Left Powerless Over Sin? No!

[doug yowell]

"Circle," not "sphere." I didn't claim that verse as evidence that they believed the Earth was flat (others have, and there's a ton of extra-biblical evidence for this too, you know...), but I'm also not going to let you claim it as evidence they knew the Earth was spherical. The Greeks figured that out on their own later, using scientific principles.

There's tons of archaeological evidence, both Biblical and otherwise, that every major civilization in the Near East at the time believed the Earth was flat. The symbolism only seems obvious to you because you know the Earth isn't flat,

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

That's just it: the Bible shows convincing evidence that it wasn't written by human beings alone. No pre-scientific tribes-people could account for the Bible.

Do you think that you-- a modern, scientific man who has much more knowledge than the writers of Scripture-- could write a book like any of the books contained in the Bible?

The Bible contains 66 books and was written by approximately 50 authors over a period of about 1, 500 years. But let's suppose that it was written by over 100 different people. Do you think that 100--- no, let's make it 2,000-- of the most intelligent scientists (who were helped by Nobel prize-winning authors), they could produce a book of the quality of the King James Version?

Uh, yes?

Are you claiming that you could write books like those in the Bible?

Assumng that's your meaning, let's take the shortest book in the Old Testament and also the shortest book in the New. Please write two short books of the quality of those two books: Obadiah and 2 John.

[John317]

It seems that we've allowed atheists and agnostics to lead us far away from the main topic of the dicussion, which is whether we are powerless over sin or whether God empowers us to resist and overcome sin.

I'd like to bring them into the discussion about sin. What do you-- the atheists and agnostics-- believe about sin? Does evil exist? Should you resist evil? Can you by yourself resist and overcome all evil desires and behavior?

Christians can answer this, too, of course.

I'd like to ask Christians and atheists whether Christians should exhibit a higher standard of ethics and morality than atheists, and finally, whether this is what they observe in the world?

[Igakusei]

And should be as obvious to you that the Bible doesn't teach that the earth was flat, as you have already alluded to. But you argue the Biblical error of flat earth from alleged tons of archaelogical Biblical evidence, while admitting that the Bible has evidence that it did not advocate a flat earth, but that it errs by not specifically identifying the earth as spherical. Which do you want to charge?

[M. T. Cross]

I'd like to bring them into the discussion about sin. What do you-- the atheists and agnostics-- believe about sin? Does evil exist? Should you resist evil? Can you by yourself resist and overcome all evil desires and behavior?

Christians can answer this, too, of course.

Well now I feel left out........

[Igakusei]

Is this what you consider "proof that heart cells have been programmed by evolution"?

...

It's all theory and based on what is believed to have "probably" occurred. Maybe it happened, but then... maybe not... Who knows?

But thanks for the links. I'll continue reading them.

There's a reasonable amount of doubt inherent in any arguments purporting to suggest how heart cells first evolved, given that we don't have a time machine and the best we can do is make inferences about which extant organisms have muscles or hearts most similar to predicted states in heart evolution and study those. That's the source of the "probablies" that you highlighted.

But don't confuse that doubt with doubt that the process occurred at all. It's often much easier to tell that something happened than to rebuild with confidence exactly how it happened and in what order, and that's the case here.

[Igakusei]

It seems that we've allowed atheists and agnostics to lead us far away from the main topic of the dicussion, which is whether we are powerless over sin or whether God empowers us to resist and overcome sin.

I'd like to bring them into the discussion about sin. What do you-- the atheists and agnostics-- believe about sin? Does evil exist? Should you resist evil? Can you by yourself resist and overcome all evil desires and behavior?

Christians can answer this, too, of course.

I'd like to ask Christians and atheists whether Christians should exhibit a higher standard of ethics and morality than atheists, and finally, whether this is what they observe in the world?

Can I answer this with a video? Because Matt does a pretty good job of relating my approach to morality and "evil."

[John317]

I'd like to bring them into the discussion about sin. What do you-- the atheists and agnostics-- believe about sin? Does evil exist? Should you resist evil? Can you by yourself resist and overcome all evil desires and behavior?

Christians can answer this, too, of course.

I'd like to ask Christians and atheists whether Christians should exhibit a higher standard of ethics and morality than atheists, and finally, whether this is what they observe in the world?

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Can I answer this with a video? Because Matt does a pretty good job of relating my approach to morality and "evil."

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Matt gives reasonable responses, although not always accurate ones. But I would like to have seen him go deeper or further into the subject of sin, or evil. He speaks of modern man as if he has made great progress over ancient man in terms of morality, yet humans have killed more of their fellow humans in the last 150 years than ever before in the history of mankind. And the terrible killing continues up to today, despite some kinds of "progress." World War II started and occurred in some of the most refined and educated civilizations in all of history.

What is the source of "evil"?

Do you believe man is born neither good nor evil? Or do you believe all humans are born with evil tendencies?

[John317]

Well now I feel left out........

I'm sorry. Yes, please do participate in the discussion too. :-)

[John317]

The Bible contains 66 books and was written by approximately 50 authors over a period of about 1, 500 years. But let's suppose that it was written by over 100 different people. Do you think that 100--- no, let's make it 2,000-- of the most intelligent scientists (who were helped by Nobel prize-winning authors), they could produce a book of the quality of the King James Version?

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Uh, yes?

When was the last time you studied the book of Daniel in depth, especially chapters 2, 7-9, 11 & 12?

And what about the book of Isaiah?

Are you saying that you could, or that a group of scientists could do it?

I wish someone would give it a try.

[Igakusei]

He speaks of modern man as if he has made great progress over ancient man in terms of morality, yet humans have killed more of their fellow humans in the last 150 years than ever before in the history of mankind. And the terrible killing continues up to today, despite some kinds of "progress." World War II started and occurred in some of the most refined and educated civilizations in all of history.

[Igakusei]

When was the last time you studied the book of Daniel in depth, especially chapters 2, 7-9, 11 & 12?

[Gerr]

This is not evidence of any claims of divinity by any god since there is absolutely no evidence that any god created these.

Yes, it's complex, and it's transcendent, but we are no closer to knowing who or what started it all because whoever, if there is a who, hasn't really come forward to let us know.

And what evidence do you have that God didn't?

Yes, indeed!!! God has come forward to declare Himself the Creator, but you reject the evidence as some fairytale or superstition.

[Gerr]

It's idiopathic, Gerry. I've actually seen this question asked of a few physicists, and without exception every one of them stated honestly that physics doesn't have an answer to that question (and if we ever answer it it will only create a new question one level deeper), so it's a little disingenuous of you to (as it comes across to me) imply that anyone is trying to sweep anything under the rug and pretend that we've found all the answers.

All I'm saying is that secular scientists have ruled out any supernatural influence in their explanations of the origin and operation of the universe. It is all mechanistic and materialistic. Never have I even hinted that we have found all the answers. What I am saying is that there is a God who created it all who also maintains and sustains His creation. Now, scientists may very well find some physical law that governs how this "strong force" holds positively charged particles together, but that still begs the question - WHO is the author of these laws? You say, it is what it is. I say, somebody authored it. Neither one of us can demonstrate with absolute certainty the correctness of our assumptions. So again, I say, it boils down to a matter of choice as to what paradigm we believe - matter, the universe, DNA, etc. invented themselves or Someone did. And since every watch I see has a watchmaker, and every car has a carmaker, and every law has a lawmaker, and every computer a computermaker, etc., it makes the most sense to me that the universe must have a universe Maker!

[Gerr]

You're right and I require sufficient evidence first hand before I make any claims.

There is not enough lifetimes for you perform ALL the experiments necessary to verify ALL the accumulated scientific knowledge known to man! You accept more hearsy knowledge than you care to acknowledge. Furthermore, since historical events are not repeatable, there is NO way you can have firsthand evidence to verify them. They are all hearsay.

[Gerr]

You're confusing the issue. You're claiming that the universe was designed by one specific entity who first appears in human history as an insignificant tribal god in the hills of bronze-age Palestine, and I'm saying that the evidence you've provided in support of that claim is extremely dubious.

So what evidence do you have that there is not a Designer? For every watch there is a watchmaker, for a car a carmaker, etc. Look at every organ in the body and tell me which one has not been the product of design.

Insignificant tribal god? The very first chapter of Genesis introduces a God who creates matter out of nothing by the power of His word. Now, if you choose to believe that something came out of nothing by itself, I'd like to see the evidence.

Quote:

You're saying "It was created by X, Y years ago," and you ignore entire fields of science that disagree with your specific claims.

What fields of science has demonstrated that there is no Designer? That matter and the universe created itself?

Quote:

Now you're painting the choice between my response and your response as something like a coin flip, but it's not. There are an infinite variety of possible explanations for why the universe is the way it is, and choosing a particular one sans good evidence or reasoning is not the equivalent to withholding judgement until we have something more reliable to go on.

Of course, it's not a coin flip! We are both looking and making judgments about the same data. We just disagree on our conclusions. It is commendable of you to say that you are willing to change your position as more evidence comes in. For me, I have more than enough data to conclude that there is a Designer Creator.

[Gerr]

Quote:

If the Bible actually had any convincing prophecies in it, you might have a point. But it doesn't, and you have no point. It amazes me that people actually consider the book of Daniel convincing evidence of a supernatural element to the Bible.

So what prophecies of Daniel are bogus?

[Igakusei]

All I'm saying is that secular scientists have ruled out any supernatural influence in their explanations of the origin and operation of the universe. It is all mechanistic and materialistic. Never have I even hinted that we have found all the answers. What I am saying is that there is a God who created it all who also maintains and sustains His creation. Now, scientists may very well find some physical law that governs how this "strong force" holds positively charged particles together, but that still begs the question - WHO is the author of these laws? You say, it is what it is. I say, somebody authored it. Neither one of us can demonstrate with absolute certainty the correctness of our assumptions. So again, I say, it boils down to a matter of choice as to what paradigm we believe - matter, the universe, DNA, etc. invented themselves or Someone did. And since every watch I see has a watchmaker, and every car has a carmaker, and every law has a lawmaker, and every computer a computermaker, etc., it makes the most sense to me that the universe must have a universe Maker!

I've explained it twice now and you seem to have missed the point and just repeated yourself again, so let me try to make an analogy to medicine. Let's take Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF).

I'm saying "we have some ideas, but certainly nothing concrete, and more research needs to be done. We can describe it, but we really don't know what causes it and we may never be able to find out."

You're saying "It's caused by arsenic toxicity! I look around at all these other diseases and find that they all have causes, and you say IPF isn't caused by anything! So it seems more reasonable to me to say that IPF is caused by arsenic toxicity. Neither one of us can demonstrate the correctness of our assumptions."

And cars, laws, computers, and watches are not self-replicating machines known to be capable of biological evolution. Read my posts again, because my point seemed to pass between your ears completely ungrasped.

[Igakusei]

Insignificant tribal god? The very first chapter of Genesis introduces a God who creates matter out of nothing by the power of His word. Now, if you choose to believe that something came out of nothing by itself, I'd like to see the evidence.

[Igakusei]

So what prophecies of Daniel are bogus?

All of them.

Look, if you want a prophecy to be convincingly supernatural, it has to be a few things:

1. It has to pre-date the events

2. It has to make specific, accurate predictions

3. It can't be self-fulfilling

A ton of Messianic "prophecies" weren't even intended to be prophetic, they were just co-opted by NT authors to support the divinity of the Christ character. Nobody can even agree on which nations represent which in Daniel 2, and verses 3-39 of Daniel 11 is a very accurate, point-by-point history lesson from the second century. Verses 40-45 suddenly and abruptly cease being historical, indicating (among many many other lines of evidence) that that part of the book at least was written around the time of verse 39, and the author is much better at history than prediction.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml

^That's how your prophecies look to someone who isn't going out of his way to make the pieces fit on the presupposed assumption that the prophecies are there and accurate.

[Gerr]

Well, I don't know who is missing whose point. Maybe you're right that I am. The data I'm looking at is this, and I'll repeat it again because I can't seem to make my point across either.

I see a watch, I know there's a watchmaker.

I see a car, I can be certain there's a carmaker.

I see my OS, I know Microsoft invented it.

There is nothing around me that doesn't seem to be made by someone.

So, when I see a star, my mind tells me there must be a starmaker, a DNA Maker, etc.

You believe the first three because you can go to Switzerland or Detroit or Washington to see how they are actually made. Of the last, you say - maybe, maybe not. Like PF I have some concrete ideas, but because the starmaker hasn't shown Himself, I'll withhold judgment until He shows Himself or find more evidence.

[Gerr]

Here again, it boils down to whose evidence you accept. Was Daniel written before? or after the fact. I believe the after-the-fact authorship view has been debunked.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

scientists may very well find some physical law that governs how this "strong force" holds positively charged particles together, but that still begs the question - WHO is the author of these laws?

Assuming there is a God, using the scientific process (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, verification), science will never be able to prove His existence. How can science, using natural processes, duplicate supernatural processes/events? I don't think that science is necessarily against God; I just think that, being honest to their mission and proven processes, they understand that they will never be able to duplicate supernatural processes in a laboratory constrained to operate within natural law.

That being said, there are probably many processes that we currently consider supernatural for which we will discover natural causes in the future. It's happened before. Just think if you could bring your iphone and the internet back 100 years ...

[M. T. Cross]

I'd like to bring them into the discussion about sin. What do you-- the atheists and agnostics-- believe about sin?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

It's idiopathic, Gerry. I've actually seen this question asked of a few physicists, and without exception every one of them stated honestly that physics doesn't have an answer to that question (and if we ever answer it it will only create a new question one level deeper), so it's a little disingenuous of you to (as it comes across to me) imply that anyone is trying to sweep anything under the rug and pretend that we've found all the answers.

All I'm saying is that secular scientists have ruled out any supernatural influence in their explanations of the origin and operation of the universe. It is all mechanistic and materialistic. Never have I even hinted that we have found all the answers. What I am saying is that there is a God who created it all who also maintains and sustains His creation. Now, scientists may very well find some physical law that governs how this "strong force" holds positively charged particles together, but that still begs the question - WHO is the author of these laws? You say, it is what it is. I say, somebody authored it. Neither one of us can demonstrate with absolute certainty the correctness of our assumptions. So again, I say, it boils down to a matter of choice as to what paradigm we believe - matter, the universe, DNA, etc. invented themselves or Someone did. And since every watch I see has a watchmaker, and every car has a carmaker, and every law has a lawmaker, and every computer a computermaker, etc., it makes the most sense to me that the universe must have a universe Maker!

Eloquently stated.

sky