. sounds like they are calling God racist, too. that's nuts. but it's a christian teaching, from assemblies of God to at least 4 groups of babtist to nazarene to church of God and Christ. i have heard it many times over.

I have no clue what you are talking about here.... How does the tower of Babel make God a racist?

Please review the article on racism in the Bible: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/racism.html

the sleep of reason wrote:I dont believe that anyone is more 'prone to heaven.' nor do i believe women are anything BUT equal. but
as for subservience of women, again, i have been taught it's true in just as many churches. some churches i have been in have literally split due to women seeking the pulpit--something believe unbiblical by many Christians i know. no man-pants, no short hair, and no preaching for women, they say.

"Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26).41 In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of authority in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1).8 Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6, 12)."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

the sleep of reason wrote:historically wife-beating has been a christian tradition as well. laws were in place only limiting the size of the stick you could use. they say God told the man to be the head of the household, to be in control, and to have the final word. they teach "tough love" and "leadership" which has been translated over and over into spousal abuse, wrongfully backed up by 'scripture.' it happens.

Yes it can happen.... But it is not endorsed by the Bible or God... Does that mean we throw out the Bible now?

"Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands."25 However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God,26 governmental authorities,27 our boss,28 and leaders in the church.29 We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa.30 God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order. What form does this submission to authority take? In every instance where submission is called for wives, it is conditioned with the phrase "as to the Lord" or some other reference to Jesus Christ. The submission takes on the form of being in the will of God. If the husband asks the wife to do something outside the will of Christ, she is under no obligation to follow him. Accompanying each command for wives to submit to their husbands is the command for the husband to love his wife.31 In the book of Ephesians, this love is to be "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Such a love is not one that dominates and subjugates another person, but a self-sacrificing love that will give up its own."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

the sleep of reason wrote:Christians as well believe "we have dominance over the land" have been some of the worst environmentally pillaging monsters in history, ravaging this planet because they believe God gave it to us to rape and plunder as we see fit. i have done 19 page sociological profiles on this research.

Well man can twist things the way they may want to, but to pillage the environment is NOT endorsed by the Bible nor by God.

More copying and pasting here.. Sorry...

"At the creation of man, God commanded that humans in Genesis 1:28 take control over the earth and rule over the animals.11 Having dominion doesn't mean to pillage and plunder, but to take care of the earth and its creatures and resources. Immediately after creating Adam, God put him into the garden of Eden that He had planted and put him to work in "taking care" of the garden. The Hebrew verb translated "to take care" (shamar - Strong's number H8104) is also translated "preserve", "keep", "watch", "maintain", "defend", and "attend." The nature of man's dominion of the earth is clarified in Psalm 8, which says that man is to have dominion over all of God's works on the earth, including the birds, domesticated herds, and the wild beasts of the field, and the fish and other life of the sea.12 Protecting God's creation is not just the responsibility of secular organizations, but should be the responsibility of evangelical Christians, as well. According to the National Association of Evangelicals:

Just as we show our love for the Savior by reaching out to the lost, we believe that we show our love for the Creator by caring for his creation. Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. This involves both the urgent need to relieve human suffering caused by bad environmental practice...13"

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... nment.html

This website also endorses the concerns of Global Warming...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rming.html

the sleep of reason wrote:and finally, fundamentalist Islam does not preach violence. sects of radical Islam has bastardized the religion into the Jihad terrorism that pop media calls "ALL Islam" but rest assured,

And finally I'm not taking about the Islamic people at all... I believe that certain Islamists will perhaps also go to heaven as well, we are not here to judge others... I was referring to doctrine.

Perhaps this article will help...http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... gions.html

the sleep of reason wrote:it's no different than timothy mcvey in okc or the michigan militia. christians kill in the name of their God and quote scripture to back up their radical zealot murders. they blow up abortion clinics and conduct crusades of war and inquisitions of torture.

the bottom line is crazy people LOOOOOVE to kill in the name of their religion. but they are just crazy people backing up crazy ideals with flawed grasps on religious fundamentalism. it's not always inherent to the doctrines of those believes, just as it is not in Islam, Christianity nor Judaism.

Again, man can say anything he wants.... I had a bad day, so now I'm going to kill someone... You have not convinced me that murdering people comes in the name of God or is backed up by scripture... Please show me from the Bible where it says such things, I'd be happy to debate it....

Please review this topic on killing: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html