I love a happy ending!

So do I ........ soapies all round.

(just had to give this thread the beddies treatment )

Well, someone had to say it, Thad (with the inviting line that Tiggs playfully planted).

E:T

In that case, should I not post this?

On the eve of a BBC1 documentary on the life of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, Sir David has criticised the centuries-old idea running through the Judaeo-Christian tradition which assumes God gave the Earth to man to exploit and use in whatever way he saw fit in order to populate the world.

Sir David, 82, said the devastation of the environment has its roots in the first words that God supposedly uttered to humankind, as detailed in Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

Bold and italics are mine.

Genesis

Firstly Moss, I don't really think this should be in this thread.

That said, what sort of stupidity is this? An atheist quotes the word of God to accuse Him (who he doesn't even believe in) of the devastation to the environment. Apart from the fact that it was a long time coming, it's only in the past 100 or so years that we've been wreaking the environment, these verses have a spiritual meaning lost to most readers and certainly to Atenborough.

Firstly Moss, I don't really think this should be in this thread.

OK, I actually thought it rather poor in substance, which is why I highlighted the initial part, it was done, in my view to highlight his forthcoming series.

However, I do disagree that it should not be in this thread, it mentions his interpretation of the word of God.

I was also trying to put a humorous slant on what appeared the end of a thread, as it seemed it had come to an evolutionary end, was only trying to lighten the mood.

If you feel strongly ( or not so strongly ) about it, I will request its removal, I have no wish to cause any upset on this occasion.

Moss

Oh no, don't get me wrong Moss, no harm done at all. That wan't my intention, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think it's a valid point to make perhaps in a new thread.

You're also right, this thread has come to an evolutionary end, thank goodness!

Partially my fault perhaps.

I've been meaning to do more research regarding the link in the OP, but when I do stuff like that, I'll take hours and hours of searching and reading just to refute a single point, and I don't have the time for that right now.

I've still got the link on my bookmark bar though. Hopefully one day I can get back to it.

Not that it will make much difference though. The link is a site created by someone who tries to tie various events over the years, to things written in the bible, to try and prove the veracity of the bible.

People do the same with the writings of Nostradamus, and probably the writings of L Ron Hubbard. Numerous scholars continue to try and rewrite Egyptian history to make it fit biblical events as well. In some cases, Christian "scholars" have suggested that Egyptian history is out (in some cases) by over 500 years ! (Of course, if they can make people believe that what was carved in stone (literally) is wrong, then they can make what was written on paper fit into the history more easily).

I say it won't make much difference though, because even if I (or someone else) could prove that what the person on that website wrote was patently false (or an extremely loose interpretation of fact), it wouldn't change anything. Someone else will come along and look at a different set of events and decide, with a grain of salt and a whole lot of faith, that those events prove the veracity of the bible.

And what happens if those who are trying to interpret the Mayan calendar are right, and the world ends in 2012 ? Will that prove the bible was wrong ? Or will someone come along and say "See ! This was foretold in the bible thousands of years ago !" in an attempt to match modern events to ancient writings ?

Oh no, don't get me wrong Moss, no harm done at all. That wan't my intention, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think it's a valid point to make perhaps in a new thread.

You're also right, this thread has come to an evolutionary end, thank goodness!

I did think of opening a new thread, but thought it would also be quite apt at closing this one off.

Good Luck

Moss

Partially my fault perhaps.

I've been meaning to do more research regarding the link in the OP, but when I do stuff like that, I'll take hours and hours of searching and reading just to refute a single point, and I don't have the time for that right now.

I've still got the link on my bookmark bar though. Hopefully one day I can get back to it.

Not that it will make much difference though. The link is a site created by someone who tries to tie various events over the years, to things written in the bible, to try and prove the veracity of the bible.

People do the same with the writings of Nostradamus, and probably the writings of L Ron Hubbard. Numerous scholars continue to try and rewrite Egyptian history to make it fit biblical events as well. In some cases, Christian "scholars" have suggested that Egyptian history is out (in some cases) by over 500 years ! (Of course, if they can make people believe that what was carved in stone (literally) is wrong, then they can make what was written on paper fit into the history more easily).

I say it won't make much difference though, because even if I (or someone else) could prove that what the person on that website wrote was patently false (or an extremely loose interpretation of fact), it wouldn't change anything. Someone else will come along and look at a different set of events and decide, with a grain of salt and a whole lot of faith, that those events prove the veracity of the bible.

And what happens if those who are trying to interpret the Mayan calendar are right, and the world ends in 2012 ? Will that prove the bible was wrong ? Or will someone come along and say "See ! This was foretold in the bible thousands of years ago !" in an attempt to match modern events to ancient writings ?

That was pretty much my point. Human nature is such that this has probably always happened and always will.

I know this thread is petering out, but I do have one comment sort of related to Mossfinn's post. While people have used the Christain church for years to justify the use (abuse) of the earth and its natural resources, there is a growing movement in many churches which stress stewardship of the earth rather than dominion over it. While this certainly makes sense from an environmental standpoint, I also thinksit makes sense from a spiritual standpoint.

I think some early KJV had the Catholic sections of the OT. The King James Version was vilified by the scholars of its own day, and it is not only antiquated in its Shakespearean English, but 450 years of textual discoveries passed it by long ago.

Most Christians are not wooden-headed literalists, believing that every single word is literally true. No other work of literature has been so faithfully and accurately preserved. By the standards of manuscript experts, if the Bible is not true, then Socrates, Plato, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great were all just myths and legends.

He is both able and willing and will in due course.

If either the men writing the words or the deity inspiring the words is untruthful, whether willfully or unknowingly, that conclusion is untenable.

I have been thinking about this one sabaijai. If you believe, as I do, that God is an omnipotent being and that the writers were inspired by his power my conclusion is perfectly tenable.

Not if you consider the possibility that God is omnipotent, but untruthful.

By the standards of manuscript experts, if the Bible is not true, then Socrates, Plato, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great were all just myths and legends.

How does that follow? If A is false, then B, C, and D must also be false? Scientifically and hermeneutically speaking, each should be evaluated separately. The Bible is a book, while Socrates et al are personalities (whether historical or imaginary).

It's not an all or nothing proposition, logically. There are many more options when considering the veracity of the Bible, eg that Jesus actually existed and that parts of the Bible are true while parts are fictional or mythical or meant to be taken symbolically rather than literally.

I won't comment on the rest of the post, but how could God be untruthful? It just wouldn't make sense?

If God created it, it came from God- his responsibility. This universe is one of truths and untruths. Therefore both his responsibility- unless there are things that he did not create- and that possibility limits him.

Take your logical choice.

Isn't Satan supposed to be the father of lies?

Is God ultimately responsible for someone he gives free will too?

No way I can with this idea that God can be untruthful just because he created everything. I'll go with scea's comment that God is not responsible for the fact that he gives us free will and we are untruthful.

If he's not responsible, he's also not all-powerful.

Then, as the riddle quoted by Sabaijai up there goes, why should we be bothered?

Sorry, just don't see this arguement at all - if that's what you want to believe, that's fine by me.

If you are powerful, is it not a redeeming factor to allow individuals to act freely and determine their own path without intervention, if not does that not become a wholly unpalatable prospect for future growth, in fact stagnation.

Individuals need the room of choice, right or wrong, I wonder how many good things have materialised from bad intentions, straight jackets and a fettered thought process, would have created a world of people who had made no mistakes and therefore no progression.

The argument goes something like this: If we are in a nondeterministic universe (free will), then even God doesn't know what will happen- therefore he's hardly the big cheese and nuts to him.

Or if we are in a deterministic universe, and God knows all, sees all, can do all, then he would have known everything that would happen from the moment of creation- therefore it's all his responsibility.

Or if we are in a deterministic universe and God doesn't know all, see all, or can do all, then nuts to him as in the first step.

Hardcore fundamentalists tend to go into logical denial and simply refuse to engage when faced with this conundrum, or then we start hearing about the 'mystery.' Never fails.

Even Bono moves in mysterious ways.

The argument goes something like this: If we are in a nondeterministic universe (free will), then even God doesn't know what will happen- therefore he's hardly the big cheese and nuts to him.

Or if we are in a deterministic universe, and God knows all, sees all, can do all, then he would have known everything that would happen from the moment of creation- therefore it's all his responsibility.

Or if we are in a deterministic universe and God doesn't know all, see all, or can do all, then nuts to him as in the first step.

Hardcore fundamentalists tend to go into logical denial and simply refuse to engage when faced with this conundrum, or then we start hearing about the 'mystery.' Never fails.

Don't get nasty mate!

Just because your arguement makes no sense to me doesn't mean I disrespect your view, I just can't see it. It just sounds like a philosophy that won't get you anywhere.

I'm not getting nasty; it was simply an observation. Personally I don't consider whether or not God exists to be any more important as a question in my life than whether the Easter Bunny exists, except insofar as I have to deal with the real world consequences of the 'faithful.' I'm not a fan of the atheism clubs, either; they consider the question far too important. My philosophical approach is more along the lines of radical pragmatism with a dash of liberal humanism.

But it is a logical conundrum that, as I predicted, you have refused to engage with. It's a defense mechanism that keeps you faithful. I imagine you'd have no problems with a question involving logic gate choices between more value-neutral logical constructions.

Should we try it from a step-by-step approach?

Step 1:

Is God omniscient/omnipotent (all knowing/all powerful) or not?

If answering this question is too difficult, why?

No, it's not a 'logical' conumdrum and your assertion that my refusal to engage with it is a joke. I don't need a defense mechanism to keep me faithful. It just would not be fruitful for either of us.

So, maybe someone else would be interested in engaging in your 'logical' discussion.

Q.E.D.- and I agree it would not be fruitful.

Oh yes, quod erat demonstrandum indeed!

Should we try it from a step-by-step approach?

Step 1:

Are you being yourself here, or do you have to work at it?

It's all me, I'm afraid...

suegha and I have been down that road before, and in the end all we could agree on, was to agree to disagree with each other.

Neither of us is likely to be able to sway the other from their beliefs regardless of the amount of point-counterpoint arguments we present. It can be quite frustrating at times, but at some point you just have to push back from the table and accept that we each have our reasons for believing in whatever we believe in and there is little that can be done to change that.

My main regret (as far as this topic/subject is concerned) is that I don't have more time to devote to it. Maybe a few years down the road, if the world doesn't end in 2012 (as some believe the Mayans may have predicted), I will be able to research the subject at greater length. There are a number of other religions in the world (past and present) that I haven't studied as much as I would like to. A large part of the problem is that many of those religions were never formally "codified" or transcribed, but in many cases enough bits and pieces exist to give an interesting glimpse at the way various religions came into being and evolved in different parts of the planet.

No, it's not a 'logical' conumdrum and your assertion that my refusal to engage with it is a joke. I don't need a defense mechanism to keep me faithful. It just would not be fruitful for either of us.

So, maybe someone else would be interested in engaging in your 'logical' discussion.

Are discussions only fruitful when people agree with your point of view?

No Lannarebirth. It was not the agreement or disagreement that would not prove fruitful, but the nature of the discussion. It had already become disrespectful and would have deteriorated further...