Theological Opinions , PART II

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

This is by far the best religious discusion I've ever had. I've had many, they usually start after a few drinks, and end with someone very angry.

You guys are awesome!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Absolutely, and good point. There is a lot of evidence though that it is an accurate, historical account. It'd take me a long time to get through the most important points . I'll have to save responding to this for later.

Please, take your time. No hurry.

I don't deny that some of the things in the bible are, indeed, fact. There was a man named Joshua ben Joseph(hope I spelled that right) who became known as Jesus. There was a prophecy that a person of jewish decent would come and lead the Isrealites(again I hope I spelled that right, my spelling is terrible) out of "the dark times". This was Jesus. Did he really heal the sick as it is said? Maybe. The mind is very powerfull. If you believe something so strongly, say that you are getting sick, your mind can cause this. If this ill person thought strongly enough that the person standing before them was powerefull enough to heal them, the mind can , and will, then do it. Did he really walk on water? Doubtfull. Did he change water into wine? Probably, but any amateur with a majic kit can do this.

I know these are but a few of the things he did, and the most known, but if we are to believe them all, how can we? When so many can easily be explained by the power of the mind and slight of hand? I know that is arguable that the mind thing is "Gods work" but it's still hard for me to accept that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

This is by far the best religious discusion I've ever had. I've had many, they usually start after a few drinks, and end with someone very angry.

yeah, that's what's really cool here - we can have vigorous debates, but the vast majoritiy of people here keep it very polite and friendly and considerate. Some of my best friends here are the ones that I debate most vigorously with on the discussion threads, and I think it's so cool that we can have different opinions and still be great friends. And I've learned so much in the discussion threads, too, both by examining my own beliefs and examining the beliefs of others.

Yay!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Because I don't think that art requires an artist or a purpose and therefore nothing suggests an almighty creator to me. I shattered a jar of blue model paint all over the kitchen floor once by accident and it looked lovely. It didn't make me an artist, because I had no artistic intent.

But what are the odds of this occurring? Normally when things are just randomly thrown around, they don't end up in an artistic structure. The vast majority of the time, they end up rather more like . . . a mess .

Also, what to you would look artistic in the paint spill might look to a large number of other people like just a mess. The universe, on the other hand, is almost universally seen to be beautiful. And that should seem rather odd.

Furthermore, the universe is also far, far more complex than the paint spill. It wouldn't take many variables coming out differently to keep it from looking beautiful. This also is a major contributor to the oddness that it should be artistic.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Because they're so simple. That's what there was at the birth of the first sentient being, who knew nothing but recognized Sadism was bad and love was good. In the time between then and now, we've had to judge many many new developments good or bad, and many of these judgements were wrong, but established a context that we would use in later judgements. The result is society as we see it today: scary.

Consider abortion for example. Bad. Obviously, bad. How on earth could anyone justify killing their own unborn baby? Here's how: First, someone tells them "it isn't a person yet; it isn't born." (I don't know if that's accurate, but it sure doesn't matter, because putting an end to something that holds the promise of life is exactly the same as putting an end to a life.) Then, still unsure if society will accept them after they have an abortion, they are encouraged "it's your body; do what you want with it."

Things like that.

So you believe in moral values largely because they just so obviously exist. Experience shows that. So what do you think of these moral values? Are they a law of the universe? Or do they just come from us? If they come from us, did we invent them?

Another question. If we have no value and no worth, why is it bad for us to abuse one another? And what's wrong with slavery? I mean, honestly. If slaves had no worth and no value, one should be able to just work them to death and that's it. They're just like machines, after all, if they have no value.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

A related issue that I feel very strongly about is this "information age" that we're in. People have become so obsessed with the obtaining of information like obscure statistics of politics or sports records, and they're actually able to obtain this information with the click of a mouse, that there's no way they can process it all or prioritize any of it. The result is that we get too much information at once. Things start to seem so common to us that should really never be. I'm talking about desensitization. It sucks. It's important that we keep things simple. Killing is bad, and life is good. Anything in between doesn't matter.

Why do you think anything in between doesn't matter? What about lying about someone to make him lose his job so that you could get it yourself? That's pretty obviously bad too. But what's obviously bad shouldn't be considered to be the only bad things. It's very possible that things are bad or good which we just can't tell are bad or good, because we're short-sighted humans.

For myself, I think the world is divided up entirely between white and black. I don't believe in any "gray area." However, I do believe that us humans are so limited in our ability to see that often things look like gray to us. They aren't really gray, but they look that way.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Then why not just say they're human and be done with it?

Because saying that they're human implies that: Everyone's like that, so the behavior is acceptable. Saying they're sinful implies that wrong behaviors are behaviors to be corrected, and that's very good, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Why say that Life is actually God? Life is life. People are people. Time is time. All these things would still exist and still make sense without God.

You think the world makes sense? Life, time and people are all concepts I have difficulty wrapping my brain around, myself. To me, the concepts make more sense with God. But I can understand other people feeling differently.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

We shouldn't need reasons for why we live or how we interact.

Well, I do .

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

But yes, goodness equals happiness and a good life is more fun than an evil one is.

I think a large number of people have very fun evil lives.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

LOL! So there's irony there, but I'll answer also. If you believe there's nothing important in life, then you'll be doing lots and lots of nothing.

How can something be important and simultaneously valueless?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

It might not have been turned on, something could have been interfering with the current, or you might have been wearing something like chain mail. (I saw a documentary on the guys who do the repairs to big high voltage power lines. They have to use themselves as a conductor, but somehow wearing glorified chainmail over a glorified wetsuit prevents them from getting fried.)

I was not wearing chain mail . My parents and grandparents were talking and I was just playing on the fence. They noticed and ran to snatch me off, because they knew the fence was electrified. My grandfather was highly confused after they'd snatched me off, because he'd sure the fence had been active. So he touched it and received a huge electric shock.

Now of course, you could argue that the fence had coincidentally been turned on right between myself and my grandfather touching the fence. Though that still ignores the fact that my grandfather had been positive it was on already. This view demands a major coincidence of the highest order, plus a mistake on my grandfather's part, and also an oddity in the fence's being turned on, but oh well. You can think of it as coincidence if that seems most likely to you.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

This exerpt from my psychology notes might explain it.
conversion disorder- (Freud’s “hysteria,� or “neurotic conversion�) a person’ experiences a change in or loss of physical functioning for which there is no medical explanation
>Pilots who bombed North Korea at night often go completely blind at night now.
>treatment:
-psychotherapy where you’re taught what is wrong with you
-physical therapy of the bodypart affected
-exposure therapy where you are tricked into using your bad bodypart
-drug therapy which lessens the symptoms

However, she had three surgeries. That doesn't sound very psychological. It more likely has more to do with the fact that she was very much overweight, which added more stress on an already bad knee. And what three surgeries didn't fix and had caused pain for years was instantly fixed in seconds upon a single prayer. Can these psychological therapies fix problems that have existed for years in a matter of seconds?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

All of the above explanations were off the top of my head (well, except the one that's right from my psych. notes), and by no means athoritative. I hate having to sound like I'm picking at straws because I generally resent hoax and conspiracy theories and such things for being so corny. Stranger things have happened, I'm sure, that I could never hope to explain.

One of the highly interesting facts about prayer also is that certain people tend to have their prayers answered a large percentage of the time. Wierd coincidences keep happening again and again for the same people, while nonreligious folk often don't experience nearly as many such coincidences. A lot of nonreligious folk would claim they haven't seen any evidence of God. The religious folk keep seeing the evidence piling up all the time throughout their lives.

And I know you're going to ask, "perhaps because they're looking for it?" And that probably is part of the answer. But it doesn't explain bizarre flukes like the ones I've mentioned, which often occur around the same people. People who have the gift of prophecy keep having prophecies come true. People who have the gift of miracles keep having more and more miracles occurring around them.

As an example, let me point to a major Christian minister named Brother Andrew. He spent many years of his life smuggling Bibles illegally into the Communist Soviet Union. God looked after him in his efforts. Brother Andrew learned that he must trust in God rather than his own wits in hiding the Bibles, so to prove that he was trusting in God rather than his own ingenuity, he always put a small stack of Bibles on the front seat right next to him, in plain sight of the border patrols. Other Christians who worked with him did the same, and they kept getting through.

Coincidence? Perhaps bad border patrols, you might argue. But the coincidences kept happening, and happening, and happening. Eventually, the coincidence just gets unbelievable. The odds! God is a very rational explanation for why the coincidences tail religious folk.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I do know for sure though that water can come from desert stone sometimes. IIRC, it was discovered accidentally within the past several years when a guy was walking uphill in some sandy region and putting his weight on his staff. It broke through a thin layer of sandstone, which had apparently formed over many years over a slow underwater stream. Water gushed out and, I'd imagine, surprised him.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

On prayer and the stigmata: In non-denominational meditation, a person attempts to join their mind, body, and spirit together into one self with nature. Quite often, they do it, and their awareness grows and transcends something. In prayer, this is also the goal, except the pray-er anticipates God, so when they reach that same new level of peace, they immediately claim that it was God they experienced. The more logical claim would be that they just reached a new record for relaxation, but they had their heart set on meeting God. The stigmata might be something similar to conversion disorder.

But it wouldn't always be like that. For myself, my strongest experiences of feeling God's presence have always come from complete surprise. Sometimes I have sought that experience and not found it, but often it will come when I don't expect it.

For example: One of my strongest ever experiences of feeling the Lord's presence was while I was sitting on a bench in my garden. I was thinking to myself about the experience people talked about of just being caught up into indescribable bliss, of being set "on fire" by the Holy Spirit. I was thinking very skeptically about it at that moment. I was thinking, "it's so extreme what they're saying, but also so . . . unlikely. So implausible. I'm not positive I really believe in that."

And then as soon as those thoughts crossed my mind (and I wasn't trying to meditate, I was just thinking doubtfully and skeptically about the experience people claimed to have had), I was caught up in a second into that experience. It was so powerful, so overwhelming that I was actually physically weeping with the waves of bliss and the feeling of divine fire burning in me. It was an utterly overcoming experience. It came as a total shock. It also came while I was fully mentally present, not relaxing but sitting on a hard bench thinking critically and fully conscious and in my right mind.

You could of course claim that I was secretly wanting that experience and that's why it came, but not everyone gets what they want. Many times since then I have prayed and sought such an experience far more strongly than I subconsciously might have been at that moment, but it didn't come when I wanted it to.

Also when I had the experience, I was not in a meditative state. I was actually doubting the experience's existence, and that doesn't make it likely that it could just come.

Finally, when I had the experience I was absolutely certain that it was impossible for my own mind to have conjured up something of that extremity. It was that powerful and overcoming.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Well, you thought that I think there's no order to life or to the world. That's not true. Everything plays out systematically. Its system is too complex to try to predict anything or say anything definately.

Okay, I see what you're saying. And I agree, partly. Though I don't think it is impossible to make predictions. Newton made predictions about the planets that worked out all right. I've made predictions about how family members will respond to events that turn out accurate. And although I agree with you that in this life we can't know things, but must rather believe things, I do think that enough evidence can be assembled to make conclusions that are very highly likely to be accurate.

[Lief Erikson]

I must go and make myself unconscious now. I won't read your second post until tomorrow Bombadillo, lest I stay up another hour or two! I'll respond to your second post and Faramir's post then.

*Faints from exhaustion.*

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I must go and make myself unconscious now. I won't read your second post until tomorrow Bombadillo, lest I stay up another hour or two! I'll respond to your second post and Faramir's post then.

*Faints from exhaustion.*

LOL. *waves towel in fanning motion at Lief* Like I said, no hurry.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

*Existing just to exist is very tedious, and I think most people avoid that by searching for a purpose and then clinging to it. Most often, it's some sort of religion that supplies them with it. I've come by many a Christian catchphrase, for example, that says something to the effect of "Did your sins come back and bite you in the ass? Pray. God will help you and he'll make your life better. I promise. Just don't try to recover on your own. No one can do it without God's help. Your past failures should prove that to you." I happen to have more faith in the strength of the human race, and I think Christians give God a lot of credit that nobody deserves. Things solve themselves. Keeping that in mind keeps me remarkably, unbelievably mellow.

Being mellow is good. I don't agree that things solve themselves, though. They mess up themselves. And though I'd do away with the saracastic tone of the quote, I agree with almost all the content. The thing is, we're naturally "human" as you put it. We make mistakes. We do bad things. We are intrinsically flawed. We don't do good all the time (unless you have a massively accepting viewpoint and say everyone has their truth and whatever they do is good, but you aren't that liberal). The thing is that since we're flawed ourselves, any effort to change that comes from us is going to be mired with our natural flaws. You can't clean a dirty surface with a dirty rag. You need a clean rag- and that's where Jesus comes in.

But if you don't believe in any God, humanity is all you have left. So putting your faith in humanity makes sense.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

But where was I? Right, I guess I can understand why nihilism is so depressing now that I'm writing about it. When you realize that everything is pointless, you grow very lazy and literally just wait for death, understanding that there's nothing else of substance to do. This is where the boredom gets dangerous. You begin to wonder if the wait is worth it, or if you should kill yourself. I think most people at this point snap. They could go totally bonkers, and perhaps, but not necessarily, actually commit suicide. Or, they might retreat back to religion and force themselves to forget what a horrid experience that was thinking outside the box.

I would recommend not settling for any box, but examining closely the evidence, dotrines and logic involved in nihilism and religions, to see if they make sense. And comparing religions with other religions to see what makes more sense would probably also be smart. And praying that any real God would lead you to the right one also makes sense.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I thought perhaps my seemingly contradictory messages of "nothing matters" and "it's important to be good" would need explanation. It seems like only a matter of time before someone points them out anyway. Well, I just explained the danger of living with "nothing matters" as a motto. To avoid the temptation of suicide, you have to do something with your life.

Why should one avoid suicide if all is worthless, pointless and meaningless anyway? Just because some happiness is available? Well, it's worthless, pointless and meaningless happiness still. Suicide seems a reasonable option.

[Lief Erikson]

An article from BBC News:

World marvels at total eclipse

The total eclipse of the Sun finished its journey across the globe at 1148 GMT (1248 BST) in sunset along Mongolia's northern border.
Skywatchers around the world marvelled as they caught a glimpse of the "ultimate astronomical show".

As the spectacle passed overhead, witnesses prayed, cheered and clapped.

The eclipse took just over three hours to sweep a narrow corridor across the world, crossing Africa, Turkey and Central Asia.

'The most amazing sight'

The Moon's umbral shadow first touched down on Earth at 0836 GMT (0936 BST) at sunrise on the east coast of Brazil.

It then raced across the Atlantic Ocean before making African landfall in Ghana at 0908 GMT (1008 BST), where residents of the capital Accra filled the streets to view the event.

As the temperature dropped and the sky darkened the crowd looked skywards and shouted and clapped as the eclipse swept above.

An eclipse watcher in the capital said it was "the most amazing sight" and "a must see experience".

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

I wish I couldve seen it. Oh, but I can make one of my own.

*runs off to change avvie*

[Lief Erikson]

Cool avatar! Nice .


By the way, I'm replying to your questions right now as we speak . . .

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Cool avatar! Nice .


By the way, I'm replying to your questions right now as we speak . . .

Thanx. I'll stick around then and I look forward to it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

yeah, that's what's really cool here - we can have vigorous debates, but the vast majoritiy of people here keep it very polite and friendly and considerate. Some of my best friends here are the ones that I debate most vigorously with on the discussion threads, and I think it's so cool that we can have different opinions and still be great friends. And I've learned so much in the discussion threads, too, both by examining my own beliefs and examining the beliefs of others.

Yay!

God bless the 'Moot! I really have missed it. I need to start stopping by here after morning classes.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

An article from BBC News:

World marvels at total eclipse

The total eclipse of the Sun finished its journey across the globe at 1148 GMT (1248 BST) in sunset along Mongolia's northern border.
Skywatchers around the world marvelled as they caught a glimpse of the "ultimate astronomical show".

As the spectacle passed overhead, witnesses prayed, cheered and clapped.

The eclipse took just over three hours to sweep a narrow corridor across the world, crossing Africa, Turkey and Central Asia.

Reminds me of an Onion article...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45792

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

God bless the 'Moot! I really have missed it. I need to start stopping by here after morning classes.

If God be for the moot, who be against it?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

Isn't all this "evidence" coming from the bible though? What if the bible was just a brilliantly written story where the "characters" were meant to inspire and bring a feeling of "peace" to the reader?

We know from history that that's not how the Bible was interpreted. The Jews took their scriptures very, very seriously and interpreted them as totally literal. The Law of Moses was practiced in exact literal detail in Israeli cities. The Jews were very careful about what books were accepted into their cannon too, only accepting books with great care and after very close examination.

We also can see that the manuscripts weren't intended just to be stories because of the fact that so many of the details of the Old Testament check out as historically accurate. Historical research has proven that King David existed and was a major ruler in Israel's history who greatly strengthened his nation. Large parts of the Old Testament corroborate in precise detail with Assyrian records available from those times. Some parts of the Old Testament accounts from before Solomon are disputed, but as historical research progresses, more and more verification of the Old Testament has been found. For example, the Hittites were long cited as an example of the Old Testament being flawed. The Old Testament describes the Hittites as a major nation, and aside from the Old Testament, there was no record of them available to us. So people said the Old Testament plainly was wrong. However, since then researchers uncovered loads of evidence about the Hittites and now there are whole books on them. The Old Testament was proven to be accurate in this. So things keep coming up. For those parts of the Old Testament that are still disputed, there is always hope that the conflicts will be resolved.

Of course, most of the mythological type stories such as David & Goliath and Jonah & the Whale aren't possible to verify or refute. I accept them as literal for the following reasons:

1) Personal experience of knowing God has proven to me that he exists and is still active in the way described in the Bible.
2) God has proven to me through personal experience of his working through the Bible and testifying about it that the Bible is his Word.
3) Now assuming that the Bible is God's word, I am left only with the question of how to interpret it. If I do not interpret the Bible literally but interpret it in other ways, I can come up with any interpretation I like and then it's no longer the Bible anymore. It's me making up my own theology. Therefore the Bible must be interpreted literally.

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

Isnt' there a saying "Don't believe everything you read"?

But there is also such a thing as, "believe what you read when there's a preponderance of evidence that it's true." As I know you know.

I've talked about the Old Testament so far. Now I'll talk about the New Testament.

There are several key details about those books that are very strong indicators that the books were intended to be accurate historical accounts.

First is the fact that scholars have dated the Gospels at between 50 and 70 AD. Jesus was killed sometime between 32 and 36 AD. That means that the gospels were written during the lifespan of a lot of the people that were actually present during Jesus' life. The disciples couldn't have been making things up, because they were initially preaching to the Israelis, and they couldn't go and tell the Israelis alterred accounts of history when the Israelis themselves had already been around Jesus and knew the facts. The Pharisees also would have been looking for any opportunity to undermine the disciples' message, so the disciples would have had to stick to the facts. The fact that the Gospels were presented in this context is really important, for they couldn't go and preach that things had occurred to people who knew from personal experience that those things had not occurred and while Pharisees were lurking around with every motive to find a loophole through which to shoot down their message.

Another relevant fact is that we have records from the Pharisees' writings of the time which accuse Jesus of having been a sorcerer who practiced black magic. The Pharisees had every motive to deny Jesus' miracles, but the fact that they accused him of practicing black magic proves that even they were convinced he was involved in the supernatural.

There also are writings from major historians of the time like Tacitus and Josephus that corroborate parts of the New Testament about Jesus' life and ministry.

Now from the Gospels themselves, there are some more details that point to historical accuracy.
1) The disciples are painted like idiots. Perhaps that's too strong a word, but they're always making mistakes, always are confused and never are understanding what Jesus is trying to teach them in the New Testament. At the time the Gospels were written, these were the leaders of the Christian movement. You don't paint your leaders like that.
2) Jesus makes no mention in the Gospels of circumcision. At the time the Gospels were written, circumcision was a major, major issue. It was dividing many Jewish Christians from the Apostle Paul and other church leaders. The church was very split over the issue, and if Jesus had said something about the issue, that would have been very helpful in resolving the dispute. If the Gospel writers were trying to put anything in the Gospels other than exact history, they would have probably put some statement into Jesus' mouth about circumcision.
3) The first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were women. Women's testimony in the time of Jesus was considered to be worthless by the Jewish community. The fact that in their accounts the Gospel writers presented women as being the first witnesses of the resurrection instead of Peter or some of the other disciples would have been considered a weakness in the time the Gospels were written.
4) There also are words taken down in the New Testament that it might have been easier to leave out. For example, according to the Gospels, Jesus while hanging on the cross cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Such a phrase might be interpreted as despair. Us Christians have a different interpretation of it, but it might have been easier to leave out such a cry altogether.

So there are a number of reasons that the New Testament should be considered a historically reliable account, or at least an account written with the greatest effort at historical accuracy. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke introduced his work to someone who I think was his cousin, a man named Theophilus, by stating that he had researched all the facts very carefully and was presenting his information so that Theophilus could hear a clear and orderly account of all the things he was hearing about by word of mouth.

There are other reasons for thinking the Gospel accounts are credible historical sources as well. The disciples and early Christians were devoted to Jesus' teachings to the point of giving up their lives for what they believed was true and right, and Jesus' teachings demanded extreme ethics. Jesus attacked even sinful thoughts as well as sinful actions. He demanded total transformation, and then he promised and delivered the Holy Spirit so that people could experience that transformation. He wasn't content with people being 99% of the way good, either, for to him no wrongdoing was acceptable. He said, "be perfect, as my Father in heaven is perfect." That the disciples who spoke the message recorded in the Gospels clung to these extreme ethical teachings and gave up their lives for their beliefs is a strong indicator that their message is credible.

So the Bible is a credible source of information. And while the seemingly mythological occurrences of the Old Testament are impossible to verify or disprove, the miracles from the New Testament are strongly supported.

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

Why hasn't there been any of this in the last 1,000 years or so?(that'a a rough estimate) Is it that "God" has given up on us? Are we just not listening?

My response to Bombadillo touched on this. We were talking some about prayer and extreme experiences of God.

I don't know if you've ever read the Book of Acts? Because that is an account of what Christians call a "revival." There have been many, many revivals in the time of the Church, and often these are accompanied by astounding miraculous signs. My grandmother, the one through whom the Lord healed the woman with the walker, has also witnessed a miracle that commonly occurred in the 1980s. In that time, it was commonplace for people to receive healing for leg or foot deformities. People who had legs of different lengths and thus a walking disadvantage would receive healing and their short leg would actually grow before everyone's eyes out a couple inches to match the other leg.

My sister received a dream from the Lord in which he gave her the gift of healing, and then she went and prayed over my mother's foot, which had been causing her pain for years and severely limiting her ability to walk. My mother was immediately completely healed and has had no foot trouble since.

There are many Christian accounts of miracles I could go into. Resurrections from the dead . . . one man who was resurrected from the dead had been certified dead by medical examiners. His death certificate was written up and everything. His wife believed God wanted him resurrected though, and so she took him to a church where many strong believers were praying, and there he was resurrected. And his return from the dead was actually caught on video tape. I read a book where I saw a photograph of him holding his own death certificate- quite a testimony. The only "scientific" conclusion, of course, would be that his doctors were wrong. That's quite a leap- these are registered, skilled medical examiners we're talking about, but if you feel that's most likely you can believe that.

But there are many other resurrection stories. And the healings go on and on. And there are also many prophets who have heard hundreds of words from the Lord and seen them come true. An example . . .

I can think of lots of neat prophecies that have been fulfilled off the top of my head, but few of them are really, really convincing, something indisputably from God. Let's see . . .

Oh, here's an interesting one. I don't know about "indisputable", but it is interesting.

Shortly before entering into a winter Math Statistics class, I had a dream from the Lord about the class. In my dream I saw my professor. In my dream he was of Arab descent, in his thirties, with black hair and beard and a rather distinctive face. He was lecturing to us, but in his lecture he was trying to build himself up, sometimes at other people's expense. He cared mainly about himself and was willing to tear down his students.

When I entered the class, the professor was physically exactly the same as the person I'd seen in my dream. His age, his height, his face, all his physical appearance was totally recognizable as exactly the same. It was as though the dream had given a photograph of him. I had never seen the man before that day, but he was exactly the same.

Earlier on in the semester, it didn't seem as though the rest of the dream would be fulfilled. He didn't seem unkind to us students at all. He was nice and easy-going. However, I did begin to recognize that he seemed to have a rather low self esteem. As the semester progressed, he did become nasty. Not to me, but to a different student. She had asked a rather dumb question, so he pointed her out in class by making her raise her hand and criticized her, saying he wouldn't answer such a dumb question, and then when the discussion was over he began to talk about her behind her back to other students, criticizing her further. I think his behavior was because of his low self esteem. These events and his physical appearance were precisely in accord with my dream of a man I'd never seen before in my life.

So that's one example. There are others. I had a dream also of the war in Iraq, before we entered into it.

In my dream, I saw a woman being abused and then thrown down to be raped. Then a soldier came forward to save her, and he cut down her oppressors. However, he overextended himself and began to very slowly fall forward. Someone cut him down from behind. However, a different soldier came up and cut down that person.

In the dream, I asked, "what does this dream mean?"

And I heard a voice answer, "this is the struggle in Iraq."

After that dream, I was unsure for a while whether the voice had said Afghanistan or Iraq; I couldn't remember quite well enough. But now I'm postive it was Iraq. The interpretation is simple, too.

The abused woman was the Iraqi people. The soldier who came forward to rescue her was the US army. We defeated the initial force easily, but now one could argue that we are overextended and being undercut by the insurgency. However, in the dream a new force rose up that defeated the insurgency. I now have high hopes that this is the Iraqi army.

Anyway, there are other prophecies other Christians have had who are closer than I to the Lord and more mature in their walks with him, and many of their prophecies are much more interesting than these examples of prophecies I've personally been given. I could refer to them, and they really would be indisputable.

Sorry for keeping you waiting so long for my response! I hope it's worth the wait.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

3) Now assuming that the Bible is God's word, I am left only with the question of how to interpret it. If I do not interpret the Bible literally but interpret it in other ways, I can come up with any interpretation I like and then it's no longer the Bible anymore. It's me making up my own theology. Therefore the Bible must be interpreted literally.

Unless, of course, it says silly things like "Eat my flesh and drink my blood", "baptism saves you now", etc. But that's a whole different thread, I suppose.

But anyway, just a minor question: if I recall, you were a follower of the theory of evolution (understood in a Christian sense); is that correct? If so, then why do you not take Gen. 1 literally in the same way that you take Jonas literally?

I don't know if you've ever read the Book of Acts? Because that is an account of what Christians call a "revival." There have been many, many revivals in the time of the Church, and often these are accompanied by astounding miraculous signs. My grandmother, the one through whom the Lord healed the woman with the walker, has also witnessed a miracle that commonly occurred in the 1980s. In that time, it was commonplace for people to receive healing for leg or foot deformities. People who had legs of different lengths and thus a walking disadvantage would receive healing and their short leg would actually grow before everyone's eyes out a couple inches to match the other leg.

The book of Acts does not, I think, detail a revival properly speaking. It details evangelization. Revival deals with a country or people that is already Christian (or at least nominally so) and stoking the fire of their faith, it seems to me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Unless, of course, it says silly things like "Eat my flesh and drink my blood", "baptism saves you now", etc. But that's a whole different thread, I suppose.

I have no problem with Catholics interpreting those things literally. I just think it's also dead obvious from the scripture and experience that God gives his flesh and blood in more ways than the literal, and that the literal is not the only or the primary intent.

As you say though, it is another discussion, and a very, very longwinded one, as I recall from last time .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But anyway, just a minor question: if I recall, you were a follower of the theory of evolution (understood in a Christian sense); is that correct? If so, then why do you not take Gen. 1 literally in the same way that you take Jonas literally?

Yes, I'll explain. In the Bible, there are a few things that need not be interpreted literally: Visions and dreams. The Lord very frequently in the scripture uses symbolic language in dreams and visions to explain reality.

According to the Genesis 1 account, man was created on the 6th day, after all the other major creation periods were over except the day of rest. Therefore man would not have been a personal witness of God creating. He could only have known about the seven days from God telling him. And how does God often talk to people? Through dreams and visions, symbolic language. Therefore it is highly possible that God gave the Genesis account in a vision or dream, and if this is so, the number 7 could very easily be symbolic. The number 7 is used symbolically all the time in the vision of Revelation.

Furthermore, there is a technical flaw in the possibility that the creation story be interpreted literally. The sun was created on the 4th day. 24 hour days are calculated by the sun. Without a sun, there wouldn't be any 24 hour days, unless God just counted out 24 hours in his head for some reason. There's nothing special I know of about 24 hours. Many other planets have days which last totally different amounts of time. So there's no reason to think that the Genesis 7 days were calculated by the sun, or that they were 24 hour days. Especially not when God says elsewhere in the scripture that to him "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day."

Furthermore, I think in scripture there is actually a verse that REFERS TO evolution. Most of the verses about creation say simply that God created out of dust. However, there is a verse that tells a slightly different version about how God created.

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:24

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

"Let the land produce the living creatures according to their kinds," is highly significant to me. It says that the land itself had a role in making the creatures according to their kinds. This would fit with the theory that creatures evolve according to their environment in its most literal way. The land itself literally produces the creatures according to their kinds, kinds determined by the environment or land.

I think it explains in more detail what God is saying in the other passages when he says that God created out of dust. This passage, if tied to the theory of evolution, shows how he created out of dust.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The book of Acts does not, I think, detail a revival properly speaking. It details evangelization. Revival deals with a country or people that is already Christian (or at least nominally so) and stoking the fire of their faith, it seems to me.

A revival is when the Holy Spirit comes and empowers and revitalizes his people. The only difference between revivals and Pentecost is that Pentecost was not a revitalizing but an initial vitalizing. But that's not such a big difference. Both instances are times where the Holy Spirit pours himself out into and through God's followers. The affects are the same.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have no problem with Catholics interpreting those things literally. I just think it's also dead obvious from the scripture and experience that God gives his flesh and blood in more ways than the literal, and that the literal is not the only or the primary intent.

Of course not only, as for primary... *smacks self* other discussion, other discussion!

I think THIS discussion is probably another discussion, as well, but a few minor points:
"Especially not when God says elsewhere in the scripture that to him "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day."

As St. Paul writes to the Hebrews, "Someone says somewhere..." But that verse seems me to indicate not any distortion of time but the eternity of God.

Furthermore, I think in scripture there is actually a verse that REFERS TO evolution. Most of the verses about creation say simply that God created out of dust. However, there is a verse that tells a slightly different version about how God created.

"Let the land produce the living creatures according to their kinds," is highly significant to me. It says that the land itself had a role in making the creatures according to their kinds. This would fit with the theory that creatures evolve according to their environment in its most literal way. The land itself determines the kinds of creatures and produces them "according to their kinds".

Certain verses in the Vulgate actually are very supportive of your thesis, as a side note.

A revival is when the Holy Spirit comes and empowers and revitalizes his people. The only difference between revivals and Pentecost is that Pentecost was not a revitalizing but an initial vitalizing. But that's not such a big difference. Both instances are times where the Holy Spirit pours himself out into and through God's followers.

I very much disagree; Pentecost was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church for the first time. It more or less made the Church, whereas all revivals do is revive. This difference is one, I think, that should not be downplayed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

According to the Genesis 1 account, man was created on the 6th day, after all the other major creation periods were over except the day of rest. Therefore man would not have been a personal witness of God creating. He could only have known about the seven days from God telling him. And how does God often talk to people? Through dreams and visions, symbolic language. Therefore it is highly possible that God gave the Genesis account in a vision or dream, and if this is so, the number 7 could very easily be symbolic. The number 7 is used symbolically all the time in the vision of Revelation.

I imagine God told Adam and Eve about the first 5 days, just like when we tell our kids "before you were born, ....". And then it was just passed down orally, until it was finally written down.

Furthermore, there is a technical flaw in the possibility that the creation story be interpreted literally. The sun was created on the 4th day. 24 hour days are calculated by the sun. Without a sun, there wouldn't be any 24 hour days, unless God just counted out 24 hours in his head for some reason. There's nothing special I know of about 24 hours. Many other planets have days which last totally different amounts of time. So there's no reason to think that the Genesis 7 days were calculated by the sun, or that they were 24 hour days.

Do you think God created the sun and then watched to see how many hours it took to make up a day with it because He didn't know? I see no technical flaw here, especially since God is outside time. I think the most logical thing is that all the days mentioned before the actual creation of the sun were 24-hour periods, with God knowing ahead of time that the sun He was going to create would make that length of day. There IS something special about 24 hours - for THIS world.

Originally Posted by Gwai

Unless, of course, it says silly things like "Eat my flesh and drink my blood", "baptism saves you now", etc.

Or "I am the vine, you are the branches"
*looks around for leaves on her body*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I imagine God told Adam and Eve about the first 5 days, just like when we tell our kids "before you were born, ....". And then it was just passed down orally, until it was finally written down.

I agree.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think God created the sun and then watched to see how many hours it took to make up a day with it because He didn't know?

Days only exist because of sunlight, and if there was no sun, there wouldn't be any days. There would only be night, without the sun. Therefore "there was morning and there was evening," wouldn't even make sense. In verse 5 God had created day, but it was still indistinguishable from the night (v. 14). It took the sun to separate the day from the night. If they weren't separated, there couldn't have been mornings and evenings, for mornings and evenings only exist because day and night are separated. However, if you give mornings and evenings a new interpretation, saying that they're something special God invented for that time, then you can explain it. But then it's not ordinary mornings and evenings you're talking about. And if you say God just determined that the first three days of creation would be 24 hour days without the sun, you're also assuming abnormal days. So you've got abnormal days and abnormal evenings and mornings. In short, you're not going by a precisely literal interpretation, but rather are assuming days and evenings and mornings of a special, different sort.

That's the same thing I'm doing when I interpret this nonliterally. I say the days and evenings and mornings indicate major periods. You'd have to say that some mystical divine light appeared and faded or something to indicate evenings and mornings, and that the 24 hour days existed without the sun, which is also a far from normal day. So you and I both assume abnormal days and periods. If you're going to tweak the meanings of days and evenings and mornings by saying they aren't related to the sun but rather existed in a different form than we now know them, why not just accept what I'm suggesting?

Like you, I am suggesting that the three first days of creation are a different sort of day than the normal day. But if those three days are different, why not just say the other four are different also?

The first three days couldn't have been ordinary days. If they weren't ordinary days, why should the next four be considered ordinary? Why should you accept a wierd interpretation of those days that says God mystically created evenings and mornings and gave us days without sunlight (and by the way, on the fourth day he created the sun and moon to give us light, which indicates that these weren't very bright days, if they had any light), very strange "days", but not just go the whole way and interpret them as something wholly different?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I see no technical flaw here, especially since God is outside time. I think the most logical thing is that all the days mentioned before the actual creation of the sun were 24-hour periods, with God knowing ahead of time that the sun He was going to create would make that length of day.

Why would he do that?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There IS something special about 24 hours - for THIS world.

There is something special about days and nights for this world (though you'll have to explain to me what is significant about the number 24). That's probably why he used the symbol of days and nights even to describe a period that existed before literal mornings and evenings existed.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Or "I am the vine, you are the branches"
*looks around for leaves on her body*

Be careful RÃ*an about getting him started . I've presented that argument to him before and he has a very reasonable response to it. This could get lengthy!