literal or not

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

Regardless, I still find the idea of 'divinely inspired' scripture somewhat ridiculous, and I apologise if you find that offensive,

Oh thankyou, thankyou !! Whew! I feel better now.

I am going to get some breakfast and take another look latter at the Forum.

Your apologetic comment reminds me of the Aesop fable about the gnat that landed on the horn of an ox. He said "Please excuse me. I won't be sitting here long. I don't mean to weigh you down unnecessarily."

The ox replies. "That's ok I can hardly notice if you're sitting there or not."
Sometimes the smallest critters have the biggest egos.

chat latter perhaps.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I hope you'll forgive me for not attempting to counter your bewilderingly extensive post point-by-point, but I don't think exchanging walls of text is a fruitful way to discuss these things. Consider this though; Homer's works also reflect real people, places and things. Does this mean you believe he blinded a cycloptic giant and was held prisoner by ...[text shortened]... minimalize this pesky concern Jesus has for me.

Hector and Ulysses ? They don't bother me.

I never met Zeus either. Or Jesus. I find much of value in Jesus's teachings, more still in those of the Buddha. And Confucius. And Bertrand Russell. And Richard Feynman. And Darwin, and Dawkins, and Einstein and Hawking. And Black Beetle for that matter. I don't feel a need to worship any of them though. I don't know or understand enough to know if any of them have the full SP on life, the universe and everything though. Those whose views contain the least magical thinking seem the most acceptable to me, since I find no evidence to support magic (or miracles) in the real world.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

I never met Zeus either.

Ok. While I get a bite - the New Testament details HOW and WHY it is that we can know Jesus. Chapters 14 through 16 of John's Gospel gives a discussion Christ passed on as to WHY it will be possible to meet Jesus.

Could you point out where in the poetry of Homer a similar discussion takes place teaching future generations HOW it is that Zues can be met ?

Or Jesus. I find much of value in Jesus's teachings, more still in those of the Buddha.

Except that Buddha did not claim to be God come in the flesh.
You have to consider that what Jesus claimed (and acted as if it must be true) and what Buddha claimed for himself are quite different I think.

That is not to imply that there no [edited] truth in Buddhism.
There IS something of an illusion to life.
Ecclesiastes said that too.
Buddhism does contain some truth.

Jesus - "I am the resurrection and the life" .
If He was not, He deserves and Academy Award for the acting job.

And Confucius.

There is some truth in Confucius teaching as well. Particularly about the "bright virtue" of the what I would call the God created human conscience.

Bertrand Russell I am not well read on. But from what I know I would like to see more about his math. I was a computer programmer.

"Why I Am Not A Christian" fails to impress me too much. But I don't know it real well.

Failing in his marriage as he did, I would expect him to have a vested interest in not wanting to be accountable to God for anything. Too bad he had no concept of forgiveness in God's salvation.

And Richard Feynman.

So far in your skeptic hit parade, I like Richard Feynman's attitude. I think of him as less obnoxious in his admitions as to why he had problems with the Bible.

Richard Feynman, from what I have heard of him, would have been someone I would have liked to talk to. I hope he found God in his last moments.

Hey, I hope they ALL found God in thier last moments.

And Darwin,

I had trouble being interested in "Origin of Species" to the end of the book.

I think Darwin was probably mostly offended with God about the death of a loved one. I think he had real trouble reckoning with that tragedy. I think it colored some ideas he had which took off like wild fire probably beyond his belief.

My opinion is that TODAY, knowing what we know about the cell, Darwin would probably rethink seriously some of his ideas.

Then again, could Darwin come back from the grave and stand around and listen to kids and adults talk about Evolution and Charles Darwin, he might rush back to his grave with a flattered surprise and a attitude to quit while he's so popular.

and Dawkins,

Dawkins is a bioologist pretending to be a philosopher. He's an embarrassment to other atheists.

When he debates the likes of mathematician John Lennox, the Liberal bent in me for the underdog almost causes me to feel sorry for Richard Dawkins.

and Einstein

Had some interesting things to say about the problem of God's existence.
You don't have the belligerence in men like Feynmann and Einstein that you have with the New Atheists.

and Hawking. And Black Beetle for that matter. I don't feel a need to worship any of them though.

Where ever you are going with this I am not sure.
Jesus is worthy of my worship.

Of course for me "worship" does not mean just to prostrate one's face downward to the ground or something. I think of the OT example of worship as a FEAST of enjoyment.

For me to ENJOY Christ on a moment by moment basis - feasting and feeding my inner being with His trustful presence within is worship -

"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

Worship of Christ to me is feasting upon His flowing in and out of me as a divine life giving Spirit.

The feast started on the day I confessed my need for forgiveness from God and received it.

I don't know or understand enough to know if any of them have the full SP on life, the universe and everything though. Those whose views contain the least magical thinking seem the most acceptable to me, since I find no evidence to support magic (or miracles) in the real world.

I don't see why Whoever created the Universe could not as needed demonstrate His divine power over nature, in order to make a point.

It puzzles me why you would dismiss many of these demonstrations as "magic."

Now I'll tell you about some magic - Some apes fell out of the trees, fell on all fours, then eventually stood up, hair fell off, and BINGO!, we had human beings.

Now THAT's magic. I mean if a frog turns into a prince it is a fairy tale.
But if a frog turns into a prince and it takes 65 million years, well, that's science.

So you're a professional archeologist ??

Originally posted by sonship

I never met Zeus either.

Ok. While I get a bite - the New Testament details HOW and WHY it is that we can know [b]Jesus. Chapters 14 through 16 of John's Gospel gives a discussion Christ passed on as to WHY it will be possible to meet Jesus.

Could you point out where in the poetry of Homer a similar discussion takes place teachin ...[text shortened]... t takes 65 million years, well, that's science.

So you're a professional archeologist ??[/b]

I don't see why Whoever created the Universe could not as needed demonstrate His divine power over nature, in order to make a point.

It puzzles me why you would dismiss many of these demonstrations as "magic."

Now I'll tell you about some magic - Some apes fell out of the trees, fell on all fours, then eventually stood up, hair fell off, and PINGO we had human beings.

There are rather obvious differences between 'biblical magic' and 'evolutionary magic'. The main being that the mechanism of evolutionary change is demonstrably real, whereas, well, how exactly did god turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt again?

"Buddha, Confucius, Homer, Einstein, Zoraster, Mohammed ... etc are all the same."

Often this means, "None of them have an effect on me or my program as to what I will do."

So they are all the same. This is not an ecumenical or magnanimus "They profitable and are the same." This is a - "They are all the same because none change me. I will live as I will live regardless."

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[quote] I don't see why Whoever created the Universe could not as needed demonstrate His divine power over nature, in order to make a point.

It puzzles me why you would dismiss many of these demonstrations as "magic."

Now I'll tell you about some magic - Some apes fell out of the trees, fell on all fours, then eventually stood up, hair fe ...[text shortened]... monstrably real, whereas, well, how exactly did god turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt again?

Shall we talk about Lot's wife as an example ?

Originally posted by sonship
"Buddha, Confucius, Homer, Einstein, Zoraster, Mohammed ... etc are all the same."

Often this means, "None of them have an effect on me or my program as to what I will do."

So they are all the same. This is not an ecumenical or magnanimus "They profitable and are the same." This is a - "They are all the same because none change me. I will live as I will live regardless."

On the contrary, I think all of those I mentioned have had an effect on me.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[quote] I don't see why Whoever created the Universe could not as needed demonstrate His divine power over nature, in order to make a point.

It puzzles me why you would dismiss many of these demonstrations as "magic."

Now I'll tell you about some magic - Some apes fell out of the trees, fell on all fours, then eventually stood up, hair fe ...[text shortened]... monstrably real, whereas, well, how exactly did god turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt again?

Archeology.

For years skeptics said the Gospel of Luke must be historically in error because no pavement in Pilate's court was found in archeology. I guess some people died under that assumption.

Then I heard that one day they indeed did uncover this Pavement upon which Luke says Jesus to in his judgment before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate.

What do you do when some biblical accounts seem to be confirmed with archeology ?

Now there is some sensational Evangelical archeological stuff. But there is some legitimate discoveries it seems also.

Originally posted by sonship
Shall we talk about Lot's wife as an example ?

If you sincerely believe that god turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt and that human evolution is magic, then I don't really see a lot of point to be honest.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
If you sincerely believe that god turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt and that human evolution is magic, then I don't really see a lot of point to be honest.

oh dear, denying the supernatural is for those who have limited their perspective, despite their pretensions to the contrary.

Originally posted by sonship
Archeology.

For years skeptics said the Gospel of Luke must be historically in error because no pavement in Pilate's court was found in archeology. I guess some people died under that assumption.

Then I heard that one day they indeed did uncover this Pavement upon which Luke says Jesus to in his judgment before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate.
...[text shortened]... tional Evangelical archeological stuff. But there is some legitimate discoveries it seems also.

I very much doubt any reputable archaeologist would ever interpret an absence of evidence as evidence of absence. This a basic axiom of the field. Come back at me with archaeological evidence of a miracle and we'll consider this further.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
If you sincerely believe that god turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt and that human evolution is magic, then I don't really see a lot of point to be honest.

You have a good way of assuring that you won't get into a discussion. Above I did notice that you said something else was of no point in discussing.

What I find too miraculous to believe is not that animals CHANGE.

What I find requires to much "faith" (for lack of a better word) is that everything I see around me in the entire biosphere was the result of trial and error, natural selection on random mutation.

Every motion in the cell, every molecular machine?
Every minute connection of the workings of reproduction and even the thinking mind were the result of trial and error of non-intelligent random happenings?

I know - All together now "You Don't Understand Evolution".

You're asking TOO MUCH. Sure animals change.
But you're asking of me too much to rule out any intelligent "look ahead" ability to steer, to aim, to plan, to arrive at a intended result.

That much evolution is worst than magic.
You go ahead and believe it all came about in the world of living things that way if you want. You go ahead and believe that story.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear, denying the supernatural is for those who have limited their perspective, despite their pretensions to the contrary.

There's incontrovertible evidence that evolutionary change actually happens. There's very, very scant evidence supporting the instantaneous supernatural transformation of human beings into salt - just the one ancient story in fact. You may consider this a self-limited perspective, I prefer to think of it as rational thought.

Originally posted by sonship
You have a good way of assuring that you won't get into a discussion. Above I did notice that you said something else was of no point in discussing.

What I find too miraculous to believe is not that animals CHANGE.

What I find requires to much "faith" (for lack of a better word) is that everything I see around me in the entire biosphere was the re ...[text shortened]... e about in the world of living things that way if you want. You go ahead and believe that story.

I do not believe we have all the answers explaining the origins and evolution of life. I think the evidence strongly suggests that we have some of the right answers and have revealed some of the mechanisms involved.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
There's incontrovertible evidence that evolutionary change actually happens. There's very, very scant evidence supporting the instantaneous supernatural transformation of human beings into salt - just the one ancient story in fact. You may consider this a self-limited perspective, I prefer to think of it as rational thought.

No, there is incontrovertible evidence that adaptation occurs. There is not a single piece of empirical evidence that transmutation happens. To deny the supernatural on no other basis than a personal bias is hardly rational, is it.