Would you change your opinion

[pmh1nic]

The problem is your internet stories do not describe dramatic conversion experiences. All of the stories you provide are of people seeking for answers. The dramatic, 180 degree change of direction, conversions I've alluded to (including my own) happened in a moment of prayer, in many cases without any prior seeking or searching for answers.

Here is a story of a man delivered from drug addiction:
http://www.roadtosalvation.org/sos%20stories/adamlambert.htm

A woman delivered from drug addiction and a life of crime:
http://www.heinvites.org/story.php3/0174.html

The testamony of someone involved in the occult:
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/jeffharshbarger.html

The dramatic story of another life changed through the love of Jesus:
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/shelia.html

My own life was dramatically turned around in a similiar fashion on January 6, 1972 when I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

Again, you used the word "fact", I didn't. Please define the word fact. I don't know if you ever read "Varieties of Religious Experience" but it delves into the whole concept of what it means to "know" something and the idea that anything can ultimately be considered a "fact". Taken to the extreme you really don't "know" anything.

The Bible translates a number of different Greek words to the English word "know." There is an objective knowing and a subjective, internal knowing. The legal/historical evidence provides an level of objective evidence and my spiritual experience provides a level of subjective "evidence" that causes me to believe, know that Jesus is the resurrected Lord and Savior. I can't prove that via the scientific method (repeatable, experimental verification) if that's what you require for something to be considered a fact.

Why do you believe the elements of the Nicene creed you quoted? Why do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for your sins and was raised from the dead? Do you believe these things literally happened or is this figurative or symbol speech?

I'll be out of town for a week but I'll be sure to check back for your reply when I get back.

As for the creation accounts in Genesis, I've also spent a lot of time studying the issue and the accounts do not contradict one another. Genesis two is NOT a correction of Genesis one. The interpretation of Genesis two that changes the single day event of the creation of man as given in Genesis one to some extended period of time requires a twisting of the meaning of the words and context that doesn't conform to the standard rules of interpretation and it's done for the sole reason of making the Biblical creation story line up with the theory of evolution. The six day creation story with God resting on the seventh day is used as a model for our living.

My main focus is the special creation of man on the six day. The possibility that there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 where the heavens and the earth were originally formed seems reasonable to me based on what I've read about the so-called "gap" theory. But there is no doubt in my mind that man was created in one day (the sixth day of Genesis 1) and nothing in Genesis 2 or anywhere else in the Bible that I know of that contradicts that interpretation of the account of man's creation.

 

[billwald]

But the can't be scientific evidence of creation until there is a scientific theory of creation. So far, all I have seen is a misuse of statistics and probability.

 

[lucaspa]

The problem is your internet stories do not describe dramatic conversion experiences. All of the stories you provide are of people seeking for answers. The dramatic, 180 degree change of direction, conversions I've alluded to (including my own) happened in a moment of prayer, in many cases without any prior seeking or searching for answers.

Some of them did. But you weren't using internet stories, either. Not until this post. I had your personal testimony, and I have said that I have heard identical personal testimony from Muslims, Mormons, and others. Apparently you simply don't want to believe that; it conflicts with your prior beliefs. However, you can go to Mormon temples and Muslim mosques and listen to personal testimonies yourself.

Again, you used the word "fact", I didn't. Please define the word fact.

Your statement was phrased as we phrase "facts". There was no "I believe ..." in it. You changed it later and I'm happy with the change. Why are you still bringing it up?

I don't know if you ever read "Varieties of Religious Experience" but it delves into the whole concept of what it means to "know" something and the idea that anything can ultimately be considered a "fact". Taken to the extreme you really don't "know" anything.

I don't agree that anything can ultimately be considered a "fact". Fact is a repeated observation. In discussions of theism fact refers to observations by anyone under approximately the same circumstances.

And yes, any search for truth ultimately depends on statements that you believe to be true but may never be able to prove are true. The two most basic ones are " I exist" and "I am sane." However, you and I agree that those two statements are true, so we can move on from there.

The Bible translates a number of different Greek words to the English word "know." There is an objective knowing and a subjective, internal knowing. The legal/historical evidence provides an level of objective evidence and my spiritual experience provides a level of subjective "evidence" that causes me to believe, know that Jesus is the resurrected Lord and Savior.

Yes, your experience provides your subjective "knowing". There are 2 caveats to your experience:
1. It may not have been of Jesus. It might have been a drug triggered physiological reaction that had nothing to do with any external supernatural being. Or it may have been a delusion. I'm not saying it was, I'm saying that we can't eliminate those possibilities. Therefore, I allow that the experience is convincing to you and constitutes overwhelming evidence to you. What I'm saying is that the experience does not constitute evidence in the objective (outside of you), intersubjective (available to anyone under approximately the same circumstances) sense.
2. There are reasonable doubts associated with the legal/historical evidence. In our legal system, a "reasonable doubt" is any doubt for which you have a reason. And reasonable people have doubts about the legal/historical evidence. Therefore it also does not constitute objective, intersubjective proof.

But since not everyone shares your experience, you don't have "proof" I can't prove that via the scientific method (repeatable, experimental verification) if that's what you require for something to be considered a fact.

That science works with a subset of personal experience that is objective and intersubjective is why science is so very reliable. And yes, even in our legal system, objective, intersubjective "fact" is considered the most reliable and other forms of evidence -- eyewitness testimony -- is considered less reliable.

I'm not trying to talk you out of your faith. I'm only trying to keep you from imposing your faith on other people because you mistakenly think of it as "fact".

Why do you believe the elements of the Nicene creed you quoted? Why do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for your sins and was raised from the dead? Do you believe these things literally happened or is this figurative or symbol speech?

I trust the accounts of what happened. Now, I don't think it is necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin. If Mary wasn't a virgin, I don't think it makes any difference. The only reason Mary's virginity is in there is because it is the only way to rule out paternity of any human. If Mary was not a virgin, then in those days there is no way to tell that God is the father.

Paul, I would remind you that many early Christians didn't even belief Jesus was the literal son of God. They thought Jesus was the adopted son of God. That didn't make any difference for Jesus' death, resurrection, or atonement for sins.

As for the creation accounts in Genesis, I've also spent a lot of time studying the issue and the accounts do not contradict one another. Genesis two is NOT a correction of Genesis one.

Hmm. I never said Genesis 2 was a correction of Genesis 1, did I? I said it was a completely different story that contradicts Genesis 1.

The interpretation of Genesis two that changes the single day event of the creation of man as given in Genesis one to some extended period of time requires a twisting of the meaning of the words and context that doesn't conform to the standard rules of interpretation and it's done for the sole reason of making the Biblical creation story line up with the theory of evolution.

Again, you are arguing against a position I'm not taking. I'm saying that Genesis 2 clearly states that the heavens and earth were created in a single day instead of the 4 days depicted in Genesis 1. I'm saying the order of creation in Genesis 2 is different from that in Genesis 1 and that the method of formation of Adam, animals, and birds is different from Genesis 1.

What I am saying is that the view that Genesis 2 is simply an expanded day 6 of Genesis 1 does not make any sense and doesn't conform to the standard rules of interpretation.

The six day creation story with God resting on the seventh day is used as a model for our living.

No, it's not. The authors of Genesis 1 set creation up in 6 days to give a totally unnecessary justification for God commanding the seventh day as the Sabbath. We don't need the justification. It's enough that God commanded the Sabbath. All we need is Exodus 20:10.

My main focus is the special creation of man on the six day. ... But there is no doubt in my mind that man was created in one day (the sixth day of Genesis 1) and nothing in Genesis 2 or anywhere else in the Bible that I know of that contradicts that interpretation of the account of man's creation.

Genesis 1 says that God spoke men and women (plural for both in Hebrew) together into existence in Genesis 1:26-27. And this was done after the birds and animals were created. But Genesis 2 says that one man -- Adam -- was formed from the dust (not spoken into existence), then animals and birds were created, and then one woman from one of Adam's ribs. That contradicts your interpretation of the creation of humans.

What you are really saying is, of course, that you want the Bible to have the special creation of humans and not have humans evolve from some other species. And I am saying that the contradictory creation stories prevents us from using the Bible this way and using the Bible to reject the overwhelming evidence for the evolution of humans we have found in God's Creation.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

You left out the choice for Theistic Evolutionist to change their opinion to Atheistic Evolution :b.

 

[lucaspa]

You left out the choice for Theistic Evolutionist to change their opinion to Atheistic Evolution :b.

Not really, because that change has nothing to do with science. That change has to come from outside science. The poll refers to scientific evidence.

 

[pmh1nic]

Hi Lucaspa,

I'm back from a wonderful vacation in the Caribbean .

None of the stories in the internet sources you provided discuss a dramatic, one moment in time "conversion" experience. They were all a process of an intellectual/spiritual pursuit to find the truth. The experiences I posted (including my own) have to do with moment of spiritual awakening that dramactically changed the lives of the person involved. In my case it was a spiritual, mental and physical experience.

Again, you used the word fact and maybe that's what YOU read into my statement. That's understandable since in the same sentence I spoke of the fact of the death of the founders of other religions but since we don't have the body of Jesus (I believe the body of Mohammad and Joseph Smith are in tombs) and the disciples claim He was resurrected I can only believe (although it's not a matter of blind faith) that Jesus rose from the dead.

As far as my experience is concerned we can speculate about an infinite number of possible reasons but my observation as not only the observer but the subject outweights all of those speculations.

The legal/historial evidence can't prove the existence of God or that Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be. It's subject to individual interpretation but there are objective components to that legal/historical evidence. The conclusions drawn are not whole subjective.

What was thought to be scientific fact has changed over the centuries. Even today the view of our universe and the physically laws and properties of the universe are changing. Science isn't sure if it's near the beginning or end of understanding the physical universe. Science is just beginning to understand that there are dimensions of both time and space they we were unaware of scientifically a hundred years ago.

I'm interested in "why" you "trust the accounts". Why would you doubt the virgin birth but believe in the resurrection?

I believe what you said was the account in Genesis two contradicts Genesis one AND that the Genesis two account allows for more than a one day creation of man. That is not only a contradiction of Genesis one as you have stated but a correction of the Genesis one account. You're creating the contradiction by saying that the Genesis two account says the heavens, the earth and all that was in them were created in one day which is not what Genesis one says. If that's what you believe then Genesis two is a contradiction of and (if you hold that the Genesis two account indicates a one day creation) a correction of Genesis one account which clear provides six days for the creation of the heavens and the earth with man being created on the sixth day. You can have it both ways.

You go on to make claims that the author has some hidden agenda to justify your six day, one day contradiction. Genesis one says nothing about God speaking man into existence. The speaking taking place in Genesis 1:26 is a conversation within the Godhead "Let us make man in our image" and has nothing to do with God speaking man into existence. The description of man's creation is given in chapter 2.

 

[lucaspa]

Hi Lucaspa,

None of the stories in the internet sources you provided discuss a dramatic, one moment in time "conversion" experience. They were all a process of an intellectual/spiritual pursuit to find the truth. The experiences I posted (including my own) have to do with moment of spiritual awakening that dramactically changed the lives of the person involved. In my case it was a spiritual, mental and physical experience.

You are repeating yourself. And not all of the experiences on the web were like that. I posted two from one of the websites that was a dramatic change of direction. One was from Christian monk to convert to Islam. That's a pretty dramatic change, and it happened in a day.

Once again, , there are severe problems with trying to use the wham-bam expereinces as an offensive "proof" of Christianity and the falsify of other religons.
1. Most Christians have not had a dramatic, one moment in time "conversion" experience. They have undergone the process of intellectual/spiritual pursuit to truth. In order to use your dramatic conversions as "proof" of the exclusivity of Christianity being right, you have to say that the slow process is not valid. If you say it is valid, then you admit that the experiences of Muslims etc. are valid. But if you say they are not valid, then you invalidate the experiences of most Christians, too!
2. Since only a very small minority of people have the dramatic conversion, you invite people to consider them invalid. For instance, the ones you have given us -- including yours -- involve people with drug or alcohol addiction. We know that these chemicals influence and change brain chemistry. Your "conversion" can be dismissed by critics as an atypical drug reaction. Since you have pegged the validity of Christianity to those experiences, now all of Christianity gets dismissed. Now, I'm not saying your conversion was due to a weird drug reaction. I'm saying that your argument makes a drug reaction a very plausible and believable idea. After all, even most drug addicts don't have conversions.

So, you can use your personal experience as defense against attack by atheists. You can say that the experience convinced you that God exists. Since the atheist doesn't have your experience, he can't say yours is not valid. However, if you go running off to Muslims or Mormons and tell them their religion is wrong because they don't have the "dramatic" conversion, they will, quite rightly, say that their slower experience is valid and yours is due to drugs, not God.

That's understandable since in the same sentence I spoke of the fact of the death of the founders of other religions but since we don't have the body of Jesus (I believe the body of Mohammad and Joseph Smith are in tombs) and the disciples claim He was resurrected I can only believe (although it's not a matter of blind faith) that Jesus rose from the dead.

Neither Islam nor Mormonism depends on their founders being resurrected. That's simply not part of their claims. Neither Mohammed nor Smith are ever claimed to be anything other than mortal humans. So the issue of tombs is irrelevant.

What is claimed by both is that Smith and Mohammed had personal contact either with God or a representative. In the case of Islam, the evidence of the encounter is supposed to be the Quran, directly dictated by Allah in a style that Mohammed could not have written. The Quran is the miracle in Islam. In Mormonism, the angel gave a special revelation about Jesus and God to Smith. These were supposedly on special plates (which are now lost). Notice that both Mohammed's and Smith's lives were dramatically changed and went off in a new direction.

I'm not saying your belief in a risen Jesus is either blind nor wrong. I'm not saying that Islam or Mormonism is correct (altho South Park did have an episode where Mormonism was the correct answer ). I'm saying that all 3 are beliefs and I don't have the objective, intersubjective evidence to say that any of the 3 are wrong. I can say which I believe is true and my reasons for that choice; but I can't say that the reasons are overwhelming.

As far as my experience is concerned we can speculate about an infinite number of possible reasons but my observation as not only the observer but the subject outweights all of those speculations.

I never said it shouldn't convince you. I'm simply challenging your claims that it should convince everyone else.

The legal/historial evidence can't prove the existence of God or that Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be. It's subject to individual interpretation but there are objective components to that legal/historical evidence. The conclusions drawn are not whole subjective.

You have objective evidence that a person named Yeshu ben Joseph lived and preached in first century Palestine. What you don't have is intersubjective evidence for is that Yeshu ben Joseph was the Christ. Despite what is in the surviving gospels, most of the people in first century Palestine were not convinced. Therefore there is not proof beyond a "reasonable doubt".

IOW, there is enough evidence to defend Christianity against attempts to disprove it, but not enough evidence to prove Christianity.

What was thought to be scientific fact has changed over the centuries.

What is considered accepted theories change, but the facts don't. Facts are the world's data. Theories are explanations of the facts.

Even today the view of our universe and the physically laws and properties of the universe are changing. Science isn't sure if it's near the beginning or end of understanding the physical universe. Science is just beginning to understand that there are dimensions of both time and space they we were unaware of scientifically a hundred years ago.

1. Theories are changing. Facts aren't.
2. There are some things in science we are sure of. The earth is not flat. The earth is not the center of the solar system. Each species was not specially created. The earth is not 6,000 years old. Protein is not the hereditary material.
3. There may be additional dimensions of spacetime. Here is where you get confused about fact and theory. String Theory postulates these additional dimensions, and from that postulate gets some interesting mathematical results. But none of that is fact. Instead, String Theory has gotten a lot of publicity and that publicity has not always stressed that String Theory has never been really tested against facts. There is a rival to String Theory called Loop Quantum Gravity that has a lot less publicity but a lot more success. It doesn't have extra dimensions.

I'm interested in "why" you "trust the accounts". Why would you doubt the virgin birth but believe in the resurrection?

1. Mark doesn't talk about the virgin birth. So it's not in the earliest accounts about Jesus.
2. The accounts in Matthew and Luke differ considerably and show more the influence of countering Jewish claims about Jesus' paternity than they do about historical accuracy. (details about the resurrection follow the same pattern for these two also)
3. Many of the early Christians were Adoptionists and didn't subscribe to the virgin birth and the idea that Jesus was the genetic son of God. If the evidence for this was overwhelming there could not have been such a large Adoptionist fraction.
4. As a corollary to #3, none of the factions in the early Church questioned the Resurrection.

I believe what you said was the account in Genesis two contradicts Genesis one AND that the Genesis two account allows for more than a one day creation of man.

1. I said that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, both read literally, do contradict.
2. Genesis 2 says that what took 6 days in Genesis 1 took only 1 day. Genesis 2 does not give a timetable for how long it took from the creation of Adam to the creation of Eve. However, considering that God had to form all the animals and birds, Adam has to name them all, and Adam has to decide one by one that they are not a sufficient helpmeet, it seems difficult to fit all that in 24 hours.

You're creating the contradiction by saying that the Genesis two account says the heavens, the earth and all that was in them were created in one day which is not what Genesis one says.

I'm not "creating" the contradiction. I'm simply pointing out a contradiction that already exists. If you are reading both literally. Since there is a contradiction, my conclusion is that this is a huge hint that God didn't want or meant to have them read literally.

You go on to make claims that the author has some hidden agenda to justify your six day, one day contradiction. Genesis one says nothing about God speaking man into existence. The speaking taking place in Genesis 1:26 is a conversation within the Godhead "Let us make man in our image" and has nothing to do with God speaking man into existence. The description of man's creation is given in chapter 2.

In all other instances of creation in Genesis 1, the "Let there be" is then followed by the instantaneous appearance of the entity in question. There is no reason to think it would be different in 1:26. What's more, in the Hebrew, the "male and female" are plurals of both. So Genesis 1:26-27 has God making men and women together. This is consistent with how plants, animals, and birds are made in Genesis 1. A population poofs into existence, not just 2 individuals.

Now, in Genesis 1 there is no "Godhead". That hasn't been discovered/invented yet. I submit that you are not listening to the text here, but imposing your preconceptions on it. Genesis 1 uses the Hebrew plural for "god" -- elohim -- to refer to the creating agent. A really literal translation would be "In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth ..." Elohim is used until Genesis 2:4, where the designator for the creator suddenly becomes "yhwh" in Hebrew. This sudden transition is found thruout the Pentateuch and is one of the signs that the source of the text moves from the P source (elohim) to the J source (yhwh). In Genesis 6-8 you can see the shifting from verse to verse as the two sources are interwoven by the editor to make one (contradictory) narrative.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm#flood

 

[Catholico]

I as a devout Roman catholic (unlike most other catholics),

Swear by Young Earth Creation!


Avemaria,

C.

 

[ab1385]

Im loving the results so far, its almost funny, yet at the same time makes me sad.

I want each to imagine that they uncover some piece of scientific evidence that shows that the other side is correct, and you are wrong.

OK, so the original poll says you have been shown to be wrong would you change your opinion? About 75% of creationists here would ignore the evidence which SHOWS that they are wrong, and cling to their beliefs, rather than realise that their take on scripture may have been wrong.

However, of evolutionsists, who stick to their beliefs just as much as creationists, 90% WOULD change their mind and accept the science that has shown them to be wrong. Why is it that creationists are so unwilling to accept that they were wrong, if it was shown to be so?

If the evidence for evolution, as in final, conclusive, undeniable proof, then creationists would either be wrong in their interpretaion of scripture, or their faith would be untrue, and would have been shown to be so. So why would you not accept it if it was shown to be so? Could you really not accept that you may have interpreted things wrong? Is your pride that big?

 

[RVincent]

The options are incomplete.

I hold to the "gap theory", but this does not mean I believe in evolution.

Evolution depends on millions of years of time in order to exist.

But millions of years do not depend on evolution in order to exist.

In other words, we can't have evolution without time, but we can have time without evolution.

 

[pmh1nic]

lucaspa

I keep repeating myself because you keep making erroneous statements. ALL of the testimonies I linked to were people who had a dramatic moment in time conversion experience similiar to my own. The ones you sighted did not. I'll stop repeating my objection when you stop repeating your erroneous claim.

I also understand the problems with the wham-bam experiences a "proof" of a claim. They're not going to serve as ultimate proof but they are evidence of the life changing power that faith in Jesus death and resurrection can have on an individual. I was quite sober at the time of my conversion. Are you denying that Jesus can cause these types of dramatic changes in the lives of individuals?

You are correct that neither Islam or Mormonism depends on their founders being resurrected, Christianity does. Without a resurrected Christ Christianity is null and void. It's resurrected founder sets Christianity apart from ever other religion. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life..." precisely because Christianity is like no other religion but relies on a resurrected Savior as being the redeemer of mankind.

As far as the legal/historical evidence is concerned, the people closest to Jesus, the ones that claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ, the ones that were closest to the miracles He performed WERE CONVINCED, so much so that they sacrificed their lives to proclaim Him as Messiah, Savior and Lord.

The most important aspect of the birth of Christ is its miraculous nature. I don't understand why the differences in telling all the details of the story or the fact that one of the Gospels doesn't recount anything about the circumstances surrounding His birth would lead you to believe it didn't happen. What motivation would there be for the gospel writers to lie about one miraculous event (His birth) and yet tell the truth about His resurrection. One of the main teachings of Jesus was honesty and truth. This message was the most important message ever conveyed. Do you really think the gospel writers would lie about His virgin birth?

You are creating the contradiction in Genesis by saying that the word day which is used to convey a twenty-four hour period of time in Genesis one HAS to be used interpreted the same way in Genesis two when the word is clearing being used (as it is elsewhere in the scriptures) to mean a period of time. When you insist on that interpretation you are creating the contradiction.

Also, please check the wording in Genesis 1:26. It is NOT "let there be" it is "let us make man." The "us" in Genesis one is the Godhead. You also have the Spirit of God as part of the Godhead in Genesis one.

 

[pmh1nic]

ab1385

The poll question really isn't that clear. Would you change your mind about what based on what?

There is nothing man can provide as "evidence" that would ever convince me that Jesus Christ isn't who He claimed to be, Savior of mankind and Lord of Lords. There is nothing science can provide as evidence that will convince me that man isn't a product of special creation and not the result of macro-evolutionary change (man from monkeys). Whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old really isn't that critical to me and I think there is some text in the Bible that suggest that the earth may in fact be much older than the timeframe in which man has existed.

 

[Curt]

Anything other than a creationist that wouldn't or an evolutionist that would the rest are deceived. God knows exactly how He created everything that exists He told us it took 6 days exactly like He said it did, and that 6 days is so well anchored in all Scripture that it is foolishness to doubt it.

 

[lucaspa]

Anything other than a creationist that wouldn't or an evolutionist that would the rest are deceived. God knows exactly how He created everything that exists He told us it took 6 days exactly like He said it did, and that 6 days is so well anchored in all Scripture that it is foolishness to doubt it.

What about Genesis 2:4 where "God told" us it took only one day? It seems God told us two different things. That should have been a blazing neon sign to you that Genesis 1-3 is not to be read literally.

Yes, God knows how He created. And He left the evidence of that how in His Creation. He created by evolution. Anything else is denying that God created and is worshipping a literal interpretion of the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

There is nothing man can provide as "evidence" that would ever convince me that Jesus Christ isn't who He claimed to be, Savior of mankind and Lord of Lords.

Nothing? What if we found authenticated documents from the disciples that said they spirited away the body and that Jesus did not Resurrect?

There is nothing science can provide as evidence that will convince me that man isn't a product of special creation and not the result of macro-evolutionary change (man from monkeys).

This is where you make a false distinction. "Science" isn't separate from God. What does science study? The physical universe, right? What did God create? The physical universe. Therefore, for you, science isn't separate from God, science is the study of God! Francis Bacon and others have understood this (see below). So, when "science" says that humans were not specially created, it is God telling you that humans were not poofed into existence. You should listen to God, don't you think?

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa

I keep repeating myself because you keep making erroneous statements. ALL of the testimonies I linked to were people who had a dramatic moment in time conversion experience similiar to my own. The ones you sighted did not. I'll stop repeating my objection when you stop repeating your erroneous claim.

I posted some of them that had a dramatic conversion. You ignored them. Ignoring them doesn't make them erroneous.

I also understand the problems with the wham-bam experiences a "proof" of a claim. They're not going to serve as ultimate proof but they are evidence of the life changing power that faith in Jesus death and resurrection can have on an individual. I was quite sober at the time of my conversion. Are you denying that Jesus can cause these types of dramatic changes in the lives of individuals?

I'm not denying that God can. But that isn't the argument you are making. That you were sober simply means the drug action had already taken place. Evidence of that is that you apparently never had any drug withdrawal or subsequent cravings. That argues for a weird chemical reaction, not divine intervention. I would accept as more convincing evidence of God's action that He provided comfort and support during withdrawal and subsequent cravings, not altered normal human biochemistry.

See the problem with your claim as "evidence" outside yourself? Yes, you are convinced because it happened to you. Therefore it is good evidence as defense against attack by atheists. But it is not good evidence as a way to convince others.

You are correct that neither Islam or Mormonism depends on their founders being resurrected, Christianity does. Without a resurrected Christ Christianity is null and void. It's resurrected founder sets Christianity apart from ever other religion.

All modern religions. However, several past religions -- Mithraism in particular -- had a resurrected founder. You will find a common atheist argument is that Christianity is simply plagiarized Mithraism. Augustus Caesar is claimed to have resurrected in front of over 10,000 people. Do you believe that? Why not? Many more witnesses. Maybe they just weren't as fanatic and insane as the disciples.

Just because Christianity is unique among modern religions in this aspect, however, doesn't make it correct. After all, Islam is unique in having a document claimed to be directly written by Allah. The Bible makes no such claim and only misguided Biblical literalists make the claim for it. So, why wouldn't that unique aspect of Islam make it correct?

As far as the legal/historical evidence is concerned, the people closest to Jesus, the ones that claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ, the ones that were closest to the miracles He performed WERE CONVINCED, so much so that they sacrificed their lives to proclaim Him as Messiah, Savior and Lord.

Right. And you can use that as evidence when Christianity is attacked. You can point out that no one can find any secondary gain to their ministries -- no accumulation of wealth, power, harems, etc. What it comes down to is that Christians without personal experiences of God have to trust these accounts. However, as you are admitting, there is room for reasonable doubt about the accounts. As I stated above in reference to Augustus' resurrection, maybe the disciples were just insane. Which puts us back to the Mexican standoff or hung jury when it comes to deciding if the whole world ought to be Christian.

The most important aspect of the birth of Christ is its miraculous nature. I don't understand why the differences in telling all the details of the story or the fact that one of the Gospels doesn't recount anything about the circumstances surrounding His birth would lead you to believe it didn't happen.

I gave you the reasons. Remember, Mark doesn't discuss it at all.

If you look at some of the Apochryphal gospels, particularly the Infant Gospel of Thomas, you find the extreme lengths Christians were willing to go to to embellish the birth.

What motivation would there be for the gospel writers to lie about one miraculous event (His birth) and yet tell the truth about His resurrection.

The Resurrection establishes Jesus as Messiah. However, Jesus doesn't fit the pattern or prophecy of what the Messiah was. Therefore the motivation is to change Jesus' early life so that it now fits the story as much as possible. Now, my personal opinion is that this is not necessary. Yahweh has a track record of not doing what humans expect or picking as His representatives humans that other humans would have picked. So, I don't have a problem with Jesus not fitting any of the prophecies. IMO, Jesus could fit none of them and it wouldn't matter one way or the other. However, for some people -- you apparently being one -- it does matter. The accounts were written for those like you.

Remember, there were a number of early Christians who rejected miraculous birth and simply regarded Jesus as fully human and then the adopted son of God. This theology has many attractions and some really interesting implications. Again, that the early Christians were divided on this topic tells me the evidence was not overwhelming. When the 400 gospels were reduced to 4 bythe men who did so, I'm not surprised that only one view was retained.

One of the main teachings of Jesus was honesty and truth. This message was the most important message ever conveyed. Do you really think the gospel writers would lie about His virgin birth?

Yep. For the reasons given above. Now, to them, the word "lie" is probably very harsh and not applicable. They didn't set out to deliberately mislead people. Instead, they were providing what they thought were counterarguments to the attacks by the Jews of the time and to cover up areas that they thought would keep people from believing. Their motives were good, but the end result may have been untruth.

You are creating the contradiction in Genesis by saying that the word day which is used to convey a twenty-four hour period of time in Genesis one HAS to be used interpreted the same way in Genesis two when the word is clearing being used (as it is elsewhere in the scriptures) to mean a period of time.

I'm sorry, but the word in Genesis 2:4 is a different word. It is "beyom". The prefix "be" is added to "yom" to make a new word that is translated "in the day". I have looked at four Hebrew-English dictionaries and all of them have that definition, with the added explanation that "beyom" is a word that means immediacy, not an indefinite period of time. So "beyom" can mean "in the moment" or "immediately" but it can't be stretched to go beyond a 24 hr day.

When you insist on that interpretation you are creating the contradiction.

It's not an interpretation; it's an accurate translation. The words themselves create the contradiction.

Also, please check the wording in Genesis 1:26. It is NOT "let there be" it is "let us make man." The "us" in Genesis one is the Godhead. You also have the Spirit of God as part of the Godhead in Genesis one.

There is no "godhead" in Genesis 1. That is your retrodiction back and is making the text mean something it didn't. The authors of Genesis 1 had no concept of "godhead" because they had only one god -- Yahweh. The use of "us" is indeed puzzling but you can't force your meaning on the text.

Yes, it is "let us make". However, in Genesis 1:6 we have "let there be a fimament" and in verse 7 we have "And God made the firmament". We have the same in verses 14 and 16 with God making the sun, moon and stars. Now, are you saying God "made" these entities from the dust of the earth, or did He simply create them ex nihilo? All literalists I have seen say this means creation ex nihilo. Yet you illogically claim differently for 1:26-27.

Verses 11, 20, and 24 all have "let the earth [or wathers]bring forth". YECs take this as God poofing these creatures into being, not forming them from dust. Again, to say that 1:26-27 is different is to be inconsistent within the text.

I notice you skipped over the plural men and women created in 1:26-27.

 

[lucaspa]

However, of evolutionsists, who stick to their beliefs just as much as creationists, 90% WOULD change their mind and accept the science that has shown them to be wrong. Why is it that creationists are so unwilling to accept that they were wrong, if it was shown to be so?

If the evidence for evolution, as in final, conclusive, undeniable proof, then creationists would either be wrong in their interpretaion of scripture, or their faith would be untrue, and would have been shown to be so. So why would you not accept it if it was shown to be so? Could you really not accept that you may have interpreted things wrong? Is your pride that big?

You've answered the question at the end of the first paragraph when you said "or their faith would be untrue". If their faith would be untrue, of course they would not listen to any evidence!

What you have found, independently, is what I have found: creationists are no longer worshipping God, but worshipping a literal interpretation of the Bible. If that interpretation is wrong, their god is kaput and their faith is wrong.

The tragedy is, of course, that the faith of Biblical literalists is already wrong because the faith is in the interpretation of the Bible, not God.

 

[pmh1nic]

lucapa

My "knowing" of Jesus isn't totally based on "documents" it's based on a personal relationship with Him. I have known Him as the loving, mercy Savior who cleansed me from my sins, filled my life with joy, peace and meaning. No discover of new documents can change that.

God created a physical universe from nothing. That defies one of the basic laws of science (1st law of thermodynamics). The Bible claims that He made man in a supernature way. God created the physcial universe but He is separate from it and one aspect of our being (our human spirit) is the means by which we interact with that realm of the spirit that science doens't deal with.

I didn't ignor I just recognize and can differentiate between instanteous, miraculous conversion that produces a dramatic change from an intellectual pursuit that convinces someone of something and produces a gradual change in their behavior and believe system.

"I'm not denying that God can. But that isn't the argument you are making. That you were sober simply means the drug action had already taken place. Evidence of that is that you apparently never had any drug withdrawal or subsequent cravings"

You say you are not denying that God can but then go on to question whether it really happened. This is exactly the argument I'm making. He CAN through the transforming power of meeting the resurrectioned Christ and I haven't seen it repeated in any other religion precisely because they are not founded on the fact that the founder of their respective religions are ALIVE.

No Mexican stand-off. It is absolutely illogical to think that these men would forfeit there lives for something the KNEW was a farce, that offered them no chance to gain the things that other men would lie to obtain. They knowingly followed there Savior and Lord, bearing their cross ultimately to death.

Your reason for believing the resurrection and not the virgin birth also defies logic. Ultimately you're saying these men who were follows of the One who preach righteousness, holiness and truth would lie about His virgin birth. For what purpose. Producing counter arguments? So creating a white lie was o.k. with them? I don't think so. Was the telling of the virgin birth story (a lie) important to propagating the gospel? Would they risk tarnishing the gospel message by including this lie? It doesn't make logical sense.

Jesus clearly told the disciples that He would suffer, die, be resurrected and later return to establish His earthly kingdom. He fulfilled some of the OT prophecies and spoke of His return to fulfill the others. Jesus opened the disciples understanding of exactly what the OT prophecies concerning Him.

Genesis one is clearly discussing 24 hour days (evening and morning). Genesis two's "in the day" can mean a period of time as it does in other places in the scriptures and clearly should be understood that way since Genesis one CLEARLY indicates that the creation took six literal, 24 hour days. You are creating a contradiction where there is none. You feel force to create this contradiction because of your need to try and reconcil the Genesis creation acount with science. It's a twisting of the clear meaning of Genesis one and two to make that happen.

The Godhead is seen in Genesis one. You misquoted Genesis 1:26 in claiming God said "let there be" in creating man. That is not what Genesis one says. It says "let us make man" and the us is the Godhead. John chapter 1 helps make clear who the "us" is in Genesis one. In addition you have mention of the Spirit of God in Genesis. You also have a detail description of the creative process used in creating man. It is not just a matter of God speaking. It includes forming man out of the dust to the ground....and taking a rib from his side to "build" a women.

I didn't skip over anything. The word can be translated man or men and the Genesis two account clearly indicates it was one man Adam and one woman Eve. This is another instance where you feel the need to reconcil the Genesis account with what you believe science teaches about the creation of man forces you to create a contradiction between Genesis one and two.

 

[lucaspa]

My "knowing" of Jesus isn't totally based on "documents" it's based on a personal relationship with Him. I have known Him as the loving, mercy Savior who cleansed me from my sins, filled my life with joy, peace and meaning. No discover of new documents can change that.

Then there is nothing that can change your mind, is there? If the documents were found, you wouldn't consider your experiences to be hallucinations? Now, so far your description of this personal relationship has been a one-time intervention in your life. It hasn't discussed ongoing communication with Jesus. If the experience is limited to the one-time experience, then everything you describe above can be attributed to the drugs changing your brain chemistry. I'm not saying that is the case, but I am saying that you need to be aware of and consider the possibility in dealing with non-theists.

God created a physical universe from nothing. That defies one of the basic laws of science (1st law of thermodynamics).

All the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply within the universe. They don't apply to getting a universe to begin with. So, this particular argument for God creating the universe is not valid. That doesn't mean God did not create the universe, just that this particular argument for it doesn't work. It's a misstatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The Bible claims that He made man in a supernature way.

But the evidence God left us in His Creation says He created our physical bodies by evolution. Unfortunately, the two creation stories in Genesis 1-3 contradict each other. That means that neither one can be looked on as the how God created. They are theological stories intended to tell theological truths, not historical documents. We look at God's Creation to let God tell us how He created.

God created the physcial universe but He is separate from it

Apply this, then. One of the major problems with Creationism -- from the perspective of being a Christian -- is that creationism denies this! It won't accept that God really did create.

and one aspect of our being (our human spirit) is the means by which we interact with that realm of the spirit that science doens't deal with.

I can accept this. However, your statements above haven't dealt with this. The only one that has was your statement that you have a personal relationship with Jesus.

I didn't ignor I just recognize and can differentiate between instanteous, miraculous conversion that produces a dramatic change from an intellectual pursuit that convinces someone of something and produces a gradual change in their behavior and believe system.

Yes, you did ignore the examples I gave of dramatic changes. You didn't show how those were gradual changes.

"I'm not denying that God can. But that isn't the argument you are making. That you were sober simply means the drug action had already taken place. Evidence of that is that you apparently never had any drug withdrawal or subsequent cravings"

You say you are not denying that God can but then go on to question whether it really happened. This is exactly the argument I'm making. He CAN through the transforming power of meeting the resurrectioned Christ and I haven't seen it repeated in any other religion precisely because they are not founded on the fact that the founder of their respective religions are ALIVE.

1. Jesus always claimed that the power he used came from God, not him. Therefore the Resurrection has nothing to do with it. For other religions, God is all that is essential.
2. "I haven't seen it repeated in any other religion" is an argument from ignorance. That you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If you don't go out and look for the instances, of course you won't see them! And it appears that you live in your isolated Christian world and won't even take the time to do an exhaustive web search for conversion experiences in other religions, much less seek out and talk to members of other religions and listen to their testimonies. You even ignore that both Islam and Mormonism is founded on dramatic conversions of their founders.
3. In the context of the argument you are making -- that only Christianity is valid because only Christianity has these experiences -- then yes, I am going to show you the questions and objections such an argument will raise. This isn't denying your experience, but it is questioning your claim that these experiences validate Christianity and refute other religions. Your experience and your claims as to the meaning of that experience in the religion vs religion debate are two separate things. I hope you can finally understand that.

No Mexican stand-off. It is absolutely illogical to think that these men would forfeit there lives for something the KNEW was a farce,

Either not totally illogical or people do do illogical things. After all, Hitler sacrificed his life for a racism that he knew was false. Many German soldiers and officers sacrificed their lives for a cause -- Nazism - that they knew was false. Their diaries and other personal testimonies make that perfectly clear. Many Americans that died in Vietnam knew that we were not bringing freedom to South Vietnam, yet they sacrificed their lives for it.

According to you, the followers of Islam and Mormonism -- to name just two of the religions that you think are farces -- know these religions are a farce, yet they devote their lives and sacrifice them for their faiths.

One more example from American history. In December 1862 the Union army attacked the Confederate army at Fredricksburg. Each brigade (about 1,500 men) attacked one at a time and could see what happened to the brigades ahead of it. Each brigade tried to take the stone wall at the foot of Marye's Heights. Each failed. After the first 3 or 4 failures, everyone could see that it was a farce to attack -- the attack was doomed and the men making it would die. Yet all afternoon brigade after brigade attacked; because they were ordered to do so. It was illogical for the men to do so; they knew it was a farce. Yet over 6 divisions -- 18 brigades -- attacked. None of the men ran away or refused.

So, even if it is illogical, humans have demonstrated a capacity for being illogical.

Again, I'm not saying absolutely that this is the case with the disciples, I'm saying it is possible that this is the case.

Your reason for believing the resurrection and not the virgin birth also defies logic. Ultimately you're saying these men who were follows of the One who preach righteousness, holiness and truth would lie about His virgin birth.

I didn't say I didn't believe. I said that I was very skeptical of the virgin birth. Skepticism is not disbelief. Remember, Mark doesn't discuss the birth. At all. The gospel begins when Jesus begins his ministry. So, the Resurrection was part of what these people were present for. But none of them were present at the birth. Jesus only became known after he began to preach. So his life before that time is unknown to the gospel writers. It is territory where they don't really know what happened because they weren't present for it.

So they are free to say what they think happened or should have happened.

For what purpose. Producing counter arguments? So creating a white lie was o.k. with them? I don't think so.

Why don't you think so? Or was it a white lie for the gospel writers? After all, the gospels were written long after Jesus' death and by people who were not disciples. They were dealing with oral histories of people who had seen Jesus. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that people would invent stories about Jesus' birth to put Jesus more in line with what they "knew" Jesus was after the Resurrection? To give a little bit of extra credibility. And yes, the purpose was as I said: to make Jesus fit the accepted profile of the Messiah.

Was the telling of the virgin birth story (a lie) important to propagating the gospel?

You think so. Why wouldn't some of them?

Would they risk tarnishing the gospel message by including this lie?

Yes. They did so by the lie about the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb. Paul, you forget that they were in a political fight with the scoffers and critics at the time. Look at politicians today? Do they risk tarnishing what they hold dear if they can make points against the opposition? Look at the YECers. They lie about what the data is and what scientists say. Where did you pick up that mistruth about the First Law of Thermodynamics? You use it to try to convince people God created. Why did you risk risk tarnishing the gospel message by using that lie? If you would do so, why wouldn't they?

Jesus clearly told the disciples that He would suffer, die, be resurrected and later return to establish His earthly kingdom. He fulfilled some of the OT prophecies and spoke of His return to fulfill the others. Jesus opened the disciples understanding of exactly what the OT prophecies concerning Him.

Some of the "fulfillment" comes after his death. For instance, the idea was that the Messiah would come from the House of David. Jesus never said he came from the House of David. Yet after his death we have two constructed -- and contradictory -- geneologies trying to put Jesus into the House of David.

Genesis one is clearly discussing 24 hour days (evening and morning). Genesis two's "in the day" can mean a period of time as it does in other places in the scriptures

In the other places, "beyom" means within a day. Beyom does mean a period of time, but that time is shorter than a 24 hour day.

And clearly should be understood that way since Genesis one CLEARLY indicates that the creation took six literal, 24 hour days.

Circular reasoning. Genesis 1 says 6 days, Genesis 2 must be indefinite because Genesis 1 says days. Do you see the circle? It's invalid reasoning.

You feel force to create this contradiction because of your need to try and reconcil the Genesis creation acount with science. It's a twisting of the clear meaning of Genesis one and two to make that happen.

There are other contradictions between the stories. Focussing on this one -- that you think you can win -- doesn't make the others go away. Genesis 1 has birds being created on day 5, before the animals and before humans. Even the animals are created before humans. Yet Genesis 2 has a human -- Adam -- created first, then animals and birds, then a woman. The clear meanings of both Genesis 1 and 2 can't be reconciled on this.

The Godhead is seen in Genesis one. You misquoted Genesis 1:26 in claiming God said "let there be" in creating man.

No. I used the "Let us make". I pointed out that the same phrase is used in connection with the sun, moon, and stars.

That is not what Genesis one says. It says "let us make man" and the us is the Godhead.

The "us" is because the word for God in Genesis 1 is "elohim". This is the plural for God in Hebrew. Genesis 1 should read "In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth" We translate to "God" because of later knowledge of only 1 god.

Now, I would remind you that Trinity is a human concept that was invented in the period 200-400 AD. There is no verse in the Bible that equates all three of the parts of the godhead -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Humans did that.

John chapter 1 helps make clear who the "us" is in Genesis one.

It doesn't help in Genesis 1, because the authors of Genesis 1 never knew John. This is you retrodicting something later back into Genesis 1. If you can do that, you can make the Bible say anything you want.

You also have a detail description of the creative process used in creating man. It is not just a matter of God speaking. It includes forming man out of the dust to the ground....and taking a rib from his side to "build" a women.

In Genesis 1 it is speaking. In Genesis 2 it is the mechanism you say. In Genesis 1 men and women (both plural in the Hebrew) are created together. Not just one man and one woman.

The word can be translated man or men and the Genesis two account clearly indicates it was one man Adam and one woman Eve. This is another instance where you feel the need to reconcil the Genesis account with what you believe science teaches about the creation of man forces you to create a contradiction between Genesis one and two.

Paul, the contradiction was first noted in 1713. By 1822, again before evolution came along, there were numbers of people who were formulating the Documentary Hypothesis based on the contradictions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis So, your assignment of my motivation as coming from science is wrong. The idea of two separate creation stories was based solely on the text long before any science would have influenced the situation.

Today, that conclusion is accepted by virtually all Biblical scholars. I went to Barnes and Nobles and looked at all 10 new translations of Genesis and/or commentaries on the OT they had on the shelves. All 10 of them acknowledged that there were two creation stories. Now, these are Biblical scholars and theologians, not scientists. Therefore their conclusions are based solely on the text.

 

[lucaspa]

I was mistaken. The first time the contradictions and two creation stories was noted in modern times was 1680 by a French priest named Simon. In 1753 another Frenchman, Austruc, independently noted the same thing and published a book detailing the two different sources in Genesis.

Here, this is the best essay I have seen looking at the two creation stories in their actual historical context:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1037

A summary of the contradictions between the stories can be found here:
http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/eden/taketwo.html