God goofs again!

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "normal", but certainly the usual condition that we are aware of on planetary objects is the absence of life. Granted, we only really have our own solar system to go by, and not very many of these planets could sustain life currently.

'Usual' would be a better term. Thanks.

 

[gluadys]

I understand all that. But what then, is the purpose of the story? Why did Jesus first say that "Lazarus sleeps".

He used a common euphemism.

He used the metaphor to at least verbally soften the impact of what happened. But, Lazarus was still dead. In other words the metaphoric term sleep meant exactly the same thing as dead.

Exactly. The disciples probably played dumb because they knew how dangerous it was to go near Jerusalem and were not willing to take the risk.

If the flood story was a myth, or allegory, wouldn't it have been spoken to Noah that way? He could have just contemplated the lessons that might be learned if something like that ever happened and saved everyone all this trouble.

It would not be spoken to Noah, first of all, because the biblical text was not dictated to the human authors. That is an Islamic belief about the Qur'an--that the angle Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad word for word. It has never been a Christian belief about the bible. There is ample internal evidence in the bible, that the authors did not see themselves as divine scribes taking dictation, but as writers.

Furthermore, Noah is a character in the story. The person who wrote the story gave him his name (or took it from oral tradition). Other versions of the story give the principal character different names e.g. Utnapushtim in the Babylonian version. So Noah is part of the myth, not a person outside of the story.

 

[Raistlinorr]

One by one all biblical miracles will be debunked by science. This can be done as they cannot be proven scientifically. The last one will be the resurrection. This certainly is part of the conversation about origins, if critical science is being brought into it.

Life itself is an unprecented miracle that cannot be explained by science. The normal condition in all of the universe is the absence of life.

I agree

God bless!
Raist

 

[Dannager]

I agree

God bless!
Raist

You agree with what? That all biblical miracles will be debunked by science?

 

[shernren]

One by one all biblical miracles will be debunked by science. This can be done as they cannot be proven scientifically. The last one will be the resurrection. This certainly is part of the conversation about origins, if critical science is being brought into it.

Yep, that's right, meteorology is evil as it takes credit away from God for rain, electrostatics is evil as it takes credit away from God for lightning, germ theory is evil as it takes credit away from God (or from Satan) for disease, gravity is evil as it takes credit away from God for holding the universe together. Let's go live in caves and be comfortable once again with the supernatural and believe that rain happens when God overturns big pots in the sky and thunder happens when God shouts and disease happens when demons enter a person's body and the stars and planets are held in place by undetectable little green men.

[rant over]

Y'know, it's really painful when people abuse the word "supernatural" to mean something that science has disproved. The word you are looking for in the context of what you're saying is "superstition" and I believe it would be extremely irresponsible for any Christian to call the resurrection that. What the word "supernatural" really means (and you are right to call the resurrection supernatural) means that the causation of an event can only be traced to events occuring above/below the fabric of "natural"istic relationships in nature. When that happens, science cannot say anything about it. It is like trying to find scientific proof that I am conscious.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. Ironically, by saying that science can prove a particular creationistic hypothesis, people bring that hypothesis straight into the realm of the natural, and out of the realm of the supernatural, and everybody knows that God can't take the credit for purely natural processes, right?

God-of-the-gaps logic is evil.

 

[Gwenyfur]

So...lemme get this straight...

y'all don't believe in the resurrection either?

 

[Dannager]

So...lemme get this straight...

y'all don't believe in the resurrection either?

What makes you think that?

 

[Gwenyfur]

One by one all biblical miracles will be debunked by science. This can be done as they cannot be proven scientifically. The last one will be the resurrection. ...

That statement that several seem to agree with?

 

[chaoschristian]

[/i][/size][/color][/font][/i]

That statement that several seem to agree with?

1=several?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

[/i][/size][/color][/font][/i]

That statement that several seem to agree with?

The only one who agreed with that statement is a YEC and the one who said it is a OEC or something.

The TE's have been arguing that the statement is bogus because the logic behind it is flawed. You are fighting the wrong people here.

 

[shernren]

Okay, I guess I did not make myself clear enough.

No, I am not saying the resurrection is disproved, and God's grace providing, I never will. Else you wouldn't be seeing me here.

What oldwiseguy said was:

"Eventually science will disprove the resurrection, because the resurrection is supernatural." Mind you, that's what he's saying. I'm just quoting.

I'm saying that he's wrong, because:

a) if science can disprove the resurrection, that doesn't make it "supernatural", that makes it "superstitious". I was saying that he was using the wrong word for it.
b) if the resurrection is "supernatural", that doesn't mean it can be disproved by science. It means that science can neither prove nor disprove it: science can't say anything about whether or not it is true.

So I wasn't the one saying that the resurrection will be disproved. But come to think of it, from what you said, oldwiseguy did sound like he was saying that it would be. Hmm.

 

[Raistlinorr]

So...lemme get this straight...

y'all don't believe in the resurrection either?

When I agree that man is trying to say this is what miracles realy where instead of them being from God I suddenly do not believe in the resurrection?

I would think it is those who are trying to explain away God with science that would be the ones thinking like that.

I agree that man will try anything to remove God from the picture. Man will do what ever he can just to say there is no God so that man can continue to live in sin.

If some where in this agreement you took it as my saying there was no resurrection you are mistaken.
Assuming I do not believe in the resurrection from that statement makes me sad. Sad because I can't express a danger I see coming in the future with out some believing I don't believe everything about Christ and what He over came.

God bless!
Raist

 

[Raistlinorr]

You agree with what? That all biblical miracles will be debunked by science?

Debunked might not be that right word for it but it's close enough.

Man in his own "wisdom" will say there is no God and that no miracles took place. For many many year the flood story was seen as literal then it was "proven" there could not have been a global flood maybe only a regional flood instead. This is what I mean and it seems to be what the statement I was agreeing with meant. As oldwiseguy said many see the flood story as not realy happening but merely to be a story to learn from.

Some day man will say that all of the stories and miracles in the bible never realy happened and will have their way to "prove" it to be so.

God bless!
Raist

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yep, that's right, meteorology is evil as it takes credit away from God for rain, electrostatics is evil as it takes credit away from God for lightning, germ theory is evil as it takes credit away from God (or from Satan) for disease, gravity is evil as it takes credit away from God for holding the universe together. Let's go live in caves and be comfortable once again with the supernatural and believe that rain happens when God overturns big pots in the sky and thunder happens when God shouts and disease happens when demons enter a person's body and the stars and planets are held in place by undetectable little green men.

[rant over]

Y'know, it's really painful when people abuse the word "supernatural" to mean something that science has disproved. The word you are looking for in the context of what you're saying is "superstition" and I believe it would be extremely irresponsible for any Christian to call the resurrection that. What the word "supernatural" really means (and you are right to call the resurrection supernatural) means that the causation of an event can only be traced to events occuring above/below the fabric of "natural"istic relationships in nature. When that happens, science cannot say anything about it. It is like trying to find scientific proof that I am conscious.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. Ironically, by saying that science can prove a particular creationistic hypothesis, people bring that hypothesis straight into the realm of the natural, and out of the realm of the supernatural, and everybody knows that God can't take the credit for purely natural processes, right?

God-of-the-gaps logic is evil.

The word I used was miracles, not superstition, or, supernatural.

Like the leaven of the Pharisees the leaven of science will (already has) eat away at the christian faith in miracles within the church. It will eventually reach the resurrection.

Also many of us are defending the miracles of God against the onslaught(er) of science. The flood is one that can be defended actually using science. Immho of course.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The word I used was miracles, not superstition, or, supernatural.

Like the leaven of the Pharisees the leaven of science will (already has) eat away at the christian faith in miracles within the church. It will eventually reach the resurrection. Imo of course.

ok. Why has the metaphysics derived from science and best referred to as scientism risen as a successful competitor to Christianity?

why does the kind of faith represented by a fundamentalist in the US who believes that evolution is wrong, that YECism is right, fail to keep it's own children in their faith when they go to college and learn science?

is a God of the gaps ideal really what God wants us to believe concerning the universe?

good questions, all, but i'm afraid you are incapable of answering them, given past performance i've seen online here when trying to defend a YECist position.

perhaps a reevaluation is in order?
a common thing to do when defeated.

 

[Raistlinorr]

why does the kind of faith represented by a fundamentalist in the US who believes that evolution is wrong, that YECism is right, fail to keep it's own children in their faith when they go to college and learn science?

Same question can be ask of any Christian of faith with kids about keeping their kids in a relationship with Christ. One can not control the mind nor heart of their children. While they live with us we can do what we can to control their actions but not always will they abide by our rules. And any parent who thinks they know every thing their chilld does, thinks or says is fooling themself.

perhaps a reevaluation is in order?
a common thing to do when defeated.

Defeat? I've no problem saying I can't explain exactly how God works or how He has done all of the marvelious things He has. But I'm not going to trust ppl who can be wrong over my Lord. I'm not worried about winning some petty little squabble over who is right because frankly neither side knows exactly for sure until we meet with our Father again anyway. Sure some guy might say his testing proves this or proves that but he is not God.

God bless!
Raist

 

[The Lady Kate]

Also many of us are defending the miracles of God against the onslaught(er) of science.

And suppose you fail, and most (if not all) of the miracles end up debunked. Will you abandon your faith?

Are big showy miracles the only connection you have to God? Without those, is all lost?

The flood is one that can be defended actually using science. Immho of course.

Not successfully, I'm afraid.

 

[shernren]

The word I used was miracles, not superstition, or, supernatural.

Like the leaven of the Pharisees the leaven of science will (already has) eat away at the christian faith in miracles within the church. It will eventually reach the resurrection.

Also many of us are defending the miracles of God against the onslaught(er) of science. The flood is one that can be defended actually using science. Immho of course.

Ok. I was wrong about the exact word you were using. Sorry.

But what I said still holds. What you said was (to quote exactly and inerrantly this time )

One by one all biblical miracles will be debunked by science. This can be done as they cannot be proven scientifically. The last one will be the resurrection. This certainly is part of the conversation about origins, if critical science is being brought into it.

(emphasis added)

Now, I don't get that sentence. It disagrees with everything I believe and know about science and miracles. Can you show me an example of this? An example of a miracle, which science cannot prove, but science has disproven?

If it really is a supernatural miracle (barring the area of the "natural miracle", something we discussed in-depth recently), chances are it makes no real scientific predictions. Just because the prophet's axhead floated on water doesn't mean I expect axheads to float on water all the time, and within a Christian scientific view God is responsible for scientific laws so that there is no illogicity in saying that God caused that particular axhead to float, just as ultimately it is God who causes all other axheads (and other generally over-dense pieces of metal) to sink.

Either something is provable by science, or it is not. We don't have miracles waiting like sitting ducks which can be disproven but not proven. I am aghast that anybody could think Christianity is so weak. Our faith is a beautiful faith and it does not rest on that kind of illogicity.

 

[Gwenyfur]

When I agree that man is trying to say this is what miracles realy where instead of them being from God I suddenly do not believe in the resurrection?

I would think it is those who are trying to explain away God with science that would be the ones thinking like that.

I agree that man will try anything to remove God from the picture. Man will do what ever he can just to say there is no God so that man can continue to live in sin.

If some where in this agreement you took it as my saying there was no resurrection you are mistaken.
Assuming I do not believe in the resurrection from that statement makes me sad. Sad because I can't express a danger I see coming in the future with out some believing I don't believe everything about Christ and what He over came.

God bless!
Raist

Sorry, I probably misread it then, but it did come across that science was trying to debunk the resurrection.

 

[Willtor]

Sorry, I probably misread it then, but it did come across that science was trying to debunk the resurrection.

It never will. Natural science doesn't talk about such things. Whether the resurrection occurred is a matter for philosophy and theology. Certainly, it is an even in history, but it is not something that one can frame in the context of natural science. It's the same thing with the virgin birth. Science can't say that it did or did not happen. It can merely say that, under natural circumstances, such a thing could not happen. But then, theology never argued that it could have happened under natural circumstances. If it could have, it wouldn't have been much an indication of the Messiah.