For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[AV1611VET]

Yeah.. What's with that double standard anyway? The same Christian that will tell you "all you have to do is accept Jesus as you personal savior, etc"... Is the same Christian that if you say you have and it doesn't work out, will tell you, "Well you clearly didn't do it enough or the right way.. you weren't really a Christian..."

They are too arrogant to realize that Christianity just doesn't work for some people. They feel like they have the end-all solution that will solve everyone in the world's problems. So if someone leaves the faith, it's the person's fault, and no fault with the faith itself.

Just for the record, Jesus never gives up on you guys.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In whose court? If it is in yours or even the whole of mankind's, I would most definitely agree with you.

Well, being that you, I the authors', etc., are members of "the whole of mankind," it is the only court in our juristiction.

I am of the understanding when discussing controversial issues such as evolution vs. creastionism, the phrase 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.' seems to reflect on people no matter which side of the argument they stand on.

Does the phrase "non-sequitor" mean anything to you?

You or I are not about to change each others views and even were someone to be so extremely persuasive, that may also not be enough. It is not beyond the human experience to know that 'a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'.

So, are you giving up on trying to be persuasive?

But the question was asked, "How do you make the leap from there having to be a creator, to the creator being the God of the Bible?"

I believe the answer that was given is a rational and sound minded one for the question being asked and other people can freely dismiss and view it for whatever reasoning they have. The question to concider is whether it holds up in a court not of a person's own choosing?

And the answer is "no, it will not hold up."

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Just for the record, Jesus never gives up on you guys.

Jesus knows where to find me. I'm extending the invitation right now for him to walk in and let me touch the marks where the nails were.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just for the record, Jesus never gives up on you guys.

He never gives up on you either -- no matter how many times you tell Him to take a hike.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Just for the record, Jesus never gives up on you guys.

Awww. I feel all warm and gushy.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm just following the evidence. Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh? The Genesis authors ripped off the flood story.

Or two different versions of the same event.

It's no surprise that there would be more than one account of the flood event since Noah's descendants would have continually remembered it as a part of their traditions as they spread around the world. It just so happens that the Genesis account is the more accurate account.

Ever heard of the Egyptian Book of the Dead? The Exodus authors ripped it off for the ten commandments.

Or two different versions of the same commandments.

You are assuming the Bible teaches us that only the Israelites knew of God's commandments and not the Egyptians as well. But since Abraham, Jacob and Joseph (all righteous men of God) would have spent many years in Egypt we might expect that the Egyptians would have been influenced in some way by the godly standards of these righteous men or any other righteous men of that time.

Having more than one version of something is not evidence against the thing, it is more likely to be evidence for it.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Or two different versions of the same event.

It's no surprise that there would be more than one account of the flood event since Noah's descendants would have continually remembered it as a part of their traditions as they spread around the world. It just so happens that the Genesis account is the more accurate account.

Not really. The flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't cover up the entire world, so it's closer to what actually happened.

Or two different versions of the same commandments.

You are assuming the Bible teaches us that only the Israelites knew of God's commandments and not the Egyptians as well. But since Abraham, Jacob and Joseph (all righteous men of God) would have spent many years in Egypt we might expect that the Egyptians would have been influenced in some way by the godly standards of these righteous men or any other righteous men of that time.

Having more than one version of something is not evidence against the thing, it is more likely to be evidence for it.

Tell that to AV the next time he mentions Earth's Moon.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Or two different versions of the same event.

It's no surprise that there would be more than one account of the flood event since Noah's descendants would have continually remembered it as a part of their traditions as they spread around the world. It just so happens that the Genesis account is the more accurate account.
Or two different versions of the same commandments.

You are assuming the Bible teaches us that only the Israelites knew of God's commandments and not the Egyptians as well. But since Abraham, Jacob and Joseph (all righteous men of God) would have spent many years in Egypt we might expect that the Egyptians would have been influenced in some way by the godly standards of these righteous men or any other righteous men of that time.

Having more than one version of something is not evidence against the thing, it is more likely to be evidence for it.

Gilagmesh and the Book of the Dead pre-date the Bible considerably. They could all be based on the same stories or legends, but the fact remains that Gilagmesh and the Book of the Dead pre-date the Bible. If I recall correctly from my world literature class, the Abrahamic figure from the Bible was likely from Mesopotamia and lived after the establishment of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Ideas are not static, and the Bible evolved just like any other religion has. It's interesting to trace the roots of polytheism that is apparent in the OT, especially when you look at the Mesopotamian pantheon, and you see that it is likely that the texts of the OT were edited in such a way to make it monotheistic when it was originally polytheistic. This would explain why your God keeps changing his mind all of the time - it turns out there was more than one originally.

 

[Seamus Riley]

...not even Christians can completely agree on morality. So, apparently, either:
a) God is giving different people different morality lessons
b) God is a very bad communicator and who know what God's true morality is?
c) No one follows God's morality. Not even Christians.

indeed, C, emphatically. when christ simplified the law to "love god, love neighbors" christians fail even this. in this humility should be learned. every christian should agree that the law shows us our wrongdoing, gods redemption should then make one grateful and cultivate a desire to live morally. should be enough christians in the world that if this process were evident in each of their lives, it WOULD be a light to the rest of the world. one that speaks for itself without saying things like "my god is better than yours". the bigger god thing seems to work for some people, but its not jesus' teaching and seems to deter at least as many as it attracts.

 

[Tomatoman]

Science is the only reason you've lived to your 60s. Vaccination and antibiotics got you to middle age, and I would venture to bet you've got at least a couple chronic conditions you're being treated for like hypertension, cholesterol, or hyperglycemia. You have science to thank for the fact that you're alive.

Wait. Inan3 is in her 60s? Good grief. I thought she was a rather dumb teenager, or at a stretch, in her early 20s. That's why I was being patient with her. Blimey.

 

[Greg1234]

Gilagmesh and the Book of the Dead pre-date the Bible considerably. They could all be based on the same stories or legends, but the fact remains that Gilagmesh and the Book of the Dead pre-date the Bible. If I recall correctly from my world literature class, the Abrahamic figure from the Bible was likely from Mesopotamia and lived after the establishment of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh by the way, is a Demi-god classified as a giant and is found in the Book of Giants within the DSS. These scrolls also contain most of the Old Testament and Gilgamesh is contemporaneous with figures like Enoch. Gilgamesh is a part of the Old Testament, not entirely exclusive and highlighting their relationship is like attempting to pit the Book of Enoch against Genesis.

Ideas are not static, and the Bible evolved just like any other religion has.

Then state how religion "evolves" without a Darwinian beginning.

It's interesting to trace the roots of polytheism that is apparent in the OT, especially when you look at the Mesopotamian pantheon, and you see that it is likely that the texts of the OT were edited in such a way to make it monotheistic when it was originally polytheistic.

Monotheism and Polytheism are not entirely exclusive. Like light through a Prism, different aspects of the Godhead are highlighted as ruling forces. In the lower trinity you have the holy spirit which is a part of God then you have the "fruits of the spirit". Each of these can be recognized as a god. There are also Demi-gods who are recognized as gods among men through their proximity to God in relation to matter. There again, Monotheism is still maintained.

This would explain why your God keeps changing his mind all of the time -

That doesn't explain it. Hebrews is a good start.

it turns out there was more than one originally.

Actually there was one originally, the uncaused cause.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Greg, I like how when I said that religion "evolves" you had to throw in something about Darwinism. You are quite the troll!

 

[AV1611VET]

Greg, I like how when I said that religion "evolves" you had to throw in something about Darwinism. You are quite the troll!

Isn't Darwin considered the "Father of Evolution" or something? despite the fact that he fathered ten children by inbreeding?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Isn't Darwin considered the "Father of Evolution" or something? despite the fact that he fathered ten children by inbreeding?

The concept of something "evolving" is not exclusive to Darwin. Darwin explained the theory of biological evolution, which is related in principle to other forms of evolution in culture and society but the word "evolve" was around before Darwin.

And you are no one to talk about inbreeding, Mr. "I believe the human race arose out of incest"

 

[Greg1234]

Jesus is not the answer when I am doing scientific research or studying. I am in medical school right now, and all of the research that makes patients' lives better is because of science, and nothing else. I refuse to let dogma trump science.

And yet you could not use the tools being used today if you lost your sense of sight, smelling and hearing which would then make your idea of looking through a microscope to observe microbes an "ancient religion" until the means is obtained to see it. Meanwhile the methods being developed through the future less capable generations give results and the dogma of "ancient biochemistry" is inadequate.

Science is the only reason you've lived to your 60s. Vaccination and antibiotics got you to middle age, and I would venture to bet you've got at least a couple chronic conditions you're being treated for like hypertension, cholesterol, or hyperglycemia. You have science to thank for the fact that you're alive.

Yes science. Just like the only observable repeatable property capable of building the human is intelligence. That's the reason she is alive in the first place.

God's instructions for treating leprosy include smearing blood on your house and doing a chant. Man's instructions are a regimen of antibiotics. I think I'll go with man on this one.

"God's instructions" in the earliest times for treating Leprosy are found in the Nazarene. Technology is not the only thing that advanced or changes. Man is also apart of it and his technology along with his capabilities are also a reflection of his state. They both work hand in hand.

When's the last time God gave us a vaccine? When you talk about "man's understanding", you're talking about science. Don't try and muddy words in order to make it okay for you to accept the science you like and reject the science you don't like.

When was the last time astronomy gave you a vaccine? Why would it give you a vaccine in the first place? How does astronomy not giving you a vaccine relegate it?

Ever heard of the Egyptian Book of the Dead? The Exodus authors ripped it off for the ten commandments.

Actually there's no need to "rip" anything when the message is universal. "The Golden Rule" also breaches the readily seen surface of religion. Secondly, Egyptians maintained a religion in ancient times. The bible was also written in ancient times. The manner of men during that time did not need to "rip" anything and the atom can be studied in Russia or China.

 

[Ar Cosc]

The concept of something "evolving" is not exclusive to Darwin. Darwin explained the theory of biological evolution, which is related in principle to other forms of evolution in culture and society but the word "evolve" was around before Darwin.

And you are no one to talk about inbreeding, Mr. "I believe the human race arose out of incest"

Back in your box, AV!

 

[AV1611VET]

And you are no one to talk about inbreeding, Mr. "I believe the human race arose out of incest"

The human race did not arise out of incest, and you know it.

Marriages with close relatives was eventually placed off-limits by God, due to the gene pool becoming corrupted.

Darwin lived in sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Back in your box, AV!

No Skinner box here --

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, I like how when I said that religion "evolves" you had to throw in something about Darwinism. You are quite the troll!

Creation is integrated with the rest of texts. What's funny is the way materialists think they can jump over a Creation and attempt to give explanations of relevance on religion they base on a materialistic beginning.

 

[Koizito]

The human race did not arise out of incest, and you know it.

Marriages with close relatives was eventually placed off-limits by God, due to the gene pool becoming corrupted.

Darwin lived in sin.

Yes, we, who believe in evolution, know that we didn't arise from incest... But you, a creationist, should believe that, since we all came from only two humans... At some point, there had to be incest for the human race to persist...