67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: 68 “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people, 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, 70 as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began, 71 that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, 72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, 73 the oath which He swore to our father Abraham: 74 to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life.
Zacharius prophesied of the future, in the present tense. This is because when God says He will do something, it is done. The moment God promised to buy His people back from the grip of death, it was completed because God doesn’t lie. Ever.
Think now of a man who has seriously violated civil law. He is guilty of multiple grizzly murders, is arrested and held without bail. He is no longer free to come and go as he pleases. He can’t live within his own home, sleep in his own bed, or go out for a meal with friends. He is held captive by the law until the time of his execution. Governments will spend millions of dollars to hold a criminal such as that, until justice is done.
In the same way, when you and I sin, we seriously transgress God’s Law--the Ten Commandments. We are told in Scripture that the Law is perfect, holy, just and good. It demands absolute moral perfection, and when its perfect precepts are transgressed, it demands (and will get) absolute retribution. Every time we sin all we do is store up the Law's wrath, and the day will come when God manifests His righteous indignation against all evil. The Bible calls that day, "the day of the wrath of Almighty God." So each of us is kept in this large holding cell called earth, until the time of our execution when we will be the recipients of capital punishment, and then damned forever from that which is good.
So shake off any notions you may have that God doesn’t care about right of wrong. Shake off any pretense that He doesn’t exist, and then flee to the Savior. He will save you from your greatest enemy--death itself:
"But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Posted by
Ray Comfort
on
11/10/2009 10:36:00 AM

94 comments:
Many Christians seem to think that "atheists simply refuse to understand, and need to be explained the Gospel over and over".
We get it, OK? We understand the Gospel. The Bible simply claims things that we know to be at odds with reality.
For instance, we evolved from animals. We are apes. If animals don't have souls, and we come from animals, how could we possibly have souls?
That changes everything now, doesn't it?
God apparently does lie to prophets sometimes... Ezekiel 14:9.
Yes, yes, I obviously can't understand the Bible because I'm a heathen.
So Ray do you worship God because you love him or that you are afraid to burn in Hell if you do not ?
Concerning things that are at odds with reality...
From an atheistic stand point the problem with providing evidence for God is a huge burden for the Christian. This is true because the evidence that an atheist demands is evidence of the created order. When a Christian submits himself to an atheists guidelines, he then carries an enormous burden. Why? Because God is not a creature, that is he is uncreated - not made.
So when an atheist demands proof of God, he/she is not looking for the proof of the Christian God, no, he is looking for the proof of a physical created being. He is looking for the kind of being that can be tested in a lab. An atheist wants God to be just like a creature so he can subject that creation to himself. However, God will not be made the subject of a test. Aslan cannot be tamed. Even if God appeared before everyone on this blog, it wouldn't be enough because things could be explained away with delusion or drugs or hysteria. The kind of proof demanded would be a God that I could bend to my will and put under my feet, then I could believe. But then I would have no God at all.
However, the desire for atheists to learn about the world and subject the visible world to themselves is a good desire. It's good to subject creation under your feet. It's good to find out all the properties of our world and shape them and form them to be useful and expand our knowledge of them. This is good because these things are created and given to us. But we don't like God because he is uncreated. Paul says we have loved the creation rather than the creator.
In our idolatry we have taken what was meant to glorify God and we've twisted it into a lie and made it into an image of our own thinking. As people on both sides of the debate know, there is never a purely objective observation. We all have bias. Alabama fans have Alabama bias when an interception is caught made by LSU (my LSU bias). The Bible teaches that sinners have a sinful bias when understanding God and his creation.
If I am an atheist, I have a bias to I think that their perceptions reflect reality and that everything is not a figment of their imagination. Christians have a bias that God created the world and all that it contains. To say that the Bible is at odds with reality would mean that you've properly interpreted reality. Throughout history many have made this claim and many have had to make revisions.
@Faris--
You said:
However, God will not be made the subject of a test.
The invisible and the nonexistent appear very much alike. The God you insist exists looks just like everybody else's God that you insist doesn't exist.
Strange....I haven't heard the Gospel of the Blessed God on this site yet....
Blogger Ryan Anderson said...
God apparently does lie to prophets sometimes... Ezekiel 14:9.
Yes, yes, I obviously can't understand the Bible because I'm a heathen.
9 “And if the prophet is induced to speak anything, I the Lord have induced that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel.
eze 14:7 For anyone of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who separates himself from Me and sets up his idols in his heart and puts before him what causes him to stumble into iniquity, then comes to a prophet to inquire of him concerning Me, I the Lord will answer him by Myself.
No Ryan, ya'll just love to take stuff out of context
B. Pierce,
If humans are an apes, then the two should be able to produce offspring together.
Anyone ever meet a humape?
Faris,
Very good point. Thanks for your input.
Although I can hear the usual objections like "So I have to believe something without physical or testable or scientifically verifiable proof?" - even though the rest of us believers overcame those SAME obstacles, with God's help, of course.
Luke 18
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
B. Pierce said...
"... and need to be explained the Gospel over and over".
Dear B,
I heard the Gospel over and over a multitude of times before I became a Christian. And each time, it brought a greater conviction of sin and God's eventual Judgment to my soul.
How do you KNOW we don't have a soul? Other than by theoretical reasoning, of course. From a nonbeliever's standpoint, you DON'T really know, IMHO.
B.Pierce said,
"We are apes."
Dear B.,
According to supposedly "completely objective, iron-clad, 100% scientifically accurate and unbiased" evolutionist interpretation of DNA data, we are also cousins of bananas and turnips.
Why don't we hear more of this relationship from evolutionists?
Is it because a hypothetical relationship to apes is more respectable than to bananas and turnips?
And if it is indeed respectable to believe bananas and turnips are our cousins, why not preach it in your workplace? Every time you eat a banana, let everyone in your office know you are eating your relative. Why not, if its respectable to believe so?
"It is the plain truth that we are...cousins of bananas and turnips."
Richard Dawkins, Very Rich Atheist.
There is ALWAYS A SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL REASON for believing what we do. ALWAYS. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.
A point of fact: We can see, with our own eyes, that christians die in the same way that non-christians do. There is no evidence that christians are saved from death in any sense. Before you tell me of all the christians who believe they are and claim that as evidence, consider that muslims believe they will get their 72 virgins. I don't doubt that they believe that. But the believe is not evidence of its own accuracy.
A law that proclaims that all have failed is necessarily a bad law. That "scripture" declares it "perfect, holy, just, and good" only means that "scripture" is unreliable. It has made a claim that is logically incoherent.
Incidentally, Ray, Wrath is also one of the Seven. I distinguish wrath from mere anger by the fact that wrath acts upon anger to the harm of another. Your deity is described in exactly that way. He is, therefore, not perfect. Since, on the assumption of his existence, he also insists on being called perfect, he is also vain.
Ray said:
"Zacharius prophesied of the future, in the present tense."
RAY! READ THOSE PASSAGES AGAIN!
It was said in the past tense, not present! It's not prophecy! Or maybe I don't understand prophecy.
Maybe I'm a prophet!
"And lo! Andy Duchemin did watch Pirates of the Caribbean with his girlfriend on Tuesday night! And they ate Jelly Beans and smoked cigarettes."
Wow, this prophecy lark it a piece of cake!
As for the execution thing; be honest Ray, do you really think capital punishment is justice? You may remember my opinion on execution, I think it's the stupidest form of punishment. Since there is no afterlife all execution does is make the perpetrator nonexistent. Fitting punishment is perpetual suffering.
But, say I'm wrong, and there is an afterlife. By executing someone, for the sin or murder all the other sins of the murderer would be forgiven, after all he's paid the ultimate sacrifice to get square with society and God.
Executions carried out by the Hebrews in the Old Testament were punishments for their sins, in the same way animal sacrifices were made to atone for their sins. If someone is executed, they've just been given a "Get into Heaven Free Card".
The last paragraph of my above post should read:
"If I am an atheist, I have a bias to I think that my perceptions reflect reality and that everything is not a figment of my imagination."
Too bad you have to die first... you might really have something if Christians didn't die and everyone else did.
So who saved Jesus? Did he just believe in himself or was it b/c he was God, was he ever really human then? To be human is to sin as you explain it, so did Jesus sin, and if he didn't was he really human?
Also can you explain how why we should not believe and trust Jesus as he is portrayed in the Muslim faith. How do we know Jesus is God and not a prophet of God, how do we know Christians are not just making a false idol out of a man and putting that man before God?
"Michael Samson said...
Strange....I haven't heard the Gospel of the Blessed God on this site yet...."
Michael...you are welcome to give it.
Gee, Ray. Three Luke posts in a row. I bet you're suffering from some nasty withdraw symptoms, what with no evolution posts, no "nothing created everything". But you go ahead and detox.
Hey Carl why don't you put in the whole quote
So you have it in the futue here it is:
"It's plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips."
He is saying that all life is interrelated and came from a common ancestor a long time ago.
So quit the selective deleting posts, it really makes you "Real Christians" look very dishonest.
I'm inclined to think that maybe, if you're God is real, he suffers from ADD. Back in the day he made himself known. Ever since that dang Bible came out, he's been pretty quiet. You followers can say what you will, but I believe he's moved on to another part of the universe, or to another universe. Left this failed experiment to run down. Afraid he gave us a "Do not resuscitate" order before he took off.
Just remembered that is the premise of the play "Angels in America." I understand Christians not beginning to comprehend this because they place so many limitations upon their deity.
ray said: God doesn’t lie. Ever <--
i'd like to see some proof. God told abraham to kill isaac. at the last moment God stoped abraham. God lied to abraham, because abraham thought god wanted him to kill his son. GOD LIED.
And JD Curtis I am waiting for you to hit on me again.
Carl said...
"Although I can hear the usual objections like "So I have to believe something without physical or testable or scientifically verifiable proof?" - even though the rest of us believers overcame those SAME obstacles, with God's help, of course."
Hey Carl. Seeings as you seem to be one of the few level-headed theists on this blog, I wonder if you can help me out here.
Faith, as you put is, is a choice. I can see how a theist can make this choice.
But my problem is one that has been brought up many, many times by atheists. And I have never seen a Christian response come even close to a staisfactory answer. You'll probably sigh and roll your eyes when you read this, but PLEASE try and enlighten me:
Your religion teaches that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior you will burn for eternity in hell. More or less.
Yet, if God chose to have you born today to a poor family in India, your chances of converting to Christianity to be saved are near zero. If you were born in South America before the conquistador's came, you were not going to hear about Jesus.
In essence, God chooses certain people to burn for eternity and they have no say in the matter.
How is this fair?
Wait what,
Prophets deliver messages from God. They can be disproved (see the biblical requirements to prove a false prophet from a real one-Muhammed doesn't qualify.
Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. If He was just a prophet, according to you, He would also be a liar, as He said He and the Father were one. You can't have it both ways.
Jesus is God. He came in the flesh. Even though He lived in human, sinful flesh, He never sinned. Why is the fact that He did that so confusing for you?
Melanie; I think quoting the NIV here will get you stoned by the KJV only Christians. Be careful!!!
But correct me if I'm wrong, 14:9 says that God will destroy bad prophets by LYING to them. I'm assuming by discrediting him.
I'm just saying is all.
PS: Paul also mentions God lying to folks to destroy them in 2nd Thessalonians. I'm sure my heathen brain just can't grasp what Paul is really getting at though.
For instance, we evolved from animals. We are apes. If animals don't have souls, and we come from animals, how could we possibly have souls?
That changes everything now, doesn't it?
False statements do change a lot of things. Like yours for example. (Re-read yours for clarification)
Truth is...
God created man separate from animals.
God gave man a soul.
Animals don't get souls.
If we "don't" come from animals and animals don't have souls, how could you possibly believe in evolution?
That changes everything now, doesn't it?
good day
Erikloza - FAIL
Ray reveals to us that--
In the same way, when you and I sin, we seriously transgress God's Law--the Ten Commandments. We are told in Scripture that the Law is perfect, holy, just and good. It demands absolute moral perfection, and when its perfect precepts are transgressed, it demands (and will get) absolute retribution.
So it's either absolute perfection or absolute retribution?? Does that really sound reasonable to you?
Ray, any deity that created me in a "fallen" state, with an irresistible tendency to "sin", and then, when I DO "sin" says to me "Sorry sport, you broke the law..." is a creep. Why? Because He's punishing me for being sinful when in fact He made me that way.
*
Captain,
You said:
"The invisible and the nonexistent appear very much alike. The God you insist exists looks just like everybody else's God that you insist doesn't exist."
Well when Christians say that God is invisible they don't (or at least they shouldn't) mean that God is the opposite of visible. This is incorrect. There are many created things that exists that are invisible to what wavelenghts the human eye can receive. However, God transcends the created order of visible/invisible.
When Christians say that God is invisible, they mean that he is wholly other. This is important because God is infinite. He cannot be contained. If he were a created being, then he could be contained and therefore finite.
This is different from non-existent. Something that is non-existent is not invisible because it has to exist to be given the category of invisibility or visibility.
So the only way these two categories (non-existent and invisible) are alike is if you equivocate which would just be silly.
--------------------
Now your comment about my God looking like other gods. Let's talk about that. Which gods are you referring to? What are there histories? Have they been worshiped since the beginning of time? Have they made their name known throughout all the earth? Tell me which god is like the God of all the earth? All the gods can't be true gods because they are at odds with one another. Why should it be amazing that there are false gods? Impostors exists among human beings. Many people have had their identity stolen online and many forgeries have been committed among humans. Why should a false god give you offense?
Sincerely,
Faris
Hi Ray,
I've asked several times now if you'd be interested in reviewing one of the newer evolution books. As you yourself have noted (and apologized for) you haven't always fully understood the claims evolutionists make.
This would be a great opportunity for you to put the record straight.
I don't know why you keep ignoring my request. I think it's reasonable - and would go a long way to establish credibility with some of the atheists here.
If you don't want to do it, just say no. But please don't just ignore us. A lot of us spend a lot of time reading your blog and trying to understand what you are saying.
Many thanks for your response.
erikloza said...
"B. Pierce,
If humans are an apes, then the two should be able to produce offspring together.
Anyone ever meet a humape?"
You have just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not understand the meaning of the word species.
No need to thank me for letting you know that.
Hi again, Faris--
Interesting post!
Captain,
You said:
"The invisible and the nonexistent appear very much alike. The God you insist exists looks just like everybody else's God that you insist doesn't exist."
Well when Christians say that God is invisible they don't (or at least they shouldn't) mean that God is the opposite of visible. This is incorrect. There are many created things that exists that are invisible to what wavelenghts the human eye can receive. However, God transcends the created order of visible/invisible.
I'm the one accusing God of being invisible, not the Christians--because He is. The Christians don't mention this very much, for some strange reason. And in this case, when I say "invisible" I'm speaking loosely. What I mean is "cannot be seen, smelt, heard, photographed, weighed, measured, or directly detected by any verifiable, known means".
When Christians say that God is invisible, they mean that he is wholly other. This is important because God is infinite. He cannot be contained. If he were a created being, then he could be contained and therefore finite.
Actually, as an atheist I kind of agree with you here. God IS infinite. But He's infinite because He's an idea. God looks like He isn't actually there for the same reason Allah looks like he isn't actually there: He isn't actually there.
This is different from non-existent. Something that is non-existent is not invisible because it has to exist to be given the category of invisibility or visibility.
My statement was that the invisible and the nonexistent resemble each other, which they do--and maybe just maybe there's a good reason: in this case, it's because the invisible and the nonexistent are exactly the same. You have no more seen your God than other people have seen theirs. You have no more actually heard your God's voice than other people have heard their God's voice. Why? Simple--He isn't actually there and it's all baloney. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, this is just how I see it.
So the only way these two categories (non-existent and invisible) are alike is if you equivocate which would just be silly.
Faris, you can't see unicorns. The reason you can't see unicorns is because they're not actually there. They're just an idea. Now, extending that same logic--
Just like with unicorns, the reason you can't see God is because ________.
Now your comment about my God looking like other gods. Let's talk about that.
Fair nuff.
Which gods are you referring to?
All of them. Your God looks like Zeus. Your God looks like Allah. And about a jillion others, give or take.
What are there histories? Have they been worshiped since the beginning of time? Have they made their name known throughout all the earth?
Utterly irrelevant. They all look the same regardless of any of that.
Tell me which god is like the God of all the earth? All the gods can't be true gods because they are at odds with one another.
"Which God is like the God of all the earth?" Every single one of them. No, they can't all be true, but they can all be false. And they STILL look just the same--like they were not really there.
Why should it be amazing that there are false gods? Impostors exists among human beings. Many people have had their identity stolen online and many forgeries have been committed among humans. Why should a false god give you offense?
It's not the Deity Itself that's the problem. It's His followers. The ones who try to tell everybody else how to live. The Dynamic Duo, Banana Man Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and their goofy publicity stunts. Pat Robertson. Christian Identity. Eric Rudolph. Osama Bin Laden.
It just seems to me that when you talk to, or worship, or relate to something that looks like it isn't actually there, that at least in a sense, you're crazy.
Again, not trying to be abrasive; that's just how it seems to me.
B. Pierce said:
For instance, we evolved from animals. We are apes. If animals don't have souls, and we come from animals, how could we possibly have souls?
Well, assuming that animals have something which could be modified, through mutation and presumably natural selection, into a soul, a soul could be both an autapomorphy in humans and a homolog to non-soul or pre-soul features in nonhuman animals.
Actually, given one traditional meaning of "soul" in philosophy, evolutionary theory requires this. Aristotle famously posited three different souls for humans: vegetative (that accounted for basic life functions), sensitive (that enabled us to sense and react to our environment), and rational (that enabled us to reason and make moral judgments). On evolutionary grounds, the ability to reason and judge emerged as a modification of more rudimentary mental capabilities of earlier vertebrates.
Or, conversely, if you're talking about nonphysical, supernatural souls, it has been suggested that souls were something added to the human lineage at some point (sort of like a novel ERV being inserted into our genome, except, of course, no physical or natural).
A less orthodox suggestion is that animals do have some sort of nonphysical souls (where is it even asserted in the Bible that they do not). The human soul, like the human body, might be very different in degree without being fundamentally different in kind. Obviously, as regards physical properties sometimes called "souls," this is the case.
Faris said:
In our idolatry we have taken what was meant to glorify God and we've twisted it into a lie and made it into an image of our own thinking. As people on both sides of the debate know, there is never a purely objective observation. We all have bias. Alabama fans have Alabama bias when an interception is caught made by LSU (my LSU bias). The Bible teaches that sinners have a sinful bias when understanding God and his creation.
I think that most Alabama fans are not so biased as to deny that the LSU team really exists ... or to insist that their team is scoring when it isn't even on the field yet.
What sort of bias is it when you insist that evidence isn't even relevant to evaluating your position?
The 10 commandments are perfect?
No really, you think the 10 commandments are perfect?
Why isn't rape in there?
Ray Comfort said:
Zacharius prophesied of the future, in the present tense. This is because when God says He will do something, it is done. The moment God promised to buy His people back from the grip of death, it was completed because God doesn’t lie. Ever.
I don't see that in these verses: the promise Zacharias sees fulfilled is not deliverance from individual human mortality, but national deliverance from oppressors and military enemies in this life.
I grant you that these words have little enough to do with John's later career as a preacher of repentance, or later Christian message of salvation though Jesus (or your commentary on the verse), but it's what Zacharias is presented as saying: the birth of his son is a promise of national, political deliverance from foreign occupation and corruption.
A promise from God that His people can "serve Him without fear" is a promise of national independence and self-rule, not immortality or resurrection. I suppose this discrepancy is evidence that the passage is not a later Christian invention: it's a holdover from a quite different, pre-Christian conception of what John's ministry meant.
Think now of a man who has seriously violated civil law. He is guilty of multiple grizzly murders, is arrested and held without bail.
He's held without bail for killing an endangered (well, strictly speaking, only "vulnerable," which is not even as bad as "threatened") species? Or do you mean that he uses grizzly bears to murder people?
I think you must mean the former. After all, your point is that God threatens us with eternal torment for even the tiniest deviation from His perfect law. Indeed, your analogy would probably be better if the man had been held without parole (with the prosecution seeking the death penalty) for littering.
carl said, "And if it is indeed respectable to believe bananas and turnips are our cousins, why not preach it in your workplace? Every time you eat a banana, let everyone in your office know you are eating your relative. Why not, if its respectable to believe so?"
Carl, looking at things in this wide a reference frame, you and I are extremely closely related. Why haven't I seen you at any family reunions?
Faris said:
So when an atheist demands proof of God, he/she is not looking for the proof of the Christian God, no, he is looking for the proof of a physical created being. He is looking for the kind of being that can be tested in a lab. An atheist wants God to be just like a creature so he can subject that creation to himself. However, God will not be made the subject of a test. Aslan cannot be tamed.
Aslan was a fictional character (although, in the fiction, you could sometimes run your fingers through his mane). So he would seem to be a doubly poor analogy for a real but untestable God.
But here's the point: God is said to act in the physical, testable world. Now, I'm not sure how much of the Old Testament you take literally (six-day creation? global flood?), but presumably a God Who acts in the world has physical, empirically-testable effects in the world. A God Who cannot be tested is a God Who either does not act in the world, or Whose actions, in the world, cannot be distinguished from the effects of impersonal, uncaring law and random chance (i.e. forget Malachi 3:10; you're claiming that God would never act that way).
Now your comment about my God looking like other gods. Let's talk about that. Which gods are you referring to? What are there histories? Have they been worshiped since the beginning of time? Have they made their name known throughout all the earth? Tell me which god is like the God of all the earth? All the gods can't be true gods because they are at odds with one another. Why should it be amazing that there are false gods? Impostors exists among human beings. Many people have had their identity stolen online and many forgeries have been committed among humans. Why should a false god give you offense?
The Bible claims that God has been worshipped since the beginning of time. This is admittedly a striking claim (the early Greeks would never have made such a claim about Zeus, since they believed that there had been gods -- the Titans -- before Zeus). On the other hand, the later Greeks increasingly spoke of Zeus in very much the same way the later Hebrews spoke of Jehovah: the only god who existed and who ruled the world unchallenged. And Marduk, the Babylonian god, was once one of many gods, and not the oldest, but eventually came to be seen as the one true god who incorporated, as aspects of his being, all the other gods.
Ahura Mazda is said (by the Zoroastrians, his worshippers) to be eternal and uncreated. Exactly the same claim is made about Allah, of course (though "Allah" may be a name, and a concept of God, borrowed by pagan Arabs from Syriac Christians).
@ Faris again:
Your reply to Captian Howdy is one big case of special pleading... Just so you know...
Erikloza replied to B. Pierce:
If humans are an apes, then the two should be able to produce offspring together.
Anyone ever meet a humape?
I believe the preferred term is "manpanzee," "chuman," or "humanzee."
But then, of course, humans are anthropoids, and primates, and mammals, and amniotes, and tetrapods, and vertebrates, so you might with equal force and indignation demand to see that human-spider monkey hybrid, the human-lemur hybrid, the human-giraffe hybrid, the human-cockatoo hybrid, the human-frog hybrid, etc. You could even borrow a point from Carl and ask for the humanana!
Except ... known instances of common ancestry don't always imply complete interfertility. There are different "chromosomal races" of mice (Mus musculus) that are not as fertile with each other as they are when mating within their subspecies. D. paulistorum is a laboratory-bred species of fruit fly which was bred, within the last century, from the common model species D. melanogaster; attempts to breed the two species (they do not interbreed readily) produce only sterile males.
There are instances, in plants, of speciation through polyploidy (doubling of the entire genome), in which the new species is unable to interbreed with the parent species. So you will see that interfertility of different populations can be lost even in directly-observable, short-term evolution; it would hardly seem astonishing to do so over five or six million years.
To be sure, there have been few attempts to actually do the experiment you suggest (Ilya Ivanov, a Soviet scientist, attempted to impregnate chimpanzees with human sperm early in the 20th century, without success; his plan to impregnate women with chimpanzee sperm never reached the experimental stage). It would be unlikely to succeed, but I'm not sure that one failed series of experiments proves that it would be completely impossible. Even humans don't always succeed in getting each other pregnant.
Carl replied to B. Pierce:
I heard the Gospel over and over a multitude of times before I became a Christian. And each time, it brought a greater conviction of sin and God's eventual Judgment to my soul.
And yet, each time, it brought to me a greater conviction that the Bible writers were making a lot of it up as they went along.
How do you KNOW we don't have a soul? Other than by theoretical reasoning, of course. From a nonbeliever's standpoint, you DON'T really know, IMHO.
I believe the standard argument here is "what does this soul do?" Our minds can be changed by changing our brains: brain damage, psychotropic drugs, electrical stimulation of various regions of the brain, alcohol, etc. all suggest that thought and emotion are caused by physical processes. What residuum is there that a nonphysical component of ourselves explains or predicts? Now, I am not arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or that lack of a gap to stuff an cause into is proof that something doesn't exist. But the world might be full of things for which there is no evidence; why should we prefer the unevidenced things you propose to any number of contrary unevidenced things?
According to supposedly "completely objective, iron-clad, 100% scientifically accurate and unbiased" evolutionist interpretation of DNA data, we are also cousins of bananas and turnips.
Why don't we hear more of this relationship from evolutionists?
Is it because a hypothetical relationship to apes is more respectable than to bananas and turnips?
No, but our relationship to apes is much, much closer (i.e. a last common ancestor as recently as five million years ago, vs. one living perhaps two billion years ago). And our relationship to apes has a greater mass of evidence to support it, and most of that evidence has been known longer (Darwin, for example, was unsure whether animals and plants shared a common ancestor with each other, but was sure that we were descended from monkeys).
There is ALWAYS A SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL REASON for believing what we do. ALWAYS. NO EXCEPTIONS.
What's your subjective, personal reason for believing that the Earth is a spheroid, or that it orbits the sun, or that matter is made up of atoms, or that Beijing is in China?
Carl said:
"Although I can hear the usual objections like "So I have to believe something without physical or testable or scientifically verifiable proof?" - even though the rest of us believers overcame those SAME obstacles, with God's help, of course."
Funny, the way you phrased that makes it sound like you believe it is a virtue to be able to believe something without testable proof.
Surely, if testable proof is not a requirement to form a belief then we should be able to form a belief in just about anything?
If that was the case, why haven't there been hundreds or thousands of different creation/god myths put forward, beliefs with no evidence to back them up?
Oh wait...
@ Faris:
I don't think anything you described implies an atheistic standpoint at all.
It's not that we demand evidence for the existence of God because we're atheists. Everyone demands (or should demand) evidence for things before they adopt them into their worldview, or in the case of a God, adopt the religion's doctrines as a worldview. The difference comes because some people's standards of evidence are lower than others, and those who demand higher standards of evidence to prove, for example, the Christian God, hold to the maxim 'Extraordinary claims...' like those in the Bible, for example,'...require extraordinary evidence'.
I don't think there is an atheist alive, and definitely not a right thinking one, who would continue to deny the existence of God in the face of undeniable, unambiguous, unequivocal, evidence. If God showed Himself to us all, we would have no choice but to accept His existence because, look, there He is.
I know as much is at least true for me.
As far as I am aware, the desire to learn about the world and themselves in it is not exclusive to atheists. As far as I am aware, God was originally posited by people wanting to do exactly that, in the absence of the knowledge of any natural explanation.
And as far as I am aware, reality does not count as the presuppositional bias that you seem to portray it as. God, on the other hand, does.
Amy2 said "Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. If He was just a prophet, according to you, He would also be a liar, as He said He and the Father were one. You can't have it both ways."
Perhaps Jesus meant he and God were one just like we are all one with God. It's possible the disciples misunderstood what Jesus meant. In fact even according to the Bible the disciples didn’t always understand what Jesus meant.
Granting you every letter, every syllable, every word of this post, for the sake of argument... I'd love to hear the justification for all your talk of 'saving us from death'. What possible evidence could you have to back up that claim?
Actually no, I won't grant you everything in this post. I can't. Because you also said that God doesn't lie. Ever. But you freely offered up an example of God lying by the end of this post. Have you ever known a Christian, a person who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, to die, Mr. Comfort? If so, God has lied to you when He told you that accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour would save you from death. And He compounds the lie with every Christian that dies, to say nothing of practitioners of other religions, that also promise exemption from death if you accept God into your heart.
Faris said:
"Well when Christians say that God is invisible they don't (or at least they shouldn't) mean that God is the opposite of visible. This is incorrect. There are many created things that exists that are invisible to what wavelenghts the human eye can receive. However, God transcends the created order of visible/invisible."
"When Christians say that God is invisible, they mean that he is wholly other. This is important because God is infinite."
I'm curious as to what you mean by "other"? Other than what? Other implies that there is a set that does not contain the subject. If God is other, what set does not contain God?
This raises a practical question that always puzzled me. The Christian God is male. How can an infinite Being be limited to only one gender? Is it possible for God to be female if He so desired?
"He cannot be contained. If he were a created being, then he could be contained and therefore finite.
The number called pi is infinitely long but it is fully contained between the numbers 3.14 and 3.15. There are also an infinite amount of other unique numbers between 3.14 and 3.15. Why do you suggest that it is impossible to contain something that is infinite?
"This is different from non-existent. Something that is non-existent is not invisible because it has to exist to be given the category of invisibility or visibility."
Agreed, but in your first paragraph above you say that God seems to be exempt from being either visible or invisible, despite your contention that He exists.
Is God unique in being able to exist and yet be neither visible or invisible?
By the way, Captain Howdy did not seem to be equating invisibility and nonexistence, he seemed to be pointing out that it appears difficult to determine the difference between the two using objective evidence.
What criteria do you apply that allows you to distinguish between an invisible God and a nonexistent God? If you object to using your God for such a purpose then how do you determine that a "false god", eg. Zeus, is nonexistent rather than invisible or simply "other"?
"So the only way these two categories (non-existent and invisible) are alike is if you equivocate which would just be silly."
In my experience the good Captain is anything but silly...I think you should re-examine his post for deeper meaning.
Faris said:
"If I am an atheist, I have a bias to I think that their perceptions reflect reality and that everything is not a figment of their imagination."
I don't have a problem with admitting that I, an atheist, hold this presupposition. But surely Christians (and other believers) must share this same presupposition with atheists?
Before coming to a belief about God, must not the Christian also hold a belief that they exist, that the world around them exists?
Otherwise, how can a believer be sure that any thoughts about God are made in the context of a true existence as opposed to being a figment of their imagination or something imposed on the subject from outside?
"Christians have a bias that God created the world and all that it contains."
Agreed. Believers must then ADD a presupposition on top of the first. The second presupposition is that a creation requires a creator or a concept to that effect.
Then a Christian must add a third presupposition, that the Creator is the God of the bible rather than any other creator God described in history or as yet undescribed.
Then there are additional presuppositions regarding the ambiguities contained within the Bible regarding things like salvation (contrast Ray's teachings with the teachings of the Catholic church or with other protestant schools of thought, Calvinism vs. Arminianism etc.)
There is also a presupposition that the believer has not been deceived by Satan. Surely the Master of Lies could outwit any of we poor mortals? How do we know that the Bible is not merely a cunningly crafted trap, written by the Lord of Evil for his own nefarious purposes?
The believer could argue that their heart would recoil from any such subterfuge but would it really? Surely a fallen angel would be able to trick a fallible human heart?
Part of the reason why I seem to be drawn towards atheism is that it seems to require less presuppositions than any theist belief system.
Ray, if you want to convince atheists that they need to accept Jesus to forgive their sins, first you have to convince them that the Bible is true. You'll also have to convince them that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation.
Faris said...
"Alabama fans have Alabama bias when an interception is caught made by LSU"
No wonder you believe the Bible! Apparently that belief isn't the only one at odds with reality...
Adrian Moore said...
"The 10 commandments are perfect?
No really, you think the 10 commandments are perfect?
Why isn't rape in there?"
You must be aware that any Christian will say that "You Shall Not Commit Adultery" will cover rape.
So always remember, raping a stranger is out of the question, spousal rape is A-OK.
Stephen without a J,
"I think that most Alabama fans are not so biased as to deny that the LSU team really exists ... or to insist that their team is scoring when it isn't even on the field yet."
Have you heard an Alabama fan talk about LSU? :)
erikloza:
"If humans are an apes, then the two should be able to produce offspring together. "
Erik, this is not meant to be insulting, I'm seriously asking - where did you learn biology?
Do you think that all birds should be able to interbreed? And that all fish should be able to interbreed?
Or that chimps should be able to breed with all other apes?
Where did you learn this?
Ryan Anderson said...
God apparently does lie to prophets sometimes... Ezekiel 14:9.
Yes, yes, I obviously can't understand the Bible because I'm a heathen.
Ryan Anderson...You're clearly deceived...
Airaen:
"For instance, we evolved from animals. We are apes. If animals don't have souls, and we come from animals, how could we possibly have souls?
That changes everything now, doesn't it?"
Er, it does?
Her let (in good-nature) try your style of argument back atcha:
"For instance, we are magically created, and we drive cars. Unicorns are magically created too. They can't drive cars. So how can we be magically created?"
Amy2 said...
Wait what,
Prophets deliver messages from God. They can be disproved (see the biblical requirements to prove a false prophet from a real one-Muhammed doesn't qualify.
Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. If He was just a prophet, according to you, He would also be a liar, as He said He and the Father were one. You can't have it both ways.
_______________________________
Amy2 - Jesus said nothing, you have nothing written from Jesus, you only have the words of what other men said Jesus said, decades after he died.
Hi, Ray, I am from Hong Kong.
Recently, I am worrying about my friend, since he cannot determine which one he should believe in, Christianity or atheist.
Thanks God as he let me read the article that talks about you have decided to give free copies of Origin of Species, and your new book Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution.
I think that really is a good news for me because these two books must help my friend a lot in the recognition of the truth, however, I cannot afford neither a copy of Origin of Species nor Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution, I have a presumptuous request, would you please give a free copy of Origin of Species and Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution to my friend? I really believe that these two books can clarify my friend’s doubt.
I know my request is an extremely insensible request, but I really cannot afford these two books and want my friend knows the truth indeed, so I ask for your help.
If I could have your help, it would be a big good news for me and my friend.
I have included my e-mail address in my personal profile. I am looking forward hearing from you soon.
Roll Tide!
Adrian Moore had an interesting question:
The 10 commandments are perfect?
No really, you think the 10 commandments are perfect?
Why isn't rape in there?
Andy is right about rape being subsumed under the 7th commandment. (See Westminster Larger Catechism Q.&A. 137-139) He was mistaken about "spouse rape." It is not okay. We should treat our spouses honorably.
p.s. (It is the law of the Lord that is "perfect." Psalm 19:7 God's law embraces everything that He has commanded and forbidden. Sin is failure to conform to, or transgression of, the law of God. 1 John 3:4)
Craig B
@Ray Comfort.
"We are told in Scripture that the Law is perfect, holy, just and good. It demands absolute moral perfection, and when its perfect precepts are transgressed, it demands (and will get) absolute retribution."
Ray, this absolute perfect creator you speak of...
Tell me, how in glorious perfection, an imperfect creation is even possible by definition?
I have this sneaking suspicion- you may call it my conscience -that ohh I don't know, kinda sounds...SELF-CONTRADICTORY.
You folks have not dissolved the question of theodicy. Don't pretend that you have.
Thodicy is only a tough bit for a theist. However, many a theist can't bring themselves to such a degree of self irony and honesty, that they would truly consider this question.
Ray, theodicy, look it up, please tell us how you would answer this specific question, and please Ray, don't be shy to include your own thoughts. That is to say, thoughts that are of your own personal origin. As well, diversity in source material will always lend cred... ;-)
I'll leave you with this Ray;
"To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." ~ Wittgenstein
Hi, Ray, I am from Hong Kong.
Recently, I am worrying about my friend, since he cannot determine which one he should believe in, Christianity or atheist.
Thanks God as he let me read the article that talks about you have decided to give free copies of Origin of Species, and your new book Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution have released already.
I think that really is a good news for me because these two books must help my friend a lot in the recognition of the truth, however, I cannot afford neither a copy of Origin of Species nor Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution, I have a presumptuous request, would you mind to give a free copy of Origin of Species and Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution to my friend? I really believe that these two books can clarify my friend’s doubt.
I know my request is an extremely insensible request, but I really cannot afford these two books and I want my friend knows the truth indeed, so I ask for your help.
If I could have your help, it would be a big good news for me and my friend.
I have included my e-mail address in my personal profile. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Andy Duchemin said...
Adrian Moore said...
"The 10 commandments are perfect?
No really, you think the 10 commandments are perfect?
Why isn't rape in there?"
You must be aware that any Christian will say that "You Shall Not Commit Adultery" will cover rape.
So always remember, raping a stranger is out of the question, spousal rape is A-OK.
***
See, I thought that too, but Deuteronomy 22 clarifies that it's only a Mosaic sin to be raped, not to rape. The only time it is sinful under Mosaic law to rape is when the woman is "promised to another man." (I use the word "sin" loosely here - the Old Testament doesn't actually mention hell or eternal torment, just death. I guess the Biblical authors didn't think of that one until later). And if Mosaic law is non-contradictory, we can conclude that rape is not forbidden under the 10 commandments.
B. Pierce said
"Many Christians seem to think that "atheists simply refuse to understand, and need to be explained the Gospel over and over".
We get it, OK? We understand the Gospel."
Hey, B.Pierce. You personally may have a clear understanding of the nature of Christ's vicarious atonement, but many still do not, as evidenced by comments like, "He sacrificed hisself to hisself," and "A few hours suffering doesn't equal eternity in hell."
You may understand that the doctrine of God describes his being as "simple" (rather than complex); but others don't, as evidenced by their saying things like, "God's complexity requires that he must owe His existence to something else."
I think it is quite appropriate that the gospel be continually stated and explained on a blog that is ultimately about the gospel and salvation.
Craig B
Stephen J.
"A God Who cannot be tested is a God Who either does not act in the world, or Whose actions, in the world, cannot be distinguished from the effects of impersonal, uncaring law and random chance."
I don't see how this follows. If you mean God's actions within the created world can be tested, then I do agree with that. I mean if water is turned to blood, we could test the water before and verify that it is water and then test it after the change and verify that it is blood.
However, my argument is not along those lines. Simply that God will not be caged by our desire to have him turn water into blood whenever we please.
Consider a rat. If I see gnaw marks in my house and rat droppings and a whole in a bag of fruit, this is proof that the rat has been there.
However, I can also capture the rat and make subject him to tests and see how he gnaws on wood and how he eats different kinds of fruit.
The former kind of testing I'm okay with - the latter not so much.
Good distinction to make, thanks for pointing it out.
Me,
"As far as I am aware, the desire to learn about the world and themselves in it is not exclusive to atheists."
You are correct. I tried to say this when I said it is a good thing to subject the created world beneath one's feet.
"As far as I am aware, God was originally posited by people wanting to do exactly that, in the absence of the knowledge of any natural explanation."
Well, this is nice but it doesn't account for the possibility that a personal God exists and could actually interact with the world.
"And as far as I am aware, reality does not count as the presuppositional bias that you seem to portray it as. God, on the other hand, does."
You wouldn't let a theist make this "as far as I am aware" argument so I'd expect better things from you. Prove to me that your perceptions reflect reality instead of asserting it.
Me,
I don't dare say that I'm exempt from the presupposition but I have reason to believe that my presupposition in the Christian God accounts for a world where human perception reflects reality. My presupposition and authority rests with the God of the universe... not with some unidentified guy name "Me".
No special pleading. I'll try to respond to you and Alpha in more detail later.
AlphGeek,
"I'm curious as to what you mean by "other"? Other than what? Other implies that there is a set that does not contain the subject. If God is other, what set does not contain God?"
The set in this case would be createdness.
Mikkala said...
@Ray Comfort.
"We are told in Scripture that the Law is perfect, holy, just and good. It demands absolute moral perfection, and when its perfect precepts are transgressed, it demands (and will get) absolute retribution."
Ray, this absolute perfect creator you speak of...
Tell me, how in glorious perfection, an imperfect creation is even possible by definition?
----------------------------------
Read Genesis 1:31
carl: "According to supposedly "completely objective, iron-clad, 100% scientifically accurate and unbiased" evolutionist interpretation of DNA data, we are also cousins of bananas and turnips.
Why don't we hear more of this relationship from evolutionists?"
You act like it's a big secret, carl, but that's what Universal common descent MEANS. Everything alive is related, if only distantly, to everything else. It's a basic premise of evolution, and has been since Darwin's time. If you actually understood and thought about evolution, it wouldn't be the great revelatory shock you're treating it as, but an obvious consequence of the theory.
Your childish blathering about "LOL OMG WTF BANANA CUZZINS!!!!11!!" is only an expression of your personal incredulity, not a refutation of evolution. If I went around saying, "Ha! Doctors believe tiny invisible bugs called "germs" are what make us sick!!" it wouldn't serve as any sort of intelligent response to germ theory; it would only make me look foolish to anyone who knew anything about modern scientific medicine.
Well Ray you seem to put a great store in the 10 commandments.
You do however seem to be continually ignoring one of them, the one about beearing false witness.
You continually misrepresent athiest or scientific positions even after being told that your are doing so. You even admitted so on the 3rd and said you did not have the right to contnue to do so. And yet you put up another blatant cartoon misrepresenting scientific position even after you said you would not.
That consititutes lying and not ignorance.
So Ray should it be safe to say that you really only follow 8 of the Commandments, because I have seen you put up posts on a Saturday also.
stranger.strange.land said...
B. Pierce said
"Many Christians seem to think that "atheists simply refuse to understand, and need to be explained the Gospel over and over".
We get it, OK? We understand the Gospel."
Hey, B.Pierce. You personally may have a clear understanding of the nature of Christ's vicarious atonement, but many still do not, as evidenced by comments like, "He sacrificed hisself to hisself," and "A few hours suffering doesn't equal eternity in hell."
You may understand that the doctrine of God describes his being as "simple" (rather than complex); but others don't, as evidenced by their saying things like, "God's complexity requires that he must owe His existence to something else."
I think it is quite appropriate that the gospel be continually stated and explained on a blog that is ultimately about the gospel and salvation.
Craig B
November 11, 2009 6:52 AM
__________________________
Please this blog is about making Money... everything is a promotion of livingwaters and their websites, books, videos and anything else that can be hawked.
When it cannot be hawked it's promoting the Christian persecution complex to get donations from the flock.
Just remember in the end what do shepards do to their flock?
What do fishermen do to the fish they catch?
"""B. Pierce said...
Many Christians seem to think that "atheists simply refuse to understand, and need to be explained the Gospel over and over".
We get it, OK? We understand the Gospel. The Bible simply claims things that we know to be at odds with reality.
For instance, we evolved from animals. We are apes. If animals don't have souls, and we come from animals, how could we possibly have souls?
That changes everything now, doesn't it?"""
B Pierce, I think you have just proven Rays point that you do need to hear things over and over, because you don't even seem to grasp evolution.
If apes don't have souls and we evolved from apes, we then can't have souls...and we can't have bigger brains, or feelings, or consciences. Come to think of it, we and apes all evolved from single cells organisms who didn't have feet, nor legs, nor eyes, etc. etc. and therefore we couldn't have gotten them through random evolution.
So your point seems to be Darwinian evolution cannot ADD to the organism...
@ Charlie Darwin:
Are you suggesting that humans evolved souls?
@Wait What
I concluded my comment with:
"...I think it is quite appropriate that the gospel be continually stated and explained on a blog that is ultimately about the gospel and salvation."
November 11, 2009 6:52 AM
__________________________
Wait What replied:
Please this blog is about making Money... everything is a promotion of livingwaters and their websites, books, videos and anything else that can be hawked.
When it cannot be hawked it's promoting the Christian persecution complex to get donations from the flock.
Just remember in the end what do shepards do to their flock?
What do fishermen do to the fish they catch?
Wait What,
Shhhhhhh. Don't let Ray know that I am using his money-making blog for my own ends: promoting the Gospel. (Let that just be our little secret;)
Craig
Charlie Darwin said"
"If apes don't have souls and we evolved from apes, we then can't have souls..."
I am with you so far I am sure we don't have souls. At any rate if we do they have never been presented for analysis or demonstrated in any other empirical fashion. However if you could prove that (A)We have souls. and (B) Apes don't you would still need to explain why this characteristic could not have evolved.
He continues..
"and we can't have bigger brains, or feelings, or consciences."
Why not? different arangements of genes lead to different characteristics. I can not say that consciences specifically evolved, they could be purely learned responses, however since humans are social animals, such an instinct towards positive community behavior certainly could have been selected for. Feelings, I am assuming you mean emotions are instinctive and therefore, as it is apparent that they do have survival value also must have been selected for. Further you have not demonstrated that Gorillas and other of our fellow apes lack any of these things. Again it is not necessary to add new information only that the information is different.
He then goes on
" Come to think of it, we and apes all evolved from single cells organisms who didn't have feet, nor legs, nor eyes, etc. etc. and therefore we couldn't have gotten them through random evolution."
again why not? Because you say so? Explain why mutation and natural selection could not cause changes in organisms. Just saying so is not really an argument. At any rate evolution is not random, mutation is random or at least not bound to any determinable pattern, however survival rates are not. That is the point behind the concept of natural selection. Random mutation combined with non random rates of survival leading to retention of beneficial mutation and minimization of negative ones. It is only creationists who shout random at it.
Andy Duchemin said...
So always remember, raping a stranger is out of the question, spousal rape is A-OK.
If you're an atheist, anything you think is A-OK is A-OK.
@bob
"Read Genesis 1:31"
I can't believe I'm actually going to do this...
Ok, so...
Genesis 1:31...here we go...get ready for it...I think I might already have an idea of where we're going here but...
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Actually bob, I was looking for something a little more along the lines of how "perfect" can beget "imperfect"? The definition of perfect bob. That's it. Not the dictionary, or biblical, but the literal definition bob. The way you use it in social interaction, that itself, forms the definition. If the word "perfect" is able to go in two directions simultaneously in your world, I'm very curious why.
Why is it that language is amorphous to you people?? You are literally making a non statement.
Shhhhhhh. Don't let Ray know that I am using his money-making blog for my own ends: promoting the Gospel. (Let that just be our little secret;)
Craig
November 11, 2009 9:03 PM
not the first to earn a buck promoting religion, certainly will not be the last... good luck with the sales pitch.
Ethan:
"If you're an atheist, anything you think is A-OK is A-OK."
So you claim.
Let's get to that, once you've answered point about spousal rape.
Ethan said:
"If you're an atheist, anything you think is A-OK is A-OK."
If you are a Christian, the slaughter of Midianite children is A-OK. In fact, the slaughter of any children is A-OK as long as your Lord commands it.
Faris replied to me:
"AlphGeek,
"I'm curious as to what you mean by "other"? Other than what? Other implies that there is a set that does not contain the subject. If God is other, what set does not contain God?"
The set in this case would be createdness."
Thank you for your reply. How can a God who is infinite and omnipresent be excluded from a set, even the set of "createdness"?
Wait What
not the first to earn a buck promoting religion, certainly will not be the last...
That's true. Paul warned Timothy about men who were only in it for the money. Then there was Balaam back in the O.T. days.
good luck with the sales pitch.
I don't think "luck" even enters into it. I just type a gospel message, click "Publish," and it is out there. It's a blast.
__________________________________
Here. I'll show you:
God's law is summarized Matthew 22 where it says,
"One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
"And He (Jesus) said to him, 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.
This is the great and foremost commandment.'
'The second is like it, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.'"
You and I have not loved God and our neighbor perfectly for even five seconds, although makind was created so that it should come as naturally as breathing or blinking our eyes, but we have deprived ourselves of that through willful disobedience.
We have earned for ourselves eternal punishment for our cosmic treason.
But:
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (John 3:14-17 NASB)
The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.
__________________________________
See, I've just promoted the gospel. No "luck" was involved in it, and no money changed hands. But the most important message in the world has been declared. May God draw someone who reads it to Jesus.
Craig B
Alpha,
"How can a God who is infinite and omnipresent be excluded from a set, even the set of "createdness"?"
Could you explain question a little more?
Instead of createdness, I could have said created things. Do you understand that having an infinite nature means you cannot have had a beginning?
Faris
Faris said:
"Could you explain question a little more?"
God is everywhere (omnipresent). How can a set exist (set of things that are created) that an omnipresent God is not part of?
An omnipresent God must be present in all sets, including the set of things that are created. Otherwise the God is not omnipresent.
"Instead of createdness, I could have said created things. Do you understand that having an infinite nature means you cannot have had a beginning?
Faris"
Please go back and read my earlier response to you. Pi is infinitely long and it definitely has a beginning. It begins with 3, followed by .14159...on into eternity.
Infinite things can have a beginning and can be fully contained. Until you grasp this you won't be able to talk meaningfully about the infinite and how it does or doesn't apply to God.
Mikkala said...
@bob
"Read Genesis 1:31"
I can't believe I'm actually going to do this...
Ok, so...
Genesis 1:31...here we go...get ready for it...I think I might already have an idea of where we're going here but...
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Actually bob, I was looking for something a little more along the lines of how "perfect" can beget "imperfect"? The definition of perfect bob. That's it. Not the dictionary, or biblical, but the literal definition bob. The way you use it in social interaction, that itself, forms the definition. If the word "perfect" is able to go in two directions simultaneously in your world, I'm very curious why.
Why is it that language is amorphous to you people?? You are literally making a non statement.
------------------------------
We have to have a standard in which to determine if something is imperfect. There is only one definition of perfect, God. You can tell me you don't accept that but I can only tell you the truth and you either accept it or reject it, but that day will come when you will be judged by God's standard of perfection and there is only one thing that will matter on that day, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
AlphGeek,
"Infinite things can have a beginning and can be fully contained. Until you grasp this you won't be able to talk meaningfully about the infinite and how it does or doesn't apply to God."
Just because an infinite number can have a beginning, it does not follow that all infinite things do have a beginning.
I do believe that the infinite number Pi can be contained between 3.14 and 3.15.
I also think you are equivocating between the infinite expression of Pi and the finite exactness of Pi. Pi never gets bigger or smaller. It is infinite in its expression but not infinite in its exactness. Pi does not = infinity. So saying the infinite expression is contained btw 3.14 and 3.15 has no bearing to the argument. The fact is that you could have all the paper, calculators, and computers in the world and as far as we know it would not be enough to contain the expression. If I'm faulty in my reasoning here then please explain.
Even if I granted your argument that the infinite Pi can be contained, it does not necessarily follow that infinite beings can be contained unless you take a blind leap to that conclusion. This would be like saying, "Jr. High dances can be fun" and then saying then saying "All Jr. High dances are fun."
Lastly, when you bring up numbers you are talking about the created order. Numbers are apart of the created order. When I speak of the infinity of God, I do not mean this in numerical terms. When Christians affirm that God is from everlasting to everlasting, they do not mean (as x approaches infinity, let God be x).
God's infinite nature means he is transcendent. This means there are no exact correlations or examples within the created order that you can liken God to.
Isa 40:25 To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Pi is the ratio of circle measurements. There was when circles didn't exist. There was when measurement didn't exist. Pi doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what it means to declare God as infinite.
But I suppose for atheists, matter is eternal. Pi has always existed. Circles have always existed. Measurement has always existed. This goes back to my first comment. The created order is the object of worship for the atheist. Loving the creation over the creator it becomes difficult to conceive of One who is wholly other. This is the deception of what Christians call sin.
I believe that atheism is a form of pantheism. Because if God is not, then everything is God. Matter is eternal, matter controls how I think, what I do, how I behave myself, who I love. I obey matter because I believe matter is all knowing. If we are just patient enough, matter will reveal all the mysteries of the universe. Matter will take us to the highest heaven of human endeavor. We will always serve matter because matter is god. This goes back to our presupposition discussion. In presupposing that your perceptions correspond to reality, you also presuppose the above. Otherwise you'd have to presuppose that matter is evil or against you or out to fool you.
---------------
Good discussion and good questions. Though I deviated from the topic at the end, I think there is enough material for you to interact with. I will have to discuss omnipresence in a later comment because you bring up a good distinction.
Laters,
Faris
"We have to have a standard in which to determine if something is imperfect."
~"Perfect" so far...
"There is only one definition of perfect, God."
~Ok, so i just want to make sure I understand your meaning clearly on this point.
The definition of perfect; is perfectly indefinite.
That's the meaning I derived from your statement. But can this even be said to bear meaning?
@Bob
"There is only one definition of
perfect, God. You can tell me you don't accept that but I can only tell you the truth and you either accept it or reject it, but that day will come when you will be judged by God's standard of perfection and there is only one thing that will matter on that day, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ."
Ok so when you use the word "perfect" in converstaion you are referring to God? Ok, now, please define "God" for me. That's fine if you define "perfect" as "God" but this brings up a small linguistic problem. I don't know what "God" literally means. This is a word that bears such uncommon a utility, it appears at most, abstract.
You can threaten me Bob, I understand. I don't think like you, or make declarations in the same way as you, and that warrants threats of damnation, fine by me.
But in all honesty Bob, we're not getting anywhere. I can neither accept or reject your definition of "perfect" for the simple fact that I am not able to make any sort of literal sense of what you're saying.
And repentance in Jesus Christ seems to be -in the world of literalism- a total non-sequitir until we can establish some useable definitions here Bob.
Trust me when I say, I am not in the least afraid of your stated metaphysical threats, I can't literally be. I have no time for fear of insensible claims, I am busy trying to understand what it is that you're even saying, or if you're saying anything at all.
"What can not be imagined, can not even be talked about" ~ Wittgenstein
Captain,
Unicorns would fall under the category of physical creation. If I can't see a so-called physical object, then I should not believe that they exist. No one expects physical objects to be invisible. So you are correct in saying that they do not.
However, to put God in the same category as unicorns is to not think this through enough.
If God has an infinite nature that is by definition non-physical, then I don't know why you'd expect to see God prancing around in the field or countryside like you might expect to see a unicorn if they existed.
Captain, Where do you go to find and observe beings with infinite natures?
If you could tell me, then a being with an infinite nature wouldn't be all that impressive. If we could find him eating grass on a hill side, I'm not sure you would be willing to call him God.
Faris
Faris: "Captain, Where do you go to find and observe beings with infinite natures?"
How do you distinguish a Being with an infinite non-physical nature from a Being that exists only in people's imaginations?
Alphgeek said...
Ethan said:
"If you're an atheist, anything you think is A-OK is A-OK."
If you are a Christian, the slaughter of Midianite children is A-OK. In fact, the slaughter of any children is A-OK as long as your Lord commands it.
I’m sure you meant to say “If you are an Israelite…” Nowhere are the Christians given such a command. Easy mistake. Keep reading the Bible.
Ethan: "I’m sure you meant to say “If you are an Israelite…” Nowhere are the Christians given such a command."
So you think certain people are allowed to murder certain children if instructed to do so by God?
Doesn't that make you a moral relativist?
Ethan said:
"I’m sure you meant to say “If you are an Israelite…” Nowhere are the Christians given such a command. Easy mistake. Keep reading the Bible."
I never claimed that Christians killed the Midianites or were commanded to do so. I claimed that Christians were A-OK with the fact that the Midianites were killed.
A point which you seem to have avoided affirming or denying...
So Ethan...do you believe that the slaughter of the Midianites - men, women and children - was A-OK?
Come on, have the courage of your convictions and provide an answer.
"But I suppose for atheists, matter is eternal. Pi has always existed. Circles have always existed. Measurement has always existed. This goes back to my first comment. The created order is the object of worship for the atheist."
See comments in Part two. I don't necessarily accept that matter is eternal - no evidence either way that I'm aware of. I don't worship the created order - I have never encountered the term prior to this conversation! About all I worship is my wife and kids but that's completely different from what you seem to be saying.
"Loving the creation over the creator it becomes difficult to conceive of One who is wholly other. This is the deception of what Christians call sin."
I appreciate your description. Being an atheist, I don't accept the concept of sin - a transgression against a supernatural being.
I have said on previous occasions though that when considering a Being that is supposedly infinite, you and I are equally ignorant. We have a finite knowledge only. Sure, you might be better informed regarding God's true nature than I am but when compared to God's infinity, both our knowledge tends towards zero.
I'm not sure that a particular mindset is going to help you understand an infinite God any better than a cat could. Even our turnip cousins could hardly be said to be less informed about an infinite God than the greatest theologian in history. No?
"I believe that atheism is a form of pantheism. *Because if God is not, then everything is God*. Matter is eternal, matter controls how I think, what I do, how I behave myself, who I love. I obey matter because I believe matter is all knowing. If we are just patient enough, matter will reveal all the mysteries of the universe. Matter will take us to the highest heaven of human endeavor. We will always serve matter because matter is god."
Long story short but I think you are projecting here. I can't relate to anything you've said in this paragraph! All I'll say is that your premise seems to be based on a false dichotomy, marked with *.
"This goes back to our presupposition discussion. In presupposing that your perceptions correspond to reality, you also presuppose the above."
I explicitly refute your claim! I believe NONE of that stuff! Therefore I don't NEED a presupposition to support it.
"Otherwise you'd have to presuppose that matter is evil or against you or out to fool you."
Matter is just matter - it has no will that I'm aware of. And if it did, why would it have to be evil or tricky?
---------------
"Good discussion and good questions. Though I deviated from the topic at the end, I think there is enough material for you to interact with. I will have to discuss omnipresence in a later comment because you bring up a good distinction.
Laters,
Faris"
Thank you, I'm enjoying it. Have a great weekend!
"When I speak of the infinity of God, I do not mean this in numerical terms. When Christians affirm that God is from everlasting to everlasting, they do not mean (as x approaches infinity, let God be x).
God's infinite nature means he is transcendent. This means there are no exact correlations or examples within the created order that you can liken God to."
I understand the distinction you draw between God-style infinity and mathematical infinity but it gets very hard to talk about infinity without resorting to maths concepts. They may well be inadequate but if so it would seem that all discussion of God's nature is futile.
Transcendence does not necessarily imply infinity as far as I am aware. Infinity may imply transcendence, I'll have to think about that a bit more.
But if God cannot be compared to anything within the human realm of existence then how do you come by your knowledge of God's nature?
If your knowledge of God's nature is imperfect then how can we rely on your descriptions of God's nature, including God's separation from the created order and God's infinite nature?
I'm not trying to be offensive or unnecessarily picky so my apologies if I come across that way! I just have a need for consistent logic and rationality in my considerations of God (well, and everything else really). This is not a value judgement; if logic and rationality do not apply then please let me know and we can try to reframe the discussion in other ways.
"Isa 40:25 To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Pi is the ratio of circle measurements. There was when circles didn't exist. There was when measurement didn't exist. Pi doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what it means to declare God as infinite."
Well, possibly. I have no access to evidence that leans either way. I could hypothesise that circles did not exist prior to the Big Bang, when the space and geometry came into existence but I'd be speculating. Do you have evidence?
I should note that in the real universe (as opposed to an ideal Cartesian plane) the relationship between diameter and circumference of circles may not be consistently related by pi, as curvature of spacetime (large scale and/or localised) may affect the ratio. But that's probably getting needlessly pedantic on my part. Nonetheless it is correct.
To be continued! (this was part 2 of hopefully 3)
Faris said:
"Just because an infinite number can have a beginning, it does not follow that all infinite things do have a beginning."
I agree, and I don't believe that I've claimed otherwise.
I mentioned the example in response to your statement "Do you understand that having an infinite nature means you cannot have had a beginning?".
My response was intended to illustrate an infinite object that had a beginning.
"I also think you are equivocating between the infinite expression of Pi and the finite exactness of Pi. Pi never gets bigger or smaller. It is infinite in its expression but not infinite in its exactness. Pi does not = infinity. So saying the infinite expression is contained btw 3.14 and 3.15 has no bearing to the argument. "
I agree, my example was a bad one - apples and oranges comparison on my part. Nonetheless the infinite can be fully contained. Between 3.14 and 3.15 there are fully contained an infinite quantity of other numbers. That comparison seems valid.
"Even if I granted your argument that the infinite Pi can be contained, it does not necessarily follow that infinite beings can be contained unless you take a blind leap to that conclusion. This would be like saying, "Jr. High dances can be fun" and then saying then saying "All Jr. High dances are fun.""
Sure, but your initial claim was that the infinite cannot be contained. I disagreed and provided a (poor) example to illustrate. I've provided a more consistent (yet still imperfect) example. There are many other examples within mathematics of bounded (ie contained) infinities. Not so many outside maths, where true infinities are notoriously rare.
"Lastly, when you bring up numbers you are talking about the created order. Numbers are apart of the created order."
Really? To borrow a phrase from Dimensio: Can you substantiate that assertion?
What is a created order? To further my understanding could you please define/describe it?
What evidence supports the existence of a created order? If evidence is unavailable then what additional presuppositions (beyond the presupposition we share that we exist) must be applied to support a created order?
And yes, if a created order even exists, why presuppose that the Christian God was its Creator?
To be continued...
@Faris--
Unicorns would fall under the category of physical creation. If I can't see a so-called physical object, then I should not believe that they exist. No one expects physical objects to be invisible. So you are correct in saying that they do not.
Unicorns fall under the category of "physical creation" only if they were actually created and if they (or their remains) actually exist. However, their actual existence is not disputed by either of us. Unicorns cannot be seen because they don't exist--they're an idea and nothing more.
However, to put God in the same category as unicorns is to not think this through enough.
If God has an infinite nature that is by definition non-physical, then I don't know why you'd expect to see God prancing around in the field or countryside like you might expect to see a unicorn if they existed.
Well, I suppose that's one explanation: He exists but is undetectable; almost as if He's hiding. The problem is that there's another explanation that's far simpler: He isn't there, and is invisible for the same reason unicorns or leprechauns are; namely, they aren't real.
Besides; remember, Faris--Your God can and has manifested Himself in physical form in the past, according to your religion. So expecting God to be directly detectable isn't asking too much. If you're God, it seems to me you shouldn't pretend not to be there and then punish me for not believing in you.
Captain, Where do you go to find and observe beings with infinite natures?
If you could tell me, then a being with an infinite nature wouldn't be all that impressive. If we could find him eating grass on a hill side, I'm not sure you would be willing to call him God.
I am under as much obligation to go on some kind of cosmic snipe hunt for your invisible, hiding God as I am in hunting for sprites or faeries--namely, none at all. If God wants me to believe in Him and worship Him, then let Him tell me so Himself--directly, audibly, visibly and verifiably. Until He does, it's perfectly reasonable to withhold belief. After all, any God that needs smarmy televangelists like Ray Comfort to do His speaking for Him isn't much of a God.
The invisible and the nonexistent really do resemble each other. All atheism says is that maybe there's a good reason for that. Is it really a coincidence, Faris, that your God looks just like the Muslim God, or the Mormon God, etc. etc?
Post a Comment