Religion, what's the point?

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Yes it really is Herman because I don't need any insight into gods thinking. Let me put it this way. Whatever higher purpose god has created all the suffering in the world in order to achieve, being all powerful means he could have achieved exactly the same result without the suffering. So either he chose suffering without the need to, which means he isn't benign or he couldn't achieve his goal without all the suffering which means he isn't all powerful because he must have reached the limit of his power when he failed to manage his goal without the suffering.


It is simple inescapable logic.


Also I am sure that we do know there was no Adam and Eve, that human beings are not descended from just two people. New species are not created that way. In the Stone Age they didn't know that so when they made up all the stories they got a few wrong. That must be a bit disconcerting to people who live by its every word or may be god isn't infallible and gets stuff wrong about the future just like we do?

Incorrect on both counts. Have you never heard of Mitochondrial Eve?

You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact you are making claims you can't possibly verify. that is the opposite of logical and scientific. You continue to say God made all the suffering in the world (I explained before precisely how he did not) and you are ignoring a very basic point. God must be logically coherent. As I explained before, in a world where it is possible to freely give love (as in ours) it must follow (not could or should but must) that it is also possible to deviate from that perfection in love. Hence sin/evil/suffering. You'd have to prove that a world where it is not possible to love freely but where sin is not possible is better than a world where it is possible to love freely but where sin is also possible. It is demonstrably not because the best possible creation is one where love is given freely. Sin only exists as a concept because of God's perfect love.

 

[Sherzad]

No, I am as pale as a whiteboard. The church I go to, which would be classified as white, middle class, takes it very seriously too. So at least 200 other white people taking it seriously.

I am Muslim but I went to a church in East Bourne once with my partner, it was very peaceful on there and the church members were very helpful and friendly. I just went there to explore. I have nothing but respect for religious people regardless of their religion.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

My game applies the same rules to everything. Yours applies it only to one thing, and mine's the one with staring assumptions? You've already admitted you can't accept anything that contradicts Jesus. I, on the other hand, am very willing to accept anything that contradicts what I currently believe providing there's reasonable proof. Same game. Same rules.


Again, with regards to you. The context was that of a question asking why you wouldn't consider the positive comparative merits of the alternatives. There are many things, particularly about Islam, that I find more unconsionable than Christianity.

But your instinctive assumption wasn't paranoid or born of a persecution complex...Sure.


Do you not see the irony of this statement?

I thought we were supposed to be the arrogant ones? Stop doing our thing!

I haven't admitted anything of the sort. I said that Christ is truth. Only lies contradict truth, but lies are demonstrably lies and truth is demonstrably truth. Again, you say "reasonable proof" except nobody knows what reasonable proof is for you. It's not the same game and it isn't the same rules because you've already said I would have to give you extraordinary evidence for my claims to hold water for you whereas the things you readily accept do not require extraordinary evidence. Different game, different rules.

"Persecution complex" lol. I don't feel persecuted in the slightest but the fact you hate God remains .

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I am Muslim but I went to a church in East Bourne once with my partner, it was very peaceful on there and the church members were very helpful and friendly. I just went there to explore. I have nothing but respect for religious people regardless of their religion.

You'd be more than welcome to come to our church, too. I am glad you had a positive experience and pray that you'll find a reason to go to church again.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Incorrect on both counts. Have you never heard of Mitochondrial Eve?

You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact you are making claims you can't possibly verify. that is the opposite of logical and scientific. You continue to say God made all the suffering in the world (I explained before precisely how he did not) and you are ignoring a very basic point. God must be logically coherent. As I explained before, in a world where it is possible to freely give love (as in ours) it must follow (not could or should but must) that it is also possible to deviate from that perfection in love. Hence sin/evil/suffering. You'd have to prove that a world where it is not possible to love freely but where sin is not possible is better than a world where it is possible to love freely but where sin is also possible. It is demonstrably not because the best possible creation is one where love is given freely. Sin only exists as a concept because of God's perfect love.

I have heard of the term and even understand why it doesn't counter my point that there was no Adam and Eve, two people from whom all humans who were ever on earth are descended. That is not how speciation works Herman and I am surprised a man with you background in molecular or cellular biology doesn't understand this point.


You can't keep saying that god is all powerful and then start listing the things he can not change. All the things you say have to be could be changed by an all powerful god. Who are you to put limits on him? You want the almighty but you don't like it when the logical consequences build up. This is why we can know the claims in the religious books are wrong because they aren't even very well thought out.

 

[Shark]

And your game is rigged because of your starting assumptions.

Even though you compared Islam and Judaism favourably to Christianity in your previous post and continue to label it as pernicious, among other things, you don't hold a particular resentment for Christianity... Sure.

You won't even consider how those quotes might apply to you because you have a an inbuilt bias against receiving them. It's called a delusion as I pointed out before.

That's rich.

In all seriousness, you're the one making the religious claims on a thread on the internet. If you choose to do that, people are going to throw around labels. I'm sure you're a really nice person, but I'm sure you'd be that person without religion too is my opinion. You make it out to revolve around everything you say and do, which is pretty odd to me, but each to their own.

 

[Red Dreams]

Why doesn't god fight his own fight. Pop on to the caf and convince the unbelievers with a few well-aimed prophecies?

God says...Arsenal will not win the Premier League title this season...again.

 

[Mockney]

I haven't admitted anything of the sort. I said that Christ is truth. Only lies contradict truth, but lies are demonstrably lies and truth is demonstrably truth.

Again, you say "reasonable proof" except nobody knows what reasonable proof is for you. It's not the same game and it isn't the same rules because you've already said I would have to give you extraordinary evidence for my claims to hold water for you whereas the things you readily except do not require extraordinary evidence. Different game, different rules.

I'd accept the same kind of extraordinary proof provided by Darwin, by the first Astronimers, the first Particle Physicists etc. Anyone who's proposed seemingly ridiculous concepts and backed them up.

I'd also accept the same standard of proof from any individual religion. If I were to accept it of Christianity for example, I'd accept it of Islam, Mormonism, Scientology etc. You, on the other hand, presumably wouldn't. Let alone of Darwin et all because Christ is truth. And you are irreconveivably biased from a starting point in this one particular thing. Different game, different rules.

To be fair, your entire M.O here is obfuscating semantic nonsense. Christ is truth = anything opposing it must be lies. However you want to phrase it, that's disregarding evidence because it doesn't fit.

"Persecution complex" lol. I don't feel persecuted in the slightest but the fact you hate God remains .

I don't hate him, I don't believe in him. I'm indifferent. I dislike arrogant fantasists though.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I have heard of the term and even understand why it doesn't counter my point that there was no Adam and Eve, two people from whom all humans who were ever on earth are descended. That is not how speciation works Herman and I am surprised a man with you background in molecular or cellular biology doesn't understand this point.

You can't keep saying that god is all powerful and then start listing the things he can not change. All the things you say have to be could be changed by an all powerful god. Who are you to put limits on him? You want the almighty but you don't like it when the logical consequences build up. This is why we can know the claims in the religious books are wrong because they aren't even very well thought out.

Speciation doesn't logically conclude in what we call macro evolution, though. Depending on how you define a species, speciation does occur.

I didn't say he can't change it, I just object to the idea he must change it according to somebody else's timing or according to somebody else's methods. God has already declared how he is going to deal with death and all suffering and all evil. There is no logical incompatibility with the God of the Bible and the existence of suffering and evil. In fact, the existence of those two things and the formulation of any argument attempting to pose the existence of evil as logically incompatible with God actually bolsters the claim. To acknowledge evil's existence is to acknowledge good, too. You do not have either in any objective sense without the very same God you're trying to disprove.

You haven't tried to rebut my argument either.

 

[Grinner]

How do you know which bits of the bible are to be taken literally and which are open for interpretation?

 

[peterstorey]

God says...Arsenal will not win the Premier League title this season...again.

Well he could have told me that before I took the 10/1.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

I'd accept the same kind of extraordinary proof provided by Darwin, by the first Astronimers, the first Particle Physicists etc. Anyone who's proposed seemingly ridiculous concepts and backed them up.

I'd also accept the same standard of proof from any individual religion. If I were to accept it of Christianity for example, I'd accept it of Islam, Mormonism, Scientology etc. You, on the other hand, presumably wouldn't. Let alone of Darwin et all because Christ is truth. And you are irreconveivably biased from a starting point in this one particular thing. Different game, different rules.

To be fair, your entire M.O here is basically obfuscating semantic nonsense.



I don't hate him, I don't believe in him. I'm indifferent. I dislike arrogant fantasists though.

The extraordinary evidence provided by Darwin consisted of the variation in sizes of finch beaks, for one. You're making a classification error here. What Darwin is most credited with is the concept he introduced, not the extraordinary evidence he provided for it. In fact, just given what we know now from biology we can look back and see that Darwin's evidence was paltry. Even as somebody who doesn't believe in the theory, I can acknowledge that the way of thinking is actually quite an impressive thing to come up with.

I am afraid you've taken enough rope to hang yourself with. You've provided a materialistic template for what constitutes evidence, and that comes purely from your basic starting assumptions. You are essentially asking for empirical evidence of God, which is a serious category error. The evidence for God is the material world itself and its workings. The evidence for Christ is also overwhelming and Biblical prophecy is not so easily dismissed if you would but go back and read some of my earlier comments pertaining to that subject. You haven't really thought it through at all.

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is purely subjective. Again, you're moving the bar all over the place, especially since you view Darwin's evidence as extraordinary when it was the one thing he was criticised as severely lacking after his Voyage of the Beagle and Origin of Species.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

How do you know which bits of the bible are to be taken literally and which are open for interpretation?

I've spelled this out before. The books of the Bible contain many different genres of writing including narrative, poetry, parables, etc, the context is important in determining which is which. Open for interpretation sounds disgustingly flabby. I don't like that. We all interpret the Bible. Do I really have to talk in great detail here about hermeneutics?

 

[Mockney]

I am afraid you've taken enough rope to hang yourself with. You've provided a materialistic template for what constitutes evidence, and that comes purely from your basic starting assumptions. You are essentially asking for empirical evidence of God, which is a serious category error. The evidence for God is the material world itself and its workings. The evidence for Christ is also overwhelming and Biblical prophecy, is not so easily dismissed if you would but go back and read some of my earlier comments pertaining to that subject. You haven't really thought it through at all.

Obfuscation, scripture and your own conviction. Rinse & repeat.

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is purely subjective. Again, you're moving the bar all over the place, especially since you view Darwin's evidence as extraordinary when it was the one thing he was criticised as severely lacking after his Voyage of the Beagle and Origin of Species.

It should be pretty obvious what evidence I mean. The progressing and continuing evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Not simply just the evidence he himself put forward. Even if Noel Edmonds had put it forward, the evidence for the extraordinary theory was extraordinary.

I don't need empirical evidence to believe in your God. I just believe in the empirical evidence that opposes, refutes or disproves it. You don't, because it's unconscionable to accept any other truth.

 

[Grinner]

I've spelled this out before. The books of the Bible contain many different genres of writing including narrative, poetry, parables, etc, the context is important in determining which is which. Open for interpretation sounds disgustingly flabby. I don't like that. We all interpret the Bible. Do I really have to talk in great detail here about hermeneutics?

Yes. Excuse me for not being as enlightened as you. Is pomposity a sin? Because you've got it in spades.

You're not doing god's work by insulting and belittling people who question you.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Yes. Excuse me for not being as enlightened as you. Is pomposity a sin? Because you've got it in spades.

You're not doing god's work by insulting and belittling people who question you.

It's very difficult to know who is asking a genuine question and who is just trying to make me repeat myself with no intention of listening. I am having to repeat a number of things because people refuse to listen and since I'd explained before that the Bible contains different genres of writing, I perceived your question to be a leading one. Perhaps it wasn't, in which case I apologise. I also apologise if you've never heard of hermeneutics or exegesis before. It's not my intention to ridicule those who are simply unaware.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Grinner]

It's very difficult to know who is asking a genuine question and who is just trying to make me repeat myself with no intention of listening. I am having to repeat a number of things because people refuse to listen and since I'd explained before that the Bible contains different genres of writing, I perceived your question to be a leading one. Perhaps it wasn't, in which case I apologise. I also apologise if you've never heard of hermeneutics or exegesis before. It's not my intention to ridicule those who are simply unaware.

Yeah, no worries. I might take the piss a bit but I'm not seeking to belittle you or anything. I had a look at herman-wotsit and it looks to me like many smarter people than me have been arguing for centuries about interpreting the bible and there still isn't a consensus.

I just don't see why the word of god is so complicated. You'd think he'd want to make it simple and easily followed. Anything that requires a bunch of clever people to spell it out for you and tell you to trust them and follow them has me instantly suspicious.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Yeah, no worries. I might take the piss a bit but I'm not seeking to belittle you or anything. I had a look at herman-wotsit and it looks to me like many smarter people than me have been arguing for centuries about interpreting the bible and there still isn't a consensus.

I just don't see why the word of god is so complicated. You'd think he'd want to make it simple and easily followed. Anything that requires a bunch of clever people to spell it out for you and tell you to trust them and follow them has me instantly suspicious.

The gospel isn't complicated but it's also too rich to ever plumb the depths of. It's not esoteric and you needn't worry about the herman-wotsits (sounds like a good name for my own brand of crisps). All you need is some common sense to grasp that there are different genres of writing in all of the different books of the Bible.

 

[penalty snot]

I

Obfuscation, scripture and your own conviction. Rinse & repeat.



It should be pretty obvious what evidence I mean. The progressing and continuing evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Not simply just the evidence he himself put forward. Even if Noel Edmonds had put it forward, the evidence for the extraordinary theory was extraordinary.

I don't need empirical evidence to believe in your God. I just believe in the empirical evidence that opposes, refutes or disproves it. You don't, because it's unconscionable to accept any other truth.

Pretty much this.

 

[DFreshKing]

Who believes in good and evil?

It's a strange thing to say you must believe in God if you believe in good and evil but it does raise a Valid point.

I have seen similar arguments before by religious people suggesting Gods involvement in love, evil etc... but I fail to see why it is compulsory.

 

[Raoul]

Who believes in good and evil?

It's a strange thing to say you must believe in God if you believe in good and evil but it does raise a Valid point.

I have seen similar arguments before by religious people suggesting Gods involvement in love, evil etc... but I fail to see why it is compulsory.

Evil is such a bizarre, abstract concept. Suitably nonsensical that its central to religion.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Evil is such a bizarre, abstract concept. Suitably nonsensical that its central to religion.

Many people today use the term 'evil' to describe something they find abhorrent. I don't subscribe to this broad definition myself nor do I attribute any substance to the original concept, and I've seen some freaky shit in my day.

 

[Mockney]

I believe in very cruel, bad things and very kind, good natured things and I believe everyone in the world is capable of both given the circumstances, upbringing, experiences, necessities etc.

Good and evil are just lazy/easy buzz words. Fictional purities on a long and complicated curve. So is love, really. You love all sorts of people and things in all sorts of completely different ways. It's not really a thing, it's just our highest emotional compliment, and it's stuck as a romantic notion.

 

[RexHamilton]

How do you know which bits of the bible are to be taken literally and which are open for interpretation?

Be nice to each other, honour your father and mother and don't kill were all meant to be taken literally.

The slavery, racism and degradation of women was just in there for the lols! Don't mind those parts.

 

[RexHamilton]

The extraordinary evidence provided by Darwin consisted of the variation in sizes of finch beaks, for one. You're making a classification error here. What Darwin is most credited with is the concept he introduced, not the extraordinary evidence he provided for it. In fact, just given what we know now from biology we can look back and see that Darwin's evidence was paltry. Even as somebody who doesn't believe in the theory, I can acknowledge that the way of thinking is actually quite an impressive thing to come up with.

You don't believe in evolution? Really?

 

[Stanzin Lama]

@Herman Van Rompuy. You didn't answer my question so I will repeat. For people born before Christ, could they not achieve salvation? I empathize with your faith but coming from a different part of world, your views strike me as extremely myopic and arrogant. Because I am not a scholar on Christianity and if what you preach is what Christianity is about, then I find its non-acceptance of other religious or non-religious views extremely problematic as well. I won't go into details on logical as well as scientific side of things because they've been thoroughly covered here I believe but just to add a few things.

More than a millennia ago when Hinduism was the primary religion across the what is now Indian sub-continent, the rise of Buddhism posed a serious threat to its hegemony. At the time, Vedic scriptures were taken for their literal meanings and were believed to be the texts from God. Challenge from Buddhism meant that the status quo and the horrible caste system supposedly legitimized by the Vedas would be compromised. But precisely because of this reason, Buddhism prevailed and for more than a thousand years, it became the most important religion spreading all over Asia. I emphasize here that these religions are thousand years older than Christianity hence my question earlier. Because these two religions managed to co-exist side by side for such a long period of time, and because over the years, they also allowed discussion based on logic and rationality, their evolution today is to a large extent compatible with the ideas of science. What Hindus call Sanatana Dharma and what Buddhists call Middle Path are ways of living that are paths which any person would be able to follow regardless of the extent of their belief in God. And it is my belief that in the end, that is the purpose of religion, to make people's lives happy, to make them co-exist with nature and society in harmony. And I genuinely hope that one day Abrahamic religions will also accept the ideas of tolerance and acceptance of other religions because if you're the barometer of present state of Christianity it can only bear trouble.

 

[Alock1]

You don't believe in evolution? Really?

You find that particularly surprising?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Speciation doesn't logically conclude in what we call macro evolution, though. Depending on how you define a species, speciation does occur.

I didn't say he can't change it, I just object to the idea he must change it according to somebody else's timing or according to somebody else's methods. God has already declared how he is going to deal with death and all suffering and all evil. There is no logical incompatibility with the God of the Bible and the existence of suffering and evil. In fact, the existence of those two things and the formulation of any argument attempting to pose the existence of evil as logically incompatible with God actually bolsters the claim. To acknowledge evil's existence is to acknowledge good, too. You do not have either in any objective sense without the very same God you're trying to disprove.

You haven't tried to rebut my argument either.

Then cede the point because if he can change it and doesn't he can not be benign. The fact that he could and doesn't is all I need for the logic to be inescapable. I don't have to limit god, nor do I have to look for a bigger picture. All powerful or benign it is one or the other.


With a god who we can't know for certain is there, can't know his plan and can't know if he is all powerful or not, it’s a bit rich to claim we can have an objective good derived from such a god. Since all claims on his rules are subjective to how you want to believe in him (and which one you want to believe in). Even if such a god existed you are no where near being able to claim your beliefs about that god to be objective and true. You are simply replacing one form of subjective values for another.


I think that objective values only make sense as human ones any way. A god of the lion people would have been created to echo lion morality.

 

[RexHamilton]

You find that particularly surprising?

Yes. I hadn't read every one of his posts in great detail. I realised he was very religious. But so is the Pope and even he acknowledges that evolution happened. I didn't realise he was a creationist. Mental.

 

[Alock1]

I agree it's one of the most solid theories going.. perhaps even as solid as gravity which has some issues.

However, it can only be proven at micro level, the other 6 forms haven't been observed, so it's a pretty easy one for creationists to discount as mere assumption I guess however much evidence point in that direction.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

@Herman Van Rompuy. You didn't answer my question so I will repeat. For people born before Christ, could they not achieve salvation? I empathize with your faith but coming from a different part of world, your views strike me as extremely myopic and arrogant. Because I am not a scholar on Christianity and if what you preach is what Christianity is about, then I find its non-acceptance of other religious or non-religious views extremely problematic as well. I won't go into details on logical as well as scientific side of things because they've been thoroughly covered here I believe but just to add a few things.

More than a millennia ago when Hinduism was the primary religion across the what is now Indian sub-continent, the rise of Buddhism posed a serious threat to its hegemony. At the time, Vedic scriptures were taken for their literal meanings and were believed to be the texts from God. Challenge from Buddhism meant that the status quo and the horrible caste system supposedly legitimized by the Vedas would be compromised. But precisely because of this reason, Buddhism prevailed and for more than a thousand years, it became the most important religion spreading all over Asia. I emphasize here that these religions are thousand years older than Christianity hence my question earlier. Because these two religions managed to co-exist side by side for such a long period of time, and because over the years, they also allowed discussion based on logic and rationality, their evolution today is to a large extent compatible with the ideas of science. What Hindus call Sanatana Dharma and what Buddhists call Middle Path are ways of living that are paths which any person would be able to follow regardless of the extent of their belief in God. And it is my belief that in the end, that is the purpose of religion, to make people's lives happy, to make them co-exist with nature and society in harmony. And I genuinely hope that one day Abrahamic religions will also accept the ideas of tolerance and acceptance of other religions because if you're the barometer of present state of Christianity it can only bear trouble.

Many people born before Christ's incarnation are in heaven but their salvation is still the result of Christ's crosswork. Once for all time. Past, present and future. The Bible describes the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world while not being realised until a very specific time in Christ's incarnation. If you think that doesn't make sense, that's the temporal mind trying to interpret eternity. In eternity, God sees past, present and future simultaneously. Imagine all of space and time contained in a large glass ball, so though the crucifixion takes place in one tiny part of that large glass ball, it is eternal act, also, and the only means of salvation for all of creation, beginning to end. That's why God could forgive the sins of those who lived before the incarnation of Christ in space and time because the end is known from the beginning in eternity.

Ecumenism is a movement that seeks to do exactly what you desire, Stanzin, and the majority of people who claim to be Christians wouldn't hold to the strict exclusivity of Christ. But that is not the Biblical position. The Biblical position has always been the minority position and continues to be to this day. Rightly understood, the Bible is the progressive unfolding of God's story. It is for this reason Christ said the scriptures testify of him. The Bible is a collection of books about Jesus and everything included in them points to him. Progressive revelation, not a Jewish religion and then an update or revision in the person of Christ. Jews who believe Moses believe Jesus as Jesus himself declared.

I am afraid the gospel is not a humanist message, Stanzin. A Christian humanist is a walking, talking oxymoron. The purpose of the gospel is bring sinners to repentance and faith in Christ for salvation, not to make somebody's life happier or to conform to worldly values. Christ is not of this world, nor are his followers.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Herman's position doesn't make any sense anyway.


Mitochondrial DNA which he brings into the argument is only passed from the mother. So Adam wouldn't have any, Eve created from his rib, wouldn't have any either. Neither would have any ape DNA or retro virus damage in the same place in their DNA as apes have unless we shared an ancestor. The Adam and Eve creation myth can not be true.


Mitochondria are also thought to have a separate evolutionary process from billions of years before humans existed. Which begs the question why raise it to try to back up the Adam and Eve creationist theory since every part of what we know about it actually disproves it. I wonder if Herman understands this or is just trawling for anything he can select that sound like it might back his preferred version even when it doesn't.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Then cede the point because if he can change it and doesn't he can not be benign. The fact that he could and doesn't is all I need for the logic to be inescapable. I don't have to limit god, nor do I have to look for a bigger picture. All powerful or benign it is one or the other.

With a god who we can't know for certain is there, can't know his plan and can't know if he is all powerful or not, it’s a bit rich to claim we can have an objective good derived from such a god. Since all claims on his rules are subjective to how you want to believe in him (and which one you want to believe in). Even if such a god existed you are no where near being able to claim your beliefs about that god to be objective and true. You are simply replacing one form of subjective values for another.

I think that objective values only make sense as human ones any way. A god of the lion people would have been created to echo lion morality.

I will repeat myself one more time. I will not respond to the same point again. There is no way to verify that an all powerful God allowing evil and suffering makes him malevolent. If it is even remotely possible for God to have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering to exist, then you cannot declare it absolutely and necessarily follows that God is malevolent. You are then left to formulate the argument again along the lines of probability. But that doesn't work either because you still don't have the means to verify whether God would or wouldn't allow for a world in which evil and suffering were possible over one where it wasn't. Love isn't love unless it is freely given, departure from perfection in love is the beginning of sin/evil/suffering, so a world without the possibility for evil and suffering is also a world without the possibility for love. An all loving God cannot create a world without the capacity for love. That would be a logical contradiction. I've also explained that, Biblically, God creating and sustaining a world that has the possibility for evil and suffering is an act of mercy because it allows for evil people to exist, too. Without that mercy, none of us (short of being clothed with Christ's righteousness, we're all evil in the sight of the Lord) would exist.

Again, you've become illogical. It does not require knowledge of God to know that without a God who is eternal, all powerul, all knowing and all loving that objective good cannot exist. There must be an objective standard which is unchanging and by which good is measured. Morality in a relative Universe with no God is an oxymoron. We are then talking about utility and individual preference in an ultimately meaningless existence.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Herman's position doesn't make any sense anyway.


Mitochondrial DNA which he brings into the argument is only passed from the mother. So Adam wouldn't have any, Eve created from his rib, wouldn't have any either. Neither would have any ape DNA or retro virus damage in the same place in their DNA as apes have unless we shared an ancestor. The Adam and Eve creation myth can not be true.


Mitochondria are also thought to have a separate evolutionary process from billions of years before humans existed. Which begs the question why raise it to try to back up the Adam and Eve creationist theory since every part of what we know about it actually disproves it. I wonder if Herman understands this or is just trawling for anything he can select that sound like it might back his preferred version even when it doesn't.

No, I thought it was a fun caveat given your point that science has proved we didn't come from two human ancestors.

Mitochondrial Eve is described as being the result of a population bottleneck in the past.

Ape DNA is a very biased term. You can talk of humans having jellyfish DNA if you compare specific pieces of genetic code. In fact, you get totally different phylogenetic trees depending on which sectionsof code you compare and contrast. And retro virus insertion sites don't demand a Darwinian explanation either. If the Bible is correct in saying that we live in a fallen world, they may have been part of the original design and so we can expect to find these building blocks (like DNA and proteins) shared across many different creatures. Retro viruses have been found to play critical roles in embryonic development, too. Hardly a relic of evolution. The genetic similarities between humans and apes are only relevant when you compare the coding DNA. When you compare the non-coding DNA,which is responsible for things like gene regulation, there are vast, vast differences. In fact, the more we study the more we learn what was previously thought of as defunct genetic code (junk DNA) is actually incredibly important.

 

[Stanzin Lama]

Many people born before Christ's incarnation are in heaven but their salvation is still the result of Christ's crosswork. Once for all time. Past, present and future. The Bible describes the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world while not being realised until a very specific time in Christ's incarnation. If you think that doesn't make sense, that's the temporal mind trying to interpret eternity. In eternity, God sees past, present and future simultaneously. Imagine all of space and time contained in a large glass ball, so though the crucifixion takes place in one tiny part of that large glass ball, it is eternal act, also, and the only means of salvation for all of creation, beginning to end. That's why God could forgive the sins of those who lived before the incarnation of Christ in space and time because the end is known from the beginning in eternity.

Ecumenism is a movement that seeks to do exactly what you desire, Stanzin, and the majority of people who claim to be Christians wouldn't hold to the strict exclusivity of Christ. But that is not the Biblical position. The Biblical position has always been the minority position and continues to be to this day. Rightly understood, the Bible is the progressive unfolding of God's story. It is for this reason Christ said the scriptures testify of him. The Bible is a collection of books about Jesus and everything included in them points to him. Progressive revelation, not a Jewish religion and then an update or revision in the person of Christ. Jews who believe Moses believe Jesus as Jesus himself declared.

I am afraid the gospel is not a humanist message, Stanzin. A Christian humanist is a walking, talking oxymoron. The purpose of the gospel is bring sinners to repentance and faith in Christ for salvation, not to make somebody's life happier or to conform to worldly values. Christ is not of this world, nor are his followers.

I understand the concept of eternity. In fact, the ideas of eternity you mention and the idea of salvation/Buddha in Hinduism and Buddhism are the same. Where I depart from your stance, and I believe you won't budge from the position is the relative exclusivity or the right to God that you preach. And it is very strange for me that any person can be willing to logically defend his/her position in this regard, that the way to salvation and path to God is preserved for your religion. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. It is as much a truth as are the stories of Vedas The fact that you choose your version entitles you to reject others but doesn't entitle you to reject the opinion of others. I am no scholar of Bible or other Abrahamic religion and I don't claim to know what these "scriptures" contain or what Christ says, but while you claim that what Christ or Bible says is the truth and nothing else (and it will be your opinion and nothing else), it is not the truth. If you claim that it is true because Christ said it and Christ is your God's son and therefore it is true, then again, the argument is tautological and therefore is no more true than only your claim. I admire the fact that you openly admit that such is the Christian way, but this has also opened a window for me to view Christianity with great amount of suspicion, with its intent, its goals, its possible dangerous effects in other people's lives.

One further question before I make any generalizations, @Herman Van Rompuy, do you think what you preach is the essence of Christianity, that what you say stands true for most Christians and most Christians have opinion similar to yours?

 

[harshad]

The extraordinary evidence provided by Darwin consisted of the variation in sizes of finch beaks, for one. You're making a classification error here. What Darwin is most credited with is the concept he introduced, not the extraordinary evidence he provided for it. In fact, just given what we know now from biology we can look back and see that Darwin's evidence was paltry. Even as somebody who doesn't believe in the theory, I can acknowledge that the way of thinking is actually quite an impressive thing to come up with.

I am afraid you've taken enough rope to hang yourself with. You've provided a materialistic template for what constitutes evidence, and that comes purely from your basic starting assumptions. You are essentially asking for empirical evidence of God, which is a serious category error. The evidence for God is the material world itself and its workings. The evidence for Christ is also overwhelming and Biblical prophecy is not so easily dismissed if you would but go back and read some of my earlier comments pertaining to that subject. You haven't really thought it through at all.

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is purely subjective. Again, you're moving the bar all over the place, especially since you view Darwin's evidence as extraordinary when it was the one thing he was criticised as severely lacking after his Voyage of the Beagle and Origin of Species.

Have you viewed this:

 

[peterstorey]

Again, you've become illogical. It does not require knowledge of God to know that without a God who is eternal, all powerful, all knowing and all loving that objective good cannot exist.

That's the world turned upside down. This is logic: with a God who is eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving objective natural evil could not exist

 

[Waltraute]

If you think that doesn't make sense, that's the temporal mind trying to interpret eternity.

Yes, but what's the alternative? We're all temporal minds. Your stance is also the result of a temporal mind trying to interpret eternity.

 

[Herman Van Rompuy]

Have you viewed this:

Yes, a few years ago. Like watching a magician pull a rabbit from a hat. I sat there for a few moments afterwards thinking: how on earth did he do that, and then it hit me. If you had one hundred pounds in your pocket and were in debt worth one hundred pounds, just because the overall value was zero, the debt still exists and the hundred pounds in your pocket still exists. Just because you can balance out the positives and the negatives to make zero doesn't make it logical to make zero the equivalent of nothing here. It's a cheap trick. I've seen Laurence Krauss do similar things many times. He has a tendency to blind with science, and while he's no doubt very good at conceptualising things most struggle with immensely, his logic is still appalling.