A complex case against intelligent design

[John53]

I'm pretty sure you told me you've read the Bible at least once, if not twice. The truth that Christ ended the requirements to follow the law is a pretty fundamental tenet in the Bible. Hard to miss, really.

Rom 10:4,

For Christ [is] the end of the law (including period directives) for righteousness to every one that believeth.​

Not according to Matthew 5:17. Jesus makes it very clear that he didn't come to change the OT laws.

 

[rrobs]

Not according to Matthew 5:17. Jesus makes it very clear that he didn't come to change the OT laws.

I know all Bibles have the big heading, often in bright red letters, "The New Testament" right in front of the gospel of Matthew, but that is the publisher's doing. It is not found in any ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic texts. In other words, it was not God's idea.

All the gospels are still Old Testament, and the law was still in effect. The New Testament didn't begin until the day of Pentecost, 50 days after Jesus rose from the dead. You have to be very careful in rightly dividing the scriptures.

2Tim 2:15,

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

The words "rightly dividing" are one Greek word, "orthotomeo." It means to cut straight, with precision, to rightly dissect. You want your surgeon to do just that when he or she slices into your chest. The scriptures require at least that much precision. The surgeon keeps you going for this rather short lifetime. The scriptures deal with eternity.

 

[viole]

Win? What's to win? You asked me a question, I gave you the answer, and I even explained further the parts you were unclear about. I guess if you benefit from the information, you win, and if you don't, it's your loss--but I don't understand why you would look at a learning opportunity as a competition.

Fine. Let's bite the bullet.

But suppose that the unique omnipotent being is omnimalevolent.

What makes you exclude that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[John53]

I know all Bibles have the big heading, often in bright red letters, "The New Testament" right in front of the gospel of Matthew, but that is the publisher's doing. It is not found in any ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic texts. In other words, it was not God's idea.

All the gospels are still Old Testament, and the law was still in effect. The New Testament didn't begin until the day of Pentecost, 50 days after Jesus rose from the dead. You have to be very careful in rightly dividing the scriptures.

2Tim 2:15,

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

The words "rightly dividing" are one Greek word, "orthotomeo." It means to cut straight, with precision, to rightly dissect. You want your surgeon to do just that when he or she slices into your chest. The scriptures require at least that much precision. The surgeon keeps you going for this rather short lifetime. The scriptures deal with eternity.

Which is what turned me off Christianity. Everyone has their interpretation (or ideas on rightly divided). What makes your interpretation the right one?

To me it is very clear that Jesus said he did not come to change or abolish the law. Paul on the other hand does change it but I see Paul as a salesman trying to sell Christianity to a new audience who did not want to live by the Hebrew laws.

 

[Axe Elf]

But suppose that the unique omnipotent being is omnimalevolent.

What makes you exclude that?

It's not typically considered an attribute of God, but it can't be logically excluded, I just exclude it by choice--I would rather believe in a God Who is omnibenevolent.

If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent god exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the worst of all possible universes.

 

[viole]

It's not typically considered an attribute of God, but it can't be logically excluded, I just exclude it by choice--I would rather believe in a God Who is omnibenevolent.

If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnimalevolent god exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the worst of all possible universes.

Not necessarily. Not being the worst, is even worse. Does not even excel in that. A sort of reversed ontological argument.

Ergo, you believe in what is desirable. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rrobs]

Which is what turned me off Christianity. Everyone has their interpretation (or ideas on rightly divided). What makes your interpretation the right one?

I didn't interpret anything. The word orthotomeo really does mean exactly what I said. I just used the word, "said." Does that need interpretation? "Said" is, by commonly agreed convention, a word that means somebody uttered words in the past. No interpretation required. The Bible is just like that. It interprets itself. You just have to fit it together.

To me it is very clear that Jesus said he did not come to change or abolish the law. Paul on the other hand does change it but I see Paul as a salesman trying to sell Christianity to a new audience who did not want to live by the Hebrew laws.

I'm not sure how smart it is to base an entire belief system on one single isolated verse. I wonder if you really understand the overall context of the scriptures. Actually, I don't wonder. I know you don't or you would not have replied as you did. No big deal, no judgement, just calling a spade a spade.

 

[Axe Elf]

Not necessarily. Not being the worst, is even worse. Does not even excel in that. A sort of reversed ontological argument.

Ergo, you believe in what is desirable. Right?

I don't understand any of your statements nor your question.

 

[viole]

I don't understand any of your statements nor your question.

Well, you said you believed in a benevolent God because you chose that.

I suspect you chose that because malevolent Gods are suboptimal, in general.

So, what motivated your choice if not an inner desire that God is benevolent?

Ciao

- viole

 

[John53]

I didn't interpret anything. The word orthotomeo really does mean exactly what I said. I just used the word, "said." Does that need interpretation? "Said" is, by commonly agreed convention, a word that means somebody uttered words in the past. No interpretation required. The Bible is just like that. It interprets itself. You just have to fit it together.


I'm not sure how smart it is to base an entire belief system on one single isolated verse. I wonder if you really understand the overall context of the scriptures. Actually, I don't wonder. I know you don't or you would not have replied as you did. No big deal, no judgement, just calling a spade a spade.

Seems to me like you are putting your own interpretation, you have a different explanation for some verses than I do.

Anyway let me reword the question. What makes your division of the Bible the correct one? Many would disagree.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

1) Slavery was not part of the original plan..

Citation needed. You are going to have to show this claim is accurate.

It came after Adam chose to go his own way. So while there is slavery in the Bible, I wouldn't say it supports it.

2) In light of the first answer, No..

How can you possibly say the bible doesn't support slavery? Where is the Commandment "Do Not Own People"? If such a commandment were to be found in the bible, then I would agree with you.

But the fact the bible has multiple, new and old verses explaining how to own people? Pretty much says it supports ownership of people, so long as you don't kill them quickly, or if they are Hebrew men, let them go after a bit (but not their children...).

While we are way off the OP topic, do you believe the moon landings were real or fake?

Do I believe the moon landings? Absolutely not! Belief is something people do when they wish a thing were real, but deep down, they know it isn't.

Proof? How many Christians prefer going to the Doctors or Hospital, instead if Church, when severely injured or very ill?

The bible is quite clear in it's instruction: Church, and be prayed over. Hospitals are "Man's Understanding" and never to be trusted.

As for the Lunar Landings? I think it is very, very likely that a number of men were sent by rocket up to the moon, where 2 at a time, they landed and then returned. We have mountains of photographic evidence, including a lovely feather and hammer vacuum experiment proving gravity works on mass equally.

It's like this: Back in the Day, The US Government decided to Hoax The People with a Fake Going To The Moon.

The trouble is? They asked Stanley Kubrick to film the whole thing-- he proposed a budget, which was accepted. And so, the Fake Landings were actually filmed on the Moon, because, well, it's Kubrick, who is OCD about authenticity...

The evidence points to men going to the moon, and returning. Good Enough for Me.

But do I believe it? I try to avoid belief where ever I am able-- I prefer to stick to reason instead.

Track record for Reason? This very Internet, including micro computers necessary to make it work.

What's the Track Record for Believing? The Crusades? Salem's Witch Trials? Being against Gay Marriages? 9/11?

Naaah... I'll stick to Reason, thanks.

 

[rrobs]

Seems to me like you are putting your own interpretation, you have a different explanation for some verses than I do.

Anyway let me reword the question. What makes your division of the Bible the correct one? Many would disagree.

Well, for starters, I should say that I certainly don't claim to know it all. Nobody does. But I know a lot. I've studied it for 40 years. I've studied Greek and Hebrew which are the languages in which the texts were originally written. I've studied history and archeology.

While I don't know it all, I can say with complete confidence that you have many flawed ideas. It is obvious that much of what you "know" is either from tradition or your own musings. Again, no judgement, just how it is. I've been there myself, I wasn't born with a Bible in my hands. At one time I thought pretty much like you. At some point I educated myself and my conceptions changed as I continued to study.

I know I'm rightly dividing the scriptures regarding the Old and New Testaments the same way you know there was a big earthquake in Anchorage, Alaska yesterday. I just read the words without preconceptions as to where and when the earthquake occurred.
Not having preconceptions is the key. I doubt very greatly you've spent much time in a dispassionate, objective, scholarly study of the scriptures. I can tell you have many preconceptions. Again, no judgement. It doesn't make you any less of a human being than me or anybody else. It just means you don't have much understanding of the scriptures. Lot's of people don't.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think I explained why I didn't answer your questions. It's apparently not the answer you want. That's not my problem. No martyr here.

No-- your post was about 20 words or so, with a snide remark about my perceived mental age. No actual questions were addressed by any of the words, either.

 

[dfnj]

Well, for starters, I should say that I certainly don't claim to know it all. Nobody does. But I know a lot. I've studied it for 40 years. I've studied Greek and Hebrew which are the languages in which the texts were originally written. I've studied history and archeology.

While I don't know it all, I can say with complete confidence that you have many flawed ideas. It is obvious that much of what you "know" is either from tradition or your own musings. Again, no judgement, just how it is. I've been there myself, I wasn't born with a Bible in my hands. At one time I thought pretty much like you. At some point I educated myself and my conceptions changed as I continued to study.

I know I'm rightly dividing the scriptures regarding the Old and New Testaments the same way you know there was a big earthquake in Anchorage, Alaska yesterday. I just read the words without preconceptions as to where and when the earthquake occurred.
Not having preconceptions is the key. I doubt very greatly you've spent much time in a dispassionate, objective, scholarly study of the scriptures. I can tell you have many preconceptions. Again, no judgement. It doesn't make you any less of a human being than me or anybody else. It just means you don't have much understanding of the scriptures. Lot's of people don't.

You've completely hijacked my thread. I don't care too much why you have blind faith in your own dogma. This has nothing to do with the topic. If the title of the thread were, "why 30 years of blind faith has made rrobs personal interpretations of scripture the only absolute truth from God" then you can post your drivel.

 

[rrobs]

Citation needed. You are going to have to show this claim is accurate.

How can you possibly say the bible doesn't support slavery? Where is the Commandment "Do Not Own People"? If such a commandment were to be found in the bible, then I would agree with you.

But the fact the bible has multiple, new and old verses explaining how to own people? Pretty much says it supports ownership of people, so long as you don't kill them quickly, or if they are Hebrew men, let them go after a bit (but not their children...).

Do I believe the moon landings? Absolutely not! Belief is something people do when they wish a thing were real, but deep down, they know it isn't.

Proof? How many Christians prefer going to the Doctors or Hospital, instead if Church, when severely injured or very ill?

The bible is quite clear in it's instruction: Church, and be prayed over. Hospitals are "Man's Understanding" and never to be trusted.

As for the Lunar Landings? I think it is very, very likely that a number of men were sent by rocket up to the moon, where 2 at a time, they landed and then returned. We have mountains of photographic evidence, including a lovely feather and hammer vacuum experiment proving gravity works on mass equally.

It's like this: Back in the Day, The US Government decided to Hoax The People with a Fake Going To The Moon.

The trouble is? They asked Stanley Kubrick to film the whole thing-- he proposed a budget, which was accepted. And so, the Fake Landings were actually filmed on the Moon, because, well, it's Kubrick, who is OCD about authenticity...

The evidence points to men going to the moon, and returning. Good Enough for Me.

But do I believe it? I try to avoid belief where ever I am able-- I prefer to stick to reason instead.

Track record for Reason? This very Internet, including micro computers necessary to make it work.

What's the Track Record for Believing? The Crusades? Salem's Witch Trials? Being against Gay Marriages? 9/11?

Naaah... I'll stick to Reason, thanks.

Overall, you appear to look at man's actions and mistake them for God's will.

Reason is impotent in stopping slavery as well as a myriad of other atrocities. I get it you don't trust the Bible, but why trust reason? Hitler reasoned the Holocaust. Pol Pot reasoned the Killing Fields. Lenin reasoned the Red Terror. I'll bet had they used the scriptures instead of reason, none of those atrocities would have occurred.

 

[dfnj]

ID is just a social engineering project, started by a US lawyer, to try to get God into school science teaching. It never was science in the first place and is in fact anti-science, as it argues we should all stop researching, fold our arms and say "Goddidit".

As you point out the problem with creation, however it was brought about, remains that it contains a lot of pain, suffering and death. However this is a fundamental issue in Christianity, for which I have never heard a compelling explanation. I expect a cdesign proponentsist will argue that the Creator introduced these defects deliberately for whatever purpose they serve.

I think the ID people would have a good argument if there were no other compelling explanations. But as I stated in the OP, it seems to me evolution with all its imperfections is a closer more accurate possible explanation. You could even say evolution is a compelling explanation based on known facts.

 

[dfnj]

Assume for moment intelligent design is true. Then it is possible extraterrestrials designed human beings and put them on Earth. Ancient astronaut theorists say, "Yes, it is possible."

 

[rrobs]

You've completely hijacked my thread. I don't care too much why you have blind faith in your own dogma. This has nothing to do with the topic. If the title of the thread were, "why 30 years of blind faith has made rrobs personal interpretations of scripture the only absolute truth from God" then you can post your drivel.

My original reply very much addressed your thread. I've just been answering questions put to me. I've even mentioned that they are off topic. While I must admit to sharing the blame in hijacking your post, I had plenty of company.

You yourself just got off topic in your reply. I didn't mean to discuss my blind faith or drivel. You brought it up.

In any case, I apologize for any part I played ruining your thread. Still, you may want to castigate the other parties in the debacle.

 

[dfnj]

***mod delete***

There's about 10 pages of your personal take on God. At some point you have to talk about the thread topic somewhere.

 

[dfnj]

I think the important question is how you characterized or qualify what is intelligent. Because based on my own personal experiences with my body's own imperfections, I"m not sure I would qualify the design of my body has being intelligently designed.