Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[joobz]

Not big on germ theory was he? One could almost say that modern science was moving away from the bible with this example you cite.

that's true. You'd think the son of god would have been mindful of disease transmission. Afterall, god created disease.

 

[six7s]

Afterall, god created disease.

Indeed... clever bugger, ain't he?

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN
​

 

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by DOC
<snip> but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Not big on germ theory was he? One could almost say that modern science was moving away from the bible with this example you cite.

Now, that's funny. I developed the habit of leaving the last bit of a hamburger uneaten ...the part I held onto it with using unwashed hands..when I was a kid. I still find it hard to eat the last bite.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Answer my questions, please. Don't quote the Bible at me. Do YOU eat shrimp? Do YOU wear clothing made of fabric blends?

This is a tactic we really need to quit using. There's nothing in Christianity which says the Levitical rules must be kept. In fact Jesus said the old covenant is gone and here's the new one. Asking people if they follow rules their religion doesn't say they have to follow is an uneffective tactic.

It's like asking a modern soldier if he knows how to load a musket and then asking him why he doesn't when he replies in the negative. The answer is he doesn't have to.

 

[DOC]

Answer my questions, please. Don't quote the Bible at me. Do YOU eat shrimp? Do YOU wear clothing made of fabric blends?

So I'm criticized for occasionally saying "I believe" and I'm criticized for giving specific quotes.

As to what I eat and wear, I'll let Unre. Sinner's previous post be my answer.

I do believe though that its important to eat healthy. Christ ate a lot of fish. He even ate fish after his Resurrection. He also was also not adverse to some good wine. And neither was Paul, he thought it was good for the digestion.

 

[DOC]

Funny thing is that Jesus also never denied that God created evil. Nor did jesus say slavery was an abomination. But some how you do not condone slavery and you deny that god created evil.

So your implying Abraham Lincoln was wrong to invoke God and the Lord so much in his 2nd inaugural address when talking about the evil of slavery because Jesus and God are indifferent to slavery. And your implying the Rev. Martin Luther King was wrong to be a Reverend since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And your implying that King made a mistake to found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to deal with civil rights because of God's and Jesus's indifference to slavery.

And I assume your Believe the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson made mistakes in becoming Reverends since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And I assume you believe Barack Obama make a mistake in claiming to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, since Jesus is indifferent to slavery.

 

[wahrheit]

DEFINE argument_by_authority AS NUMBER(VERY_BIG_INTEGER);

WHILE (post_submitted_by == "DOC") {

SET argument_by_authority += random(5);​

}

 

[joobz]

So your implying Abraham Lincoln was wrong to invoke God and the Lord so much in his 2nd inaugural address when talking about the evil of slavery because Jesus and God are indifferent to slavery.
And your implying the Rev. Martin Luther King was wrong to be a Reverend since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And your implying that King made a mistake to found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to deal with civil rights because of God's and Jesus's indifference to slavery.

And I assume your Believe the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson made mistakes in becoming Reverends since God and Jesus are indifferent to slavery. And I assume you believe Barack Obama make a mistake in claiming to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, since Jesus is indifferent to slavery.

They pick and choose which parts of the bible they believe. As everyone does.

Are you admitting that you pick and choose which parts of the bible you agree with and don't agree with? Or are you admitting that god is the creator of evil?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

(No, this isn't pennance for agreeing with DOC that raising the Levitical laws is rediculous, but I saw this delicious post on another forum, thought it was contextually perfect and had to cross post it here. It's by my buddy shernren who is a very devout TE which should explain some of the language he uses.)

Is God and the Bible getting closer to Science?

Well, it appears that some Creationists who cannot deny the evidence are trying to make that so...

I was looking for one of the classic baraminology papers in which the authors use their baraminology criteria to sort all life into "baramins", conclude that based on genetic evidence alone chimpanzees and humans should be in the same "baramin", and then invoke theological special-pleading to say this can't be the case.

What I actually found was infinitely better.

http://www.creationbiology.org/conte...odule_id=36954
(abstract containing link to PDF)

This is a paper written by baraminologists (creationists trying to replace evolutionist systematics with a consistent creationist alternative, for those unaware) in the wake of the Chimpanzee Draft Genome in 2005. The abstract is plain enough:

Evidence for the great similarity between chimpanzees and humans was recently reinforced with the publication of a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome. The sequence is in >361,000 pieces with a median length of 15,700 nucleotides. The sequence differs from the human genome by 35 million nucleotide mismatches (1.23%) and 10 million alignment gaps (~3-4%). Rather than attempting to explain this similarity, I here propose principles that can guide creationist research in this area. I find that creationist genomics requires three important theories that still need to be developed before fruitful research can commence. The first need is a theory of biological similarity. The level of similarity observed between the human and chimpanzee genomes cannot be adequately explained simply by the will of the Creator, unless a theory can be developed to explain why the Creator would will such similarity. The most promising candidate for explaining biological similarity is a modified form of ReMine's message theory. The second greatest need for interpreting genomes is a theory of the genome, particularly its importance and biological function. The third need is a better understanding of baraminology and historical development of organisms.

(bold emphasis added - italics in original)

The paper itself begins, oddly, with an anecdote from a late 17th century biologist demonstrating an early Christian response to the obvious intermediate status of chimpanzees between lower primates and humans. The authors then spend 6 pages making an excellent review of the genetic similarities between apes and humans, including a good wrap-up of the chimp genome draft project and its implications.

They then go on to drive creationist explanations of this similarity into the mud. These are not evolutionists. Nevertheless, they make scathing claims about fellow creationists that would probably sound militant coming from an evolutionist:

The question is not how similarity arose but why this particular pattern of similarity arose. To say that God could have created the pattern is merely ad hoc. The specific similarity we observe between humans and chimpanzees is not therefore evidence merely of their common ancestry but of their close relationship. (pg 7 - responding to the "common design explains similarity" argument)

While common design could be a reasonable first step to explain similarity of functional genes, it is difficult to explain why pseudogenes with the exact same substitutions or deletions would be shared between species that did not share a common ancestor. (pg 9 - after reviewing pseudogenes)

However, emphasizing these differences [between the chimpanzee and the human genome] does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. Listing the differences between the genomes does not alter the overall pattern. If anything, the differences are more striking because of the overwhelming similarity. (pg 9 - in response to creationist attempts to emphasize the differences)

The authors also state:

Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual - not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) - distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.

Indeed!

Good to see that some creationists are doing their work with their eyes wide open ...

So it appears, much like my TE friend has concluded, that those working on "Baramins" are desperately trying to explain the appearance of common ancestry between humans and our fellow apes rather than just trying to explain it with the ad hoc "common design" excuse.

I await their further wafflings and explanations.

 

[Elizabeth I]

This is a tactic we really need to quit using. There's nothing in Christianity which says the Levitical rules must be kept. In fact Jesus said the old covenant is gone and here's the new one. Asking people if they follow rules their religion doesn't say they have to follow is an uneffective tactic.

It's like asking a modern soldier if he knows how to load a musket and then asking him why he doesn't when he replies in the negative. The answer is he doesn't have to.

Not as long as the Old Testament continues to be included in the Christian Bible. Not as long as they continue to push the "homosexuality is an abomination" theme.

It's more a question about the hypocrisy of saying, "This is true, and this is not," when referring to a book that is supposed to be the inerrant word of God. If it is, it is, and you can't say, "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to that part."

And don't forget that Jesus also said something about coming to fulfill the laws and the commandments.

So I'm criticized for occasionally saying "I believe" and I'm criticized for giving specific quotes.

As to what I eat and wear, I'll let Unre. Sinner's previous post be my answer.

I do believe though that its important to eat healthy. Christ ate a lot of fish. He even ate fish after his Resurrection. He also was also not adverse to some good wine. And neither was Paul, he thought it was good for the digestion.

I was criticizing you because I asked you a specific question about your behavior to which you responded with a quote from the Bible. It made about as much sense as responding with "Jack and Jill went up a hill..."

And of course it is important to eat healthful food. You don't need the Bible to know that.

So...

Back to you, doc:

Do you eat shrimp? Do you wear clothing made of blended fabric?

If so, how do you look at yourself in the mirror every day?

 

[arthwollipot]

This is a tactic we really need to quit using. There's nothing in Christianity which says the Levitical rules must be kept. In fact Jesus said the old covenant is gone and here's the new one. Asking people if they follow rules their religion doesn't say they have to follow is an uneffective tactic.

And don't forget that Jesus also said something about coming to fulfill the laws and the commandments.

Matthew 5:18-19

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

That Jesus, he loves his jots and his tittles.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not as long as the Old Testament continues to be included in the Christian Bible. Not as long as they continue to push the "homosexuality is an abomination" theme.

Well then you're being as selective as the fundamentalists you're trying to criticize. You're focusing as myopically on one of 613 laws as they are. I'm sorry, but I think trying to extrapolate that out into "do you eat shrimp or wear mixed fiber clothing" is a pretty stupid argument. A more germane one would be asking them why, if homosexuality was such an important issue, didn't Jesus address it more in the gospels. The new testament homophobia came out of Paul's writings, which were more influenced by his Zealot upbringing, than the actual (supposed) words of Jesus.

And don't forget that Jesus also said something about coming to fulfill the laws and the commandments.

Yeah, that was my point. I'm surprised you missed it. Jesus claimed to have done away with the Levitical laws and insituted a handful of new ones with the 10 Commandments preserved. Therefore as long as a Christian didn't worship other gods it was o.k. to eat shrimp or wear mixed fibres and thus the "why don't you follow Levitical laws" argument is negated.

It's as stupid to ask a Christian why they don't eat shrimp as it is to as a Muslim why they don't celebrate Passover.

Matthew 5:18-19

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

That Jesus, he loves his jots and his tittles.

You bolded the wrong part. "till all be fulfilled" is the part you should have bolded. Jesus "fulfilled" the law (whatever that means) and thus set new ground rules... which leads to an interesting apologetical argument I've heard from Jews.

I have no idea where to find it now, but I once read an analysis by a Jew of the prophecy for what the Messiah would usher in vs. what Jesus accomplished and it was rather scathing. The Jewish Messiah would not do away with the Law, but would rather ensure universal adherance. Messiah brings not a new heaven or earth, but an ancient Levitical Isreal spread across the planet. That is why zelots like Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva were heralded as Messiah's in the 1st Century... they were going to bring about that Isreal.

Elizabeth, I'm sorry, but this argument is much more complex than "why do you eat shrimp" and thus should be abandoned as insipid and ineffectual when there are so many more richer arguments to be drawn from.

I've been monitoring DOC's threads for the last few months and there is pattern of behaviour that is not in the spirit of the Forum. I.e. DOC's threads fall off the front page of the section and he then bumps them by just regurgitating the same discredited opinions and information that have already been gone over literally dozens of times. Therefore I am closing this and the other threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat