Should Christians support Obama?

[exphys88]

Its a hard concept to imagine. I have a very hard time understanding eternity. Its difficult for me to imagine a being that has always existed. I'm not sure our natural laws can be applied to the supernatural. The more I studied this stuff the more questions I have. Faith is a very tricky thing.
'

I have a hard time imagining a lonely old magical god, all alone in space, no mother or father, no friends, no siblings, just him by himself and then he decides to create the universe.
I have no reason to believe that an old book written by very ignorant men could possibly know the answers, especially when it has gotten so many things wrong about our planet. Humans don't live to be 900 years old, we didn't come from 2 humans, there was no ark, the earth is billions of years old, etc

 

[bandaidwoman]

The point is that nobody knows, and nobody should claim to.

exactly, I agree with the buddists on this one. Even if there is a god, why the hell should he give a damn about us? And why does it have to be one? And why does he care if we cover our head, or have sex missionary style, or cook food a certain way, or attend mass on certain days , and all the different ways we claim to know God in the religious books. The best thing to do is assume he doesn't give a rats ass and realize it's up to humans to save ourselves, and if this is all it is, then human misery is all the more tragic and helping another in need becomes much more imperative then telling them there is another place that is better after they die an agonizing death praying to some god. Interestingly, some quakers feel this way and that's why the extreme pacifism, many believe god may have created us but did not necessarily provide and afterlife any more than I provide an afterlife for the bacteria I grew in my petri dish.....

 

[heavyiron]

I have a hard time imagining a lonely old magical god, all alone in space, no mother or father, no friends, no siblings, just him by himself and then he decides to create the universe.
I have no reason to believe that an old book written by very ignorant men could possibly know the answers.

Many theologians believe he never was alone because he is more than one "person", hence the trinity.

Regardless, the writings tend to promote the concept that god desires relationship.

 

[exphys88]

Many theologians believe he never was alone because he is more than one "person", hence the trinity.

Regardless, the writings tend to promote the concept that god desires relationship.

This is all under the assumption that the bible is the word of god, but there are so many things that have been proven to be false in the bible that you have to conclude that it is not the word of god and is actually just a story.
Once you realize that evolution is a fact, the bible becomes fiction. You cannot accept both as truth.

 

[heavyiron]

This is all under the assumption that the bible is the word of god, but there are so many things that have been proven to be false in the bible that you have to conclude that it is not the word of god and is actually just a story.
Once you realize that evolution is a fact, the bible becomes fiction. You cannot accept both as truth.

Yes, that is the assumption for sure. I'm just pointing out that a careful study gives new insight that you may not have considered.

I spent years studying the arguments on both sides and frankly it just caused further questions for me. I even learned beginning first century Greek to satisfy my curiosity so my studies were formal.

There are many theistic evolutionists that would strongly argue that one can believe in evolution and god without inconsistencies. However I do understand the argument against the position.

Again, I'm not taking sides but just pointing out things aren't as black and white as you might assume.

 

[exphys88]

I agree that evolution and the belief in god can both exist, but i would argue that the bible and evolution are not compatible, for many reasons. Those that say they are compatible are grasping at straws IMO.

 

[heavyiron]

I agree that evolution and the belief in god can both exist, but i would argue that the bible and evolution are not compatible, for many reasons. Those that say they are compatible are grasping at straws IMO.

Theistic evolutionists would strongly disagree. Not sure how many hours you have studied the position but my humble guess is not very many.

 

[Standard Donkey]

either way you skin the cat.. something had to appear out of thin air.. and that thin air had to have come from nothing.. etc.


either there was a god that has always existed that created everything. or nothing blew up for no reason and created everything.


i dont think we are supposed to fully understand

 

[exphys88]

Theistic evolutionists would strongly disagree. Not sure how many hours you have studied the position but my humble guess is not very many.

Oh, I'm very well aware of what they think, I have actually studied this more than most other subjects.
I actually have more respect for creationists because they are realistic in their beliefs. Theistic evolutionists are delusional IMO.

 

[heavyiron]

Oh, I'm very well aware of what they think, I have actually studied this more than most other subjects.
I actually have more respect for creationists because they are realistic in their beliefs. Theistic evolutionists are delusional IMO.

What is the strongest argument against Theistic evolution in your view?

 

[exphys88]

either way you skin the cat.. something had to appear out of thin air.. and that thin air had to have come from nothing.. etc.


either there was a god that has always existed that created everything. or nothing blew up for no reason and created everything.


i dont think we are supposed to fully understand

Right, but the only folks that claim to know the answers are the religious ones, and they are extremely easy to prove wrong, especially creationists. Evolution is called a theory but it's one of the most solid theories there are.

 

[exphys88]

What is the strongest argument against Theistic evolution in your view?

The creation story, Noah's ark, the virgin birth.

 

[heavyiron]

The creation story, Noah's ark, the virgin birth.

Please be more specific.

Thanks

 

[exphys88]

The creation story and evolution can not both be true. If the bible is the word of god, then everything in it is exactly accurate, including the creation story. To say that you believe the bible is the word of god and to also believe in evolution is a contradiction.

 

[heavyiron]

The creation story and evolution can not both be true. If the bible is the word of god, then everything in it is exactly accurate, including the creation story. To say that you believe the bible is the word of god and to also believe in evolution is a contradiction.

I have a hard time believing you have studied this topic as much as you claim. The answer is very elementary from a theistic evolutionists point of view.

Not all writing's in the Bible are historical narratives. Therefore they are not all literal.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist so don't get me wrong but writing styles are all over the map in the bible. You have poetry, lyrics to songs, prophetic sections that are cryptic so to assume Genesis is all historical narrative and does not contain allegory seems odd.

I think you are assuming writing style and furthermore may be assuming how the bible should be understood. This is common in our western society but the bible was not written in the west.

Anyway, I have to run.

 

[exphys88]

I have a hard time believing you have studied this topic as much as you claim. The answer is very elementary from a theistic evolutionists point of view.

Not all writing's in the Bible are historical narratives. Therefore they are not all literal.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist so don't get me wrong but writing styles are all over the map in the bible. You have poetry, lyrics to songs, prophetic sections that are cryptic so to assume Genesis is all historical narrative and does not contain allegory seems odd.

I think you are assuming writing style and furthermore may be assuming how the bible should be understood. This is common in our western society but the bible was not written in the west.

Anyway, I have to run.

The answer is all that needs to be said, and I'm on my phone so I can't really go into detail here in terms if what we know about genetics and the history of humans.
The point is that most of the explanations given by theologians are merely copouts when they're faced w 2 ideas that are not compatible yet threaten their beliefs.
The whole argument about whether the bible should be taken literally or not just makes the bible pointless. One could argue that any part of the bible shouldn't be taken literally and could manipulate it in any fashion they see fit.
What purpose does the bible serve if any of us can interpret it any way we see fit?
It's just fiction full of horrendous crimes sanctioned by a god that is supposed to be a loving god. Murder and rape of children, stoning, torturing etc.

 

[exphys88]

The point that im trying to make about creation is that theistic evolutionists are denying the story of Adam and eve and their fall from grace. This is essential to Christianity, without it there is no reason for Jesus to give his life. The 2 ideas are not compatible if the entire premise of Christianity is merely a fable.

Have you read any of Dawkins, or hitchens, or harris' books on this? They are much more eloquent in their arguments than I am, and they are biblical experts.

 

[heavyiron]

The point that im trying to make about creation is that theistic evolutionists are denying the story of Adam and eve and their fall from grace. This is essential to Christianity, without it there is no reason for Jesus to give his life. The 2 ideas are not compatible if the entire premise of Christianity is merely a fable.

Have you read any of Dawkins, or hitchens, or harris' books on this? They are much more eloquent in their arguments than I am, and they are biblical experts.

I fully understand the arguments becuase I have argued for them =)

Adam could REPRESENT any man that fell. The days could REPRESENT vast periods. Do you see the point? If you take it as allegory now 6 days is 6 billion years. Their (theistic evolutionists) position still affords for evolution and its a commonly accepted way to read some writing styles. Western minds may not be used to this but again, it wasn't written in the west.

However, I do agree. It looks like historical narrative to me.

 

[exphys88]

I've heard all of this before, but it's still a copout. Dawkins calls it "smuggling god thru the back door."
This kind of thinking makes the bible pointless though.
One could make similar arguments about the ten commandments. For example, I've questioned Christians about their acceptance of capital punishment, which seems to go against "thou shall not kill," and their response is that they interpret it as "thou shall not murder.". Using the literal vs non literal interpretation of the bible makes the bible irrelevant, it's like a blank slate that anyone can manipulate to fit their needs. Much like Jim jones did.

 

[heavyiron]

I've heard all of this before, but it's still a copout. Dawkins calls it "smuggling god thru the back door."
This kind of thinking makes the bible pointless though.
One could make similar arguments about the ten commandments. For example, I've questioned Christians about their acceptance of capital punishment, which seems to go against "thou shall not kill," and their response is that they interpret it as "thou shall not murder.". Using the literal vs non literal interpretation of the bible makes the bible irrelevant, it's like a blank slate that anyone can manipulate to fit their needs. Much like Jim jones did.

You do realize that breaking the ten commandments was considered a capital crime by the Jews?

In other words if they broke them they were put to death. This inherently proves they were making a distinction between murder and killing. Putting a murderer to death in their eyes was punishing a criminal. This does not make the writings pointless it just shows distinction between killing someone who is innocent vs killing someone who is guilty of a capital crime.

Once you understand their culture and how their society was managed then you can understand that apparent contradictions may not be contradictions at all.

***disclaimer*** I'm not a Jew or a theistic evolutionist. Just pointing out that you need to study culture and writing style before you determine an interpretation is useless. LOL!

 

[exphys88]

You do realize that breaking the ten commandments was considered a capital crime by the Jews?

In other words if they broke them they were put to death. This inherently proves they were making a distinction between murder and killing. Putting a murderer to death in their eyes was punishing a criminal. This does not make the writings pointless it just shows distinction between killing someone who is innocent vs killing someone who is guilty of a capital crime.

Once you understand their culture and how their society was managed then you can understand that apparent contradictions may not be contradictions at all.

***disclaimer*** I'm not a Jew or a theistic evolutionist. Just pointing out that you need to study culture and writing style before you determine an interpretation is useless. LOL!

I'm not saying its useless, it's just arbitrary and subjective.
I have also heard the same thing when I ask Christians about their acceptance of the bombing cities full of innocent civilians.

 

[heavyiron]

I'm not saying its useless, it's just arbitrary and subjective.

I think interpretation can be subjective but when its explicit that a culture views killing and murder as two distinct things then its not really interpretation. If you simply read the entire context of a paper it gives more insight and information. Cherry picking a verse or two without reading the whole book is lazy.

Furthermore the view is actually valid. Do you think killing an innocent person is the same thing as putting a murderer to death? If two people were on death row and one was a serial murderer and rapist and the other was completely innocent would you say killing the innocent man was the same as punishing the criminal?

Anyway, its not a big deal, just thought I would point out that understanding the history, culture and writing style within the entire context is a good way to understand a writing. Viewing a writing without that knowledge through western eyes is less profitable.

 

[exphys88]

I think interpretation can be subjective but when its explicit that a culture views killing and murder as two distinct things then its not really interpretation. If you simply read the entire context of a paper it gives more insight and information. Cherry picking a verse or two without reading the whole book is lazy.

Furthermore the view is actually valid. Do you think killing an innocent person is the same thing as putting a murderer to death? If two people were on death row and one was a serial murderer and rapist and the other was completely innocent would you say killing the innocent man was the same as punishing the criminal?

Anyway, its not a big deal, just thought I would point out that understanding the history, culture and writing style within the entire context is a good way to understand a writing. Viewing a writing without that knowledge through western eyes is less profitable.

I actually appreciate your devils advocacy (pun intended), I just respectfully disagree.

I think your example of Jews putting people to death for disobeying the ten commandments reinforces my argument. They interpreted the commandment to not include putting people to death for crimes, when in fact god could have intended it to mean to never kill regardless of the circumstance. Unless your god, there is no way to tell, thus leaving it wide open for crazy interpretations.
This can be done w any part of the bible.

 

[heavyiron]

I actually appreciate your devils advocacy (pun intended), I just respectfully disagree.

I think your example of Jews putting people to death for disobeying the ten commandments reinforces my argument. They interpreted the commandment to not include putting people to death for crimes, when in fact god could have intended it to mean to never kill regardless of the circumstance. Unless your god, there is no way to tell, thus leaving it wide open for crazy interpretations.
This can be done w any part of the bible.

What are you implying by using the terms devil's advocacy? =)

Interpretation isn't really the word in my view. Its more a translation issue. Some translators got it right and others did not. (some use the word murder)

Just one chapter later we have the directive more explicitly defined. This is why context is crucial for understanding documents.

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12

Anyway, its time to drink beer....

 

[exphys88]

I hope it's good beer, the bible says that thou shall only drink microbrews. That's how I interpret it anyways.

 

[heavyiron]

I can't remember but wasn't it the Egyptians that invented beer?

 

[Arnold]

I can't remember but wasn't it the Egyptians that invented beer?

if so then I LOVE Egyptians !

 

[exphys88]

I can't remember but wasn't it the Egyptians that invented beer?

I have no idea, your history is obviously better than mine.

 

[troubador]

has anyone else thought if the Universe is infinatly large, could the universe be infinatly smaller?

I believe it's finite.

 

[exphys88]

I believe it's finite.

Based on what?