a Christian
Think long and hard before playing semantics with me.
You basically said my post was an example of how anyone making an argument that attempted to show the Bible was in harmony with science would not be respected, even if the argument was a good one.
If you meant something different, what did you mean?
My original post said;
"it is very easy to develop a way of interpreting Genesis Creation and Flood accounts non-literally in a scientific way."
I then said I had done it myself in the past and;
"being able to do this doesn't mean one is right when one does it."
No disrespect there.
I then said I thought if people claimed that chronologically accurate prophecies were encoded in Biblical text, it was curious no such scientifically accurate information (to modern ears) had been written in a style comprehensible to the writers (and gave an example) when telling the Creation story.
No disrespect there.
I did say "errant nonsense", but the context was "if the Bible wasn't written under god's guidance it will be as full of errant nonsense about origins as any bronze age religion." The only disrespect there is IF the Bible is not inspired, and I think that's allowed, yes?
I then predicted the predictable ineffable response, and said if the Bible wasn't inspired making it fit science would be just as much an act of imagination as doing the same to other religions.
No disrespect there.
So, you using me as an example of not showing respect was a lie.
In my reply to you you object to questions being asked and statements being made.
I stated "You essentially make-up bits that are not in the Bible, ... that you have no proof for,"
This is fact. Now, rather than addressing this point, you get all flustered about being questioned.
You see, if you are trying to show the scientific nature of the Bible, having to make bits up is not a very scientific way of going about it.
This is what can be politely termed 'a major flaw' in your speculations.
Speculate away, by all means, but if you want different opinions you had better come up with better ways of showing the scientific nature of the Bible. This is a discussion board; your opinions are here for discussion, not polite blank smiles and nods of the head.
Making up stuff can be done by any one with "an inventive imagination and an agenda of Biblical apologism." If someone criticises an argument of yours, deal with the points of criticism rather than objecting to criticism; show people where their counter-opinions are wrong rather than complain they don't agree with you.
I wrote: It could be that God always provides just enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe and never enough to convince those who prefer not to believe.
You responded: See? YOU MAKE STUFF UP. .... If god is love and is desirous that all attain salvation, why would he hide the truth in his book?
Okay, in my head I was still talking about scientific stuff, but that's not totally clear in the phrasing of the question.
What I am asking is why must god be proved? It is possible, very, very succesfully, to show naturalistic mechanisms are at least as good an explanation for us being here as a god.
Rather than god being a given - like gravity - and the 'test' that of determining and seeking the true character of god and his desires for his creation, we have a situation where you can't even prove god exists.
If god were desirous we attain salvation, maybe us figuring our way to him knowing there was a him would be enough? As it is we don't even know there is a him.
Of course, you go to the ineffable defence. But I am a human, made (apparently) god's image.
I find the idea of an all-powerful entity setting human beings the task of guessing right about;
a/ whether there is a god and
b/ which god is the real one
... with the results of the test determining one's eternal fate, when;
c/ there's no proof of god and
d/ no religion can distingush itself as being the real one
.. a little unreasonable.
If god determines my future by throwing the dice somewhere I can't see and having me guess the number, he can go fuck himself.
That WAS disrespect, but only IF there is a god.
But I am serious; some of the characterisatrions of god pushed by Christians are quite repulsive. If god exists I am sure he is nausiated by the ways that human being have portrayed him over the years. He often ends up as being rather petty and violent, and very very human for all that.
If god exists, I think he is far grander and more wonderful than you think he is.
No games, just love.
Don't you think modern-day man trying to make a bronze-age man's ideas of god make sense in the modern world is a far less worthy thing to be than a modern man trying to discern what god may be like, un-fettered by the writings of a people who thought that god would tell people to raid a city and kill everything apart from the virgin girls?
You see, after you've dealt with Genesis, and the un-scientific and inaccurate Creation account, Flood myth and Babel myth, you have to go on to the story of a people invading a country and ethinically cleansing it, under the direct guidance of god.
Even if you explain away an un-scietific god in Genesis, you then have to explain away the blood-thirsty tribal god in the other four books of the Pantateuch (sp?).
Stop clinging to a piece of paper for strength (that it cannot give you) and stand up and see how god might.
After all, isn't it meant to be about faith?
