Hmm, I thought you had left. If you’re coming online from whatever country you were traveling to, though, I guess I might be seeing more of you here.
Job describes the present state of the world and the activities that take place now, not God's original creation or His purposes in creation.
I agree that Job is referring to the way the world is currently, but my point is that if you look at the whole context of that chapter, it’s about the ways in which nature gives glory to God. That’s why God asks Job, “Is it by your wisdom” that these things occur, the implication being that it’s the result of God’s wisdom instead. Would God have included animals killing each other as an example of his wisdom if it were the result of human sin, and something he disapproved of?
Returning to the dust is a picture of physical death. This was not the natural state of things, but a result of their disobedience. Also, in Romans 5:12 we see in context that Paul is clearly speaking of physical death (Jesus’ physical death, verses 8-10, and other men’s physical death, in verse 14). We also find the same comparison of physical death and physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22. So both spiritual death and physical death are the consequences of Adam’s fall.
All of these verses refer specifically to humans, though. When I was a Christian, I thought it was probably God’s original intention for humans to be immortal, despite our animal origins. But Adam’s sin would have prevented us from transcending what our ancestors were like in this respect—so we still have death, disease, and violence, like all the other animals that were never made in God’s image.
God is God - He would be able to keep the world from overpopulating. From our limited, finite, fallen state, we are hardly ones to judge what God can or cannot do. That is the lesson that Job learned, and his response is instructive for us (Job 42:1-6)
From our limited, fallen, finite state, we can also have a lot of trouble understanding what God means. This brings to mind when Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3, that in order to be saved a person must be “born again”. In this case, assuming that Jesus meant what it sounded like he meant was a mistake, and Jesus had to correct Nicodemus about it.
I have a very hard time imagining that in situations like this, Jesus would want people like you or Nicodemus to assume that God means the most obvious, straight-forward thing it sounds like he’s saying, even when it runs contrary to experience the way it does in this case. To use another example, if you were to completely discount experience while interpreting the Bible in the most straight-forward manner, 1 Kings 7:23 would lead to the conclusion that Pi is exactly three. Yes, I suppose God would have the ability to curve the space-time continuum in such a way that a circle with a radius of 10 has a circumference of 30, but isn’t it more reasonable to allow our personal experience to affect how we interpret verses like this one?
Aggie, examine your own heart for intolerance and self-righteousness. It comes across in your messages.
I’ve never claimed to be perfect either, you know. But having lived as a Christian for nineteen years and as a Diest for four, I can say from experience which religion confers a greater morality, if you’re unconvinced by the statistic Loudmouth posted. Let me elaborate:
All humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong. You can call it something God gave us, or something we evolved during the millions of years that we were living in social groups that could only survive if their members took care of one another; the reason for this doesn’t really matter. The point is, people generally have an inherent desire to love their neighbor as themselves, regardless of whether they think there’s a God who cares about this or will reward them for it.
There are a few differences between Christians and non-religious people in this respect, though, and the first is that their motives are different. As soon as morality gets labeled as God’s set of rules, the rationale for it changes. To whatever extent you do what would be considered the right thing to do, if someone asked you what your reason for it was, I suspect your answer would be “because it’s what God wants me to do.” On the other hand, when I receive the same sort of behavior from Ferahgo (who’s an atheist), the reason for it is “because I love you.” She doesn’t love me because it’s what God wants her to, she just
does.
To begin with, it bothers that when Christians are kind to me, I know they’re usually just doing it for the sake of the reward they’re expecting in heaven—I prefer people to treat me well because they care about
me, not because they care about getting a pat on the back from God. To quote what Albert Einstein (also a Deist) said about this, “If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”
That isn’t the only problem I have, though. As soon a morality is reduced to a set of rules, as it is in the case of Christianity, each person’s individual responsibility to be kind to others becomes irrelevant. To put it another way, “love thy neighbor as thyself” is only Christianity’s second-greatest command; the greatest is “love the lord thy god with all they heart, and all thy soul, and all thy strength.” Since loving God means following his commands elsewhere in the Bible, we don’t really need to pay attention to whether following these commands will end up hurting someone—even if they do, loving God and following his commands is still the greatest command of Christianity, whereas loving our neighbors is only the second-greatest.
While I was a Christian, I noticed more and more that what was best for the people who I cared about was often different from what the Bible told me I should do. This isn’t necessarily the Bible’s fault—it probably just isn’t possible for any book, no matter how authoritative or well-written, to give people good instructions about what to do in
any possible situation they could encounter. One of the most striking examples of this I’ve found in someone else’s life is here:
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=18017 . What this woman said to her son was the most reasonable thing to do based on what the Bible says, since according to 1 Corinthians 6:9, homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But if she had paid attention only to what was best for her son, rather than what according to the Bible God expected from her, her son might still be alive.
Christians are capable of being fairly nice people, but as long as loving their neighbors as themselves is only their second-greatest commandment rather than their greatest, there will always be examples of things like this. As far as I’m concerned, AiG’s reliance on fallacious arguments in order to try and win people to Christianity is another example, since I assume the value of someone’s salvation outweighs the dishonesty of the claims used to win it. But at least to me, placing a greater importance on following God’s commands in the Bible than on being kind to others isn’t a way that I want to live.
Your reliance on the science of the day, which is constantly changing, will be your downfall. Do you honestly think that the theories and ideas that scientists have now will be the same in 100 or 200 years? Just look back 200 years and see what they believed then? Are we that arrogant that we think that now we have arrived and we REALLY know something?
My attitude isn’t quite as close-minded as you seem to assume it is. I don’t trust science specifically; what I trust is my own senses, and what I can see for myself. I’d have to trust them even if I based my beliefs primarily on the Bible the way you do, since the only way anyone can read a Bible is with their sense of sight. (Or their sense of touch if it’s a Braille Bible.)
So far, what I’ve seen and touched suggests that young-earth creationism is false. I’ve sorted fossils that Mr. Parris brought back in chunks or rock from an expedition in Kansas, and found fossils in it of clams, coral, and the bones of fish. Coral takes years to grow, clams only live in shore environments, and both of these animals sink like rocks so they couldn’t have been carried to Kansas by a global flood. If I were to observe something that shows me evolution is incorrect, then I would change what I believe to whatever other theory is supported by my observations. That should be obvious, since my observations have already led me to change my beliefs once before.
It’s difficult for me to imagine anyone basing their beliefs on something other than what they’ve encountered with their own senses, since as I said before, even if your beliefs are based on the Bible you still have to trust your senses in order to know what the Bible says. If you come back to this thread again, I’d be interested to know whether you agree that this is the case for yourself also—and if so, whether you would change your interpretation of the Bible if you were to directly observe something showing that your current interpretation is incorrect.
