I just can't wait to see how this fiction gets presented in an interactive textbook, or interactive Bible! Particularly the bit where it explains how that event in the 'Garden of Eden' caused all the genetic mutations which now produce nasty diseases like cystic fibrosis and cancer, even in people who existed on other continents well before Adam was 'created' from dust and Eve was created from one of his ribs. By the way, that was a neat bit of chemistry and human genetics - DNA and proteins from silicon dioxide, and replacing all the Y-chromosomes in Adam's rib with extra X-chromosomes! That should be easy to explain with interactive graphics - pity it can't be explained with 21st Century science?
Perhaps the chapter on the creation of the universe in '7 days' will be equally illuminating? Or the one on Noah's flood will explain where all the water came from and then went to? Then maybe there will be the chapter on angels, the location of the gates of heaven, and the tooth fairy. And the one that explains how drug resistant bacteria get created by the sadistic (but intelligent) designer just to keep us all in fear and suffering, and believing in your religious propaganda. Is it any wonder that America now rates 32nd in the world on the basis of scientific knowledge, and has now almost completely lost credibility in an increasing well educated world?
Well even medical science acknowledges that emotional problems can affect your physical health. For instance stress and fear can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, and asthma. If you want a 21st century science view on the effects of psychological processes on the human body then look into Psychoneuroimmunology.
So I don't think it's too far of a stretch to consider that something that would impact the human soul, such as sin entering the world, could result in a variety of diseases. Especially when you understand that the impact of sin strikes at the very core of a human and that sinful behavior is the result of the impact of sin on that individual. For instance after the fall, Adam hid from God because he was afraid and he covered himself with a fig leaf because he was ashamed. Cain killed Abel because he was jealous...and we could go on and on. The point is that in each of these instances there was something inside of the individual (fear, shame, jealousy) that brought about the actions of hiding, covering up, or murder. It's not unreasonable to believe that inward distress can bring about physical symptoms in the long run.
You brought up some instances of stories in the Bible that definetly are not every day events and that do stretch the mind to try to grasp. But you left out the most incredible story of all which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ really did rise from the dead then the stories you have mentioned are not out of the realm of possibility because they would be acts of God.
And how do you explain the story of the resurrection? Were the disciples trying to start a new religion? They already had a well established religion in Judaism. Were they looking for power and prestige? The power and prestige of the church didn't come until hundreds of years later. Their faith brought lives of hardship for them and all except one died as martyrs. Were they lying about seeing Christ? If so then they gave their lives for something they knew was a lie. People will give their lives for something they think is true but not for something they know is a lie. Were they imagining things? If so then someone could have produced the body of Jesus and put an end to it. It also wouldn't explain how people other than the disciples also saw Jesus.
Chief among those other people was Saul of Tarsus who later became Paul the Apostle. What would cause a man who hated and persecuted Christians to become one of Christianity's chief proponents? Whatever objections you have to Christianity, Paul had the same and even more because he killed Christians. I trust that you haven't killed any Christians in your opposition to their faith. What would it take to make you change your mind? Wouldn't it take some pretty solid evidence? That's what Paul claimed because he claimed that Christ appeared to him. As a matter of fact Paul was so sure of what he saw that he wrote in the letter to the Corintians that if Christ had not truly risen, and if there is no resurrection, then our faith is in vain and that we should all eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. He was not merely preaching good morals or that people ought to just be nice to each other, he already had that in Judaism. But he preached the resurrected Christ and that God himself had come to our world.
I realize that none of the things I have said can be proven scientifically in a lab. However this is not a question of science but of history. There is no historical event that can be proven by science alone because the scientific method requires the ability to conduct experiments, observe results, and draw conclusions. You can not go back and reproduce history because it is a one-time happening. For historical research you must rely on the testimony of witnesses and whatever physical evidence that may have survived. Science can play a part in evaluating the physical evidence of history but ultimately we have to rely on what those who have went before us have passed down to us.
The best we can do in determining the truthfulness of historical testimony is to see if the writer has contradicted him or herself, or if there is sufficient testimony that reports something different. In all historical reportings, the recipients must use their judgement to determine if the reports they have received are true. If a person has predetermined before examining the evidence that there is no such thing as God or the supernatural then any evidence to the contrary will automatically be dismissed because it doesn't fit the assumptons that have already been made. The opposite mistake can also be made if one assumes that every report of the supernatural is automatically true when it may not be.
I think that if we are going to really seek the truth then we have to be open to either possibility and see where the evidence leads us. But we also have to understand that in evaluating evidence that we will have to draw conclusions one way or the other because there will undoubtedly be gaps in the evidence we try to understand. I think of it as taking a step of faith and it is required in about anything we claim to know because none of us possess all knowledge. We all have to make assumptions about some things. That is where our good judgment, will, and philosophy will play a part in the conclusions we draw. In the end, the truth is the truth and it is not created or destroyed by our belief or unbelief. The deficiency is not with the truth but only with our understanding of it.
Comments
I just can't wait to see how this fiction gets presented in an interactive textbook, or interactive Bible! Particularly the bit where it explains how that event in the 'Garden of Eden' caused all the genetic mutations which now produce nasty diseases like cystic fibrosis and cancer, even in people who existed on other continents well before Adam was 'created' from dust and Eve was created from one of his ribs. By the way, that was a neat bit of chemistry and human genetics - DNA and proteins from silicon dioxide, and replacing all the Y-chromosomes in Adam's rib with extra X-chromosomes! That should be easy to explain with interactive graphics - pity it can't be explained with 21st Century science?
Perhaps the chapter on the creation of the universe in '7 days' will be equally illuminating? Or the one on Noah's flood will explain where all the water came from and then went to? Then maybe there will be the chapter on angels, the location of the gates of heaven, and the tooth fairy. And the one that explains how drug resistant bacteria get created by the sadistic (but intelligent) designer just to keep us all in fear and suffering, and believing in your religious propaganda. Is it any wonder that America now rates 32nd in the world on the basis of scientific knowledge, and has now almost completely lost credibility in an increasing well educated world?
Well even medical science acknowledges that emotional problems can affect your physical health. For instance stress and fear can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, and asthma. If you want a 21st century science view on the effects of psychological processes on the human body then look into Psychoneuroimmunology.
So I don't think it's too far of a stretch to consider that something that would impact the human soul, such as sin entering the world, could result in a variety of diseases. Especially when you understand that the impact of sin strikes at the very core of a human and that sinful behavior is the result of the impact of sin on that individual. For instance after the fall, Adam hid from God because he was afraid and he covered himself with a fig leaf because he was ashamed. Cain killed Abel because he was jealous...and we could go on and on. The point is that in each of these instances there was something inside of the individual (fear, shame, jealousy) that brought about the actions of hiding, covering up, or murder. It's not unreasonable to believe that inward distress can bring about physical symptoms in the long run.
You brought up some instances of stories in the Bible that definetly are not every day events and that do stretch the mind to try to grasp. But you left out the most incredible story of all which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ really did rise from the dead then the stories you have mentioned are not out of the realm of possibility because they would be acts of God.
And how do you explain the story of the resurrection? Were the disciples trying to start a new religion? They already had a well established religion in Judaism. Were they looking for power and prestige? The power and prestige of the church didn't come until hundreds of years later. Their faith brought lives of hardship for them and all except one died as martyrs. Were they lying about seeing Christ? If so then they gave their lives for something they knew was a lie. People will give their lives for something they think is true but not for something they know is a lie. Were they imagining things? If so then someone could have produced the body of Jesus and put an end to it. It also wouldn't explain how people other than the disciples also saw Jesus.
Chief among those other people was Saul of Tarsus who later became Paul the Apostle. What would cause a man who hated and persecuted Christians to become one of Christianity's chief proponents? Whatever objections you have to Christianity, Paul had the same and even more because he killed Christians. I trust that you haven't killed any Christians in your opposition to their faith. What would it take to make you change your mind? Wouldn't it take some pretty solid evidence? That's what Paul claimed because he claimed that Christ appeared to him. As a matter of fact Paul was so sure of what he saw that he wrote in the letter to the Corintians that if Christ had not truly risen, and if there is no resurrection, then our faith is in vain and that we should all eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. He was not merely preaching good morals or that people ought to just be nice to each other, he already had that in Judaism. But he preached the resurrected Christ and that God himself had come to our world.
I realize that none of the things I have said can be proven scientifically in a lab. However this is not a question of science but of history. There is no historical event that can be proven by science alone because the scientific method requires the ability to conduct experiments, observe results, and draw conclusions. You can not go back and reproduce history because it is a one-time happening. For historical research you must rely on the testimony of witnesses and whatever physical evidence that may have survived. Science can play a part in evaluating the physical evidence of history but ultimately we have to rely on what those who have went before us have passed down to us.
The best we can do in determining the truthfulness of historical testimony is to see if the writer has contradicted him or herself, or if there is sufficient testimony that reports something different. In all historical reportings, the recipients must use their judgement to determine if the reports they have received are true. If a person has predetermined before examining the evidence that there is no such thing as God or the supernatural then any evidence to the contrary will automatically be dismissed because it doesn't fit the assumptons that have already been made. The opposite mistake can also be made if one assumes that every report of the supernatural is automatically true when it may not be.
I think that if we are going to really seek the truth then we have to be open to either possibility and see where the evidence leads us. But we also have to understand that in evaluating evidence that we will have to draw conclusions one way or the other because there will undoubtedly be gaps in the evidence we try to understand. I think of it as taking a step of faith and it is required in about anything we claim to know because none of us possess all knowledge. We all have to make assumptions about some things. That is where our good judgment, will, and philosophy will play a part in the conclusions we draw. In the end, the truth is the truth and it is not created or destroyed by our belief or unbelief. The deficiency is not with the truth but only with our understanding of it.