Adam and Eve, etc.

[YouMadeTheScene]

I just found out my parent's actually believe in Adam and Eve, and all of those stories. I was just wondering how you think people could actually believe in this stuff?

[tambam]

I just found out my parent's actually believe in Adam and Eve, and all of those stories. I was just wondering how you think people could actually believe in this stuff?

I'll personally never understand how people can believe in it, but that's just me.

[Trainsaw]

We're all inbreds!!

[Smash Adams]

I don't believe the bible for the most part, but then again I'm basically agnostic- I want to believe in god, don't know if I can

[TheByrus]

We're all inbreds!!



its true if you believe in evolution or creation.

[x togepi x]

we're related to bananas

[walking_person]

it has a lot to do with how people are raised and if they have never learned anything else, they will believe it. you need to be open.

[IAPAI]

I just found out my parent's actually believe in Adam and Eve, and all of those stories. I was just wondering how you think people could actually believe in this stuff?

I often wonder why people pass off blatant ignorance of scientific facts as "faith".

[klausfloride]

I pity the ignorant fools who refuse to embrace the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their lord.

[rikfrommf]

this thread again? stop bashing religions, if you don't get it, leave it alone. If its not for you, cool. Its not a free pass to insult those who do. You aren't smarter because of what you believe.

[and we whisper]

i used to believe in that kind of stuff. now i'm starting to ask more questions, like an eight year old wondering about santa claus.

could it really be true?

[Ambulance X]

this thread again? stop bashing religions, if you don't get it, leave it alone. If its not for you, cool. Its not a free pass to insult those who do. You aren't smarter because of what you believe.

Actually, anyone who can critically look at facts and distinguish reality from biblical stories is MUCH smarter than anyone who blindly follows bronze-age myths.

[deadstar]

Actually, anyone who can critically look at facts and distinguish reality from biblical stories is MUCH smarter than anyone who blindly follows bronze-age myths.
Faith is not necessarily fact. Thats why its called faith. Leave it alone. You're doing a disservice to yourself by insulting every person who believes in something.

[IAPAI]

this thread again? stop bashing religions, if you don't get it, leave it alone. If its not for you, cool. Its not a free pass to insult those who do. You aren't smarter because of what you believe.

He wasn't bashing religions. If anything, he was bashing his family. Don't get so defensive.

[UndertheTELE]

we're related to bananas

hah this was funny

[Ambulance X]

Faith is not necessarily fact. Thats why its called faith. Leave it alone. You're doing a disservice to yourself by insulting every person who believes in something.

Well, obviously faith isn't necessarily fact. Actually, most faith (including faith in the myth of Adam and Eve) flies in the face of fact. That's why it deserves to be disparaged.

[Love As Arson]

Humanity uses faith in all sorts of areas which are not necessarily religious, so it would be quite difficult to discard it wholly.

[chronomic]

who cares if you do or dont believe in adam and eve. does it change anything about youre life? if it does then youre a fucktard.

[The Revisionist]

Who the fuck cares if they believe in it and you don't? That sort of shit actually bothers you?

[deadstar]

Well, obviously faith isn't necessarily fact. Actually, most faith (including faith in the myth of Adam and Eve) flies in the face of fact. That's why it deserves to be disparaged.
How does faith depend on fact? The very definition of faith his believing in something when there is no direct proof. If you need everything to be proved for you, then organized religion is not for you. Thats still no reason to insult those that do believe something.

[IAPAI]

Who the fuck cares if they believe in it and you don't? That sort of shit actually bothers you?

It bothers me that creationism is taught alongside (if not above and before) evolution in a class that has the label "Science" in many schools in the United States.

I think that everyone should have a problem with that. It's misinformation and is being justified by evangelicals all around the nation.

[Ambulance X]

How does faith depend on fact? The very definition of faith his believing in something when there is no direct proof. If you need everything to be proved for you, then organized religion is not for you. Thats still no reason to insult those that do believe something.

Faith doesn't depend on fact. That is obvious, and that's what makes it faith. But that doesn't make it alright. Much to the contrary, that is what makes faith deplorable. There is no reason to respect anyone else's faith.

If someone said to you that they have faith, or beleive that the holocaust never occurred, you would:

a) think that they were crazy
b) perhaps be insulted
c) want to keep them out of any influential position in society.

Why would you think these things? Because there is overwhelming evidence that the holocaust did indeed occur, and anyone who can ignore that evidence and convince themselves of the contrary must be either brainwashed, or mentally unstable in some way.

The same is true when it comes to religious faith. All evidence points to the fact that most religious doctrines are completely false. Anyone who would ignore the evidence and continue to have faith in them in the presence of contrary facts must be either brainwashed, or mentally unstable. In the case of the US, most people are brainwashed. People in this country are indoctrinated into religious ideologies as soon as they are old enough to be baptized.

[deadstar]

Faith doesn't depend on fact. That is obvious, and that's what makes it faith. But that doesn't make it alright. Much to the contrary, that is what makes faith deplorable. There is no reason to respect anyone else's faith.

If someone said to you that they have faith, or beleive that the holocaust never occurred, you would:

a) think that they were crazy
b) perhaps be insulted
c) want to keep them out of any influential position in society.

Why would you think these things? Because there is overwhelming evidence that the holocaust did indeed occur, and anyone who can ignore that evidence and convince themselves of the contrary must be either brainwashed, or mentally unstable in some way.

The same is true when it comes to religious faith. All evidence points to the fact that most religious doctrines are completely false. Anyone who would ignore the evidence and continue to have faith in them in the presence of contrary facts must be either brainwashed, or mentally unstable. In the case of the US, most people are brainwashed. People in this country are indoctrinated into religious ideologies as soon as they are old enough to be baptized.
Terrible analogy. There is overwhelming evidence of the holocaust. You're "belief" that most religious doctrines are completely false makes me think you're brainwashed or mentally unstable. Not every aspect of religion has to be true to accept it. Hence the reason why there is faith. We believe in something even if it cant be proved my scientific means or simple logic. I just dont get how someone can call faith deplorable.

[Ambulance X]

Terrible analogy. There is overwhelming evidence of the holocaust. You're "belief" that most religious doctrines are completely false makes me think you're brainwashed or mentally unstable. Not every aspect of religion has to be true to accept it. Hence the reason why there is faith. We believe in something even if it cant be proved my scientific means or simple logic. I just dont get how someone can call faith deplorable.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is false as well. Heck, even the Bible can't get its story straight and contradicts itself. After considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the holocaust occurred. Similarly, after considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the Bible is false. It is a good analogy.

How can I call faith deplorable? Because faith is religion's brainwashing agent, and religion resists scientific progress (because the more advanced scientific theories become, the more religious doctrines are disproven.) Without religion, Columbus may have landed on the moon.

Watch as un/miseducated zealots brainwash small children and prescribe faith in place of fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

[Love As Arson]

Consider human rights; there is no evidence for their existence, yet we ascribe to this belief that they exist and, in fact, they may be violated for certain acts, which we have placed the value of "bad" on. How is this particularly different from faith? Further, let us look at the way in which we have reason, there is certainly a degree of faith placed on the idea that it is the best way to discern truths from the world. Faith works in every facet of human life, even in areas that ascribe to being reasonable, so the ridiculous belief would be that one can discard it.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is false as well. Heck, even the Bible can't get its story straight and contradicts itself. After considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the holocaust occurred. Similarly, after considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the Bible is false. It is a good analogy.

How can I call faith deplorable? Because faith is religion's brainwashing agent, and religion resists scientific progress (because the more advanced scientific theories become, the more religious doctrines are disproven.) Without religion, Columbus may have landed on the moon.

Watch as un/miseducated zealots brainwash small children and prescribe faith in place of fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

to group all christians and people of faith in with those in the video you just showed is quite unfair

i have never been told by anyone i respect in my faith, or anyone for that matter, that dinosaurs lived with people.

and i certainly havent sung that song

[Burnout2888]

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is false as well. Heck, even the Bible can't get its story straight and contradicts itself. After considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the holocaust occurred. Similarly, after considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the Bible is false. It is a good analogy.

How can I call faith deplorable? Because faith is religion's brainwashing agent, and religion resists scientific progress (because the more advanced scientific theories become, the more religious doctrines are disproven.) Without religion, Columbus may have landed on the moon.

Watch as un/miseducated zealots brainwash small children and prescribe faith in place of fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk


The evidence for the Holocaust is much stronger because the Holocaust happened barely 60 years ago. There are people from the war who lived it, with photographs, scars, etc. The Bible is an altogether different story. During its "time period" if you will, no one has survived since. Furthermore, we don't have the same evidence. People who survived the Holocaust are still walking and talking about it. People in the biblical time period aren't, but they have been documented. If you believe what an eyewitness tells you, then the Bible can be true in some senses. I am not trying to make you believe in the Bible, and you can use anything in place of it on my argument, but I am just trying to say that comparing it to the Holocaust is a rather poor analogy.

Also, why don't you ever argue against Love As Arson's arguments? He makes a lot of good points and you don't ever question what he says.

Edit - my argument may have been unclear. If you don't understand it, just ask me and I'll rephrase it a little better.

[pickett47]

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is false as well. Heck, even the Bible can't get its story straight and contradicts itself. After considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the holocaust occurred. Similarly, after considering all of the evidence, you would conclude that the Bible is false. It is a good analogy.

How can I call faith deplorable? Because faith is religion's brainwashing agent, and religion resists scientific progress (because the more advanced scientific theories become, the more religious doctrines are disproven.) Without religion, Columbus may have landed on the moon.


Technically, it is impossible to disprove doctrine. Actually, it's completely impossible. Science and its theories lend no decision as to faith, religion, or perception. Can you use chemistry, biology, or anything else to disprove heaven?

Also, you present the idea that the Bible is "false." Aside from the obvious problem of this being vague, it doesn't really make much sense. You place the fault of religion upon those who fail to understand that which they claim to believe. Your claim that the Bible is "false" makes you the ultimate authority on the matter, the author. Do you know the author's intent, or how each contributor saw it fit to use figurative language? I doubt you do, and that is true of far too many people, atheist or Christian. Religious institutions tend to poorly educate adherents, for whatever reason. But you are not an expert, either.

Be careful with your stereotypes. Some Christians have brains. Just like some atheists don't, which I'm sure you are well aware of.

[Burnout2888]

Technically, it is impossible to disprove doctrine. Actually, it's completely impossible. Science and its theories lend no decision as to faith, religion, or perception. Can you use chemistry, biology, or anything else to disprove heaven?

Also, you present the idea that the Bible is "false." Aside from the obvious problem of this being vague, it doesn't really make much sense. You place the fault of religion upon those who fail to understand that which they claim to believe. Your claim that the Bible is "false" makes you the ultimate authority on the matter, the author. Do you know the author's intent, or how each contributor saw it fit to use figurative language? I doubt you do, and that is true of far too many people, atheist or Christian. Religious institutions tend to poorly educate adherents, for whatever reason. But you are not an expert, either.

Be careful with your stereotypes. Some Christians have brains. Just like some atheists don't, which I'm sure you are well aware of.

Well said. A lot of atheists are just as uneducated as atheists and vice versa.

[writeacliche]

Technically, it is impossible to disprove doctrine. Actually, it's completely impossible. Science and its theories lend no decision as to faith, religion, or perception. Can you use chemistry, biology, or anything else to disprove heaven?

Also, you present the idea that the Bible is "false." Aside from the obvious problem of this being vague, it doesn't really make much sense. You place the fault of religion upon those who fail to understand that which they claim to believe. Your claim that the Bible is "false" makes you the ultimate authority on the matter, the author. Do you know the author's intent, or how each contributor saw it fit to use figurative language? I doubt you do, and that is true of far too many people, atheist or Christian. Religious institutions tend to poorly educate adherents, for whatever reason. But you are not an expert, either.

Be careful with your stereotypes. Some Christians have brains. Just like some atheists don't, which I'm sure you are well aware of.

pwnd..

[lushintransit]

Technically, it is impossible to disprove doctrine. Actually, it's completely impossible. Science and its theories lend no decision as to faith, religion, or perception. Can you use chemistry, biology, or anything else to disprove heaven?

Also, you present the idea that the Bible is "false." Aside from the obvious problem of this being vague, it doesn't really make much sense. You place the fault of religion upon those who fail to understand that which they claim to believe. Your claim that the Bible is "false" makes you the ultimate authority on the matter, the author. Do you know the author's intent, or how each contributor saw it fit to use figurative language? I doubt you do, and that is true of far too many people, atheist or Christian. Religious institutions tend to poorly educate adherents, for whatever reason. But you are not an expert, either.

Be careful with your stereotypes. Some Christians have brains. Just like some atheists don't, which I'm sure you are well aware of.

That's the exact argument for why Creationism should not be taught in Science courses because all science is falsifiable, i.e. something can come along and make it false. For instance, if we found a Brotosauraus in our backyard just chilling their in it's archaic form, it would defy evolution.

[Burnout2888]

I just found out my parent's actually believe in Adam and Eve, and all of those stories. I was just wondering how you think people could actually believe in this stuff?

Who's the girl in your avatar?

[Ambulance X]

Technically, it is impossible to disprove doctrine. Actually, it's completely impossible. Science and its theories lend no decision as to faith, religion, or perception. Can you use chemistry, biology, or anything else to disprove heaven?

Also, you present the idea that the Bible is "false." Aside from the obvious problem of this being vague, it doesn't really make much sense. You place the fault of religion upon those who fail to understand that which they claim to believe. Your claim that the Bible is "false" makes you the ultimate authority on the matter, the author. Do you know the author's intent, or how each contributor saw it fit to use figurative language? I doubt you do, and that is true of far too many people, atheist or Christian. Religious institutions tend to poorly educate adherents, for whatever reason. But you are not an expert, either.

Be careful with your stereotypes. Some Christians have brains. Just like some atheists don't, which I'm sure you are well aware of.

Impossible disprove doctrine?!?! Are you serious? Seriously...???? You leave me completely incredulous if you are serious.

I'll give you one simple example of how science can disprove church doctrine so that you will see how completely ignorant and categorically false your statements were.

The Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation states that the Eucharist physically changes states from bread to ACTUAL body of Jesus Christ. It also states that the wine PHYSICALLY becomes the ACTUAL blood of Christ. I'm sure that you can obviously see how science can disprove Church doctrine now.

Now, as for the Bible being false...

You speak of the writers' "intentions" unfortunately, the writers' "intentions" have no bearing in this discussion. Church doctrine states that GOD HIMSELF divinely inspired the authors of the bible. So according to church doctrine, you're actually calling into question God's own "intentions".

As for the Bible having factual inaccuracies and contradicting itself thus making it a very unreliable work of fiction, here's a link for you...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

It seems that the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of Abraham wasn't very good at divinely inspiring a consistent story. :-P

I would venture that the religious do indeed possess brains, although most of the time, they have been severely brainwashed and thus rarely use them.

[Burnout2888]

As for the Bible having factual inaccuracies and contradicting itself thus making it a very unreliable work of fiction, here's a link for you...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

It seems that the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of Abraham wasn't very good at divinely inspiring a consistent story. :-P


http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

[x togepi x]

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

Christianity is one big contradiction.


so is humanity.

[Ambulance X]

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

Even if you accept these as valid explanations (which I'm skeptical about), there are still many many many more that are left undressed.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

This will bring to light many many more fallacies of the bible that were not addressed in your link

[Burnout2888]

Even if you accept these as valid explanations (which I'm skeptical about), there are still many many many more that are left undressed.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

This will bring to light many many more fallacies of the bible that were not addressed in your link

Look in the Christian responses on that site. You'll find a lot of those answered.

That website was much better than the one you posted earlier by the way.

PS - Ugly Organ is a terrific album.

[Burnout2888]

Christianity is one big contradiction.


so is humanity.

Not only was the site I posted an answer to some of the contradictions he posted, but your comment did nothing to progress or further the discussion.

[Burnout2888]

Ambulance x - you say that Christians are, for the most part, brainwashed. This is where I do agree with you. I do feel that a lot of Christians hinder the progress of the development of their own mind if they are not allowed to question themselves in every aspect of life. But I feel that atheists can also be brainwashed as well, although I admit that a brainwashed Christian usually is worse than a brainwashed atheist. Can we agree on that though? That atheists as well can be brainwashed?

An open mind is when you are at your best.

[Ambulance X]

Ambulance x - you say that Christians are, for the most part, brainwashed. This is where I do agree with you. I do feel that a lot of Christians hinder the progress of the development of their own mind if they are not allowed to question themselves in every aspect of life. But I feel that atheists can also be brainwashed as well, although I admit that a brainwashed Christian usually is worse than a brainwashed atheist. Can we agree on that though? That atheists as well can be brainwashed?

An open mind is when you are at your best.

Sure. I can agree that it is possible for anyone to become brainwashed. However, brainwashing is most likely to occur at the hands of someone else (a parent for example), when you are indoctrinated into an ideology as a small child. This seems to be the case more for religious families (if only for their sheer numbers in this country) than for say an atheist family.

I'm sure that it is possible for an atheist, for example to brainwash himself on his own. If an atheist (or anyone, for that matter) surrounds himself with nothing but a single viewpoint congruent with his own, it is very possible that he will brainwash himself. It is very important to very carefully weigh both sides of an argument when thinking about it. In this regard, I'm glad that my parents sent me to a Catholic school from kindergarten through 12th grade. I was able to get both sides of the story because of it.

[AnF1500]

I never understood how people could really believe bible stories. I'm somewhat jealous of them...almost. I can understand the people who only take them metaphorically however.

[Burnout2888]

I never understood how people could really believe bible stories. I'm somewhat jealous of them...almost. I can understand the people who only take them metaphorically however.

I've never heard anyone say they were jealous of people who believed in it. Why are you jealous of them/

[Love As Arson]

I'll give you one simple example of how science can disprove church doctrine so that you will see how completely ignorant and categorically false your statements were.

The Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation states that the Eucharist physically changes states from bread to ACTUAL body of Jesus Christ. It also states that the wine PHYSICALLY becomes the ACTUAL blood of Christ. I'm sure that you can obviously see how science can disprove Church doctrine now.
You misunderstand the doctrine. It doesn't become as flesh and blood is in substance on the way down or when you digest it. Transubstantiation means that the Body and Blood of Christ are present under the guise of bread and wine. The substance of the flesh and blood are present with the accidents, or outward features, of the bread and wine.

Impossible disprove doctrine?!?! Are you serious?
You speak of the writers' "intentions" unfortunately, the writers' "intentions" have no bearing in this discussion. Church doctrine states that GOD HIMSELF divinely inspired the authors of the bible. So according to church doctrine, you're actually calling into question God's own "intentions".
That is dependent upon your interpretation of inspiration. One may believe that god inspired, but allowed the author to remain autonomous. Philosophically, an individual is on shaky ground if they suggest god dictated the bible to them word for word.


It seems that the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of Abraham wasn't very good at divinely inspiring a consistent story.
The biblical criticism lack any nuance with its assessment, rather, it is merely a superificial attacks on the text that neither disproves the divinity of the book, nor does it provide any fundamental conflicts regarding the faith presented in the texts.


I would venture that the religious do indeed possess brains, although most of the time, they have been severely brainwashed and thus rarely use them.
Religion and atheism have quite a lot in common: On one hand, one supposes to know the eternal truth regarding the existence of god, and on the other hand, the second group supposes to know the eternal truth regarding the non-existence of god. Moreover, each use faith to sustain these beliefs, for there is no definitive proof for either position, so one is forced to make a leap to that position.

[x togepi x]

Not only was the site I posted an answer to some of the contradictions he posted, but your comment did nothing to progress or further the discussion.

Your site is biased since it's Christian apologetics. While I can buy the fact that people think Christianity is correct just as much as I can buy people believe in scientific materialism, I think it's fucking stupid to try and argue that it's not contradictory because it is. I'm not talking about the lame "haha i got you!" Bible contradictions, I'm talking about the general concept of Christianity contradicting itself, as well as other beliefs that Christians hold.

I was adding a lot more to the discussion than you even understand. Everything humans create is contradictory. We're all walking contradictions. Knowing this, I have no problem with contradictions. You're the one hung up on them. To rid yourself of contradiction, you're going to have to spend so much time in self meditation that could be spent living your short life.

I was on your side, you philistine.

[Ambulance X]

You misunderstand the doctrine. It doesn't become as flesh and blood is in substance on the way down or when you digest it. Transubstantiation means that the Body and Blood of Christ are present under the guise of bread and wine. The substance of the flesh and blood are present with the accidents, or outward features, of the bread and wine.

From the Catechism:

Clearly states that the Eucharist is transformed into the physical substance of Jesus' body after consecration.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1376.htm

"the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

Religion and atheism have quite a lot in common: On one hand, one supposes to know the eternal truth regarding the existence of god, and on the other hand, the second group supposes to know the eternal truth regarding the non-existence of god. Moreover, each use faith to sustain these beliefs, for there is no definitive proof for either position, so one is forced to make a leap to that position.

I agree. That's why I'm not 100% atheist. I don't reject a deist god (although I would say the odds of one existing are forever approaching zero), I will however reject the god of any religion conceived by man.

[pickett47]

Impossible disprove doctrine?!?! Are you serious? Seriously...???? You leave me completely incredulous if you are serious.

I'll give you one simple example of how science can disprove church doctrine so that you will see how completely ignorant and categorically false your statements were.

The Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation states that the Eucharist physically changes states from bread to ACTUAL body of Jesus Christ. It also states that the wine PHYSICALLY becomes the ACTUAL blood of Christ. I'm sure that you can obviously see how science can disprove Church doctrine now.

Now, as for the Bible being false...

You speak of the writers' "intentions" unfortunately, the writers' "intentions" have no bearing in this discussion. Church doctrine states that GOD HIMSELF divinely inspired the authors of the bible. So according to church doctrine, you're actually calling into question God's own "intentions".

It seems that the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of Abraham wasn't very good at divinely inspiring a consistent story. :-P


Completely ignorant and categorically false. Wow. Thank you for insulting me. I am simply trying to present both sides of an argument that is ages old and will always continue (do you think this is really doing anything?). Although I am obviously completely ignorant (thank you so much for pointing that out, that saves me from pursuing all of my academic endeavors... I am indebted to you), I am not ignorant to the fact that you are completely ignoring my stated example. However, I will credit you with transubstantiation as a falsifiable claim. As a Protestant, transubstantiation is not something that I often consider or even remember. Consider core doctrines, such as salvation, the existence of the soul, the existence of God... these cannot be falsified. Questioned yes, but it is beyond the realm of human logic and reason to falsify them.

I was not calling God's intentions into question. I was calling into question your understanding of these intentions. Scripture is God-inspired, but still written by men... men who came from different regions, spoke different languages, and understood things differently due to their culture. Therefore, they wrote in different ways. We cannot expect the consistency we would find in a book written by one person to one single audience.

Is that less ignorant and categorically false?

[Ambulance X]

I was not calling God's intentions into question. I was calling into question your understanding of these intentions. Scripture is God-inspired, but still written by men... men who came from different regions, spoke different languages, and understood things differently due to their culture. Therefore, they wrote in different ways. We cannot expect the consistency we would find in a book written by one person to one single audience.

Is that less ignorant and categorically false?

I'm sorry that I came off as militant and arrogant. I was really fired up for some reason.

I guess I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of divine inspiration. I can't understand how a supernatural omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient deity would not have the capacity to inspire a perfect composition of his word.

If someone can help me better understand divine inspiration, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.

[cantnokdahustle]

Religion and atheism have quite a lot in common: On one hand, one supposes to know the eternal truth regarding the existence of god, and on the other hand, the second group supposes to know the eternal truth regarding the non-existence of god. Moreover, each use faith to sustain these beliefs, for there is no definitive proof for either position, so one is forced to make a leap to that position.

I don't wish to really get into this debate at the moment, for my views are fairly known in this forum. But this last argument is fundamentally flawed for various reasons. One, there is a difference between positive atheism and negative atheism. one school, basically has closed themselves off due to inherent contradictions in character traits, which is possibly just a debate in semantics. While the other says, listen, you haven't shown me proof yet, but if you come back with proof I'll be more than happy to consider it.

second of all you are sort of discounting the nature of this whole debate by holding each group to the same sort of standard. So, let me correct you on that, because I know you know your logical fallacies. In this case "proof of a negative." the onus is on the believer to prove to the atheist, for denial is merely the default position. There is no "leap" required in the absence of any evidence.

[cantnokdahustle]

Your site is biased since it's Christian apologetics. While I can buy the fact that people think Christianity is correct just as much as I can buy people believe in scientific materialism, I think it's fucking stupid to try and argue that it's not contradictory because it is. I'm not talking about the lame "haha i got you!" Bible contradictions, I'm talking about the general concept of Christianity contradicting itself, as well as other beliefs that Christians hold.

I was adding a lot more to the discussion than you even understand. Everything humans create is contradictory. We're all walking contradictions. Knowing this, I have no problem with contradictions. You're the one hung up on them. To rid yourself of contradiction, you're going to have to spend so much time in self meditation that could be spent living your short life.

I was on your side, you philistine.

I suggest you start caring about contradictions, or at the very least distinguishing between the colloquial use of the idea and that of the logical variety. A logical contradiction is rendered absurd and effectively refutes/invalidates anything (A*-A).

[x togepi x]

I suggest you start caring about contradictions, or at the very least distinguishing between the colloquial use of the idea and that of the logical variety. A logical contradiction is rendered absurd and effectively refutes invalidates anything (A*-A).

of course logical contradictions render things absurd, existence itself is absurd!

[cantnokdahustle]

of course logical contradictions render things absurd, existence itself is absurd!

HUH??????????????????????

[Brokenhill]

HUH??????????????????????


Rofl...I dont get it either

[x togepi x]

existence is absurd. that's pretty simple

unless you can logically justify our existence.

[walking_person]

It bothers me that creationism is taught alongside (if not above and before) evolution in a class that has the label "Science" in many schools in the United States.

I think that everyone should have a problem with that. It's misinformation and is being justified by evangelicals all around the nation.
i just started evolution in science today and we aren't taught creationism here. i've seen so many great shows on the discovery channels that show great evidence of it.
we were encouraged to talk to our parents about evolution because it might conflict some people's beliefs.

[cantnokdahustle]

existence is absurd. that's pretty simple

unless you can logically justify our existence.

you can produce no valid premise that would render existence logically contradictory, and thus absurd. Now, you may be somewhat correct, for I would agree that you cannot deductively justify existence, but you sure as hell can make a damned good go of it inductively.

Now, If you mean to suggest that the idea of existence is in some way abstractly irrational, then that is something entirely different.

[x togepi x]

you can produce no valid premise that would render existence logically contradictory, and thus absurd. Now, you may be somewhat correct, for I would agree that you cannot deductively justify existence, but you sure as hell can make a damned good go of it inductively.

Now, If you mean to suggest that the idea of existence is in some way abstractly irrational, then that is something entirely different.

If you're going to lecture me about logic, you probably shouldn't commit the fallacy that states that because there's no proof of a position, it must be false.

[cantnokdahustle]

If you're going to lecture me about logic, you probably shouldn't commit the fallacy that states that because there's no proof of a position, it must be false.

If you are going to make a claim, such as, "existence is absurd," then you'd damned well better be able to to have statements to back this conclusion up, we call these premises.

[x togepi x]

If you are going to make a claim, such as, "existence is absurd," then you'd damned well better be able to to have statements to back this conclusion up, we call these premises.

existence is absurd. that's pretty simple

unless you can logically justify our existence.


there are premises in that post.

[cantnokdahustle]

existence is absurd. that's pretty simple

unless you can logically justify our existence.


there are premises in that post.

No, Its not simple. You need to back that up! For human existence to be contradictory, it must be, that at the same time, one holds the premises 1) that human beings exist, and 2) that human beings do not exist. both of which are conclusions to their respective arguments and thus have their own set of premises. Now, explain how you got here (not philosophically, but logistically, no pun intended). I.E. how you got to this conclusion.

[x togepi x]

I meant human existence in other ways, like we're supposedly good and evil beings simultaneously.

[Love As Arson]

From the Catechism:

Clearly states that the Eucharist is transformed into the physical substance of Jesus' body after consecration.

"the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."


The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity. For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension. There is no such thing as a non-extended color.

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

I don't wish to really get into this debate at the moment, for my views are fairly known in this forum. But this last argument is fundamentally flawed for various reasons. One, there is a difference between positive atheism and negative atheism. one school, basically has closed themselves off due to inherent contradictions in character traits, which is possibly just a debate in semantics. While the other says, listen, you haven't shown me proof yet, but if you come back with proof I'll be more than happy to consider it.
Forgive me for being general with the term, rather, I was referring to those that claim absolute knowledge as to whether or not god exists. It is, in fact, a contradictory thing to castigate the strong faith of Christian, while claiming to know an absolute truth as to the existence of all deities. A far more intellectually honest viewpoint would be to conclude there is no conclusive proof to either disprove or prove a generic deity, so they abstain from making a decision either way. Generally, many who claim atheism tend to actually adhere to this view, which can obscure the labels.

second of all you are sort of discounting the nature of this whole debate by holding each group to the same sort of standard. So, let me correct you on that, because I know you know your logical fallacies. In this case "proof of a negative." the onus is on the believer to prove to the atheist, for denial is merely the default position. There is no "leap" required in the absence of any evidence.
Conversely, one may commit the same fallacy by asserting that no gods exist because they've not seen proof of them. The default position would then be agnosticism, and both denial and acceptance must provide credible expositions as to why it is that god/s may or may not exist.

[cantnokdahustle]

I meant human existence in other ways, like we're supposedly good and evil beings simultaneously.

I will have to apologize, I have a problem with communication. Things need to be spelled out completely for me to be able to understand them. In this case, you stated "existence' and where most people might take that to be a general term for all things (including traits or attributes), I take it to mean 'existence.'

[x togepi x]

I will have to apologize, I have a problem with communication. Things need to be spelled out completely for me to be able to understand them. In this case, you stated "existence' and where most people might take that to be a general term for all things (including traits or attributes), I take it to mean 'existence.'


haha. it's okay. i could see how what i said was ambiguous.

[cantnokdahustle]

Forgive me for being general with the term, rather, I was referring to those that claim absolute knowledge as to whether or not god exists. It is, in fact, a contradictory thing to castigate the strong faith of Christian, while claiming to know an absolute truth as to the existence of all deities. A far more intellectually honest viewpoint would be to conclude there is no conclusive proof to either disprove or prove a generic deity, so they abstain from making a decision regarding. Generally, many who claim atheism tend to actually adhere to this view, which can obscure the labels.


Conversely, one may commit the same fallacy by asserting that no gods exist because they've not seen proof of them. The default position would then be agnosticism, and both denial and acceptance must provide credible expositions as to why it is that god/s may or may not exist. T

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge in metaphysics, without a blatant logical contradiction, is a jackass. Ad hominems cease to be fallacies where they are deserved.

Your second paragraph is more correct than I would, of course, like to admit. Here is where development comes into play, the human factor.

[Darren McLeod]

i can't prove God exists. but I believe in God. and I believe in Jesus.

and I also believe that these threads are pretty useless.

[Burnout2888]

That just makes you another clown happy to go around believing in fairy tales.

How many originality points should we reward you with?

Stop being so damn ignorant and be more open minded to the discussion. Say something intelligent instead of something a jackass would say. I know you can, because you have before. Saying stuff like this is a cheap blow and a cop out.

[IAPAI]

i can't prove God exists. but I believe in God. and I believe in Jesus.

and I also believe that these threads are pretty useless.

Most people who contribute nothing to a discussion think the same thing.

[deadstar]

What do you want me to say, I could prove the earth is not 6000 years old but it would achieve nothing seen as anyone who believes it to start with clearly isn't open to reason.

You can't reason with the unreasonable.
Once again your close minded attitude prevents you from participating in any form of intelligent discussion. Its pointless for you to post in here because you keep rehashing points makde before, yet you just refuse to believe them because of your unwillingness to think a different way.

[deadstar]

How am I close minded? Provide me with some evidence, i'm all ears seriously.

Is it close minded to not believe something when there is not evidence for it?

This is AP.NET do you expect people to come up with some revolutionary new thoery, its a music forum. I dont see you inventing anything new either, or anyone else here for that matter.
You're just general disregard for people's possible explanations for ideast yhey believe proves you're close minded. No it is not close minded to not believe something when there isnt evidence for it, but at the same time it is close minded to completely pass it off as false. Show some respect for other people's beliefs and ideals.

[Ambulance X]

i can't prove God exists. but I believe in God. and I believe in Jesus.

and I also believe that these threads are pretty useless.

That's quite common for people who have been raised in the United States.

[deadstar]

That's quite common for people who have been raised in the United States.
I believe in God and Jesus. At the same time I question a lot of Church teachings and ideas. Not all people of faith blindly follow teachings and beliefs. In fact, I'd say the majority of them question some of the faith. Your idea of a "brainwashed" person of faith is only true of those false religions you see on tv where some minister "heals" a person.

[Ambulance X]

I believe in God and Jesus.

That's quite common for people who have been raised in the United States.

Certainly, you may question your faith, but it seems that you have been brainwashed so thoroughly that you are unable to break free of the ancient superstitions and myths even after questioning. Maybe some day you'll be able to, it won't be easy to reprogram your brain though.

[deadstar]

I am not recquired to show respect for anyone's beliefs. I can tolerate them but i dont respect people for believing the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs never existed. Should i respect people political beliefs if they claim the holocaust never happened? No, so why should religious beliefs be any different?

I pass it off as false because creationism is false.

I dont disregard there reasons because no-one ever gives any, the people who do attempt to prove the existence of God on an intellectual level and there are a few here, i am happy to enter into a reasonable debate with. But theres nothing reasonably about dismissing evolution because an old book says otherwise so i dont see why i should be reasonable in return.

Once again this holocaust analogy is plain outrageous. That happened relatively recently compared to events that most religions believe in. Look up the word faith. Maybe that will provide you with answers as to why people who believe in this do not need factual proof.

How is their religion any more false than yours?

I dont believe in it. But I avoid insulting it and putting it down. Usually those churches are money making machines.

[deadstar]

That's quite common for people who have been raised in the United States.
So you just disregard everything posted after that? Turn a blind eye to someone elses opinion.

[Ambulance X]

So you just disregard everything posted after that? Turn a blind eye to someone elses opinion.

Sorry, i edited in a little extra shortly after i posted that

EDIT: I'll repost it down here too

Certainly, you may question your faith, but it seems that you have been brainwashed so thoroughly that you are unable to break free of the ancient superstitions and myths even after questioning. Maybe some day you'll be able to, it won't be easy to reprogram your brain though.

[deadstar]

Sorry, i edited in a little extra shortly after i posted that

I'm sorry for the previous post then.

That's quite common for people who have been raised in the United States.

Certainly, you may question your faith, but it seems that you have been brainwashed so thoroughly that you are unable to break free of the ancient superstitions and myths even after questioning. Maybe some day you'll be able to, it won't be easy to reprogram your brain though.

I dont blindly believe anything. Being 20 years old, I'm old enough to think about and question many things. The only analogy I can come up with is my dad is racist. After years of listening to his racist comments, I still have not been "brainwashed" or whatever you want to call it. There are very very few people my age who blindly and unquestionably believe anything, especially religion.

[deadstar]

There is more evidence for holocaust denial or at least that it has been exaggerated than there is for belief in God. Therefore holocaust denial/exagerration is the more reasonable of the two beliefs.




Ever heard of the Vatican?

Just cool it on the Holocaust. Theres no use comparing something that happened a few decades ago with something that happened milleniums ago. Its pointless and isnt furthering your cause.

The vatican itself may be in possession of many priceless works of art, etc. However, all catholic churches I know in the US operate in the red. How many times must I tell you this? The Church puts the money it raises towards good works.

[Ambulance X]

I'm sorry for the previous post then.



I dont blindly believe anything. Being 20 years old, I'm old enough to think about and question many things. The only analogy I can come up with is my dad is racist. After years of listening to his racist comments, I still have not been "brainwashed" or whatever you want to call it. There are very very few people my age who blindly and unquestionably believe anything, especially religion.

I find it hard to understand how you can say that when I'm sure you know that if you were born in the Middle East, you would be a Muslim, or if you were born in India you would likely be a Hindu.

[deadstar]

I find it hard to understand how you can say that when I'm sure you know that if you were born in the Middle East, you would be a Muslim, or if you were born in India you would likely be a Hindu.
Posssibly. Islam is very very similar to Christianity.

And really how hard is it to switch religions. If I truly did not believe in what I believe in or agree with it, then I'd have no problem finding somehting else. Many of my other friends have done it after years of "brainwashing".

[deadstar]

Why because the analogy looks bad on you.

I love how your never answer anything but just claim i'm "Close minded" which wins you no argument or proves any points other than that you have no evidence for what you believe.

Fine there is more evidence for Zeus, Appollo etc.. having existed in some (however exagerrated) form because Zeus is referenced in hundreds and hundreds of Greek Works where as Jesus just the one. Neither back up their sources with evidence and both contain ridiculous miracle claims.
How does this analogy look bad on me? You're comparing an event where there are still first hand accounts to still alive today to something that happend thousands of years ago.

There is A LOT of evidence that Jesus existed. There is question as to the miracles he performed. Dont confuse the two.

[Ambulance X]

Posssibly. Islam is very very similar to Christianity.

And really how hard is it to switch religions. If I truly did not believe in what I believe in or agree with it, then I'd have no problem finding somehting else. Many of my other friends have done it after years of "brainwashing".

It's quite hard to switch religions if you truly believe in one. Certainly the brainwashing that our society subjects children to is more effective on some, and more vigorous in different parts of the country.

What religions did your friends switch to and from?

[deadstar]

Question? You mean it didnt happen at all. There probably existed a heretic in Jerusalem althuogh his name wasnt Jesus i forget what it is but i read somewhere his name was altered to something slightly different for some reason.

But he did not perform miracles, was not the son of god and wasnt born from a virgin.

So in reality he really was not the Jesus some people belive in a he is pratically a different person.

Also there really isnt all that much evidence he existed. There little evidence for anything in the ancient world.
Well theres where your beliefs differ from mine.

[thejetstolehome]

oh for fuck's sake, guys. this thread has been done 10 times in the last month. just agree to disagree.

[Burnout2888]

Question? You mean it didnt happen at all. There probably existed a heretic in Jerusalem althuogh his name wasnt Jesus i forget what it is but i read somewhere his name was altered to something slightly different for some reason.

But he did not perform miracles, was not the son of god and wasnt born from a virgin.

So in reality he really was not the Jesus some people belive in a he is pratically a different person.

Also there really isnt all that much evidence he existed. There little evidence for anything in the ancient world.

So you are doing exactly what Christians do. You're putting your faith into what someone else said. How is this any different from believing in the Bible? What makes your source the ultimate authority?

[Kikskrumme]

omg (no pun intended...) that video
'because in the bible it says...'
i've heard that so often in my life, everything that comes after that just has to seem wrong to me.
i'd love to believe...i mean christians think they have a purpose in life and an afterlife and stuff. and all they have to do is...well nothing except believing in jesus basically.
unfortunately, i can't believe. because there are too many things i don't understand or just don't like about christianity and the bible. everything i know about other religions does not make more sense to me, or even seems absolutely ridiculous. fascinating what kind of stuff people believe in, really.
i have been trying to figure this out for a couple of years now before giving up. because there's so many discussions, so many bible quotes, so many opinions and interpretations...it can't be figured out. if it could be, then someone much more intelligent would've done that already. all those discussions lead nowhere. because there is no proof. it's a question of 'belief', or should i say education.
oh and i recommand this site: http://www.evilbible.com/ (http://www.evilbible.com/)
all the questions you could ever think of discussed in several page long essays.

[Burnout2888]

My source is answerable to reason and logic and is supproted by evidence. It is open to debate both from within and externally, it has no agenda except the pusuit of knowledge. There is nothing higher than reason and logicm logic is the purest form of knowledge and if something is logical i cannot fail to be truth.

I cant say the same for organised religion.

There is evidence to both sides of your argument, you know. People just have different beliefs in logic. When I was an atheist, I still did not believe in the Big Bang Theory. I think it sounds way too... drawn up? I do not find BBT logical whatsoever. Just like you do not find creationism logical.

And why do you stereotype people who look for the evidence of Jesus's existence as having an agenda?

Edit: I jumped to conclusions a bit. Are you an atheist or agnostic? You do not believe in creationism correct?

[Burnout2888]

omg (no pun intended...) that video
'because in the bible it says...'
i've heard that so often in my life, everything that comes after that just has to seem wrong to me.
i'd love to believe...i mean christians think they have a purpose in life and an afterlife and stuff. and all they have to do is...well nothing except believing in jesus basically.
unfortunately, i can't believe. because there are too many things i don't understand or just don't like about christianity and the bible. everything i know about other religions does not make more sense to me, or even seems absolutely ridiculous. fascinating what kind of stuff people believe in, really.
i have been trying to figure this out for a couple of years now before giving up. because there's so many discussions, so many bible quotes, so many opinions and interpretations...it can't be figured out. if it could be, then someone much more intelligent would've done that already. all those discussions lead nowhere. because there is no proof. it's a question of 'belief', or should i say education.
oh and i recommand this site: http://www.evilbible.com/ (http://www.evilbible.com/)
all the questions you could ever think of discussed in several page long essays.

A lot of questions will never, ever be answered. To shut the door because there are no answers to things is not the path you should be taking. Whether you are an atheist, buddist, christian, or agnostic or whatever, you won't figure out everything. There is no proof for big bang, there is no proof for creationism. The discussions of christianity lead nowhere just like any other religion (I put atheisists in the religion category as well; its a broad term to me). It's just what you think sounds right.

It's good to see you put a lot of time into the research of this though. A lot of people blindly believe in what they do.

Edit: I see you're German. What does the majority of Germany believe in?

[MotionIsntMeaning]

oh for fuck's sake, guys. this thread has been done 10 times in the last month. just agree to disagree.

/ thread

[Kikskrumme]

A lot of questions will never, ever be answered. To shut the door because there are no answers to things is not the path you should be taking. Whether you are an atheist, buddist, christian, or agnostic or whatever, you won't figure out everything. There is no proof for big bang, there is no proof for creationism. The discussions of christianity lead nowhere just like any other religion (I put atheisists in the religion category as well; its a broad term to me). It's just what you think sounds right.

It's good to see you put a lot of time into the research of this though. A lot of people blindly believe in what they do.

Edit: I see you're German. What does the majority of Germany believe in?

as you can easily see by the fact that i read this thread, i did not really shut the door^^i'm still thinking about it and try to get every piece of information that could help me. because tbh, i can't understand why people are like whatever about this topic. god, meaning of life, afterlife- those are some of the most important questions in life. that can not be answered, but that should be asked nevertheless. in my opinion anyway.
and yes, i put a lot of time into this. i'm getting so tired of it, especially since all the christians i ever talk to seem to be fanatical and brainwashed and well. what made me think that way is not that they couldn't answer the questions i had, but that they obviously never thought about them either. how can you say you believe in god and the bible and you've never thought about the concept of hell and a loving god being contradictory, never thought about how if god created every single one of us, then he would know who we would become and how could he punish us for that, because he...well...created us. and some other stuff. and then they end up saying that there are no answers, there is just faith. isn't that convincing...
haha actually, i asked that guy at a fair that was a christian and was there to tell the happy message to little kids...just believe and you'll go to heaven. i asked him some questions, and he was all surprised and said i was intelligent. then we discussed some more and he said the devil was speaking through me. haha oh well.
those are the experiences that explain why i think about most christians the way i do. not that you think it affects my way of thinking about those questions though, because that's not true. even if they would have acted differently, that still wouldn't have solved anything.

sry, this is a little long...i think i kinda had to type it out to sort it out in my own mind haha.

anyway, to your question...i think the majority of germans are protestant but i think especially in my generation there are a lot of agnostics and atheists. idk why, i guess the reason is because we are not confronted with faith in our childhood as often as the older generations were. i mean my parents are christian and i was raised christian but then...i guess i started thinking about it and yeah.
when i was in georgia i noticed that people are much more concerned about 'recruiting' children and then they never ask any questions when they get older *shrug*

[dtrzcin]

i can't prove God exists. but I believe in God. and I believe in Jesus.

and I also believe that these threads are pretty useless.

thank-you.

[dtrzcin]

You do realise the whole virgin birth was born out of a miss-translation?

people love conspiracies. :-D

[Burnout2888]

as you can easily see by the fact that i read this thread, i did not really shut the door^^i'm still thinking about it and try to get every piece of information that could help me. because tbh, i can't understand why people are like whatever about this topic. god, meaning of life, afterlife- those are some of the most important questions in life. that can not be answered, but that should be asked nevertheless. in my opinion anyway.
and yes, i put a lot of time into this. i'm getting so tired of it, especially since all the christians i ever talk to seem to be fanatical and brainwashed and well. what made me think that way is not that they couldn't answer the questions i had, but that they obviously never thought about them either. how can you say you believe in god and the bible and you've never thought about the concept of hell and a loving god being contradictory, never thought about how if god created every single one of us, then he would know who we would become and how could he punish us for that, because he...well...created us. and some other stuff. and then they end up saying that there are no answers, there is just faith. isn't that convincing...
haha actually, i asked that guy at a fair that was a christian and was there to tell the happy message to little kids...just believe and you'll go to heaven. i asked him some questions, and he was all surprised and said i was intelligent. then we discussed some more and he said the devil was speaking through me. haha oh well.
those are the experiences that explain why i think about most christians the way i do. not that you think it affects my way of thinking about those questions though, because that's not true. even if they would have acted differently, that still wouldn't have solved anything.

sry, this is a little long...i think i kinda had to type it out to sort it out in my own mind haha.

anyway, to your question...i think the majority of germans are protestant but i think especially in my generation there are a lot of agnostics and atheists. idk why, i guess the reason is because we are not confronted with faith in our childhood as often as the older generations were. i mean my parents are christian and i was raised christian but then...i guess i started thinking about it and yeah.
when i was in georgia i noticed that people are much more concerned about 'recruiting' children and then they never ask any questions when they get older *shrug*

Sorry that I assumed you made your mind - thats what I had taken from the last post.

Sounds like you were in the same exact position I was like, two months ago. How did I get out of it? I stopped talking to other Christians and talked to myself about it. Formed my own conclusions.

But yes - the hardest thing is to talk to a Christian who has never questioned their beliefs - ever. The best people to talk to are the ones who have been in your shoes before.

[Kikskrumme]

Sorry that I assumed you made your mind - thats what I had taken from the last post.

Sounds like you were in the same exact position I was like, two months ago. How did I get out of it? I stopped talking to other Christians and talked to myself about it. Formed my own conclusions.

But yes - the hardest thing is to talk to a Christian who has never questioned their beliefs - ever. The best people to talk to are the ones who have been in your shoes before.

i guess it sounded like that because i wish i had made up my mind. and stopped thinking about it.

so now you're a christian?

[Burnout2888]

i guess it sounded like that because i wish i had made up my mind. and stopped thinking about it.

so now you're a christian?

Eh, somewhat. It's hard to explain how I stand. I'm still figuring out some things.

Edit: Ever heard anyone say "It's not what you're labeled as, it's based on your relationship with God?" Think of that. That's what helped me as well. I am not a supporter of a lot of churches. But that does not mean I should base my decision on those who represent the religion (think of the priests who raped the boys.) I base it on what I feel is right inside of me.

[Burnout2888]

Regardless of the big bang is correct it is a fact that dinosaurs existed and that they existed millions of years ago before humans.

So no i dont believe in creationism.

The big bang is far more logical than creationism lets agree on that, regardless of the big bangs flaws.

I would probably consider myself an atheist but i am open to proof otherwise if you understand me. I am open to the suggestion of deism but theism is false practice for me.

I will admit to the dinosaur argument. That is one thing that still baffles me to this day as I try to figure out where I align my religious beliefs.

When I say creationism, I just mean in general; an outside force creating the universe. It does not need to be a particular religious God, and the God does not even have to exist. Is your stance still the same?

To tell you the truth, I do not think one is more logical than the other and that's what makes my search so hard. They both have their flaws. I think that scientists need to start thinking of alternative ideas of how the universe was created before I can be convinced.

I am happy that this debate is starting to become more of a respectful debate than the old personal attacks that a lot of people resort to (fuck your God and your religion, atheists are going to hell, etc. etc.)

Edit: I read over your deism part. Ignore my question.

[pickett47]

its a fact, ask any jewish person who knows there stuff.

Of course, because they're not biased. The meaning of the word "virgin" has been questioned throughout history, but it cannot be concluded that Jesus was not born of a virgin because we simply don't know. Obviously, we can scientifically prove that a true virgin cannot give birth in the usual way today, but you cannot prove that in one particular instance a miracle did not occur. If you do not believe in God, you can simply disregard it. Falsifying it, however, is not an easy task.

The Jewish heretic you refer to, by the way, is named Joshua. This is actually the true name of Jesus (transliterated into English, it would be something like Yeshua, translated as Joshua). But, there is nothing linking the two as one and the same. Of course a Jewish person would claim such evidence, because it fits their belief system. The same is true of us all, I suppose. But the Hebrew Bible does teach of a Messiah being born of a virgin. Jews simply do not believe that Jesus was this Messiah.

Objectivity is an enormous problem in this argument, as you have all clearly seen. This is why arguing and debating God really does no good, because each side will disregard the claims of the other. Both sides require faith in their arguments, whether you consider it faith or not. Gaps exist. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

By the way, not all Christians believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I think this is pretty silly, myself. I know it is tempting to consider us all one and the same, but this is simply not true. Try to bear this in mind when you talk about Christians as a whole. The only thing we really all share is Jesus, and at times even that doesn't even seem to be true.

[Ambulance X]

omg (no pun intended...) that video
'because in the bible it says...'
i've heard that so often in my life, everything that comes after that just has to seem wrong to me.
i'd love to believe...i mean christians think they have a purpose in life and an afterlife and stuff. and all they have to do is...well nothing except believing in jesus basically.
unfortunately, i can't believe. because there are too many things i don't understand or just don't like about christianity and the bible. everything i know about other religions does not make more sense to me, or even seems absolutely ridiculous. fascinating what kind of stuff people believe in, really.
i have been trying to figure this out for a couple of years now before giving up. because there's so many discussions, so many bible quotes, so many opinions and interpretations...it can't be figured out. if it could be, then someone much more intelligent would've done that already. all those discussions lead nowhere. because there is no proof. it's a question of 'belief', or should i say education.
oh and i recommand this site: http://www.evilbible.com/ (http://www.evilbible.com/)
all the questions you could ever think of discussed in several page long essays.

marry me?

[Burnout2888]

I'd like to expand on the deism argument if you care to humour me. My problem with Deism is this. Firstly it has no tangible evidence and relies on the God of the gaps argument. You see while we may not know where matter came from, if we assume there was a creator then we also do not know where that creator came from. Of course the argument is "God was always there" but how is that any more reasonable than claiming matter has always existed?

So the argument against is "things cant come from nothing" but a deist is doing just that. Not only is he claiming things come from nothing but that an omnipotent sentient being just sprung out of nothing as opposed to very simple molecules. It is a logical fallacy to claim the existence of anything more than is absolutely necessary so to claim God's existence is bad logic. It is far more reasonable to assume a very basic organism developed into a complex one as this is how the world works. For example babies dont just spring out of nowhere, they develop slowly into more complicated beings, so to assume a fully developed being appeared from nowhere is not as reasonable as ssuming a very very basic being appeared from nowhere.

Of course all this is subject to the creator making its presence known but seen as that hasnt explicitally happened in the billions of years the universe has existed for, I can only go off the logic we have and that points me to atheism as opposed to deism for the above reasons.

With the God of the Gaps argument, you also have a science of the gaps argument, where scientists can say "Science can explain it, one day." Certain things will never be explained, that is all there is.

Your argument also works both ways, which is starting to make both of us hit a dead end. I will never be able to make you think a deist or a theist idea is reasonable, and you will never make me think that a molecular idea is reasonable. No matter how open both of us are to it (which both of us seem more reasonable that your standard christian or atheist) we cannot change the others beliefs. Your logic is different from everybody else's logic. Certain things are more logical to others than other things are.

PS - The Earth is much older than 6000 years old. I know you did not say that to me, but I am just throwing it in there that I think that is a ridiculous assumption made by hardcore Christians.

PPS - I think I am done with this thread. It's the same thread as the other 8 that were made and it is just the same arguments with the same endings.

[lew_1987]

apparently adam lived to be 912 years old

[catscradle]

I'd like to expand on the deism argument if you care to humour me. My problem with Deism is this. Firstly it has no tangible evidence and relies on the God of the gaps argument. You see while we may not know where matter came from, if we assume there was a creator then we also do not know where that creator came from. Of course the argument is "God was always there" but how is that any more reasonable than claiming matter has always existed?

So the argument against is "things cant come from nothing" but a deist is doing just that. Not only is he claiming things come from nothing but that an omnipotent sentient being just sprung out of nothing as opposed to very simple molecules. It is a logical fallacy to claim the existence of anything more than is absolutely necessary so to claim God's existence is bad logic. It is far more reasonable to assume a very basic organism developed into a complex one as this is how the world works. For example babies dont just spring out of nowhere, they develop slowly into more complicated beings, so to assume a fully developed being appeared from nowhere is not as reasonable as ssuming a very very basic being appeared from nowhere.

Of course all this is subject to the creator making its presence known but seen as that hasnt explicitally happened in the billions of years the universe has existed for, I can only go off the logic we have and that points me to atheism as opposed to deism for the above reasons.

Have you read mere christianity by C.S. Lewis? If not, i really recommend you take the time to read it. It provides a nice discussion on faith and reason that i think you might enjoy.

[lew_1987]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3MmwttNVvQ

my friend sent me this link the other day, i could not stop laughing at the way this guy says "water", particularly at about 6:27 (i think). really cracks me up. the main vital flaw of this argument is if noah only took two of every basic kind of animal on the ark, why are there so many different types of dogs now? (because he doesn't believe in evolution). slightly off topic i know, but interesting never the less. any way watch the video, its generally funny.

[lew_1987]

The main slaw is that his argument for the creation of the world is built on no understanding of science or evolution and that he presents no evidence other than biblical evidence which is hardly scientifically accurate.

haha yeah, there is that aswell. a lot of the quotes are taken out of context anyway, and they're not exactly proof.

[Burnout2888]

apparently adam lived to be 912 years old

Scholars debate this because the fact that we did not have the same calendar then as we did now. They think they were referring to an old cultural belief of "moon time," which is the cycling of the moon. If you divide Adams apparent age by 12 (which is roughly the number of cycles the moon makes in the year) you'll get around 70, which makes a lot more sense. This fucked me up the first time I read it though. I was like "whaaaat? get the fuck out of here."

[deadstar]

I could make up a lot of mathematical calculations with a little back story to make any figure i wanted though.
Dude we get it. You refuse to accept any possible explanation other than your own.

[lew_1987]

Scholars debate this because the fact that we did not have the same calendar then as we did now. They think they were referring to an old cultural belief of "moon time," which is the cycling of the moon. If you divide Adams apparent age by 12 (which is roughly the number of cycles the moon makes in the year) you'll get around 70, which makes a lot more sense. This fucked me up the first time I read it though. I was like "whaaaat? get the fuck out of here."

you have got the best avatar on this site.

[deadstar]

Dude we get it you cant accept that people can be scepticle of miracles and 900 year old men.
I can accept that fact. It seems as though you're the one who cant leave it alone. Hence your reply to my "Thats where our beliefs differ". It seems like you're trying to prove religion wrong which is misguided. Try to educate yourself more.

[thejetstolehome]

:horse:

[YouMadeTheScene]

When I say creationism, I just mean in general; an outside force creating the universe. It does not need to be a particular religious God, and the God does not even have to exist. Is your stance still the same?

This is my stance. If the universe was created from the smallest most minuscule particle, something had to have put that one particle there, correct?

I like how my topic just mushroomed out.

[deadstar]

Why is it misguided to question something which such a great effect on the world. You saying get education doesnt wash man, im very well educated and ive proved it before.
You can question something all you want. You're not going to change people's minds or prove an entire religion wrong with an internet source. Its a waste of time. Just try to be a little more accepting and try to see things from someone else's viewpoint.

[deadstar]

I can see people's view points i know why they think things but that doesnt make them correct, logical, reasonable or sufficient.
Well their isnt proof either way and there never likely will be. You act like everything is cut and dry. It isnt.

[dai the flu]

I can see people's view points i know why they think things but that doesnt make them correct, logical, reasonable or sufficient.
it's not correct, logical, reasonable or sufficient to you. it is reasonable and sufficient for others. accept that. we know how you feel. we know what you think. let it go at that. you aren't changing anybody's opinions.

[deadstar]

Theres plenty of proof the biblical god isnt real.
Good for you. I believe otherwise.

[IAPAI]

How can you argue that dinosaurs didnt exist?

If I read one more response that says. "God buried them to test our faith", I will fucking snap.

[dai the flu]

How can you argue that dinosaurs didnt exist?
will you give it a break. you assume you know what everyone believes and you're so incredibly ignorant about the bibles contents its pathetic. stop talking.
where does the bible deny the existence of dinosaurs?
and don't say the lack of information on dinosaurs is enough. as we've said time and again, the bible is not meant as a science textbook. i don't know why you don't understand that.

[deadstar]

the bible explicitally states that in seven days everything in the earth was created as it is now, yet dinosaurs of course existed millions of years before humans and that is a fact.

Ive read the bible cover to cover many times, please show where im ignorant of the bibles content???

Almost all the Chrsitians here just seem to claim atheists are ignorant and offer no evidence or any debate of philosophy.
Days are not necessarily the day you know now. Just accept something and move on. You're not proving anyone wrong. You're just proving how stubborn and unwilling you are to open up to different ways of thinking.

[deadstar]

The bible was written by men therefore it was written as men would comprehend it. Hence it is a literal seven days.

The only circumstances where it could be otherwise is if God wrote the bible, which of course he didnt.

Why on earth should i open up to new ways of thinknig when you have not once offered any evidence, deabte or even reasons why i should.

You have no points ever, except "educate yourself", you really need the education yourself.

Says the kid who in a previous thread said religion is the root of intolerance. I'm not busy trying to prove the existence of God. I'm content with what I believe. I suggest you just be content and leave it alone because you're not acocmplishing anything. You're going around in endless circles.

[deadstar]

We both know your bullshitting and i never said that, quit being a douche and misquoting. I said religion can lead to intolerance and that without religion those intolerant people would no longer be that way. I never said religion is necessary for intolerance.
I dont feel like going back since this is pointless. You just seem misinformed on most religions and the point of them. Thats all I'm going to say.

[thejetstolehome]

oh
my
fucking
Christ.
just agree to disagree already!

this same thread has gone on so many times in the last month alone and nothing new is being brought to the table. end amicablly.

[Ambulance X]

Days are not necessarily the day you know now. Just accept something and move on. You're not proving anyone wrong. You're just proving how stubborn and unwilling you are to open up to different ways of thinking.

Question...

Why do you think that it is appropriate to look at days as being figurative days?

[deadstar]

Question...

Why do you think that it is appropriate to look at days as being figurative days?
The writers were writing through inspiration from God. The day they are referring to could just be classified as time periods.

I question why we are dwelling on these miniscule details.

[Burnout2888]

id love to actually debate philosophy but only burnout seems informed enough to do so and hes not online.

Hey, I am back now. I had to work. Let me go through some of the things you said real quick. I did not check if you were online, so you may or may not be. If you aren't, then this post is totally useless.

[Harold Wood]

These are the most annoying threads known to these forums. You didn't want a question answered; you wanted to stir up things.

Guess what...... I am chrsitan; I believe in dinosaurs; I believe in evolution; I don't believe that adam and eve were real people but a story used to explain man's power to change the world and eventually destroy it. Hence God coming down in the form of man to save us from his judgments on earth. I could talk about this all day. We will all go around in circles. We ALL believe different things.

a) If you believe that everything in the bible is as it states; read it again and pay more attention. It's a book about a world and a time we know little about. It is not our owner's manual

b) We all have faith. I believe it takes the same amount of faith to either believe or not believe in God and for that matter any form of christianity.

c) This is all opinion. I will not argue, but simply state my opinion; so please don't try.

[Burnout2888]

the bible explicitally states that in seven days everything in the earth was created as it is now, yet dinosaurs of course existed millions of years before humans and that is a fact.

Ive read the bible cover to cover many times, please show where im ignorant of the bibles content???

Almost all the Chrsitians here just seem to claim atheists are ignorant and offer no evidence or any debate of philosophy.

Again, like I said, I am not the best Christian to talk to about this type of stuff, since I sort of recently got into it. I spent a long time being an atheist, so I was not brain washed and I am a lot more open minded to other ideas. So I guess I will try my best with this.

I hate to resort to the Bible as an argument, but in the Bible it possibly explains dinosaurs. Now, before you read this, throw away your beliefs and for the sake of argument, believe that the Bible is real. In Job 40:15-24, there is an animal named Behemoth that does not fit any animal of our time. I am going to copy and paste the passage if you do not mind:


15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Not look at line 17. What animal nowadays has a tail as massive as a cedar? Remember, God talked to Job at the time about animals he lived with. We know of no land animals with tails that long. Also, the word dinosaur is not used until the 19th century, so we have no clue as to what to look for when we look in the bible since we're so used to calling them dinosaurs.

As for man and dinosaurs living together, to be honest, you may have me there - however, there is evidence of man and dinosaur living together. Dinosaur footprints and man footprints were found in the same strata, in the exact same formation, and some of them were less than two feet apart at a dig in Glen Rose, Texas. I will admit though, the evidence against them living together outweighs the evidence for it.

I am not gonna lie lunchforthesky - I think you might be the only person I have respectfully debated on ap.net about this. At first I thought you were ignorant, but you have definitely proved me wrong with your intelligence, a trait that many lack on this site.

Edit: I did not know that the Glen Rose thing was a faux. Shows how much I know.

[Burnout2888]

These are the most annoying threads known to these forums. You didn't want a question answered; you wanted to stir up things.

Guess what...... I am chrsitan; I believe in dinosaurs; I believe in evolution; I don't believe that adam and eve were real people but a story used to explain man's power to change the world and eventually destroy it. Hence God coming down in the form of man to save us from his judgments on earth. I could talk about this all day. We will all go around in circles. We ALL believe different things.

a) If you believe that everything in the bible is as it states; read it again and pay more attention. It's a book about a world and a time we know little about. It is not our owner's manual

b) We all have faith. I believe it takes the same amount of faith to either believe or not believe in God and for that matter any form of christianity.

c) This is all opinion. I will not argue, but simply state my opinion; so please don't try.

Doesn't being a Christian AND not believing in Adam and Eve contradict each other?

[Burnout2888]

you have got the best avatar on this site.

Haha, incredible game, isn't it? It was between that, Kung-Fu, and Hogan's Alley. I went with the most recognizable.

[Burnout2888]

This is my stance. If the universe was created from the smallest most minuscule particle, something had to have put that one particle there, correct?

I like how my topic just mushroomed out.

You still did not answer my main question.

Who's the girl in your picture? ;-)

[rikfrommf]

Again, like I said, I am not the best Christian to talk to about this type of stuff, since I sort of recently got into it. I spent a long time being an atheist, so I was not brain washed and I am a lot more open minded to other ideas. So I guess I will try my best with this.

I hate to resort to the Bible as an argument, but in the Bible it possibly explains dinosaurs. Now, before you read this, throw away your beliefs and for the sake of argument, believe that the Bible is real. In Job 40:15-24, there is an animal named Behemoth that does not fit any animal of our time. I am going to copy and paste the passage if you do not mind:


15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Not look at line 17. What animal nowadays has a tail as massive as a cedar? Remember, God talked to Job at the time about animals he lived with. We know of no land animals with tails that long. Also, the word dinosaur is not used until the 19th century, so we have no clue as to what to look for when we look in the bible since we're so used to calling them dinosaurs.

As for man and dinosaurs living together, to be honest, you may have me there - however, there is evidence of man and dinosaur living together. Dinosaur footprints and man footprints were found in the same strata, in the exact same formation, and some of them were less than two feet apart at a dig in Glen Rose, Texas. I will admit though, the evidence against them living together outweighs the evidence for it.

I am not gonna lie lunchforthesky - I think you might be the only person I have respectfully debated on ap.net about this. At first I thought you were ignorant, but you have definitely proved me wrong with your intelligence, a trait that many lack on this site.

Edit: I did not know that the Glen Rose thing was a faux. Shows how much I know.

I just want to add that if you believe in evolution and God (intelligent Design) then humans and dinosaurs lived together. (common ancestry)

[rikfrommf]

oh for fuck's sake, guys. this thread has been done 10 times in the last month. just agree to disagree.

amen.

[Harold Wood]

Doesn't being a Christian AND not believing in Adam and Eve contradict each other?

I don't think so. I believe that the story of adam and eve is used to describe how man came about and how he would defy God. The story is used to describe the character of God and also the character of the devil. I believe it is in fact a story.

[Burnout2888]

I don't think so. I believe that the story of adam and eve is used to describe how man came about and how he would defy God. The story is used to describe the character of God and also the character of the devil. I believe it is in fact a story.

Ahh, gotcha.

[sweet tragedy]

You still did not answer my main question.

Who's the girl in your picture? ;-)

I'm pretty sure it's Lily Allen. Could be wrong though.

[Harold Wood]

Ahh, gotcha.

That is obviously just my opinion though.

[Darren McLeod]

That just makes you another clown happy to go around believing in fairy tales.
What do you want me to say, I could prove the earth is not 6000 years old but it would achieve nothing seen as anyone who believes it to start with clearly isn't open to reason.

You can't reason with the unreasonable.
Sorry that I'm so late to this thread, i forgot about it, but here is what I was going to say....

What the fuck are you talking about? You have no idea that what you believe in is real either. The most intelligent thing ever said by a non-divine human was Socrates in stating "All I know is that I know nothing." At least he understood how little we humans can comprehend, you act like you have this whole complex life thing figured out. Science is composed of theories, just like the Bible. Whether you want to believe in some guy in a white coats observations or in your heart, that's up to you. Me, I believe in both. I don't believe the world has existed for 6000 years. I don't take every part of the Bible literally. I am open to reason, I'm one of the most reasonable people I know. I think it's someone who is so closed-minded that they have to take something they don't understand and instantly label it as a "fairy tale" that is unreasonable.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion about faith, then by all means, we can do so. But if you're not willing to come into it with anything other than trashing other people's opinions, then why bother?

...however, then I read over and you started getting a LOT more intelligent in the following pages. However, I still feel I'd post my original message, because your attack on me was, in my opinion, completely unjustified.

By the way, there's a professor from Cambridge speaking at my school next friday about that Dawkins book under this series of "Science and Faith" lectures... i'm pretty excited for it.

[Ambulance X]

The writers were writing through inspiration from God. The day they are referring to could just be classified as time periods.



Right, I understand that you believe there is room for figurative interpretation of the Bible because of your understanding of divine inspiration. But why do you think that it is appropriate to apply a figuartive interpretation to this story? Why don't you think that they're literal days?

[IAPAI]

As for man and dinosaurs living together, to be honest, you may have me there - however, there is evidence of man and dinosaur living together. Dinosaur footprints and man footprints were found in the same strata, in the exact same formation, and some of them were less than two feet apart at a dig in Glen Rose, Texas. I will admit though, the evidence against them living together outweighs the evidence for it.

I hope you are basing your "evidence" on more than this:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsiteovr3b.jpg

Because that is a pretty big stretch to be able to say that men and dinosaurs lived together.

[dai the flu]

the worst part of all this is that ambulance x/y and lunchforthesky have had all their questions answered reasonably already by some people, they just dismiss it and then continue asking the same stupid questions to new people that come in late to the thread(s).

[IAPAI]

the worst part of all this is that ambulance x/y, lunchforthesky, and iapai have had all their questions answered reasonably already by some people, they just dismiss it and then continue asking the same stupid questions to new people that come in late to the thread(s).

Please don't include me in that grouping, because I haven't asked a single question, nor dismissed a single answer, from anybody in here. I've stated my opinions and provided counterexamples to other points. Take a closer look.

[dai the flu]

Please don't include me in that grouping, because I haven't asked a single question, nor dismissed a single answer, from anybody in here. I've stated my opinions and provided counterexamples to other points. Take a closer look.
actually i just came back to the thread to edit my post and take you out. im not sure why i did group you in there.

[Ambulance X]

the worst part of all this is that ambulance x/y and lunchforthesky have had all their questions answered reasonably already by some people, they just dismiss it and then continue asking the same stupid questions to new people that come in late to the thread(s).

I actually have a question that hasn't been answered that was directed to deadstar as to why the Genesis account of creation should be taken figuratively instead of literally. This question is open to everyone. If you believe that the genesis account should actually be taken literally, I'd like to hear why you believe that as well.

[Burnout2888]

Well you already highlited my arguments against this but ill say them anyway.

Basically modern man and dinosaur did not co-exist, modern man came into being 120,000 years although the homo sapien mutation strand occured millions of years before. But that 120,000 years i well after the deinosaurs. Also by admitting dinosaurs existed at all it is accepting the world is billions of years old but thats a mute point seen as you acknowledge that anyway.

As you said Glen Rose was a fake, so obviously its testamony worthless. While this passage may offer a small but very shaky biblical testomony of dinosaurs, the bible claims a great many other animals exist, which makes me pass behemoth of in the same mythical vein.

In Numbers 21:6 we find the lord of the Bible sending "fiery serpents" to torment the people. "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died."

is Jeremiah 8:17 - "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."

In Isaiah 34:7 it is written, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

but best of all we have Satyrs in Isaiah 13:21, "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." Satyrs are eseentially half goat half man type beings in case you didn't know.

Unicorns, Cockatrices, Fiery Serpents, Satyrs?

All sound very made up to me, while behemoth may bare resemblance in passing to dinosaurs based on the other creatures the bible cliams exists i would personally pass in off as a mild coincidence. As frankly a Cockatrice does not and has not existed.
It sucks that it seems that I am the only Christian who is speaking to you as unbiased as possible, seeing that I became a Christian about a month and a half ago. So, instead of making up a bullshit answer, I will concede to your argument in hopes that a Christian who knows about this part can explain, because I cannot. Again, I am a very recent convert, so there are things I do not know and questions I still have; coincidentally, the unicorns part is a question I have as well.

How do you know so much of the Bible anyways? Were you raised Catholic or something as a child? I wish I knew it better. I have an extremely basic understanding of it.

Edit: I looked online for an answer to your question and found some interesting concepts: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp -Unicorn
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2173 - Satyrs
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/000609serpent.html -Flying fiery serpents
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd085.htm - Cockatrices, although this one seems a bit ehh compared to the last three.

[Burnout2888]

I actually have a question that hasn't been answered that was directed to deadstar as to why the Genesis account of creation should be taken figuratively instead of literally. This question is open to everyone. If you believe that the genesis account should actually be taken literally, I'd like to hear why you believe that as well.

This is a really interesting part of Christianity that has always drew me in. If you take it literally, 7 days is an awfully short time to create the world. But if you take it figuratively, what else in the Bible then needs to be taken figuratively and what does not? It's a question that has a double edged sword.

I gotta go to work, but I will be posting from there in about an hour. Hopefully I can think of a better, more thorough answer on the way.

[Kikskrumme]

If I read one more response that says. "God buried them to test our faith", I will fucking snap.

nonononono, plz tell me you made that up...nobody actually said that...right?

[pickett47]

In Numbers 21:6 we find the lord of the Bible sending "fiery serpents" to torment the people. "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died."

is Jeremiah 8:17 - "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."

In Isaiah 34:7 it is written, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

but best of all we have Satyrs in Isaiah 13:21, "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." Satyrs are eseentially half goat half man type beings in case you didn't know.

Unicorns, Cockatrices, Fiery Serpents, Satyrs?

All sound very made up to me, while behemoth may bare resemblance in passing to dinosaurs based on the other creatures the bible cliams exists i would personally pass in off as a mild coincidence. As frankly a Cockatrice does not and has not existed.

Is the only translation you have read the King James Version? That's a shame. It is, on many occasions, quite a poor translation.

One must also consider that Hebrew words are often difficult to translate due to the time difference between ancient Hebrew and modern English. We speak differently and, in all likelihood, have different names for animals. This might seem like I'm explaining this away without doing it justice, however. So, see if this makes more sense:

Numbers 21:6. Serpents are often referred to today as snakes. And here are the possible definitions for fiery according to the dictionary: 1 a : consisting of fire b : marked by fire c : using or carried out with fire d : liable to catch fire or explode 2 a : hot like a fire b (1) : being in an inflamed state or condition (2) : feverish and flushed 3 : of the color of fire 4 a : full of or exuding emotion or spirit b : easily provoked
-If the Bible said "fire-spewing" or "fire-breathing," I think we'd all have to wrestle with that one. But, as this is an act of judgment, perhaps God sent down angry snakes. I think this makes sense.

Jeremiah 8:17. The legendary cockatrice is a scary looking beast, isn't it? It might be funny looking, but it also doesn't look very pleasant. One possibly is that God was using this mystical beast as an example of His judgment. The Bible doesn't say He sent them, He just said He might. More plausible, given the context of "which will not be charmed," this is also a snake. This is often translated today as "viper" or "adder." Were a cockatrice real, I doubt it would be charmable and that it would just bite you for its attack. Not very strong language for such a mystical and terrifying beast.

Isaiah 34:7. This is only translated as "unicorn" in the KJV, and I have no idea why. The word is far better translated as "wild bull" or "wild oxen."

Isaiah 13:21. Verse 22 in the KJV uses "dragons," but you didn't mention that. While it is possible that the use of such creatures is designed to insult the enemy by saying that even mythical creatures will live in your desolate land, it is more pertinent to our discussion to discuss the translation. The word translated in the KJV as "satyr" is a word which also means "kid" or "shaggy wild goat" and is used that way in regular language far more than satyr. For good measure, the Hebrew word translated as "dragon" here literally means monster, or large frightening animal. This is often used to refer to mythical dragons, but also animals like whales and even jackals. One of the regions most populated with jackals is the Middle East.

I hope this makes these passages make a bit more sense. I am a student of Biblical languages, and I've had a lot of these questions myself. I would suggest getting a different translation. You might like the New American Standard Bible or another literal translation like it.

[pickett47]

An interesting read, but they are accepting that the current bible is litered with mis-translations that trick the reader into believing something that the hebrew texts never intended. Now if you want to go down that road then why not apply it to the whole old testament, and consider the whole thing is worthless? How can you pick and choose when to accept mistranslations when its suits you and clearly ignore it later?

Acceptance that the english bible is effectively riddled with lies through implicit mistranslations is philosophically a dangerous road to go down. As it seriously quesitons the reliability of the source. Its like basing a scientific theory on falsified data, not the best analogy but im sure you understand my meaning.

Additionally you are accepting that God's work (or the work he inspired) can be flawed and twisted by man which grossly distorts its original intentions. A omnipotent God surely couldn't allow his inspiration to become wasted as he would of forseen such a catastrophe before it even occured. Hence he wouldn't have done it in the first place unless he wished for it to become distorted, which of course is not only a strange scenario but it also means the bible is worthless and no longer God's will.

I think "tricking" is awfully strong language. None of these translation issues have in any way tricked someone or taught falsely about the tenets of any religion. A name for an animal being translated in a possible but not likely way does not falsify the entire document. There are those of us who translate the Bible ourselves for our own personal use, but I doubt you expect all of us to do so. Modern translations have done a fine job of keeping the text's original meaning, which is the important part.

The Pauline epistles are full of Paul warning Christians of false teachings. All of these false teachings were based upon misinterpretations, mistranslations, and the like. Scripture itself teaches that such problems exist. You may call that a problem or say that Paul is tricking us into believing that it's all true, but I think it is an earnest warning from a concerned man. A result of the fall is a distance from God and a critical flaw in our relationship with Him that was mended by Christ. However, far too often we interject personal opinion and subjectivity where it does not belong. This is why denominations and doctrinal differences exist. Our focus, in translation and in practice, has been on our preconceptions and beliefs rather than on the truth. Perhaps you can understand this, regardless of your stance.

On a bit of a side note, you claim to know God far too well. I am not insulting you, but I do not think it is fair for you to limit God or say what He would or would not do. God's will is up to God to decide, it is not subject to our scrutiny. I believe you can see where I am coming from, although we do not share the same beliefs. It is easy for us to subject God to our preconceptions and what we want God to be or think He is, but how is it that we humans would be able to do such a thing?

[deadstar]

I actually have a question that hasn't been answered that was directed to deadstar as to why the Genesis account of creation should be taken figuratively instead of literally. This question is open to everyone. If you believe that the genesis account should actually be taken literally, I'd like to hear why you believe that as well.
Well its not out of the question that the days could be a period of many years. As stated in Genesis, on day 5 he created all animals and the like. Day 6 he created humans. Therefore, its a possibility that the "day" being talked about is a long period of years. Its just a possible explanation.

To me, it really is not that important. My religion doesnt really hinge on how the world was created and other stories from the old testament. Most of my religion is from the gospels and after. I dont dwell too much on older biblical stories.

[IAPAI]

nonononono, plz tell me you made that up...nobody actually said that...right?

I'm afraid not. It's a commonly held belief, apparently:


Those who believe in Christ and in his Father know that as Satan fell from the Glory of God he made it his goal to pull as many away from God as possible. Do you really think he couldn't have laid the foundations of Evolution and the fossils in the record to pull people from Christ? Its not like God would stop him.

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5667113#post566711 3

or better yet,

Dinosaurs were not wiped out by extinction, they were wiped out by the flood. (Noah's Ark). And honestly you cant say that you can prove that there is life on this earth 65 million years ago. You say you believe in science yet there is nothing that can prove life exsisted that long ago.

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5671005#post567100 5

[Harold Wood]

No you never answer anything because you know you simply cant. Burnout answers things properly and then we discuss them. You simply come in here, winge about how we dont believe in God and that this somehow makes us ignorant and contribute nothing to the discussion.
I tried contributing to the discussion but my posts were simply looked over.

[Kikskrumme]

that's so ridiculous, i don't know if i should laugh or cry

so it was either god who put fossils in the ground to test us, or the devil to make us not believe.

great, now i'm smarter =/

(i know that not all christians hold those opinions, so don't bitch at me)

[Harold Wood]

Link me to them and ill happily reply.

just look 3 pages back

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=219729&page=11

[Burnout2888]

I am going to let pickett take over this part, as he seems far more educated in the ways of the Bible than I am. If there is something I can throw my two cents in on, I will, but what they're discussing is beyond what I am at right now.

[Burnout2888]

that's so ridiculous, i don't know if i should laugh or cry

so it was either god who put fossils in the ground to test us, or the devil to make us not believe.

great, now i'm smarter =/

(i know that not all christians hold those opinions, so don't bitch at me)

To be honest, I've never heard a Christian say that God did that to test our faith. If people actually think that, they are brainwashed.

[IAPAI]

that's so ridiculous, i don't know if i should laugh or cry

so it was either god who put fossils in the ground to test us, or the devil to make us not believe.

great, now i'm smarter =/

(i know that not all christians hold those opinions, so don't bitch at me)

By the theory presented by people like that, going to a museum is blasphemous.

[Burnout2888]

So until the evidence presents itself i see absolutely no reason to believe, other than maybe Pascals Wager, ill discuss that futher if you wish?

Is Pascals Wager something you can actually discuss thoroughly? I can't see it having much depth in a discussion.

[Kikskrumme]

By the theory presented by people like that, going to a museum is blasphemous.

lollllllllll exactly.
i think it's interesting to read what people have to say about those topics, even if it is something like that...
shows what people are willing to believe in in order to defend their faith or protect themselves from questioning it

[senatorlamb]

I've shyed away from this thread because I've learned a few things, one of them being you can't cause someone who is religious to see the contradictions or impossibilities of their faith by simply pointing to reason, math, or science. Its a pointless debate when the subject is something inherently supernatrual.

[Kikskrumme]

Isn't it great living in Europe where no-one buys into any of this?

We have religion but its liberal and moderate and we certainly dont teach creationism in any schools.


yeah. i spent three months in georgia as an exchange student in a baptist family. had to go to church twice a week-where i heard stuff that i consider brainwashing. had some heated discussions with my host family as well.
i was not really confronted with religion when i was at school though because i guess they learn about evolution/creationism earlier on in high school. but there was another form of brainwashing-patriotism. it was terrible to listen to that : (

/off topic

[Darren McLeod]

wow, this thing sure grows fast.
Yeah i was a bit of an ass in that first post.

Dawkins is good i've seen him a few and have a few of his books.
it's not dawkins who is speaking, but someone refuting dawkins' claim that science and faith can't work together.
Also worth noting is that the order of creation differs depending on where your drawing it from.

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)


Its not a huge deal but i think if its something your going to live your life devoted to it would be nice to know what you're believing which is pretty hard when you've got contradictions.
There are differences between Genesis 1 and 2, but if you don't take it completely literally, then there isn't much of a contradiction. First of all, land animals and creepy crawlies aren't made until the 6th day, it is only birds and fish on the 5th. As dinosaurs share a lot in common with birds, that could be considered important that there's the distinction. Also, that Adam/Eve contradiction isn't a contradiction at all, though some mystical Jews would argue otherwise and throw in the Lilith figure. The first chapter is, more or less, a summary of what happens, and say that God made man and woman. It doesn't say at the same time. The second chapter gives a story as to how that happened, that Adam was made first, and then Eve derived from his rib. Some people like to claim a contradiction there, but if you read them right after another by yourself, not taking another source's word for it, you might not find that contradiction.
An interesting read, but they are accepting that the current bible is litered with mis-translations that trick the reader into believing something that the hebrew texts never intended. Now if you want to go down that road then why not apply it to the whole old testament, and consider the whole thing is worthless? How can you pick and choose when to accept mistranslations when its suits you and clearly ignore it later?

Acceptance that the english bible is effectively riddled with lies through implicit mistranslations is philosophically a dangerous road to go down. As it seriously quesitons the reliability of the source. Its like basing a scientific theory on falsified data, not the best analogy but im sure you understand my meaning.

Additionally you are accepting that God's work (or the work he inspired) can be flawed and twisted by man which grossly distorts its original intentions. A omnipotent God surely couldn't allow his inspiration to become wasted as he would of forseen such a catastrophe before it even occured. Hence he wouldn't have done it in the first place unless he wished for it to become distorted, which of course is not only a strange scenario but it also means the bible is worthless and no longer God's will.
I wouldn't say the current bible. the unicorn and satyrs are mentioned in the King James Version, which hasn't been used since the 1700 or 1800s. Newer versions have different animals listed, owing to translational differences. Why wouldn't an omnipotent God allow his inspiration to become changed or distorted, and why would he have to wish it to happen? Man has free will. God has foreknowledge of this free will, but it is still entirely free will. (if you'd like to discuss this, we can)

Basically i assume your saying the bible has been manipulated to align itself to peoples pre-conceived notions of what it should contain and represent? Well I agree entirely, which makes it not a divine text but one of men (ancient ones at that) and thus in my opinion does not hold the key to the universe. My problem with this element is that surely we can agree that since its inception both the old and new testaments has been significantly altered, almost endlessly. This was not done with honest intentions in many cases but for other ulterior motives, which suited their ends at the time. A text which contains the truth if you like about the universe should be carried out in search of just that "the truth" yet with all the translations, additions, doctrinal alterations and such it no longer becomes the pursuit of the truth but is littered with the subversive acts of men with un-wholesome agenda. Thus it is just not reliable for me.

Well its very easy to claim God to be an entity that exists outside the realms of logic and reason and thus we cannot apply rules or even question his supposed decisions. Now i would accept this argument if God had proved his existence to me. Yet with this not being forthcoming it is only reasonable to use what we have at our disposal. That being logic, logic is a constant that is never changing and never faltering throughout the entire universe and there is noting to suggest that an omnipotent God could exist outside of the realms of logic so it would be logical fallacy to assume that of a creator without evidence. I'm aware you dont recquire evidence in your own mind to justify the existance of God but put simply, i do. So until the evidence presents itself i see absolutely no reason to believe, other than maybe Pascals Wager, ill discuss that futher if you wish?
As to the first part, you believe that we shouldn't trust ancient men as to holding the key to the universe, yet half of your arguments seemed to be derived from Aristotelean logic. How can the philosophers hold keys to the universes, but the Biblical authors can't? For the second part, what is your definition of evidence? To me, the evidence is everywhere, yet it's not in an easily defined package like science. God has proven His existence to me. I had a religious experience last year where God reached out to me. I understand why you'd be skeptical about this, and probably try to find some natural theory behind it, but for the life of me I cannot. I see too many things in life that require a God. Even simple things such as music, art, friendship, and personal feelings don't make sense to me without a God and souls.

[Darren McLeod]

So Pascals Wager works on two very specualtive assumptions which when tested reveal to me that it is a wager i dont want to make.
not only is it weak for the reasons you gave, but it's also the assumption that, if God does not exist, you're living your life in a delusion, and forced to believe something that isn't true.

[Kikskrumme]

not only is it weak for the reasons you gave, but it's also the assumption that, if God does not exist, you're living your life in a delusion, and forced to believe something that isn't true.

that's not much of a sacrifice taking into consideration that you might be rewarded with eternal happiness though.

[Darren McLeod]

that's not much of a sacrifice taking into consideration that you might be rewarded with eternal happiness though.
very true. As I fall onto the side of believers though, I've never really had to worry about Pascal's wager, I just have had a teacher give that reason against it.

[IAPAI]

wow, this thing sure grows fast.

it's not dawkins who is speaking, but someone refuting dawkins' claim that science and faith can't work together.

There are differences between Genesis 1 and 2, but if you don't take it completely literally, then there isn't much of a contradiction. First of all, land animals and creepy crawlies aren't made until the 6th day, it is only birds and fish on the 5th. As dinosaurs share a lot in common with birds, that could be considered important that there's the distinction. Also, that Adam/Eve contradiction isn't a contradiction at all, though some mystical Jews would argue otherwise and throw in the Lilith figure. The first chapter is, more or less, a summary of what happens, and say that God made man and woman. It doesn't say at the same time. The second chapter gives a story as to how that happened, that Adam was made first, and then Eve derived from his rib. Some people like to claim a contradiction there, but if you read them right after another by yourself, not taking another source's word for it, you might not find that contradiction.

I wouldn't say the current bible. the unicorn and satyrs are mentioned in the King James Version, which hasn't been used since the 1700 or 1800s. Newer versions have different animals listed, owing to translational differences. Why wouldn't an omnipotent God allow his inspiration to become changed or distorted, and why would he have to wish it to happen? Man has free will. God has foreknowledge of this free will, but it is still entirely free will. (if you'd like to discuss this, we can)

As to the first part, you believe that we shouldn't trust ancient men as to holding the key to the universe, yet half of your arguments seemed to be derived from Aristotelean logic. How can the philosophers hold keys to the universes, but the Biblical authors can't? For the second part, what is your definition of evidence? To me, the evidence is everywhere, yet it's not in an easily defined package like science. God has proven His existence to me. I had a religious experience last year where God reached out to me. I understand why you'd be skeptical about this, and probably try to find some natural theory behind it, but for the life of me I cannot. I see too many things in life that require a God. Even simple things such as music, art, friendship, and personal feelings don't make sense to me without a God and souls.


How do you think that having "free will" fits in with his instruction to Adam and Eve not to eat the apple? Milton makes the argument that for any choice to be totally free, you cannot have persuasion, or be told what to do.

[Darren McLeod]

Surely the Jews have more of a say in the old testament than Christians seen as they write the book in the first place and the Christians adapted it.
First of all, this is only certain sects of mystical Jews and it's not all of them, and second of all, read the text. There is no contradiction between Adam and Eve from Genesis 1 and 2. Nowhere in 1 does it say they were made at the same time, or do anything that clashes with the idea of woman made from man. And why would the Jews have more say in the old testament simply because a Jew wrote the book? This is more than 2000 years since the advent of Christianity, and the Lilith myth as wife of Adam didn't really begin to popularize in Jewish culture until around 1000 AD anyways, during which time Christianity was already popular.
I answered this before really but if those can be mistransalted and interpreted then how can you draw the line and claim huge other parts arent the same?
I can't prove this. But I simply believe that, in reading the Bible, I can derive the truth and have a better understanding of the world around me.

An omnipotent God has forsight of everyhting that will so by allowing it to happen he has wished it in absentia by not preventing it.
false. just because God does not choose to stop it, doesn't mean he wished it. If I have the power to stop something, and I don't do it, does that mean I'm wishing it to happen? Couldn't it be just as likely that I have a bigger plan in place than what could be seen? God lets us do as we will, and only intervenes when He deems necessary.

As to foreknowledge, liken it to your memory. Remember a decision you made yesterday. So, you had free will, right? And yet you can't go back and change it, right? This is kind of how our events of the future are going to take place. They have, in a sense, already been planned, yet it is completely our own free will that controls it.

The bible itself does not mention free will but lends itself far more strongly to calvinistic doctrine in my opinion. Clearly to any reasonable person this seems far fetched so church doctrine has alwasy been the support of free will although the bible itself disagrees.
I fail to see how the Bible supports an Elect, where you are chosen to be saved before birth and you cannot in your lifetime control that.

Philosophers logic in the cases of the ones i wish to mold my ideas on are logical and follow reason which the bible does not when it is imcompatible with scientific evidence.

Evidence is something that is measurable, reliable and through controlled testing can support a certain way of thinking.
But philosophy is compatible with science? Plato's world of Ideas is compatible with science? If you follow mainly the Aristotelean branch of philosophy, I can somewhat agree with you, yet the Platonic branch, and even Cartesian philosophers, hardly believe in the material world at all, so how can we understand through science?

Firstly your inability (and mine) to comprehend the world does not in any way suggest a higher being it is a huge jump to take which is logicallly fallicious. Secondly because there is only one universe it can never be considered perfect because there is nothing imperfect for the universe to be compared to and perfection can only be derived from comparison. Essentially you dont have a universe that wasnt created by God to compare it to and say our universe has this because of God.

Why do they recquire a god?
You contradict yourself here. First, you say that we can't comprehend the world. True, I'd agree with that statement. Then, you say that perfection can only be derived from comparison. Wait... how can you comprehend that? Who is to say that God doesn't know perfection, and doesn't need comparisons?

Also, it is just as logically fallacious to say there is no God because of this lack of comprehension as saying there is a God. Either way, you're making the same jump.

also, this has been great, but i have to go to class now... i'll respond to your next response(s) later tongiht.

[Darren McLeod]

How do you think that having "free will" fits in with his instruction to Adam and Eve not to eat the apple? Milton makes the argument that for any choice to be totally free, you cannot have persuasion, or be told what to do.
Milton was a fiction writer. Let's not forget that.

Free will fits perfectly into the instructions. God told them not to eat the apple. The serpent, who can be seen as temptation or the Devil, told them to eat the apple. This is two choices placed right in front of them. They freely chose, in the light of these two options, to eat the apple. Every choice involces persuasion one way or the other, it's almost impossible for a choice not to have persuasion.

[deadstar]

What exactly is your view on evolution, dinosaurs, the development of the world and the age of the world.
I dont really know. I never honestly thought about it or thought much of it. It never seemed THAT relevant to me or my faith.

[IAPAI]

Milton was a fiction writer. Let's not forget that.

Free will fits perfectly into the instructions. God told them not to eat the apple. The serpent, who can be seen as temptation or the Devil, told them to eat the apple. This is two choices placed right in front of them. They freely chose, in the light of these two options, to eat the apple. Every choice involces persuasion one way or the other, it's almost impossible for a choice not to have persuasion.

He was also a non-fiction writer: the work I am referring to is Areopagitica. Let's not forget that.

They only choice he is giving them is to be subservient to him. By nature, they want to eat the apple, but he will not allow it. I think we have conflicting views of what "free will" really means.

[deadstar]

He was also a non-fiction writer: the work I am referring to is Areopagitica. Let's not forget that.

They only choice he is giving them is to be subservient to him. By nature, they want to eat the apple, but he will not allow it. I think we have conflicting views of what "free will" really means.
He does not want them to eat the apple, yet they do. Hence our free will to choose between right and wrong. I dont understand what you're saying by this.

[IAPAI]

He does not want them to eat the apple, yet they do. Hence our free will to choose between right and wrong. I dont understand what you're saying by this.

if I held a gun to your head and said "you can pay me 100 dollars, or reach for the phone to report me", would you say that you had free will in the decision? You have the ability to choose between right (report me) or wrong (pay me), but there are severe consequences that I am threatening if you choose what I do not want you to.

[deadstar]

if I held a gun to your head and said "you can pay me 100 dollars, or reach for the phone to report me", would you say that you had free will in the decision? You have the ability to choose between right (report me) or wrong (pay me), but there are severe consequences that I am threatening if you choose what I do not want you to.
OK. I wasnt being mean in my previous post, I just honestly didnt understand what you were getting at (just to clarify). I know its just an analogy, but I see the free will of God differently. The ability to choose between sin and overcome temptation.

[deadstar]

Why would God create us with free will and punish us for using it. Its not exactly what a just God would do.
Define a just God. We have the will to choose between right and wrong. If we didn't have the free will to choose then there would be no such thing as right and wrong. There would be no temptations.

[pickett47]

Because there is so many religions, absolutely millions of combinations and they are all supported by the same amount of evidence (none at all) then it makes sense to judge them equally. So you are essentially picking a 1 in a million chance which steals a fair amount of your time so although you will be rewarded highly in you pick the winner, according to pascals wager, the chances of picking that winner lead me to think why enter the race at all when you are almost guarenteed to lose. Additionally who is to say that the true way to God even exists or that it has been revealed yet. For example Cavemen went to hell supposedly but they werent even revealed to the way to enter heaven (according to a christian) so who is to say we have yet been let in on the secret.

Of course any combinations of religions might allow one access to heaven but as i said earlier who is to say God doesn't allow atheists into heaven?

Pascal's wager is quite tricky. To someone such as myself, this wager did not bring me to belief. Being a Christian because of a game of chance hardly seems worthwhile or even real, to be honest. I was brought to belief through a wide variety of areas, including science and reason. And I don't mean the kind of "creation science" you have been discussing, but rather the intricacies of our universe. And I am reminded everyday of the great deal of sense that Christianity makes, at least my understanding of it. When I was searching for more than atheism, I learned a great deal about myself and about the workings of the world... Christianity fits in for me. That might be off topic, but I would consider it my lending to the "natural revelation" of Romans 1. It requires a bit of openness and emotion that not many are comfortable with, but I believe that it makes sense.

Your example of Cavemen going to hell is not consistent with any theology/sect that I am aware of. Maybe I am overlooking something, but this is not the traditional Christian understanding. Christ died for the sins of all, past and present, given that they accept the gift. How was one to accept said gift given that they were not aware of the details? Via natural revelation, prophecy, etc. one may ultimately realize that God exists and that mankind is distant from Him, needing reconciliation. Theology is not essential for salvation, only faith. God, as far as I know and believe, is not concerned with details. Those before Christ do not immediately go to hell, but are rather judged on their own accord. It would be completely ridiculous for anyone to claim that those who claim before Christ were immediately damned.

I believe that Christianity makes sense by looking at the world and noticing things about the way we are. You may not believe so, but with all of my logic and my understanding of things, it really does. Because of that, and the effect that Christianity has on true believers, I believe that Christianity is wholly and solely true. I grew up an apathetic Christian who did not truly believe until 2.5 years ago, and I'm at this point moreso because of my own brain than anything else. I still struggle with the things I learned when I was younger, during my "brainwashing period," as you call it. I just cannot come to any other conclusion.

[pickett47]

Why would God create us with free will and punish us for using it. Its not exactly what a just God would do.

Would good parents allow you to make mistakes and learn for yourself? Of course they would. That's how we learn things. You cannot truly know something until you have learned it on your own.

God allows us free will that we might come to Him on our own. This is how we may truly come to know and love Him. If you are forced to do something, with no other option, you would not truly enjoy it or feel strongly about it. You might say that there is no other option, because of the magnitude of punishment, but the option does still exist. If we choose to take advantage of the option, we may come to love God and learn a great deal about life.

[pickett47]

I was referring to its invention not to its curretn state, we can comprehend much of the current world, we just dont quite know where matter came from. So i still maintain perfect (which is an adjective, not a state of being) recquires a comparison.

Simple laws of rationale state it is logical to assume that know more beings exist than is completely necessary and provable, therefore adding a sentient being who appeared out of nowhere on the end of the chain is very bad practice. It is more logical to assume that the first things in existence where simple particles that slowly developed than to assume that complex organisms appeared out of nowhere. If we look at the world everything that grows starts of small and simple (take babies for example) before developing into more complex organisms. Why should the roots of the universe be any different?

To your first point I quoted, perfection does require a comparison. What would an atheist describe as perfection? The Christian may use an almighty and perfect Being in order to measure such things. If one does not believe in God, than is it possible for perfection to exist out of chaos? Correct me if I am wrong, but perfection does not seem to fit into this, so you are approaching the argument from two sides that do not mesh together. It seems as though you will be unable to satisfy one another's views on this.

Secondly, I do not know that this is more rational. Rationally, the two do not seem so different. How is it more logical to assume that matter existed than to assume that a divine creative being existed? Both require a leap of faith due to a gap in understanding. In addition, you will find a growing number of Christians who believe in the definite possibility that God used the Big Bang and evolution for His creative purposes. I appreciate your use of growth as an example, that is quite intelligent and, I must say, beautiful. One from a Christian perspective might say that the workings of the world reflect the workings of the Creator. I hope this makes sense, and I apologize if I did not understand your reasoning. But, to me, they just don't seem all that different.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

Give it a fucking rest. You're not going to convince anyone to change thier beliefs and you're just talking in circles. Accept the fact that people have different views and stop being so condesending to people who's views differ from yours.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

Were have an enjoyable discussion which all parties are consenting into entering, finally we've manage to get down to discussing things properly. Get out if you dont like it.

Everything in this thread has been discussed in several others.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

i typed "pascals wager" into the search ealier and i'd mentioned it once in a relient k thread a few weeks ago, so your wrong.

Right, cause the last 15 pages was spent discussing pascals wager.

[senatorlamb]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1209/1635/400/IMG_0019.0.jpg

[Ambulance X]

hahahahaha

[IAPAI]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1209/1635/400/IMG_0019.0.jpg

obviously they could have co-existed...

http://www.nwcreation.net/images/dinofeeding.jpg

[Burnout2888]

http://i1.tinypic.com/sdnus5.jpg

[Burnout2888]

This is the best religious debate ap.net has ever had, simply because everyone is embracing with a lot more reason than personal attacks. Every religious thread I've ever seen ends up with one guy just constantly slamming the other religion without any reason whatsoever. But this... this is good. I love good debate like this. Debate expands your ideas and makes you think. I truly believe it makes you much more intelligent. This proverb rings true:

"Just as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another."

[Kikskrumme]

But what does this give God, what is the point in him creating man only to either rewards them or torture them for enternity, its very sick in my opinion. Also why does God leave so much doubt in the world, why doesnt he lay it down flat for everyone on a level playing field?

Also such sentiments are not hard evidence, just a little made up back story.



As I have previously stated i dont reject entirely the idea of a creator, but that this creator continues to interfere in our lives, is omnipotent, is anthropomorphic (has human qualities), that he cares or that there is an afterlife seems obscene.


haha i was always asking myself why god didn't simply write something in the sky. should be possible for him.
people told me that god wants us to believe without proof or something. that we have the 'choice to believe'.
that never made sense to me. i mean, where does belief come from?not from being a good person. so why does it even have to do with belief, it just doesn't seem to fit in with my values (and a god that approves of slavery, murder and rape doesn't either...). if i had proof that jesus died on the cross for us, then i would of course accept him as my savior (if i could only understand why there had to be a sacrifice to begin with...i mean it's god's rules, he could've just forgiven us anyway. without 'having to kill his only son because he loved us so much' =/ ). but since i can't choose something i don't know exists...where is the choice in there.
it's like...ummm let's say you want to buy a ticket for an event. aaand tell your friend about it. then after you bought it, your friend says 'i don't understand why you bought that, i have a ticket and can't go'. and you're like 'why didn't you tell me'. and then they answer 'because you didn't ask me if i had one'. you can't ask someone for something you don't know they have.
ugh that doesn't make a lot of sense i guess...i don't know how to exlain it. things would be easier if i spoke english lawlzzzz


and i agree with you...i think if there is a god, he doesn't interfere in our lives but simply let us live and then judges us when we're..well...dead.
it's like the typical christian thing to say..that when you left your wallet at home, then have to ask another person for two dollars, then get on the bus with them, then convince them of christianity, it was god's doing.
if you just leave your wallet at home and then can't hold that speech about your faith that would have convinced lots of people to become christians, then it is completely your fault.
the other stuff (anthropomorphic god, afterlife) is ok for me though--probably because it's a comforting idea, afterlife and a caring and loving god and all that. i just pick the stuff i like and forget the rest rofl

[thejetstolehome]

http://i1.tinypic.com/sdnus5.jpg

best. movie. ever.

[Burnout2888]

haha i was always asking myself why god didn't simply write something in the sky. should be possible for him.

Is it possible to think that the universe itself is the writing in the sky you are looking for? Just a thought. Not trying to press anything on you.
people told me that god wants us to believe without proof or something. that we have the 'choice to believe'.
that never made sense to me. i mean, where does belief come from?not from being a good person. so why does it even have to do with belief, it just doesn't seem to fit in with my values (and a god that approves of slavery, murder and rape doesn't either...). if i had proof that jesus died on the cross for us, then i would of course accept him as my savior (if i could only understand why there had to be a sacrifice to begin with...i mean it's god's rules, he could've just forgiven us anyway. without 'having to kill his only son because he loved us so much' =/ ). but since i can't choose something i don't know exists...where is the choice in there.
it's like...ummm let's say you want to buy a ticket for an event. aaand tell your friend about it. then after you bought it, your friend says 'i don't understand why you bought that, i have a ticket and can't go'. and you're like 'why didn't you tell me'. and then they answer 'because you didn't ask me if i had one'. you can't ask someone for something you don't know they have.
ugh that doesn't make a lot of sense i guess...i don't know how to exlain it. things would be easier if i spoke english lawlzzzz
To certain people, the proof is in the universe/their own experiences. When did God approve of slavery and rape? (I know one instance where he murdered men in the bible, but if I am correct, it was justified.)

and i agree with you...i think if there is a god, he doesn't interfere in our lives but simply let us live and then judges us when we're..well...dead.

God gave you free will. When does he interfere in your life?

it's like the typical christian thing to say..that when you left your wallet at home, then have to ask another person for two dollars, then get on the bus with them, then convince them of christianity, it was god's doing.
if you just leave your wallet at home and then can't hold that speech about your faith that would have convinced lots of people to become christians, then it is completely your fault.

Can you rephrase this at all? I'm confused at what you're saying.

[Burnout2888]

best. movie. ever.

I disagree. Your avatar's movie >> my picture's movie.

[Burnout2888]

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Haha, I was just hoping for one passage, but you gave me a lot. I did not deny that it was in there, I just wasn't sure.

[Kikskrumme]

yeah and jesus also says somewhere to people that they should have killed their children because they were disobedient or something. lovely.
what about today's families?i think that a lot of time it's the parents that should be punished (not killed, what an overreaction) for treating their children like slaves. or just like shit to make themselves feel better.
in fact, i don't even need examples of today's families. let's just look at this quote

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

does jesus actually expect that daughter to keep respecting her father?he had his part in creating her life, but just look what kind of life he turns it into.

no, i don't like the biblical god. at all : (

[thejetstolehome]

I disagree. Your avatar's movie >> my picture's movie.

touche.

[Kikskrumme]

Is it possible to think that the universe itself is the writing in the sky you are looking for? Just a thought. Not trying to press anything on you.


the universe is nice and all...but i was thinking about something that qualifies as proof.
like 'hey this is god, believe that kid jesus died for you and you'll go to heaven. see you there'



God gave you free will. When does he interfere in your life?


isn't that what i wrote, that he doesn't?maybe my english is to incorrect to understand what i'm trying to say.


Can you rephrase this at all? I'm confused at what you're saying.


i'm confused as well haha. sorry^^

[Burnout2888]

isn't that what i wrote, that he doesn't?maybe my english is to incorrect to understand what i'm trying to say.



I thought you had meant that the Christian God did interfere with our lives, and that your image of God was that he did not interfere with our lives. Don't worry about your english. Some people on this site can't type to save their lives.

[Kikskrumme]

for more information on injustice and cruelty in the bible, check out this site
http://www.evilbible.com/evils%20of%20the%20torah.htm
pretty shocking.
i know lots of christians always say that jesus changed everything. but he never said that the old rules are all abolished or anything, which can easily be seen in some quotes where he refers to the old testamony. which can be found...uhh somewhere. maybe they are on that site, i can't remember.

[Ambulance X]

This is hilarious...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0

[IAPAI]

This is hilarious...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0

that is hilarious.. "dig up jesus bones"

[halifaxonfire]

for more information on injustice and cruelty in the bible, check out this site
http://www.evilbible.com/evils%20of%20the%20torah.htm
pretty shocking.
i know lots of christians always say that jesus changed everything. but he never said that the old rules are all abolished or anything, which can easily be seen in some quotes where he refers to the old testamony. which can be found...uhh somewhere. maybe they are on that site, i can't remember.
the people who made that site actually have to be retarded. they pick and choose very carefully from each passage and try to twist it into something evil...except the do it horribly. they make awful comparisons and pay no attention at all to the story and reasoning behind the actions. for example:
"God entraps humans by placing the tree of knowledge in the garden and telling Adam and Eve not to eat of it. This is rather similar to placing a toy in front of a child and telling them they are not allowed to play with it. God created us with instinct, rebellion, and curiosity. Soon he punishes us for only doing what is part of our nature. Genesis 2:16.47"
that is one of the single most stupid things i've ever read. how in the hell is that even similar to putting a toy in front of a child? grown men and women have common sense and logic, something a child is not capable of..and a toy is for entertainment, a tree is not. anyone that listens to the dumbass who runs that site needs to actually read the Bible.

[halifaxonfire]

Well actual Adam probably wasnt very logical or had common sense because common sense is learnt from others (and through personal experience) and seen as there were no others to learn from he probably lacked any logical expertise at all. God did tempt Adam purposefully into eating the Apple, why did he do this? Ive no idea, God is omnipotent so always knew Adam would eat the apple so why did he do this in the first place? Guess what the bible often doesn't make sense.

Does preachers not pick and choose horribly what they preach. They dont go around telling everyone you go to hell for starting a fire on a sunday do they? They dont tell everyone slavery is acceptable? But the Bible claims it is. So how are these people any different. Im sure the makers of that site accept that "Thou Shalt not Kill" is a good rule, (Not that God or anyone else for that matter sticks to this.)
yea, in retrospect, i was a little too defensive there and didn't really think it over too well before i posted that. only thing i want to say is that though preachers do omit things, they do preach many of the passages included on that site. the only difference is they give you the passage and explanation behind God's actions, whereas this dude will just say: "God flooded the whole world and killed everyone because he wanted to." i don't want to start an arguement or anything though, cause you're a cool guy, and i see what you're saying.

[Burnout2888]

Oh yeah i realise they pick and choose and often (but not always) misrepresent things. To come them credit though the bible says some way out things that a lot of people are not of aware as they let there pastor read the bible for them.
I'll give you that. That's one of my main problems I still have.

[halifaxonfire]

Couldnt you just be a theist/deist but not a christian, it seems you believe there is some form of higher power(s) but that you dont really fit in with a lot of christian doctrine?
is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#International_st atus_of_Intelligent_Design) the kind of thing that would be considered what you're talking about?

[Burnout2888]

Couldnt you just be a theist/deist but not a christian, it seems you believe there is some form of higher power(s) but that you dont really fit in with a lot of christian doctrine?

Thats what I originally considered myself, but as I kept progressing my religious ideals fit more of Christianity. A lot of the moral beliefs are there as well. There is just some Christian doctrine that still doesn't make sense to me yet. I guess you could say I am more of a theist/deist than I am a Christian, though as time goes by I find myself kind of slanting more towards it. That's why I'm a lot more open minded about this, because I'm still trying to find what I believe in. So, in the long run, I'll end up a Christian, a theist or a deist. I just tend to look at all arguments as open as I can.

Make sense? I might be saying things in a bit of a circle.

[dai the flu]

slavery in the bible is far different than the slavery people think of today. kidnapping/selling another human was punishable by death, slaves were not bought and sold like they were in recent times. laws protected slaves rights and they were viewed as men, not posessions. almost like hired laborers. this isfurther shown by many jews voluntarily becoming slaves to repay debts and recover from poverty. add in certain junctures in the jewish calender when slaves were to be set free if they so desired and you'll find that this claim that the 'bible condones slavery' to be a bunch of crap. people need to stop reaching for reasons to criticize the bible/god/believers in god.

[Ambulance X]

I have an A level in Ancient History, Slavery was a miserable, hideous existence. Which no just God or Messiah would have condoned.

Jews sold themselves into slavery because it was that or starve to death.

lol I love it when the religious take the moral high ground of condoning slavery :-p

[dai the flu]

I have an A level in Ancient History, Slavery was a miserable, hideous existence. Which no just God or Messiah would have condoned.

Jews sold themselves into slavery because it was that or starve to death.
i dont care what level you are. im telling you what the bible says. you show me where it says otherwise.

[JustAnotherPoet]

to me its all mythology, probably for the most part not true but at least stories with good values that people can use as a "pick-me-up" or a precedent of how they want to live their life. believe what you want, but i don't have enough faith in anything to see how the bible can be 100% true 100% of the time.

[deadstar]

Its not about the bible its about how slavery was in the first century and it was basically an unpaid servant you could treat as your property and do whatever you liked to. They were regualrly used as concubines, made to work ridiculous hours and live in squalor.

Plus dont you think the idea of owning another human is just a little bit wrong?
It was a wrong but at the time was a necessary part of the economy.

Jesus taught the golden rule and this pertained especially to those of lower status than some (slaves).

[deadstar]

Oh I understand why the bible condones it, because it was written at a time when it was culturally acceptable, but the flipside of this is that it means the bible is not timeless.

I wouldnt say it was a necessary part of the economy but thats a different discussion.
So the golden rule is not timeless?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

[deadstar]

Lol thats some crazy stuff.
Ehh I posted it to show more the history of the Church and slavery post Jesus.

[deadstar]

The church isnt the bible though. If we want to get into that then the Church has an endless supply of attrocities attached to it.
And the Bible is a collections of books. Christianity is based on Jesus. So recalling passgaes from the Hebrew scriptures of slavery and mureder and such is not relevant. The golden rule pretty much changed everything.

[Ambulance X]

So the golden rule is not timeless?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

The Bible stole the "golden Rule" from Confucius who had written it 500 years before Jesus was even born.

[deadstar]

The Bible stole the "golden Rule" from Confucius who had written it 500 years before Jesus was even born.
Does it matter if he "stole" it? He still taught it and brought a new way of thinking to these people, It was never stated he was the first to proclaim it. He just believed in it and considered it the greatest rule.

[thejetstolehome]

The Bible stole the "golden Rule" from Confucius who had written it 500 years before Jesus was even born.

honestly, who gives a fuck who said it? it's still a good thing to live by.

[Ambulance X]

Does it matter if he "stole" it? He still taught it and brought a new way of thinking to these people, It was never stated he was the first to proclaim it. He just believed in it and considered it the greatest rule.

I'm just saying, don't attribute it to the bible when it shouldn't be credited to it.

[deadstar]

I'm just saying, don't attribute it to the bible when it shouldn't be credited to it.
He still stated it and its written in the Bible. Do you want the Bible to be footnoted or something?

[deadstar]

So most of the bible is therefore worthless and creationism, believing the rest of the stories in there, and any morality drawn from the old testament defunct?

Hardly useless. Not all of it is meant to be taken literally, which is what you are looking for. Considering it is a collection of books with numerous different authors, its hard to take it all literally.

[Ambulance X]

He still stated it and its written in the Bible. Do you want the Bible to be footnoted or something?

I think that would be appropriate.

I just find it funny when Christians try to attribute morality to the Bible when it is actually one of the most barbaric texts in the history of man, and the few good parts are actually plaigiarized.

[deadstar]

I think that would be appropriate.

I just find it funny when Christians try to attribute morality to the Bible when it is actually one of the most barbaric texts in the history of man, and the few good parts are actually plaigiarized.
The original teaching before Jesus came was an eye for an eye. This is stated numerous times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus came and preached to turn the other cheek and treat one another as you would like to be treated. "Stolen" or not, it was a new way of thinking for the people of that time.

[Ambulance X]

slavery in the bible is far different than the slavery people think of today. kidnapping/selling another human was punishable by death, slaves were not bought and sold like they were in recent times. laws protected slaves rights and they were viewed as men, not posessions. almost like hired laborers. this isfurther shown by many jews voluntarily becoming slaves to repay debts and recover from poverty. add in certain junctures in the jewish calender when slaves were to be set free if they so desired and you'll find that this claim that the 'bible condones slavery' to be a bunch of crap. people need to stop reaching for reasons to criticize the bible/god/believers in god.

Haha oh, those slaves back then, they sure did have the good life.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 21:20-21

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Ephesians 6:5

That certainly does sound benevolent.

If you beat your slave to death you should be punished, but if you beat your slave to within an inch of his life and he gets up after a couple of days, it's kosher. "For he is his money" that certainly seems like slaves were thought of as property contrary to the bullshit that you spewed.

and

Slaves should be obedient to their masters and fear them as if they were Christ himself.

YEAH! Those are some principles to live by right there!

http://d.im.craigslist.org/Uc/8v/777CEroBXg2RJa1UqLNMESA5Hk83.jpg

[Ambulance X]

The original teaching before Jesus came was an eye for an eye. This is stated numerous times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus came and preached to turn the other cheek and treat one another as you would like to be treated. "Stolen" or not, it was a new way of thinking for the people of that time.

Absolutely it was a good change. I'm just saying that maybe if they had followed the teachings of Confucius instead of those of the genocidal, infanticidal, filicidal, megalomaniacal, capriciously malevolent god that they did, they might have been in a better place 500 years earlier.

[dai the flu]

Its not about the bible its about how slavery was in the first century
actually maybe you forgot, this IS about the bible, and how you claim it promotes and condones the mistreatment of people. i don't care how other ancient civilizations treated their slaves, the jewish system was far different, and when the bible talks about slavery, it isn't talking about the harsh oppressive slavery that we associate with the word 'slave'.

i love too how ambulance x mentions how if a slave was killed the master would be "punished", but if the slave survives, there is no punishment.
wrong.
if the master killed a slave, the master recieved the death penalty. if the slave wasn't killed but was harmed in some way, the slave was to be set free. exodus 21:26, 27.
slaves were not possessions to be bought and sold. exodus 21: 16.
and all throughout the mosaic law are stipulations on certain times in the jewish calender when slaves were released along with their families, and given provisions to care for his family.

slavery in the jewish system was not slavery as we know it. the bible isn't condoning the brutal treatment of other humans.

i find it ridiculous how spiteful you guys are towards religion for whatever reason. you copy and paste any and all of the most superficial criticisms of the bible you can find, without demonstrating even the slightest understanding of even the most rudimentary principles and contents of the book. the ignorance you show disgusts me, and what makes it worse is that some people reading this might not know any better and actually take your word for it.
so keep it up. go to whatever website or book you get these ideas from and post some more. im sure you'll run out of this stuff eventually.

[theguilt engine]

I just found out my parent's actually believe in Adam and Eve, and all of those stories. I was just wondering how you think people could actually believe in this stuff?

Well, you know, the same way people believe ANYTHING. Furthermore, we don't really know about anything that happened before our time--and we never will. I really do believe that people should just simply accept that. There is only physical evidence that educated people (in those certain areas) can furthermore make more accurate speculations about our history as mankind.

[dai the flu]

I strongly suggest you actually read the bible. You seem to know little about what is actually in there. You church might claim it to be filled with "love" but the reality is far from it. The book is barbaric and what little morality it has is little more than human instinct.
i know little about what is in there?
im the one showing you actual points from the bible.
you're the one making ignorant accusations without providing any information to back it up.
but i'm the one that needs to read the book?

[tambam]

To be fair, using the Bible as a source to prove anything isn't backing it up, as a lot of us don't take it seriously at all.

[dai the flu]

To be fair, using the Bible as a source to prove anything isn't backing it up, as a lot of us don't take it seriously at all.
well normally i'd agree with you, but in this case the issue was what the bible says about slavery. so using the bible to show what the bible says = ok.
funny how he claims i never debate him, but when i do he either
a. ignores it
b. changes the subject
oh well. what can you do.

[Ambulance X]

well normally i'd agree with you, but in this case the issue was what the bible says about slavery. so using the bible to show what the bible says = ok.
funny how he claims i never debate him, but when i do he either
a. ignores it
b. changes the subject
oh well. what can you do.

Your shit has already been addressed:

slavery in the bible is far different than the slavery people think of today. kidnapping/selling another human was punishable by death, slaves were not bought and sold like they were in recent times. laws protected slaves rights and they were viewed as men, not posessions. almost like hired laborers. this isfurther shown by many jews voluntarily becoming slaves to repay debts and recover from poverty. add in certain junctures in the jewish calender when slaves were to be set free if they so desired and you'll find that this claim that the 'bible condones slavery' to be a bunch of crap. people need to stop reaching for reasons to criticize the bible/god/believers in god.

Haha oh, those slaves back then, they sure did have the good life.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 21:20-21

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Ephesians 6:5

That certainly does sound benevolent.

If you beat your slave to death you should be punished, but if you beat your slave to within an inch of his life and he gets up after a couple of days, it's kosher. "For he is his money" that certainly seems like slaves were thought of as property contrary to the bullshit that you spewed.

and

Slaves should be obedient to their masters and fear them as if they were Christ himself.

YEAH! Those are some principles to live by right there!

http://d.im.craigslist.org/Uc/8v/777CEroBXg2RJa1UqLNMESA5Hk83.jpg

[dai the flu]

Your shit has already been addressed:



Haha oh, those slaves back then, they sure did have the good life.





That certainly does sound benevolent.

If you beat your slave to death you should be punished, but if you beat your slave to within an inch of his life and he gets up after a couple of days, it's kosher. "For he is his money" that certainly seems like slaves were thought of as property contrary to the bullshit that you spewed.

and

Slaves should be obedient to their masters and fear them as if they were Christ himself.

YEAH! Those are some principles to live by right there!

http://d.im.craigslist.org/Uc/8v/777CEroBXg2RJa1UqLNMESA5Hk83.jpg
douchebag.
i already answered that masterpiece of a post. i guess you chose to ignore it.

i don't know why i bother.

[Ambulance X]

douchebag.
i already answered that masterpiece of a post. i guess you chose to ignore it.

i don't know why i bother.

Hmph, calling me a douchebag...seems like your religion is working miracles on your morals. If only everyone lived by the principles of Bible...

[dai the flu]

Hmph, calling me a douchebag...seems like your religion is working miracles on your morals. If only everyone lived by the principles of Bible...
if i had even the slightest amount of respect for you, i'd care.

[Ambulance X]

if i had even the slightest amount of respect for you, i'd care.

Yeah, I remember Jesus saying that in the book of wake the fuck up and step out of the bronze-age.

[dai the flu]

well now that we've gotten all that out of the way, lets get back to the point.
you still havent replied to my last post on the subject. (#282)

[Ambulance X]

well now that we've gotten all that out of the way, lets get back to the point.
you still havent replied to my last post on the subject. (#282)

I didn't see that you responded to me in post 282 before.


i love too how ambulance x mentions how if a slave was killed the master would be "punished", but if the slave survives, there is no punishment.
wrong.
if the master killed a slave, the master recieved the death penalty. if the slave wasn't killed but was harmed in some way, the slave was to be set free. exodus 21:26, 27.
slaves were not possessions to be bought and sold. exodus 21: 16.
and all throughout the mosaic law are stipulations on certain times in the jewish calender when slaves were released along with their families, and given provisions to care for his family.


You are partially right.

The problem is that you're citing bible passages inaccurately. If you're going to cite a bible passage, you should quote it directly, not paraphrase it for your own motives.

Here are the REAL passages that you cited...


if the master killed a slave, the master recieved the death penalty. if the slave wasn't killed but was harmed in some way, the slave was to be set free. exodus 21:26, 27.


Exodus 21: 26-27
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

So, what the Bible ACTUALLY says is that it's okay to beat your slaves; even if they die you won't be punished, just as long as they survive a day or two after the beating (see verses 21:20-21). But avoid excessive damage to their eyes or teeth. Otherwise you may have to set them free. This distinction shows the important difference between your paraphrasing , and the actual text.


slaves were not possessions to be bought and sold. exodus 21: 16.


Exodus 21: 16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

All this says is that you should not steal a slave and then sell him. Far from the message that you attribute to it.

[halifaxonfire]

I didn't see that you responded to me in post 282 before.



You are partially right.

The problem is that you're citing bible passages inaccurately. If you're going to cite a bible passage, you should quote it directly, not paraphrase it for your own motives.

Here are the REAL passages that you cited...





So, what the Bible ACTUALLY says is that it's okay to beat your slaves; even if they die you won't be punished, just as long as they survive a day or two after the beating (see verses 21:20-21). But avoid excessive damage to their eyes or teeth. Otherwise you may have to set them free. This distinction shows the important difference between your paraphrasing , and the actual text.





All this says is that you should not steal a slave and then sell him. Far from the message that you attribute to it.
he was trying to put them into simpler terms, asshole. will you let this thread die?

[deadstar]

And once again, I have no clue why we are focusing on the Hebrew Scriptures.

[cantnokdahustle]

I would imagine it is because you fellas fucked yourselves with Deut. chapter 4 verse 2!

[atticus1492]

well now that we've gotten all that out of the way, lets get back to the point.
you still havent replied to my last post on the subject. (#282)

Let me help you.

You haven't done enough research on the topic. Stop trying to argue. In this case it is not the thought that counts. What you are effectively doing is proving to any person who lurks this thread that the Bible and Christians in general are irrational, and it somewhat follows that it would do them a disservice to try and learn anything about such a book/religion.

And on that note, if my last statement describes you, you should know that a couple of uneducated kids on a message board's inability to effectively answer the admittedly very educated bunch of people who post responses to these kid's claims does not mean anything in regards to the validity or strength of any God argument. I urge you to do research for yourself, and come to the conclusion on your own, not based on arguments grounded in rhetoric.

And I don't want to get involved. I don't know enough. This is to everyone else, who doesn't know.

[atticus1492]

And once again, I have no clue why we are focusing on the Hebrew Scriptures.

Ditto. ^^^^^

[howdydoody]

Oh my God this thread is out of hand.
Whether you believe in Christ, or nothing.. I think its time to let this sleeping dog die and respect one another for once instead of blowing off whose got the bigger brain balls. If the Bible is what you live by, fine. At least practice it's fundamentals of love and respect for those who choose not to. I hardly doubt any of you have Doctorate's in Judaism or Christianity anyhow (i don't either, just making the point) If the Bible is NOT what you live by, then what the hell does it matter anyway. No need to worry how to make a chocolate cake if you don't even like to eat chocolate cake. Each side of the coin in this type of argument will always pick and choose the parts that strengthen their agenda.
Somebody post that picture again of the beating of the dead horse. It is the best post in this entire thread.

[Ambulance X]

Oh my God this thread is out of hand.
Whether you believe in Christ, or nothing.. I think its time to let this sleeping dog die and respect one another for once instead of blowing off whose got the bigger brain balls. If the Bible is what you live by, fine. At least practice it's fundamentals of love and respect for those who choose not to. I hardly doubt any of you have Doctorate's in Judaism or Christianity anyhow (i don't either, just making the point) If the Bible is NOT what you live by, then what the hell does it matter anyway. No need to worry how to make a chocolate cake if you don't even like to eat chocolate cake. Each side of the coin in this type of argument will always pick and choose the parts that strengthen their agenda.
Somebody post that picture again of the beating of the dead horse. It is the best post in this entire thread.

If you don't like it, don't read it. It's pretty simple, gtfo of the thread if you don't like it. You're not contributing anything, and whining and bitching about how you don't like the thread is not productive.

But I have to address one thing you said.

If the Bible is what you live by, fine. At least practice it's fundamentals of love and respect for those who choose not to.

The Bible's fundamentals are not of love and respect. The bible is one of the most violent, brutal works of fiction ever penned. There are countless acts of genocide and murder rampant throughout the text. If there's one thing that the Bible surely does not teach, it's respect for others.

[thejetstolehome]

oh for fuck's sake, guys. this thread has been done 10 times in the last month. just agree to disagree.

:horse:

oh
my
fucking
Christ.
just agree to disagree already!

this same thread has gone on so many times in the last month alone and nothing new is being brought to the table. end amicablly.

Oh my God this thread is out of hand.
Whether you believe in Christ, or nothing.. I think its time to let this sleeping dog die and respect one another for once instead of blowing off whose got the bigger brain balls. If the Bible is what you live by, fine. At least practice it's fundamentals of love and respect for those who choose not to. I hardly doubt any of you have Doctorate's in Judaism or Christianity anyhow (i don't either, just making the point) If the Bible is NOT what you live by, then what the hell does it matter anyway. No need to worry how to make a chocolate cake if you don't even like to eat chocolate cake. Each side of the coin in this type of argument will always pick and choose the parts that strengthen their agenda.
Somebody post that picture again of the beating of the dead horse. It is the best post in this entire thread.

word. :wave:

[howdydoody]

If you don't like it, don't read it. It's pretty simple, gtfo of the thread if you don't like it. You're not contributing anything, and whining and bitching about how you don't like the thread is not productive.

But I have to address one thing you said.



The Bible's fundamentals are not of love and respect. The bible is one of the most violent, brutal works of fiction ever penned. There are countless acts of genocide and murder rampant throughout the text. If there's one thing that the Bible surely does not teach, it's respect for others.

there again with the picking and choosing.. picking the old testament over the new testament because it furthers your agenda.

[howdydoody]

word. :wave:
what up.

[thejetstolehome]

there again with the picking and choosing.. picking the old testament over the new testament because it furthers your agenda.

well, like cantknockdahustle said, the Old Testament instatly becomes relavent becuase of Deut. Ch. 4, V. 2.

[deadstar]

So half your doctrine is brutal, violent and morally defunct. Sure Jesus improves things and if what is reported to be his message is correct, then he was a good man (not perfect) but good. Its a shame that the christian institutions dont stick to his message in the slightest.
We include the old stuff because we like to learn from our mistakes. It shows he contrast between the way it used to be and how Jesus changed things. Not to knock Judaism, but thats why the Old Testament is called the HEBREW SCRIPTURES and the new is called the Christian Scriptures. Christianity started with Jesus. So why question the Church's beliefs on something before the Church even existed?

[deadstar]

But your average Christian doesn't it like that. Its all the Bible to them.

And isnt the whole book presented as the word (or inspired word of God) so firstly how can God's will be altered by God and when the Bible is basically supposed to be a step by step guide of how to access heaven why provide false or contradictory prelude which your average church goer treats with the same respect as the New Testament.
The Bible is a collection of books. I hate how you refer to it as a singular book. It distorts your view of it.

[deadstar]

Perception is everything and it has always been or at least since it was so universally accepted, a singular entity.
How can you say that? A lot of the new testament is simply letters written to various peoples on ways of life and religious teachings. You keep referring to the Old testament as a way to trip up Christians when in fact Christianity didnt start until the coming of Jesus. The older teachings are to be presented as a way of how things used to be and how they contrast with the new ideas presented.

[deadstar]

I dont why in particular that is the case. It seems to me that the whole thing is a grand collection of books with none have more merits than any other. So the old testament is older, but the new testament has different authors and they didnt write all at the same time. Where in the New Testament does it say, that the New is more important than the old? Or that the old is an example of what not to do. The Bible says that God's word doesn't change:

Malachi 3:6 declares, “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” Similarly, James 1:17 tells us, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” The meaning of Numbers 23:19 could not be more clear, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?”

Yet clearly he does change his mind between the old and the new testament?

Well, thats wrong. Without the Gospels and the Acts, there is no Christianity so all of this would be moot. Clearly those speaking of the beginning of the Church and Jesus' life are paramount to Christians.

[chronomic]

im just going to call everyone here anti-semetic.....fuckin jew haters.

[deadstar]

You've got to play by the rules and you didn't answer the rest of my point.
Debate more old testament? No thanks.

God sent his only son to save the people. Therefore, a lot changed after this event. I know you dont believe it so it seems incomprehensible for a change in ways of thinking, but one was clearly made.

[thejetstolehome]

i'm pretty sure your last point has been answered in about 3 other threads....

[deadstar]

Well i havent got all day to go searching and were disccussing a wide variety which leads onto to topics already covered by other people, its inevitable.
You keep going in circles every other post. I'm pretty sure these points have been addressed to you previously.

[shes.a.ghost]

I've hung out with God so I know he is real.

[shes.a.ghost]

I hope your not serious.
I hope you're not serious in hoping that I'm not serious.

[thejetstolehome]

"tell me all your thoughts on God 'cause i'm on my way to see her."

[tambam]

"tell me all your thoughts on God 'cause i'm on my way to see her."


Hell yeah. Her. God is definitely a woman. It's probably Cher.