My Evidence Challenge

[thaumaturgy]

So you admit that you are anti science. Your willing to bend and twist science to hide and cover up the truth. I am surprised that your willing to tell on yourself like that.

Wha...???

Not everyone here is anti science. But it is easy to tell the Atheists that are anti science & try to twist and warp the truth.

It is anti-science to simply unilaterally decree the gospels or the Bible true and work from that point.

Oh why am I even bothering to describe this point to you? You willfully ignored the content.

Creationists usually love science because they love God.

You know I've asked just about every creationist I've talked to on here what their experience is as a scientist and they almost never respond.

None of them will tell me what kind of job they do for a living.

Me? I'm a scientist. I have a doctorate in geology.

So do tell me how much "creationists love science", because I've seen precious little actual appreciation for science from Creationists.

They may "love" science but they don't seem to usually know much about it.

I guess they "love" science like Lennie loved the soft bunny rabbit in Of Mice and Men. They just want to pet the science. It's so soft and nice...

 

[RickG]

Creationists usually love science because they love God.

Then why do they deliberately misrepresent it so much? Has the 9th commandment been repealed?

 

[razeontherock]

Actually Raze you gave me nothing but a vague description of where I could possibly find some stories.

If that is all you need to convince yourself of a point, that's fine.

As I said, I will, when time permits get around to doing your work for you to look for support for your claim.

I'm really trying to be respectful here, and generally you have shown that you deserve that. But here you're wearing that awfully thin!

I gave you names of living people you can contact on CF, who know quite a bit more about this than I do, and you have to insult me with "nothing but vague?"

What could possibly possess you to think "this is all I need to convince myself?" Those are fighting words.

I am not the one with questions here, because I have found my answers. That does not equate to you doing my work for me!

Maybe not the same type of Christian as you, though. Remember, the church orthodoxy was still being molded. That is why Paul had his discussions with the "Jerusalem" church.

Red herring. What's the matter, you're afraid of the truth?

You were the one who claimed non-Biblical knowledge of the specific Chistian Soteriology actually occured.

When you get done with your insults and semantic tirades, let me know. There might even be some chance I could be willing to try to help you at that time, but not if all you're going to do is intentionally twist and distort. The "poor me" card doesn't really play well, either.

For the credulous like yourself it may not take as much. You want the truth to be thus and so, so any story no matter how apocryphal or vague will do fine.

More fighting words; duly noted.

This is not necessarily your life, so you don't have to be skilled in this area. Just an FYI of what your "data" looks like from the side of someone who works with data every day.

Not at all! You refuse to even acknowledge what is most relevant, and insist on harping on something you can't possibly pursue. You dare call this "working with data?" Your peers should be the ones taking offense at this.

IMPORTANT PART:

Now, again, we are back at the most important question for me:

Without any reference to anyone (Christian) you learned through "first principles" about

1. The existance of Jesus Christ (the literal person in 1st century Judea)
2. The nature of this being (100% God and simultaneously 100% man)
3. That the only way to salvation was to accept that this person (Jesus Christ in Judea circa first century AD) died for your sins and is your personal savior

You had that pop into your head through God directly? No Christian or not Bible-related information came around to show you those facts?

(Honestly, I'm asking this in all seriousness. I'm really, really curious if this actually, literally happened to you. In a vacuum you came to understand all of those points.)

Wow. Are you sure you can read? How can I possibly believe you're a "researcher" when you can't even carry on a simple conversation? NDN tribes knew the Gospel before European missionaries tried to evangelize them. That's what I said. We have a whole sub-forum devoted to NDNs, and some of them are far more knowledgeable about this than I am, as you might understand. I gave you the usernames of 2 that have been very helpful.

No, it is not semantic at all! The core of Christian salvation lay in the acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior. That is a very specific person from a very specific time who underwent a very specific process and whose message from God was that only through acceptance of this very specific person from this very specific time and that person's sacrifice you are provided salvation via the Grace of God.

That is not semantic in the least. I am curious where that is obvious outside of the pages of the Bible.

This is absolutely semantics on your part, because i never said anything remotely like that. It's a hobby horse you're stuck on. Get off of it and deal with the reality of what people say.

Now the details are somewhat more nuanced. As you are no doubt aware there was a Protestant-Catholic split that ripped apart much of Europe during the 16th century over the different details of salvation.

If you think it is subtle nuances of Salvation or different details that led to the 30 year's war or even the Reformation, you're delusional. You know too much to merely be wrong. There was corruption, abuse of power, crimes of theft, rape and murder, committed by Church officials, with protection from the Church / State, so there was no hope of improvement nor "reform." It was time to take a stand, or die trying. Once again, it was my ancestors who had to beat some sense into Rome and her sympathizers, because they refused to understand anything else. Don't insult me by pretending it was a friendly chat over tea.

Obviously grace alone factors in all of them and within all of them the acceptance of Jesus as lord and savior is the keystone, but the necessary steps along with that or the details around that are obviously of so much importance that many people died in the 16th and 17th centuries because of this.

I hear things got ugly much more recently too; something about the IRA. Do you have a point? Jesus made it clear His Kingdom is not political, and it won't be established by "the sword." He didn't commission any crusades, inquisitions, or doctrinal disputes. He said let the wheat grow up with the tares, because you can't tell them apart. Surely that's not too deep for you to fathom?

I don't think I "know" anything! I would be glad if God would show us something!

That's kind of the point of being an atheist.

Those are false claims. You are making assumptions, and you aren't open to what God has shown. Why would you expect God to show you more, when you ignore what He has already shown?

And you seem to make the FOOLISH assumption that I never tried.

No, actually I have taken time to attempt to help you and address your concerns because i recognize you have tried. That would be ... different than what you're saying here.

But of course since I arrived at a different point from you, then I (as per usual) must have done somethign wrong.

Make no mistake, we are not talking about "arriving at different points" here. We are talking about something that makes a concretely knowable difference, just as it did in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain knew God rejected him, and he also knew Abel was accepted. How? Not by "arriving at points," I assure you.

Sorry, God was silent when he needed to speak loudest to me, when my ears were open and my eyes were searching the heavens.

God needed now? Praytell, what is it He needed? If you're looking for why Abel's sacrifice could be accepted while Cain's rejected, you need look no further than this one line item here! Although I expect we might find more ...

Why could I wind up different from you?

Oh, yeah, I must have done something "wrong", but we all know God doesn't pay much attention to the details as we've been discussing here earlier...

God is no respector of persons; He could care less if you've got one denom name over your door or another. However He looks on the heart, and sometimes that can be revealed by our words.

I have failed many many times, experiencing God's rejection, and His rebuke. So don't think this is any question of you "winding up different than me," unless you quit. I know how to fail with God quite well, and I know what that looks like ... I only point it out so you can recognize it, and perhaps benefit.

My atheism grew out of an assessment of the impact of faith on my entire life and how it worked with my particular brain chemistry. A crucial review of all I believed coupled with a lot of study and analysis wound me up here.

I also know what success with God looks like, and I don't see you describing that. I will agree that your former Faith was not beneficial, but I will not agree it was the Faith of Abraham, nor of me. I do not pretend to know what the difference is, nor that I can communicate it to you. We have covered substantial insight already though, so it is promising.

God almighty! It's like you are looking for anything to question my points! Did I not mention "Grace" in the following paragraph? Do you honestly think I'm not aware of the Grace part? The only thing we need to do to receive that grace is accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

And by "achieved" I meant "happens". You spent so much time trying to find error in others it amazes me! You must have been a Pharisee in a previous life.

I am impressed at how ignorant you think I am and you arrive at this conclusion by reading each single word and finding which ever special 'code' word you were looking for at that time missing, so you can try to nail my 'error' on that!

Do you feel better for that little tirade? If you care to return to your senses, you will note that your use of the word "achieve" may well reveal your true mindset, and it is much more commonly used than "Grace." We can ALL fall away from Grace incredibly easily, and it is quite natural for us to revert to "achievement mode." You're welcome, but continuing to try to help you while you're abusive is ... not ideal. And the only sort of help that seems reasonable from here is to find why this Gospel didn't work for you, when it did work for me. (Which is almost a line from one of the first songs God ever gave me btw, referring to myself as the one the Gospel wouldn't work for. And I attempted suicide in '78, first filled with the Holy Ghost in '84)

Let me wax philosophical and sound quite like the person of faith you seem to think I can not understand:

I never said you can't understand it. I said it hasn't worked for you yet, (my paraphrase of your own admission) there's a reason for it, and it is not God's fault. As one who knows what it is to struggle with this unseen plight, I have compassion on you. As one who has had success in this area of life and is known for getting results on behalf of others, I see something in you that makes me think we might be fruitful here, but I will have to ask you to beat your sword into a plowshare, and your spear into a pruning hook. (Pruning hooks hurt, btw; it's ok, I promise)

 

[razeontherock]

PART II

I am a true believer that I am not a fundamentally good person. If there's a God then I surely do not deserve his mercy or kindness.

Online it's hard to tell; is this a sincere statement?

If there was a Jesus and God sent him down here to atone (and by atone I mean make "at one" me with God)

I think reconciliation (being made one with) requires far more and there are solid reasons for knowing this, but that will wait til later.

and the only way that happened was for God to allow his beloved creature to be sacrificed on my behalf that would be fantastic! THAT'S a loving act! (Albeit the actual logic behind it is strange and twisted

Ok, if you can see this as Loving that's very good. It was immensely difficult for me to do so, and the first thing that drew me to the Lord was how in any way can Good Friday be "good?" I do agree the logic behind this is very foreign, but it is much more comprehensible to the society in which it took place. Fortunately that society is not so terribly complex, so we can learn to view this from their POV. It is the Spiritual Truths underlying all this that matter!)

I live my life knowing that I am not deserving of kindness, but it is by "grace" that I am shown kindness.

This kindness you speak of, has it been shown to you? That would seem to be the working definition of "success" here, which you seem to completely lack, and I maintain is a correctable condition. I guarantee you, anything I might say on CF cannot compare. It is far more "kind" of me to risk ruffling your feathers and expose Truth, if it results in this success I defined here, rather than simply being a wishy-washy "kind."

I can do nothing but try my best knowing it will never be perfect. It doesn't have to be so long as I recognize that I am undeserving of it an that I merely accept that that grace is freely given to me despite my shortcomings.

THAT is a loving God.

And if you were the recipient of this type of Grace I would agree with you. As it is, I have experienced something like what you write while you have not, and this violates all my notions of justice. Knowing "why" is not enough, but if it is coupled with a desire on your part, we might have the ingredients for "success."

You spend so much time on here acting as if I'm some sort of "cradle atheist" whose never spent more than 14 second thinking about this "Jesus stuff". YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. DEAD WRONG.

No, I asked a series of questions because I thought that might be the most direct way to bring you the type of success I value, and you seem to value also. You should take me at face value; when I make a statement, and also when I ask a question. This has touched a nerve! It'll be ok, but do note your reactions because they tell you something significant that is bound to factor in.

Yet you make it seem so "simple" by spending all your time trying to find errors in my points.

Actually I just read. if God shows me something, I'd better not hide it; I'd be held accountable for that. And there is a little Zen in this approach, in that if we're trying to achieve something, we'll likely fail. Lose your life to find it, and all that. We can both understand not being ready to live until we're prepared to die.

You seem so desperate to find errors in others who wound up on a different path from you that I wonder if you have a grasp of what it means to work on the beam in your own eye.

Yet what you fail to recognize is that any skill I may have in hearing the Lord reveal something in you, or even simply recognizing a possibility on my own, comes from the experience of being in His Presence where the only thing to work on is the horror of my own sinfulness. Whyzzat?

 

[Huram Abi]

If we take Jesus at his Word, that He is Truth, (the ideal or concept of Truth in the largest sense), then it will come again always.

Like the Phoenix, Truth rises again and again from its own ashes.

We are learning to shed the dependancy on allusions to the Sun as we evolve spiritually and intellectually as men.

Truth is dead. Long live the Truth!

 

[Jazer]

Oh why am I even bothering to describe this point to you? You willfully ignored the content.

Yes, I admit, I skiped over what you wrote to fast. I should have been more careful to read all of it before I commented. Sorry

You know I've asked just about every creationist I've talked to on here what their experience is as a scientist and they almost never respond.

My formal training was in theater, stage lighting and set construction. So my formal training is in the physics of lighting. Esp the additive and subtractive color theorys. Also a little bit of trig and things like that. Nothing advanced to be sure, but a lot of practical training in what I did study and learn. Also my mom was a bacterologist and my dad was a medical doctor, so I learned a lot of science from them growing up. Esp a lot of the attitude of science. Who has a right to live and who we should allow to die and that sort of stuff. Normal dinner conversation.

If you want a discussion with people with advanced degrees this may not be the place. You are doing good on this forum if you find someone in the upper 3% of the population in their study and understanding of Science. If it is a problem for you to have to deal with people who are not as specialized as you are. But my finding has been that people who are highly educated tend to lack in general education because they put so much time and energy into their specialized training and education.

There are lots of Creationists on Amazon who have advanced degrees and who have written books. But that may not be of interest to you. Some of the Creationist web page people have advanced degrees from even the best of schools like Harvard and MIT. We discuss what they have written every now and then on here. Even one Creationist (Dr Wise) that studied under Stephen Jay Gould at harvard the very auther of "post neo darwinism" (Punctuated equilibrium). It is rare that those discussions actually go anywhere though. Mostly they just say Creationists do not know what they are talking about. If they have an advanced degree from the best schools or not.

None of them will tell me what kind of job they do for a living.

I mostly was involved with construction work. For example my job would be to make shop drawings (working drawings) from the master drawings for the project. Sometimes I made the jigs and patterns. That was back before they used computers. If you wanted to use a computer then you had to punch holes in a card and feed it into the computer that was the size of a room.

Maybe not advanced but we are the people that get it to work in the real world. We do more then just paint pretty pictures and give it to someone else to figure out how to built it.

 

[Doveaman]

You need to read back throught the thread. One poster indicated that they can be simultaneously true.

I suppose there is some truth to them all if we look at it this way: OEC --> GAP --> YEC.

OEC: Original Creation.

GAP: Destroyed Creation (Planetary Catastrophes).

YEC: Re-Creation.

That is anti-science.

Not if viewed as explained above.

The scriptures cannot merely be declared to be facts thereby requiring that the rest of science be bent, twisted and destroyed to make the evidence fit the "facts".

Scripture and nature compliment each other. The only thing bent is the fallible human interpretation of both.

That is why I would be much more impressed with the Bible as a "science book" if it were able to stand up to just plain old evidence-based observations with regards to the Genesis accounts.

What we observe in Genesis is consistent with what we observe in nature. How we interpret those observations is another matter.

I've heard differently. But then I'm not a Christian so I don't have to fight with other Christians over whether rejecting literal Genesis is part of rejecting Christ (a claim I've heard from some Christian sects).

A literal Genesis is consistent with nature. There is no need to reject it.

There are some literal historical events in Genesis that are describe metaphorically, but they are still literal historical events. The talking serpent, for example, is a metaphorical description of a literal being called the Devil or Satan:

"The great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world" (Rev 12:9).

I guess that means you have to start from the "claim" that Genesis is ipso facto "fact". Without any actual reason to believe that to be the case.

Actually, I have every reason to believe Genesis is fact, but I have no reason whatsoever to believe it isn’t. You may have no reason to believe it is fact, but I do.

Otherwise YEC most assuredly does not make use of facts.

They make use of scriptural facts.

It makes sole use of words from a book of relatively unknown origin

Origin: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16).

and does not correspond to any actual observational facts about reality from the earth's history.

Earth’s history: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1).

I find YEC to be about the most sad hypothesis I can imagine. I'm a geologist by training so wherever I go I love to look at the rocks.

What’s sad is your lack of knowledge of the origin of those rocks and why they even exist in the first place. YEC have that knowledge.

The rich history the rocks tells us about is an absolutely amazing experience if you actually look with some knowledge at them. Even just looking at building stone can sometimes be a transformative experience.

Your knowledge of rock history does not go back far enough, and you don’t have a clue why the rocks even have a history in the first place. To me, that’s sad.

But YEC works to strip all the grandeur from nature. It turns it into a sick joke. A sad pale reflection of a much greater and much more interesting reality.

And atheists work to strip God from nature. They turn it into a sick joke. A sad pale reflection of a much greater and much more interesting reality.

I find YEC to be sad.

And I’m sure YEC find atheism to be even more sad.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I suppose there is some truth to them all if we look at it this way: OEC --> GAP --> YEC.

OEC: Original Creation.

GAP: Destroyed Creation (Planetary Catastrophes).

YEC: Re-Creation.
Not if viewed as explained above.

Never heard that "spin" on it. I guess when you change the meaning of the term "creation" anything is possible.

So are you saying in the Bible that God created the universe two separate times?

What’s sad is your lack of knowledge of the origin of those rocks and why they even exist in the first place.

Bet I've spent more time looking closely at rocks than you have. In fact I'm willing to bet I've spent more time with rocks than you've spent with just about anything in your life with the exception of your bible.

YEC have that knowledge.

No, YEC seldom even have Geology I class level of knowledge. In order to know they'd have to study.

But they do know "hubris" and "ego" to think they need not even actually understand rocks to know "all about them".

Your knowledge of rock history does not go back far enough, and you don’t have a clue why the rocks even have a history in the first place.

And I think you don't know what you are talking about. What did you do your geology PhD in. Me? I was focused on organic geochemistry but I have an extensive background in mineralogy.

What was your area?

And atheists work to strip God from nature. They turn it into a sick joke. A sad pale reflection of a much greater and much more interesting reality.
And I’m sure YEC find atheism to be even more sad.

Interesting. For someone to think all of this is less than 10,000 years old and was made like some potemkin villiage to look by all appearances older and grander than it actually is would arguably be making it into a "sick joke".

When I look at a rock that is several billion years old and I see the mineral phases telling me what kind of forces went into making it the way it is I see so much beauty and fascinating, amazing stuff it blows my mind.

The YEC looks at the rocks, probably couldn't identify a piece of quartz from k-spar, shrugs and says "Hey God, thanks for all this...ummm...dirt stuff that I can stand on. When do I get to go to heaven? There's a lot of nasty sin in this 'degraded' place."

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm really trying to be respectful here, and generally you have shown that you deserve that. But here you're wearing that awfully thin!

I apologize but you clearly have little to no experience in the kind of world of "researchers" that I live in and amongst.

In my world if I were to try the gambit of just saying "Oh yeah, there's a book over there and on a page that starts with the word "Antiquities" you can find the answer..." would not really cut it.

What you have provided me is:

1. The names of two posters and indications that this topic is dealt with in another thread somewhere out here on CF and suggested I start a thread to find out more from the posters there. That's fine. That's sufficient information for me to do the digging. But remember, you brought up the point initially that there is extra-biblical knowledge. I rather assumed it was something you had more acquaintance with so that I would have to do little in the way of digging.

2. YOu provided an abysmally "apocryphal" story about a pygmy at some unknown place and time who came out of the forest knowing more than some missionaries. There was no detail in that whatsoever. It would hardly even stand up as an urban legend the way you presented it.

I gave you names of living people you can contact on CF, who know quite a bit more about this than I do, and you have to insult me with "nothing but vague?"

NDN tribes knew the Gospel before European missionaries tried to evangelize them.

OK, let's travel this path of "evidence" you provide.

First I will find the NDN forum. Here it is, I will link to it (so you can see that I have found it) LINKY

Now I note that within this forum it appears that NDN is not limited solely to indigenous people who knew about the Gospels from non-Biblical sources, but is rather a catch-all name of indigenous peoples. There appears to be over 1700 threads in that forum.

That's a goodly amount of work I will have to do to find the exact information that supports your claims. Do you see where I'm heading?

OK let's go further:

I did find the post by Etsi about Cherokee belief in Jesus before Columbus with the (as per usual) apocryphal story HERE. So I see a story about someone who tells about a time when Columbus came and interacted with the Cherokee and this is a story Edna Chekelelee.

Yes it does speak of pre-Columbian Christianity in America. I don't know as I would consider it particularly impressive. Anecdotal at best. But I am in no way going to declare it false. Maybe if I found a lot more similar stories.

But I'm curious in the same forum why would one need the Thread "How do you witness to native people?" Seems that in some cases that should be redunant if the information is already out there for them "extra-biblically.

But let me revisit your initial response to my question about "evidence" for the extra-biblical knowledge of Christ. You said this:

We have Indians (they use the term NDN) right on CF who descend from such tribes! They have their own sub-forum, (near the very end of the list on the homepage) and i just bet they would love to entertain you starting a thread inquiring about this very thing. Alternatively, i think I remember the names of two that I found to be both very amenable, and well-adjusted to the horrors european "christians" imposed upon their ancestors: AniGequoti and Etsi.

Firstly:

1. You clearly pawned off the evidence on them to provide. "...i just bet they would love to entertain you starting a thread inquiring about this very thing..." (That is not a point you make in support of your contention. You have asked that I start a thread in a different forum.

2. You then point me to Etsi and AniGequoti as being "amenable" and "well-adjusted to the horrors european "christians" imposed upon their ancestors. That too is not a point of evidence of your claim.

Again, I am not slamming you for not being up to the challenge of the kind of evidentiary support for a claim I would have to provide in my world. As a professional research scientist I can often not get one sentence out in a presentation before someone starts hammering me with questions.

It's not an easy way to live, and it's not for everyone. I find it hard sometimes, but in the end I have to defend my point myself if I make them, or failing that admit that the points were not important enough for me in the first place so if I raise them and fail to firmly defend them I am somewhat at a loss there.

What could possibly possess you to think "this is all I need to convince myself?" Those are fighting words.

Clearly the "pygmy" story meant something to you. It was 50% of your defense of your point and it contained almost nothing in the way of details.

50% of your defense of a point containing no details indicates to me that this point is of little real interest to you other than you just feel it is true.

I don't call the pygmy story much. Sorry. Again, no offense toward you. You don't have to care about the points you bring up, but if you bring them up in front of a researcher you will get more pointed questions.

The other half of your evidence was a suggestion I go to another forum and start conversations with some other folks whom you were sure would answer my questions. But you see, you made the indication that such evidence existed. That's, by definition, making me do the work.

Red herring. What's the matter, you're afraid of the truth?

Actually it is not a red herring. It is quite important to understand the evolution of the orthodoxy of Christian thought. I find that to be the most interesting aspect of Christianity. The fact that our current image of Christianity is more "Pauline" than the original Jerusalem church is interesting to me, and the fact that further battles over orthodoxy and heterodoxy continued for centuries really is one of the most fascinating aspects of Christianity!

When you get done with your insults and semantic tirades, let me know.

I am sorry if find your point being repeated back to you to be insulting and semantic. I merely questioned your claim that the meaning lay outside of the pages of the Bible. That indicates extrabiblical knowledge of Christ is available and you further backed that claim up with your mention of NDN's and an exhortation that I might want to go start a thread on that forum, and apocryphal pygmy story.

There might even be some chance I could be willing to try to help you at that time

It is highly unlikely you could "help me" since you and I have vastly different views of what amounts to support of a claim. I am prone more to enjoy discussions with those who will support their claims with more detail.

Again, I'm not faulting you for pointing me in the general direction of the "NDN" portion of the forum. But your description was so vague as to basically be "yeah I made this claim but you'll have to go talk to those guys over there for an explanation and proof of the claim...they know more than I do."

Believe it or not I actually appreciate that point. But again, I don't think of it as a robust defense of your claim to pass it off to someone else. And, by definition, asking me to go there and start a thread would probably be best described as "making me do the work to support your claim".

, but not if all you're going to do is intentionally twist and distort. The "poor me" card doesn't really play well, either.

I am fascinated when a Christian on this board gets upset. Suddenly everything said to them is a "twisting and distortion". You guys should really find new phraseology.

I'm not twisting or distorting your words. If so I don't intend to. But since you clearly disagree with how I am seeing it there is only one choice in your mind as I've noted many times in many of your posts: I am doing something wrong. I am either forgetting a key word in the soteriological chain, or I'm using the wrong word here or there, or now I'm twisting words.

More fighting words; duly noted.

All this fighting! So you think your use of the apocryphal pygmy story without citation, reference or even a time frame or location doesn't make it sound like "credulity" on your part?

It isn't "fighting" words. It's a clear indication that your life isn't in research.

Not at all! You refuse to even acknowledge what is most relevant, and insist on harping on something you can't possibly pursue. You dare call this "working with data?" Your peers should be the ones taking offense at this.

Ahhh, there we go. Feels good to show those teeth doesn't it?

Wow. Are you sure you can read?

Excellent! Vitriol and bile! Love it!

How can I possibly believe you're a "researcher" when you can't even carry on a simple conversation?

When you get into a battle over "evidentiary claims" with someone like me you are bound to maybe be at your working limit. I am a PhD scientist who spent more time in university than you spent between 2nd grade and graduation from high school. I've had plenty of philosophy classes, I'm widely read and a part of my job is working closely with lawyers on intellectual property law. So you'll forgive me for being somewhat pedantic about evidence and claims.

You may not understand one whit about what my work is like, but your hubris and ego shine nicely in your accusation about the quality of my credentials.

It's ironic because what I'm doing here is asking you to provide data, just like a real researcher.

Again it isn't the life for everyone. I think it is apparent that it does not play a significant role in your workday.

If you think it is subtle nuances of Salvation or different details that led to the 30 year's war or even the Reformation, you're delusional. You know too much to merely be wrong.

Oh I most assuredly will grant that politics and interpersonal battles often used religion to drive their most vicious actions, but indeed if you really look at the history of the Church and the various discussions of the Heresies you'll see this is often quite serious stuff.

I highly recommend a stroll through the Catholic Encyclopedia sometime. Try reading about just any of the heresies. Adoptionism, Marcionism, Arianism, Montanism, Ebionites, Montanism, the list goes on. Cathars suffered greatly for their heresy in France.

You see, while I agree that often people did horrible things they really wanted to do for personal reasons but pasted God onto it to help them get their way, there is also a large amount of actual real visceral disagreement within the history of the Church itself.

And if you take your faith seriously, hopefully you can see that in less enlightened times others may have taken their faith very, very seriously and might have lead to excesses in their behavior towards others.

Those are false claims. You are making assumptions, and you aren't open to what God has shown. Why would you expect God to show you more, when you ignore what He has already shown?

That sounds to me like "Credulity". I must accept that what I see is from God to prove to myself that what I see is from God.

God needed now? Praytell, what is it He needed?

If God wished to bring me to him, to atone me to him, if he "loved" me as much as I have been repeatedly told he loves me he "needed" to communicate more clearly.

Just as I can hear so I don't really have to communicate to the deaf person using a means they can understand. If I claim to care about them and need to let them know something, then I will "need" to communicate with them in a way that works.

Otherwise it is debatable that I actually care about them if the point I wish to make to them is sufficiently important.

But this is all silliness anyway. This presupposes God exists. I don't do that. I presuppose that if God exists there will be sufficient evidence to overcome the null hypothesis that there is no God. I have so far failed to see sufficient evidence.

That does not say he does or doesn't exist. It merely says I have failed to see sufficient evidence for me to believe that he does.

God is no respector of persons

For God so loved the world...

; He could care less if you've got one denom name over your door or another. However He looks on the heart, and sometimes that can be revealed by our words.

My heart is open to whomever wishes to look inside. It's all there.

unless you quit.

Well for me it would have been not quitting after a lifetime of failing to perceive. So rather than assume God was going to "ignore" me all my life I chose rather to assume the onus on belief lay in finding evidence for belief rather than starting from the assumption of belief and then looking for confirmation for my bias.

This is another aspect of my life that you may not fully comprehend. In science I work with "inferential statistical tests". This means often I start from a "null hypothesis". Such as "there is no effect from this chemical in this mixture". And test against that.

I have two choices:

I can reject the null or "fail to reject the null". Either way I stand a chance of being in error. If I reject a true null that is one type of error, if I fail to reject a false null that is another type of error.

I can never be perfectly sure that I am not making an error one way or the other.

I also know what success with God looks like, and I don't see you describing that.

God demands we "do it right", eh?

Sorry, after nearly 40 years I got tired of trying. Couldn't get it right. Didn't have the secret handshake. OR maybe I decided that if God was real he'd find a way to reveal himself.

He'd provide me with sufficient evidence to reject the null.

So far it hasn't worked that way for me. Clearly it has for you. And I'm actually glad for you in that area!

I wouldn't want your faith, but by the same token I wouldn't want you to lose your faith either! It provides you with something positive in your life.

 

[TheBear]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

None.

 

[razeontherock]

I don't call the pygmy story much. Sorry.

Neither do I, but it is something, and quite extraordinary. And recall how it started; I said the meaning of the Bible is not contained within it's pages, and you took those semantics to mean one could somehow derive specific soteriology from nature. So i followed your de-rail with a couple instance of people actually learning everything about the Gospel, outside of the Bible. I found it interesting, but no I certainly don't base my Faith on those things. Not any more than I could expect you to base your Faith on my experiences; life just doesn't work that way.

It would be better to clarify my original statement, that the meaning of the Bible is Christ Himself, and not confined to some old book. I really don't see how or why you veered away from that ...

The other half of your evidence was a suggestion I go to another forum and start conversations with some other folks whom you were sure would answer my questions. But you see, you made the indication that such evidence existed. That's, by definition, making me do the work.

I would call that a 99/1 split. Living NDN's you can communicate with, not need to find any forums but merely PM them or search their posts, who would no doubt rather enjoy sharing what they know Lovely people, really.

Again, you're the one needing answers, not me. The onus is on you! I pointed something out to you you may have never known anything about, except for my ears perking up. And really, what would be better; me handing you my best research, or introducing you to people who embody what I'm trying to convey? Clearly, my judgment is that the latter is superior.

Actually it is not a red herring. It is quite important to understand the evolution of the orthodoxy of Christian thought.

All that matters is the original deposit of Faith. Everything else is stinking rubbish.

I don't think of it as a robust defense of your claim to pass it off to

Why in the world would I need to "defend" what i say, robustly or otherwise? The concept is nonsensical. I have a clear conscience before the Lord, and am accountable for what I do with what He shows me. I am not accountable for your decisions. You process info in whatever you see fit.

The topic is Spiritual, not empirical.

When you get into a battle over "evidentiary claims" with someone like me you are bound to maybe be at your working limit.

Again, what could possibly make you think I have entered into any such thing, or ever would? And I discourage you from expecting the Lord to do so. It appears not to be His style.

indeed if you really look at the history of the Church and the various discussions of the Heresies you'll see this is often quite serious stuff.

Yah they weren't called the dark ages for nothing, but this has no bearing on our discussion. You might find it interesting that what I gleaned from reading the Bible (how I learned to read, before age 4) has proven to be Orthodox, which I never found out before stumbling onto CF. And no I'm not "entering into a battle over evidentiary claims," you can take it or leave it as you wish.

I highly recommend a stroll through the Catholic Encyclopedia sometime.

NOT going to happen!! I started reading one portion of one ecumenical council one time, and became violently ill. Their junk is literally poisonous to me.

Try reading about just any of the heresies. Adoptionism, Marcionism, Arianism, Montanism, Ebionites, Montanism, the list goes on.

A Disciple of John the Revelator (also John the beloved and John the theologian) wrote "Against heresies," in which he also divulges everything the author taught him about Revelation. I will try to read that some day, but it will take me some time to work up the nerve to open it, after my experience with reading that Ecumenical Council. I do know enough to know I am free of the major heresies it addresses; really basic stuff, actually. I am curious to compare my own take vs that of John's Disciple, though.

You see, while I agree that often people did horrible things they really wanted to do for personal reasons but pasted God onto it to help them get their way, there is also a large amount of actual real visceral disagreement within the history of the Church itself.

You don't need history for that! Look at the dispute between EO and RC. Easily resolved by, "EO makes sense and RC doesn't."

And if you take your faith seriously, hopefully you can see that in less enlightened times others may have taken their faith very, very seriously and might have lead to excesses in their behavior towards others.

"Excesses." Are all researchers unduly polite? Just last night I read through objections by the Lollards (forerunner to Luther and even Tyndale) and they actually had to tell RC that killing your enemies is not loving them as Jesus commanded. Like I said, really basic stuff.

If God wished to bring me to him, to atone me to him, if he "loved" me as much as I have been repeatedly told he loves me he "needed" to communicate more clearly.

Again, your heart is on display, and this one point here is consistently a BIGGIE with Him! Why suggest the need is His? The need is your's, as my needs are mine. I'm not suggesting this was the lone element out of place, but I will declare with all boldness that this would be enough to keep Him at arm's length.

It merely says I have failed to see sufficient evidence for me to believe that he does.

For all our lengthy dialogue, this is the most relevant bit! Re-state this in terms of your own needs, focus on this singular need convinced it is of life or death importance, and turn to whatever unknown cause caused our Universe to come into existence in the first place. If you can do that ... I know you're not ready to now, but can you say you have in the past?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Neither do I, but it is something, and quite extraordinary.

It is not extraordinary. It is just a story without even "details".

And recall how it started; I said the meaning of the Bible is not contained within it's pages, and you took those semantics to mean one could somehow derive specific soteriology from nature.

Well, that is kind of the point. I mean in any given writing (even novels and fiction) the greater meaning is often that it relates to something outside of the pages.

The Bible is not just a nice story book but the only known outline of the Judeo-Christian God's plan for us and explaining his nature and his relationship to us. ONE of the most important bits being soteriology. But I must also remind you that you took up the banner in defense as well.

Here's what you said in response to my question about extra-biblical knowledge of Christian salvation:

In any event, yes entire groups of people have known the Gospel having no exposure to it from any human source. But if you're suggestion is that all of this is patently obvious, that would mean the Bible is pointless and the Gospel doesn't need to be preached. C'mon mang, you know better.

You made the positive claim that there were people who learned of salvation without exposure to any human source of information.

For many Christians who make claims they often try to use the term "semantics" like a "bad word". Unfortunately when someone says something I can only read what they say, not what is hidden in their heart.

I merley wanted you to support that claim.

So i followed your de-rail

So it's my fault (again)? I'm always doing something wrong. I knew that Christians weren't perfect, just forgiven, but it must be nice to be the one who's never in error.

with a couple instance of people actually learning everything about the Gospel, outside of the Bible.

Again, what you suggested was that I start a thread and talk to a couple posters over in another forum. And you followed it up with an unevidenced apocryphal tale of some pygmy somewhere at some time in support of your claim.

Regardless of how bad I was in "derailing" the conversation, I didn't make any claim about extra-biblical knowledge of salvation.

I thought it was an interesting topic (I have always found that claim interesting) and your defense was not, in any way, out of the mainstream for this type of claim.

I found it interesting, but no I certainly don't base my Faith on those things.

Which is good! I understand that.

But your inability to actually do more than a bit of handwaving in defense of that claim does indicate a level of credulity on your part.

Don't get me wrong, I have beliefs that I can't necessarily support all the time! That's part of being a human!

But your skin got awfully thin when I pressed you on this. You wouldn't last very long in the world of researchers. Again, that's not a slam, that's just a clear statement of likely outcomes.

It would be better to clarify my original statement, that the meaning of the Bible is Christ Himself, and not confined to some old book. I really don't see how or why you veered away from that ...

And again, how does one know about Christ? INITIALLY? Of course there's really only one source: The Bible. I have read about people like Paul who have holy "visions", but since I have never had a holy vision and I know of almost no verifiable holy visions I am somewhat less inclined to believe in them.

I've heard of plenty of people hallucinating. But I know of few verifiable cases in which the holy vision revealed some verifiable truth. Perhaps these stories are out there and it would be interesting to hear them.

The Etsi story I found based on your indication of a thread on CF and a poster named Etsi (hence my doing the actual work) was a nice story. And as in so many cases I don't necessarily buy it simply because I read it somewhere.

You consider this a derail and "semantics" but it is nothing of the sort. Look at the title of the thread: "My evidence challenge".

Evidence clearly means something even to devout Christians. That is why these stories mean something to you. YOu don't base your faith on them, but clearly you feel the "evidence" you provided to support your point is somehow impressive enough. It doesn't even come close to what actual evidence looks like. But that's because the evidence is unnecessary for you or the evidence for you for your faith comes from other things.

I also get your point that Jesus and God's relationship with man is so much more than what is written in the Bible, but remember that the Bible is the gateway.

My original point is and always has been that Christianity and Judaism are quite unique and specific religions among thousands that humans have come up with over the years. Christian salvation is a very unique (and quite important) aspect to the faith. Hence this very unique and very important bit, if it is not simply leveraged out of the writings of a few unknown authors and Paul in the first and second centuries AD then it must have some external evidence for its "truth".

So far I've heard about some indian stories and an apocryphal pygmy story.

I do not consider that sufficient evidence. It is a necessary start.

Am I doing something wrong? sure! I'm failing to believe a couple of vague stories in support of a bias to confirm that Christian Soteriology is a fundamental law of nature that can be inferred from sources completely independent of the Bible.

Again, you're the one needing answers, not me.

Oh Raze, my apologies. I don't really "need" these answers. I just find religion fascinating. I don't have that faith, so I don't actually need these questions answered. You made a positive claim I expressed an interest in the topic since I think it is important, but in reality I don't "need" anything from you.

I just thought maybe you had some interesting insight or evidence for claims you seemed to support.

Wait, I stand corrected, I need to see a true defensor fides somewhere on CF. I so seldom see it in the classical sense. The Church has lost a lot of it's interesting characters with the latter day reliance on "feelings" as opposed to more "scholastic" focus, imho.

The onus is on you! I pointed something out to you you may have never known anything about, except for my ears perking up. And really, what would be better; me handing you my best research, or introducing you to people who embody what I'm trying to convey? Clearly, my judgment is that the latter is superior.

Well, again, you don't understand researchers. Usually if you introduce a researcher to a point you provide them with actual information, and believe me most researchers will dig into on their own beyond that. But if you want to convince a researcher that your point is probably not very valuable then treat it as if it's a toss-off in your own mind.

If it was an important point for you enough to even have a few actual details I might have considered it important too. But if it is not important enough to you (other than to toss out a few suggestions of how I could find out more without you providing any significant clues other than a name or two and the suggestion I go talk to them) indicates to me that it isn't even important enough to the person who made the claim to bother with.

Why should I?

All that matters is the original deposit of Faith. Everything else is stinking rubbish.

Again, the history of the development of Christian thought is hardly "stinking rubbish", but I understand that not everyone likes to know where the faith they follow comes from.

It's like legislation and sausage. One doesn't necessarily want to see how either are made.

And clearly this is a big difference between us: I find the history of how we got from the start of the Christian faith to what we have today quite interesting. Not everyone is interested in that.

Why in the world would I need to "defend" what i say, robustly or otherwise?

Do you really need to ask that question? And you indicated that I am not much of a "researcher"?

Interesting.

You are not required to defend anything you say! It indicates to me that if it isn't even important enough for you to defend what you think, say or believe, then I am inclined to think that it isn't important enough to listen to!

ANd that's sad. I always assume when someone speaks they must have something to say worth listening to unless they go to the extent to tell me (explicitly or implicitly) that what they are saying isn't.

The concept is nonsensical. I have a clear conscience before the Lord, and am accountable for what I do with what He shows me. I am not accountable for your decisions. You process info in whatever you see fit.

Don't mistake anything I've said here to indicate I think you owe anything to Jesus to defend your faith! It is what it is!

The topic is Spiritual, not empirical.

Just like HInduism, New Age Religion, etc.

Again, what could possibly make you think I have entered into any such thing, or ever would?

When you said:

In any event, yes entire groups of people have known the Gospel having no exposure to it from any human source. ...

And I discourage you from expecting the Lord to do so. It appears not to be His style.

It must be comforting to know "His Style".

NOT going to happen!! I started reading one portion of one ecumenical council one time, and became violently ill. Their junk is literally poisonous to me.

Good for you! I understand. But do be aware that much of the core of the Christian faith was hammered out by people in councils throughout antiquity.

You believe in a Triune God? Interesting bit of history behind that. Everything from the various dealings with Adoptionist heresies, Arianism, through the battle over the Johannine Comma in Erasmus version of the Bible.

Again, not unlike sausage and legislation. Not necessarily pretty to see how they are made.

I do know enough to know I am free of the major heresies it addresses; really basic stuff, actually. I am curious to compare my own take vs that of John's Disciple, though.

But you see, even you indicate that you don't want to fall afoul of "heresy". That indicates an orthodoxy exists. It is the development of that Orthodoxy in Christianity that is very fascinating.

Again, your heart is on display, and this one point here is consistently a BIGGIE with Him! Why suggest the need is His?

For God so loved the world.... Maybe that bit?

The need is your's,

OK, so if I want to be a believer I have to start by being a believer and look for confirmation of that bias.

Sorry, that isn't how I want to process information.

 

[cupid dave]

We are learning to shed the dependancy on allusions to the Sun as we evolve spiritually and intellectually as men.

Truth is dead. Long live the Truth!

For men who rely upon thinking correctly before making decisions, the Truth is their salvation.

Fantasy is based upon lies or errors, while those who live outside of Reality are mad men.

 

[Doveaman]

Never heard that "spin" on it. I guess when you change the meaning of the term "creation" anything is possible.

The meaning hasn’t been changed. Original creation and re-creation both involves creation.

So are you saying in the Bible that God created the universe two separate times?

Nope.

I’m saying there was an original creation followed by global catastrophes that eventually led to the extinction of prehistoric life-forms. This was then followed by a re-creation of the earth to inhabit new life-forms, including Adam.

Bet I've spent more time looking closely at rocks than you have. In fact I'm willing to bet I've spent more time with rocks than you've spent with just about anything in your life with the exception of your bible.

Your study tells us what. Bible study tells us why.

Why the rocks are is more important than what the rocks are.

No, YEC seldom even have Geology I class level of knowledge. In order to know they'd have to study.

You study Geology. YEC study Theology.

But they do know "hubris" and "ego" to think they need not even actually understand rocks to know "all about them".

They don’t need to understand rock composition or rock age, they just need to understand why rocks exist. Why they exist is an understanding you obviously don’t have despite your many years of rock study.

And I think you don't know what you are talking about.

And I think you don't know what I am talking about.

What did you do your geology PhD in. Me? I was focused on organic geochemistry but I have an extensive background in mineralogy.

That’s nice.

What was your area?

Theology.

Through my many years of study and experience I have learnt that God created the rocks and sustains the rocks:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...All things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Col 1:16-17, Gen 1:1).

Interesting. For someone to think all of this is less than 10,000 years old and was made like some potemkin villiage to look by all appearances older and grander than it actually is would arguably be making it into a "sick joke".

For someone to think all this was not created by an intelligent being would arguably be making it into a "sick joke".

When I look at a rock that is several billion years old and I see the mineral phases telling me what kind of forces went into making it the way it is I see so much beauty and fascinating, amazing stuff it blows my mind.

It’s a pity you think it all happened randomly and not by intelligent design.

The YEC looks at the rocks, probably couldn't identify a piece of quartz from k-spar, shrugs and says "Hey God, thanks for all this...ummm...dirt stuff that I can stand on. When do I get to go to heaven? There's a lot of nasty sin in this 'degraded' place."

The “nasty sin” is when people look at the beauty of rocks and conclude it all happened randomly instead of giving God credit for His work.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your study tells us what. Bible study tells us why.

ANd that "Why" is "Because God done it". Got it. Must be enriching.

Why the rocks are is more important than what the rocks are.

In your opinion. But at least one of us understands a bit more about rocks.

You study Geology. YEC study Theology.

This is true! And sadly the YEC then usually proceeds to tell the geologist all about geology.

That's the part that pains me.

They don’t need to understand rock composition or rock age, they just need to understand why rocks exist.

Well, if they plan on telling me much about the history of the actual earth they will have to know about the rocks (which most don't). If all they want to tell me is "I don't care what's here, God just made it all because he Did." well, then that's fine and dandy.

Why they exist is an understanding you obviously don’t have despite your many years of rock study.

And again knowing that the rocks exist "just because God made 'em" doesn't really fulfill me.

Theology.

So, again, we are back to how you know anything about rocks. Because right now I'm guessing your "knowledge" is limited to your favorite "why", which as far as I can tell is simply: "Because God did it".

That can, technically apply to anything. Did you study theology long to learn that?

Through my many years of study and experience I have learnt that God created the rocks and sustains the rocks:

Seems like that one would be relatively quick to cover in theology class.

For someone to think all this was not created by an intelligent being would arguably be making it into a "sick joke".
It’s a pity you think it all happened randomly and not by intelligent design.

Actually it is far from "random". I could go into a long discussion about how physics and chemistry works and how wholly natural processes result in the most amazing structures. Ever see a quartz crystal? Did God build every quartz crystal or can they grow wholly naturally?

The “nasty sin” is when people look at the beauty of rocks and conclude it all happened randomly instead of giving God credit for His work.

I actually suspect only one of us here has actually taken significant time to learn the real beauty of rocks. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that rocks are just...rocks....to one of us. Hmmm?

What's your favorite mineral? Why? (I mean apart from the fact that "God made it for you").

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

For men who rely upon thinking correctly before making decisions, the Truth is their salvation.

Fantasy is based upon lies or errors, while those who live outside of Reality are mad men.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Doveaman]

ANd that "Why" is "Because God done it". Got it. Must be enriching.

No, the “Why” is God created the rocks so that physical man could have something solid to stand on.

I’m sure there are other reasons, but something solid to stand on is certainly one of them

In your opinion.

It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

But at least one of us understands a bit more about rocks.

And one of us understands a bit more about why God created the rocks.

This is true! And sadly the YEC then usually proceeds to tell the geologist all about geology.

That's the part that pains me.

Well, if the claims about geology contradict the biblical claims they should speak out.

Well, if they plan on telling me much about the history of the actual earth they will have to know about the rocks (which most don't). If all they want to tell me is "I don't care what's here, God just made it all because he Did." well, then that's fine and dandy.

As far as I am concerned, the YEC/Science debate has nothing to do with the Bible. YECs claim the universe is young, and for some reason you guys think this is a biblical claim. It isn’t.

The Bible tells us “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This does not in any way deny the existence of an old universe.

“In the beginning” may very well be referring to the beginning of events related to the beginning of modern human history. The Bible is about the modern history of Man, it is not about the prehistory on dinosaurs. One history follows the other. The Bible focuses on the later.

And again knowing that the rocks exist "just because God made 'em" doesn't really fulfill me.

“God made ‘em” for a reason and you are not going to find the answer by just looking at rocks, that’s for sure.

So, again, we are back to how you know anything about rocks.

Personally, I believe the rocks are old. And this does not contradict a literal Genesis in any way.

Because right now I'm guessing your "knowledge" is limited to your favorite "why", which as far as I can tell is simply: "Because God did it".

That can, technically apply to anything. Did you study theology long to learn that?

“God did it” is a term you guys like to use to denigrate creationists. However, theology goes into great detail as to why "God did it".

Actually it is far from "random". I could go into a long discussion about how physics and chemistry works and how wholly natural processes result in the most amazing structures. Ever see a quartz crystal? Did God build every quartz crystal or can they grow wholly naturally?

How about God enables them to grow naturally and therefore can intervene at any time to alter the way they grow. Natural growth does not deny the existence of God. All things natural have a beginning. This is where “God did it” is rightly applied:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...All things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” ( Gen 1:1, Col 1:16-17).

I actually suspect only one of us here has actually taken significant time to learn the real beauty of rocks.

I have learnt that the beauty of rocks is by intelligent design.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that rocks are just...rocks....to one of us. Hmmm?

What more is a rock other than a rock? There may be different types of rocks, but they are still rocks.

What's your favorite mineral? Why? (I mean apart from the fact that "God made it for you").

Actually every mineral in the universe is my favorite. They all remind me of the beauty that exist within God:

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20).

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, the “Why” is God created the rocks so that physical man could have something solid to stand on.

Just so long as man gets all the focus.

I’m sure there are other reasons, but something solid to stand on is certainly one of them

Well, yeah, I mean, "build churches" is another reason for rocks.

And one of us understands a bit more about why God created the rocks.

So the "reason" the rocks exist is primarily so man can stand on something (along with a few other ancillary reasons).

Again, what an enriching world view!

Well, if the claims about geology contradict the biblical claims they should speak out.

Yes, because when observational science accidentally contradicts the words of a book written by an unknown hand from an unknown time further translated and re-translated across languages then the observational science must surely be in error!

As far as I am concerned, the YEC/Science debate has nothing to do with the Bible. YECs claim the universe is young, and for some reason you guys think this is a biblical claim. It isn’t.

Ummm, try talking with a YEC. For them it is very much a Biblical issue.

It arises from a literalist reading of Genesis. It may not align with your particular sect's view of what Genesis says, but there are your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who believe it very much is a Biblical issue.

Again, the scientists didn't bring the Bible into it, ergo you can't lay it at our feet.

The Bible tells us “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This does not in any way deny the existence of an old universe.

And you will NOT GET A FIGHT FROM ME OVER THAT! This is an issue you need to take up with your co-relgionists, because there are a lot of them out there who think you are in error and that Genesis should be read literally ergo the earth is rather young.

it is not about the prehistory on dinosaurs.

Except that it clearly states in the creation account:

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So that would appear to include dinosaurs as well. Unless you do not believe that dinosaurs were living creatures.

But again, I don't care how you interpret Genesis. Clearly you are not a hyperliteralist as many YEC's are, so I don't really have a debate with your interpretation of Genesis.

You can interpret it however you like. It is not common among YEC to interpret it particularly "liberally" or to interpolate between the lines.

“God did it” is a term you guys like to use to denigrate creationists.

Well, is it not true? There is no "mechanistic detail" in the creation ex nihilo story that many YEC and creationists rely on. If God did it, then what else is there to know? Or even "learn" form that?

How about God enables them to grow naturally and therefore can intervene at any time to alter the way they grow.

Again, I'm quite alright with your view on this. When I was a believer I always thought that the greatest way to think of God was the guy who got it all started, set the laws and pushed the go button and it goes.

No watchmaker would be considered good if he made a watch that you had to constantly move the hands to the proper time in order to tell the time.

Natural growth does not deny the existence of God.

Correct. It can, however, obviate the need for God. Not that it necessarily does, just a happy coincidence for folks like me. If God is unnecessary to explain why the sun shines or why a crystal grows that's fine.

Gap Theology (not GAP creation, but Gap Theology, the "god of the gaps" hypothesis) is dangerous ground for the faithful because God's role gets smaller with each advance in knowledge. But that seems to be the way of things.

As we learn more we don't need to rely on "God did this" to explain why something looks the way it does.

All things natural have a beginning. This is where “God did it” is rightly applied:

And this is the "First Uncaused Cause" argument. You clearly state that all things in nature have a beginning, so that lets you off the hook for explaining God's beginning. Well, we know he just simply always existed. How do we know that? Well because God is outside of nature ergo...

Unfortunately it simply replaces one question with a much bigger, unanswerable question. I don't see how that is an improvement.

Again, if it brings you comfort and joy, fine! It's what faith should do! Enjoy it! I just don't see it as being particularly more intellectually robust than natural materialism.

I have learnt that the beauty of rocks is by intelligent design.

And I have learned to be fascinated know that this crystal formed solely by all-natural chemical means without anyone "making it":

What more is a rock other than a rock? There may be different types of rocks, but they are still rocks.

OUCH! That hurt!

Here, how does this sound? What more is a gospel than a story book? There may be different gospels but they're all just story books, right?

What is "God"? There may be different gods but they're all just gods, right? Zeus, Aharu Mazda, Al'lah, Odin...

Did that feel good to you? (Luke 6:31)

Look, clearly your theology doesn't crash against science. There's no real need for "intelligent design", but it doesn't get in the way of science. YEC (as most people practice it) does crash against science. It tells scientists that all their knowledge is predicated on either ignorance or lies.

Actually every mineral in the universe is my favorite.

STANDARDIZED SARAH PALIN ANSWER! Yay! This means you don't even have to know the name of even one mineral! You love them all!

How about this mineral?

That's Autunite. It's a uranium mineral. It's very radioactive. I wouldn't "love" it too much!

How about this mineral:

That's Illite. It's a clay mineral. Pretty darn boring in hand specimen. The only reason I find clay minerals "lovable" is because I have to work with them and I studied under one of the clay mineralogy "big names" in grad school, otherwise I find them hard to "love".

It's easy to love something like this:

Epidote. That's one of my favorites. Why? Well it makes nice looking crystals and it's one of those sorosilicates which only barely get covered in mineralogy classes. Usually they mention sorosilicates, show you a piece of epidote and move onto the inosilicates.

Ahh, but I digress. Clearly you are too busy standing on the rocks looking up to heaven when God provided you with some really cool stuff to look at, but it does require looking under your feet sometimes.

They all remind me of the beauty that exist within God:

Even the clay minerals?

Are you familiar with this mineral?

It's name is "cummingtonite". That is not a joke. It is real.

 

[razeontherock]

You made the positive claim that there were people who learned of salvation without exposure to any human source of information.

As a way of deferring to a misunderstanding of what I said, yes I did. And you'll notice developing that theme did eventually get us back on track, as I'd hoped. What you don't seem to notice is I didn't encounter any info via research, so i didn't present any info as research. Make sense? So all your comments about "not surviving in a world of researchers" really don't come to bear.

But your inability to actually do more than a bit of handwaving in defense of that claim does indicate a level of credulity on your part.

We're not talking about cold hard facts here, but people. People with their own experiences and thoughts. I find it odd that you classify that as "hand waving," and fail to see the existence of people as factual.

And again, how does one know about Christ? INITIALLY?

Ah, now we are back on track. Not so hard, eh? You are positing book knowledge, and I am pointing out this is not what the word "knowledge" in the Bible refers to, AT ALL. Is this news to you? Let's develop this idea via your area of expertise. Nice pics of minerals. My Mom lives in "the mineral capitol of the world." I helped dig out a foundation for an addition, beginning in 7th grade. You know more about those minerals than I do even after your post, and me reading it I do not have Biblical "knowledge" of them. You have likely held them in your hand, and perhaps done other things with them (not that I know what one does with a mineral ) to give you some experiential type of "knowledge," as the Bible uses the term.

Due to this difference, if I were to make some false claim about these minerals, you could spot it a mile off. There would really be no debate between us on the issue, no matter how I might protest. We simply don't have equal footing!

So you assume we "know" Christ via the Bible, and I point out we don't and can't. We know Christ by His Person, and this is EVIDENCE. He has already told us it will not stand up in court so we shouldn't bring it there. He has already told us we will not establish His Kingdom by violence so we shouldn't go that route, and yet a certain sect has a long history of inciting violence anyway, and based on some current posts they aren't done yet.

He has greatly classified the evidence He gives us as personal, and interpersonal within the Church, the Kingdom of God established on earth. So you'll notice this thread is about evidence and I participate, and about challenge, which I do not participate in. Please compare this to the several forms of challenge you have issued me, (including implied) and notice I have plainly refused. And when pressed, my answer does not change; so you might as well forego that part, eh? Science and Spirit are different realms, and one cannot analyze the other. They can both follow the same types of logic though, and this is significant.

Of course there's really only one source: The Bible. I have read about people like Paul who have holy "visions", but since I have never had a holy vision and I know of almost no verifiable holy visions I am somewhat less inclined to believe in them.

IOW, you have no EVIDENCE. Yes, I know. No, I don't pretend to understand the difference between you and I on this matter. It puzzles me, and when I see a potential explanation, I share that observation. This upsets you, much like we see Cain's reaction to his Brother. That's ok, I understand. I also know that "if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Gen 4:7, God speaking to Cain)

So progress can be made. It begins with recognizing that like I am in no position to argue with you over minerals, you are in no position to argue with me over the Kingdom. Which does not mean that I necessarily know what's under your feet And just like if I were to try to ask you specifics about what I dug up while helping to dig out a foundation for my Mom in say 1978, you might not be able to give a clear answer.

That does not mean that you don't actually know your minerals!

I've heard of plenty of people hallucinating. But I know of few verifiable cases in which the holy vision revealed some verifiable truth. Perhaps these stories are out there and it would be interesting to hear them.

Again your use of the term "verifiable." Without entering the Kingdom of God, how do you expect to verify? What would that look like?

We have a whole sub-forum devoted to dreams and visions. Most posters on CF consider it quackery, and would like to see it all disposed of. I started 2 or 3 threads there, one of which is actually edifying and does convey Truth, which has helped many. I need to post another one, and I've been procrastinating. The value of modern revelation is always understanding of what Scripture is intended to convey, or personal guidance on matters Scripture doesn't address. (So yes this means Biblical stories and understanding the pictures it paints and visions it recounts should be more interesting to you)

The Etsi story I found based on your indication of a thread on CF and a poster named Etsi (hence my doing the actual work) was a nice story. And as in so many cases I don't necessarily buy it simply because I read it somewhere.

Again I didn't tell you about it so you could "research," but because I expect that via PM people here can both tell you more, and possibly tell you how you might find out more yet. You choosing not to go the quick and easy route doesn't give you valid reason to say I make things hard on you. In any event don't go thinking I expected you to "buy it because you read it somewhere."

the evidence for you for your faith comes from other things.

This!

I also get your point that Jesus and God's relationship with man is so much more than what is written in the Bible, but remember that the Bible is the gateway.

Ok, let's explore that idea! Obviously somebody must agree with you, we have the website biblegateway.com, and it has some translations I like not available on blueletterbible.com, which I usually use.

The Bible is one means of introducing God's ideas into our minds. There are many others, but personally I do feel the Bible is the best avenue. Yet what good is it until Scripture "comes alive" in you? I expect you can't answer the question, because it is nonsensical to you, never having had any such experience. So why did God teach me His meaning when I tackled the Bible while learning to read, later to make it "come alive" in me to such an extent I don't need Faith merely for the question of His existence, while you have had no such experience? Surely intellect has nothing to do with it, and neither does effort. A PhD didn't just fall in your lap!

So I'm positing that the Bible alone is not the gateway; there must be something more, otherwise we cannot account for this difference. What makes it "come alive?"

My original point is and always has been that Christianity and Judaism are quite unique and specific religions among thousands that humans have come up with over the years. Christian salvation is a very unique (and quite important) aspect to the faith. Hence this very unique and very important bit, if it is not simply leveraged out of the writings of a few unknown authors and Paul in the first and second centuries AD then it must have some external evidence for its "truth".

So far I've heard about some indian stories and an apocryphal pygmy story.

I do not consider that sufficient evidence. It is a necessary start.

Am I doing something wrong? sure! I'm failing to believe a couple of vague stories in support of a bias to confirm that Christian Soteriology is a fundamental law of nature that can be inferred from sources completely independent of the Bible.

I've left a bigger chunk of your post intact here. While there's a few different loose ends in this much content, I have to wonder of your overbearing concern is expressed in just this much? Let's find out.

"Soteriology" is expressed throughout the Bible, not particularly advanced by the Gospels, and by no means invented by Paul. King David might as well be considered the greatest theologian on the subject ever, while he was still a shepherd:

"The Lord leads me in the paths of righteousness for His Name's sake." Period! Everything else just helps our human weaknesses accept that simple yet bold Truth, but nothing else qualifies it further, adds to it, or changes anything. THAT is Salvation, in all it's theological terms, and I really don't think you can get any Christian of any flavor to say otherwise. Where all the disagreement comes in is, "how do we do that?" Hopefully you perceive my intentional use of irony, that this is not something WE do. (I'll add that EO will phrase things like this along the lines of "how is that lived out, and what does it look like?" I find that to be much more sensible)

I think our species has the idea of a Savior, from sources outside the Judeo-Christian traditions, and pre-dating it. The idea of our own responsibility playing some part doesn't seem out of the ordinary either. So as flattering as your suggestion of uniqueness may be, i think I have to reject that in favor of the evidence. Are you getting the idea that most of the bickering amongst Christians about "soteriology" is way off base at best, and most likely sin?

Wait, I stand corrected, I need to see a true defensor fides somewhere on CF. I so seldom see it in the classical sense. The Church has lost a lot of it's interesting characters with the latter day reliance on "feelings" as opposed to more "scholastic" focus, imho.

Classic and scholastic does not agree with the values extolled in Scripture. Neither do i rely on feelings, nor convey such. God will normally operate by giving us what we seek, in a way we do not expect. This tests our humility, to see if we will receive, or if we need to be humbled. You've heard "choose carefully which rut you pick, because you'll be in it for the next 20 miles?"

Well, again, you don't understand researchers. Usually if you introduce a researcher to a point you provide them with actual information ...

Why should I?

Wow you've devoted a lot of time and attention to a very simple point! You would pursue this because you want to know.

All that matters is the original deposit of Faith. Everything else is stinking rubbish.

Again, the history of the development of Christian thought is hardly "stinking rubbish", but I understand that not everyone likes to know where the faith they follow comes from.

Remember when I was talking about how silly it would be for me to attempt to argue minerology with you? You are being equally silly here, by pretending to know more about "the Faith I follow" than I do. You might question why I abhor "doctrinal development," or a number of other productive lines of thought, but what you imply here goes nowhere.

It's like legislation and sausage. One doesn't necessarily want to see how either are made.

And clearly this is a big difference between us: I find the history of how we got from the start of the Christian faith to what we have today quite interesting. Not everyone is interested in that.

The church today is largely apostate. The path followed to get there doesn't particularly interest me, no.

It indicates to me that if it isn't even important enough for you to defend what you think, say or believe, then I am inclined to think that it isn't important enough to listen to!

You still fail to recognize the topic of our subject matter; it is Spiritual, not physical research. The word "defense" implies an attack, which is a spiritual phenomenon. Such an environment does not produce fruit into God, unless and until He were to put a sword in my hand and tell me to ride with Him. (I take that to be metaphor btw, but do not depend on my own understanding for my Salvation)

Attacks are not worth countering. This is quite a bit different than what you're looking for, you'll note!


Don't mistake anything I've said here to indicate I think you owe anything to Jesus to defend your faith! It is what it is!

 

[razeontherock]

PART II

Good for you! I understand. But do be aware that much of the core of the Christian faith was hammered out by people in councils throughout antiquity.

You believe in a Triune God? Interesting bit of history behind that. Everything from the various dealings with Adoptionist heresies, Arianism, through the battle over the Johannine Comma in Erasmus version of the Bible.

Why pretend I'm ignorant of this? And yet your assertion of "hammered out" is false. Triune God, in Isaiah (circa 1000 years before any Christian council) and WELL over 4,000 years before:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" 3 distinct references to God. A fascinating language study!

"For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us." (Isaiah 33:22)

I reject your notion that Christians invented Trinity or any aspect of legitimate Christian doctrine. Interesting choice of words, "hammered out." God expressly forbid the use of hammers! (And any implement of human doing) And what He was getting at with this train of thought, is EXACTLY what you are speaking to!

But you see, even you indicate that you don't want to fall afoul of "heresy". That indicates an orthodoxy exists. It is the development of that Orthodoxy in Christianity that is very fascinating.

The standard is the "faith once delivered to the Saints." Abraham had it, Moses fell short. Enoch and Elijah are shining examples. Whatever development you are fascinated by, is not what God looks at.

For God so loved the world.... Maybe that bit?

When Moses demanded a name for God, so he could tell those who questioned him who sent him, God addressed the fact that He has no need. God's Love is not a need He has, it is a state of being. I'm really not sure if God is so insistent on us not thinking He has a need, which is suddenly interesting to me. What I DO know, is He is fiercely insistent that we recognize our OWN need, and that we see it is the need of a Savior. Not a crutch, but a stretcher. I have a Sister who is not only a PhD, but tops in her field. I know that recognizing any such thing is well nigh impossible for her, so you'll forgive me if I wonder if you ever made that distinction.

OK, so if I want to be a believer I have to start by being a believer and look for confirmation of that bias.

LOLWUT? Go back up to the part where you ask about the initial knowledge of Christ. It does not follow the pattern you deride here. Some of us do need to start the process with the intellect, but violating integrity as you suggest is never a step forward.

Kudos for your last line, easing a tense thread with some humor.