Where should we base our judgement if this was good or bad?
I'd assume if we were born in an alien world where genocide was an everyday thing, that a strong nation neighboring us can freely attack at any time and kill us all, it would be a no brainer. We will not realize, "Why do we have to kill each other?"
Why?
Two illustrations:
1. The way things are when decisions had to be made. Or the precepts upon which actions are then deemed benificial or otherwise.
2. Starcraft 2
2, it's obvious, it's a game of conquest. And the limits of the environment and the predefined idea or goal of the game in some way forces you to kill the other guy's units and destroy their base.
Thus we come to #1,
Let's assume we live in those times. There was no law. All things are governed by deities and their precepts. You grew up in a world where you see children being sacrificed to burn to please your gods, who "demand" it. You are treated as slaves, no right to yourself, and hold your elites to be gods themselves. You've seen how the king took what he wanted, killed those who defied him, gut those who do not worship his gods.
There is fierce competition amongst the nations around you. You go to war against another tribe every 10 years or so. You find that if you cross their borders, you will be raped, killed, or turned into a slave worst than your own nation have done to you.
You have been told tales about this people. How they steal everything and the list goes on.
In an environment where violence is a common thing, and community only exists to serve towards defense and or conquest, what would we be? What would our morals be? Where would be base our judgements on the actions we take?
Would we even consider that we have a choice? That outside our box there is some other form of civilization that is directly opposite to ours? If not, then where would we base our judgements between what is right and wrong?
Now, I'll take Hitchen's example of a pregnant woman being kicked around.
Because we are in this culture, and since cultural practices define the basis of assumptions and presumptions on things, we will naturally be opposed to this. Not only does culture or world view define presumptions on what is good or evil, it also forces us to assume certain outcomes, and cause-and-effect "machinations".
To elaborate, let's take this example:
Somewhere, at some time, a seemingly quiet and nice person suddenly comes out and kill people. Worst thing, one of those was your brother.
If you knew the guy would kill your own brother, wouldn't you try and stop him from killer her? What if you can do anything, wouldn't you just cause him to not exist, or even define everything centered on that single act so that this would not occur?
Now, what if you've done this. Redefined all the events that lead to this. Took every possible line of possibilities and made it so it won't happen. And after you've done this, it so happens that while your brother and yourself was hunting in the forest, he kills a deer, who causes the other deer to run and push something, that causes a branch to fall, which then triggers a landslide and everything is covered in snow?
What if when he killed that deer, it stopped a line of deers from being born, which then in the future goes astray into a man's house, where a child becomes inspired to create a very useful machinery that will eventually be developed and will cause a war that will force another scientist to create a series of robots which then will be reprogrammed to plant crops and construct buildings, and make sure 1 billion people have enough food, clean water, clothing, medical care, and shelter that will support them and allow them to birth 19 generations of children who then will bear children that will conceive the first ever principle that will .... etc, etc.
That was long, but it was worth it.
My point is evident, I believe.
Could you have decided any better if you had infinite knowledge and power? Would you not have to choose one (1) path in all the multiple and infinite possibilities? What if in another possibility God didn't have another choice but to choose the egyptians over the jews? What if in another possibilty, God will have to do one particular thing because it was the most and only choice in order to achieve a certain end goal?
Morality then and the definition of it's precepts are not as simple as we take it. In the eyes of a limited mind, it is so, but to an infinite mind, how can we even begin to conceive it?
We can only trust. And this is where faith comes in.
The real question is, why do we attack faith and try to disprove it? Is it because of our biases? Is it because of the laws in them?
What I see in most disbelievers is like what you'd see in a teenager who looks to those who gives him orders. It's like, he who has no sin cast the first stone kind of thing.
What is the purpose of removing faith and belief in God? Do you have a neighbor who uses the bible to torment other people or bully you? Why?
If you remove people's faiths, you must replace it with another. There is no other way.
I am for clearing things up, getting a deeper understanding, and possibly formulating a new set of fundamental principles that will eventually lead humanity to become more flexible while also self-nurturing.
Whatever the path may be, I do believe that a "peep hole" basis is wrong. Though we are to be responsible what we will eventually embrace, we have to acknowledge that we need some form of basis upon which to choose and decide.
"The Kingdom of Heaven" as mentioned, is the goal. No, I don't think this is a glimmering place of marble and streets of gold literally, but it is a system that is not only good for humanity in an isolated setting, but with a wider account of things and a far deeper understanding that has, if possible, infinite reach, in terms of time, space, and everything in between.
And for this, we need more truths that we have. And we need more processing capabilities and methodologies, a new mind so to speak, in order to even begin to take a step into considering the smallest thing that comprises this that we now cannot even imagine, but only believe to exist because someone who is come into man, who supposedly does not exist, said so. Or is reported to have said so.
Believe me, I heartily hold that the bible is not enough, and what we have now in this religion is not enough. What I know is enough is that this "foundation" that people constantly attack just because some preacher thinks this or that.
The notion, "if it works for you then so be it" only works with people who are not affecting each other. I believe that completely removing all the precepts that have been laid is wrong and will lead to terrible consequences.
As ever, the problem is not in what is revealed, but in who looks at it, what he makes of it and to what he does this. This is why I am in favor of the idea that we are responsible in seeking for truth, but the search there must be a goal and purpose, as certain as there will be inevitable results, affects, and effects.
The generation of today must be very careful what they remove, retain, or build. Religion is a word so raped and humiliated, but it's just a word that represents the core of how humans work.
We must have a basis to be able to operate. We must have some sort of cause, and some sort of guiding principle to guide us in our actions as we pursue this cause. This cause is always towards an end.
An open mind that has no basis lost. A runner who runs for no purpose is merely causing himself injury.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
"We can only trust. And this is where faith comes in. "
Right, because faith is defined as believing in something for which there is zero factual evidence supporting it (i.e. faith in god, faith in afterlife, faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.) You seem to be attributing the occurrence of events as the action of a conscious omnipotent being, and of course, you don't have any evidence for this. If your defense, you would probably say that humans cannot understand because it is beyond their comprehension, a totally lazy and vague attempt at explanation.
In reality, your speculation that events are ultimately controlled and connected to a greater purpose, is misconception of coincidence, randomness, and probability.
When an event, usually traumatizing, occurs, people have a natural tendency/curiosity to understand why it happened, they tend to seek what ever explanation gives them the most comfort because of the brain's need for endorphins. It's easiest for those people to turn to speculation/religion/conspiracies/etc when the facts contradict their own relative perceptions of the reality of the events. That's why so many religious people attribute disasters to wrath of god, instead of to failed policies to prepare for disasters, or blindness in heeding the evidence of pre-disaster warnings. Lack of understanding/inability to understand the factual evidence leads to faith in religious explanations. Advances in science and technology have allowed us to comprehend so many things (i.e. materials science, quantum mechanics, relativity).
"Why is the sky blue?"
"Because god is the decider."
"Wrong. The sky is blue because the gas molecules in the atmosphere causes light to "scatter". The blue spectrum of light has enough energy to excite the electrons in the molecules. When the electrons go back to the ground state, the energy is re-emitted back as blue light."
"How do you know this?"
"Because of scientific experiments."
"Why does the moon orbit the earth?"
"Because it's the moon's punishment for stealing cheese from the sun."
ill re-join this conversations and reply to several people tomorrow, I literally spent the Past few days talking with my grandfather on Vacation at his camp site, he is an ordained minister, and a traveling pastor for CMA.
So I will go and share the knowledge he told me, and none of my own, because I have learned that there is still tons for me to learn :P
I understand how religion works and what it does to people. I'm not preaching religion, I'm preaching honesty and sincerity.
Now, science seems to be the opponent of God, but it's not.
Take from your example, you say it is blue because of light and molecules etc. Yes. But the question is why not red? Why is it that it is the blue spectrum of light that has enough energy to excite the electrons in the molecules? Why is it that when light and molecules in the atmosphere interact, this is the result?
Science acknowledges an existing thing, and takes it apart to see how it works. But it doesn't give the answers to why it works the way it works. Science is good for a purpose, but that purpose isn't to presuppose what and how or who God should be or must be so it can acknowledge it.
And, no, the above example is not intended to mean as you take it to be.
See how we can differ even in just appreciating what a written thing means and is supposed to be directed towards? See how biased we are? Can you see how necessary the "basis" I'm talking about up there with regards to what just happened?
I also know that those who believe in a universe that just existed in itself for itself does not put intent into the equation. There is no grand plan. No ultimate purpose. But in their doctrine, there is, and that is "to exist, to endure, and to die." Isn't that what their greater purpose is? The great non-purpose? "The purpose comes after existence" kind of thing?
But in my talk up there, this wasn't the issue. The issue was the problem of intent and the identity of God. It was taken into consideration that "let's say, God exists, this God issued an order of genocide".
Now, this was used to say,
1. Therefore the God of the bible is not real, because it reflected a bronze age man's thinking. It did not propose any other means, but acted and thought as if proving himself to be merely a lie created by a bronze-age man to lead a people and justify the genocide.
2. God in the bible is a fairy tale, because he contradicts his character. Omnipotent + Omniscient should not be equal to Bronze-age man decision making patterns.
So I provided my own "theory" not to prove or disprove, but to pose a question and to propose something. All are listed in the post above.
I'm going to hand this over, as I have models to work on. I've already shared some of my views. But lastly, this is what I have to say about this matter:
"Finding God is not reached by the movement of thought, but by the movement of being."
The biblical chronology puts the flood at 2345 BC, so again, my point is made.
No it does not. Pulling stuff out the air is funny. I guess your point is not made.
The flood probably occurred 5000 years ago, but Im not certain on this.
No mention of a global flood, and no mention of something as important as humanity being wiped out. Andrew R. George(The guy who translated the "Epic of Gilgamesh") submits that the flood story in Genesis 6–8 matches the Gilgamesh flood myth so closely, "few doubt" that it derives from the Mesopotamian account.[12] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.
You can call it a myth, but your previous point of other cultures at the time having no record of the Global flood is completed flawed and incorrect.
Some scholars say that the discovery of artifacts (ca. 2600 BC) associated with Enmebaragesi of Kish, mentioned in the legends as the father of one of Gilgamesh's adversaries, has lent credibility to the historical existence of Gilgamesh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
The flood of Gilgamesh was written before 2000 B.C, and Genesis was written in 400 BC, so I fail to see how it's other religions that are doing the plagiarizing.
Its somewhat believed that Genesis was written around 1450-1410BC(Nice trolling with 400 BC). The "standard" Akkadian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.
So indeed it may be slightly older, but The earliest Sumerian poems are now generally considered to be distinct stories rather than parts of the single epic. They date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BC)(aka your date mentioned above). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#History
You need to start considering the fact that your religion has some serious elements of plagiarism, like that Jesus is basically a copy of Mithra.
All I see is you failing with some of your facts. I believe the common elements originate from the bible(I dont see hard concrete evidence to believe otherwise). You will naturally believe the opposite(For the same reason).
Jesus was historically real. The events(miracles etc) and his divinity is subject to whatever the person in question is willing to believe. Though, it seems likely that all those events did occur and this was the birth of early Christianity(Which were Jews, I might add).
Leading scientific atheist Richard Dawkins specifically separates the question of the existence of Jesus from the attribution of supernatural powers to him, or the accuracy of the Christian gospels. Dawkins does not deny the existence of Jesus(Because facts are facts), although he dismisses the reliability of the gospel accounts(Go figure) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Existence
Couple things:
1) This proves that there was a flood in the Gulf of Mexico, not the entire planet. If you want to prove a global flood, it has to be in all the ice cores, and it's not in the Greenland ice cores.
2) Noah's flood was not 10000 years ago, therefore this can all be dismissed right off the bat.
3) I find it funny that you dismissed my sources as "biased", even though I haven't seen you get your info from anywhere else besides creationist websites.
1. You sure?. From that link "There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood."
Their studies/analysis The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago."
Now you are saying the science is wrong?. Im not dismissing the Greenland Ice cores, but I do not know the level of certainty they can provide(Or how applicable they were/are to a massive flooding event).
2. Yes, valid point. However to conclude there was never a flood on massive local scales or Global, or that the latter caused the former, is simply wrong.
3. Saying your sources are biased, does not imply Im saying they are wrong in every presentation of knowledge. The same can be said about "Creationist websites" which also use science and historical evidences to validate the scenario. They too can be biased, but my point is that there is truth in both spectrums(Science, Civilization accounts) for/against this Global flood. The date being the largest contention.
Here is their understanding of evolution:
Pretty sure its sarcasm. Lol;p
Hello, Is Anybody Home? Cause Mother Earth may Not be "Billions of Years" Old: after All
Yep, I dont agree with the YEC age of the earth. Mentioned that before.
Just give it a rest dude. I've heard every excuse for genocide imaginable by now.
Thanks. I was getting tired of trying to bring the argument on human terms. God sucks, and he is not allowed to kill or actually not do anything with his creation(He could do nice things though I suppose, Because we like that:), but bad stuff is totally not alright! deserved or otherwise, Because we dont like that :(.
I...never said it was the main reason. In fact I said "justifications", as in, plural. But thanks for conceding the point I guess? <_<
Alright, my mistake there.
1.I used to be a Christian, 2.and it's not difficult to cherrypick the meaning or translation to justify pretty much any passage you want. 3.I won't be making any more assumptions about the bible because Tolkfan was pretty much right, debating this book is like debating batman vs. superman
1. You were never a Christian(Just like most Christians are not Christians). "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding"(Proverbs 9:10)
If you took the above scripture at face value, you would be more enlightened than your current state today. But that is obviously where you went wrong. Using grounds of morality to challenge the bible does seem like the easy way out.
2. This is a myth perpetrated by atheists. I have said translation differences exist, and that the Hebrew is the most pure form. The basic truths are still present. Take for example the comment on scripture made by Eiviyn(Under the assumption its wrong/stupid) a few pages back, and I totally smash that with the scientific fact it relates to. The statement you make is completely unfounded.
3. Thats nice. I dont consider Tolkfan a person of reason(He seems hard-done and bitter). The two of you can sail in the same boat. Your ignorance on the bible was magnified when you kept mentioning God commands rape. Not only is it a lie, but the fact that you readily believed it, was arrogant. For everything else, It was fair assumption, but not that.
Oh and Superman > Batman(Superman is invulnerable), and its unlikely batman could find and use Kryptonite against him. Batman himself is without any powers.
Christians: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Jews: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Sikhs: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Hindus: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Muslims: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Except the evidence in the bible is vastly greater and superior than any other religion. Funny how you mention Jews and Christians there, When its the same thing. Hinduism has virtually no evidence behind it and is illogical, It truly is the greatest `faith` religion. Only the bible serves reliable to testing, Which I can demonstrate to you against every other religion.
So... what happens when one of you proves the other wrong? If there was a flood, does that prove that the Christian god exists or vice versa? Deos the mention of a historical event in a religious text make all of the supernatural stuff somehow more valid?
Quote:
Oh and Superman > Batman(Superman is invulnerable), and its unlikely batman could find and use Kryptonite against him. Batman himself is without any powers.
Actually, Batman keeps a chunk of kryptonite in a lead-lined pocket on his belt. He's got an response to everything... too bad those answers are only valid within comic books, not reality.
So... what happens when one of you proves the other wrong? 1.If there was a flood, does that prove that the Christian god exists or vice versa? 2.Deos the mention of a historical event in a religious text make all of the supernatural stuff somehow more valid?
1. No it wont prove the Christan god exists(If the flood happened). if there was no flood however, then that would clearly indicate the Christian God does not exist.
2. Not really, but you can say it adds weight to evidence(if the rest of the bible contains sufficient).
Gradius had mentioned there was never a flood, which got into this debate. There clearly were floods on `massive scales` in the past(the means to attributing it to Global flood is not necessary and questionable). Easy and simple evidence for a Global flood seems weak yes, but not out of question(Which I had been pointing to). Its not a dismissible point at all.
Actually, Batman keeps a chunk of kryptonite in a lead-lined pocket on his belt. He's got an response to everything... too bad those answers are only valid within comic books, not reality.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make with this(I must be tired). However its `illogical` to assume that he has an answer to everything(Since he has never VS`d Superman in this case or the totality of all possible other scenarios). Thus your statement is a question of belief(Though, an increasingly `likely` truth if the nature of Batman and his past shows repetition and consistency of this subject matter) , Belief based still, We cannot conclude or deny it as a truth in comic books(atleast not at such an early time until Batman experiences and goes through everything).
The biblical chronology puts the flood at 2345 BC, so again, my point is made.
No it does not. Pulling stuff out the air is funny. I guess your point is not made.
The flood probably occurred 5000 years ago, but Im not certain on this.
Andrew R. George(The guy who translated the "Epic of Gilgamesh") submits that the flood story in Genesis 6–8 matches the Gilgamesh flood myth so closely, "few doubt" that it derives from the Mesopotamian account.[12] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.
You just gave me a passage from wikipedia which states that genesis was ripped off the epic of gilgamesh. -_-
Quote:
You can call it a myth, but your previous point of other cultures at the time having no record of the Global flood is completed flawed and incorrect.
The fact that you believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is a myth yet still want to use it as a reference is like saying "You can call Harry Potter a myth if you want, but you can't prove that people in the early 2000s had no record of Harry Potter defeating the evil wizard Lord Voldemort."
Even if there is evidence for Gilgamesh, it really doesn't matter because the surviving evidence from the dawn of civilization is pretty shoddy and does little to help us separate myth from historical fact. The fact remains that archaeological evidence does not point to any large flood which wiped out all of humanity. If a flood did happen it would have been recorded in far more places than in a book that amounts to a bedtime story.
Quote:
Jesus was historically real. The events(miracles etc) and his divinity is subject to whatever the person in question is willing to believe. Though, it seems likely that all those events did occur and this was the birth of early Christianity(Which were Jews, I might add).
Yes, in all likelyhood the man named Jesus existed. He was an Arab, not a white man with long hair. Here is just some food for thought:
Quote:
Mithra was sent by the Father God down to Earth to confirm his contract with Man.
Mithra was born of a Virgin through - Immaculate Conception - He was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother.
Mithra was born in a stable - We celebrate his birth on December 25th -.
Mithra was visited by wise men bearing gifts.
Mithra had 12 disciples - He was called the Messiah -.
Mithra was also the god of Darius, conqueror of Babylon, He was called - - Messiah - - or Christos by Jews during their Captivity.
Mithra made a (Contract) or (Covenant) with Man confirming an older contract with God - The Persian word Mithra literally means - - Contract. - -
Mithra celebrated a last supper with his disciples before his death.
Mithra died to atone for the sins of Man.
Mithra was resurrected on a Sunday.
Mithra ascended into Heaven to rejoin his Father.
Mithra will return to pass judgment on Man - He was known as the judger of souls -.
On judgment day, the dead will arise and be judged by Mithra.
Mithra will send sinners to HELL.
Mithra will send the faithful to HEAVEN.
On judgment day there will be a final conflict between Good and Evil - The forces of Evil will be destroyed and the saved will live in paradise forever -.
Mithra is part of a Holy Trinity the - (Father, Son, And Holy Spirit) -, that took human form.
Mithra is depicted as having a halo, (a circular band of light around his head).
Mithra followers drink wine and eat bread, which represent his blood and flesh.
Mithra followers are baptized.
Saturday and Sunday, the two (2) days of the week to rest and celebrate.
Again, I'm not a bible/zoroastrian scholar, and I'm sure some of these are exaggerations/errors, but that doesn't invalidate all of the similarities between the two figures. Though if you really did your homework as you claim, you'd already know the bible was tampered with.
Quote:
1. You sure?. From that link
"There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood."
Yes I'm positive. Science is not wrong. But there is no way you can conclude that there was a global flood from these results. Whether the misrepresentation is occurring in the creationist that transcribed the article to this obviously-biased website, or whether its in the reader's digest article itself, or whether its in the geologist who is out to prove the Noah myth, there is undoubtedly some misrepresentation going on somewhere. If there was really a global flood, more geologists would acknowledge it.
So with all that being said, have we established that the flood was a fictional event yet?
Quote:
2. Yes, valid point. However to conclude there was never a flood on massive local scales or Global, or that the latter caused the former, is simply wrong.
There could very well have been a massive local flood, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. There most definitely was not a global flood. At this point I could stake my life on it.
Quote:
Yep, I dont agree with the YEC age of the earth. Mentioned that before.
Out of curiosity, you do believe in evolution right?
Quote:
1. You were never a Christian(Just like most Christians are not Christians).
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding" (Proverbs 9:10)
If you took the above scripture at face value, you would be more enlightened than your current state today. But that is obviously where you went wrong. Using grounds of morality to challenge the bible does seem like the easy way out.
So what you're saying is that the con-men who wrote the bible have a verse where they say that you're ignorant if you don't believe in the bible?
Quote:
Your ignorance on the bible was magnified when you kept mentioning God commands rape. Not only is it a lie, but the fact that you readily believed it, was arrogant. For everything else, It was fair assumption, but not that.
Make no mistake: discussing scripture is the last thing I want to do because it has zero applicable use in the real world, and again: batman vs. superman. But since you want it so badly, here we go again.
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11
God is angry because David killed Uriah. So as a punishment, God will have his innocent wives raped while everyone else watches. Typical pathetic bronze-age morals.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
What kind of nutjob makes a rape victim marry her attacker?
Judges:21
"They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. "
So here, the Israelites, continuing in their tradition of "do whatever the hell you want because we have divine authority & we're special", decided to kidnap women after slaughtering all the other women & children of Jabesh-gilead.
Everytime God says "But you may keep for yourselves all the women," I consider it to be rape by virtue of the fact that the women were stolen from their husbands and are now forced to procreate with their new captors. I already know you consider this to be a benevolent act where the Isrealites simply adopt new wives for which to care, so spare me your inevitable response.
Quote:
Except the evidence in the bible is vastly greater and superior than any other religion. Funny how you mention Jews and Christians there, When its the same thing. Hinduism has virtually no evidence behind it and is illogical, It truly is the greatest `faith` religion. Only the bible serves reliable to testing, Which I can demonstrate to you against every other religion.
So again you make my point by reiterating how superior your religion is. The primary contention between Jews & Christians as far as I understand it is whether Jesus was the messiah. This is not a small detail. Also, Jews don't believe in eternal suffering in hell (a ridiculous concept of justice).
You're an intelligent guy, and while religion makes normally intelligent people say some stupid things, I hope you can at least see the arrogance of claiming that your religion is better than all others. If God actually cared what you believe, why do other religions even exist? As far as I'm concerned, they all have the same non-evidence for their existence, and the fact that there are even other options to Christianity is the most damning proof that it's not so special.
Science is a philosophy, not a science unto itself. It has its own axioms that must be accepted without scientific rigor. For instance, A scientist takes on faith the existence of a "nature" to which science can be applied. It's not a very hard assumption to swallow when you also take on faith that your senses provide you with information demonstrating the existence of nature, but nonetheless there is a faith component to science.
I believe the point of conflict between science and religion goes down to their mutual epistemological roots, not their details. It's not about man or god, it's about knowledge. Both beliefs purport to claim knowledge of some kind(and I include understanding as a form of knowledge). I don't believe in the Socratic notion that knowledge is impossible to attain. Science asks you to assume that nature exists, which requires the assumption that your senses impart correct information about nature. Religions ask you to assume that whatever supernatural elements the given religion has exist, and that what they say is correct, and that what they do is real.
To me, the main advantage science has as a means of understanding the universe is repeatability. If a physics textbook tells me that the radius of the Earth can be determined by placing two poles in the ground pointing straight up, measuring the angle at which they point away from one another due to the curvature of the Earth's surface, then using that angle and the distance between them to calculate the hypotenuse of the triangle that they form, I believe it because I can actually try it and find out for myself. No convincing necessary on the part of the textbook. No religious texts have this level of reliability. They ask you to believe without an explanation that satisfies the senses. They sometimes threaten with violence(argument ad baculum fallacy). They often rely on their popularity to convince those with weak wills(argument ad populum fallacy). They almost always rely on the indoctrination of children(also argument ad baculum). All science needs is "Try it and see for yourself. Maybe we're wrong."
Now, I could go into science's reliance on mathematics, which is a whoooole other ball game. Another philosophy with another epistemological foundation. But I'll just say that most religious apologists rely on mathematics as well(any apologist who has ever said "The Earth is 6000 years old", for instance), so that balances out. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the correctness of math here.
Never visited those links.
Your first link says: (if both chronologies are correct; but please note that there is some disagreement even among conservative Bible believers on these dates).
Im telling you, I dont know when exactly the flood happened.
The 2nd Link is interesting with the info presented, but from what Ive seen and read over the past few days I cant take any date as a definite or most likely.
You just gave me a passage from wikipedia which states that genesis was ripped off the epic of gilgamesh. -_-
They believe its ripped, you do, means little difference to me. I dont think the bible is a book with ripped stories from every other culture. That would be funny indeed though if it were true.
Even if there is evidence for Gilgamesh, it really doesn't matter because the surviving evidence from the dawn of civilization is pretty shoddy and does little to help us separate myth from historical fact. The fact remains that archaeological evidence does not point to any large flood which wiped out all of humanity. If a flood did happen it would have been recorded in far more places than in a book that amounts to a bedtime story.
Archaeological evidence for a global flood is not cut and dry or easy as say paleontology. Massive data on tons of variables need to be analysed.
Yes I'm positive. Science is not wrong. But there is no way you can conclude that there was a global flood from these results. Whether the misrepresentation is occurring in the creationist that transcribed the article to this obviously-biased website, or whether its in the reader's digest article itself, or whether its in the geologist who is out to prove the Noah myth, there is undoubtedly some misrepresentation going on somewhere. If there was really a global flood, more geologists would acknowledge it.
Perhaps. This Global flood wont be realized properly as having occurred or not until sufficient study is done on it. Of which, there hasn`t been much. Yes we can suggest all my links were biased and incorrect, but I can the same for yours. There are too many half-truths here and there. And there is no definite proof that such a flood never occurred. While some evidence , direct and indirect(a lot) hint otherwise. Am I lying about my last statement?, No.
So with all that being said, have we established that the flood was a fictional event yet?
Lets just agree to disagree on this Global flood.
Out of curiosity, you do believe in evolution right?
To a degree yes. I dont think animals or life magically appeared instantaneously. There was obviously a sequential development or process of sorts. Humans might be an exception. Adam was the first man, and Eve the first woman, and children of man were conceived after that.
I dont buy into the idea of `we evolved from Ape`. That has too many flaws in it to be taken seriously. The fact that the ape shares about 98% of our Dna doesn`t mean much. Of course the genetic structure is very similar, but we are ultimately different because we possess the spirit of God.
Even piggies apparently share a lot of our genetic make up too http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm
So yes, the theory has some flaws of it own. I dont want to go into detail because I assume you already know, of which even Darwin himself mentioned.
I do believe that true human evolution is in the mind. This separates us from the classification of animals, and always will.
Completely off topic and Just for jokes:
To be fair I put one for the people that also heavily misunderstand the theory
And this was too funny to pass up(You know with the over 50% obese rate)
So what you're saying is that the con-men who wrote the bible have a verse where they say that you're ignorant if you don't believe in the bible?
Yep, OR the bible would be false if even you fulfilled that scripture is all earnest and one day concluded it was ultimately nonsense.
God is angry because David killed Uriah. So as a punishment, God will have his innocent wives raped while everyone else watches. Typical pathetic bronze-age morals. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11
Alright where does it say rape?. What if the woman naturally decided to cheat and be with another man, or be sneaky sneaky on the side? You know, infidelity. Is that not common in today`s world?
What kind of nutjob makes a rape victim marry her attacker? "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
This is a good case of a mistranslation http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm
Out of 15 or so different bible translations, only 2 use the word `rape`.
What is really means is this:
If you are a father or whoever, but lets say father, and you catch your daughter being naughty before marriage(The guy seduced her obviously). Then that dude has to marry her and be responsible for that with whatever payments or anything. You cant just `hit and run` and dump her with a possible baby, atleast thats not what God intended for man to do.
So here, the Israelites, continuing in their tradition of "do whatever the hell you want because we have divine authority & we're special", decided to kidnap women after slaughtering all the other women & children of Jabesh-gilead.
God never commanded them to do that. So your point is...?. Yes, the Israelites did a lot of bad things thinking `we have divine authority`, but they suffered a great deal through-out the bible for thinking such as that. What they did was wrong, and God is shown to have punished them numerous times for such offenses. Again, you missed the verse right after that: 25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.
So it becomes apparent that God never commanded rape. You were either lying or were misinformed. Whatever the reason, I forgive you.
Yes, in all likelyhood the man named Jesus existed. He was an Arab, not a white man with long hair. Here is just some food for thought:
No, he definitely existed. Jewish, But yea, not a white man with long hair(Though, if he was Nazrite, He would have had long hair). I think what you mean is he did not have blonde hair, as portrayed in Hollywood?, Indeed so.
So again you make my point by reiterating how superior your religion is. The primary contention between Jews & Christians as far as I understand it is whether Jesus was the messiah. This is not a small detail. Also, Jews don't believe in eternal suffering in hell (a ridiculous concept of justice).
Yes you are correct. My religion is superior compared to Hinduism, Paganism, etc. It cant be superior to Judaism, since we have the same root and core beliefs as to God. And yes there are issues as to why the Jews dont(not all , but most) want to believe in the messiah.
Let me ask you something.
God says, Referring to the Messiah. "You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me. I will make you a light to the Gentiles(The nations), and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."(Isaiah 49:6)
Without Jesus, Christians would never have come into the understanding and knowledge of the true God. It would have always been a Jewish thing.
Now tell me, How on earth is this scripture so perfectly accurate and fulfilled?. Given it was written thousands of years ago?(And BEFORE Jesus Christ).
Lucky guessing by Bronze age cavemen?. Right.....
Quick recap. God is not the `God of the Jews`, but rather the God of all, and he is attempting to restore that relationship. Obviously his working point is from Israel. The false religions and inventions of man will perish one day. Its getting there.
You say sheep, I say appreciative of common sense and reasoning.
Haha, ok. I think you would have been one of those people that would say `Hogwash!` to people before they had invented things like the aeroplane, or space shuttles, Wireless communication, and stuff like that. Off topic but just a wild guess. Maybe Im wrong on that;p
But yea thats good, keep it up with the common sense and reasoning(I mean it, Seriously, Not being sarcastic here). Just try not to let that `sense` be or become `too common`.
Because of the electrons' quantized energy states. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, a parallel earth would indeed exist with red atmosphere because the electron's properties in that universe are slightly different. If multiverse is correct, there would also be universes in which parameters are so different that life would never have developed, let alone matter coming into existence. Science is always about finding why something works the way it does; hence research into physics. When ever you ask why and science can't explain why, you automatically cite it as proof of divine intention, when in reality science can't explain why because of technological limitations; just like when the technology wasn't available in 5000 BC to help explain that eclipses weren't the results of demons swallowing the sun. We currently do not have the technology to detect other universes, hence multiverse remains a hypothesis, just as is your definition of a omnipotent divinity. As technology advances, new tools will allow science to explain why. You can't be more honest and sincere than a scientist who is trying to discover why the universe works the way it does and trying to disseminate the findings to the public. Religion only requires blind faith/trust in doctrine and dogma. Religious people often take offense when science finds something that contradicts and invalidates religious beliefs; religious people view science as an affront on their religion. Many religious people assume humans have a soul, that there is an afterlife, etc, but science has yet to find any evidence to support those hypotheses.
Weren't you trying to show that god's genocides were plans to avoid a greater evil?
If you can misrepresent/misunderstand my point of view, which is written in modern English, and we are both from the United States, why would you think you can understand the biblical stories, which were originally written in ancient Hebrew dialect, then translated to Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated to old English?
The chances of finding god is that same as finding the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's really quit dishonest to tell people to trust in something that may not even exist. It's also quite dishonest to say that the unknown is unknowable because of divine intention.
The fact that our DNA is similar to all other animals is proof of a common ancestor, not a problem. Even though we are 99% chimp, much of that DNA is junk info, and even then we still have like 15 million base-pairs that are different.
Quote:
Alright where does it say rape?. What if the woman naturally decided to
cheat and be with another man, or be sneaky sneaky on the side? You
know, infidelity. Is that not common in today`s world?
What's the point of saying "in broad daylight" if he meant infidelity, and not rape? Here's what ended up happening:
"So they set up a tent on the palace roof where everyone could see it, and Absalom went in and had sex with his father's concubines." - samuel 2 16:21
So David's son just went in & had sex with David's wives, and I'm sure they all randomly agreed to this and enjoyed it, since apparently God is morally perfect? In fact, God just broke two of his own commandments: "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife".
Once again, God forces his people to commit the same sins that he himself condemns.
Quote:
This is a good case of a mistranslation http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm
Out of 15 or so different bible translations, only 2 use the word
`rape`.
Seriously? The other translations say "seizes her and lies with her" and "lay hold on her". Only by being willfully ignorant could one not interpret that as rape. I knew you were going to make this difficult on me with semantics, which is why i didn't want to get into this in the first place, but come on man.
Quote:
If you are a father or whoever, but lets say father, and you catch your
daughter being naughty before marriage(The guy seduced her obviously).
Then that dude has to marry her and be responsible for that with
whatever payments or anything. You cant just `hit and run` and dump her
with a possible baby, atleast thats not what God intended for man to do.
How do you honestly read the original passage and get this out of it...?
Quote:
God never commanded them to do that. So your point is...?
That the bible is a god-awful philosophy book to live your life by. Whether god commanded anybody or not is beside the point. The point is that this book is a vile account of bronze-age troglodytes instead of a "perfect holy book from the creator of the universe". Not something that I'd ever teach my kids.
Quote:
So it becomes apparent that God never commanded rape. You were either
lying or were misinformed. Whatever the reason, I forgive you.
Guess you're going to make me continue then.
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. [....] However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Here God approves of forcibly taking other women, and basically treating them as property.
"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. " Zechariah 14:2
God yet again approves of rape & genocide. I'm waiting for your reply where it turns out that other translations do not use the word "ravished". <_<
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:15-18
It is said that the test of morality of any nation is in how it treats its prisoners of war. God treats his prisoners by slaughtering children & allowing the women to be raped.
When I hear a theist say "I did my homework" I think of a drug addict saying "no, I'm clean this time, for real".
Quote:
Yes you are correct. My religion is superior compared to Hinduism,
Paganism, etc. It cant be superior to Judaism, since we have the same
root and core beliefs as to God. And yes there are issues as to why the
Jews dont(not all , but most) want to believe in the messiah.
Let me ask you something.
Superior to paganism? Jesus is a blatant ripoff of Mithra.
Quote:
God says, Referring to the Messiah. "You will do more than restore the
people of Israel to me. I will make you a light to the Gentiles(The
nations), and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
(Isaiah 49:6)
Without Jesus, Christians would never have come into the understanding
and knowledge of the true God. It would have always been a Jewish thing.
Now tell me, How on earth is this scripture so perfectly accurate and
fulfilled?. Given it was written thousands of years ago?(And BEFORE
Jesus Christ).
Lucky guessing by Bronze age cavemen?. Right.....
The ends of the earth eh?
Guess you and me have a totally different definition of "perfectly accurate". Again, your religion is not automatically better than any others' on that pie chart.
The fact that our DNA is similar to all other animals is proof of a common ancestor, not a problem. Even though we are 99% chimp, much of that DNA is junk info, and even then we still have like 15 million base-pairs that are different.
You can consider yourself 99% chimp in the literal(or even figurative) sense, but personally I dont.
What's the point of saying "in broad daylight" if he meant infidelity, and not rape? Here's what ended up happening:
"So they set up a tent on the palace roof where everyone could see it, and Absalom went in and had sex with his father's concubines." - samuel 2 16:21
So David's son just went in & had sex with David's wives, and I'm sure they all randomly agreed to this and enjoyed it, since apparently God is morally perfect? In fact, God just broke two of his own commandments: "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife".
Once again, God forces his people to commit the same sins that he himself condemns.
Infidelity in broad day light makes more sense than rape in broad daylight(where everyone can see?), Why would Abaslom do that?. Makes no sense to me if it was rape.
God did not break any of his Commandments. What David did brought about this horrible turn of events. Every action has a reaction.
Superior to paganism? Jesus is a blatant ripoff of Mithra.
Once again the bible is ripping things from ever other culture and is 100% false. Gotcha!. Wait......Satan is that you?
Here God approves of forcibly taking other women, and basically treating them as property.
No, the last part of the statement is not true. Very specifically it says the woman shall not be enslaved or sold. But yes, the wicked bastards that were destroyed would have left these widows. Does marrying a woman grant me immunity from God`s Wrath ?, Nope. So, yes the men were destroyed and the woman could be taken as wives. Not to be treated as a slave or anything like that. Yes it sucks that they had their first husbands lost(Im sure they were pretty cool guys?), but they had it coming.
God yet again approves of rape & genocide. I'm waiting for your reply where it turns out that other translations do not use the word "ravished". <_< "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. " Zechariah 14:2
I have no intention of twisting scripture to suite my own needs because eventually it will be seen false, if it is indeed not true. The scripture above, a forthcoming Judgement event on Israel Again, what can I truly question about this if it was ordained as such?. I know you are all for "Spare the woman and children!!!", and thats nice, but the Judgements of God and even the consequences of our actions is beyond our understanding. All souls belong to him and he encompasses all reality.
God has a wrathful side, no doubt about that. Not that it is his character, but our Sins bring it about as a means for his Righteous judgement to prevail.
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31). A quote from one of the Apostles in the New testament. True that.
The ends of the earth eh? Guess you and me have a totally different definition of "perfectly accurate". Again, your religion is not automatically better than any others' on that pie chart.
I can imagine that scripture would leave you dumbfounded, and you have no rational explanation for it. Eventually the Salvation will reach all the world. Especially at this rate(Its pretty far a long).
And its not "You and me" but rather "You and I".
I never said Christianity is better than any other religion, only that it is the truth and word of God(Whether you like it or not). If you want a `nice` cozy religion with fluffy ideas, Go be a Pagan, or Druid or Scientologist or something like that.
You don't see the hypocrisies in your inconsistent interpretations of Bronze Age folklore? You are making literal interpretations one moment, then twisting words/meanings the next moment. If you haven't seen god's penis, then you can't really be sure "he" is the correct pronoun to use. More truth exists in evolution than in creationism. Humans have a lot in common with chimps, as well as the rest of the animal kingdom: conflicts over resources, territory, mates, etc.
The Holy Church of Ceiling Cat is obviously the only one and true religion. How could any force stand against his mighty army of Bread Cat Minions and Peek-a-Boo Kittens? Ceiling Cat maded dem hoomons to be survantz to catz everywherez.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On "God orders genocide":
Where should we base our judgement if this was good or bad?
I'd assume if we were born in an alien world where genocide was an everyday thing, that a strong nation neighboring us can freely attack at any time and kill us all, it would be a no brainer. We will not realize, "Why do we have to kill each other?"
Why?
Two illustrations:
1. The way things are when decisions had to be made. Or the precepts upon which actions are then deemed benificial or otherwise. 2. Starcraft 2
Thus we come to #1,
Let's assume we live in those times. There was no law. All things are governed by deities and their precepts. You grew up in a world where you see children being sacrificed to burn to please your gods, who "demand" it. You are treated as slaves, no right to yourself, and hold your elites to be gods themselves. You've seen how the king took what he wanted, killed those who defied him, gut those who do not worship his gods.
There is fierce competition amongst the nations around you. You go to war against another tribe every 10 years or so. You find that if you cross their borders, you will be raped, killed, or turned into a slave worst than your own nation have done to you.
You have been told tales about this people. How they steal everything and the list goes on.
In an environment where violence is a common thing, and community only exists to serve towards defense and or conquest, what would we be? What would our morals be? Where would be base our judgements on the actions we take?
Would we even consider that we have a choice? That outside our box there is some other form of civilization that is directly opposite to ours? If not, then where would we base our judgements between what is right and wrong?
Now, I'll take Hitchen's example of a pregnant woman being kicked around.
Because we are in this culture, and since cultural practices define the basis of assumptions and presumptions on things, we will naturally be opposed to this. Not only does culture or world view define presumptions on what is good or evil, it also forces us to assume certain outcomes, and cause-and-effect "machinations".
To elaborate, let's take this example:
Somewhere, at some time, a seemingly quiet and nice person suddenly comes out and kill people. Worst thing, one of those was your brother.
If you knew the guy would kill your own brother, wouldn't you try and stop him from killer her? What if you can do anything, wouldn't you just cause him to not exist, or even define everything centered on that single act so that this would not occur?
Now, what if you've done this. Redefined all the events that lead to this. Took every possible line of possibilities and made it so it won't happen. And after you've done this, it so happens that while your brother and yourself was hunting in the forest, he kills a deer, who causes the other deer to run and push something, that causes a branch to fall, which then triggers a landslide and everything is covered in snow?
What if when he killed that deer, it stopped a line of deers from being born, which then in the future goes astray into a man's house, where a child becomes inspired to create a very useful machinery that will eventually be developed and will cause a war that will force another scientist to create a series of robots which then will be reprogrammed to plant crops and construct buildings, and make sure 1 billion people have enough food, clean water, clothing, medical care, and shelter that will support them and allow them to birth 19 generations of children who then will bear children that will conceive the first ever principle that will .... etc, etc.
That was long, but it was worth it.
My point is evident, I believe.
Could you have decided any better if you had infinite knowledge and power? Would you not have to choose one (1) path in all the multiple and infinite possibilities? What if in another possibility God didn't have another choice but to choose the egyptians over the jews? What if in another possibilty, God will have to do one particular thing because it was the most and only choice in order to achieve a certain end goal?
Morality then and the definition of it's precepts are not as simple as we take it. In the eyes of a limited mind, it is so, but to an infinite mind, how can we even begin to conceive it?
We can only trust. And this is where faith comes in.
The real question is, why do we attack faith and try to disprove it? Is it because of our biases? Is it because of the laws in them?
What I see in most disbelievers is like what you'd see in a teenager who looks to those who gives him orders. It's like, he who has no sin cast the first stone kind of thing.
What is the purpose of removing faith and belief in God? Do you have a neighbor who uses the bible to torment other people or bully you? Why?
If you remove people's faiths, you must replace it with another. There is no other way.
I am for clearing things up, getting a deeper understanding, and possibly formulating a new set of fundamental principles that will eventually lead humanity to become more flexible while also self-nurturing.
Whatever the path may be, I do believe that a "peep hole" basis is wrong. Though we are to be responsible what we will eventually embrace, we have to acknowledge that we need some form of basis upon which to choose and decide.
"The Kingdom of Heaven" as mentioned, is the goal. No, I don't think this is a glimmering place of marble and streets of gold literally, but it is a system that is not only good for humanity in an isolated setting, but with a wider account of things and a far deeper understanding that has, if possible, infinite reach, in terms of time, space, and everything in between.
And for this, we need more truths that we have. And we need more processing capabilities and methodologies, a new mind so to speak, in order to even begin to take a step into considering the smallest thing that comprises this that we now cannot even imagine, but only believe to exist because someone who is come into man, who supposedly does not exist, said so. Or is reported to have said so.
Believe me, I heartily hold that the bible is not enough, and what we have now in this religion is not enough. What I know is enough is that this "foundation" that people constantly attack just because some preacher thinks this or that.
The notion, "if it works for you then so be it" only works with people who are not affecting each other. I believe that completely removing all the precepts that have been laid is wrong and will lead to terrible consequences.
As ever, the problem is not in what is revealed, but in who looks at it, what he makes of it and to what he does this. This is why I am in favor of the idea that we are responsible in seeking for truth, but the search there must be a goal and purpose, as certain as there will be inevitable results, affects, and effects.
The generation of today must be very careful what they remove, retain, or build. Religion is a word so raped and humiliated, but it's just a word that represents the core of how humans work.
We must have a basis to be able to operate. We must have some sort of cause, and some sort of guiding principle to guide us in our actions as we pursue this cause. This cause is always towards an end.
An open mind that has no basis lost. A runner who runs for no purpose is merely causing himself injury.
/end blog
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go "We can only trust. And this is where faith comes in. "
Right, because faith is defined as believing in something for which there is zero factual evidence supporting it (i.e. faith in god, faith in afterlife, faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.) You seem to be attributing the occurrence of events as the action of a conscious omnipotent being, and of course, you don't have any evidence for this. If your defense, you would probably say that humans cannot understand because it is beyond their comprehension, a totally lazy and vague attempt at explanation.
In reality, your speculation that events are ultimately controlled and connected to a greater purpose, is misconception of coincidence, randomness, and probability.
When an event, usually traumatizing, occurs, people have a natural tendency/curiosity to understand why it happened, they tend to seek what ever explanation gives them the most comfort because of the brain's need for endorphins. It's easiest for those people to turn to speculation/religion/conspiracies/etc when the facts contradict their own relative perceptions of the reality of the events. That's why so many religious people attribute disasters to wrath of god, instead of to failed policies to prepare for disasters, or blindness in heeding the evidence of pre-disaster warnings. Lack of understanding/inability to understand the factual evidence leads to faith in religious explanations. Advances in science and technology have allowed us to comprehend so many things (i.e. materials science, quantum mechanics, relativity).
"Why is the sky blue?"
"Because god is the decider."
"Wrong. The sky is blue because the gas molecules in the atmosphere causes light to "scatter". The blue spectrum of light has enough energy to excite the electrons in the molecules. When the electrons go back to the ground state, the energy is re-emitted back as blue light."
"How do you know this?"
"Because of scientific experiments."
"Why does the moon orbit the earth?"
"Because it's the moon's punishment for stealing cheese from the sun."
"Gravity..."
ill re-join this conversations and reply to several people tomorrow, I literally spent the Past few days talking with my grandfather on Vacation at his camp site, he is an ordained minister, and a traveling pastor for CMA.
So I will go and share the knowledge he told me, and none of my own, because I have learned that there is still tons for me to learn :P
No question about it.
I understand how religion works and what it does to people. I'm not preaching religion, I'm preaching honesty and sincerity.
Now, science seems to be the opponent of God, but it's not.
Take from your example, you say it is blue because of light and molecules etc. Yes. But the question is why not red? Why is it that it is the blue spectrum of light that has enough energy to excite the electrons in the molecules? Why is it that when light and molecules in the atmosphere interact, this is the result?
Science acknowledges an existing thing, and takes it apart to see how it works. But it doesn't give the answers to why it works the way it works. Science is good for a purpose, but that purpose isn't to presuppose what and how or who God should be or must be so it can acknowledge it.
And, no, the above example is not intended to mean as you take it to be.
See how we can differ even in just appreciating what a written thing means and is supposed to be directed towards? See how biased we are? Can you see how necessary the "basis" I'm talking about up there with regards to what just happened?
I also know that those who believe in a universe that just existed in itself for itself does not put intent into the equation. There is no grand plan. No ultimate purpose. But in their doctrine, there is, and that is "to exist, to endure, and to die." Isn't that what their greater purpose is? The great non-purpose? "The purpose comes after existence" kind of thing?
But in my talk up there, this wasn't the issue. The issue was the problem of intent and the identity of God. It was taken into consideration that "let's say, God exists, this God issued an order of genocide".
Now, this was used to say,
1. Therefore the God of the bible is not real, because it reflected a bronze age man's thinking. It did not propose any other means, but acted and thought as if proving himself to be merely a lie created by a bronze-age man to lead a people and justify the genocide.
2. God in the bible is a fairy tale, because he contradicts his character. Omnipotent + Omniscient should not be equal to Bronze-age man decision making patterns.
So I provided my own "theory" not to prove or disprove, but to pose a question and to propose something. All are listed in the post above.
I'm going to hand this over, as I have models to work on. I've already shared some of my views. But lastly, this is what I have to say about this matter:
"Finding God is not reached by the movement of thought, but by the movement of being."
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
I do believe I can beat everyone's argument, past, present, and future. Right Here. Right Now.
@Gradius12: Go
The biblical chronology puts the flood at 2345 BC, so again, my point is made.
No it does not. Pulling stuff out the air is funny. I guess your point is not made.
The flood probably occurred 5000 years ago, but Im not certain on this.
No mention of a global flood, and no mention of something as important as humanity being wiped out.
Andrew R. George(The guy who translated the "Epic of Gilgamesh") submits that the flood story in Genesis 6–8 matches the Gilgamesh flood myth so closely, "few doubt" that it derives from the Mesopotamian account.[12] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.
You can call it a myth, but your previous point of other cultures at the time having no record of the Global flood is completed flawed and incorrect.
Some scholars say that the discovery of artifacts (ca. 2600 BC) associated with Enmebaragesi of Kish, mentioned in the legends as the father of one of Gilgamesh's adversaries, has lent credibility to the historical existence of Gilgamesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
The flood of Gilgamesh was written before 2000 B.C, and Genesis was written in 400 BC, so I fail to see how it's other religions that are doing the plagiarizing.
Its somewhat believed that Genesis was written around 1450-1410BC(Nice trolling with 400 BC). The "standard" Akkadian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.
So indeed it may be slightly older, but The earliest Sumerian poems are now generally considered to be distinct stories rather than parts of the single epic. They date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BC)(aka your date mentioned above).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#History
You need to start considering the fact that your religion has some serious elements of plagiarism, like that Jesus is basically a copy of Mithra.
All I see is you failing with some of your facts. I believe the common elements originate from the bible(I dont see hard concrete evidence to believe otherwise). You will naturally believe the opposite(For the same reason).
Jesus was historically real. The events(miracles etc) and his divinity is subject to whatever the person in question is willing to believe. Though, it seems likely that all those events did occur and this was the birth of early Christianity(Which were Jews, I might add).
Leading scientific atheist Richard Dawkins specifically separates the question of the existence of Jesus from the attribution of supernatural powers to him, or the accuracy of the Christian gospels. Dawkins does not deny the existence of Jesus(Because facts are facts), although he dismisses the reliability of the gospel accounts(Go figure)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Existence
Couple things:
1) This proves that there was a flood in the Gulf of Mexico, not the entire planet. If you want to prove a global flood, it has to be in all the ice cores, and it's not in the Greenland ice cores.
2) Noah's flood was not 10000 years ago, therefore this can all be dismissed right off the bat.
3) I find it funny that you dismissed my sources as "biased", even though I haven't seen you get your info from anywhere else besides creationist websites.
1. You sure?. From that link
"There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood."
Their studies/analysis The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago."
Now you are saying the science is wrong?. Im not dismissing the Greenland Ice cores, but I do not know the level of certainty they can provide(Or how applicable they were/are to a massive flooding event).
2. Yes, valid point. However to conclude there was never a flood on massive local scales or Global, or that the latter caused the former, is simply wrong.
3. Saying your sources are biased, does not imply Im saying they are wrong in every presentation of knowledge. The same can be said about "Creationist websites" which also use science and historical evidences to validate the scenario. They too can be biased, but my point is that there is truth in both spectrums(Science, Civilization accounts) for/against this Global flood. The date being the largest contention.
Here is their understanding of evolution:
Pretty sure its sarcasm. Lol;p
Hello, Is Anybody Home? Cause Mother Earth may Not be "Billions of Years" Old: after All
Yep, I dont agree with the YEC age of the earth. Mentioned that before.
Just give it a rest dude. I've heard every excuse for genocide imaginable by now.
Thanks. I was getting tired of trying to bring the argument on human terms. God sucks, and he is not allowed to kill or actually not do anything with his creation(He could do nice things though I suppose, Because we like that:), but bad stuff is totally not alright! deserved or otherwise, Because we dont like that :(.
I...never said it was the main reason. In fact I said "justifications", as in, plural. But thanks for conceding the point I guess? <_<
Alright, my mistake there.
1.I used to be a Christian, 2.and it's not difficult to cherrypick the meaning or translation to justify pretty much any passage you want. 3.I won't be making any more assumptions about the bible because Tolkfan was pretty much right, debating this book is like debating batman vs. superman
1. You were never a Christian(Just like most Christians are not Christians).
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding" (Proverbs 9:10)
If you took the above scripture at face value, you would be more enlightened than your current state today. But that is obviously where you went wrong. Using grounds of morality to challenge the bible does seem like the easy way out.
2. This is a myth perpetrated by atheists. I have said translation differences exist, and that the Hebrew is the most pure form. The basic truths are still present. Take for example the comment on scripture made by Eiviyn(Under the assumption its wrong/stupid) a few pages back, and I totally smash that with the scientific fact it relates to. The statement you make is completely unfounded.
3. Thats nice. I dont consider Tolkfan a person of reason(He seems hard-done and bitter). The two of you can sail in the same boat. Your ignorance on the bible was magnified when you kept mentioning God commands rape. Not only is it a lie, but the fact that you readily believed it, was arrogant. For everything else, It was fair assumption, but not that.
Oh and Superman > Batman(Superman is invulnerable), and its unlikely batman could find and use Kryptonite against him. Batman himself is without any powers.
Christians: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Jews: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Sikhs: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Hindus: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Muslims: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Except the evidence in the bible is vastly greater and superior than any other religion. Funny how you mention Jews and Christians there, When its the same thing. Hinduism has virtually no evidence behind it and is illogical, It truly is the greatest `faith` religion. Only the bible serves reliable to testing, Which I can demonstrate to you against every other religion.
@EternalWraith: Go
You say sheep, I say appreciative of common sense and reasoning.
So... what happens when one of you proves the other wrong? If there was a flood, does that prove that the Christian god exists or vice versa? Deos the mention of a historical event in a religious text make all of the supernatural stuff somehow more valid?
Actually, Batman keeps a chunk of kryptonite in a lead-lined pocket on his belt. He's got an response to everything... too bad those answers are only valid within comic books, not reality.
1. No it wont prove the Christan god exists(If the flood happened). if there was no flood however, then that would clearly indicate the Christian God does not exist.
2. Not really, but you can say it adds weight to evidence(if the rest of the bible contains sufficient).
Gradius had mentioned there was never a flood, which got into this debate. There clearly were floods on `massive scales` in the past(the means to attributing it to Global flood is not necessary and questionable). Easy and simple evidence for a Global flood seems weak yes, but not out of question(Which I had been pointing to). Its not a dismissible point at all.
@Tolkfan: Go
Actually, Batman keeps a chunk of kryptonite in a lead-lined pocket on his belt. He's got an response to everything... too bad those answers are only valid within comic books, not reality.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make with this(I must be tired). However its `illogical` to assume that he has an answer to everything(Since he has never VS`d Superman in this case or the totality of all possible other scenarios). Thus your statement is a question of belief(Though, an increasingly `likely` truth if the nature of Batman and his past shows repetition and consistency of this subject matter) , Belief based still, We cannot conclude or deny it as a truth in comic books(atleast not at such an early time until Batman experiences and goes through everything).
Sigh. 5000 years ago = 3000 BC.
Here are some trusty creationist websites since verifying this date has to be so hard:
http://www.creationtips.com/flooddate.html
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/flood.php
You just gave me a passage from wikipedia which states that genesis was ripped off the epic of gilgamesh. -_-
The fact that you believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is a myth yet still want to use it as a reference is like saying "You can call Harry Potter a myth if you want, but you can't prove that people in the early 2000s had no record of Harry Potter defeating the evil wizard Lord Voldemort."
Even if there is evidence for Gilgamesh, it really doesn't matter because the surviving evidence from the dawn of civilization is pretty shoddy and does little to help us separate myth from historical fact. The fact remains that archaeological evidence does not point to any large flood which wiped out all of humanity. If a flood did happen it would have been recorded in far more places than in a book that amounts to a bedtime story.
Yes, in all likelyhood the man named Jesus existed. He was an Arab, not a white man with long hair. Here is just some food for thought:
Again, I'm not a bible/zoroastrian scholar, and I'm sure some of these are exaggerations/errors, but that doesn't invalidate all of the similarities between the two figures. Though if you really did your homework as you claim, you'd already know the bible was tampered with.
Yes I'm positive. Science is not wrong. But there is no way you can conclude that there was a global flood from these results. Whether the misrepresentation is occurring in the creationist that transcribed the article to this obviously-biased website, or whether its in the reader's digest article itself, or whether its in the geologist who is out to prove the Noah myth, there is undoubtedly some misrepresentation going on somewhere. If there was really a global flood, more geologists would acknowledge it.
So with all that being said, have we established that the flood was a fictional event yet?
There could very well have been a massive local flood, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. There most definitely was not a global flood. At this point I could stake my life on it.
Out of curiosity, you do believe in evolution right?
So what you're saying is that the con-men who wrote the bible have a verse where they say that you're ignorant if you don't believe in the bible?
Make no mistake: discussing scripture is the last thing I want to do because it has zero applicable use in the real world, and again: batman vs. superman. But since you want it so badly, here we go again.
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11
God is angry because David killed Uriah. So as a punishment, God will have his innocent wives raped while everyone else watches. Typical pathetic bronze-age morals.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
What kind of nutjob makes a rape victim marry her attacker?
Judges:21
"They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. "
So here, the Israelites, continuing in their tradition of "do whatever the hell you want because we have divine authority & we're special", decided to kidnap women after slaughtering all the other women & children of Jabesh-gilead.
Everytime God says "But you may keep for yourselves all the women," I consider it to be rape by virtue of the fact that the women were stolen from their husbands and are now forced to procreate with their new captors. I already know you consider this to be a benevolent act where the Isrealites simply adopt new wives for which to care, so spare me your inevitable response.
So again you make my point by reiterating how superior your religion is. The primary contention between Jews & Christians as far as I understand it is whether Jesus was the messiah. This is not a small detail. Also, Jews don't believe in eternal suffering in hell (a ridiculous concept of justice).
You're an intelligent guy, and while religion makes normally intelligent people say some stupid things, I hope you can at least see the arrogance of claiming that your religion is better than all others. If God actually cared what you believe, why do other religions even exist? As far as I'm concerned, they all have the same non-evidence for their existence, and the fact that there are even other options to Christianity is the most damning proof that it's not so special.
If God created everything, then science is the study of God's creations.
Can't be too unholy.
Science is a philosophy, not a science unto itself. It has its own axioms that must be accepted without scientific rigor. For instance, A scientist takes on faith the existence of a "nature" to which science can be applied. It's not a very hard assumption to swallow when you also take on faith that your senses provide you with information demonstrating the existence of nature, but nonetheless there is a faith component to science.
I believe the point of conflict between science and religion goes down to their mutual epistemological roots, not their details. It's not about man or god, it's about knowledge. Both beliefs purport to claim knowledge of some kind(and I include understanding as a form of knowledge). I don't believe in the Socratic notion that knowledge is impossible to attain. Science asks you to assume that nature exists, which requires the assumption that your senses impart correct information about nature. Religions ask you to assume that whatever supernatural elements the given religion has exist, and that what they say is correct, and that what they do is real.
To me, the main advantage science has as a means of understanding the universe is repeatability. If a physics textbook tells me that the radius of the Earth can be determined by placing two poles in the ground pointing straight up, measuring the angle at which they point away from one another due to the curvature of the Earth's surface, then using that angle and the distance between them to calculate the hypotenuse of the triangle that they form, I believe it because I can actually try it and find out for myself. No convincing necessary on the part of the textbook. No religious texts have this level of reliability. They ask you to believe without an explanation that satisfies the senses. They sometimes threaten with violence(argument ad baculum fallacy). They often rely on their popularity to convince those with weak wills(argument ad populum fallacy). They almost always rely on the indoctrination of children(also argument ad baculum). All science needs is "Try it and see for yourself. Maybe we're wrong."
Now, I could go into science's reliance on mathematics, which is a whoooole other ball game. Another philosophy with another epistemological foundation. But I'll just say that most religious apologists rely on mathematics as well(any apologist who has ever said "The Earth is 6000 years old", for instance), so that balances out. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the correctness of math here.
My prophet:
@Gradius12: Go Sigh. 5000 years ago = 3000 BC.
Meant 5000 BC sorry.
Never visited those links.
Your first link says:
(if both chronologies are correct; but please note that there is some disagreement even among conservative Bible believers on these dates).
Im telling you, I dont know when exactly the flood happened.
The 2nd Link is interesting with the info presented, but from what Ive seen and read over the past few days I cant take any date as a definite or most likely.
You just gave me a passage from wikipedia which states that genesis was ripped off the epic of gilgamesh. -_-
They believe its ripped, you do, means little difference to me. I dont think the bible is a book with ripped stories from every other culture. That would be funny indeed though if it were true.
Even if there is evidence for Gilgamesh, it really doesn't matter because the surviving evidence from the dawn of civilization is pretty shoddy and does little to help us separate myth from historical fact. The fact remains that archaeological evidence does not point to any large flood which wiped out all of humanity. If a flood did happen it would have been recorded in far more places than in a book that amounts to a bedtime story.
Archaeological evidence for a global flood is not cut and dry or easy as say paleontology. Massive data on tons of variables need to be analysed.
Yes I'm positive. Science is not wrong. But there is no way you can conclude that there was a global flood from these results. Whether the misrepresentation is occurring in the creationist that transcribed the article to this obviously-biased website, or whether its in the reader's digest article itself, or whether its in the geologist who is out to prove the Noah myth, there is undoubtedly some misrepresentation going on somewhere. If there was really a global flood, more geologists would acknowledge it.
Perhaps. This Global flood wont be realized properly as having occurred or not until sufficient study is done on it. Of which, there hasn`t been much. Yes we can suggest all my links were biased and incorrect, but I can the same for yours. There are too many half-truths here and there. And there is no definite proof that such a flood never occurred. While some evidence , direct and indirect(a lot) hint otherwise. Am I lying about my last statement?, No.
So with all that being said, have we established that the flood was a fictional event yet?
Lets just agree to disagree on this Global flood.
Out of curiosity, you do believe in evolution right?
To a degree yes. I dont think animals or life magically appeared instantaneously. There was obviously a sequential development or process of sorts. Humans might be an exception. Adam was the first man, and Eve the first woman, and children of man were conceived after that.
I dont buy into the idea of `we evolved from Ape`. That has too many flaws in it to be taken seriously. The fact that the ape shares about 98% of our Dna doesn`t mean much. Of course the genetic structure is very similar, but we are ultimately different because we possess the spirit of God.
Even piggies apparently share a lot of our genetic make up too
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm
So yes, the theory has some flaws of it own. I dont want to go into detail because I assume you already know, of which even Darwin himself mentioned.
I do believe that true human evolution is in the mind. This separates us from the classification of animals, and always will.
Completely off topic and Just for jokes:
To be fair I put one for the people that also heavily misunderstand the theory
And this was too funny to pass up(You know with the over 50% obese rate)
So what you're saying is that the con-men who wrote the bible have a verse where they say that you're ignorant if you don't believe in the bible?
Yep, OR the bible would be false if even you fulfilled that scripture is all earnest and one day concluded it was ultimately nonsense.
God is angry because David killed Uriah. So as a punishment, God will have his innocent wives raped while everyone else watches. Typical pathetic bronze-age morals.
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11
Alright where does it say rape?. What if the woman naturally decided to cheat and be with another man, or be sneaky sneaky on the side? You know, infidelity. Is that not common in today`s world?
What kind of nutjob makes a rape victim marry her attacker?
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
This is a good case of a mistranslation
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm
Out of 15 or so different bible translations, only 2 use the word `rape`.
What is really means is this:
If you are a father or whoever, but lets say father, and you catch your daughter being naughty before marriage(The guy seduced her obviously). Then that dude has to marry her and be responsible for that with whatever payments or anything. You cant just `hit and run` and dump her with a possible baby, atleast thats not what God intended for man to do.
So here, the Israelites, continuing in their tradition of "do whatever the hell you want because we have divine authority & we're special", decided to kidnap women after slaughtering all the other women & children of Jabesh-gilead.
God never commanded them to do that. So your point is...?. Yes, the Israelites did a lot of bad things thinking `we have divine authority`, but they suffered a great deal through-out the bible for thinking such as that. What they did was wrong, and God is shown to have punished them numerous times for such offenses. Again, you missed the verse right after that:
25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.
So it becomes apparent that God never commanded rape. You were either lying or were misinformed. Whatever the reason, I forgive you.
Yes, in all likelyhood the man named Jesus existed. He was an Arab, not a white man with long hair. Here is just some food for thought:
No, he definitely existed. Jewish, But yea, not a white man with long hair(Though, if he was Nazrite, He would have had long hair). I think what you mean is he did not have blonde hair, as portrayed in Hollywood?, Indeed so.
So again you make my point by reiterating how superior your religion is. The primary contention between Jews & Christians as far as I understand it is whether Jesus was the messiah. This is not a small detail. Also, Jews don't believe in eternal suffering in hell (a ridiculous concept of justice).
Yes you are correct. My religion is superior compared to Hinduism, Paganism, etc. It cant be superior to Judaism, since we have the same root and core beliefs as to God. And yes there are issues as to why the Jews dont(not all , but most) want to believe in the messiah.
Let me ask you something.
God says, Referring to the Messiah. "You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me. I will make you a light to the Gentiles(The nations), and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6)
Without Jesus, Christians would never have come into the understanding and knowledge of the true God. It would have always been a Jewish thing.
Now tell me, How on earth is this scripture so perfectly accurate and fulfilled?. Given it was written thousands of years ago?(And BEFORE Jesus Christ).
Lucky guessing by Bronze age cavemen?. Right.....
Quick recap. God is not the `God of the Jews`, but rather the God of all, and he is attempting to restore that relationship. Obviously his working point is from Israel. The false religions and inventions of man will perish one day. Its getting there.
Haha, ok. I think you would have been one of those people that would say `Hogwash!` to people before they had invented things like the aeroplane, or space shuttles, Wireless communication, and stuff like that. Off topic but just a wild guess. Maybe Im wrong on that;p
But yea thats good, keep it up with the common sense and reasoning(I mean it, Seriously, Not being sarcastic here). Just try not to let that `sense` be or become `too common`.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
Because of the electrons' quantized energy states. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, a parallel earth would indeed exist with red atmosphere because the electron's properties in that universe are slightly different. If multiverse is correct, there would also be universes in which parameters are so different that life would never have developed, let alone matter coming into existence. Science is always about finding why something works the way it does; hence research into physics. When ever you ask why and science can't explain why, you automatically cite it as proof of divine intention, when in reality science can't explain why because of technological limitations; just like when the technology wasn't available in 5000 BC to help explain that eclipses weren't the results of demons swallowing the sun. We currently do not have the technology to detect other universes, hence multiverse remains a hypothesis, just as is your definition of a omnipotent divinity. As technology advances, new tools will allow science to explain why. You can't be more honest and sincere than a scientist who is trying to discover why the universe works the way it does and trying to disseminate the findings to the public. Religion only requires blind faith/trust in doctrine and dogma. Religious people often take offense when science finds something that contradicts and invalidates religious beliefs; religious people view science as an affront on their religion. Many religious people assume humans have a soul, that there is an afterlife, etc, but science has yet to find any evidence to support those hypotheses.
Weren't you trying to show that god's genocides were plans to avoid a greater evil?
If you can misrepresent/misunderstand my point of view, which is written in modern English, and we are both from the United States, why would you think you can understand the biblical stories, which were originally written in ancient Hebrew dialect, then translated to Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated to old English?
The chances of finding god is that same as finding the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's really quit dishonest to tell people to trust in something that may not even exist. It's also quite dishonest to say that the unknown is unknowable because of divine intention.
The fact that our DNA is similar to all other animals is proof of a common ancestor, not a problem. Even though we are 99% chimp, much of that DNA is junk info, and even then we still have like 15 million base-pairs that are different.
What's the point of saying "in broad daylight" if he meant infidelity, and not rape? Here's what ended up happening:
"So they set up a tent on the palace roof where everyone could see it, and Absalom went in and had sex with his father's concubines." - samuel 2 16:21
So David's son just went in & had sex with David's wives, and I'm sure they all randomly agreed to this and enjoyed it, since apparently God is morally perfect? In fact, God just broke two of his own commandments: "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife".
Once again, God forces his people to commit the same sins that he himself condemns.
Seriously? The other translations say "seizes her and lies with her" and "lay hold on her". Only by being willfully ignorant could one not interpret that as rape. I knew you were going to make this difficult on me with semantics, which is why i didn't want to get into this in the first place, but come on man.
How do you honestly read the original passage and get this out of it...?
That the bible is a god-awful philosophy book to live your life by. Whether god commanded anybody or not is beside the point. The point is that this book is a vile account of bronze-age troglodytes instead of a "perfect holy book from the creator of the universe". Not something that I'd ever teach my kids.
Guess you're going to make me continue then.
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. [....] However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Here God approves of forcibly taking other women, and basically treating them as property.
"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. " Zechariah 14:2
God yet again approves of rape & genocide. I'm waiting for your reply where it turns out that other translations do not use the word "ravished". <_<
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:15-18
It is said that the test of morality of any nation is in how it treats its prisoners of war. God treats his prisoners by slaughtering children & allowing the women to be raped.
When I hear a theist say "I did my homework" I think of a drug addict saying "no, I'm clean this time, for real".
Superior to paganism? Jesus is a blatant ripoff of Mithra.
The ends of the earth eh?
Guess you and me have a totally different definition of "perfectly accurate". Again, your religion is not automatically better than any others' on that pie chart.
@Gradius12: Go
The fact that our DNA is similar to all other animals is proof of a common ancestor, not a problem. Even though we are 99% chimp, much of that DNA is junk info, and even then we still have like 15 million base-pairs that are different.
You can consider yourself 99% chimp in the literal(or even figurative) sense, but personally I dont.
What's the point of saying "in broad daylight" if he meant infidelity, and not rape? Here's what ended up happening:
"So they set up a tent on the palace roof where everyone could see it, and Absalom went in and had sex with his father's concubines." - samuel 2 16:21
So David's son just went in & had sex with David's wives, and I'm sure they all randomly agreed to this and enjoyed it, since apparently God is morally perfect? In fact, God just broke two of his own commandments: "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife".
Once again, God forces his people to commit the same sins that he himself condemns.
Infidelity in broad day light makes more sense than rape in broad daylight(where everyone can see?), Why would Abaslom do that?. Makes no sense to me if it was rape.
God did not break any of his Commandments. What David did brought about this horrible turn of events. Every action has a reaction.
Superior to paganism? Jesus is a blatant ripoff of Mithra.
Once again the bible is ripping things from ever other culture and is 100% false. Gotcha!. Wait......Satan is that you?
Here God approves of forcibly taking other women, and basically treating them as property.
No, the last part of the statement is not true. Very specifically it says the woman shall not be enslaved or sold. But yes, the wicked bastards that were destroyed would have left these widows. Does marrying a woman grant me immunity from God`s Wrath ?, Nope. So, yes the men were destroyed and the woman could be taken as wives. Not to be treated as a slave or anything like that. Yes it sucks that they had their first husbands lost(Im sure they were pretty cool guys?), but they had it coming.
God yet again approves of rape & genocide. I'm waiting for your reply where it turns out that other translations do not use the word "ravished". <_<
"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. " Zechariah 14:2
I have no intention of twisting scripture to suite my own needs because eventually it will be seen false, if it is indeed not true. The scripture above, a forthcoming Judgement event on Israel Again, what can I truly question about this if it was ordained as such?. I know you are all for "Spare the woman and children!!!", and thats nice, but the Judgements of God and even the consequences of our actions is beyond our understanding. All souls belong to him and he encompasses all reality.
God has a wrathful side, no doubt about that. Not that it is his character, but our Sins bring it about as a means for his Righteous judgement to prevail.
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31). A quote from one of the Apostles in the New testament. True that.
The ends of the earth eh? Guess you and me have a totally different definition of "perfectly accurate". Again, your religion is not automatically better than any others' on that pie chart.
I can imagine that scripture would leave you dumbfounded, and you have no rational explanation for it. Eventually the Salvation will reach all the world. Especially at this rate(Its pretty far a long).
And its not "You and me" but rather "You and I".
I never said Christianity is better than any other religion, only that it is the truth and word of God(Whether you like it or not). If you want a `nice` cozy religion with fluffy ideas, Go be a Pagan, or Druid or Scientologist or something like that.
@EternalWraith: Go
You don't see the hypocrisies in your inconsistent interpretations of Bronze Age folklore? You are making literal interpretations one moment, then twisting words/meanings the next moment. If you haven't seen god's penis, then you can't really be sure "he" is the correct pronoun to use. More truth exists in evolution than in creationism. Humans have a lot in common with chimps, as well as the rest of the animal kingdom: conflicts over resources, territory, mates, etc.
The Holy Church of Ceiling Cat is obviously the only one and true religion. How could any force stand against his mighty army of Bread Cat Minions and Peek-a-Boo Kittens? Ceiling Cat maded dem hoomons to be survantz to catz everywherez.