Challenge Vanni

[peapod]

I thought you would pick up I was being sarcastic, it was, over the top. Have I ever come across as someone who follows anybody blindly, although it would be alot easier probally if I could. I am not playing a game ladyC, I believe what I am standing up for is right, just as you do. If the church wants to become part of government than it must be held up for anybody to scruntize. That is what I believe and what I feel and its not going to change. To go back and forth is pointless. Nothing will change, except we could provide some entertainment for the board.

Well you can see for yourself that vanni and dex are intelligent, this is a given, unless there are just cut and paste 8O and of course there are others here, mmmmmmmmmm I am painting myself in a corner...I will have to think about this for a minute..Okay I will try this, everyone here is intelligent, some just went to school longer. But they both have something that makes them the "high" part. They are not intellectual snobs, they obviously have knowledge and they try to explain with in a way you can understand, they have some humility with their intelligence and that is why I say "high" intelligence. You might not see it that way, but I do. You view it as something being taken away from you, I view it as something being given to you.

I can see the fulity in this, its not going to achieve anything, it never does, maybe someday it will be different. Tibear you really annoy me, and I do know you are sincere in your belief, as I am in mine. But eventually even the hall moniter and myself had a understanding. I am not going to get in your religion anymore, there are far more wiser people here that can do that, I am not going to be a distraction from what should be really going on here.

LadyC this has caused a rift for us, but that religion for ya, at least thats the way I look at, I am sure you look at it differently. Ah well they say time heals all wounds.

 

[LadyC]

I thought you would pick up I was being sarcastic, it was, over the top.

Sarcasm is difficult to detect in writing. As a sarcastic person, I know this.
It was over the top, yes, but in the last little while you've been deferring to several other posters here, not just Vanni, so it didn't seem too surprising that you appeared to do so again.

If the church wants to become part of government than it must be held up for anybody to scruntize.

Absolutely. I don't think this has been questioned. However, I don't have a problem with the church acting on behalf of its congregants, like any other lobby group.

Well you can see for yourself that vanni and dex are intelligent...

Sure. Several people here are intelligent. I just don't think we should take what anyone says at face value... it's too easy to make claims that aren't true about our credentials. Cutting and pasting long articles and link-bombing people don't prove anything other than someone knows how to use google.

You view it as something being taken away from you, I view it as something being given to you.

I do? I'm actually insulted by that comment, peapod. I really thought you knew me better than that.

LadyC this has caused a rift for us, but that religion for ya, at least thats the way I look at, I am sure you look at it differently.

No rift. At least not on my part. However, if there were, I wouldn't blame it on religion... but intolerance.



*editted to clean up quotes. 8O

 

[Extrafire]

Some of you are debating the merits of christianity on this thread. That is off topic. Please move that discussion over to Vanni's Challenge. Thanks

 

[Extrafire]

Well, you've been pretty busy here tonight, Extrafire. I hardly know where to begin to respond, but for starters I can say that you're quite wrong in what you attribute to Einstein, you've misunderstood his position entirely.

Yes I've been busy, lots to respond to. But not tonight. Too much work demands my attention. Also my wife found out that I'm into forums again and my days here may be numbered. (Damn! This is so much fun!)

I don't know what part of Einstein I misunderstood. He did insist that if the universe has a beginning it must have a beginner (creator) and was so disturbed by that idea that he fudged his own equation, something he later called "the worst mistake of my career". However, he didn't believe in God as a being concerned with us, rather as an entity that didn't care about us one way or another. He admired the beauty and harmony of the creation, but was never religious at all.

like those we get from people like Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson, are based on ignorance and misunderstandings and distortions of the evidence.

Behe and Johnson are hardly ignorant. For example, Behe lays out the extremely complicated sequence for blood clotting in his book. Was he wrong about that? Can you suggest a way that such a proceedure could have evolved? Ouite a number of people have challenged him, but when presented with them, he has no trouble demonstrating the error of the challenge.

The conventional creationist position is indefensible in the light of modern science, and if that's your position, you are simply wrong from beginning to end.

But if that's not your position, you'd better explain what your position is. You identified yourself as a creationist, so tell us what that means.

My position is totally irrelevant for this thread, since we are here to challenge Vanni's position, and all that should really matter is the information I provide toward that end. But, what the heck, since you asked:

A creationist is one who believes that the universe was created by a superior trancendant being.

By "conventional creationist" it appears that you mean fundementalist short-term creationist, and you're correct, that belief is untennable. There are a number of variations in creationist belief.

Deist - One who believes that the universe was created and then left to run on it's own, and the creator doesn't interfere either with the running of the universe or mankind, and doesn't care about us one way or the other. Einstein belongs here.

Theist - One who believes the universe was created and the creator has from time to time made changes (ie - creation of humans)and takes an interest in us and has communicated with us. I belong here. Theism has subgroups:

a. Fundementalist short-term creationists.
b. Long term (or Day/Age) creationists, which also has subgroups:
1. Those who believe the universe has been built to run on it's own, including evolution, and the creator only interferes rarely (ie - infusion of a soul into a humanoid making it fully human, and caring and communicating with us)
2. Those who believe the creator takes a more active role in such things as speciation as well as caring and communicating with us. I pretty much belong in this camp.

The idea of short term creation has always been with us, but never had all that much prominence till someone laid out the fundementals of christianity (including 6 - 24 hr. day creation) that could not be diverged from as an answer to darwinism. Some answer! They did more to make darwinism believable than any scientist ever did. Long term day/age creation has been with us since the beginning and was the mainstream belief of the church. The catholic church accepted the big bang as the act of creation in 1951, long before many scientists would accept it at all.

Does that make a difference?

 

[zenfisher]

Yes it does make a difference...extrafire. If the word of god (bible) is believed to be truth...and an agency that professes belief in said god issues a statement accepting the big bang theory...which blatantly contridicts the word of god...How can it claim to be presenting any truthes?

 

[Extrafire]

Yes it does make a difference...extrafire. If the word of god (bible) is believed to be truth...and an agency that professes belief in said god issues a statement accepting the big bang theory...which blatantly contridicts the word of god...How can it claim to be presenting any truthes?

Actually, I was asking if it made a difference to him knowing my position. It shouldn't, since my posts are still the same.

But to your question, how does the big bang theory contradict the word of God?

 

[zenfisher]

Actually, I was asking if it made a difference to him knowing my position. It shouldn't, since my posts are still the same.

But to your question, how does the big bang theory contradict the word of God?

Sorry if I misread about your position.But I don't think I am entirely wrong about it.


A physical/chemical reaction is somewhat different than what appears in Genesis. The start of all is a willed action by god. How can there be two entirely different truths? ( this is not counting any of the other scads of religions that have a different "truth" about the start of the universe.)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Exactly right Zen...if the Bible is to be taken as the divine word of God, which most Christian denominations hold, then why is the Big Bang not explained in minute detail in the book of Genesis?

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

As I said, in my earlier post. The Church believes that the Bible IS the word of God because it believes that the writers were divinely inspired. Just like some songs are believed to be divinely inspired. The Church has declared that the books in the Bible do have truth in them, either factual OR truths about the relationship between God and his people. The books relate the ups and downs of the relationship, how it has changed over time and how humankind needs God to survive. Generally speaking, if you look in the bible and look at the stories you will find a common theme that when people turn away from God then their lives are difficult and when their lives get so bad they turn back to God and things get better.

I know this doesn't make sense in your touchy-feely world. But if you want to use the definition that the Catholic Church gives for Bible then you MUST also use its interpretation of truth and it includes more than "factual" truth.

the reason that there are conflicting accounts of the same events in the Bible is quite simple actually...the authors never corroberated their stories...in all likelyhood, they never knew each other, and often the authors of the same story are separated by generations...so what's obvious is that the stories were derived from oral traditions that were separated geographically, and/or temporally...the validity of the stories is a moot point, because they are without a doubt derived from earlier myths...

Part of what your saying is true. There were many authors of some of the books and in all likelihood they never knew each other, but your missing the whole point. Different books of the Bible are written for different audiences. The basic truth of the Bible is that God loves us all and wants us all to believe in him. The different authors write different things because they know that their particular audience would understand this basic truth in a different way then other audiences.

The Church has a real problem in that when children are taught about God's love it is easier to relate the Bible stories because they understand them better. So clergy don't often say that many of the earlier stories in the bible are fictional.(This is changing by the way, more and more priests are saying in their homilies that stories such as Adam&Eve and Noah are in fact not factual stories.)
However, as I've stated in earlier posts, many people don't progress past the grade 2 level of theology in their faith. They feel comfortable with the stories and are either uninterested, lazy or apathetic to learn anymore.

I think you need to "open the windows" in your view of the official Church and realize that their teachings AREN'T what you think they are. Your basic understanding of what they teach is WRONG.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that IS a fact!

 

[Reverend Blair]

That's only because they've been forced to change their teachings, tibear...to fudge the acceptable answer.

I'm only forty and even asking about the contradictions when I was in school could (and did) still get you into trouble. You criticize people for not advancing their theology, but the truth is that asking difficult questions has always been discouraged in the Catholic church.

 

[tibear]

RB,

We're about the same age and yes there were some sisters and priests who didn't like the questioning. However, the Church is VERY different then what you remember.

Interfaith ceremonies which were strictly forbidden 50 years ago are common place today.

Like the commercial said, "It's not your fathers Catholic Church."

Your right that they were forced to change, but the Church has embraced the change while still trying to instruct the faithful regarding faith and moral issues.

After watching the Life&Times last night about JPII, I must admit that I was a little surprised about the stance regarding condoms and the African countries. However, after they talked with the Nigerian cardinal(who is a leading contender to be next Pope), it made some sense that the church's position is that rather than telling everyone that having sex is OK with condoms, it is sticking to the message of sex within a marriage situation would fix the vast majority of problems. As the cardinal said, "Chastity has never killed anyone."

I know many of you will say that this stance isn't realistic, people are going to have sex outside marriage. Perhaps that is true, but they should still be instructed that the best situations occur when a couple waits until marriage and by giving them condoms it teaches something else. The old "actions speak louder than words".

It would be like telling your children, "Don't smoke, its bad for your health and those around you. It is every expensive and will be a drain on your resources that could be spent in much more enjoyable ways! But if you want to, I'll leave a pack of smokes by the door and let me know i you want more because I'm more than willing to buy them for you." What message do you think the kids hear?

As I've said before, a few hate the Catholic Church for what it teaches, many millions hate the Catholic Church for what they perceive it teaches.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Hey tibear, on the topic of interfaith ceremonies, try telling a congregation of Hasidic Jews that their system of belief is just a compilation of quaint little anecdotes...

The fact is that the reason the teachings of the church has changed is because people no longer believe what the church used to teach...they have been relegated to the ranks of Aesop's Fables, or the Brothers Grimm...which is where they rightly belong...

Soon too, the rest of your beliefs will unravel, as more and more discoveries are made that directly refute what the church tries to teach...it is my hope that the world will not remain ignorant of the manipulation forever...

It would be like telling your children, "Don't smoke, its bad for your health and those around you. It is every expensive and will be a drain on your resources that could be spent in much more enjoyable ways! But if you want to, I'll leave a pack of smokes by the door and let me know i you want more because I'm more than willing to buy them for you." What message do you think the kids hear?

...and what do you think they'll have heard after they've died from AIDS...after spreading the disease throughout their community on order of magnitude...

...where is the righteousness of your bloody church then, tibear???

 

[Jay]

Exactly right Zen...if the Bible is to be taken as the divine word of God, which most Christian denominations hold, then why is the Big Bang not explained in minute detail in the book of Genesis?

I doubt your being serious here, but I'll humour you. There is some science in the bible, but the bible isn't a science book....if it was it would be huge, and there would be no mysteries and there would be no question if there was a GOD and there would be no choices and no faith; the whole of this facade would be for not.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I doubt your being serious here, but I'll humour you. There is some science in the bible, but the bible isn't a science book....if it was it would be huge, and there would be no mysteries and there would be no question if there was a GOD and there would be no choices and no faith; the whole of this facade would be for not.

I find you to be quite ridiculous at times, Jay...

An all-knowing God would have known that his creations would have eventually worked out the vagaries of physics and come to understand how and why the universe was created...

If God created the universe, by causing the Big Bang to happen, why do not the first verses of Genesis read:

"In the beginning there was nothing, and then God made the Big Bang, and the universe expanded"

God, as creator of the universe, and master over time, matter and energy, should have known that we would one day understand the implications of that statement...

The authors of the bible were oblivious to science, so to suggest that they were divinely inspired is ludicrous, unless we are to believe that God too is oblivious to science...

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

Again, your partially right. But by the tone of your post you will never be willing to discuss the topic without your obvious hatred towards the Church based upon your ignorance.

The Church no longer tells science what it must preach, that stopped a long, long time ago. Instead it reserves the right to give moral instruction on the use of scientific discoveries, such as human cloning, etc.

Again, I will re-iterate for you that the Church's position isn't to give a "half-truth". The Church's position has ALWAYS been that couples are to wait for marriage before have sexual relations because men and women have different attitudes towards sex and usually the sex causes problems if it begins before a commitment takes place. So it is keeping with its teaching that abstinence until marriage is the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS or other STD's. Condoms simply encourage people to have sex and the problem is that many people either can't afford them, don't know how to use them, forget to use them, etc. So condoms don't help the situation but rather perpetuate the problem.

 

[tibear]

Vanni,
Perhaps this will help, I found it on a website:

Not long ago, in the midst of a rainstorm snuggled beneath the comforter at bedtime, I told the story of Noah and the flood to my red-haired, blue-eyed, freckle-faced daughter Hannah. Toward the end, she looked at me said; "You don’t think Noah really got all those animals on a boat do you Daddy?" At that moment I had a choice to either be an apologist for the text or to help Hannah understand the distinction between facts and truths.

"Hannah, there are things called facts and things called truths and they are not the same. I don’t believe the facts of the story about Noah or the facts in most of the other stories in the Bible, but that’s not what the bible is about. The bible is about truths. Is it a fact that Noah got all those animals on the ark? Of course not. But it’s true that we are responsible for the creatures on this planet — the destiny of creation is in our hands. That’s what the story is about — a truth, not a set of facts."

Does that help you understand??

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Also my wife found out that I'm into forums again and my days here may be numbered. (Damn! This is so much fun!)

You'd let her do that, take away so much fun from you? Maybe you need to think about renegotiating the terms of your contract with her.

I don't know what part of Einstein I misunderstood. He did insist that if the universe has a beginning it must have a beginner (creator) and was so disturbed by that idea that he fudged his own equation, something he later called "the worst mistake of my career".

That's not why he introduced the cosmological constant into the field equations of general relativity, and I've never seen that claim about his beliefs in a creator anywhere but in your post, despite reading several excellent biographies of him and his own autobiographical notes. He fudged his equations because they clearly implied an expanding universe, and there was no data at the time in support of that. The fudging results in a static solution.

Probably the definitive biography of Einstein is Ronald W. Clark's "Einstein, the Life and Times," which presents Einstein's beliefs as a variant of simple agnosticism with strong elements of Spinoza's philosophical views.

Behe and Johnson are hardly ignorant.

In their fields of expertise, you're right, they're not. But about evolution, they are.

Behe lays out the extremely complicated sequence for blood clotting in his book. Was he wrong about that?

In describing the sequence, no, he's got that right as far as I know.

Can you suggest a way that such a proceedure could have evolved?

Ah, the heart of the matter. Offhand, no, I can't, I don't have the detailed expertise required, not being an evolutionary biologist. Neither is Behe, which is what leads him astray: he thinks he understands things he doesn't. I suggest you consult Richard Dawkins' books, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who's been studying these things for decades, and knows what he's talking about. You mighty also usefully consult Ernst Mayr's works, in particular a recent book called What Evolution Is.

In general though, Behe's position is tarted up versions of the Argument from Design and the Argument from Irreducible Complexity, both of which Dawkins and Mayr show to be intellectually banrupt.

My position is totally irrelevant for this thread

On the contrary, your position determines what information you choose to present and how you choose to interpret it. So yes, it does make a difference.

Deist ... Einstein belongs here

Not really, he was mostly a pantheist in Spinoza's sense, though exactly what that means is a deeply complex subject that makes my head hurt.

Fundementalist short-term creationists.

I'm very glad to learn you're not in that camp. That's really what I meant when I said it does make a difference.

Those who believe the creator takes a more active role in such things as speciation as well as caring and communicating with us. I pretty much belong in this camp.

There's where we part company. I know of no evidence that would demonstrate any supernatural being cares for or communicates with us, or even exists at all. There are perfectly satisfactory naturalistic explanations for speciation, and to suggest that some divinity steps in to the workings of nature intermittently to adjust things knocks down the whole edifice of science. It means the universe is ultimately not logically comprehensible and consistent. The assumption that it is underlies all of science and technology, and the success of those over the last 400 years or so strongly suggests it's a legitimate assumption. It's worked pretty well so far, and relieved much human misery in a way no divinity ever did.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The Church no longer tells science what it must preach, that stopped a long, long time ago. Instead it reserves the right to give moral instruction on the use of scientific discoveries, such as human cloning, etc.

Then how come Creationism is being forced into schools in the US? How come people are discouraged from believing in evolution? How come government employees in the US who give park tours are required to mention the Christian creation myth along with scientific explanations?

Condoms simply encourage people to have sex and the problem is that many people either can't afford them, don't know how to use them, forget to use them, etc. So condoms don't help the situation but rather perpetuate the problem.

The numbers don't bear this out. In African countries that preach only abstinence the incidence of AIDS is higher than in countries that encourage the use of condoms as well as abstinence. Condoms don't perpetuate the problem, they effectively address it.

 

[tibear]

RB

Quote:
The Church no longer tells science what it must preach, that stopped a long, long time ago. Instead it reserves the right to give moral instruction on the use of scientific discoveries, such as human cloning, etc.


Then how come Creationism is being forced into schools in the US? How come people are discouraged from believing in evolution? How come government employees in the US who give park tours are required to mention the Christian creation myth along with scientific explanations?

You will find that these are fundamentalist religions that are behind this.

I've been talking about the Catholic Church. Can't comment on the other Christian religions but would tend to think that alot of them do believe as you and Vanni have asserted that the bible is 100% factual.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Vanni,
Perhaps this will help, I found it on a website:

Not long ago, in the midst of a rainstorm snuggled beneath the comforter at bedtime, I told the story of Noah and the flood to my red-haired, blue-eyed, freckle-faced daughter Hannah. Toward the end, she looked at me said; "You don’t think Noah really got all those animals on a boat do you Daddy?" At that moment I had a choice to either be an apologist for the text or to help Hannah understand the distinction between facts and truths.

"Hannah, there are things called facts and things called truths and they are not the same. I don’t believe the facts of the story about Noah or the facts in most of the other stories in the Bible, but that’s not what the bible is about. The bible is about truths. Is it a fact that Noah got all those animals on the ark? Of course not. But it’s true that we are responsible for the creatures on this planet — the destiny of creation is in our hands. That’s what the story is about — a truth, not a set of facts."

Does that help you understand??

It most certainly does...

Firstly, all of the old stories are such that in reading them, the only truth that can be gleaned is that those who wish to break from the servitude of the almighty, will do so at their peril...

God loves us, my ass...if that were true, the bible would no be proclaiming that heaven is reserved for those that devote their life to the particular flavour of servitude, and there are so many different flavours, who's to be sure which is the right one...and hell would not be there to torture those that question the venom that the priesthood has been spewing for thousands of years...

Secondly, the only way to get children to believe this tripe is to unrepentently lie to them...

PS. As I stated earlier, the stories in the Bible are very similar to Aesop's Fables...why do you not worship him?