1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Yeah, but to what extent,ie. how high did the seas actually rise. Certainly not to bilical prportions.
How about the deal of finding sea shells on high mountains ? I've heard of this and other things that actually support that a flood happened.
Manny
Fossilized fish and shells have been found in the middle of Austrlaia (bit northern -middle) under where the grea australian bite is .
Thing is the ground is so low from the seaside of the bite to where these fossils were found, that even though they were found thousands of kms inland, the gound is really not that much above sea level all the way, so a much more minor flood could have caused this. It didn't "cover the whole Earth"(that's what the christians are contending,right?)
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71several explanations are offered for this.
How about the deal of finding sea shells on high mountains ? I've heard of this and other things that actually support that a flood happened.
Manny
-tectonic activity can raise the sea floor to mountainous heights.
-there is evidence of monster tsunamis in the past that have hit large areas and driven water many miles inland.
-there is evidence of cyclic global warming and cooling that can raise and lower the coastal water line by hundreds of feet.
bottom line is, when it comes to the fossil evidence, fossils of specific species are found in specific sediments and layers and not anywhere else. further, the older layers contain simpler forms of life and more recent layers contain more advanced forms of life.
if all those animals died in a single event, all the fossil evidence would show species scattered haphazardly in multiple layers. you would expect to find members of most species in every layer where fossils are found, including very complex life forms in the oldest layers. this is just not the case. a few isolated cases can be explained by catastrophic natural phenomenon.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHi sonhouse,
(btw, I really like your name, "sonhouse" - wish I had thought of it! The Son of the house, has Christian undertones on several levels! 🙂 )
... it doesn't help the case that an omniscient god could have stopped those multi-millions from being killed for political reasons.
Let me try as simply as possible to explain how I understand this, borrowing heavily from CS Lewis in "The Problem of Pain." (On re-reading this, it turns out rather lengthy. Apologies!)
The question is why does an omniscient God does not stop evil in this world, either on a grand scale (such as a Hitler or a Pol Pot) or even on a smaller scale (the women being battered next door.)
First of all, we need to understand what "omniscient" (all powerful) actually means. The "power to do anything" does not include the power to do things that are internally contradictory. For example, you cannot make it rain and not rain in the same place at the same time, even if you were all powerfull! So to say that "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withold free will from him" is an intrinsic impossiblity, in fact a nonsense statement.
So rather than make a lot of puppets or paper dolls, God chose to make creatures with a free will. Then he put them in a garden and said: Manage this place wisely! And after you're through here, extend this garden to the non-garden areas of the world.
You know the rest of the story - man screwed up and basically rebelled against God. To cut a long story short, God then said: "Those that seek me and respond to my love, will have access to me and I will intervene on their behalf". That's called prayer.
So through prayer we can get God to intervene in areas which the Bible calls "according to his will", in other words, in areas that he would like to intervene and actually wants us to ask him to (another whole field for discussion!)
But first let us look at another element of the "free agent" issue. CSL makes a big argument about the need for an "inexorable" nature.
The "inexorable laws of nature" which operate in defiance of human suffering or desert, which are not turned aside by prayer, seem at first sight to furnish a strong argument against the goodness and power of God. I am going to submit that not even Omnipotence could create a society of free souls without at some time creating a relatively independent and inexorable Nature. p29
His argument on the subsequent pages is very cogent: Matter and Nature are where we as humans interact. Clearly, it is not possible that the matter in the universe is distributed so that it is equally convenient to each member of society. "If even a pebble lies where I want it to lie, it cannot, except by coincidence, be where you want it to lie....Far from being evil, this furnishes occasion for all those acts of courtesy, respect, and unselfishness by which love and good humour express themselves." (Again, CSL)
So if something in the "inexorable" Nature (including other persons' free will) is seriously contrary to my wishes (e.g. the persecution under Hitler) I have the avenue of prayer. And even under the worst circumstances, there are records of people's prayers in such evil times being answered. Corrie Ten Boom comes to mind, whose book "The Hiding Place" describes her and her sister's (who died there) sufferings at Auschwitz and tells of miracles of answered prayer.
Why did God go to all the trouble to save individuals here and there, and not just (as you suggest) point a finger from the sky and obliterate the whole nasty mess of Naziism? Here is maybe a difficult concept to understand, but try it anyway: If God is JUST, he must be just to the devil as well! So if he intervenes in answer to prayer, the devil cannot accuse him of favouritism (see the Book of Job) because he said that he will react at the request of his people. But if he unilaterally changes somebody's actions against that person's will, the devil will shout foul!
So we can, and should, pray for others in times of deepest suffering, and often our prayers get answered. But here is an example of CSL why they sometimes DON'T:
Consider a chess game. (A scene familiar to all of us!). I am playing against the "inexorable nature" as well as various opponents including the devil, (which is everyone's life's story). Now clearly God wants me to win, and in response to my prayer may assist me. However (and here's the rub!) this may not be too easy, and may not be the norm, otherwise why play the game at all! For example, if my opponent's piece were miraculously obliterated every time he puts me in check, what would be the point of playing?
So, in summary, we are all free agents, and play on either the side of good or of evil (and cleary not always on the same side!). We can and must intervene personally where we can to hinder evil and promote good. And in these instances we have the resource of being able to call on God for help.
Great things have been done through prayer, and also great things through the actions of motivated people.
One last thought: You refer to the LARGE issues and calamities as if these are somehow worse than smaller ones. However, even for the Holocaust, or, for that matter, the recent Japanese tsunami, although a large number of people suffered, it is at the individual level that each suffering is experienced. Each statistic is an empty chair, a lost father or mother, a missing daughter or son. And it is at the individual level that each grieving parent or child has to deal with his or her loss - find comfort from God or shake a fist at God (and I'm not claiming that these are the only two possible reactions).
....dinosaurs..
If you accept the premise of an "inexorable" nature, then these things happen, world's collide and asteroids strike. Sunamis come. Same as above - when one animal dies it is not worse or better at a qualitative level than if millions die.
(And, believe it or not, CSJ has a chapter on Animal Suffering. But I'll readily admit, that one is more difficult for me to understand...)
In conclusion, in a real sense both the extinction of the dinosaurs as well as Hitler's atrocities were "a risk of living on planet earth". And it does not choke my belief in a loving and omnipotent God to believe that he was present in both.
7 edits
Originally posted by CalJustThis Son House is where I took that handle:
Hi sonhouse,
(btw, I really like your name, "sonhouse" - wish I had thought of it! The Son of the house, has Christian undertones on several levels! 🙂 )
[b]... it doesn't help the case that an omniscient god could have stopped those multi-millions from being killed for political reasons.
Let me try as simply as possible to explain how ent God to believe that he was present in both.[/b]
&feature=related
&feature=related
&feature=related
&feature=related
One of the great early acoustic country blues players and song writers.
John Jackson is another guy I studied, played with him in DC, he is a great player too. I knew most of the players on this video.
I was amazed at Archie Edwards, the way his long thumb made big loops between picks on the guitar!
&feature=relmfu
So how would you answer the charge this god would not intercede if an asteroid came down and whacked us like it did the dinosaurs? The fossil evidence is very clear. Before the asteroid hit, there were dinosaurs, then the next layer shows world wide conflagration with a thin layer of carbon indicating burned forests all over the planet.
Following that, the rise of mammals.
Can you find a way to rationalize that god may have had a hand in that?
With the free will thing, what is to stop us from offing the entire human race? Do you think this god would stop that at least?
That takes faith to a different place I would think.
Or like I said, an asteroid comes down and ends the human race, making way for something new, intelligent crustaceams?
What about the possibility we are not the crown of creation but just a step on the road?
We could be just run over and the world repaved for something better that could come along in another hundred million years of evolution.
All the talk about the just god is still in the end words written down in a book 2000 years old coming from books thousands of years older still.
Here is the results published 5 years ago of a study of the effectiveness of prayer with a sample size of 1800 or more participants:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
If prayer helps people, why did this study find otherwise?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseFirstly, thanks for those links - great music!
So how would you answer the charge this god would not intercede if an asteroid came down and whacked us like it did the dinosaurs? Following that, the rise of mammals. Can you find a way to rationalize that god may have had a hand in that?
I really thought I gave it my best shot! A bit futile to repeat the whole argument again... 😕
With the free will thing, what is to stop us from offing the entire human race? Do you think this god would stop that at least?
Well, the Bible talks about the entire planet being burned up with fire before the advent of a New Heaven, and New Earth. Interpret THAT any way you want to!
All the talk about the just god is still in the end words written down in a book 2000 years old coming from books thousands of years older still.
You know, one of the problems that I have with debates/discussions on RHP is the wide gulf often between participants. Every meaningful debate (to make any sense at all) must have at least some common parameters or terms of reference. For example, if we undertake a debate about chemistry, and after a lengthy proposition, one party then says: "But I don't accept the Periodic Table of Elements - it was just thought up by some old men long ago!" That would immediately remove any possibility that the discussion could become profitable.
If a discussion, (say on God's omnipotence - as this one), ends up by saying: but after all, this old book cannot be trusted - then let's not have a debate about that, but one would need to start with one about the Bible.
This thread started off by accepting certain teachings in the Bible and examining them. We got sidetracked (don't we always!) but I let it slide since the discussion was beginning to interest me. However, before I get involved again in a serious discussion, I think I will first establish what, if any, is the common ground.
Here is the results published 5 years ago of a study of the effectiveness of prayer with a sample size of 1800 or more participants
I haven't checked the site, but I don't doubt the statistics. I have a very simple philosophy about such things: The person with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument I know from personal experience how many answered prayers there have been in my life. I cannot vouch for anybody else.
Originally posted by CalJustWhy? Why must people pray in school before God can stop rapists?
No, of course not.
In my "aside" I pointed out that people can't have it both ways: want God to intervene, but only where it pleases them.
And I ask again, does God intervene more in countries where prayer in school is common place? (We had prayer in the School I went to yet half my classmates have since died of AIDS and other illnesses).
Originally posted by twhiteheada half? Man that's depressing/eye opening
Why? Why must people pray in school before God can stop rapists?
And I ask again, does God intervene more in countries where prayer in school is common place? (We had prayer in the School I went to yet half my classmates have since died of AIDS and other illnesses).
(See, I learnt how to spell "opening" properly😏 )
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat's right. The flood covered the whole earth and there is proof of it
Yeah, but to what extent,ie. how high did the seas actually rise. Certainly not to bilical prportions.
Fossilized fish and shells have been found in the middle of Austrlaia (bit northern -middle) under where the grea australian bite is .
Thing is the ground is so low from the seaside of the bite to where these fossils were found, that even though they ...[text shortened]... ed this. It didn't "cover the whole Earth"(that's what the christians are contending,right?)
all around the earth.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI am sorry to inform you of your ignorance. But you just happen to be wrong.
several explanations are offered for this.
-tectonic activity can raise the sea floor to mountainous heights.
-there is evidence of monster tsunamis in the past that have hit large areas and driven water many miles inland.
-there is evidence of cyclic global warming and cooling that can raise and lower the coastal water line by hundreds of feet.
bot ...[text shortened]... is just not the case. a few isolated cases can be explained by catastrophic natural phenomenon.
These are all evidences of a world wide flood and evolutionists are attempting
to reinterpret the evidence to cover their ass. There are many cases of fossils
specimens being found in the wrong layer according to what the evolutionists
believe. The evolutionist just ignore it or say there must be some other
explanation for it.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsMore specifically, the 'proof' you and your ilk present is that which you think will support your cause but without peer review. They just claim stuff, get it in writing, that is all your buddies think is needed to make so-called proof.
That's right. The flood covered the whole earth and there is proof of it
all around the earth.
For instance, the fact that sea fossils are found in the mountains just shows the mountains were either flat before or the forces of magma flow made the land buckle up, lifting it up, creating mountains then when your buddies look at that, they don't go to the trouble of working out what happened, they just use the fact there are these fossils in the mountains and just present the bare facts and hope nobody calls them out.
Well they have been called out, their tales are rebutted. They would never admit that though. They just write more stupid books that support their claims, not wanting to study forces that mold the earth, just what they see without that pesky analysis that shows their work to be bollix.
Originally posted by sonhousehttp://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html
More specifically, the 'proof' you and your ilk present is that which you think will support your cause but without peer review. They just claim stuff, get it in writing, that is all your buddies think is needed to make so-called proof.
For instance, the fact that sea fossils are found in the mountains just shows the mountains were either flat before or ...[text shortened]... the earth, just what they see without that pesky analysis that shows their work to be bollix.