Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[Radrook]

I believe if you re-read what I said the only personal reference in it is a reference to the fact you apologize for the Christian God. I wasn't aware that was an attack. It's my understanding it is a legit description. And this post so illustrates that apologist behavior of yours.

God: "Sorry you got your limbs hacked off and a stick shoved into your vagina until a permanent fistula developed and urine and feces continually run down your legs and your children were kidnapped and will be tortured, raped, and forced to be part of the latest rebel army and your husband was locked in that church which was set on fire burning him alive, but what have you got to complain about? Without me you wouldn't even have a life in the first place.

Oh, and BTW, did I mention that you are supposed to demonstrate your faith by worshiping me now for all I've done for you?"

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.

 

[articulett]

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.

But your god does...
he went a little lighter on Job and Abraham though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.

Of course you don't. You don't want to think about the real facts compared to your god apologist facts. The real facts are too unpleasant.

 

[Ocelot]

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.

Radrook,

I mention it because of false concensus bias. We imperfect humans have a tendancy to oversetimate the popularity of our own opinions. I've noted on occasion that you make appeals to popularity and claim to speak for billions of christians. Despite personally finding such appeals being unconvincing your use of them makes me wonder if they sway you. If so I feel it worth noting that your opinions are your own and not necessarily representative of christianity as a whole.

So when you say "that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood" and diminish the opinions of those who reject literalist interpretations I have to wonder what is you basis for doing so. Is it because you feel that's what every good christian believes? If so then you're wrong. If not I would ask you to make yourself clearer.

1 billion people subscribe to the idea that certain of the Pope's declarations are infalliable. I don't and clearly you don't. That doesn't mean I can't agree with the Pope when he makes a salient point. Bible literalism is unsubstantiated and demonstrably self contradictory.

 

[Ocelot]

Radrook,

Theer is an argument made popular by an urban legend regarding an atheist professor and a christian student sometimes identified as Einstein (in fact a secular jew). The argument goes that just as cold is the absense of heat, and darkness is the absense of light; evil is the absense of God's love.

As you get to know me I'm hope you'll come to realise that the soure of an argument is less convincing than the argument itself. As such its status as an urban legend does not, for me, nulify its elegance.

I like the argument, it works well to explan how God did directly not create evil. It seems to me that you make similar arguments about the imperfection of the world resulting not from God's activity but from his (temporary) acceptance of our rejection of him. These arguments are good for those who accept the bible as a document to be read in context rather than as the literal word of God.

However I wonder if you'd care to comment on the following verse from the perspective of one who does seem to believe in a literalist interpretation.

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

God clearly acknowledges his direct role in benighting the world.

 

[DrBaltar]

The claim isn't their idea. It's based on a biblical statement. As I mentioned on another post, perfection is a subjective thing dependent on the criteria by which we evaluate things. Adam and Eve had no physical nor mental flaws. They were designed to live forever in perfect health. The animals, were perfect for their purpose.

Apparently Adam and Eve were either designed with severe problems with authority or were so retarded they couldn't understand simple instructions. And which ever mental problem was the case was bad enough not only to punish them, but all of humanity from that point on!

I did not say he added cockroaches. I said that some animals became pestiferous after mankind decided to go about on its own.

So mosquitoes didn't live off blood before then? What did they eat?

The Hebrew word "created" allows the alternate translation of "made to appear." So the removal of whatever was hindering the light from reaching the surface would have made the stars moon and sun appear for the first time as viewed from earth.

Nice try. The only things Genesis says were 'created' were heaven, earth, great whales, every living creature that moveth, and man and woman. BTW, do you have a reference for that translation? Were all things that were said to be 'created' in Genesis already there and only revealed at the time Genesis says they were revealed?

The original word used in Genesis for "day" isn't restricted to a twenty-four hour time interval.

True, it is one revolution of the earth, which used to be shorter than 24 hrs. God knows what 'day' means to us. If day is said, then day is meant. If not then you've invalidated your claim that the bible is clear.

He was speaking to his Son, the Word of God.

What son? Jesus did not come till later.

It can be interpreted that way and some people do. It can also be interpreted in a different way-and some people do.

Again, you're invalidating your claim that the bible is clear.

As old as science tells us it is.

I go to science for clear answers as well.

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.

How many people and other animals are NOT here because of the flood? If Genesis is true, 6 billion people descended from Noah's family. Multiply that by all the other families that were wiped out and you have an idea of all who are not here because of God's wrath. Of course that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the animals that were killed.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Perfection is a subjective term which means that certain criteria are being met to the satisfaction of the one setting them. If the plan would have not given humans freedom of choice then from his viewpoint it would have been a flawed plan.

So perfection is a subjective term...and yet you claim to understand how God defines "perfection"?! You claim to know his viewpoint? I'm astounded.

If the bible is true, then according to at least one particular phrase, you certainly won't be among those inheriting the earth.

Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway.

Their disobedience may have mandated it, or resulted in it, but I don't see how it "requests" it. How did they know what the consequences would be? Until actually eating the fruit, they didn't know good from evil. So they couldn't have known that eating it was a bad thing.

Inability to comprehend doesn't mean that what was written wasn't written clearly. There are other factors which can prevent comprehension and thus lead to debate and multiplicity of views. There is even full comprehension followed by a decision to go contrary to what is being fully understood.

When speaking of a book that contradicts itself repeatedly, that uses multiple meanings for the same word, that has people killing each other across the world for centuries becuase a common understanding of its meaning can't be found....that's a book to which the adjective "clear" clearly does not apply.

 

[Radrook]

Of course you don't. You don't want to think about the real facts compared to your god apologist facts. The real facts are too unpleasant.

Well, as I said previously, the only reason I began participating on this thread was to provide information and not to evagelize. However, since I was asked specific questions, I only thought it polite to answer in order to provide the info requested. Beyond that I really see no point in trying to persuade anyone on this forum about things which they have already made a firm decision. Actually, if I did, I would be accused of trying to shove my beliefs down people's throats. In any case, thanx for your sincere response and opinion.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook,

I mention it because of false concensus bias. We imperfect humans have a tendancy to oversetimate the popularity of our own opinions. I've noted on occasion that you make appeals to popularity and claim to speak for billions of christians. Despite personally finding such appeals being unconvincing your use of them makes me wonder if they sway you. If so I feel it worth noting that your opinions are your own and not necessarily representative of christianity as a whole.

You are right. Thanx for pointing that out and my apologies for not having made that clear from the outset. Some of what you call my views, are not representative of the majority of people who claim Christianity as their religion.

So when you say "that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood" and diminish the opinions of those who reject literalist interpretations I have to wonder what is you basis for doing so. Is it because you feel that's what every good christian believes? If so then you're wrong. If not I would ask you to make yourself clearer.

Sorry that I gave that belligerent impression. From now on if asked for an opinion I will try to include other opinions as well in order not to give the impression you describe.

BTW
Individual Christian status before God isn't what I am discussing. Neither am I authorized to be tagging individual people as eternally approved or dissaproved by God. Why? Because I don't qualify for that job.

1 billion people subscribe to the idea that certain of the Pope's declarations are infalliable. I don't and clearly you don't. That doesn't mean I can't agree with the Pope when he makes a salient point. Bible literalism is unsubstantiated and demonstrably self contradictory.

Of course they do and have a right to do so as I have a right to disagree. Actually, I do agree wiuth the Pope on many views involving doctrine and morality. But on others I don't as other millions of people also don't. So it's not as you seem to think. As for Bible literalism, we obviously disagree. Which is OK by me.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook,

Theer is an argument made popular by an urban legend regarding an atheist professor and a christian student sometimes identified as Einstein (in fact a secular jew). The argument goes that just as cold is the absense of heat, and darkness is the absense of light; evil is the absense of God's love.

As you get to know me I'm hope you'll come to realise that the soure of an argument is less convincing than the argument itself. As such its status as an urban legend does not, for me, nulify its elegance.

I like the argument, it works well to explan how God did directly not create evil. It seems to me that you make similar arguments about the imperfection of the world resulting not from God's activity but from his (temporary) acceptance of our rejection of him. These arguments are good for those who accept the bible as a document to be read in context rather than as the literal word of God.

However I wonder if you'd care to comment on the following verse from the perspective of one who does seem to believe in a literalist interpretation.

Isaiah 45:7



God clearly acknowledges his direct role in benighting the world.

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Some people read verses such as this and claim that it means God creates sin. But their problem is in their knowledge and understanding of the word evil. They erroneously surmise that evil always means sin, but that is not the case. The word translated evil in scripture does not "necessarily" mean evil in the same sense that we understand evil in our day. We use the word evil today as a synonym for sin or wickedness, but that is not the case in scripture. The word translated evil is the Hebrew word [ra'], meaning something that is "not good." It is from a root word meaning to be spoiled, and by implication something that is not good. i.e., bad. It does not mean evil in the sense that we might think of the word today, but more correctly understood as bad or anything that is "not good" to us. For example, if a child receives a spanking, or we go through some adversity or anything which we deem not good for us, it is [ra'] or evil. e.g.:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/create_evil.html

 

[PBTree]

So mosquitoes didn't live off blood before then? What did they eat?

just a small note Doc. I think you will find that mossies live on nectar (think I read it somewhere). The female only takes blood when she needs to do something with her eggs.

Do admit though, that without the blood, the whole lot would die off.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

just a small note Doc. I think you will find that mossies live on nectar (think I read it somewhere). The female only takes blood when she needs to do something with her eggs.

Do admit though, that without the blood, the whole lot would die off.

I guess I knew that instinctively (knowing about how only females only sucked blood), but I'd never checked up in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Food_habits

I'm still waiting for evidence that snakes have vemom injecting fangs because they consumed the juice of fruit or that chlorophyl was found on T-Rex teeth, or any of the other crazier Creationist "pre-Flood" claims.

 

[PBTree]

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:

I'm sorry Radrook but you are doing it again. That web page does not provide an explanation of that scripture. It provides someones view. An opinion. You make it appear that that this opinion is fact.

Unless you can get the author to provide precise explanations of his/her words for any scripture or writings etc, you are doomed to hearsay and opinion, not fact.

Another thing in passing, not necessarily to yourself. If god ditched the human race after the two troublemakers got tossed out of eden and said "go your own way", then who parted the Red Sea, sent down all the Frogs, killed the firstborn, trashed Jericho, sent the flood, impregnated mary? etc etc... I thought he/she wanted nothing to do with us and gave us free will.

Not only is this god spiteful/cruel but she/he is obviously very forgetful about what's been said by them.

 

[Ocelot]

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:

Yes I've noted that other translations of the bible use the word Calamity. nonetheless it does appear that he claimng an active role in "spoiling" the world. This rather puts pay to the idea that such imperfection in the world is simply the absence of Gods love. When such calimity happens, the bible is clear that God is actively behind it.

 

[DrBaltar]

just a small note Doc. I think you will find that mossies live on nectar (think I read it somewhere). The female only takes blood when she needs to do something with her eggs.

Do admit though, that without the blood, the whole lot would die off.

Women...

 

[RobRoy]

Yes I've noted that other translations of the bible use the word Calamity. nonetheless it does appear that he claimng an active role in "spoiling" the world. This rather puts pay to the idea that such imperfection in the world is simply the absence of Gods love. When such calimity happens, the bible is clear that God is actively behind it.

Not only is this god spiteful/cruel but she/he is obviously very forgetful about what's been said by them.

Well, to jump in, this is only from our perspective, not from God's. This doesn't make God spiteful or cruel, except as we perceive God. I think C.S. Lewis, addressed this concept in The Problem of Pain stating that there was a distinct difference between a kindly God and a loving God. Of course, to forestall the comments, this is still "just" an opinion.

But Ocelot's point is valid about the concept of God' love or its absence.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Marvelous! I have saved that in my favs.

~~ Paul

Paul, you might want to copy & paste that to your computer somewhere; many newspapers don't archive their letters for very long.

Well, most actually do, but the linky may not be active for very long.

Cheers.

ETA: Here's a letter to my local paper, from yesterday. I've already written a reply.

Can anyone spot the author's blunder? Besides endorsing ID, that is...

 

[Radrook]

Apparently Adam and Eve were either designed with severe problems with authority or were so retarded they couldn't understand simple instructions. And which ever mental problem was the case was bad enough not only to punish them, but all of humanity from that point on!

Free will comes with certain possibilities of choices. They were created flawles in body and mind. Or had no sinful tendencies. The concept of nonexistence was not aliuen to them since they had once been in that condition. They could also observe death in animals.

So mosquitoes didn't live off blood before then? What did they eat?
Nice try. The only things Genesis says were 'created' were heaven, earth, great whales, every living creature that moveth, and man and woman.

The Bible's theme is man's fall mankind and its redemption. So mosquitoes and other fauna aren't delved into in detail. Whatever the mosquito did back then, it was not intended to do it to humans

BTW, do you have a reference for that translation? Were all things that were said to be 'created' in Genesis already there and only revealed at the time Genesis says they were revealed?

All translations contain the same info in Genesis.

True, it is one revolution of the earth, which used to be shorter than 24 hrs. God knows what 'day' means to us. If day is said, then day is meant. If not then you've invalidated your claim that the bible is clear.

We are clearly told what a day can mean to him when he speaks of a day.

What son? Jesus did not come till later.

Again, you're invalidating your claim that the bible is clear.

I go to science for clear answers as well.

Jesus had a prehuman existence. The Bible is clear on this as well as about his creative role during that time.

BTW

Science is full of horrendous bloopers.It is also restricted by the human senses to this dimension and even here we are limited by distances and time. So I wouldn't bet it all on science. There is far more that svcience doesn't know that what it does know that vast ignorance should be sufficient to discourage the conclusiveness of saying there is no God.

How many people and other animals are NOT here because of the flood? If Genesis is true, 6 billion people descended from Noah's family. Multiply that by all the other families that were wiped out and you have an idea of all who are not here because of God's wrath. Of course that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the animals that were killed.

I was speaking about the opportunity to live.

 

[Radrook]

I'm sorry Radrook but you are doing it again. That web page does not provide an explanation of that scripture. It provides someone's view. An opinion. You make it appear that that this opinion is fact.

Unless you can get the author to provide precise explanations of his/her words for any scripture or writings etc, you are doomed to hearsay and opinion, not fact.

Well that's the only explanation I would give of and that's the one he gives so I posted it. Were you seeking some other explanation?

Another thing in passing, not necessarily to yourself. If god ditched the human race after the two troublemakers got tossed out of Eden and said "go your own way," then who parted the Red Sea, sent down all the Frogs, killed the firstborn, trashed Jericho, sent the flood, impregnated mary? etc etc... I thought he/she wanted nothing to do with us and gave us free will.

Not only is this god spiteful/cruel but she/he is obviously very forgetful about what's been said by them.

God didn't ditch mankind, mankind ditched God. I didn't say he didn't want absolutely nothing to do with mankind. He gave them what they had chosen, the chance to determine for themselves what is to be considered good and what is to be considered evil since they obviously felt themselves qualified to determine that without his help and had indirectly accused him of being selfish and getting in their way.

So in view of this, God allowed mankind to go on its way as requested. But he didn't leave them hopeless. He knew that their experiment would fail and once proven a complete failure then a restoration would be justified. So he immediately promised that this would be so in Genesis 3: 15 by providing a prophecy which entailed the coming of a savior. That savior would eventually come through Noah, then Seth, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and would be fulfilled in Jesus.

During the time that this experiment would be in progress God would be creating a nation which would serve to give an example of just how much in need of redemption we were. Since he chose to use that nation as an example he related to them in a special way. However, the general effort of mankind to go about their own way would not be interfered with, stalled, nor stopped until the appropriate time.

BTW

The calamities which ae mentioned in the OT are those in defense of a nation or upon a nation that had entered a special covenant relation with him for the reasons mentioned before. They were not directed at mankind in general.

BTW
Not evangelizing only responding to inquiry in order to inform.

 

[DrBaltar]

Free will comes with certain possibilities of choices. They were created flawles in body and mind. Or had no sinful tendencies.

Except for following God's word and staying away from the forbidden fruit. Judging from the punishment that was a HUGE sin that they had a tendency towards.

BTW, do you have a reference for that translation? Were all things that were said to be 'created' in Genesis already there and only revealed at the time Genesis says they were revealed?

All translations contain the same info in Genesis.

I don't see how that answers my question.

We are clearly told what a day can mean to him when he speaks of a day.

So day is day then?

BTW

Science is full of horrendous bloopers.It is also restricted by the human senses to this dimension and even here we are limited by distances and time. So I wouldn't bet it all on science. There is far more that svcience doesn't know that what it does know that vast ignorance should be sufficient to discourage the conclusiveness of saying there is no God.

Science may have occasional mistakes, but there is a process where these mistakes are found and corrected.

Mankind has been basically stuck for over a millennia because of religious dogma, culminating in the dark ages. Since science has come to the rescue we have been advancing our knowledge and quality of life by a fantastic rate.

How many people and other animals are NOT here because of the flood? If Genesis is true, 6 billion people descended from Noah's family. Multiply that by all the other families that were wiped out and you have an idea of all who are not here because of God's wrath. Of course that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the animals that were killed.

I was speaking about the opportunity to live.

So am I. You were saying that God is at least merciful enough that humanity continued and we are here alive. And I'm saying there are numbers of people totaling many times the current population of Earth whose ancestors were killed in the flood that are not so lucky. They have no opportunity to live. They would not consider God so merciful.