Comments by shauntheboy
1. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #48015 by shauntheboy on June 6, 2007 at 9:36 am
So, I do thank you, Theo, Shauntheboy (wherever he went)....
Oh I'm still here and reading...........I just went cold turkey on you! I had to stop posting for a bit, although I feel a little post coming on......maybe ;-)
2. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25766 by shauntheboy on March 15, 2007 at 4:32 am
Hi Quetzlc.,
Sorry for the long…….long delay in responding! In response to your queries in post 788:
Ex 20:13- God forbids killing.
Ex 32:27- God commands killing.
In response to this first point let me ask you a question: In the UK the law states that it is wrong to imprison someone against their will, yet the Her Majesty's Government currently has about 80.000 individuals imprisoned against their will. Is the Government of the UK unjust or hypocritical, or is it just that they are in power and have the authority to make the rules?
This question is about God's authority. I accept the authority of His commandment which tells me that I am not qualified to take the life of another, whilst accepting that He is.
Lev 11:44, 20:7, 19:2- Man is to be holy.
Rev 15:4- Only God is holy. .
Self explanatory if you read the verses. God is saying I alone am holy and the source of "holiness". You are to try and be like me, says God.
John 3:13- No one has ascended into heaven before Jesus.
2 Kings 2:11- Elijah ascended into heaven. .
Context shows the difference between "heaven" - God's dwelling place, and "heaven" -the sky. No one has ever been to God's dwelling place except Jesus Christ. Plenty of people have been in the sky! If you have time check your concordance for the word Elijah, he appears to send a letter to one of the kings of Israel after his experience in the chariot. It would appear to me that this spectacular event signified the end of his ministry.
John 5:40- People choose not to come to Jesus.
John 6:44- People can only come to Jesus if God wills it. .
God selects people who are genuiniely seeking and makes sure that they find a way to Jesus. It's a two way thing rather than a fatalistic thing – if you see what I mean?
2 Chron 6:36- Everyone sins.
1 John 3:6, 9, 5:18- Believers do not sin. .
Believers still sin, but the key difference is their sincere desire NOT to sin and their faith in the saving work of the Lord Jesus which facilitates the blotting out of their sin. In other words the sins of believers are dealt with and done away with, in this context they are counted as "sinless" by faith and God's grace.
Mark 15:34- God forsakes Jesus.
John 10:30, 14:10, 16:32- God is inseparable from Jesus. .
When the Lord Jesus spoke the words "My God my God why have you forsaken me" he was quoting from Psalm 22 and if you read Psalm 22 you will see that God had not forsaken Jesus and neither did Jesus believe God had forsaken him. "You have answered me" (Psa 22v21) and ""They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born" (Psa 22v31). Well, here we are declaring his righteousness as predicted!
With regard to the second point about God and Jesus being inseparable" (I and my Father are one John 10v30 etc). If you read the context of these statements Jesus is declaring a oneness of purpose, not a literal oneness of being as claimed by Trinitarians. In John 17v20-26 Jesus prays to His Father that all believers might be "one" as he is "one" with his Father. The oneness refers to a unity of mind and purpose, being in tune with God if you like. You don't hear many Trinitarians contending that believers are "very God of very God" as they do with some of the other statements of this nature made by the Lord Jesus – strange that!
Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2- Satan is free to act as he pleases.
Jude 6- The angels who rebelled against God are chained up. .
The word "satan" simply means adversary. An adversary of Job was given his request. Difficult one this if you believe in a "supernatural monster" devil because the text is quite clear that it is God who afflicts Job, and Job himself acknowledges this fact.
The angels in prison in Jude and Peter is referring to individuals who have rebelled in the past who will be judged at a future date. They are dead in the grave and will be raised to judgement, the grave is a pretty secure place for most of us!
1 John 3:9- No one born of God sins.
Rom 3:23, 1 John 1:8- Everyone sins. .
Same answer as to "Everyone sins" question earlier.
Ecc 1:4- The Earth will exist for ever.
2 Pet 3:10- The Earth will be destroyed. .
The Earth referred to Ecclesiastes is the literal Earth and it would appear to be God's plan that it will endure forever and ultimately the place of reward for the faithful.
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth" (Mt 5v5) ;
"Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven…";
""In that day Yahweh shall be king over all the Earth. In that day it shall be Yahweh is one and His name one" (Zech.14v9)
"For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea" (Hab. 2v14)
The context of the passage in Peter also refers to the "heavens" and "earth" that were destroyed at the time of the flood. This should give us a clue as to what the message of the passge is.
The literal earth and heavens were not destryed, but human beings, their civilisations, their works (the earth) and their systems of government (heavens) were completely destroyed. So with the Lord Jesus when he comes the governments and civilisations and works and deeds of man will come an end and we will enter a new dispensation, a new heavens and a new earth. For context see: Isaiah 65v17 & 66v22; Psa ; Hebrews 12v26; Revelation21v1
1 Cor 14:33- God is not responsible for confusion.
Isa 45:7- God is responsible for confusion. .
The word confusion in Corinthians is a word which means disorder and the context of the chapter is order and behaviour in church meetings. Having said that, the point that God's message is simple to understand for those who are genuinely seeking is true, "knock and it shall be opened" "seek and you shall find" etc. However for those who are rebellious, reject God or simply downright wicked then God allows these individuals to experience the full consequences of their chosen path!
"because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2Thes2v11-12)
The Isaiah passage you quote simply states that God is in control and has authority over His creation.
Regards
Shaun
3. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #20557 by shauntheboy on February 4, 2007 at 6:09 am
Quetzalcoatl,
Thanks for your response. I've just tuned in today to catch up with posting and thankfully there hasn't been a lot. I'll try and provide you with a response soon, but I have a lot on at home and work at the moment so it might not be during this coming week. Sorry.
The site Billy links to has the usual lack of objectivity expected from such. No effort is made to objectively present both sides of the debate,or understand the context or culture many of the examples flow from.
One thing the site does do however, is to provide encouragement to the likes of Me, Mark and Theo when we see the calibre (lack of) of the arguments against the Bible.
Shaun
4. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18914 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm
D_U
Now yuou are telling me that god, created an infintie and hugley complex universe, with no materials, no obtained or researched knowledge (as he was alone and "knows everything" *chukle*) nothing there for him to use (and i mean literally nothing!) and yet he created the universe, the effiel tower did not come from nothing.
Err... not quite sure where you get your information about how the creator of the universe "created" and where He got His knowledge from? But if it makes more sense to believe that "nothing" spontaneously became "something" without any intervention design or purpose - then you are entitled to that opinion.
de nihilo nihil !
D_U your logic is, I'm afraid, seriously flawed.
So you see you really cant compare the 2, it is just (yet another) ridiculous theist analogy that means next to nothing.......i will still however address your respones in time and apologise for not adding this point sooner
D_U you haven't answered my little block of 7 questions that I asked earlier on this page. I challenge you to give me 7 straight answers to those questions. That's all - nothing more, nothing less - they are not "trick" questions, they aren't "hard" questions. Just answer them!
.... you cant argue with the logic in my statement above!
I think I just did....!
Shaun
5. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18911 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 3:21 pm
NLHB
You ask if I am a "Christian". That's an interesting question for me.
I suppose it depends what a "Christian" is? If in very general terms a Christian is someone who follows the teaching of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the Bible - then I am a Christian.
If you mean do I believe in the Trinity, that I have an immortal soul which goes to heaven / hell when I die, and that the earth will be destroyed once the church is "raptured" up to heaven - then I am most definitely not a Christian!
My understanding is that the promise made in Eden, elaborated on to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and fulfilled in Christ is termed "The Hope of Israel". It is a hope in the resurrection of the dead through faith in Christ at his return. It is a hope that waits patiently for the establishment of a kingdom on the earth with Jesus Christ reigning from Jerusalem. The conditions on the earth in this new age will differ significantly from now, life span will be lengthened, human excesses will be subdued and disease will be suppressed. The final culmination of this purpose is that God will be all in all.
This is the consistent message of the Bible from beginning to end. The first stage of the final phase of this purpose has taken place, as predicted, with the re-establishment of the Jews in their historic homeland in unbelief. The next stage involves their repentance and the subduing of the nations of the world under the rule of Christ with a wonderful time of justice, equity and blessing to follow.
This is the "gospel as preached to Abraham", and it is the hope that I believe describes most accurately the true Christian faith.
Shaun
6. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18903 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Quetz. Said:
The New Testament has often been claimed to be an improvement/addition/replacement to the Old Testament. There are also numerous examples of glaring contradictions and some quite appalling moral guidelines within the Bible itself, that belie its claim to be the Word of a "loving" God.
Firstly, I think you need to provide examples of:
1. Why the addition of the NT to the OT is a problem.
2. The numerous examples of glaring contradictions between OT and NT.
I haven't asked for examples of "appalling moral guidelines" because they have already been debated ad nauseum on this thread, although I'm willing to talk about any examples which may not have been covered already.
The OT and NT quite clearly complement one another and in fact a significant proportion of the NT is made up of quotation, reference and explanation from the OT. There is a great deal of internal evidence in the Bible which inextricably bind OT and NT together. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon or the Koran.
Jesus himself obviously believed the OT to be the inspired word of God and quoted from it extensively. That's powerful evidence to a Christian, but admittedly not to an atheist.
Your logic applies only if you can illustrate unequivocally that what you claim is in fact the case.
Shaun
7. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18901 by shauntheboy on January 23, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Dogbreath, you ask:
Shaun, I ask out of genuine interest - what evidence exists for your God? The "designer" drivel above does not constitute evidence. I understand that you believe that God exists, but belief without evidence is delusion. Help me understand why you aren't delusional.
Your opinion that the evidence for design does not constitute "evidence", is of course your opinion. Perhaps you could explain why design, interdependence and non-random specificity in nature and the universe do not constitute evidence? Who makes up the rules about what is admissible evidence? Those who are convicted that there is no God?
The scientific community abounds with examples of "belief without evidence". Here are a couple of examples:
I would suggest that the evidence of molecular biology, mathematics and cosmology in particular indicate very strongly, perhaps even prove, that abiogenesis is impossible. One could reasonably argue that to continue believing that it is possible flies in the face of the available evidence. To continue believing that abiogenesis occurred despite the evidence would suggest a conviction that goes beyond science and reason. It would suggest faith.
If you could explain why you continue to believe that something as complex as life on our planet formed from …. nothing! Then perhaps I will be able to understand why you aren't delusional :-)
Additionally, perhaps you could provide me with some empirical data acquired from a blinded, randomised, controlled, repeatable study, that proves that macro-evolution occurred? If you can then I might be persuaded that you aren't arguing from a pre-determined position which excludes any possibility of "God" from the outset.
What many on this thread seem to be arguing is: "we don't have any decent theory for the origin of life, and really our theory for the development of life is pretty shakey, but we are certain of one thing - that it wasn't God." Science and reason?
I do not pretend to be able to "prove" by the rules of science that the God of the Bible exists. The evidence which convinces me personally is primarily that of Bible prophecy, particularly that which concerns the nation of Israel (Ezekiel 36 – 39 and Daniel 2,7,8 amongst others), see posts 643 and 649 as a couple of examples as well as Mark's postings. Also the historical accuracy of the Bible record is a "proof" to me.
Finally, the abundant evidence of the non-random specificity of the natural world combined with the fine tuning of the universe and the mathematical evidence, confirm that life is no accidental result of the work of a "blind watchmaker". In fact the "blind watchmaker" cannot by definition have any influence over the origin of life. "Life begets life" is the clear evidence of science and I would challenge you to produce any evidence that suggests otherwise. The source of life is, I believe, the God of the Bible.
Shaun
8. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18171 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Hi D_U
"I see what you're doing, yes all those things were designed by man
So wow! man can design amazing things so therefore something as amazing as the earth must be designed by something better than man, we dont know what and dont want to use our brains too find out, so it must be........a god!
Shaun I will shoot down your inferior logic *smug grin*"
Now D-U, you've ignored the first rule of the naturalistic philosophy, if something looks obvious then seek an alternative explanation! Your bold assumption about what my "point" is, is incorrect. However I' ll answer your initial responses for now. So, let's consider the superior logic of your case.
1. Man created those things yes, but did he did not create the basic elements that make those things, and everything you described is far less complex than the earth, let aloen the universe! and therefore easier to design
I see, so the logic of this argument is the more complex something is the less likely it is to have been designed. Hmm. OK, good start, I think I'm with you…!
2. Each thing was designed for a purpose, be it astetics or information, what is the purpose for god to desing an entire universe?
How much time have you got? Just because you can't see a purpose doesn't mean there isn't one. A bit of circular reasoning there!
I thought you said you had read the Bible? Okay, here's the main reason:
Colossians ch1v16
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him (Christ) and for Him (Christ). And He is before all things and in Him all things consist"
Hebrews ch2v10
"For it was fitting for Him (Christ) , for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many sons to glory (those who believe), to make the author of their salvation (Christ) perfect through sufferings."
Genesis ch22v18
"In your (Abraham) seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth shall be blessed"
Isaiah ch2v1-4
You'll need to look that one up, I'm not copying it in.
Habakkuk ch2v4
"For the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea."
This is a small flavour of the reason "why" God created the universe.
3. How long did mount rushmore take Shaun? or the eiffel tower? or even the invention of a pc monitor! even a newspaper when you take into consideration how long it took man to invent paper, the printing press etc........much longer than 6 days!!
I see, another example of your superior logic!
Man took a long time to invent, design and build some stuff, therefore, the Creator of the universe (who is of course just like a man!!) must have taken longer than 6 days to create the earth. Yep, I've got to hand it to you – pure logic.
4. we see evidence of man designing and building these marvels, where do we see evidence of gods designs? any blueprints for the universe?
Er… okay lets look inwards first:
DNA the most dense store of non random information in the known universe.
Then outwards:
If physical forces within stars were only a little different, our universe would be almost devoid of carbon and oxygen, so life would not exist.
…the basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of carbon and oxygen, and therefore carbon-based life. At present we have no idea why the strength of the forces are fine-tuned in our universe in such a way that enables the existence of life. The fine-tuning is really very subtle. (Space.com)
Do you want me to go on?
I quote the words of RD again which are equally applicable to cosmology as to biology:
"Biology is the study of complicated things which have the appearance of being designed for a purpose" (then goes on to explain "but not really")
5. the earth, and more obviously the universe, are constatnly changing, altering themselves, galaxys sucked into blackholes, moons thrown out of orbit, continental shifts on earth, and all for no apparant reason other than physics makes it happen, when was the last time the eiffel tower suddenly altered itself?
D_U's logic comes to the rescue again! Firstly, just because you don't know "why" a phenomena occurs, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually have a reason or explanation.
You conveniently ignore the example of your PC which has been designed to run software that can check and alter the other software on your PC.
I challenge you to go and make some random changes to the software on your computer! Go on… add a couple lines of text to the registry, or delete some…..see what happens!
Oh well I suppose we won't be hearing from D_U for a while, at least not till he gets his computer fixed….
Or I wonder! Will he have the courage of his convictions and just keep making random changes to the software in the hope of securing a fix….his random changes could be like the genetic mutations and he gets to play the role of "natural selection"!! On the upside I guess that means we won't ever hear from him again…….
6. the earth and the universe have so many flaws yet mans designs have few, are we better than god? . . so much planning went into these designs, did god plan the universe? did it take him 4 days? ;-)
"Man's designs have few (flaws)" I'm beginning to wonder if we live on the same planet!
Few flaws….such as…..your computer that just crashed… or the buildings that fall down during an earthquake….or my car that broke down the other day………..or the washing machine I've just replaced…ad nauseum….ad infinitum…..ad absurdum…. ab uno disce omnes…… altiora peto……… ad fidem
The argument from dysteleology doesn't necessarily remove the designer, even bad designs have a designer! Your subjective opinion that some aspects of design are "bad" isn't necessarily as clever as you might think. Maybe God intended the world to be the way it is for now so that we might understand what life is like separated from Him? That would certainly fit with the Bible message. This situation will not continue indefinitely.
The men who designed my washing machine did not design it to last more than a 5 or 6 years, in fact they deliberately designed so that it would wear out and I would have to go and buy another one!
Your logic might view this as "flawed" design, but you'd be completely in error - it's actually nothing of the sort. Its made in that way because that is the way the designer intended it to be - for a purpose - to make me go out and spend my money!
8. do you know how many people it took to get that eiffel tower standing? or to invent and mass produce the computer monitor? far more than one…
Again, the power of logic - "It took loads of humans to design and build the Eiffel Tower, or bring the computer into existence, therefore, God (who is like a human??!!) couldn't possibly have created the universe."
….and they are all extreamly simple by comparisson to the universe
Yes of course! I think I'm getting there now:
- Eiffel Tower - quite complex non-random structure, unquestionably a product of intelligent purposeful design.
- Universe – Extremely complex compared to the above (by an infinite degree) therefore, clearly NOT the product of intelligent, purposeful design……er.. no I'm sorry you've lost me again.
This logic is so pure I'm afraid it's outside of my ability to grasp it. Sorry.
9. you are saying the earth is designed by listing all the things man designed, how about i list all the things man DIDNT design and use that as evidence the earth wasnt designed.......now do you see how silly your statement is? (note, the amount of things we didnt design far outnumbers the things we did, so id win!)
You make the assumption that we are the only designers out there….
As I said at the beginning of this response you jumped the gun by presuming this was my point, which it is not, although I have had some fun answering your responses, so thanks for that.
shaun your argument comes down to "man designed the eiffel tower so god designed the unvierse"
Nope. Sorry I haven't made that point anywhere, although you have a few times.
and it is simply unfair and slightly retarded to compare te entire universe to a handful of man-made marvels......which i might add we understand everything about including step by step instructions of how and why they are there.
You are saying everything has to be designed by something, that is the point you are making, so lets turn that on you,
Nope. That's your point actually. I didn't make any points. Answer the original questions honestly without doing any mental gymnastics and you might find out what my point is….
What designed God?
See my response to Billy immediately prior to this post.
oh you say he was always there..
Yep.
why is he exempt from the "everything must be designed" rule???
I haven't made that point you have. Come on D_U , if the only way you can make a case is to invent what your opponent is saying then….... well you might as well go off and argue with yourself I suppose (thats an example of a logical conclusion by the way!)
where is your evidence he was always there?
Where is yours that He wasn't?
im sure you now realise how stupid youv made yourself look
Err…
try harder shaun
Okay.
So long and thanks for all the fish………
Shaun
9. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18158 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Could someone tell me how to do the "box" sections for comments you are responding to - I hate using bold.
Thanks in anticipation,
Shaun
10. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18156 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hi Billy,
No. A rationalist tries to find a rational explanation. We do not say "I dont know, it must be god". Ignorance is no reason to believe in god..
I don't know of any scientist's that believe in Genesis creation who say this? Behe, Kenyon, Dembski and Co., look at the same evidence Dawkins, Futyama and Co. do - the difference is that they aren't looking for a reason to exclude God, and in fact, find plenty of rational reasons (aka empirical scientific evidence) to believe in Him.
Clearly what I am not saying is that the empirical data "proves" God's existence (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion), merely that arguably the evidence supports intelligent, purposeful design more readily than it supports a blind, unintelligent, purposeless, naturalistic process. The philosophical naturalists have to make up stories to overcome the problem (as they see it) of "apparent" design.
The case of Dean Kenyon makes interesting reading, look him up on Wikipedia and TalkOrigins.
Whilst the majority of academic staff in his dept. at University of San Francisco were unhappy with Kenyon's opinions, they were unable to challenge him on purely scientific grounds. Their argument against his position is a philosophical one not a scientific one.
Why do you not believe in fairies then? (think about the point, not the actual words)
When you use the Dawkins argument against belief in the Creator by invoking the "fairy" analogy, you imply that my belief in the God of the Bible is more akin to "blind trust" – granted, trust is there, but blind it most certainly is not!
This line of argument defines faith as a blind trust in the absence of, or even despite, the evidence. This is quite simply misleading, and wishful thinking on the part of you atheists!
This type of analogy reveals a seriously skewed understanding of what faith is. It presumes that all the empirical data can only point to one conclusion, despite the fact that many rational, intellectual and successful scientists see the same data as providing evidence of purposeful design. This is clearly a "straw man" being erected to be duly knocked down – and rightly so if this is all that belief in the Creator was based upon.. Anyone willing to objectively and honestly consider the ongoing debate in the scientific community will see that this is quite obviously not the case.
Many atheists would like this "Dawkins eye view" to be a true description of the Christian faith, but unfortunately for them it's not!
Where is the evidence? Again, ignorance is no arguement. We can make some of what is needed in "prebiotic simulations"
Generally speaking the evidence is as referred to above. To be more specific, when a biologist considers phenomena from the natural world, he has to constantly remind himself that he is not observing things which have been purposefully designed, but are the product of "Evolution" (That's a rough quote from memory, of the late Francis Crick). Also RD confirms this unavoidable truth in Blind Watchmaker, he says that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (my emphasis). He then goes on to write an entire book in an attempt to explain why we should avoid this obvious conclusion.
Please provide some… (evidence for design and purpose)
The burden of proof, Billy, is on those who say there is no design and purpose. All the natural world around us, and the universe beyond appears to be here as a result of purposeful design – it is up to the atheistic evolutionist to show that this conclusion is erroneous.
but again it boils down to ignorance, and some have already posted on evidence for abiogenesis here. We can make the molecules requires by purely physical processes…
Well, it would appear that if intelligent human beings are having difficulty reverse engineering it, then the probability of it happening without the intervention of purposeful intelligence is a non-starter – that is of course, unless that conclusion is philosophically unacceptable to you from the outset?
Who designs gods then? What is your evidence that he does not need to be designed?
Ah yes the atheist's trump card! My understanding is that Yahweh is, and was, and is to come. He has always been and He always will be. I appreciate that this answer is not acceptable to those who pose the question, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is the answer. Ultimately, it is the answer whether we understand it or not. I'm not claiming to understand it by the way, just in case you wondered! There is a big difference between accepting a fact and understanding a fact. I accept the theory of quantum mechanics, but I don't understand it.
Billy said:"Would the real God please make himself known?"
Shaun said: He has to those who are willing to see it, and He will even to those who don't want to see it. All in good time Billy and not according to your demands or mine!
Billy said: This is just an offensive lie to those who genuinely sought. It is also a statement steeped in self delusion. Can you actually back up this statement? If you want to believe in fairies enough, you will. So what you are really saying here is make yourself believe and you will believe. That is self delusion, and that is how I and others who lost their faith got by. It is a purely internal process and most certainly does not prove gods existance, and of course, mulslims etc would say the same abouttheir gods too.
I think I've shown that the "fairies" analogy has no bearing on this issue, the only time it might apply is if you are looking for reasons not to believe in purposeful design.
Billy, I don't want this to sound rude or disrespectful but I don't know how else to express it in this medium, you will just have to accept my assurance that what I am about to write I do so in a spirit of mutual respect.
You seem to arbitrarily award yourself the right that your Creator should communicate with you on your terms in order to prove His existence beyond a shadow of doubt. Yet at the same time denying the plain evidence of the natural world and the universe, which even the most eminent atheistic biologists agree "looks as if it is the result of purposeful design". Evidence which if not denied in the name of a naturalistic philosophy, would lead you to seek further communication from Him on His terms .
I don't know what your experience of the Christian faith was, but reading between the lines of your posts it was obviously very bad. That being the case the individual/s responsible have a lot to answer to, despite this it is not reasonable to tar all "Christians" with that brush (which I'm sure in reality you don't) and I think that the "faith" described in the pages of the Bible is far removed from the Christian system evident in the world today.
Regards,
Shaun
11. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #18031 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 3:01 am
The argument from incredulity applies equally to both sides of this debate - it just depends what you are incredulous about!
An intelligent God with a purpose, responsible for the order and complexity of life or abiogenesis?
There is evidence for design and purpose. There is no evidence for abiogenesis.
Billy said:"Would the real God please make himself known?"
He has to those who are willing to see it, and He will even to those who don't want to see it. All in good time Billy and not according to your demands or mine!
Shaun
12. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17925 by shauntheboy on January 17, 2007 at 3:04 pm
D_U
Apply your powers of logic to these questions.
1. What do you see when you look at picture of mount Rushmore?
2. How did it come to be the way it is?
3. What do you see when you look at the Eiffel Tower?
4. How did it get there?
5. What do you see when you look at the PC in front of you?
6. How does it do the things it does?
(Last one - I don't want to overload your logic circuits ;-).
7. When you read a newspaper, to what do you attribute the text on the page?
Shaun
13. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17582 by shauntheboy on January 15, 2007 at 1:30 am
728. Comment #17403 by Mark Taunton on January 13, 2007 at 9:28 am
Shaun, a friendly correction: in 726 I think you meant "knowing the end from the beginning", not "knowing the beginning from the end" (twice)...
Mark.
Oops! Thanks. Now corrected. It's one of those two o'clock in the morning things!
Shaun
14. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17381 by shauntheboy on January 13, 2007 at 6:55 am
Fonex said:
"And don't give me that typical xian BS about Hitler being an atheist. He was a devout catholic who believed that he was continuing his saviour's work on Earth by slaughtering the Jews".
I wouldn't particularly disagree with that statement. Adolf Hitler was a particularly evil human being, and yes he was nominally Catholic (arguably not devout), and the Catholic Church was eerily silent during the holocaust, so yes I agree.
However, if you are suggesting that the Catholic Church is representative of the true Christian principles summarised as "love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind" & "love your neighbour as yourself", and additionally if you are suggesting the Catholic Church is based on Bible Christianity, I would disagree. Although with the value of hindsight I can see how Hitlers murderous cruelty prepared the way for the establishment of a Jewish State.
Whilst you mention Hitler - knowing what you do, (if you had the ability) would you think it right or wrong to go back in history and eliminate Hitler (or any other despot such as Stalin or Pol Phot (?sp)), before they reached their murderous maturity?
I believe most people would answer that question in the affirmative. This is because with hindsight we know the evil they were going propagate, and therefore, are equipped to make a just decision. If Adolf Hitler had been killed as a small baby I think we could safely argue from a purely human perspective that would have been a good thing.
Your argument against the "nasty" stuff in the Bible only holds if you reason from a human perspective. Human beings are, generally speaking, not "just" in this respect. We are not able to foresee what an individual may or may not do in the future; we do not know the end from the beginning.
If there is a Creator of the universe (I realise that you don't accept this but if you use your imagination here and lift your mind out of the realms of purely naturalistic reasoning) and He is "just", as he claims and omniscient, then He knows the end from the beginning. This being the case He has authority over His creation and He is at liberty to enforce His laws and ultimately decide who lives and who dies. He is free to establish the rules of justice and implement them. I trust Him when He says He is just and fair and I am happy that everything will turn out the way He has promised.
Your indignant rejection of His authority is based purely upon reason from a two dimensional human perspective; "humans aren't equipped to make such decisions therefore neither is God". The argument only holds if God is a human being, which thankfully He is not!
15. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17378 by shauntheboy on January 13, 2007 at 6:41 am
Fonex Said:
"Don't get me started on Hoyle again. You see, Hoyle was an astronomer/cosmologist/astrophysicist. He was no biologist/evolutionist/paleontologist. As embarassing as it might be, the fact is that some people just can't keep their hands out of other people's cookie jars."
I think Hoyle was an "Evolutionist" actually. He recognised the impossibility of the NDT though, and sought an alternative hypothesis.
Using this reasoning presumably you would equally reject the work of mathematicians (such as Fisher),whose work aims to support evolution? Or do you only reject it if it doesn't agree with the NDT? If you are consistent in your application of this reasoning, I presume you would discount anything that anyone might say that has an impact on a specialist area of study outside their own?
Mathematics is essential to any theory of life and its development. We have a pretty good idea what the rate of mutations etc, are in the DNA of various living organisms, and we can estimate approximately how many mutations would be required in some cases for one structure to develop into another, or whether a mutation would be likely to survive in a population. Mathematics is an essential component of evolutionary theory. Unfortunately for the NDT the mathematical evidence is stacking up against it.
Most of the leading lights in the NDT camp recognise this problem and are on the offensive with arguments such as RD's 100 million year old alien. He argues that there has been plenty of time for life to develop as described, and that it is only our relative shortness of life that hinders this view. I think it's worth examining this idea a little more.
I couldn't figure out how to get superscript so you will have to excuse the way I describe the following calcs. The chance of life occurring in 10(to the power of 20) planets once in a billion years is an event, so we can measure the probability of that event. After acknowledging that the likelihood of life occurring spontaneously and then NDT evolution occurring, is less than being dealt the perfect bridge hand (i.e. all players being dealt 13 cards of the same suite)we can calculate. What RD says is that if we imagine some alien being who lived for 100 million years and regularly played bridge, we can see that this being would hardly bother to write home if he were dealt a perfect hand because of the length of time and the frequency of the hands involved.
Well let's see if this is true or if it is just a bit of smoke and mirrors! The odds against being dealt a perfect bridge hand are 4.47x10(to the power of -28). What this means is if the alien played 100 bridge hands a day for 100 million years he would play about 3.65x10(to the power of 12) hands. The chance of him seeing a perfect bridge hand at least once in his life is now increased to 1.63x10(to the power of -15), in layman's terms that equals one chance in a quadrillion! That's an event worth writing home about I think! An event of that improbability is in fact impossible.(calcs. courtesy of Spetner 1999)
We can't just "presume" something has to happen given enough time, some things will never happen even if given an infinite amount of time.
Shaun
16. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17377 by shauntheboy on January 13, 2007 at 6:25 am
D_U
Sorry if you feel I have not responded to some of your points. This will be for one of two reasons.
Firstly, I may have already given my response to someone else who raised a similar contention earlier in this, now somewhat lengthy, thread.
Secondly, the format of your posts means it takes more work to pick out exactly what your point is.
I will try to look back at the posts you mention and see if they fall into category "two", if so then I will try to respond at some point, time permitting.
Shaun
17. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17258 by shauntheboy on January 12, 2007 at 10:56 am
665 D_U said:
"im sorry but the "god can do anything" argument explains nothing and is just superstition, it is ridiculous"
It's not as ridiculous as you think, and in fact it is virtually identical to:
"Random mutation and natural selection can do anything"
and
"We don't know how life began but we are certain it wasn't an intelligent being"
As an atheist and (presumably a believer in NDT?) you should be used to circular reasoning, many eminent Evolutionists use it all the time.
Such statements as:
"The fittest offspring (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring."
"The eye has evolved, therefore the perceived problems of improbability must only be apparent"
"In the face of the improbability that life arose spontaneously and developed to the stage we see in the world today, we are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred."
This type of statement abounds in the scientific literature. The "natural selection can do anything" mantra explains everything, and in so doing explains nothing!
Shaun
18. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17250 by shauntheboy on January 12, 2007 at 9:59 am
D-U Said:
and may i also add then yes, a creator is improbable (highly infact) but sciences answers are HIGHLY PROBABLE! so ponder on that for a while
In fact the postulation of secular science re the origins and development of life are highly IMPROBABLE. This fact is verified by the work of mainly atheistic/agnostic scientists such as Hoyle and Wickramsinghe amongst others.
This fact is also recognised by the High Priests of the NDT, even RD himself who invokes the "long-lived alien" analogy to try and convince us that it's not really that improbable.
The only people who accept that these things happened DESPITE their improbability are those whose faith is robust enough to accept the impossible!
Shaun
19. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #17245 by shauntheboy on January 12, 2007 at 9:47 am
JC Sam, Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Two things to make clear from the outset. Firstly apologies for not providing you with a full reference and, yes I do have a copy of Elpis Israel(in fact I've inherited a few over the years!). On the context issue, I could have just cut and pasted the whole chapter, but I don't think you would really want me to do that. I deliberately chose to post the "best bits" and made that clear in my comments if you look again.
Secondly, Thomas did not claim to be a prophet and neither do Christadelphians believe him to be. He is a man who read his Bible and tried to interpret the prophecies contained in it. He is not infallible! However, he got the framework of events right, and you have to either mis-read or simply wriggle and squirm to avoid this conclusion.
JC Sam. Said:
1. Dr. Thomas believed the restoration of the Jews would take place in 50 to 60 years from the time he wrote this. Given that this passage exists in the 1848 edition, it would be 100 years before the Jewish nation of Israel would be reestablished, which you acknowledged.
This is quite clearly NOT what he says. He states: "The restoration of the Jews is a work of time, and will require between fifty and sixty years to accomplish."
The context is clear - once begun, this two-phase process of physical THEN spiritual restoration (as described in Ezekiel 37) of the new nation will take 50-60 years in total. He believed that once established Israel would be a secular state for 50 – 60 years before Christ returned and established a Theocracy beginning at Jerusalem with Jewish repentance.
The modern nation of Israel was established in 1948 and Jerusalem again came under Jewish control in 1967. They had to "fight" their way into existence as he thought would be the case, although his identification of the opposition was not correct (he thought Russia, but instead it was Arabs sponsored by Russia –close but no bannana!). We are currently 59 or 40 years into this process using these two dates. Still time yet for him tobe bang on!! I wouldn't get too hung up on the folly of predicting specific dates though. The author was estimating and I think he makes that clear.
He nowhere mentions that he believes that Jews would return within 50 – 60 years of his writing.
JC Sam. Said:
"I guess Dr. Thomas couldn't foresee the Russian Revolution. Do Christadelphians still believe a Russian Czar represents "Gogue of the land of Magogue?" After all, the 1990 version (which is linked to above) simply removed the words, "Nicholas, or a successor" yet still states it will be a Czar. If so, it would be interesting to know how this is expected to come about."
The Russian Revolution is not mentioned in Ezekiel or Daniel, presumably because in the context of this prophecy it is irrelavent. This is an interesting point though, and it illustrates nicely the folly of trying to change your interpretation of the specific Bible prophecies to fit with the political times.
During the 1960's and 70's some Christadelphians thought we needed to revisit this understanding that a "Russian Autocrat" and "Russia" herself would be the leading opponent to Israel and ultimately Christ . They looked at the Iron Curtain and the impregnable might of Communism and could not see how Europe could form a united confederation of nations or how Russia could possibly control this confederation of nations in order to facilitate an invasion of Israel (as predicted in Ezekiel and Daniel as well as elsewhere).
I know of very few Christadelphians who now feel this way. We have an increasingly totalitarian Russia, ripe for an "Autocrat" (that's if he isn't already in place!!), we have a united confederation of nations in Europe increasingly beholden to Russia for gas and oil, particularly Germany.
The scene is almost set exactly as Thomas was able to predict FROM BIBLE PROPHECY, not of his own clairvoyance, in 1848. The Bible prophecy is highly specific, the allied nations / regions are listed. And the action they are going to take is specified.
That the "Autocrat" would be a descendant of Nicolas was obviously a speculation and cannot be found in Ezekiel, Daniel or elsewhere. The fact that he will be Russian, will have authority over Germany and most other European nations, along with the area of the old Eastern Roman Empire, is clearly specified in the prophecies concerned.
JC Sam said:
in other words, the wheels were already turning by the time Dr. Thomas penned his book. It is reasonable to hypothesize that being cognizant of the changes already afoot he could quite easily have guessed the eventual establishment of a Jewish state. Further guesswork on his part could quite easily conclude that they would seek to establish an economy through trade and agriculture. However, here we find yet another error.
I would argue that "the wheels" have always been turning as far as students of Bible prophecy are concerned. That is why God provides us with these prophecies so we can confirm that "the wheels" of God's purpose are turning and He is inexorably working out His purpose.
In response to your point though, if it was so obvious why then did very few great minds, if any, or "Christian" or political commentators of the time think this would happen. Most students of Bible prophecy of this era simply spiritualised these prophecies away. Even the British Parliament of 1948, 100 years later, tried to halt the Act sanctioning the Jewish homeland in Palestine.
JC Sam Said:
Israel didn't establish diplomatic relations with India until 1992, and neither silver or gold are among Israel's or India's list of natural resources. Even today silver and gold are not among Israel's major imports or exports, according to the CIA World Factbook.
You misrepresent unfairly the use of the terms "gold and silver" in an attempt to strengthen your argument. Gold and silver is used simply to denote material wealth. To use this to try and discredit the prediction shows a bit of desperation! Does Israel trade with India? Is Israel a major trade partner of India? The answer to that question is undoubtedly "YES". The fact that this "only happened in 1992" illustrates that the prophecy is still in progress, and yet another part of it has been fulfilled. This is evidence FOR, not against the accuracy of Thomas's Bible based predictions.
JC Sam Said:
So Dr. Thomas guessed correctly, due to the unprotected condition in which Palestine existed at the time, that another power would be necessary to secure the area. But, as he noted, anyone could guess this.
So why didn't they "guess"? Or can you show me any evidence from the times (1800-1848) that provides succour to your postulation that "anyone could have guessed"? The answer is that very few, least of all the British govt. did foresee this eventuality.
JC Sam said:
At the time, the British empire was still the preeminent power in the world. It was reasonable to conclude that Israel would come under the protection of the British.
I suppose with the benefit of hindsight we could think that way, and in 1848 it was at its height, but in reality by the turn of the century the might of the Empire was on the wain, and by 1948 all but spent!
JC Sam said:
Dr. Thomas believed Britain to be the "Lion of Tarshish" rather than the U.S., it would seem that later attempts to include the U.S. under the concept of an Anglo-American "Lion of Tarshish" are nothing more than creative interpretation.
I agree that Thomas thought that Britain would probably still be the dominant force in the future. Is it reasonable to view the USA as a young lion of Tarshish? Has she in her modern history been subject to the governance of Britain? The answer to both these questions is "YES".
This being the case I don't see that there is such a problem with making the link with between "Tarshish and all the young lions thereof" (Ezekiel 38:13) and a power that is British in origin associated with Britain. The close links that remain between the nations of the old Empire, and Britain's automatic alliance with the US rather than her European neighbours are continued testament to this fact. This recruitment poster from the 1st World War (which obviously post dates Ezekiel 36 – 39) illustrates the association nicely.
www.
The section in Elpis Israel that you refer to speaking of dwelling in a land of "unwalled villages" comes towards the end of the secular phase of Israel's rehabilitation and is yet future, although will happen very soon I believe. This aspect is hard to envisage at the moment when the Jews are actively building "walls", but I have no doubt that this situation will change at some point soon so that the "unwalled villages" and "peacable people" (Ezekiel 38) elements of the prophecy will be fulfilled. When so much of the rest of the prophecy has been fulfilled there is no reason to expect that the small amount outstanding will not.
JC Sam Said:
Well, we can see that he wasn't exactly accurate. In fact, he got most of it wrong.
Obviously I beg to differ. This man was not an infallible individual as I stated in my original post. He filled the fine detail with his own speculation, however, when you look at the specifics of the events which frame his personal speculation he was absolutely spot on:
Events FULFILLED so far:
1.The Jews will be restored to Palestine in unbelief of the Messiahship of Jesus.
2. This will happen under the protection of the British.
3.They will become materially rich through commerce.
4. One of Israel's trading partners will be India.
5. There will be a uniting of the territory of the old Western Roman Empire as a confederation of European nations. This European Union will be under the influence of apostate Christianity.
The aspects which are IN PROGRESS:
1. Russia will become the dominant power in Europe and will eventually control all of the areas attributed to Eastern and Western Rome, apart from the areas specified in Scripture as controlled / allied to Tarshish namely: Afghanistan, India, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf (Ezek 38 & Daniel 11 onwards).
The aspects that REMAIN TO BE FULFILLED are:
1. The completion of the totalitarian influence of Russia over Europe and Near/Mid-East.
2. Invasion of Israel.
3. Return of Christ & repentance of Israel
JC Sam Said:
The parts that may be interpreted by you as accurate can be explained as guesswork based on the prevailing political climate of the day.
This being the case you will obviously be able to provide numerous examples of others who said the same things based on secular observation? I wait with anticipation!
When you consider the preceding list (above), that's some pretty impressive guess-work!
Shaun
20. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16949 by shauntheboy on January 9, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Anyone want to comment on posts 649 and 643?
21. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16946 by shauntheboy on January 9, 2007 at 5:50 pm
NLHB Said (663):
When I was 11, my parents made me go to the Christadelphians on Sundays. We attended for 6 weeks. Each week we'd be lectured for 2 hours. Then we were told to go home and memorize a page from the Bible."
Wow! Which Christadelphians did you go to....?
NLHB also said:
"You wait until I shovel off my mortal coil. I'll tell him what I think of his Bible, his nasty hatred for us as a species and how I now give the Devil my full support"
Now I'm really curious as to which Christadelphians you had contact with if this is your view of our belief!!
Eccl 9:4-6
4 But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun.
Ps 49:12-14
12 Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain; he is like the beasts that perish….
14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them;…..
Curiously even great giants of faith don't appear to be "in heaven" according to the Bible!
John 8:53
53 "Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Whom do You make Yourself out to be?"
Acts 2:29
29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day."
Anyway that's an aside. I would be interested to know which Christadelphians subjected you to this though? Can you remember or is it too traumatic? :-) I apologise on their behalf if this is the way you were treated!
Shaun
22. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16717 by shauntheboy on January 8, 2007 at 9:10 am
Fonex
Re comment 646. I answer your points in 641.
God had good reason to exclude these nations from His presence. Read the passages concerned again and I'm sure you'll pick it up. In the NT there are plenty of people who are excluded from God as a result of their refusal to meet His terms. This always has, and always will be the case.
Consistent? Yep. But at the end of the day it's His prerogative to show mercy to whom He wills and to have compassion on whom He wills. Either you accept His authority or you reject it.
Shaun
23. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16711 by shauntheboy on January 8, 2007 at 8:33 am
Hi Fonex86
I can give you some specifics from Bible prophecy which tell us what will happen to the Jewish nation in the future. Whether these things will happen specifically within the next ten years is not certain, perhaps likely in my opinion, but not certain. You seem to imply that predicting events in the near future is more difficult than predicting events in the distant future? The timescale, to a certain degree is irrelevant, the fact that the things prophesied are specific and are certain to happen is the point. I could make a vague prediction and hedge my bets (a bit like in some of the examples given by D_U and co), but the key issue with Bible prophecy is that it specifies details of the events in advance, centuries, sometimes millennia before they occur.
I presume when you say "how would these things have looked during the middle ages or at the time of the crusades", you are implying that they might fit with Britain's political persuasion at that time? If that is your point I would disagree. The Jews were despised in Britain during the Middle Ages (expelled by Edward 1 in 1290) as in most parts of Europe. The thought of handing them the Holy Land as an independent sovereign state would have been anathema to the political / religious leaders of this era. Jewish emancipation didn't take place in Britain until 1858, ten years after the writing of the book quoted. In fact, thinking of the Balfour declaration again, the Jewish homeland was actually established despite the attempts of many in the British govt of the day (who were staunchly pro-Arab) to prevent it.
Instead of me telling you what I think Bible prophecy says will happen to Israel, I'll let you read some more predictions based on Bible prophecy written by the same author. As he wrote more than 150 years ago and is now dead and buried, he cannot not be accused, as I could, of being close enough to the events to make an educated guess or place a current day spin on the prophecies. I have only included exerts from his writings not the full context for the sake of space. I'll be happy put the full context in if you like, but hopefully what I have posted will give you the jist!
Describing events that remain yet future to us he says:
…there will be in the latter days a dominion, ruling over all the countries mainly comprehended, in the limits of the successive empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome; and represented by the image as a whole;(Daniel 2) and which will be broken by a power from heaven, which will utterly destroy it, and set up an empire which will cover all the territory it possessed.
I shall be able to show from other parts of the prophetic word, that the power destined to play the conspicuous part indicated above, is Russia. That it will over-run all the ten kingdoms (Western Europe), subdue Turkey, and incorporate Persia into its empire….
Britain cannot be included among them unless it is first conquered by the over-shadowing power (Russia); which it will not be, as is clearly demonstrable from many parts of the divine testimony. Russia will command the land, and Britain rule the sea….
…we might look for an earthly conqueror to overthrow the dominion of the (Russian) Autocrat, as he will overthrow the rest. But the power that wields the stone (Daniel 2) is plainly declared in the interpretation. It is the God of heaven who pulverizes the image, and sweeps its chaffy dust away by the whirling tempest which wrecks the kingdoms of the world, and transfers them to His saints. The kingdom of the stone grinds to powder whatsoever it falls upon, and then becomes a great mountain, or empire of nations, and fills the whole earth.
….the territories comprehended in the dominions of the four beasts (Daniel 4) to their full extent will be divided between two independent dominions of the Latter Days, namely, that of Gogue (Russia), and that of the Lion of Tarshish (Anglo-American). Gogue's will include so much of the territory as to entitle his dominion to be represented by Nebuchadnezzar's Image. Assyria proper, Persia, Asia Minor, Armenia, and Mesopotamia; Egypt, Italy, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples, Lombardy, Bavaria, Hungary, and Greece -- countries all included in the catalogue given by Ezekiel (38-39) in his prophecy of Gogue -- are symbolized by the head, breast, body, thighs, legs, and toes of the Image. These are at the crisis united together in one dominion, which is broken to pieces as the result of the battle of Armageddon…..
The Lion of Tarshish is Alexandrine in its dominion, and will then possess much of the territory represented by the Unicorn Goat and the Leopard, all indeed not included in the Image. Alexander the Great extended his conquests over Afghanistan, the Punjaub, and into India beyond the Indus….
Assyria, Persia, and Britain will continue to exist as peoples for "a season and a time," being subject and obedient to the King of Israel, in the light of whose government they will walk with joy, and lay their wealth and honor at his glorious feet. (Thomas 1848)
So, I think it is pretty clear that we can see the wheels of this prophecy in motion, being fulfilled in front of our eyes to day. In other words there will be a confederacy of nations in Europe in the footprint of the old Western Roman Empire. These nations will come under the influence and rule of an autocratic Russian leader who will also control the territory of the old Eastern Roman Empire. This confederacy will be in opposition to a power that is British in nature (an Anglo-American-Commonwealth?), which will also be the protectorate of Israel at this time. Additionally, this power will have influence over, and be allied with, the territories of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and India.
The Russian confederacy will invade Israel with its allies, including specifically, Ethiopia, Libya, Iran, France, Germany. The Anglo-American power will object but will be impotent militarily to prevent it.
God will destroy the Russian confederacy with its allies, Christ will be established on David's throne in Jerusalem and begin the process of exerting his influence and authority over all the remaining nations. Some of the nations will remain for a time during the reign of Christ, but ultimately all will become one people.
Some of the nations mentioned by the writer in 1848 have changed their name or been absorbed. Additionally, the only world power that he could see in his day capable of facing up to the Russian autocrat was the mighty British Empire, that mantle of imperialism has now undoubtedly been taken up by the US, who equally fit the "Tarshish and all the young lions thereof" description, she being a "young lion" whose growth and power has now outstripped the old lion she broke away from in 1776. This man could obviously only try to understand how the prophesied events would proceed in the light of the times he lived, and these minor issues do not effect the impact of the specificity he was able to illicit.
Britain's membership of the EU has been a conundrum to some students of Bible prophecy, but in recent years it has become quite clear that despite being a member of the EU for the obvious economic benefit that brings her, Britain's outlook on the world is very different from her European neighbours and her first allegiance is to the nations of the Commonwealth and the USA. The presence of Britain, America and other Commonwealth troops in Afghanistan, the reinforcing of the naval presence in the Gulf and Mediterranean region all seem to fit remarkably well with the words penned by this man more than 150 years ago. He was either incredibly lucky in his guesses, possessed some remarkable political insight that enabled him to accurately predict events 100+ years into the future or Bible prophecy is real. Take your pick…………….
Shaun
24. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16634 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I pulled an old dusty book off my book shelf this evening and I feel compelled to share a little passage from it with you. I do this in the context of Mark's ongoing discussion with D_U over the nature of prophecies in other religious texts.
This book has my great grandmothers name on the inside cover and was first published in 1849, my edition is 1903 but is identical to the first edition. Here's the passage in which I would be interested to hear D_U's, or anyone else's comments:
"The truth is that there are two stages in the restoration of the Jews, the first is before the battle of Armageddon; and the second after it; but both pre-millennial…
There is then a partial and primary restoration of Jews before the manifestation, which is to serve as the nucleus, or basis, of future operations in the restoration of the rest of the tribes after he has appeared in the kingdom. The pre-adventual colonisation of Palestine will be on purely political principles; and the Jewish colonists will return in unbelief of the Messiahship of Jesus, and of the truth as it is in him. They will emigrate thither as agriculturalists and traders in the hope of ultimately establishing their commonwealth, but more immediately of getting rich in silver and gold by commerce with India, and in cattle goods by their industry at home under the efficient protection of the British power
I know not whether the men, who at present, contrive the foreign policy of Britain, entertain the idea of assuming the sovereignty of the Holy Land, and of promoting it's colonisation by the Jews; their present intentions, however, are of no importance one way or the other; because they will be compelled, by events soon to happen, to do what, under existing circumstances, heaven and earth combined could not move them to attempt…..The finger of God has indicated a course to be pursued by Britain which cannot be evaded, and which her counsellors will not only be willing, but eager to adopt when the crisis comes upon them" (Thomas 1848)
Now, I wonder how a man who wrote these things whilst Palestine was being governed by the Turks, and would continue to be for another 69 years, could predict so accurately future events in the Middle East? The first Zionist Congress was in 1897-98 yet 50 years into the future. The Balfour declaration stating Britain's commitment to providing a homeland in Palestine for the Jews was made in 1917. Finally in 1948 the Jewish state was formed when the official decalration of the State of Israel occurred, 100 years after the writing of the above passage.
Would anyone like to take a stab at predicting who will be the dominant power over-seeing Palestine 70 years from now? How about predicting which people will inhabit a particular land and what the nature of their political and economic activity will be 100 years from now? The bottom line is that there was nothing special about the man who wrote these words other than that he read his Bible and trusted what was written. This illustrates quite clearly the point that Mark has been making that: Bible prophecy is in a league of its own when it comes to specificity. None of the other religious texts come within a million miles of it.
Shaun
25. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16618 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 4:10 pm
D_U said:
602. Comment #16532 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 6:18 am
heo and mark
you have stilled failed to commen onthe following points
Why arent we allowed to shave? do you have a beard? if not tut tut god wont be pleased and you'll end up in hell!!
"And did you know that another "crime" in the bible is SHAVING YOUR BEARD!!!yup God loves beards and your banned from geting rid of it!!
Lev 19:27
Hope you have a long fluffy one!!"
Very funny!
I think if you read the passage concerned there is no rule against shaving your beard off as such, but they were not to shave the sides of their heads and trim their beards in the manner associated with the idolatry of Egypt from whence they had just come, and Canaan, where they were heading! These are practices that were inextricably linked with the abhorrent practices of these other nations, hence the reason for forbidding them. In doing this they distinguished themselves as a people set apart to the service of the Living God Yahweh, as opposed to Baal, Tammuz, Ra or any of the other idols of the surrounding cultures.
The Priests however were forbidden to shave off their beards.
Mark is obviously far too modest to mention it, but he did have a rather admirable beard last time I saw him, far better than I could ever grow (I can feel some beard envy creeping up on me!). It wasn't long and fluffy or trimmed into an elaborate design as is the custom of some, just a neat well groomed beard! So I can vouch that he is entirely in keeping with the spirit of Leviticus 19:27. :-)
You seem to misunderstand that there is no longer a requirement to keep the minutiae of the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses. The underlying principles do still apply as explained by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount and the Apostle Paul at length.
Shaun
26. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16614 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 3:43 pm
D_U and others have made the comment that the Theists don't want to comment on the "nasty" stuff in the OT. I'm not sure if this is the case. I for one have had a pop at this one but obviously not your satisfaction!
You seem to think that the God of the OT is a different God to the one presented in the NT. I would disagree. You say that the OT God is sexist, cruel, genocidal, homosexual hating, etc, etc. Well I would disagree with the accusation of sexism and cruelty, but completely agree with the accusations of hating homosexual behaviour hating and committing genocide. I'll come back to them in minute. Perhaps you could provide us with specific examples of the sexism you accuse Him of?
However, it is undeniably a good thing to be bothered by violence, anger and apparent inequality. This illustrates the deep-seated sense of right and wrong, good and bad that most of us have.
Firstly on the issue of the God of the OT being different to the God of the NT. The God of the OT who struck down Achan (Joshua 7) and Uzzah (2Samuel 6) and the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15), is the same God who struck Herod, Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5) dead on the spot in NT times. The same God who condemned homosexual behaviour in the OT condemns it in the NT. The God who said in the OT I am full of compassion, patience and justice and have a right to dispense it on whoever I want (Exodus 33) said the same in the NT (Romans 7). Don't really see much difference there?
As we progress through the Bible we get a bigger and fuller picture of the character of God which reaches its pinnacle in the character of the Lord Jesus who personified his character in a human being. The picture is a consistent one, there are no deviations from the fundamental moral principles outlined in the Law of Moses compared to the Sermon on the Mount, and in fact Jesus explicitly states that his mission was not to "destroy the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfil" them (Mathew 5:17).
What about the slaughter of women, children and animals? How can this possibly be reconciled with a God who encouraged "turning the other cheek" and "loving our neighbour"elsewhere in the OT as well as in the NT? Well whilst I personally would not feel adequately equipped to decide such a fate for anyone no matter what the evidence, I can accept that the Creator of the universe, an omnipotent, omniscient being, would be equipped to make such a judgement justly. Of course I accept that you make these arguments solely from a human perspective and refuse to accept the existence or authority of such a being as is described in the pages of the Bible. From a human perspective I completely agree with you, as the Bible teaches consistently, no human being in his or her own right has the authority to take the life of another. But these accounts are not written from a human perspective.
If we are talking about the Israelite conquest of Canaan in the first instance, I can accept that the prostitution, animal worship, child sacrifices and general cruelty associated with these peoples was completely abhorrent to God. However, He did give them the opportunity to respond to him and amend their ways as is evident from the testimony of Rahab (Joshua 2). They chose not to respond and their toxic culture continued to pollute the landscape and the dreadful things we read of came upon them.
There, you can accuse me of all sorts of things now and say, "we told you so – these religious folks are loonies that are going to go out and kill in the name of their God." But you would be wrong.
God does not demand our approval but He does call for our trust. When I read the Bible I find overwhelming evidence that God is trustworthy. He keeps His promises and I am assured that in the end He will be fair and just to all.
The bottom line is that you do not accept God's authority to be God! That's your choice. I believe that He is the creator and sustainer of all things and therefore has the right to be gracious to whom He wills, and to have compassion on whom He wills. I believe God when He says that He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, not even the wicked (Ezekiel 18). In the final analysis the manner and timing of our death is not really of consequence, Jesus says: (Luke 13:1-5)
1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
When a thing perishes it ceases to exist and that's the one certainty in this life – death! The teaching of the Bible is that the single most important thing is not how or when we die, but whether we respond to Yahweh, the God of Israel, the God of the Bible. If we choose to ignore Him then our future is uncertain and our death whenever and however it comes is final.
Don't worry, I'm not even under the slightest impression that you will find this response satisfactory!
27. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16594 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Maybe you guys should get a concordance out and look up the word "hell" in a Bible and see what you find. I think that you will find that the idea of eternal burning fires of some subterranian vault stoked by an evil monster is simply not there. Hell is a grave mistake.
This idea also pre-dates Christianity and has subsequently been incorporated into Christian dogma. Not so popular now as it used to be mind!
Are there any Bible believers on this thread who actually believe the Bible teaches what these chaps are discussing? There might be I suppose - speak up now if you are out there!
28. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16593 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 2:11 pm
D_U
I agree with the comments you and Billy make about the man-god thing. There is an excellent book written by a chap called Hislop (or it might be Hyslop, can't remember) called "Two Babylons". It very clearly shows that the key Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter predate Christianity by millenia. The association of Christmas with Saturnalia and pagan religion is undeniable. That Easter is clearly an ancient fertility festival is also quite clear, even the name gives the game away (Ishtar-Easter!).,
I don't see Christmas or Easter or Saints days or much of the other paraphernalia associated with the organised Christian system, anywhere in the pages of the Bible. The "Two Babylons" book also traces the origin of such doctrines as the trinity (making Jesus literally God and denying the essence of his humanity) and immortal soulism back to the pagan religions of Egypt, Babylon, Greece and others, long before the Christian era.
All you prove with your points is how far removed from the Gospel message of the Bible modern Christianity has become. Your argument does nothing to nullify the teaching of Scripture.
29. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #16590 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Happy new year to you all.
Sorry to go back to a previous thread within this thread, but I didn't get around to giving Steve and Torbjorn a proper response. Not sure if you are still out there guys, but I don't mind if any others would like to respond to these points.
Steve and Torbjorn, going back to your comments (post 381 and others) relating to your belief that there has been plenty of time for evolution in the neo-Darwinist (NDT) mould to occur. You are convinced by the examples you have provided (bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics etc) that there have been many, many, many, beneficial, random micro-mutations. Not only that, but you contend that these beneficial micro-mutations have survived to influence the phenotype, been selected by the "blind watchmaker" (natural selection), taken over populations and resulted in bacteria turning into human beings over the 4.6 billion years of Earth's history.
There are a number of key issues with this world-view which result in very significant, and probably ultimately terminal, problems for the NDT.
Bacterial resistance to streptomycin or methicillin is undoubtedly as a result of a micro-mutation that leads to a change in the phenotype (structure and /or function of the organism). Just exactly what this micro-mutation is would take up a lot of space to discuss, but the bottom line is that this is a mutation that results in a loss of information from the genotype. The question must then be asked, does this example provide evidence of a micro-mutation that could account for the type of change required to bring about the macro-evolution (bacterium to human) required to validate the NDT? I would suggest it doesn't. The NDT requires evidence that points to random micro-mutations adding information to the genotype not taking it away.
The main proponents of the NDT understand well that large changes have to be built from small ones to make their theory work. There is a better chance of getting a small change than a great big one in single step. But really the relative chance is not the important issue. The main point is this: is the probability of small changes building up large enough to make the theory work? If not the theory is invalid.
Common sense says that the array, complexity and interdependence of life on our planet could not have arisen as the result of chance processes. People like RD use clever arguments to show why NDT should work and that common sense is wrong. They say that although the variation occurs randomly the selection process gives it direction and makes it appear to be the result of purposeful design. Can random micro-mutations give the blind watchmaker enough of the right genes to make the NDT work?
The arguments presented to support the NDT come into three categories 1. verbal 2.mathematical and 3.experimental evidence.
Verbal arguments should always be viewed with scepticism; I've observed debates taking place where the person who is the best debater, and best at PR wins and not the person with the strongest case. The high profile supporters of the NDT are very good at making their assumptions (based on various facts) of how this or that might have happened, sound like facts.
Steve has alluded to some of the mathematical evidence developed by Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and others. Fisher and Wright conducted their studies in the 1930's and 40's and their objective was to show that Mendel's results didn't cause any problems to the NDT. They were also mainly occupied by issues relating to the cross breeding of crops and cattle (not together!). A theory that is based on random events absolutely has to be checked against the probabilities of those events – this is surely one of the first (if not the first) check that should be made. Fisher and co did not make this check. The reason for this is that when the NDT synthesis was pulled together by Huxley, Gaylord Simpson and co , the molecular basis of the required mutations was unknown because DNA was not discovered until the 1950's. The architects of the NDT did not think there was a problem with the probability of the mutations, but there is. The work of Fisher and co are in essence assumptions in a theorem, not facts observed in nature.
The experimental evidence should be the most powerful of all in support of the theory. Unfortunately there is no direct evidence of large-scale evolution. "Ah, but the fossil evidence…" I hear you cry! But what the fossils prove is that in the past there have been changes in living organisms. They don't tell us how that change took place, they don't even tell us that the later forms of organism descended from the earlier. To say that they did descend would be an assumption based on a theory (this is where the verbal arguments usually come in again). The only way you can use the fossils as proof is to beg the question and assume the theory to be correct.
Most modern day supporters of the NDT look to genetic recombination as the main source of variability, but ultimately the source has to be mutation if the theory is to hold. This is why I quoted the point mutation rate in an earlier post, a rate which after the cell's "proof reading" process is around one mutation per billion – to one per hundred billion (Darnell et al 1986 – Molecular Cell Biology. NY. Scientific American Books). Only mutation can give the NDT the flexibility it needs to change the genome, to add new information, with resulting changes to structure and function in the organism. Recombination can't do much more than bring out the variability that is already there in the genome.
So what is the probability of getting enough useful mutations for natural selection to turn a bacterium into a human being? Well this post is long enough already so I won't attempt to put the maths in now but will come back to it in another post. For the time being suffice it to say that the rarity of copying errors is a terminal problem for the NDT. There has quite simply not been enough time in the Earths history for evolution by random mutation and natural selection.
Any theory that seeks to explain how all living organisms evolved from a single cell has to explain how all that information got into the genome in the time available – the NDT falls a long, long, long, long way short!
That's enough for now.
30. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #13898 by shauntheboy on December 20, 2006 at 2:27 am
Brian,
You say that I beg the question and make a case that I cannot provide evidence to support. You are absolutely correct. I believe the plan laid out in the Bible is true and is on schedule. The events of history and current events in the middle east, Europe and Russia all provide evidence that this is the case. However, my evidence is entirely Biblical and you neither accept the authority of the Bible or the God it reveals, so my case is completely unsupported in your opinion. I accept that.
D_U,
I am trying to work my way through the points raised in opposition to the case I present (maybe you could you provide me with specific examples of any really important points I haven't addressed yet). I do like to think carefully before I commit my thoughts to text – but please bear in mind that I do have a wife, 4 kids and a job to attend to as well – give me break! :-)
Shaun
31. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #13810 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Billy
I kind of never finished that discussion of the context of Micah 5. I think you said something about the context being concerned with the defeat of Assyria.
I wouldn't disagree with that, the prophecy certainly has the northern border problems as its primary focus, otherwise it would have had no relevance to its primary audience. However, there is a broader, as yet unfilled element.
Micah 4:1-5:2
1 And it will come about in the last days That the mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains. It will be raised above the hills, and the peoples will stream to it.
2 And many nations will come and say, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths." For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3 And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war.
4 And each of them will sit under his vine and under his fig tree, with no one to make {them} afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.
5 Though all the peoples walk each in the name of his god, as for us, we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.
6 "In that day," declares the LORD, "I will assemble the lame, and gather the outcasts, even those whom I have afflicted.
7 "I will make the lame a remnant, and the outcasts a strong nation, and the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion from now on and forever.
8 "And as for you, tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you it will come-- even the former dominion will come, the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.
9 "Now, why do you cry out loudly? Is there no king among you, or has your counselor perished, that agony has gripped you like a woman in childbirth?
10 "Writhe and labor to give birth, daughter of Zion, like a woman in childbirth, for now you will go out of the city, dwell in the field, and go to Babylon. There you will be rescued; there the LORD will redeem you from the hand of your enemies.
11 "And now many nations have been assembled against you who say, 'Let her be polluted, and let our eyes gloat over Zion.'
12 "But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD, and they do not understand His purpose; for He has gathered them like sheaves to the threshing floor.
13 "Arise and thresh, daughter of Zion, for your horn I will make iron and your hoofs I will make bronze, that you may pulverize many peoples, that you may devote to the LORD their unjust gain and their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.
CHAPTER 5
1 "Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops; they have laid siege against us; with a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek.
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, {too} little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.")
The fuller context of this prophecy is clearly concerned with the establishment of God's government over the whole Earth. This being the case the Bethlehem prophecy relating to the birth of the Messiah who will be the Earthly head of this government seems to fit perfectly with the context.
32. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #13803 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I'm acutely aware that I owe Steve and Torbjorn a response. I've got some maths and genetics floating around in my head and I'll try and get them into a coherent post soon!
Shaun
33. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #13801 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 1:35 pm
In post 345 Brian Coughlan said:
"Second, I could easily improve on this arrangement. Any halfway humane entity would have limited our "free will" to benign largely harmless exhibitions of independence. This is what responsible parents do every single day.
They do not warn their children about scalding water, and then let them pour a kettle over themselves.
They do not warn their children not to play in traffic, and shrug their shoulders when the kid heads off to the motorway.
Insane, lunatic and irresponsible asocial freaks behave like that."
Shaunyboy:
Thanks for the tips on how to get bold text etc.
You may have a point Brian if we intervened in this way throughout our children's lives, but we don't do we? Your children grow up and go off into the world and you can't stop them from making mistakes in their lives. They may participate in activities which worry you senseless, but you can't stop them, and probably wouldn't choose to stop them because they are adults with freedom to choose what they do. They may blunder into situations that you have warned them about, but they end up learning "the hard way" as we say.
I don't want to get too caught up in the analogy because it is after all only an analogy, and not a perfect mirror image of the relationship between God and human beings, but there are very powerful similarities. When your kids grow up they go off and do their own thing and you can't stop them and even if you could, doing so would damage your relationship with them and prevent them from developing into responsible adults.
If you view this life and the world that we see around us with all its problems as the "be all and end all" then your point might have more impact. But to a Bible believer this is a work in progress and there is more to life than this life. As Job said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).
The bottom line is that you reject the authority of God to establish the rules as he sees fit. All of the references to difficult passages in the OT concerning ethnic cleansing, capital punishment and so on are only really problems if you believe that God was/is unjust. I don't believe that he is, I think that an omnipotent being is more capable of making such decisions than you or me. Having said that, I am very glad that, on the face of it, we do not live in such brutal times (not sure Iraqis or children with HIV Aids in Uganda would agree with that sentiment). The brutality of God's dealings (at times) was and is a reflection of the brutality of the people he is dealing with. There is a passage in the letter to the Romans which says that ultimately we are not in a position to dictate terms with God. God will not accept that from me any more than I would accept it from my three year old child. I've pasted the Romans passage in for anyone who wants to read it, although obviously I recommend searching out the context:
"21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Rom 9:21-24)
You may feel I am detached from the suffering and terrible injustice in our world, but hopefully you are wrong in this assumption. An integral part of my occupation is involved with trying to alleviate disease and suffering here and now, and sadly death is a part of my job almost every day. I look forward to a time when these problems will be a thing of the past, and that's the hope that is contained within the pages of the Bible.
34. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #13779 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 11:59 am
D_U and others who have experienced the frustration of losing a carefully composed post.
If you compose your post off-line in Word or equiv, then just copy it into the comment box you will have a back-up if your post disappears in the ether!
I notice some people manage to use "bold" and "italics" in their text. How do you do this? Is it to do with the format you save it in?
Shaun
35. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #13600 by shauntheboy on December 18, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Its interesting that D_U sees the question as one of "science vs. religion"
Many atheists will try to frame the debate as "science vs religion". Some do this because they sincerely believe this is what the debate is about. Others adopt it as a deliberate strategy to beguile the general public, or those listening to a discussion in order to try and create the impression that anyone who believes the Bible is "opposed to science". As JonG points out this is quite simply untrue. Many people with scientific training undertaken in "proper" Universities (myself included), find no contradiction between "the facts of science" and the teaching of the Bible. The problem comes with the naturalistic philosophy that is entrenched in our educational institutions, which places a significant bias on those facts, skews the interpretation of the facts, and glosses over the "difficult" questions as if they either do not exist or are of no consequence.
Some of you have asked for the "scientific evidence" that we base our belief on that the Universe and the natural world has been designed by the God of the Bible. Well, it's the same facts that I learned about in my Higher biology lectures at school, it's the same facts that I learned as an undergraduate and postgraduate student at university. I look at these things and see the product of an intelligent mind, the God of the Bible. You look at the same facts and see the product of millions of years of random mutation and natural selection. These are the same facts that many "practising" scientists observe and attribute to an intelligent mind – to the God of the Bible, and yet many, many others to random mutation and natural selection.
I'm not saying that these things "prove" the Bible to be true, or that they "prove" the existence of God. They do in my eyes because that is the philosophical approach that I bring to the facts. The atheist views the same facts with the philosophical view that God does not exist, and so comes to a different conclusion.
The conclusion of the atheist is not the only conclusion that can be reasonably made from the available evidence. Richard Dawkins himself says that "biology (specifically) is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" – but then goes on at great length to try circumnavigate this obvious conclusion, a bit like the "Higher Critics" in their efforts to discredit the Bible! Massive time and effort are expended in order to try and avoid the obvious conclusion because it does not agree with his philosophical approach to the facts.
(The RD quote comes from the opening passages of "Climbing Mount Improbable")
36. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #13591 by shauntheboy on December 18, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Hi all
There is ample archaeological evidence which supports the accuracy of the Bible as an historical record, so much so that most who seek to discredit the Judeo-Christian Scriptures have turned their attention elsewhere. The evidence Billy refers to relates to the opinion of a small minority of "specialist" Bible critics who have the objective of discrediting the Bible higher on their list of priorities than objectively presenting or analysing the facts.
Such critics find excuses to try and circumvent the obvious conclusion that the facts lead to – that the Bible is a reliable historical record! They will scrabble around to try and find alternative dates, discrepancies, anomalies, etc, etc. This is the same pattern of behaviour evident in the writings of the "Higher Critics" of the 16th and17th centuries who sought to discredit the Bible with claims such as:
-There's no such place as Nineveh
-Babylon was a myth and never existed
-King Nebuchadnezzar was a myth
-The Kings of Israel and Judah were made up
They claimed that if such places existed, if such great empires and kings ruled the Earth, there would be archaeological evidence to support this. They concluded that because there was no evidence, these kings, kingdoms and places were myth and fantasy. They also applied this line of logic to the NT writings and historical facts around the life of Christ. I'll stick with archaeology in this post though.
Unfortunately for the "Higher Critics" around throughout the 18th C. and into the first few decades of the 20th C. many archaeological discoveries were made:
-Nineveh was excavated confirming the existence of the Assyrian empire
-Babylon was excavated and the name "Nebuchadnezzar" was engraved on the bricks of the city.
-The Sennacherib Prism. The best way to see the accuracy of the Biblical account with this record on Sennacherib's Prism is to compare 2 Kings 18:13-19:37 and Isaiah 36:1-37:38 with the record on the prism (see: http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html )
-The Moabite stone. This inscription supplements and corroborates the history of King Mesha recorded in 2 Kings 3:4-27 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele )
We could go on and on, but really this is an area where there is far more evidence in favour of the Bible than against. The evidence/interpretation "against" (which Billy relies very heavily upon), is not widely accepted in scholarly circles, is not corroborated, and exist solely in an attempt to discredit the Bible, not because there is in itself a valid case to be made.
To understand more of the viewpoint from which Billy is arguing see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism
37. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #12532 by shauntheboy on December 12, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Jefferson,
If your prophecy of the money landing in your lap could be tested to the same degree as perhaps Ezekiel 37 or Daniel 2 for example, then you might have a valid point.
Obviously I realise that I give more credence to the reliability of the Bible and its prophetic record than you would, so realising that this argument will not satisfy you. But just the same there is a case to be made for the prophetic record of the Bible, and the work of those who wish to discredit the Bible must be relied on to avoid this conclusion.
38. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #12531 by shauntheboy on December 12, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Kingasaurus,
The traditional "Christian" view of Heaven and my minority view of a new Earth aren't really comparable. The harp plucking and or disembodied bliss that is associated with heaven isn't really found in the Bible, and seems to be a pretty vague concept. The prophecies concerning the process of the renewing of the Earth are structured, consistent, involve real human beings as we know them (not disembodied spirits) and so on. The project plans are there for you to see with quite a few artist's impressions too if you are interested. I know you're probably not interested, but if you adopt the heaven-going doctrine then it contradicts and confuses a whole range of Bible teachings.
Anyway, your question about whether the faithful have free will in the Kingdom age. I think the answer to that is "yes". The difference will be that those people who will be there are those who have chosen to be there. In other words, those who have chosen in God's favour now. The main difference will be that our nature will be changed so that the *ability* to not sin will be inherent in us, whereas at the moment we can desire to stop sinning with all our might but we will still sin despite our best intention.
Passages such as 1Corinthians 15: 51
"the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
Or 1Jn 3:2: "it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He i