MERGED: God (all threads)

Originally Posted by dr wadd

<snip> I`m simply curious as to whether an example of spectacularly good timing could be misinterpreted such that it becomes an article of fact for a particular religion.

The problem is, you're looking at the parting of the Red Sea in isolation. The Bible is full of what it, and Christians, claim are 'miracles' - the biggest of which is the resurrection itself. Don't you think there are rather too many coincidences for this to be a credible explanation? Floods, seas parting and crashing in again, plagues, cites destroyed, entire armies raised from the dead, a virgin gives birth to a baby ... the list is endless. Eventually, the cries of 'coincidence!', 'natural causes!' or 'it never happened!' really do start to sound tired.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by col d

Which could otherwise be construde as an act of God

Then the egyptian insurance agencies refused to pay out

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by towny

The problem is, you're looking at the parting of the Red Sea in isolation. The Bible is full of what it, and Christians, claim are 'miracles' - the biggest of which is the resurrection itself. Don't you think there are rather too many coincidences for this to be a credible explanation? Floods, seas parting and crashing in again, plagues, cites destroyed, entire armies raised from the dead, a virgin gives birth to a baby ... the list is endless. Eventually, the cries of 'coincidence!', 'natural causes!' or 'it never happened!' really do start to sound tired.

As we're discussing miracles in the context of Christianity may I raise the interesting point that Protestants stopped believing in miracles occurring after Biblical times whilst Catholics didn't. So, which side is right? For someone to be canonised, I believe that the Catholic church requires at least 2 proven miracles.

Originally Posted by towny

The problem is, you're looking at the parting of the Red Sea in isolation. The Bible is full of what it, and Christians, claim are 'miracles' - the biggest of which is the resurrection itself. Don't you think there are rather too many coincidences for this to be a credible explanation? Floods, seas parting and crashing in again, plagues, cites destroyed, entire armies raised from the dead, a virgin gives birth to a baby ... the list is endless. Eventually, the cries of 'coincidence!', 'natural causes!' or 'it never happened!' really do start to sound tired.

I can totally see the logic behind your argument. However, it still leaves the possibility that some of these events were due to natural causes that have been interpreted in a specific manner. If, for the sake of argument, we take the resurrection to be literal truth, it does not automatically mean that a given instance of flooding cannot be attributed to natural causes.

You're right, I am taking this one incident in isolation, but it's not supposed to be an argument attempting to demolish the Christian faith in its entirety, merely an observation that one specific event that could be interpreted as a miracle now has a possible explanation in nature.

Originally Posted by Salu

Two coincidences at precisely the right time? I don't think so?

Why not? Again, if the two coincidences hadn`t happened it wouldn`t have got written up in the Bible as Moses would have failed.

Originally Posted by Salu

Which could otherwise be construde as an act of God

But if you don`t have any other logical explanation as to the cause that can be the only explanation that can be assigned to the event (the intervention of some unworldy power at the very least if not specifically the Christian god).

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

**edit .. if in fact Christianity is the worlds biggest religion with over 1 billion followers according to the beeb http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...ty/index.shtml is that enough to make it fact for you ??

Touche, I think that has to be one of the most well reasoned responses to an argument I've ever seen on this board. It's not going to change my faith, but you've certainly forced me to rethink that argument.

[Popeye]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Why not? Again, if the two coincidences hadn`t happened it wouldn`t have got written up in the Bible as Moses would have failed.



But if you don`t have any other logical explanation as to the cause that can be the only explanation that can be assigned to the event (the intervention of some unworldy power at the very least if not specifically the Christian god).

I reckon the whole story is a lie

I think it got dreamt up to prove they had a god who could actually do something

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Popeye

I reckon the whole story is a lie

I think it got dreamt up to prove they had a god who could actually do something

So the people such as Paul, John etc who were willing to die for what they had seen were willing to die for a lie?

You're entitled to hold any belief you want, but I have to say, it's refreshing to have a discussion about religion. We haven't had one for about...ohhh, 3 weeks??

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I mentioned this to a vicar this morning and she said that current thinking is that it's not the Red Sea but the Reed Sea...which would refer to the reed marshes around the Nile at that time.
Apparently Herew dosn't have vowels so they missed out an 'e' in the origional translation.
*edit* Then I read grahams post

That's one of those urban myths, hebrew for reed is nothing like the hebrew for red, as frend for reed is nothing like the french for red.

Think about this, you have a bunch of unburdened slaves who can run across the sandy top of the reef (been there, done that in the red sea myself, low tide with no wind left about a foot of water)
You've got them being followed by the heavily armed and burdened charriots of the egyptians which can't travel as fast across the top of the reef, as the horses' hooves would sink through the sand into the small holes between the dead coral branches. You've got the charriot wheels, being a hell of a lot heavier than a man, breaking the branches of the coral it's travelling over, causing them to sink a bit and get stuck in ruts.
So as the tide comes up, and the wind drops, the hebrews have managed to get alot further across and so are able to complete the journey before the water rises too high. A unburdened person can wade through a foot or two of water much easier than a horse and charriot through the same depth of water.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

So the people such as Paul, John etc who were willing to die for what they had seen were willing to die for a lie?

Many germans died for a lie.
Many japanese died for a lie.
Many cult followers die for their beliefs.
And thats just a few examples from the last century

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Many germans died for a lie.
Many japanese died for a lie.
Many cult followers die for their beliefs.
And thats just a few examples from the last century

As I said, you believe what you want but to me the Biblical versions makes more sense.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

As I said, you believe what you want but to me the Biblical versions makes more sense.

Which is a belief you are entitled to and I know that you would not deny others their belief in the science which explains how such things could take place.

Such as the blood in the nile (can't remember what it was but it was some red mineral) which killed the fish and caused the amphibians to abandon the water (plague of toads) the resultant decaying fish washed up on the shores of the nile were a banquet to flies (plague of flies)

We already have literary evidence for the story of Noah being adopted by hebrews when they were slaves in messopotania (sp) and relates to the flooding of the Black Sea which we know used to be a fresh water lake.

Interestingly, I don't think any of the experts who have put these things forward have ever denied that god was involved. They've just been saying this is how it is most likely to happen.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

That's one of those urban myths

I am just telling it like the vicar told it (and she was taught it apparently)

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Russ D

And for someone who objects to religion on nthw, another two threads started by him on the subject....

russ im not going to argue but unlike some] i do NOT need to shy away from any subject even if i dont agree with it, im not close minded, im open minded, if you cant tolerate someone questioning religion or any other subject i suggest you stop reading my threads.

now back on topic...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Such as the blood in the nile (can't remember what it was but it was some red mineral) which killed the fish and caused the amphibians to abandon the water (plague of toads) the resultant decaying fish washed up on the shores of the nile were a banquet to flies (plague of flies)

We already have literary evidence for the story of Noah being adopted by hebrews when they were slaves in messopotania (sp) and relates to the flooding of the Black Sea which we know used to be a fresh water lake.

With respect, the people who came up with those theories were not there at the time to witness these incidents. There may be 'literary evidence' that Noah's story was adopted by the Hebrews but we also have literary evidence that it happened - it's called the Bible.

I can understand people finding scientific angles to these events being more compeling, but remember the only people who were present to witness these occurances did so and their accounts can be found in the Bible.