1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Celtkin, May 19, 2008.

  1. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    18,892
    11,589
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    I agree that presupposition, like the one taken in the study you cited, is biased but I don't see the same in research that supports evolution.

    There is no group of real scientists working to prove evolution, just like there is no group of real scientists working to disprove evolution. As I have mentioned many times in the past, that is not the way you do science. No one will fund you if you take that approach.

    Evolution is regarded correct because the sum of the evidence from experiments having nothing to do with evolution (gene regulation, genetic drift, point mutations, conserved regions of DNA, DNA packaging, DNA proofreading) point to it being a fact.

    The only bias you find is in groups trying to directly prove or disprove evolution and that is squarely in the camp of the intelligent design people. No one else cares. Having a young earth does not destroy science but some religious people believe that accepting the fact of evolution will somehow discredit God or invalidate his love for us.

    Scientist don't care what the results of an experiment are -- at least not the good ones. We are not invested in the emotion of discovery but in the facts.

    The fact of the matter is that peer review is the great equalizer. It takes away the emotion because your work is reviewed by folks who don't give a crap if you feel good or not about your data. They care that the data is correct and that your experiments actually say what you believe it says.

    Scientists who do not submit to peer review do so in all likelihood because they know the evidence can't survive careful evaluation.

    You seem to believe that we have discovery wrapped in emotion because, IMO, that is the "science" process you see going on around you in this attempt to defend the bible and God.

    Trust me -- God can defend himself.
     
    finswin56, gafinfan, cnc66 and 5 others like this.
  2. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    Touche' then. I readily admit my side is biased. All sides are biased. Because I believe that my side is true isn't hypocrisy, is it believing one bias over another.

    I don't believe the earth is 100K old, I just use that as an example to point out a younger earth than the 4.5 B. But again I can live with an old earth, I just don't believe it has been proven to be that old.

    The point is - We just don't know for sure. Science thinks it knows, but the dating methods are flawed. To accept them as truth requires a certain element of faith, and like I have said all along - people can believe what they want - But everyone believes in something!

    And yes DNA and Fossils have not proven evolution at all and I won't go into another protracted debate as I have done that on numerous occasions and quite frankly I am tired.

    But you believe what you want to believe.....that is fine with me, just don't call it proven truth, call it what it is - A Belief System.

    Ciao
     
  3. DonShula84

    DonShula84 Moderator Luxury Box

    9,391
    3,490
    0
    Jan 3, 2008

    The idea that Wikipedia isnt an accurate source is pretty silly. It's as accurate as any other encyclopedic source.

    There is no point in arguing about the RATE project because any contrary data, errors that are pointed out in their work you chalk up to evolutionist trying to discredit them. Couldnt other scientists not take them seriously simply because their project was flawed, and it has nothing to do with the emotions of undermining some belief system?

    You accused others before of simply attacking the source, when that's all you've done; attacked the source of those who disagree with this project. Who is one to believe, a scientific community, or this one research group with a blatant agenda?
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
    finswin56 and Celtkin like this.
  4. Pagan

    Pagan Metal & a Mustang

    20,444
    40,003
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Newburgh, NY
    Just want to point out something...and no, not "attacking" you.

    Isn't this what I've told you countless times when you claim your faith to be "truth"?

    I'm curious as to how you can say that about your beliefs, yet tell others not to say that about science.
     
  5. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    Ok Celt. You can believe what you want. Evolution denies the Genesis account of Creation. You believe in man made evolution theory verses the biblical creation account.

    I agree God can defend Himself...in time......only it may not be in the manner one wishes.

    Touche'

    You say you are a believer.....do you ever think that maybe just maybe that the world order/world view is a deception to draw people away from God? Even a remote possibility?

    Remember the scriptures.
    Mt 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

    Mt 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

    2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

    Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

    Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments....
    Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
    1Jn 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

    Most will follow the deciever.

    Remember that Christ did not deny the OT. He fullfilled the OT promise of salvation. This means that He believes the Genesis account of creation. As just a broken and humbled Christian, who I am to not.
     
  6. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    honestly speaking, humble is not a word I would use to describe you
     
    DOLPHAN1 likes this.
  7. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    18,892
    11,589
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    If you ask me to believe the Genesis account, you are asking me to believe that God intentionally deceived us as he was the one who placed all the misleading clues and I am not willing to believe that. Why would he make the earth to appear older than it is. Why would God lay down so many false clues? My God wouldn't do that!

    Finally, for me, one of the most compelling reasons to accept evolution is because the process is do damned screwed up that there is no way that a flawless God would ever have been responsible for it. While exquisite in its design, every genome is filled with junk and it is in a constant battle between checkpoints and repair process to keep an organism alive.

    Thanks anyway. My view of God makes a lot more sense to me.

    And finally, you have said "You say you are a believer" to me one too many times for my liking. It sure seems to have a condescending ring to me and I know that you probably don't mean it that way. I would hope that is not the case.
     
  8. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    i think ultimately this is what it boils down to. what is comfortable to the individual.
     
  9. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is all it can come down to.
     
  10. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    Well if I had to choose who is being deceiving - God or Satan - I would think Satan hands down, but that is just me.

    When I state "you say you are a believer", I do that because I really don't know if you are a believer in the God of the Bible, are you a Christian.....or do you just believe in God in general. It is from my lack of knowledge, maybe you have stated it already, but I missed it.

    Becasue to me, and to many folks, to be a christian one must believe the bible becasue without the bible there is no way to "know" anything about christianity. They go hand in hand. To me, and many folks also, the bible is either true from beginning to end, or it is not true at all and is worthless. There is no inbetween. There is no "I believe this part, but not that part". Because then the problem is - which part is true and which part isn't? Is it up to each person to decide? I think not because then you would have several billion different meanings. I don't think God meant that. I don't think God means several billion things.

    So I am not sure where you are in this? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe in God and Jesus, but question the bible. If that is true, then I think you have a problem becasue without the bible, you really have no knowledge of who God and Jesus are? See where I am coming from?
     
  11. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    Well.....isn't that just saying that whatever you want to believe in, if it feels comfortable, then believe it? That can't be truth, because then you would have several billion different truths, and not only that ....on what basis would anyone have to claim wrong or right? See that is the fallacy with moral relativism, there can be no right or wrong. Under moral relativism, as much as we disagree and hate the 911 hijackers, we would have no basis to say they are wrong. Because under their relative morality - they are right? See the delemna?

    I believe, and the bible clearly states, that there is only one source of truth - God - and it is an absolute truth, and that truth comes down "from" God, not what ever we want to "send" up to God and attribute our truth to Him.

    Am I making sense?
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2008
  12. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,824
    5,772
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    So you agree that the right way of dealing with disobedient children is stoning them?
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  13. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    In the OT Theocracy that the Jews lived under - yes. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it was the way it was.

    In todays society there are laws against such a thing. The NT tells us that we are to follow the government placed in authority over us, as long as it doesn't force us to disobey God.

    TIT 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,
     
  14. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,824
    5,772
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Woah, wait a minute: You've just said that the Bible is either true from beginning to end or not true at all and that you can't just pick the parts you want to believe in. So you either agree that it was right and true and good to stone disobedient children or you've just so much as acknowledged that the Bible is worthless. Sorry for giving you a hard time, bro, but I'm just holding you up to your own standards.



    But not stoning your disobedient child clearly is disobeying God as God quite clearly stated that you are to do it.
     
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,128
    43,023
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Where exactly in the bible does it say science is satan?

    Further more, are you a man or are you the second coming of jesus? If you are man then this following statement is flat-out blasphemy:

    Who exactly do you and these other people think they are? What knowledge was given to you by your god that you can say this without absolute certainty? If the bible is god's words, then by saying, thinking, and acting upon what you said, is a declaration that you know the mind of god. You've absolutely no idea how god wanted the bible to be viewed. This statement and its belief is the ultimate form of hypocrisy. At once you will claim not to know the mind of god, then turn around and make a statement that clearly implies to know something you can never know. To further this hypocrisy, you then claim that science can't claim a relative age of the Earth because they've no evidence, when you have considerably less evidence that the bible is to be taken literally.

    As is the case with message board discussions, specific questions get left unanswered. Often, when that happens, the person asking the questions, thinks the avoidance of those questions is because the other poster can't answer them or they are wrong. To avoid that, and give full opportunity, I'll post the questions I'm asking of you in a list.

    1. Where exactly in the bible does it say science is satan?
    2. Are you a man or are you the second coming of jesus?
    3. What evidence do you have that you can claim the bible is to be taken literally with absolute certainty?
    4. What other areas do you claim to know exactly what god means?
     
  16. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    The bible being true doesn't mean that we have to agree with, or understand, it. We are all in a constant state of rebellion. I don't like having to drive in a 25 MPH zone when I think it should be 35. But the law says 25.

    In order for you to understand why we don't stone our children to death for being disobediant (although the temptation is there sometimes I think ....I am joking...)you have to understand that the OT was a time of the Jews under a direct Theocracy under God. The NT and Jesus changed all that and most of the societal and religious practices of those times are no longer needed or required. The moral laws are still important today however.

    Today we don't have a Theocracy, we have the United States Government and it's laws.
    Today there is no Temple and therefore no ability to practice the religious practices, even if there was a temple (which they are working to rebuild) that would be Judaism. We are under the grace covenent of Jesus - called Christianity for those who believe - This does not require the religious practices of the OT.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2008
  17. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    I am making a logical argument, and that is this.....

    If a person claims to be a christian, but the only knowledge of christianity is the bible, but that person does not believe the bible, then how can they say they are a christian. It is really a simple logical argument.

    As far as your questions:

    1. I never said science is Satan. I believe that if there is deception going on in the world it is of Satan not God and I said that in context to another posters comments.
    2. You already know the answer to this.
    3. Go back to the logical argument. If it isn't to be taken literally , where does it say it should be taken allegorically, or metphorically are any other way? Secondly I didn't say it should be taken literally, I think you assumed that. It should be taken in context to the original author's intent, who it was written to and the culture of the times etc... Simple Exegesis and hermaneutics.
    4. All I know is what I read in the Bible.
     
  18. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Isn't that what you just said?

    SO if the law said that homosexuality was fine and marriage is fine then by the bible it is fine.
     
    cnc66 likes this.
  19. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    18,892
    11,589
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Ok...are you suggesting that Satan planted fake evidence in God's creation to draw us off track or are you suggesting that Satan is making us "see" evidence that isn't really there?

    You know what I believe. I have told you in the very recent past! I am insulted that you think I am stupid enough to buy this excuse.

    Whose to say that you know the truth? From what I have seen, you may just be wrong. Also, look around. It is not unusual, in light of overwhelming evidence, to consider that the Genesis creation tale is just that -- a "tale". So, to me and many people, it is ok to enjoy the love of God and still believe the evidence.

    See above.
     
  20. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    No. i would leave it at that but there is a 5 character minimum and even though your response only needs a two letter answer, i have to do THIS just to post my reply!
     
  21. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    18,892
    11,589
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Why do people complain about having typing more than 5 characters? :lol:


    How about "No way!" "Hell no"
     
    DOLPHAN1 and gafinfan like this.
  22. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    and of all the things you have said, this makes the most sense of anything. you clearly have the mindset of someone who should be living in the time of the NT as you call it, i think life for you would have a lot less complication. you certainly would not have to deal with all the diatribe of the last 2000 years.
     
  23. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    because just a simple "NO" was all i needed......:tantrum::pity:



    :yes:
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  24. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    this whole part to me is where the break down in this discussion is. you choose to take the Bible absolutely and literally. there is no compromise. and, it is no wonder that we keep coming to these impasses. how you chose to believe is totally up to you and i will not hold that against you. but, under these circumstances there is no room for discussion because you are unyielding or open at all.
     
  25. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    1. no two people, let me repeat this, no two people have the exact same belief in anything. similar? yes. exact? no. so there are as many "truths" then as there ever have been people. this is so because no two people have ever experienced ANYTHING in the exact same manor. what you have are groups of similar or like minded individuals that congregate together to believe and worship in a similar manor.

    2. who is right or wrong on an Earthly basis is determined by a set of standards that, as members of the human race, we all understand are needed for all to co-exist. we see this on all levels and, in part from all religions or beliefs. from your local government which we all have the opportunity to vote on, all the way up to the Supreme Court. on national levels we see it in places like the United Nations, the World Court and N.A.T.O. it is up to us as human citizens to live the best we can. absolute belief is not necessarily absolute knowledge.
     
  26. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    but the "OT" is part of the "NT" so you are, in your own words, choosing mans law over Gods law. in fact, we all are choosing mans law over Gods law. so by your absolute definition we are all sinning knowingly and there fore choosing a path apart from God. you speak in "literal" circles.
     
  27. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,824
    5,772
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    So I take it then that the ten commandments are no longer needed either? You can't claim that "There is no I believe this part, but not that part" and then go ahead and believe this part but not that part. That's hypocritical. So either the OT is true in its entirety or it isn't true at all. You either believe everything or nothing. If the ten commandments apply today, stoning children also applies. If the Genesis is true, so is stoning children. After all, it was you who argued that there's no picking and no in betweens. Can't have both.
     
  28. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    My brother in Christ, Dolphan 7, has painted himself into the proverbial rhetorical corner. It is an easy place to find oneself.

    Let me give you folks my denomination's official position on the Bible.

    It is the sole authoratative rule and norm for the faith and life of the Church and its people.

    I am going to disagree with Dolphan 7 regarding the requirement to take everything at the same value. I don't see scripture doing that to itself. (By Jesus day there was no stoning to death of disobidient children, it is not clear that levitical order was EVER followed in the community.) It is clear Jesus interprets Old Testament passages in new ways (His teaching on divorce for example) and the standards for being a Christian in Acts which include not eating meat offered to idols (not a problem I've run into much) had to be updated, which is what the council in Jerusalem circa 50 A.D was doing in Acts anyway!

    If any of you would like to do more than score debating points and would like to have some answers to your questions from a different Christian perspective please list them here and I will do my best. We may not agree but we might help inform each other.
     
  29. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    i was watching the History Chanel last night and a show called "Search for the Lost Ark". i mention this because Professor Tudor Parfitt from London's School of Oriental and African Studies found(from an earlier expedition) a "Black African" tribe, the Lembers, located in Zimbabwe, that had claimed to be a lost tribe of Jerusalem. he ended up in this tribe during his new search because, through science they were able to identify this tribe as, in fact, direct decendants of the priests of Jerusalem from the Exodus. they had tales of a sacred artifact that was used, among other things, during battles with other tribes to scare their enemies away. it was carried into battle by two "carriers" and was never to touch the ground. it was found and in very bad condition but science found it was not the actual Ark as it was only 600 years old. the Elders of the tribe claimed that their ancestors did bring with them an artifact that was described much like the original Ark but no evidence that it was there was found.

    i found interesting that science and religion (history) working together to solve two issues on this show.

    http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=276933

    most of my life i have encountered people such as D7 who seem to have a blind reverence for the Bible. every time i have ever asked questions i get the same type of answers. i usually end up frustrated and look elsewhere for my answers. part of my problem is that i am rather inquizitive and have some degree of inteligence, very often the "answers" in the Bible do not match up with real life, they just don't make sense.

    it is too bad that i have not encountered some one as your self, Ohio, previous to this. i may have a different out look on religious matters if i had.
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.
  30. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    I too have seen the program and found it fascinating. The use of DNA markers within small groups seems to offer great promise in clearing up some tribal mysteries. The origins of the Romany, the Basques, and other smaller groups such as the Lembers. It also points out to modern scholars the importance and the veracity of oral traditions within small populations. It is more reliable than some would give credit to and makes the stories of the early Biblical oral traditions even more likely.


    You are very kind, and I am still happy to answer those things I can.

    I too was blessed with a fair amount of native intelligence by God and have asked lots of questions all my life. I was blessed to have good folks with answers that met my needs at the time. The brightest people I have ever worked with were a few of my seminary profs who were Ivy League summa *** laudes and PhD's. They answered my questions and taught me how to ask even better ones.

    Bible study for me is not just doing the hard work and reference but being willing to listen to the answers, not going to a text expecting to find the answer I already want. I work with Biblical texts each week and have for 24 years. It is the rarest of rare weeks that I don't discover some new idea, nuance, and/or connection. The times I don't its usually because I haven't been listening.
     
    Pagan and DOLPHAN1 like this.
  31. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    Why do you think that my life is complicated. I don't feel that way at all. I am very happy and content with my life.
     
  32. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    The bible was written with a purpose and a meaning, one purpose and one meaning. Not several. Not - "Hey what ever I think it means is what it means".

    You make the mistake of thinking that I believe the bible is literal through and through. I don't. I believe the bible to be true and of God and written by God inspired men. I believe in biblical context, through the process of exegesis and a good dose of hermaneutics. Through this process we understand how to interpret the meaning of biblical texts, whether that be literal, metaphorical, allegorical, rhetorical, etc.....The context is so important. You can't just pick a verse out of the bible and apply your own understanding to it, and expect to derive God's meaning from it. You need to understand who the writer is, why they are writing , who they are writing to, and why. Also historical perspective is important as well as cultural traditions and practices. What did it mean to those it was written for? How does that apply to us today? What was the writers intent? What was he trying to convey? It isn't what w think he meant, but what he was trying to say in his written word.

    So if you don't want to continue to dialogue with me becasue I won't change my views on the bible and it's meaning, then you have to understand that it isn't because of that, it is becuase I can't change the meaning oif the bible to suit my own interests. I know some have done that throughout history, but that ain't me.

    If there is a verse that you or anyone would care to challenge and discuss please do so, because that is where to rubber hits the road so to speak. Rhetoric is fine, but the real challenge is the actual biblical texts.
     
  33. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    In reference to Number 1. Just because there are many "beliefs", as you point out, does not make them many "truths". Please understand the difference.

    There can be only "one" truth. Or everything is "false".

    But there can't be "many" truths.

    Point number 2. Right or wrong can't be based on societal contract or agreement. That isn't a basis for right and wrong. The US Southern States had a idea of right and wrong concerning Slavery and you see how that turned out. Just look at 911 hikackers and you can ague all day long they are wrong, but they can argue all day long that they are right. What standard do we use? You see the problem? Absolute truth and an absolute morality are the only way we can say that something is right or wrong. Only God can make those absolutes. Man is a zero when it comes to setting a standard all men are to hold to. Never in the history of the world has an absolute standard been in effect for the whole planet. And it never will. Not be men. Only God has that authority. And he makes it evident within us as human beings, as God's creatures. Some choose to not listen and that is on them. But we all have a conscience that tells us from an early age that we shouldn't disobey our parents, break the rules, defy authority etc...
     
  34. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    No not at all. Deception can be an unwilling thing. I don't think that most people willfully intend to decieve on this matter. I think they honestly believe in what they say for the most part. People believe in what they want to believe in, and Satan will gladly escort anyone down the path that leads to rebellion and defiance against God. Romans 1 warns about people who do ungodly things. God will "give them over" to their lustfull hearts......allowing sin to run it's course.

    Well if you did I apologise, but I have been having memory problems of late, just ask me wifey, she'll tell ya. If you could spell it out here again I promise to take note of it this time. Thanks!



    You do so at your own risk. Denying the bible.....leaves you with exactly what concept of God? What are God's attributes, His character? His love? How do you know anything of the God of the bible if you don't believe in the bible?

    Look your not the first person to try to fit your belief in God into the science of the day. What you need to understand is that you can't fit God into the world's point of view. You need to put the world's view in a Godly perspective. If you are a believer that is the only thing you can do for it all to make sense. The world is going to tell you that God doesn't exist - Are you going to believe them?
     
  35. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    No not at all.

    The OT Theocracy has three areas of authority for the Jews of that time.

    1. Societal or civil laws having to do with how to solve disputes among people like in our current judicial system.
    2. Religious or worship laws having to do with the temple and priests and all that.
    3. Moral laws having to do with our relating to God and each other.

    Obviously we are not under any theocracy here in the United States, so those laws - like stoning your children, are obsolete.

    There is no temple so there is no real Religious practices going on, and even if there were, this would be Judaism, not Christianity. So we don't follow the religious laws either.

    That leaves us with the moral laws like the ten commandments and other moral laws on how to relate to God and to ourselves.

    So it isn't my choice that there are some things from the OT that we do not follow today, but just a change in times and cultures.

    When Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the OT, but to Fullfill it, he meant that in Him we were not under the OT covenant (which was impossible to follow by the way) any longer, He completed it and finished it. We are now under the NT covenenat of grace. Jesus did Himself speak on many of the issues we face today.
     
    padre31 likes this.
  36. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    The bible is true. I believe that. And if I didn't believe that, it is still true. Not gonna argue that as it is a subject of fierce debate but for the point of this post I'll just leave it at that.

    This doesn't have anything to do with what I or you believe the bible is. It doesn't matter if you or I believe in all of it, some of it, or none of it. It is still true no matter what.

    So the issue between, is the bible true and does one believe in it, are two separate issues.

    Please read my prior post to get an idea of what I am talking about and why there are some things we just don't do today, doesn't mean it didn't happen back then because it did. It doesn't mean it wasn't true for the Jews of that time.

    Ask Miamian why they don't stone children in Israel today. He lives there he should be able to tell you from his perspective.
     
  37. DonShula84

    DonShula84 Moderator Luxury Box

    9,391
    3,490
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    Simply not true. Just think how people function in society for two seconds and the flaws in your thought process are made obvious. Also think of how what a society accepts has changed over time. Having one truth perhaps works in a church, but it isnt how societies are organized.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  38. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    And what corner is that my friend?

    Also I don't hold to "take everything at the same value", don't know where you got that from but I would gladly discuss it with you if you want. I think you and I probably agree on 99%, so in that regard we should embrace, and on the 1%, be shrewd. Matthew 10:16.
     
  39. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    Look at the big picture Don. You are referring to individual societies, and I am referring to earth and all it's inhabitants.

    Certainly a group of people can get together and decide what their laws will be. We have seen that throughout history. And it works. No argument there.

    The issue is can one society place moral absolutes on another society? And the answer is no. The answer is no because under this scenario there is no basis for right or wrong, no foundation, no standard. The other society could accept it or reject it or modify if based on their own reasoning, not that there is a standard they are trying to adhere to.

    Here is the problem you face. America verse Radical Islam and their particular moral beliefs. We can't appeal to a standard of morality for the innocent 911 victims because they don't subscribe to our morality, or to a standard morality.

    Only God has the authority to set absolute moral values on the whole world, and he has. Many just ignore them.
     
  40. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    100,026
    37,527
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    The hardest thing that I've found in studying the Bible, the responding to questions, is the simple ability to say "I don't know".
     
    Pagan, Ohiophinphan and DOLPHAN1 like this.

Share This Page