Islamic Jesus

[restored2x]

Many of you are in the "No one should tell me what to believe!" crowd. "It is disgusting and arrogant for someone to say what they believe is absolute truth. Evangelism and arguments for "salvation", creationism, etc are wrong. Let people believe what they choose to believe."

Yet, in your next post, you ridicule another poster's faith and try to convince that person that you are correct, they are wrong, and are an idiot for not thinking like you do. Sounds like you're doing the same thing. If the person of faith had the same tone, he would be treated like an idiot.

IMO, threads like this become totally worthless when discussion turns into ridicule or evangelism.

[EricP]

I simply like to question the reasons why people believe that way. As is usually the case (also in Wingnut's) they are thin as ice compared to the mountains of scientific observations

Anyway.. that's right, I don't think you can't tell me how to believe and I can't tell you how to believe. Nobody is trying to do that here. But there is an impass when people's beliefs disconnect them with a deteriorating reality such as Earth's climate. I've heard people tell me they believe that none of that matters because god will take care of it or because the earth hasn't been around that long anyway.. That's a problem. When people's beliefs start killing people/things, we've got problems.

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

Many of you are in the "No one should tell me what to believe!" crowd. "It is disgusting and arrogant for someone to say what they believe is absolute truth. Evangelism and arguments for "salvation", creationism, etc are wrong. Let people believe what they choose to believe."

Yet, in your next post, you ridicule another poster's faith and try to convince that person that you are correct, they are wrong, and are an idiot for not thinking like you do. Sounds like you're doing the same thing. If the person of faith had the same tone, he would be treated like an idiot.

IMO, threads like this become totally worthless when discussion turns into ridicule or evangelism.

[rwarn17588]

I'm personally not ridiculing someone's faith as much as willful ignorance of facts and a lack of skepticism.

I don't dislike religion as much as I dislike intellectual laziness. These contradictions and archaic edicts in the Bible (insert holy text here) are real, and putting your head in the sand is no way to deal with them.

[cannon_fodder]

Restored:  

I have corresponded with Wingnut to ensure he/she is not taking my posts the wrong way.  The topic of flaws in the Bible came up and I obliged.  Of course a grain of me wants to "show the light" but I have tried not to attack anyones faith nor has anyone thrust their faith upon me.

Faith is, after all, NOT a matter of science.  But one can understand a belief in something and attempt to shed additional light on the converse position without being offensive.  At least, I have tried to do so.

Hawkins:

The Catholic Faith is nearly 2,000 years old.  Without it, it is doubtful that anyone would be Christian today as it was THE CHURCH until the 1600's.  In fact, the Christian beliefs of every denomination are based on the first 1600 years of Catholic doctrine.  The trinity, the notion that Jesus was even divine - all Catholic doctrine (the earliest Christians treated Jesus as another great prophet, no mention of divinity.  That was purged in the 300s).

Also, the America's would probably not be Catholic without the funding of it's conquest (the Pope backed monarchs giving them power, allowing them to raise money, etc.).  In fact, the entire paradigm of history would be infinitely altered.  There was plenty of atrocities to be sure (from the Conquest of the America's, to the inquisition, to overt corruption) - but the nature of religion 1500 years ago was surely very different.

Also, don't forget the good.  Without the Catholic Church funding scribes it is possible most new testament books would not have survived.  The Church was the bastion of knowledge in the dark ages and preserved countless works of art and science.  

A mixed bad over a longer history than any other institution on Earth, so judging the Catholic Church on something an Emperor did under it's auspicious One Thousand and Seven Hundred years ago is probably a bit harsh.
- - -


Wingnut:

1) First some basic understandings-
Radioactive dating is a method generally accepted accurate within 5 confidence points (5%).  So says every reputable physics laboratory and archaeologist from MIT, to the National Laboratories, to Oxford.  "Evidence" of it's inaccuracy is found at christiananswers.net, answersingenesis.org, and creationdefense.org but nowhere else (who refute it using half truths and flawed data - ie. if you mess up the test you get the wrong date 3 times, but they fail to tell you the contamination of the tests).  It is ideology dictating the argument and not findings.

It has been confirmed beyond a doubt that the half life of C-14 is 5,730 years.  Proper calibration and testing is more difficult with C-14 dating but the method allows greater accuracy for relatively recent periods (ie: its 4000 years old.  You can test C-14 dating against tree-ring dating if you want a visible verification (1 ring, 2 ring, 3 ring, 4) and it has confirmed its accuracy within tolerances. As many as 40 other forms of radioactive dating exist and have been verified accurate to various degrees.

The oldest standing tree in the world is in California at 4,700 years old.  Barely  relevant here, but damn that's cool.

2) Science, by it's very nature changes.  That's why I am confident to rely on the proven premises the scientific method is able to establish.  Without a willingness to change on better evidence, it would be a RELIGION (belief without proof).

Under the scientific method, one comes up with an idea (theory).  Then you test that idea.  If the test confirms that idea and can be replicated it is a scientific fact.

FACTS are simply things commonly believed to be true, in science they add the caveat of testable and replicable (do it again, I don't believe you).  They can be proven false and often are (the world is not flat, hares do not chew cud, the Earth does not sit on pillars, women are not less intelligent, etc.).  When proven wrong it is modified, replaced by the theory that proved it wrong, OR opens a search for better theories.

If a theory lasts, it becomes a law (gravity).  That is such an established fact that no scientific data realistically contradicts it.  

Between law and fact is the vast majority of our scientific knowledge.  Things we understand and hypothesize about, but do not know all the details.  In quantum mechanics we knew enough facts to understand how it works and manipulate or predict the actions at sub atomic levels (electricity).  BUT - there are a ton of things we realize we do not fully understand (why does resistance lower with temperature?).  Because we do not know "U" does not change the fact that we know X, Y and Z.

3) Per Geology, with great confidence the Earth is at least 4 BILLION years old.  That is, of course, assuming a deity did not place false radio carbon dating, speed tectonic plate movements, accelerate the planets, or magically form and age minerals.  Science, as it were, can not assume someone's gods have played such tricks or all knowledge would be worthless (as it could change at the whim of a god).

Therefor, relying on the best scientific information available, the earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. Your belief's could tell you God made it to appear that old, but scientifically one can not test that theory and it is therefor unacceptable in an scientific discussion (else Scientology's version of creation is just as valid).  

If you would like the actual scientific arguments you can google "age of the Earth" as reciting them here would add no merit.  Geographic, radiometric, and astrological findings ALL confirm the same approximate age.

4) Per EVOLUTION, it too is an established fact.  The theory has not been accepted LONG enough to be called a law and as you aptly pointed out we do not understand everything - perhaps NOT enough to call it a law.  However, the body of evidence has not been scientifically refuted nor a more plausible theory generated.

Evolution stands as a theory (sniff test - it makes sense), it has been studied archaeologically, and has been readily observed.  Simple observations are evident in human interference in many species:  maize to high yield corn, large breed dogs bred into lap dogs, bacteria cultured to do our bidding.  All those developments are in the last 300 years and are undeniable.

If we can accomplish turning a Deutscher Spitz (40lbs) to a Pomeranian (4 lbs) in a few hundred years - it does not seem far fetched to assume that a fish could take to the land in several million (mind you, cross over fishes still exist that have lungs and "walkable" fins).  Given enough trials, even the most complex problems can be solved by random chance.  

While it may be hard to believe that chance coupled with the inherent selection of survival and breed, has led to so much diversity it is able to explain the characteristics and behavior of most things (why did flowers develop pretty colors?  Bees & other pollinators can see in color).  

And in the end, given a blank slate most people would chose to look at the evidence and the logic behind evolution instead of believing in magical powers.  Faith in an all powerful never seen entity lacks proof, not evolution.  

5) Transition Species
I don't think a recitation of Homo evolution will do any good, but the evidence certainly shows a progression of skulls from ape like to Human like.  The same is shown for a huge array of creatures all over the globe.  The fact that  a "complete" record of any evolution should come as no surprise given the time frames involved. I believe you have not delved very deeply into the evidence and reasoning involved with the claims.


Two quick questions:

A) You questioned the "facts" on evolution, what facts support creationism?  

B) Why, in recorded history, is religion consistently on the losing side of scientific battles? (Sun around the Earth, skies made of water, Earth on pillars over hell, flat Earth)

C) More importantly, is it likely that learned individuals in 5 independent fields using 5 different methods are all wrong?
- Anthropology has studied civilizations older and LEADING TO those in the Old Testament
- Physicist radiometric dating
- Archaeologists have numerous findings (Dendrochronology - tree ring dating) that indicates a much older Earth
- Geologists assert many formations (Hawaii, Grand Canyon, Mountains) are millions old
- Astrophysicists and astronomers date the Earth much older

It just seems unlikely to me that such a case is probable.  There is not one argument for an older Earth, but an insurmountable pile of evidence from all sorts of things.  The only method to "explain away" all of the evidence is to say that God has the ability to alter any test result or construct the Earth to APPEAR that things are older.

In which case the argument is moot.  For at the point that Faith is interjected into an argument  it is inherently a discussion about religion as it both neglects and negates all scientific principles (observable, testable, replicable).  But given that construct, both can agree that the scientific age of the Earth is fact (observable, testable, replicable) and the Biblical age is faith (true as your God made it).

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[restored2x]

Thanks for clarifying, guys. Man, I love this forum! (I'm not being sarcastic)

Discussion and debate are cool, and when we keep it on a respectful level, everybody wins.

This thread is good reading.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'm personally not ridiculing someone's faith as much as willful ignorance of facts and a lack of skepticism.

I don't dislike religion as much as I dislike intellectual laziness. These contradictions and archaic edicts in the Bible (insert holy text here) are real, and putting your head in the sand is no way to deal with them.

The point of faith is that it is a thing apart from intellectual criticism.  A belief is not a school of thought.  It's not a mathematical formula.  

There's nothing more annoying than listening to one intelligent person try to talk another out of religious belief.  Just leave it alone.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

In Wingnut's defense, the Bible never says Jesus was born on the 25th.  It is a well documented historical fact that the date was chosen much, much later in the Roman Empire to coincide with a pagan holiday.

Thats such a polite way of saying that the Catholics screwed that up, along with all the other ridiculous wars, attacks on science, and torture that make up their illustrious history.

How anyone can be a Catholic, given their history, is quite the mystery.

That seems just wrong....

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

In Wingnut's defense, the Bible never says Jesus was born on the 25th.  It is a well documented historical fact that the date was chosen much, much later in the Roman Empire to coincide with a pagan holiday.

Thats such a polite way of saying that the Catholics screwed that up, along with all the other ridiculous wars, attacks on science, and torture that make up their illustrious history.

How anyone can be a Catholic, given their history, is quite the mystery.

Are you, like, Anti-Vatican or something?

[rwarn17588]

<Floyd wrote:

There's nothing more annoying than listening to one intelligent person try to talk another out of religious belief. Just leave it alone.

<end clip>

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. It's that statements were made about biblical contractions and evolution that were ill-informed or demonstrably wrong, and should be countered.

And casting doubts about religion does not equate into disbelief.

[Hawkins]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

In Wingnut's defense, the Bible never says Jesus was born on the 25th.  It is a well documented historical fact that the date was chosen much, much later in the Roman Empire to coincide with a pagan holiday.

Thats such a polite way of saying that the Catholics screwed that up, along with all the other ridiculous wars, attacks on science, and torture that make up their illustrious history.

How anyone can be a Catholic, given their history, is quite the mystery.

Are you, like, Anti-Vatican or something?

Yeah, I'm pretty much anti-large scale religion. I believe strongly in personal faith, and I think the bigger a church gets, the further from this it goes. The Vatican is a pretty good example.

[Wingnut]

I don't believe that creation and science are mutually exclusive. Both sides work from the same evidence. It's going to depend on the worldview of the person as to what they are going to believe.
As for evidence for creation, the best would be the Bible, since that's where the belief comes from.
If we believe that God does exist and had a hand in writing the Bible, why should we discount certain parts of it just because there is shaky human theories that say that it couldn't have happened that way.
Yes, it's faith that believes in the creation event. But if we can't trust God for creation, why should we trust God at all?  Why should we only believe God for certain things and discount others?
It takes faith to believe in God, just as someone has to have faith to believe in evolution.

As for evolution being an established fact, what fact is that and how did it come about? School boards all over the country are having problems with evolution being a theory without proof.
Breeding dogs and corn don't count as evolutionary. If a man and woman make a baby, is that baby evolutionary or did the humans produce another human? It's transition that makes critters evolutionary.
You have to admit that the evidence just isn't there to prove that beyond any doubt that evolution is what actually has happened. Carbon dating is unreliable (Mt St. Helens lava dome dated at 1-2.8 million years?? How, we witnessed it.)since scientists don't know the anounty of carbon in a particular item to start with. No transitional species exist. No one was there to witness any of the evolution events. On the other hand, we didn't witness the creation event either. But God was there and witnessed it and wrote about it for us to understand.
As for the confidence that the earth is 4.5B years old, what evidence or testing do they have confidence in? If dating methods are proven to be inaccurate, how can there be a high confidence in the results? They have dated the Grand Canyon and the top is shown to be older than the bottom?? How can that happen?

As for a 6,000 year old earth.... If you follow the lineage back to Adam, which there is a clear, documented, path, it equates to about 6,000 years.  I read that there are no known people groups that are older than 5700 years.
As for evidence of the creation event, there is only the Bible and faith. But there is also no solid evidence to prove it didn't happen either.
Thanks for your discussion, Cannon Fodder.  It is very interesting. I appreciate it.

Some answer about creation

Carbon dating info here

Take the $250,000 challenge!

[Wingnut]

On a personal note....I don't have a lot of time to write out a lot of dissertation as my contemporary, Cannon Fodder, may have. I do try to read when I can so I find it easier to post links which explain points better than I could do with my limited time. I don't believe that any of us do any actual lab research on the topics, in that the information that we have for our discussions comes from what we all read. I don't believe that any of us have come up with the "missing link" or the "holy grail" on our own, or that we have the smoking gun, not that there is one, that will prove once and for all that one side is the only way to believe. I would much rather direct someone to what I have read and understand than to try and repeat from memory and make a mistake which can and will be seized upon to change my original intention.

I feel these links explain things pretty well...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution

As for a 4,700 year old tree, yes that is pretty cool. But if the earth is 4.5B years old, why is it only 4,700 years old and not X0,000's or X00,000's of years old?  Is there only one? I find science facinating, but does this support an old earth or a young (6,000 yo) earth?

[restored2x]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

[disclaimer:  believe what you will - clearly I will not change your cores beliefs.  I encourage you to read this, but if reading contradictions in the Bible will upset you then it is best to skip it.]



Sorry, I really wasn't trying to set you up I promise.  I was just seeking clarification.  The linguistic issues go both ways, for as often as they resolve conflicts they create new ones.  Which emphasize my central point:  YOU DON'T KNOW.   By your own admission your version of the book, if not the original, is subject to the indiscretion and editing whims of man.  Seriously, if translation caused the myriad of problems following - what else is wrong?

To say you have no seen a contradiction to me, means you have not paid very close attention to the bible.  Kudos to most of the meaning in the book, but it certainly is not infallible.  Just about anything in the bible is contradicted resolutely (Though shalt not kill, vs. God said kill these people.  Though shalt not steal vs. steal from the Egyptians b4 you go).

I can't resist.  Sorry to those that will be offended and I'm not trying to drown you in quantity.  I really do find this interesting and that's why I've studied it (12 years of Catholic schools gave me plenty of Bible time).  (feel free to skip to the last two if you want. They make the point.])

The following are not really subject to translation issues - using King Jame's "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33).  Oh, I beg to differ.

You can look up the following passages, or any you so chose at:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num.12:3;&version=9;

1) Lets start with an easy one you mentioned.  Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day.  Died on Friday evening.  Saturday evening(1), Sunday evening (2).  MATT 12:40 he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."  But he spent 2 nights and 2 days.

2) Sticking with your comments, Jesus last words were "it is  finished?"  One might think the Bible would agree on the focal point of the entire life of God, but nay:

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


3) and when was that that he was Crucified?  Mark says "it was the third hour, and they crucified him." 15:25.  But according to John 19:14-15 the crowd of Jews was calling for his crucification during the 6th hour "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!" (a moot point if he is already crucified).  A minor point to be sure, a time line.  But clearly not a perfect book.

4) For that matter, they don't agree on what happened after:

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Judas kept the $)

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." (Judas threw the money back)

5) Even the quotes of Jesus conflict with themselves:

Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire."   (don't insult people)

Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." (Jesus insulting people)

6) Perhaps it is a moot point.  The savior will be a Son of David.  But David's line is traced through Joseph, who is not Jesus father. (not arguing it as fact, pointing out a flaw).

Much of the rest is just as confusing if you pay close attention - and much of it can not be explained by translation:
- - -
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah. (God told him to number the tribes)

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel. (Satan told him to number the tribes)
- - -

Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."  (God tempted Abraham)

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (God doesnt tempt)
- - -

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
- - -

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Jacob was Joseph's father)

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. (Heli was Joseph's father)
- - -

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

20,000 < 4,000.  This one seems very apperent.
- - -

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. (children are punished for their fathers ills)

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (children are not punished)
- - -

In Greek Genesis uses the plural for God... the Gods created the heavens and the seas.  In the 10 commandments we again see "Though halt have no other Gods before me" - grammatically allowing lesser gods.  Such instances are common throughout - in spite of a monotheistic insistence.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image." (our being plural)
Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil." (one of US, again plural)


- - -

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:17, 18: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

That's not very meek now is it?  Bad mosses.  Though shalt not kill.
- - -







Those are some contradictions, now about about inaccuracies?


LEV 11:13-19 - And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.  (bats are not birds)

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (Rabbits do not chew their cud)

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. (insects do not have 4 feet, they have 6).


Lets move on to fatal flaws shall we?

These are from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27
Love God.

DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17
Fear God.

1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love.

and finally:
- - -

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.

Except where he made the prophets lie for him (91 Kings 22:23), lied to Jeremiah (20:7), or admits to lying in Ezekiel 14:9.
- - -



I am supposed to fear God.  There is no love in fear.  So how can I love God?

And in the book I am told that God does not lie, a short distance from where God tells me he lies.

Pardon me if I'm confused. Again, sorry to everyone I surely offended.  I love this stuff.  Make for interesting discussion IMHO.

CF. Some very good points. Wow, if you actually came up with this stuff from your own studies and research, that is very impressive. It always impresses me when someone has a heart for truth and is bold enough to question things and not just accept the status quo. After 20-something years in ministry (not my full-time job now), I have met few people in churches who "search the scriptures, to see if these things are so..."

I can't answer all of your points. Some may be just as confusing to me as they are to you. Some, however are very easy to answer.

1. Jewish folks did not count days as we do. (12:00 AM to 12:00 AM. - no clocks) It still may not be 72 hours, but the Bible never says 72 hours - it says "days". The timeline overlaps. Friday, Sabbath, and Sunday. The point is not counting days - but the fact that He died and rose for our sins.

2. There are seven "last words of Jesus" - This is no big deal to me. What He said is important - not exactly when He said it. You have three quotes. Those quotes are from three different writers, Matthew, Luke and John. Matthew and John were there, but not standing together. Luke wasn't present, but probably got his information from Peter. Each is telling the story from their perspective, it was the last words they heard or remembered, or were told about. The cool thing is that we get three perspectives on the fact that Jesus died and said some important things while dying on the cross.

3. I can't answer number 3.

4. I've heard and read stuff trying to reconcile these accounts - but not to my satisfaction. It really doesn't matter to me. Judas betrayed Jesus - sold him out. And he died a tragic death.

5. Context. Rules of hermeneutics (bible interpretation). We shouldn't judge people, does that mean God (Jesus) cannot judge people?

I'll not go on. I don't understand everything, nor do I have answers for all of my doubts. Faith is not the absence of doubts, but the courage to believe in the face of doubt. I can choose to believe in a dozen perceived inconsistencies, or understand that it is a complex book and believe in what is plain and clear. A dozen or so troublesome verses do not outweigh about 31,000 other verses that are not controversial.

Finding fault (perceived or true) is very easy. Searching for truth or choosing to believe - that can be more difficult.

[cannon_fodder]

I agree Restored.  Many of those details really don't matter.  What he said on the cross is not really consequential to the story.  If he had cried out in agony and seemingly lost his faith ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") it only shows that it WAS a sacrifice and he shared a common thread of humanity with all of us.

I question everything (as does my Son, which is amazingly annoying so I know how you feel!).  Clearly not all of those ideas are unique to me but I have read scripture and double check things that don't make sense to me.  Some of the basic precepts of the faith don't pass my reasoning test - which is why they are faith.  I can not shake someone's faith.

But I can point out rather convincingly that the Bible is not a literal work.  In my warped little mind such an endeavor will strengthen some people's Faith since the Bible is NOT the point of Christianity as many know it (fundamentalism aside).
- - -

Wingnut:

I understand time constraints.  I general piece such long things together over a long period in Word and paste them into a post.  Often they appear after lunch.  So don't worry about competing or anything, though I would encourage you to read it through - I'll work on short responses.

1) No, the 4700 year old tree proves nothing about the age of the Earth in and of itself.  It does, however, allow scientists to confirm the carbon dating methods and use tree ring dating to go back much further than 6000 years (google tree ring dating, perhaps more convincing because it is physical not radioactive based).

2) The Bible can not be "evidence" of creationism.  Logically, it breaks down:

Creationism is fact because the Bible says so.
The Bible is fact because God wrote it.
God wrote it because the Bible says so.

Circular logic can not be used to prove a minor premise.  That is why it remains a matter of faith - which has no place in science.  I don't insist your religion teach my science, don't insist my science class teach your religion (sry if that sounded rude).

3) Transition makes evolution - the corn was an example of a transition.  It went from thumb sized to, well, corn cob sized in a short time.  I was seeking visible evolution.

But no, though most scientist insist there is evidence to PROVE evolution I will allow you to state it is not a proven law.  Not enough details are known and there are gaps in the research (the nature of research is to create more questions than answers).

However, it is the theory best supported by evidence.  The evidence we have points towards the theory as well as overtly disproves the creation theory (not all is as it was).  

4) I have answered many of your questions/doubts in my dissertation.  I understand it is long, but please read over it when you get a chance.  I tried to be clear (hence lengthy).  There are many different tests and disciplines that contradict the 6000 year old Earth, I believe you might agree with my assessment at the end.

5) There is indeed no solid evidence creation did not happen.  But that's the way things work - you need evidence to prove the existence of something.  It is impossible to disprove somethings existence (prove to me I wasn't alive with Jesus).  No evidence for creation exists that is observable, testable, or repeatable.  In the eyes of science - it does not exist.

6) I referenced many of the sites you pointed me to in my response.
- - -

Look, I understand this is a matter of faith.  I'm not arguing against your faith (not yet []), I am trying to point out that faith and science are different mediums and in many instances are mutually exclusive.  I feel that some of the examples of this I have given are irrefutable.  

I understand and respect that you have strong convictions, but it is religions' inability to yield to better evidence that turned me off to it in the first place.  When something is set up as infallible and I find many faults, it can not be reconciled.  An admission of one fault is too much.  Thus, impossible positions are defended.

Thanks for the discussion, I don't want to repeat myself but would be happy to answer any questions or continue the discussion with anyone who desires.

[rwarn17588]

<restored2x wrote:

I don't understand everything, nor do I have answers for all of my doubts. Faith is not the absence of doubts, but the courage to believe in the face of doubt. I can choose to believe in a dozen perceived inconsistencies, or understand that it is a complex book and believe in what is plain and clear. A dozen or so troublesome verses do not outweigh about 31,000 other verses that are not controversial.

Finding fault (perceived or true) is very easy. Searching for truth or choosing to believe - that can be more difficult.

<end clip>

Which is a good way of summing things up. The flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible are why I don't subscribe to its inerrancy and take literally all its passages, nor should anyone else.

The Bible is meant to be studied so that people can try to reconcile those flaws and inconsistencies on their own.

Many evangelicals would have you believe that there is one path through Bible study. But the Bible leads to many paths. Sometimes you'll find a fork in the road or even perhaps a dead end. Even if you find a straight line, you're never 100 percent sure it is the correct one.

Such study shouldn't lead to sanctimony and certainty, but to doubts and humility and hope. (As an example, Mother Teresa was extremely tormented by doubts of God's existence, but that didn't stop her from trying to ease the suffering of others.)

Ultimately, God is mysterious and unknowable. And if you come to some sort of contentment in knowing him, it is a deeply personal thing that may not be replicated in others.

So, by the grace of God (or Allah), go we.