An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…

Speaking of eyes, this occured to me the other day while I was reading Genisis: Look at every prey and predator on the planet (past and present). Predator eyes invariably are on the front of the face, facing forward. This gives them good stereoscopic vision so they can judge distance and speed. Perfect for a creature that hunts other living creatures for food.

Prey creatures on the other hand tend to have their eyes on the sides of their head facing opposite directions. This gives them almost a 360 degree field of view. Perfect for a creatures who has its head down chewing grass and still needs to keep an eye open for predators.

An argument FOR Intelligent Design you would think. Except that in Genesis, God created a perfect world where there was no pain, death and the lion laid down with the lamb. There were no prey and predators. Everyone just got along.

So, if thats true, why would God design hunters when in that perfect world everything was provided for them. Why would god have made the lion or the crocodile such an effecient killing machine when he never intended it to kill?

Perhaps he did intend it them to kill? If he is imnipotent then he already knew that Eve would eat the apple and get cast out of Eden and the spell would be broken. He knew his lions and crocodiles whould have to fend for themselves.

No where in Genesis does it say, “And after he cast out Adam and Eve from the Garden, he went back to his blueprints and redesigned the vegitarian crocodile and gave it a bit more bite.”

There are so many parts of the bible (and Genesis in particular) that just don’t make sense. So many in fact, that I would have binned the book by chapter 2 if I’d never heard of the book and picked it up in a bookshop.

And people are willing to die AND kill for this nonsense?

Advertisements

Software developer by day, scale model builder and wargamer by night.

Posted in Atheism, Creation vs. Evolution, Makes You Think
18 comments on “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…
  1. Excellent point! That’s a new one I can chew on regarding the eye locations.

    I do want to make sure you understand that according to the bible, a day to God is like a thousand years to us humans (Psalm 90:4,2 Peter 3:8), which could have even been a million for that matter since the operative word is “like”. The thing that does make sense is that from a scientific standpoint it says first our planet was formless since there was no gravitational pulls until the sun came on the scene(thousand years). Next came our planet, which was completely covered in water (thousand years). Then the land mass began protruding through, separating the water. We know the earth expanded as it cooled, so who knows it just may have been small enough at one point that the entire planet was completely engulfed in water.

    Then different kinds of plants and trees began to grow (thousand years). Next came the formation of the other planets (thousand years). Then the water creatures inhabited the earth (thousand years), followed by birds. There weren’t many, which is why he said for them to be fruitful. Then came the land animals (thousand years), and finally followed by man. And it says man was made from clay, which we have found to be scientifically true for the most part? Sounds sorta evolutionary if you ask me.

    Now remember, it’s a scientific fact that animals do evolve to a point. So there’s nothing to say that earlier predators had their eyes on the side when they ate vegetation and through natural selection their eyes began migrating on their faces due to efficiency as they began eating other animals.

    My point regarding the eyes, was that we haven’t found any skeletal remains of any vertebrata animals that did not have eyes at all or even early formations of them. Yes I completely agree with studies found with horseshoe crabs and jelly fish and the like, but that’s not my point. I’m talking about vertebrates with the early stages of an eye socket. Every fossil record shows fully formed octal lobes, unless they were on their way to losing what they once had due to non-usage.

    I’m sure you also knew that the bible even describes first hand experiences with dinosaurs in Leviticus 11:9.

    Many parts of the bible don’t make sense the first go-round, the cool thing about it is that it’s like any intriguing book, you find something new the more you read it, which makes it captivating. When Jesus came on the scene, he answered many of the questions his fellow Jews had for many years, and he used the very same scriptures they had been reading all along to answer them. There was nothing he said that couldn’t be found in the original Torah, yet the things he said from them were revolutionary.

    People die and kill for many different reasons aside from religion; unfortunately/fortunately part of what separates us from animals is the gift of making decisions that may contradict our instincts. There are pros and cons to everything in life and the con for being able to make decisions outside of instinctual ones, is its abuse. The pro to this gift is that we have the ability to stop doing something that doesn’t make sense, like killing someone for differing beliefs. Just as you may have made mistakes in your life, religious groups are bound to make mistakes simply because they are made up of other humans like yourself. The same is the case for society as a whole, so don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

  2. ooops forgot to give my 2 cents about the Eve/God question…

    For God to know everything isn’t really all that difficult to understand. A scientist can “fortell” exactly what will happen if you mix certain chemicals together, because he understands the compositions and how they interact with each other. People try to fit God into our paradigm as some old man, when he’s completely outside of the laws that make up our reality and knows exactly how and why everything works in this reality he created.

    As I mentioned earlier, acting against instincts is what makes us human, so by doing what Eve did, she was the first person to excercise the use of that freedom we’d been given. Now I’m not sure which bible you’re reading, but I’ve never read one that said she was eating an apple. I’ve also never seen anything saying lions were laying down with lambs.

    The consequence for excercising their freedom from instinct was self awareness. To cover their new found shame, an animal was killed to clothe them (Early Cave People perhaps?). By the way, the theme throughout the bible is that the sacrifice for sin is death. It ended with Jesus and began with the animal being killed to clothe Adam and Eve. Who knows, maybe the animal killed for the skin may have been consumed by one of the early predators which led it it’s adaptation for hunting?

    FYI: This particular discussion would not be acceptable Scientific ID subjects in my opinion. It would be more along the lines of philosophy or straight religion. An ID science class would be taught from real science books like these: http://www.ccel.us/gange.biblio.html

  3. Richard@Home says:

    “I do want to make sure you understand that according to the bible, a day to God is like a thousand years to us humans (Psalm 90:4,2 Peter 3:8)”

    I do want to make sure you understand that if the physical evidence we see in the world does not match with the biblical story, either: a) The bible is wrong, or b) the bible is right and a deceitful god deliberately planted false information to trick us.

    Ok, so it took god a 100 billion years to make everything. Except that its only been 6 to 10,000 biblical (human) years since he finished the job.

    In those 6 to 10,1000 years we’ve had at least 350,000 years human history (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2885663.stm).

    “My point regarding the eyes, was that we haven’t found any skeletal remains of any vertebrata animals that did not have eyes at all or even early formations of them.”

    I think its pretty amazing we’ve found ANY fossils at all. I also think that any creature suitably evolved enough to have bones (and the associated organs, nerves, circulation, etc. to support such a complex biological mechanism) would have already have developed quite complex eyes by then.

    We have to look further back to see evidence of simple eyes. We have to look back to the earliest fishes and molluscs (which appear in the fossil record long before more complex creatures, not intermingled with them as they would be if everything was created at once).

    “I’m sure you also knew that the bible even describes first hand experiences with dinosaurs in Leviticus 11:9.”

    hehe, that was an astonishing claim which I had to go double check: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2011:9-12&version=9;

    Nope, no mention of anything remotely dinosaurish there. Sounds more like a list of things god says you can and can’t eat. Shame realy, squid is one of my favourite sea foods, along with prawns, lobster, …

    “Many parts of the bible don’t make sense the first go-round”

    Many parts of the bible don’t make sense no matter how many times I read them.

    “the cool thing about it is that it’s like any intriguing book, you find something new the more you read it,”

    The more I read it, the more holes I find it it to be honest. What I believe you are doing is retro fitting your world model to fit the model described in the bible. Anything that doesn’t fit that model is either discarded or explained away as ‘the work of god’.

    “People die and kill for many different reasons aside from religion;”

    Yes, that’s true. But when someone says ‘I killed him because the pink elephants told me to’, we put them in prison or a mental institute. We don’t make them a saint, and we don’t go an encourage others to kill in the name of the pink elephant.

    “The pro to this gift is that we have the ability to stop doing something that doesn’t make sense, like killing someone for differing beliefs.”

    I’m still waiting for the killing to stop…

    “Just as you may have made mistakes in your life, religious groups are bound to make mistakes simply because they are made up of other humans like yourself.”

    But this human doesn’t claim to be guided by a divine, faultless, invisible friend. My mistakes are my own, and I learn from them. I don’t keep making the same mistakes again and again just because a book told me to.

  4. Richard@Home says:

    “For God to know everything isn’t really all that difficult to understand”

    Yes it is, it defies logic at the most fundamental level. In a nutshell, for god to have the capacity to know everything he would have to have (or be) a storage mechanism as big as everything to hold that knowledge. He’d then have to have a retrieval mechanism outside of the storage mechanism to ‘know’ anything. But if the storage mechanism was ‘everything’, there’d be no room for the retrieval mechanism. Unless of course the retrieval mechanism was part of the storage mechanism, then there would be no room for the stuff you wanted to store the knowledge about.

    That makes my head hurt.

    “A scientist can “foretell” exactly what will happen if you mix certain chemicals together”

    Yes, and do you know why he can do that? Because countless other scientists before him have run countless experiments before him, recorded their results and had those results independently peer reviewed to make sure they are right. There is no magic here.

    “As I mentioned earlier, acting against instincts is what makes us human,”

    Acting with our instinct is what makes us animal. Hungry? Horny? Sleepy?

    “so by doing what Eve did, she was the first person to excercise the use of that freedom we’d been given.”

    So everyone else got punished because Eve use the very talent we are told is gods greatest gift to us?

    “Now I’m not sure which bible you’re reading,

    I read many versions of the bible. How else could I get a balanced view of it?

    “but I’ve never read one that said she was eating an apple.”

    Oops, my bad – I meant to say ‘fruit of the the tree of life’ (Christian). Ah, my mistake, I of course meant, ‘sacred peach tree’ (Toaist). No, I REALLY meant, ‘Peepal’ tree (Buddhist/Hindu). Tsk. I’m not concentrating, of course I meant ‘golden apple tree’ (Greek), or was it the maize plant (Mayan)…

    “The consequence for excercising their freedom from instinct was self awareness. To cover their new found shame, an animal was killed to clothe them (Early Cave People perhaps?).”

    You actually comparing Adam & Eve to Neanderthals? But god made Adam & Eve (and us) in his own image and that is a very different image to that a Neanderthal and the early hominids.

    This particular post was never about ID. It was about just one of the many problems I have with pretty much all the creation myths. They don’t match the observable evidence.

  5. Whoopsie daisies, posted wrong scripture for the biblical dinosaurs. I meant this one: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040-41;&version=31;

  6. Richard@Home says:

    At a cursory glance, it sounds like an alligator to me. A living fossil… I am continuing to explore 🙂

  7. Richard@Home says:

    I’m making these notes as I delve deeper…

    “His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”

    A dragon? O.o

  8. Richard@Home says:

    Whoooh, I got so caught up in the fundies trying to reconcile their book I may have missed the point…

  9. Richard@Home says:

    “And now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal like that in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle can do it, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree?”

    Hold on! The bible is talking about some HUGE creature breathing fire, not some insect farting fire! …

  10. Richard@Home says:

    quotes coming from here atm: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

    “Many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages. Scientists have not been able to guess the reason for these passages. Would it make sense that some dinosaurs used these passages as “gas tanks” for the combustible mixture used to “breathe fire?” We believe it does.”

    No, of course not. To use your own argument: “You wonder what parts I consider unknown? You pretty much answered it yourself. “We know all the parts, we are just waiting for the proof.” The areas that are lacking proofs are by definition unknown and can’t be categorized as knowns.”

    Ok, it conjecture and not fact. It can be disregarded until we have other proof that backs it up.

  11. Richard@Home says:

    I’m very tired and quite drunk and the argument FOR an ID view of the world still doesnt make sense. And the ID argument against evolution still don’t make sense either.

    How drunk/tired/browbeaten to I have to get before your argument starts to make sense?

  12. Dang dude, having a conversation with you is like having one with my wife 10 years ago when neither of us tried to actually hear what the other was saying. One of the prime indicators of a identifying a person that’s not really trying to have a conversation, is when that person is never willing to concede on any points of the discussion.

    I remember going to a mid-week church service with a buddy of mine once, and his congregation turned off the lights, lit candles and they all started the hummina hummina’s of talking in tongues and touching my forehead and my back. It gave me the heebie jeebies. The next day we talked about it and I showed him the scriptures that said that even if a person were actually talking in tongues it was supposed to be done privately, and if in a group setting only one person could speak if and only if someone was available that could interpret. He had never seen the scripture before and was perplexed, so I asked him to talk to his spiritual leaders about it to see if they could conform to doctrine. A week later I asked if he had spoken to them or changed his own personal practices and he said he hadn’t.

    I said all that to say, that even though I personally don’t subscribe to talking in tongues, I did admit the scriptures were there that said it was possible. So I conceded to the points that I had no verifiable proof of, yet categorically did not accept the ones that I did. (By the way, my personal belief is that a person would be able to stand up and start talking in an actual foreign language that they themselves could not understand, and there would be someone in the congregation that would be able to interpret that particular language from where they were born. This of course doesn’t include the unintelligible ones spoken in private. I’ve never witnessed either.)

    Many of the wars of the world were fought on a larger scale because of the same logic you’ve been displaying on this smaller one. Refusing to bend where there’s room to bend and an inability to take oneself out of their own perspective to view something from another’s.

    I conceded that perhaps it did take longer than actual days to create the earth and its inhabitants based on scriptures regarding time in
    the bible, you still argued around this.

    I conceded that perhaps evolution did play a part; based on the order the bible describes each animal’s existence.

    I conceded that perhaps Adam and Eve were the first cave people. No one knows what they looked like, they obviously didn’t know how to make homes and they were covered in animal skins, and we clearly have some descendants today that look like they have some Neanderthal blood in them. 😉

    I admitted the bible should NOT be used as the determining factor for decisions of Intelligent Design. I even went so far as to say that it could have been a woman, multiple people, shucks it could have even been another lifeform from a distant galaxy that designed the DNA/RNA structure used by our particular planet. The bottom line is that scientifically it is completely impossible for DNA/RNA to be accidentally generated on even the smallest scale of a single celled living thing. There isn’t a shred of scientific evidence anywhere to support this idea. Your response of “who created the creator” is what a person does when their scrambling to rebut for the sake of rebuttal. It’s like having a discussion about the evolution of computers, then trying to tie in, “….yeah, but who created the person that created the first computer.”

    I provided a list of legitimate science based books that ID could use to discover whether or not creationist ideology was plausible. Keyword here is PLAUSIBLE. I explained that both Evolutionists and ID would need to provide full disclosure in a class setting, meaning, both would have to fully explain their own individual pros and cons, which they both clearly have.

    You are not willing to accept that it’s little more than amazing that the ancient people that wrote the scriptures had access to information that we were literally made from earth elements, which is now scientifically proven.

    “Yes it is, it defies logic at the most fundamental level. In a nutshell, for god to have the capacity to know everything he would have to have”

    How much data are you walking around with on a daily basis? Not only is your entire body made up of “Billions” of DNA strands, each of which are composed of “Billions” of data about you, you also have a brain that we currently have no way of recording its full capacity. How much space do you take up? Trying to conceive how an entity that can create of life on that scale operates, and understanding the laws that would govern it, is on the scale of a computer trying to understand humans.

    “Acting with our instinct is what makes us animal. Hungry? Horny? Sleepy?”

    Again, with that non-conceding logic of yours. Of course having instincts doesn’t make us animals, but having the “ability” to ignore our instincts is strictly a human gift. Having the “ability” to starve oneself like Ghandi for the sake of others, makes us human. The “ability” to STAY faithful to one’s wife, even if a guy meets another woman he’s attracted to and she wants to jump his bones, makes us human. The “ability” to stand up for the rights of others non-violently, in the face of an impending violent death, like Dr. Martin Luthor King Jr., makes us human. The “ability” to purposely stay awake all night to study for a test the next day, makes us human.

    “Hold on! The bible is talking about some HUGE creature breathing fire, not some insect farting fire! …”

    Do you realize how many millions of plants and animals we have on the planet in our current lifetime that completely defies all scientific laws? I’m sure another thousand years or so from now, some knucklehead will say the same thing you’re saying about some of the creatures we see on a regular basis today.

    “We don’t make them a saint, and we don’t go an encourage others to kill in the name of the pink elephant.”

    Nor did Jesus ever say to do this, if he did somewhere, show me.

    “Many parts of the bible don’t make sense no matter how many times I read them.”

    Because you lack the keys to unlock them. Did you ever see the posters that were out for awhile that just looked like colored patterns of squiggles and dots? At first, second, and even third glance it still made no sense whatsoever. But if someone came along and taught you how to stare at it just right, an entirely clear 3D picture became evident. Jesus was the key that taught us how to make sense of what seemingly looks senseless through humility.

  13. Side note regarding the fire-breather…

    It says that it can stand up, so it can’t be an alligator. Also alligators have smooth stomachs, not jagged ones that would leave vertical grooves in the mud . And I’m sure swords, spears and a javelin can easily pierce any alligator’s skin. The scales on its back they equate to shields.

    And fire breathing isn’t really a stretch to believe. Just as cows burb methane, this particular creature could have been simply expelling flammable gasses on queue when it felt endangered or angered. We know we have electrical receptors in our bodies, in fact that’s what sharks sense for when searching for prey buried in the sand. So having some form of exposed electrical receptors that spark in its mouth when it’s angry, combined with flammable gas due to digestion wouldn’t seem so impossible.

    What did you think of the behemoth? What elephant or hippo has a tail like a cedar?

  14. Necrall says:

    We stand on opposite sides of the fence then. Way way way far apart sides, 😛

    And I’m going to leave it at that… no I’m not going to get into this topic (AGAIN) cause frankly.. I’m tired of it … and I just did a 3 hour exam in Concurrent and Distributed Systems.

  15. Necrall says:

    Not tired of talking to you that is. Just tired of the whole Creation/Evolution shenanigans…

  16. Antony Ellis says:

    Hi rich

    “And people are willing to die…”

    Many people have in fact died for proclaiming the Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Take China for example, people are murdered by the government and people are forced to hold meetings in secret to avoid death.. This happens all over the world but China has probably seen the biggest number of Christian Martyrs in this century.

    You see being willing to die “to self” is actually a major part of what it means to be a Christian; this results in a dynamic relationship with God himself.

    “AND kill for this nonsense”

    Christians and Jews don’t blow themselves up, and they don’t KILL other people whether they accept or reject the bibles teachings.

    One of the 10 commandments Richard is “Thou shall not murder”.

    After reading your post, Simply put: You can not blame god for a world that is not perfect, and you can not blame God for the actions of sinful men.

    You almost see God like some referee who doesn’t bother to blow his whistle when somebody fouls.

    God blew the whistle two thousand years ago where he flung the sins of the world onto his only son, when he died on the cross for all sinners.

    We don’t truly however understand “SIN” and it’s route power, it was strong enough to break mankind’s relationship with God often referred to as being spiritually dead, along with entropy, decay and the winding down of the universe.

    In the beginning when god had created the heavens and the earth he said “it is good”, but when sin entered so did death.

    When Jesus entered onto the arena, he brought “life” back to the human race and the opportunity for us to know the true and loving God personally – It’s not good news, it is GREAT NEWS.

    The god of the bible “is love”, his teachings tell us “to love”, you really have lost the most elementary doctrines the bible teaches, you are too busy reading Terry Pratchett tripe which is the real nonsense here.

    Last year I went to India with a team to preach the good news and to pray for the sick. It was in the middle of a field in one of the most remote and poorest villages on the planet where I saw young children that could not walk – suddenly walk. The blind – see and the deaf hear when the name of Jesus was spoken “in English”, I emphasize English because most of the Indian people that got healed didn’t know the language but were still healed on the spot.

    Is this nonsense? Or is this a massive correlation with the events documented throughout the bible and the promises that God gave to the believers.

    Do these miracles seem like the act of a hateful god that supports mass murder and suicide?

    These miracles, speaking in unknown tongues, casting out evil spirits, raising the dead are “signs” to unbelievers and a demonstration of the love, mercy and grace of God to those who are still “spiritually” dead in their sins!

    Moving on … Evolution and the scientists who “still” support this fallen theory are being criticized by many of their “own peers”.

    This article is from 2002, but worth a read
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,644002,00.html

    Richard let me know when YOU are next available for a trip to Kenya, India or even Pakistan, you can come with us and tell the parents who see there lame, blind, death child get healed that it’ s all a load of nonsense.

    If you are not willing to at least do that – you should consider not calling our beliefs nonsense and watch what you type in the future.

    Take care of yourself bro 🙂

  17. Ibbo says:

    Moving on … Evolution and the scientists who “still” support this fallen theory are being criticized by many of their “own peers”.

    I must admit that I have some sympathy with this position, not because I agree with it, but because when evolution is presented as “THE WAY” I wonder if it’s better or worse than any other theory of evolution. Indeed, perhaps it might be better if the theory were referred to as “A theory of evolution” or “The darwinian theory of evolution”, because calling it “The theory of evolution” seems a bit over the top to me.

    We don’t have “The theory of gravity”. Gravity is an effect we all agree on, and we have several theories, one specifically which is generally accepted (in that it predicts an effect rather well, and the predition has attached to it a model of curved space, which seems quite pleasing asthetically, but I’m not sure we have any evidence that thats how it really *Is* (Don’t even get me started on the atomic model… no wonder I never got a chemistry qualification)).

    Sorry.. wandered off topic. The problem for me, is the theory of evolution is by nature a theory. It’s open to being disproved at any time. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t be a theory by any definition of science that I know. BUT.. it’s the best guess science can make at the moment. When a group starts to question an aspect of the theory, as in the observer article, thats exactly how it should be. The problem is that the strong athiests push the theory of evolution *way* too hard in the first place. Not because it’s a theory they happen to accept, but because there seems to be some need to be “Right” beyond all doubt. And, news-flash, thats not a scientific theory, thats religion. The net effect is that when the scientific process raises a question, all those people the stong atheists have tried to batter with “THE theory of evolution” push back equally hard and jump on the argument, saying “Even your peers can’t agree, so how can the theory be right”. And there in lies the problem, the theory isn’t “Right”, it’s the best attempt we have at the moment to explain what we can see. It’s supposed to evolve (If I dare use that word) through a process of being questions and better theories being proposed.

    “Christians and Jews don’t blow themselves up, and they don’t KILL other people whether they accept or reject the bibles teachings.”

    In exactly the same way that I feel that the strong athiests do a severe disservice to the scientific community, I think this is equally the other way. Recent wars have, like it or not, been instigated by people with strong right wing christian views, and for those who wish it, I understand that the christian faith still plays the dominant role in our armed services. Of course you can claim that those people were not acting in accordance with what you choose as your beliefs, but the simple truth is that *they* *are* the products of the application of christian teachings in our dangerous modern world. Those who fight on our side in these wars are told it’s OK to die in the service of their country, and are offered faith as a comfort. The fact they have to take the lives of others is an unfortunate aside, apparently (N.B. I’m no pacifist, I just like to know what I’m fighting for). Christians *do* kill, and even wose, ask others of less discrimination to do it on their behalf. Apparently, those people can still be saved, whilst the rest of us, who’ve tried to live good, yet secular lives, and be honest foremost to ourselves, and with others are apparently not going to fare so well.

    As for miracles, I think your stories (By which I mean your reports, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt) are amazing, and I don’t know what to make of them. I *Do* know (As a matter of faith, I’ve not researched it) that in that same year, science provided the means to transport water, vaccines, sanitation, the means for you to travel to india and a whole host of other things, without which there might not have even been a village to hear the good news.

    I’ve never seen any signs, any reason to believe in *any* religious system of belief. I *have* however, been given many signs that the scientific model can yield benefits in this life. Oddly, to those who believe in it or not. If you’re going to choose your faith based on the number of signs given to you or miracles performed, I’d ask you to spare a thought next time you get in a car, have a child vaccinated, have a peadophile brought to justice by forensic informatics, eat strawberries in winter, have ditry water transformed into drinking water, I could go on, but you get my point?

    So, I’m not available to go to kenya right now, and to be honest, I’d rather donate the cost of travel to an aid organisation and get water to a village. I know I’d be passing up on the chance to witness a blind person see, but I *Know* that some good would come of the money. The Good News, no *Great* news, is that we’ve got loads of blind people in this country too, so let me know when you’re free and rich and I will meet up and join you so you can show us a bit closer to home?

    You take care also 🙂

  18. Antony Ellis says:

    Thanks for the interesting read and your comments.

    “Evolution: It’s open to being disproved at any time”

    At the risk of being picky, I might just point out that if something is to be disproven it implies at some point it has actually been proven. If evolution is a theory it’s not required to be “disproven” because it’s not claimed to be a fact; rather a work in progress or the best guess. It should be clear that it’s just a theory!

    “And, news-flash, thats not a scientific theory, thats religion.”

    I fully support that statement; I don’t mind if they say it’s a credible theory or based on x this appears to be the best explanation. My problem is that it often takes a religious belief to fill in the scientific holes. Yet our children are taught at School “this is what actually happened, it is a fact”. We see countless documentaries on the BBC alone telling the UK this is what happened 4.2 Billion years ago. You however seem to share a similar view to myself in that any theory no matter how credible must have the capacity to change – I can respect and reason with that viewpoint.

    “but the simple truth is that *they* *are* the products of the application of christian teachings in our dangerous modern world”

    I understand your reasoning and why you might think along this path. However my observation has been that men start war, men murder and destroy lifes. You are talking about the will of man, not the will of God. Christian doctrine does not suggest or support the view that we “take up arms” or murder. The God of the bible is clearly a God of love, not war.

    “Christians *do* kill, and even wose, ask others of less discrimination to do it on their behalf. Apparently, those people can still be saved, whilst the rest of us, who’ve tried to live good, yet secular lives, and be honest foremost to ourselves, and with others are apparently not going to fare so well.”

    You are kind of loosing me here, so Christians murder and ask others to do it on their behalf? Then they get saved and the rest of us burn in Hell for being good people. Any “so-called” Christian who does what you state is no Christian. Furthermore the bible states that “none of us are good”. This is because we have committed crimes against the creator and his creation. We are *not* judged on our goodness, we are judged on our legal crimes against God. This is exactly why we need a messiah, a saviour. Not in a doom and gloom way, if only I could explain the joy of having a daily restored relationship with God.

    “As for miracles, I think your stories (By which I mean your reports, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt) are amazing, and I don’t know what to make of them.”

    Thanks for being open to the possibility that I might actually be telling the truth. It would have been easier to ridicule me. These meetings have been captured on DVD. I’d be happy to send you the DVD so you can see for yourself, that way you can still donate money to charity.

    “I’d ask you to spare a thought next time you get in a car..”

    I am more than grateful for what science has contributed to society, infact I enjoy the benefits every day. Furthermore I am genuinely proud of the scientific advances we as a people have achieved. Other than perhaps nuclear bombs, guns, weapons of mass terror.

    You might argue it’s not the fault of scientists that man uses those weapons to murder innocent babies, children and people.

    I put forward the point it’s not the fault of God, nor the bible that people murder “apparently in his name” and “with his backing”.

    “If you’re going to choose your faith based on the number of signs given to you or miracles performed,”

    I like the comparison scientific signs vs signs of the faith. Faith is still faith, it’s not about signs, although signs can cause people to see there is a power beyond natural law.
    Real faith is believing in something to be true, when you have not observed it directly for yourself. Science “in the purest sense” is the opposite. Paul in the bible said “I did not come to you with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the sprits power, so that your faith would not rest upon the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”

    “The Good News, no *Great* news, is that we’ve got loads of blind people in this country too”

    That’s true and my desire is to reach them. People are healed by Faith, the people we meet overseas don’t have the comforts that we all enjoy in the western world this somehow makes them more open to God and that is why we see so many miracles abroad. In the UK our churches are mostly traditional, dogmatic and dead in power, full of religious people that look miserable!

    However my local church is different, people worship God and the power of God flows like a river to the people – you and Rich are more than welcome to come, I’ve not seen him for a couple of years so would be good. I’ll send Rich an email with the invite details.

    Thanks for that response

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: