Do YOU believe in God?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Expect a reply from Ghostranger pretty soon though.

 

 

 

Heh. Good call.

 

 

 

Logic - before I continue further, I'm confused by your first point about the use of the word day. Explain a little further why it can only mean a 24 hour period.

[pianofrieak2]

Expect a reply from Ghostranger pretty soon though.

 

 

 

Heh. Good call.

 

 

 

Logic - before I continue further, I'm confused by your first point about the use of the word day. Explain a little further why it can only mean a 24 hour period.

 

 

 

Thank you. I thought it was going to be interesting once you got here.

 

 

 

What he's doing is getting the same Hebrew word, yom, and showing how it means a 24 hour literal day. You see, the same word, yom, is used in other passages to mean a 24 hour day.

 

 

 

So to say that the yom in Genesis 1 is different from other "yom" is Scripturally unfounded.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what you're trying to say, logic.

[logic-is-overrated]

Expect a reply from Ghostranger pretty soon though.

 

 

 

Heh. Good call.

 

 

 

Logic - before I continue further, I'm confused by your first point about the use of the word day. Explain a little further why it can only mean a 24 hour period.

According to my KJV Study Bible when the author of Genesis describes a day in reference to the creation, the Hebrew word used is yom. In the other four books attributed to the author of Genesis (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), every time yom is used in the same sense as it is used in the creation, it refers to a 24 hour period. Every time day is used in reference to a certain span of time other than 24 hours, a different Hebrew word is used. There's multiple uses of the word so I assume there is multiple Hebrew words and as I said, I am not an expert so I can't say I know what those other words are.

 

 

 

If that doesn't make sense I'll try to explain it further or if you disagree with it then let me know. I'm just using my Bible here and if you can't trust the Bible, who can you trust?!

[Guest GhostRanger]

Expect a reply from Ghostranger pretty soon though.

 

 

 

Heh. Good call.

 

 

 

Logic - before I continue further, I'm confused by your first point about the use of the word day. Explain a little further why it can only mean a 24 hour period.

According to my KJV Study Bible when the author of Genesis describes a day in reference to the creation, the Hebrew word used is yom. In the other four books attributed to the author of Genesis (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), every time yom is used in the same sense as it is used in the creation, it refers to a 24 hour period. Every time day is used in reference to a certain span of time other than 24 hours, a different Hebrew word is used. There's multiple uses of the word so I assume there is multiple Hebrew words and as I said, I am not an expert so I can't say I know what those other words are.

 

 

 

If that doesn't make sense I'll try to explain it further or if you disagree with it then let me know. I'm just using my Bible here and if you can't trust the Bible, who can you trust?!

 

 

 

Well, I look at it from a slightly different perspective.

 

 

 

The Bible was written from an Eastern perspective. In that time (and even now), it wasn't in the style of Eastern writers, storytellers, and just people in general, to tell stories about how things happened exactly how they did. Their culture relies a lot on imagery and symbology to get their message across.

 

 

 

This is evident in many places, and VERY evident in simply how Jesus taught. He taught in parables, with images, to convey his message.

 

 

 

It could be very accurate to assume that the writer of the story of creation DID mean a 24 hour period, but at the same time, what he was specifically writing wasn't a literall creation story. It would make sense that in order to tell the story of creation in a way that captures what the story is about, and for the people in that time (but more specifically area of the world) to understand and grasp the conepts, the story would be very figurative.

 

 

 

Recently I've been debating with myself about how evolution fits into my religion. To tell you the truth, I'm not quite as sure of myself as I use to be. But I do think that a lot of the answers I'm looking for lie with understanding Hebrew culture than I do know.

[Godzira]

I have to give you credit ghost. At least you are willing to admit that evolution might be viable instead of refusing to consider it outright sighting bad science the way most creationists do.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I have to give you credit ghost. At least you are willing to admit that evolution might be viable instead of refusing to consider it outright sighting bad science the way most creationists do.

 

 

 

The reason piano said I would probably respond is because in the past (back in this thread I would imagine) I have always argued in support of evolution. I've lessened my stance slightly and now consider myself "unsure."

[logic-is-overrated]

stuff

I find it more reasonable to take events like that at face value, but I guess it comes down to interpretation. And I think once it reaches that point then most arguments become fruitless so I'll just leave it.

[bloodsolder3]

i believe in god with all my heart. even is he doesnt excist (which he does) i still believe in him. 8-)

[Guest GhostRanger]

stuff

I find it more reasonable to take events like that at face value, but I guess it comes down to interpretation. And I think once it reaches that point then most arguments become fruitless so I'll just leave it.

 

 

 

That would be the Western way to interpret it. We live in such completely different worlds that in order to understand the meaning, we have to understand the cultural value of it.

 

 

 

The Western culture uses logic, we analyze things, we make lists - it makes sense for us to take it at it's "face value." But it's clearly evident that the Eastern culture doesn't do that - so when interpreting a work from an Eastern culture, we have to take that into consideration.

[pianofrieak2]

I dont' know if I would call Hebrew the "Eastern" way of thinking. Jesus used stories to make it easier for the people to understand. I mean, you can call it "Eastern" if you want to, but I think that's really stretching it.

 

 

 

As for evolution...I'd have to agree with logic. The Bible is clear on which stance it takes and that is creationism. I don't know that much about the whole creation theory, nor would I call myself an expert in evolution.

 

 

 

I don't claim to know everything, but I don't accept my belief blindly. One thing I DO know is this: Jesus has changed my life and I can never forget what He did for me that one night to "break my heart of stone and give me a heart of flesh."

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I mean, you can call it "Eastern" if you want to, but I think that's really stretching it.

 

 

 

Lets not forget, this is coming from the person who says that Atheism is a religion.

[Godzira]

If you look at the biblical teachings, there is no way that they could be considered eastern by any modern sense. Eastern now refers to an Asian form of thought, the likes of which is not present in biblical works.

[Godzira]

i believe in god with all my heart. even is he doesnt excist (which he does) i still believe in him. 8-)

 

 

 

Kind of like Santa huh?

[qwiz]

no i dont, there is no proof.

 

 

There is no proof that there is not a God. Before you state an opinion, you should give it a Three dimensional approach instead of only looking at your own opinions.

Why should have proof about something to not be real since anyone doesn't have any proof it being real? :anxious: Same, if I find a old book and there is a "old, real story" about a invisible flying cows and I say it's real without any proof. Then if someone says you don't have proof should I say "You don't have proof it's not real" ?

 

 

 

Sorry about my bad english. :) on-topic: I don't believe in god since there isn't any real proof about him being real.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

First let me define a few terms. When I say theist evolutionist, I mean somebody who believes in an intelligent designer (God) who uses "evolution" to accomplish what we see in biological history and the current biologicial system. The definition of evolution, as quoted from talk.origins archive:

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

<-If I'm correct, I believe it is accepted as fact that the process of evolution does occur. But throughout this post this is not what I will refer to when I say evolution.

 

 

 

The definition of evolution, as it will apply to the times when I use the word is:

The belief that all species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.

To put it simply, we started with microscopic organisms and evolved to where we are today over hundreds of millions or billions of years or whatever.

 

 

 

 

The definitions youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve used are exactly the same, the only difference is the scale used when describing evolution. If you think of evolution at the DNA level, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a change in the chemical make up of the DNA (a sequence of chemicals is a gene, so if you change a chemical in the sequence you change the gene), this is the stock standard definition.

 

 

 

If you think of these changes over millions of years, then you start to see some sets of DNA diverge from others to the point that their incompatible with each other (and as you know, branch off from their former species). If you acknowledge that genes change, then you must also acknowledge that these gene changes affect our overall design. If you acknowledge wheat and tomatoes then you must also acknowledge pizza (IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m making pizza, at the moment); a pizza is a made of many pieces of wheat and many tomatoes, yet no two pizzas are the same. They contain many different kinds of wheat and tomatoes which affect their taste and form.

 

 

 

The part where you say that there are no living ancestors isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exactly true. Our ancestors are made of different sets of DNA; there is no rule that excludes a set of DNA. There are periods of time in history where two species live together. The problem is that our ancestors are usually disadvantaged in some aspect and canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t adapt to the changing environment (and hence die out). However this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always the case, there are many different species co-exist (for example Common Finches live in parallel to Galapagos Finches), and this is mainly due to the species not sharing the same ecosystem (so there is no conflict between the species for resources).

 

 

 

In the case of our ancestor we shared the same ecosystem so conflicts for resources between the two species occurred, since we had some advantages, we secured the resources more easily and hence we survived for another day. However when we talk about big gaps in the tree of life, (for example fish to birds) we also talk about large time scales. So when you want to compare say a bird to its ancestor fish, the ancestor fish may not have died out but they further evolved into another species of fish which went on to kill off the old species of fish. We see examples of this like the modern crocodile sharing traits with the modern chicken and so forth; although these animals are not direct descendants of each other, they share many neutral and beneficial traits that have carried through both of the animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s individual evolution paths.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I dont' know if I would call Hebrew the "Eastern" way of thinking. Jesus used stories to make it easier for the people to understand. I mean, you can call it "Eastern" if you want to, but I think that's really stretching it.

 

 

 

Clearly you know nothing about the culture during the time of the Bible, especially in Jesus' time or you would know EXACTLY why Jesus used parables and imagry. You wouldn't think it was just to "make it easier to understand" because you would know that the parables Jesus used were not his own, and reflected an Eastern style of preaching consistant with the other 6,000 Rabbi's living at the time of Jesus. You would know why you can divide every single word Jesus said into 3 categories of an EASTERN style of thinking/preaching.

 

 

 

Since you don't know these things, I'd suggest you not try and comment on them.

[logic-is-overrated]

I've just started reading Mere Christianity and so far I've gotten through books I and II. I must be missing something because so far it has been, lets say, less than convincing. Book I appears to be an eloquent argument for absolute morality. But besides his terrible analogies I have a few questions. (And as a note I do research sources that both criticize and defend the book but I do read the book first without any prior research to at least minimize any kind of preconceived bias. So after only having read the first two books I try to skip over anything that relates to the last two.)

 

 

 

But here is a quote from Book I:

 

"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

 

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own"

He says there have been slight differences between the moralities of cultures throughout the ages but nothing completely different. I quote this from one of the sites I visited:

 

How can anyone claim with a straight face that all societies throughout history have had essentially the same moral code? Has Lewis never heard of Mormon and Arab polygamy, ancient Greek pedophilia and infanticide, Chinese foot-binding, Japanese ritual suicide, Aztec human sacrifice, African female genital mutilation, Islamic ritual murder ("honor killings"), terrorism and suicide bombings, medieval European totalitarian monarchy and inquisitions, Nazi eugenics and racism, even Christian-inspired slavery and colonialism, oppression of women, and anti-Semitism? Is he unaware that the Bible itself sanctions sexism, polygamy, slavery, discrimination against the handicapped, racism, holy war and genocide? While these things are looked on with horror by civilized societies today, at these times and places they were (and in some cases still are) moral norms that passed unchallenged.

I fail to see how any of these are slight differences.

 

 

 

Then he claims that most of the changes in societal morality that have come about are due to advances in factual knowledge, not different moral principles. Again, I disagree. Sometimes it is a genuine clash of morality of a certain practice: gay marriage, the ordination of homosexuals, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, sex education, drug legalization and the use of contraception, to name a few.

 

 

 

As for absolute morality itself, I don't feel qualified to argue that but I do plan on reading a few books about it.

 

 

 

Book II

 

I think the logic Lewis uses to discredit Dualism can easily be used to discredit Christianity also but that isn't really my main question for this book. It appears to me that Lewis uses a basic form of the Liar/Lunatic/Lord argument to prove that Jesus Christ was who he claimed to be. I believe the Lord/Liar/Lunatic argument to be completely flawed and if anybody seriously wants to debate that I will be glad to. But my question is basically, am I missing anything? Is that really his main argument there. If I'm wrong about anything or if I am misunderstanding anything I think it would be best to clear it up before I move on to the latter part of the book.

 

 

 

*edit*-I just finished the last two books and there isn't really too much to comment on. They appear to be aimed more for christians and since they're basically explaining books there doesn't seem much to argue with.

[carpsyco]

i believe in god with all my heart. even is he doesnt excist (which he does) i still believe in him. 8-)

 

 

 

Kind of like Santa huh?

 

 

 

 

 

• SANTA'S REAL!!!!!!!

[pianofrieak2]

I mean, you can call it "Eastern" if you want to, but I think that's really stretching it.

 

Lets not forget, this is coming from the person who says that Atheism is a religion.

 

 

 

1. I messed up. I already admitted: I meant "secular humanism" as a religion, of which atheism is their main tenet.

 

2. That was low and completely uncalled for. Using the ad-hominem argument is not only a logical fallacy, it makes you look ridiculous.

 

 

 

Instead of making a point, you just show why I'm an idiot. I'm very upset with that comment of yours. Even though it's true what I said, I've already corrected it with another post of mine and you just brought it up to spite me. Great job!

 

 

 

Now, on to your brother.

 

 

 

I dont' know if I would call Hebrew the "Eastern" way of thinking. Jesus used stories to make it easier for the people to understand. I mean, you can call it "Eastern" if you want to, but I think that's really stretching it.

 

 

 

Clearly you know nothing about the culture during the time of the Bible, especially in Jesus' time or you would know EXACTLY why Jesus used parables and imagry. You wouldn't think it was just to "make it easier to understand" because you would know that the parables Jesus used were not his own, and reflected an Eastern style of preaching consistant with the other 6,000 Rabbi's living at the time of Jesus. You would know why you can divide every single word Jesus said into 3 categories of an EASTERN style of thinking/preaching.

 

 

 

Since you don't know these things, I'd suggest you not try and comment on them.

 

 

 

Since I'm "clearly ignorant," would you please enlighten me and show me where I'm wrong? I'm very interested in finding out about this.

 

 

 

Logic:

 

 

 

I liked Lewis' analogy of Jesus being a liar, lunatic, or true. Please show me how that analogy is "wrong."

 

 

 

As for his analogy of being slight differences, let me comment.

 

1. Murder has been wrong for all cases in all civilizations. You might disagree by saying child sacrifice and cannibalism is murder, but I would argue by saying that those rituals were sacrificial, not murder.

 

2. Stealing has been wrong. If people stole, it was to do something that was more right than stealing's wrong. Such as helping their civilization overcome another or invoking a particular god on their behalf.

 

3. Lying is wrong. If people lied, it was, such as above, on behalf of a greater good than lying's wrong.

 

 

 

I think that's what he's getting at. As for the above mentioned things, those just show how the terrible depths that are in human nature. That's why we need new natures from Christ.

[insane]

 

Since I'm "clearly ignorant," would you please enlighten me and show me where I'm wrong? I'm very interested in finding out about this.

 

 

 

 

I always thought Christ said that he was speaking in parables so that they would not understand. This is why Christ had to explain all of his parables to his disciples.

 

 

 

 

 

But besides his terrible analogies...

 

 

 

I'd like to hold a discussion about Lewis' analogies but could you first show me how they are flawed? I could just as easily say "Lewis' analogies are perfect" and that statement would be just as credible as yours about them being flawed, as you provided no reasoning behind it.

 

 

 

I understand you were summarizing your thoughts on the book, so I'm not accusing you or anything, just wanted to know what you specifically thought about a few things :)

[Guest GhostRanger]

Since I'm "clearly ignorant," would you please enlighten me and show me where I'm wrong? I'm very interested in finding out about this.

 

 

 

You are clearly ignorant, no reason to put it in quotes like it's not true.

 

 

 

Here are some links to a sermon series that has been going on at one of the biggest churches in America.

 

 

 

http://www.southlandchristian.org/seek/

 

 

 

I recommend starting with week one and listening to them all, but if you want to know specifically what I'm talking about, listen to the most recent week.

 

 

 

There are also various text files and discussion areas to understand the series completely, but to start, just listen to the audio files. Remember, start at the beginning - it talks a lot about the imagry and symbology in the first week. But week three is all about parables. Enjoy.

[logic-is-overrated]

I liked Lewis' analogy of Jesus being a liar, lunatic, or true. Please show me how that analogy is "wrong."

 

I'll get to this when I have more time.

 

 

 

As for his analogy of being slight differences, let me comment.

 

1. Murder has been wrong for all cases in all civilizations. You might disagree by saying child sacrifice and cannibalism is murder, but I would argue by saying that those rituals were sacrificial, not murder.

 

2. Stealing has been wrong. If people stole, it was to do something that was more right than stealing's wrong. Such as helping their civilization overcome another or invoking a particular god on their behalf.

 

3. Lying is wrong. If people lied, it was, such as above, on behalf of a greater good than lying's wrong.

His point is that civilizations have had relatively the same moral code throughout time. The reason for this moral code is because God instilled it in humans. Therefore, if humans have not had the relatively the same moral code throughout history, then God didn't instill morality into us. I concede there have been minor differences for whatever reasons but I think it is obvious that there have been plenty of times in history where this moral code that has supposedly always been relatively the same has at times been completely different. Point in case: you wanted to relabel those instances of murder as sacrifice; okay then. Sacrifice, whether it be people or animals, is common throughout history. Today in American society you would be labeled crazy for doing that.

[insane]

Therefore, if humans have not had the relatively the same moral code throughout history, then God didn't instill morality into us.

 

 

 

Or we're just ignoring/spiting this instilled morality.

[pianofrieak2]

Ghost, the only sermon I see is the one from Memorial Day. Could you show me how to listen to the others? By the way, I'm impressed with this church so far. It's much like mine.

 

 

 

Oh, and just one last thing: How do you solve the "yom" argument? You can blame misinterpretation on East-West dichotomy of thinking, but your view of "yom's meaning" changes even though the exact same word is used?

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I really hope I'm not being too harsh. I'm not trying to totally bash what you've placed some of your theology upon, but that foundation seems to be completely unfounded now.

 

 

 

I'm still eager to hear what the church you listed has to say on the topic.

 

 

 

 

 

And insane, about the whole use of Jesus' parables:

 

 

 

Why would Jesus say a child is the epitome of a "saved" person if Jesus' teachings were so hard that even adults couldn't even understand it? Why would Jesus want to be so confusing? God doesn't NEED a reason for doing anything, but He DOES because He's a practical God.

 

 

 

I'm still confused as to why you think Jesus kept the truth hidden. Does He WANT them to go to hell? No.

 

 

 

I'm just a little confused as to how you came to that conclusion. It seems as if I'm confused on two things now. :P

[logic-is-overrated]

First off Insane, I apologize for the "terrible analogies" line. (1) It was terrible wording because I really only find 2 or 3 of his analogies to be flawed so I shouldn't have made it seem like I was criticizing all of his analogies and (2) Since he primarily uses them to explain his points in another way/make his points clearer, whether or not I feel his analogies accomplished their goal is irrelevant if I agree with his orginal points and for those 2 or 3, I did. So yes, I do find fault with 2 or 3 of his analogies, but I think his use of them isn't really important so I concede that there was really no point in me saying that.

 

 

 

Having said that,

Therefore, if humans have not had the relatively the same moral code throughout history, then God didn't instill morality into us.

 

 

 

Or we're just ignoring/spiting this instilled morality.

 

Lewis said that this Moral Code is in humans and it tells them what they ought to do. If a civilization at one time in history does something and they genuinely belive it's acceptable and there is nothing wrong with it, and a civilization in another time in history genuninely believes that what the former civilization did was completely wrong and immoral, then how is that relatively the same? If the former civilization was ignoring or spiting this instilled morality then they would have to know what they were doing was wrong in some way because how can they ignore or spite something they don't know exists?