comments are followed by my mine in larger fonts.
I should first clarify a couple of points that you may have
misunderstood: -My reference to Australian Aborigines and northern Europeans
was only to illustrate the vast physical differences that separate
the two and suggest that they are very unlikely to be both descendants of
the same couple, especially since there's a vast ocean between them. I do
not think that any race is superior to any other, and there are many, many
different races. -I mentioned the world's racial diversity precisely to
illustrate the same point, that we cannot all be the offspring of only two
people, just like the Mississauga rattlesnake and the Australian
taipan snake are unlikely to descend from just one
couple of snakes.
These comments leave confused. Why would they not be offspring of the same
parents. . No matter how you try to look at it, if you go back enough there
can only be two parents. How else could it be?
I do not believe that there is a clean cut line between us and
those ancient humanoids, and that is precisely my point, that those humanoids
did gradually evolve into what we are today. This explanation,
especially given the scientific grounds to back it up, makes a lot of sense to
me, and of course it would prove the Adam and Eve story to be false.
I do not know how much evolution God allowed in
the past and how much special creation took place in the eons behind us. If
Jesus Christ said that there was a special creation of man and woman at the
beginning of this creation, that is good enough for me. That is much easier
for me to believe than to accept the idea that a series of accidents created
man and woman physically perfectly designed for one another, one inseminating
and the other bearing; totally designed to complement each other
psychologically. The whole idea that accidents would create male and female
physiology different, yet totally ready for it's own part in procreation,
is to me nothing short of absurd. Everything in man and woman is magnificent
in design and beauty. Nothing will not produce something so stunning---unless
you have an amount of faith that puts Christians' faith to shame.
As far as I knew, the bible was a complete account of the history of the
Universe, from its beginning, right into the Christian era. I did not know
that the bible even made room for the possibility of previous creations;
however, you're much more knowledgeable than me on this so I won't argue that
As for the dinosaurs, I would think that if anything, they were not
mentioned because those who wrote the bible had no idea that these creatures
ever existed and I think that that's the reason for all the other
inconsistencies. The writers, even though they did their best, could only
write in accordance to what they knew of the world and the universe at the
I cannot comment for sure, but in relation to
creation Genesis 1:21 mentions "big reptiles." The words used are "Taninim
Gedolin" and not "Nahash" relating to snakes. Could
the "Taninin Gedolin" category not include the
dinosaurs as well? You may also find interesting that when clean and unclean
animals are listed in Leviticus 11, in verse 18 the bird "Tishemet" is listed
among the birds. Later, in Verse 30 it is listed among the reptiles. Could it
refer to an Archaeopteryx kind of creature? Might it
not be the Archaeopteryx? Just a thought...
Now, when it comes to all the other unexplainable issues (The incest
thing, the different languages, etc, etc.), there is always a very simple
(and extremely simple) explanation: God. I agree that God would explain
absolutely any question you might have (And is the one explanation Albert
Einstein always stayed away from) but is it the correct
explanation?...Primitive men used the same explanation to account for all the
natural phenomena that occurred (lightening, hail, tornadoes, etc.). It
doesn't explain where God came from, though. If we can accept that God always
existed, then we could just as easily accept that the Universe always existed.
I think that the "God" explanation for everything grossly undermines our
ability to reason and, as I said before, it would render all scientific
efforts a waste of time. If that was the case, we would still be living in
I see no reason why we cannot reason,
with God remaining in the picture. Why give us
intelligence and not expect us to use it? You can choose to believe that all
there is is the universe, if you choose to do so. In such case you, in a
sense, believe in a God/universe, as the universe becomes the essence within
which is inherent the ability to create. You in a way become a pantheist who
holds that there is an eternal spirit within the universe that is responsible
for all that is or evolves within it, but has no
interest in humans nor human affairs. I prefer to
believe in a God with an intent in mind, a Being that has purpose and that
does all with purpose. Unlike Pantheists, I believe that God brought this
brilliant creature call mankind about, because He
has a great purpose for it and that that purpose has been revealed in
When it comes to the real world we live in today, I just can't picture a
God who refuses to make direct contact with us. He supposedly made the last
contact some 2000 years ago (conveniently enough, it's beyond us to prove the
veracity of any of its claims, since it's been such a long time). I also can't
picture a God who, being all powerful, stands still watching so many things
that are so ridiculously unfair in this world. This is especially evident in
the poorest third world countries. It could hardly be argued that it's those
poor people's own fault (especially those starved, dying children who didn't
even get a chance to commit any sins yet and did not get to choose their
Valid points. Regarding the first, though, it's
not fair to hold that the events surrounding Jesus Christ are not provable. We
have four separate accounts from different sources (The Gospels), various
letters from people who lived and witnessed His works (The Epistles), the Book
of Acts written by a Doctor/Historian who based his
accounts on thorough interviews with people who knew Christ, and finally the
accounts of a man (Paul' Epistles) who killed and persecuted Christians
before his conversion and who personally saw and spoke with Christ after His
resurrection. Is that not enough? What about the fact that all of His apostles
were willing to die to witness for Christ and His resurrection -- and eleven
did. Is that not enough?
Is there suffering in the world? Yes, too much.
Are there innocent ones suffering in the world? You bet. It all began in the
Garden when men chose to ask God to butt out and chose the way of Satan
instead. God did butt out and will continue to do so until the return of
Christ. Then, and only then, will mankind experience the opposite way and its
results. Read the book of Isaiah and see what's ahead. According to the Bible
this is Satan's world --by our choice -- God's Kingdom is not yet here, but it
might not be too far ahead. What you see in this world is the end result of
thousands of years of sin and self-will on our part. What you see is the end
result of a philosophy of stubborn rebellion against God and His ways. We are
reaping what we have been sawing for thousands of years and our children are
reaping with us. Thank God we are promised that the end of this hell is ahead
of us. Please read Revelation 21: 1-4 and see what's ahead. The end of anguish
is yet ahead.
I do agree that a belief in God can have some good psychological effects
on people, most notably the peace of mind that comes from "knowing" that there
is a reward beyond this physical life (heaven). It could also act as a
deterrent to people who might otherwise be reckless, criminal, etc.
personally believe in the resurrection from the
dead. Christ was resurrected to give us reassurance that the resurrection is
possible and sure. It is the hope that led many to their death and it is God's
promise. This is the reason why Christ came, died and was resurrected.
It's part of a magnificent package that is awaiting the teeming
multitudes--including you when your time comes.
I wish you all
Discussion with Edward
Sorry for my late response. I have been exceptionally busy. Like you, I do
not get excited about debates. In fact I see them as a waste of time. I am
responding to your honest concerns hoping that, maybe, I may have something
worth considering. I will address them below.
comments are in small font mine follow in larger font.)
From my modest knowledge of the Bible I can draw a few inconsistencies:
I understand the Bible states that God created the Universe, and then He
created only two people: Adam and Eve. This makes no sense because God would
not allow incest to take place, yet incest would've been the only way to
GOD DID ALLOW INCEST TO TAKE PLACE FOR A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME AND,
BEING ALL POWERFUL, HE COULD HAVE PREVENTED ANY PHYSICAL DEGENERACY AS WE
KNOW THEM TODAY. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT AT THE BEGINNING THAT POSSIBILITY
HAD NOT YET EVOLVED.
It also contrasts with the world's racial diversity, each race having
very specific traits which are very consistent with the environment their
ancestors lived in, and some having lived in complete isolation from the
rest. Can we honestly say that northern europeans and australian aborigines
both descend from Adam and Eve?...not likely.
ARE THERE NOT A MULTITUDE OF FELINES AND DOGS? WHY NOT HUMANS.
ABORIGINES THAT ARE EDUCATED LIKE ANY OF US ACT, THINK AND BEHAVE LIKE ANY
OTHER HUMAN, BECAUSE THEY ARE TOTALLY HUMAN.
The discovery of the remains of individuals, from those who are not yet
quite human, right up to well developed human beings. I consider this to be
very tangible evidence to negate the Adam and Eve story.
THERE ARE HUMANOIDS, BUT BELIEVING THAT THERE
IS A NICE CLEAN CUT LINE BETWEEN US AND THEM MEANS NOT BEING AWARE OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT ACCOMPANY THIS IDEA. I SUGGEST THAT YOU LINK WITH THE
"CREATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION" FOR THE OTHER SIDE. THE BIBLE NOWHERE SAYS
THAT THERE WAS NO LIFE BEFORE THE GENESIS CREATION. ISAIAH 14:12-15
INDICATES THAT LUCIFER MAY HAVE ACTUALLY RESIDED ON THE EARTH BEFORE HIS
REBELLION. CHRIST TELLS US THAT HE WAS THERE WHEN HE WAS CAST DOWN TO THE
EARTH. (LUKE 10:18). THIS HAPPENED BEFORE THE CREATION DESCRIBED IN GENESIS.
IT IS FASCINATING THAT IN GENESIS 1: 1-2 WHERE IT SAYS THAT "THE EARTH WAS
EMPTY AND VOID" THE WORD 'WAS" IS ELSEWHERE ALSO TRANSLATED "BECAME" THUS
MUCH HAPPENED BEFORE V.1-2 AND THE BIBLE GIVES US ONLY A GLIMPSE. GEOLOGY
TAKES CARE OF THE REST.
If the story was true, there would be only one language, or at least a few
very similar languages.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MANY LANGUAGES ARE TRACEABLE TO A COMMON SOURCE, BUT
I AM NOT AN EXPERT. WHEN GOD CONFUSED THE LANGUAGES AT BABEL HE MIGHT HAVE
DONE A VERY GOOD JOB.
The Bible, as far as I know, never mentions some creatures whose
existence has been proven, such as the dinosaurs. If Adam and Eve were
created at the beginning of time, then such mighty creatures would've made
an impact and would've had their place in the Bible. It could be argued that
people were created after the dinosaur era, but I don't think there's any
account for millions of years gone by before mankind.
AGAIN, THE BIBLE DEALS WITH OUR CREATION NOT PREVIOUS ONES.
There are as well many stories in the bible which bear striking
similarities with events in science fiction or even fairy tales: The story
of Samson and Delilah, the story of Moses parting the sea, the story of the
arc (I can't imagine Noah actually preserving some nasty creatures like the
dragon or the australian taipan snake). These things don't happen in modern
times when people are more informed and a lot less naive.
IF THERE IS A MIGHTY GOD, WOULD THE ABOVE EVENTS OFFER ANY CHALLENGE? IS
BELIEVING THAT YOU AND I CAME OUT OF A LONG LINE OF ACCIDENTS ANY LESS
AMAZING? IS BELIEVING THAT THE MIGHTY ATOM, CAPABLE OF ORGANIZING ITSELF IN
AN ENDLESS MULTITUDE OF WAYS, HAS NO CREATOR, LESS SCIENCE FICTION?
The Trinity is another dichotomy: There is only one God, yet God has a
Son. The Father sent his son to earth to die for us and save us from our
sins (?). Now, Jesus was born roughly 2000 years ago. Does that mean that
God did not have a son before that?...if the son of God is also a God, then
there are two
Gods, right?, unless Jesus is not a God. If the wholly spirit is also a God
then we have three Gods...Does it make sense to you?...to believe that these
three entities are not independent but part of a higher entity borders on
THIS IS AN AREA I USUALLY LEAVE ALONE. THAT JESUS WAS GOD, THERE IS NO
DOUBT IN MY MIND BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES ARE ENOUGH FOR ME. THAT THERE IS A
HOLY SPIRIT THAT GOD USES TO CREATE AND SUSTAIN I ALSO DO NOT DOUBT.
THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS CENTRAL IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF
TRULY CONVERTED CHRISTIANS ID CENTRAL TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.THERE ARE
MANY VIEWS ON THE TRINITY, SOME OFFERING SIMILAR
ARGUMENTS AS YOUR OWN, AND THEY ARE CHRISTIANS. SOME DAY I'LL ASK THE GREAT
ONE AND I'LL KNOW FOR SURE.
These are just a few points that I can think of from what little I know
about the Bible. There are many, many other "pieces of evidence" that have
nothing to do with the bible, but rather with the physical and human world
we live in. I find our reality totally consistent with the absence of a God,
as hard as
it might be to admit.
I should remind you that, as I said before, this kind
of debate is extremely rare in my life because my views usually spark anger
and outrage. However, this really is my honest and unbiased opinion.
Have yourself a happy new year.
Discussion with Ed (1)
Thanks for your sincere and kind response. I checked
the web sites included and here is why I believe my entry should stand:
1. As my web site (God and the
Greatest Minds) emphasizes, Einstein
clearly emphasized that he believed in "Spinoza's
God," thus declaring himself a Pantheist. Even
Steven Jay Gould admitted that Einstein was a Pantheist who, when placed on
a continuum, would almost border the "personal"
God idea. Some Pantheists, of course,
border on atheists. My readings on Spinoza do not
smack of either atheism oror agnosticism.
He was simply a pantheist.
2. I emphasized in my entry that Einstein was a Pantheist and
that he did not believe in a "personal" God.
I also added that he did not believe that God had any concerns for the
affairs of man nor for an afterlife. Thus, I
believe, I presented a fair and balanced view of
3. I put little trust on what others say about Einstein.
I base my views on what he "officially,"
stated not what Einstein privately might have said
to anyone. I do so even if secondary sources imply that atheists or
agnostics are believers. I have received one such quote on
what Darwin said his death bed,
that is that he recanted agnosticism and became a believer. I attach
no value to it. I appreciate your views. In my
dealings with atheists and agnostics I often find not a problem with the
existence of God but His pseudo-representatives, that is religions. I have
to agree with them that all too often religion has
been a pathetically weak and often disgraceful witness for a loving God.
I disagree that the Bible is in contrast with science.
I have "studied" Bible almost every day for about 33 years, and I feel very
saddened to read the amount of ignorance that exists about the Book. I feel
especially saddened by the propagation of non-biblical ideas by religionists
that dare to erroneously represent God and His Word
and teach that the universe was created 6000 or so years ago,
according to the Bible. The Bible does not say or imply anywhere that
the earth was created thousands of years ago. It simply
says "In the Beginning". How people can conclude that this happened
thousands of years ago is beyond me. In fact, all
related scriptures make evident that what is described in later verses is a
"re-creation" not the first creation.
There are many other examples of
distortion and ignorance that are being propagated which have no biblical
foundation but that perpetuate strange ideas.
That God exists I have no doubt. That He has spoken to
mankind is totally evident every time He speaks in the Scriptures, every
time I ponder about the depth and "revolutionary" power of the Ten
Commandments, every time I read about His
insistence on moral behavior and His hatred for evil, every time I read
about His love for the weak and the needy and, lastly, every time I reflect
on the transforming teachings of Christ. I have no need of human witnesses
such as Einstein, or any other brilliant mind,
though it interesting to know about their ideas as well.
Perhaps what you need is set aside your "justified" feelings
about religion and allow your mind to give "God" a chance through an
objective study of His Word. The problem is not
that God does not answer, as you said in your first note. The problem is
that we don't answer Him. He has spoken loud and clear
but do we want to listen? Listening to the God of the Bible implies a
transformation that I believe very few who pay lip service to religion have
truly embraced, as the historical and social evidence clearly indicates.
Thanks again for the opportunity
to share ideas. I always appreciate dialoguing with sincere, non-fanatical
May you have a terrific new year.
EDWARD'S FIRST LETTER
Sorry to inform you that by most accounts and by the nature
work, Albert Einstein was indeed an atheist, as are most of world's
The concept of the existence of a God (Gods) inevitably collides with
all attempts to make sense of the universe, past and present, and also
creates undue pain as a result of the frustration generated by believing
in (and expecting some sort of feedback from) something that does not
exist. It is also an excellent tool for some people to subdue, abuse,
exploit and deceive others.
It is, however, much easier (and comfortable) to be part of the
billions who believe.