All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. In fairness, it is the most closed minds, that speak with total certitude. This kind of caution about meaning, suggests -- to me -- a thoughtful examination and open mindedness. I have to respect that.
  3. Happy Memorial Day Weekend everyone 

  4. There are some interesting ideas in modern physics and cosmology. I don't think this thread is the place for it. More to the point. It's not enough to say that a god created the Universe. Even if this is so -- I doubt it -- the question remains. Which god? There is the God of the Bible. There is the God of Deism. There is the God of Pantheism. There is the God of Hinduism. Without getting stuck on the details, of competing ideas in physics -- there is natural process. My vote is for natural process.
  5. Religious Christians know well enough, that the Norse gods are mythology -- that the Greek gods are mythology. Their God is different. Their God is real. So they talk to their invisible friend. Worse, they expect the rest of us, to be afraid of their invisible friend. None of this is metaphysics. It's culture. Even Atheists, fall into the trap, of talking about evidence. Who looks for evidence, that Thor is running around with his Hammer? We get stuck talking about evidence for God. It comes down to emotion. God beliefs are about culture and emotion, with invisible assumptions. Not so much about facts.
  6. Hi Dan... One would think that if that book really was inspired by an almighty god it would be more consistent and less prone to interpretation...
  7. This is an obvious error in the bible, as basic physics (measurement of light, carbon dating et cetera) disproves it.... Unlees you jump yet through another loop and declare some mythical creature put all those things in there just to deceive us...
  8. Well, this is a bit outdated (again) as science is moving back to the "steady state" theory. In short: the big bang came from a massive black hole which had swallowed all previous matter from our galaxy and all matter in our current galaxy will be swallowed up back again when all the stars become black holes one by one again. Culminating in one big black hole again which wil eventually burst again in a new big bang... This is also philosophically the only explanation as everything that has a start, must have an ending...
  9. Ah, sorry... definitely "lost in translation"... Smal steps... you can't empty a sceptic tank with one scoop of a shovel. But if we keep shovelling... it just feels sometimes like the ** is pouring in faster than we can shovel it out... But to me, personally, it feels really good that social studies have empirically proven some basic ingredients that "full-fill" people's lives (more than believing in fairy tales and waiting to die): sense of belonging to a community, having a loving family/friends, a day-filling (either voluntary, hobby or paid job) that gives accomplishment/makes the world a better place, et cetera... smal steps, real answers.
  10. As people, I expect we are all stubborn about our passions. What matters is yielding to the evidence. The company is agreeable and the conversation is pleasant. It's enough.
  11. A lot of my objections to the Bible follow the same pattern. As literal history -- as science -- Scripture is at best problematic. If we are looking at poetic expression -- I'm not motivated to argue with artistic expression. Back to the opening lines. Modern translation varies greatly. I don't remember which translation it was. "In the beginning, God began creating the Heavens and the Earth." It changes everything. In the standard version, Creation was long ago and far away. It feels like a fairy tale. In this version, Creation is still happening.
  12. I'm not telling you to stop believing in the six literal days of creation Dan. Twenty years ago I could argue 24 hour days as well as anyone. I suppose I still could. Coolhand was asking for exegesis of Genesis. I'm just trying to give him one that might be less mainstream. Yes I also used to use 2 Peter when I first got away from the 6 24 hour days. I'm not trying to convince anyone that how I see Genesis 1 is the only way that could be right. Just wanted to put a less talked about possibility out there to think about.😁
  13. Yes, science is generally known for finally admitting when a previous theory is proven to be false ... Usually years and years later, sometimes decades pass before new theories are accepted. But hey, at least they usually, eventually become accepted. I understand that you feel the need for compelling evidence in order to believe in God. That's fine with me. I would enjoy being the person who presents you with that compelling evidence though, I don't think it's likely to happen in this thread.
  14. Thanks for your acknowledgement of the possibility of the days not having to be 24 hour days.😎 I'm not quite to the fourth day yet. Hopefully we will be able to get there though .😌 😁
  15. I personally believe that the creation story was 6 literal days, simply because the Hebrew seems to explicitly describe it as so. "And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:13). Such verses seem to indicate a 24 hour period by describing the rotation of the earth for each day. So imo, the day-night cycle equates to a literal day; "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5) But many Christians believe that one day equals a thousand year period. "In the day you eat of the fruit of this tree you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17). Figuratively speaking, Adam, and all his offspring before the flood, died within a day (1000 yr). Other scripture support one day year; "I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:6). And a prophetic day as described in Daniel 9:24-27 is equivalent to one year. The Day of the Lord also last a millennium. But most refer to this verse; "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
  16. Last week
  17. Yes. As you point out, these are interesting times for Cosmology and Physics. Also, as you point out -- an interesting time for secular scientists, who were loath to accept a starting time for the Universe. A Genesis style "Beginning." The difference between a mind set of religion and science; is that when new evidence is presented -- a scientist follows that evidence wherever it takes him -- regardless of personal bias. Regardless of likes and dislikes. Regardless of beliefs. I like to think that this is my orientation, to evidence regarding God. In the absence of evidence, I don't believe that God exists. Presented with compelling evidence -- like it or not -- I am prepared to reconsider, regardless of where the evidence takes me. I think that most Atheists would say something similar.
  18. I cheerfully agree with you, that the Creation "Days" of Genesis, could be a large, indeterminate time. That just means we are using the language of poetry, instead of more precise measurement. A tougher problem is sequence. Having the Sun, Moon and the other stars, all turn up on the fourth day -- that's a much tougher pill to swallow.
  19. For example, the first three words of the Bible state, in the beginning. Up until the early 20th century the best minds in science were adamant that the universe had no beginning nor would it have an end. It was known as the steady state theory. After Einstein's equations on general relativity were discovered George Lemaitre proposed, in 1927, an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts with spiral nebulae and calculated the Hubble law leading us to the big bang theory. After three and a half millennia science finally caught up to the Bible saying that the universe had a definite beginning. While Stephen Hawking said that there was no need for a first cause, that goes contrary to everything else we know about the physical universe.
  20. check your state laws.some states don't recognize celebrants or "marriage officiants". also be careful what you sign up for.
  21. Ok Coolhand, let me start by saying, I see Genesis 1 as a best explanation of how the universe began to a man 3500 years ago. Men who did not have the knowledge that we have accumulated over time. I was once taught that when looking at scripture, if a text can be looked at from more than 1 perspective, it should be. All possible views should be examined, and the most likely or most reasonable understanding should be given the most validity. The first thing I think we should discuss is the use of the word Yom. The Hebrew word Yom has multiple meanings. While it is traditionally understood to be a 24 hour day, it is also used to refer to the time from sunup to sundown, just as in English. Where it gets interesting is when we look at some of the other ways Yom can be used. The most applicable, to me, would be that Yom can be used to denote an undetermined amount of time, such as an Eon or age. When we look at the use of the word Yom through out Genesis 1 as an age or Eon the whole text seems to have taken on a different level of explanation. In my opinion, when looked at in this way it seems that science is finally catching up with what is being explained in Genesis. There are only a couple of places where science and Genesis disagree. In those areas science can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's explanation is more accurate than the Genesis account.
  22. I was making an attempt at humor. It's an old usage, but a physic is something that fights constipation. Like prune juice. So it follows, that a meta physic is something stronger than a regular physic. Something that will remove all fecal matter from the colon. I thought a bit of humor/levity would help an overly serious topic. Well, I tried. Ignoring my failed attempt at comedy -- what has metaphysics done for Humanity? What potential good, can come from meta-physics? By my standards, the mind of Man is still full of crap.
  23. Aren't you contradicting yourself? Or maybe something gets lost in translation... ? (Sorry English isn't my native language.) But you just summed up a bunch of questions/fields that are part of metaphysics and provided us with clear and empirical answers to some important metaphysical questions... Sure, the "hardcore" meta-physics aren't good for anything that matters (at the moment?). But we're getting further every (little?) step...
  24. Hi, I am a newy! However, the way around the wedding issue is to register as celebrant . Then you can officiate marriage legally. There’s some good online diplomas to qualify with.
  25. Not commentaries, but a question. Does Genesis 1:16 have anything to do with Astrology? Or am I seeing something that isn't there?
  26. Were starting a "through the Bible" study in our ministry, starting at the beginning. I've been reading through this exegetical commentary: http://www.thestonescryout.com/creation/genesis_1-2_exegetical_commentary?fbclid=IwAR3b01OoB_gd6nkvo_1ijM-ZA1IUfKzD-2tq3bdaqVAfOA3a53-fEcegsl4 The translators of the NIV use center justified to show poetry, and left justified to show prose, but Gen 1 is neither. There is some confusion in regard to what Gen 1 is. Some say its a song, or a poem, or a polemic of Moses against the Egyptian's Gods. I'm firmly in the "other" camp and think it is literature. I think writer is trying to get the point across that God is the creator and the source, and that the the sabbath day is blessed. I'm talking about Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. Anybody got any good exegetical commentaries to share? I try to stay away from the devotional commentaries.
  1. Load more activity