Questions for Jesus-Freak

[flume]

Here's a place to continue the questions that were brought up in the Jesus-Freak Challenge topic and others if that seems convenient.

Jesus-Freak, in particular I would like to challenge you to answer my question that I posted in the Bible is 100% true topic. Can you as a Bible-believing Christian accept the scientific evidence for evolution as being reasonable and apparently true, and assume that God made it to appear that way for His own reasons? If not, why not? This is what I would ask your radio show people if I were to call in.

Second, I would like to ask you if you could talk about about microevolution, the change between what creationists call 'kinds' versus macroevolution, which creationists call the change between animals which are not 'kinds'? Can you talk about this without moving to abiogenisis?

[flume]

Jesus-Freak you asked how a Christian could believe in evolution.

People started to reply in the Jesus-Freak Challenge topic, but it was suggested that that was offtopic for that thread. So maybe you could discuss it here.

JF, you have to know that many Christians are accepting of evolution. Can you make your question more clear? As someone asked, do you mean how could Biblical literalists believe in evolution?

[Ladewig]

I posted this question in the JF-challenge thread, but it probably belongs in this thead:

A year or two ago, the Episocpal General Assembly (the ruling body of that church) passed a resolution stating that "evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith." Are of the position that Episcopalians are not Christians?

[DangerousBeliefs]

I think JF fled as I started asking him questions which reach uncomfortable conclusions.

I would also ask him if he thinks atheist = immoral. From his comments, he does not feel that an atheist can be a "good" person.

This morning, I blew the snow off my Christian neighbor's sidewalk and driveway. I do it because I think it's a nice thing to do (he has to shovel snow). Meanwhile the Christian neighbor on the other side of him is a jerk and never does the neighbor's walk.

Does JF think this jerky neighbor is not a "true" Christian?

[LibraryLady]

I have a question also. Actually, it is a question posed by Lewis Carroll, who was ordained in the Anglican Church.

How can a merciful and loving god impose eternal punishment?

[FaisonMars]

I think JF fled as I started asking him questions which reach uncomfortable conclusions.


No, I'm sure he will be back, but today is the Christian Sabbath.

[flume]

Hello J-F.
Here's a challenge for you.
(no money involved though.)

I'm in the middle of reading a book, "The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" by Francis Collins.
He is (or was) the head of the Human Genome Project. He is a Christian, although I don't know what particular denomination, but he says it is evangelical. His book includes these sentences:

"No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact, the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of biology that it is difficult to imagine how one would study life without it."

He talks about the ideas that led him from disbelief to belief in God, and he also talks about science and evolution. (He discusses creationsism and intelligent design in one section.) So far I haven't found his arguments for belief compelling, but I respect his knowledge.

I challenge you to read at least part of this book, in particular the part about genetics and about evolution. (You could get it from the library as I did; use interlibrary loan if your local library doesn't carry it). At least you could get an idea of how a Christian who is also a biological scientist thinks about evolution.

[jesus_freak]

Here's a place to continue the questions that were brought up in the Jesus-Freak Challenge topic and others if that seems convenient.

Jesus-Freak, in particular I would like to challenge you to answer my question that I posted in the Bible is 100% true topic. Can you as a Bible-believing Christian accept the scientific evidence for evolution as being reasonable and apparently true, and assume that God made it to appear that way for His own reasons? If not, why not? This is what I would ask your radio show people if I were to call in.

Second, I would like to ask you if you could talk about about microevolution, the change between what creationists call 'kinds' versus macroevolution, which creationists call the change between animals which are not 'kinds'? Can you talk about this without moving to abiogenisis?

Ok i will answer these questions to the best of my knowledge, and my best ability...I do not claim to speak for every Christian, and I will adimit that I probably am the least studied on these topics of all the people in here...again I will tell you what I beleive.
1)No. I do not beleive that there is any scientific evidence for evolution...I beleive the Bible the Bible says that God created man in his image so that would be one reason why.
2)micro evolution or the evolving of kinds...ok dogs for example...I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant, and my examples may not satisfy you, but I do not beleive in evolution.

[jesus_freak]

JF, you have to know that many Christians are accepting of evolution.
I am affraid that many "Christians" are also molesting children, or getting divorced... ust because someone calls them self a Christian does not make it so. Some people think that if they beleive in Christ they are Christian. I would love for 81% or whatever it is now of Americans to be Christian but I am affraid it is not true. I do not think that anyone who beleives in evolution or the gap theory can be a Christian. Does any of this mean that I am the judge of their hearts...NO...So it really makes no difference what I think, but evolution in not Biblical.

[jesus_freak]

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/15/06)-The 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today passed a resolution essentially condemning the Bible as an "anti-Jewish" document. Not only does the resolution aim to address perceptions of anti-Jewish prejudice in the Bible and Episcopal liturgy, but it suggests that such prejudice is actually "expressed in...Christian Scriptures and liturgical texts."
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4242

I don't agree with their views...no

[cyborg]

1)No. I do not beleive that there is any scientific evidence for evolution...I beleive the Bible the Bible says that God created man in his image so that would be one reason why.

'Image' could mean a whole lot of things.

The question obviously becomes:

1) Do you accept ANY science? If so why?
2) What has the Bible done to prove itself more accurate a guide to reality than the observation of the aforementioned reality?

2)micro evolution or the evolving of kinds...ok dogs for example...I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant, and my examples may not satisfy you, but I do not beleive in evolution.

JF, if you are not trying to be ignorant then LISTEN.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY DOGS SHOULD GIVE BIRTH TO MICE. IT SAYS THAT MAMMALS SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR THAT WAS NEITHER A DOG NOR A MOUSE.

The point here is that in the distant past there was a small mammal and some of its descendants would have gradually become dog like and some of them mouse like. We're talking small changes here over a long time period. Not one day suddenly giving birth to a completely different creature and then poof! That's a new species.

I am affraid that many "Christians" are also molesting children, or getting divorced...

So? You're the one who said earlier that your god would forgive someone who repented for killing and raping a little girl.

Just because someone calls them self a Christian does not make it so.

You are not a Christian then.

Prove otherwise.

[El Greco]

I do not beleive in evolution.

Do you also not believe in computers, the second World War and bacteria ? Because your statement makes the same sense.

[jesus_freak]

I think JF fled as I started asking him questions which reach uncomfortable conclusions.

I would also ask him if he thinks atheist = immoral. From his comments, he does not feel that an atheist can be a "good" person.

This morning, I blew the snow off my Christian neighbor's sidewalk and driveway. I do it because I think it's a nice thing to do (he has to shovel snow). Meanwhile the Christian neighbor on the other side of him is a jerk and never does the neighbor's walk.

Does JF think this jerky neighbor is not a "true" Christian?

1) You wish...lol
2)Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddist...none can be good people...they all can do some good acts but that does not make them good people.
3)No...that does not mean your "jerky" neighbor is not a Christian...No where in the Bible does it say "you must shovel your neighbors driveway to get to Heaven."

[DuckTapeFileMan]

how would you define a 'dog'?

[jesus_freak]

How can a merciful and loving god impose eternal punishment?
If a judge on earth sentences a criminal to prison does that not make him a merciful loving man/woman? No it makes him just and God is waaaaaay more just than any man. Does God want you to go to hell? I don't think so, and that is what you are implying.

[cyborg]

2)Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddist...none can be good people...they all can do some good acts but that does not make them good people.

So your basic point is that it is in fact impossible to be a 'good' person?

Then let's drop the word 'good' - it clearly doesn't mean anything.

[cyborg]

No it makes him just and God is waaaaaay more just than any man.

How on Earth do you equate length of punishment with amount of justice?

[jesus_freak]

Do you also not believe in computers, the second World War and bacteria ?
Yes I belive in all three...Do you beleive in the holocaust?

[jesus_freak]

how would you define a 'dog'?

Like webster I guess...Why?
1.a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties. 2.any carnivore of the dogfamily Canidae, having prominent canine teeth and, in the wild state, a long and slender muzzle, a deep-chested muscular body, a bushy tail, and large, erect ears

[El Greco]

Yes I belive in all three...Do you beleive in the holocaust?

It's not a matter of belief. There's evidence for the holocaust. As there is for evolution.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Like webster I guess...Why?
1.a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties. 2.any carnivore of the dogfamily Canidae, having prominent canine teeth and, in the wild state, a long and slender muzzle, a deep-chested muscular body, a bushy tail, and large, erect ears

so, if a breed of dog was breed to loose those attributes, ie the canine teeth etc and it became hairless and had hooves and horns, would it still be of the 'dog' family?

[DangerousBeliefs]

2)Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddist...none can be good people...they all can do some good acts but that does not make them good people.

So only Christians can be good people?

[jesus_freak]

It's not a matter of belief. There's evidence for the holocaust
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47975
Some people also say that Christ never lived.Give it time and people will say that 9/11 never happened.

[jesus_freak]

So only Christians can be good people?
Wow do you even read what I write or do you just make these things up...Don't make me ignore your post like I already do cyborgs.
2)Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddist...none can be good people...

[cyborg]

Yes DangerousBeliefs, don't make JF ignore you.

Seriously, you're 29? You're acting like a child.

[Beleth]

If a judge on earth sentences a criminal to prison does that not make him a merciful loving man/woman? No it makes him just
Perhaps you missed the word "eternal" in the question.

and God is waaaaaay more just than any man.
Wait, is God merciful, or is God just? They are contradictory terms.

[jesus_freak]

Wait, is God merciful, or is God just? They are contradictory terms.
merciful means forgiving and loving.
just means fair.

[skeptifem]

I will adimit that I probably am the least studied on these topics of all the people in here...


...but I do not beleive in evolution.


You strongly oppose something you know little about. Why do you choose ignorance?

[jesus_freak]

You strongly oppose something you know little about. Why do you choose ignorance?
I don't.

[Beleth]

merciful means forgiving and loving.
just means fair.
Exactly. Like I said, they are contradictory.

[Hokulele]

Completely different question: Do you believe the earth orbits the sun, or vice versa? The standard biblical argument is Joshua, Chapter 10 "The sun stood still" quote, implying the sun is doing the moving.

[jesus_freak]

merciful means forgiving and loving.
just means fair. Exactly. Like I said, they are contradictory.
If you say so.
I have no problem answering questions anyone has for me... Can we however use this as a learning thread of how others feel or what they beleive. I am very courious to see how many of you feel about some topics and I do not try to change your mind or imply that you are stupid for thinking that. I am just here representing what I beleive and what I think and if you dont like my answers well just ignore them or dont ask any questions...k thanks!

[Beleth]

If you say so.
So you agree?

ETA: It's not me that's not liking your answers; apparently, you are starting to realize the contradictions contained in your answers and therefore not liking your answers yourself. Which is excellent, and the only way progress is made.

[jesus_freak]

Completely different question: Do you believe the earth orbits the sun,or vice versa? The standard biblical argument is Joshua, Chapter 10 "The sun stood still" quote, implying the sun is doing the moving.

I do beleive the earth orbits the sun...I don't know for sure but maybe this miracle refers to the sun moving in the same way as the earth. I know that there are many different views of this one and all I know is that God can do anything.

[jesus_freak]

So you agree?

ETA: It's not me that's not liking your answers; apparently, you are starting to realize the contradictions contained in your answers and therefore not liking your answers yourself. Which is excellent, and the only way progress is made.
How can I answer this one?...hmmmmm.....I guess with just a no.

[skeptifem]

I don't.



uh yeah you do. You said you do. You said you know very little, and still have a strong opinion. Thats ignorance. There is no harm in reading both sides of an issue and THEN deciding instead of just picking whatever you feel is right.

[Beleth]

How can I answer this one?...hmmmmm.....I guess with just a no.
Okay then, how can one be just (fair and therefore not lenient) and merciful (lenient and therefore not fair) at the same time?

[Hokulele]

I do beleive the earth orbits the sun...I don't know for sure but maybe this miracle refers to the sun moving in the same way as the earth. I know that there are many different views of this one and all I know is that God can do anything.

The point of my question and your answer was to demonstrate that religion can concede certain aspects of the natural world to science without losing its coherence. By stating that the earth orbits the sun, you are following current church doctrine, which is directly opposite of early church doctrine. Will you agree that the church can change its stance in the face of evidence when required?

[edge]

I believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics went into effect at the time of the Fall and was probably not a feature of the original creation. (This did not mean energy did not previously flow from hot to cold reservoirs--the Second Law is only about the increasing unavailability of energy to do useful work as time moves forward). The present tendency of the universe to decay and deteriorate (as described in Romans 8) is a result of human evil and/or evil amongst the angels. Likewise it has been suggested there was no radioactivity before the Fall, but that the radioactive decay of certain heavy atoms was switched on at the time of the Fall.

We do not observe God at work in the everyday world of nature because He almost always works within the framework of His own Laws. And also, "His ways are beyond our discovery,"

This might be why radio carbon dating is not accurate.

http://www.ldolphin.org/creationphysics.html

[Beleth]

Wait... so heavy atoms decay as a result of man's evil?

That's not even wrong.

[Lonewulf]

Wait... so heavy atoms decay as a result of man's evil?

That's not even wrong.

I'm reminded of one the monsters from the game Wasteland. Radangels!

[flume]

1)No. I do not beleive that there is any scientific evidence for evolution...I beleive the Bible the Bible says that God created man in his image so that would be one reason why.
Thanks for answering.
Let me try to write my question again because I think it was unclear. This is not an important point, it's just something I've been wondering about.

I know you believe that God created the earth in 7 days according to a literal reading of Genesis.

You say that you don't believe there is scientific evidence for evolution, but from your posts it seems like you don't really understand the arguments for evolution. In fact scientists (including Francis Collins who wrote the book I talked about, who is an evangelical Christian) do think there is good evidence for evolution.

(I'm having a real progblem with writing this clearly.)

So consider the possibility that you are wrong about there not being evidence for evolution.

My suggestion in this question is this - suppose God created the earth in seven days just as described in Genesis, but created it with a form and appearance that made it look old and made animals look as if they had evolved? So the earth was actually created in seven days, but looking like it took billions of years? God would have the power to do it this way, if God wanted to, don't you think? (This is not a new idea by the way.) And maybe God chose to do it that way for reasons that are beyond human understanding. In this case you could say that scientific measurements were came to a reasonable conclusion about the age of the earth, but they were wrong because the earth was created to have the signs of age. (Like stone-washed jeans, that look old and worn even when they are new.) Is there a reason that a Bible-believing Christian would have to reject this possibility?


(As I said before, I don't really like this idea - I'd rather that people chose not to believe Genesis literally. But at least if they considered this idea, they wouldn't have to try to come up with tactics to make scientific measurements and arguments look false.)

[Rrramon]

as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant,

You're failing miserably.

[temporalillusion]

2)micro evolution or the evolving of kinds...ok dogs for example...I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant, and my examples may not satisfy you, but I do not beleive in evolution.

It's already been pointed out that evolution is not about a dog giving birth to a mouse, but a dog and a mouse have common ancestors. And as changes in predogmice happen over time in different areas, they diverge until eventually one group is a predog and the other is a premouse.

My question though is regarding this idea of microevolution and macroevolution.. terms which really don't mean anything but seem to be a convenient separation for you to allow for some evolution (because the science can't be denied). So then my question is this; if microevolution is ok in your view (one form of dog evolving to adapt to an environment), but macroevolution isn't ok (one form of dog evolving to the point that it's a new species, it can't breed with dogs, so it is a nondog), what is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution? If it doesn't happen, there must be something stopping it? What is it?

Completely different question: Do you believe the earth orbits the sun, or vice versa? The standard biblical argument is Joshua, Chapter 10 "The sun stood still" quote, implying the sun is doing the moving.

To be fair, we talk about the sun rising and setting all the time, and those aren't used to say the person believes the sun revolves around the earth. Some allowances must be made for "artistic license" and/or common usage of words.

[Hokulele]

To be fair, we talk about the sun rising and setting all the time, and those aren't used to say the person believes the sun revolves around the earth. Some allowances must be made for "artistic license" and/or common usage of words.

I agree with you, however, the reason I brought it up is that historically, this was the text used when defending a geocentric universe using nothing but the bible as the authority.

I am trying to determine if JF is willing to concede that religious acceptance of scientific facts can change over time. If JF does concede this, we have a starting point for an interesting discussion as to what other scientific claims can be accepted. If JF cannot concede this, then there really is no discussion. I would like to understand his point of view rather than just make assumptions.

[temporalillusion]

Fair enough. :)

[Hokulele]

Fair enough. :)

Would that also be merciful and just? ;)

[temporalillusion]

I'd rather he be just merciful. :D

[jesus_freak]

Thanks for answering.
Let me try to write my question again because I think it was unclear. This is not an important point, it's just something I've been wondering about.

I know you believe that God created the earth in 7 days according to a literal reading of Genesis.

You say that you don't believe there is scientific evidence for evolution, but from your posts it seems like you don't really understand the arguments for evolution. In fact scientists (including Francis Collins who wrote the book I talked about, who is an evangelical Christian) do think there is good evidence for evolution.

(I'm having a real progblem with writing this clearly.)

So consider the possibility that you are wrong about there not being evidence for evolution.

My suggestion in this question is this - suppose God created the earth in seven days just as described in Genesis, but created it with a form and appearance that made it look old and made animals look as if they had evolved? So the earth was actually created in seven days, but looking like it took billions of years? God would have the power to do it this way, if God wanted to, don't you think? (This is not a new idea by the way.) And maybe God chose to do it that way for reasons that are beyond human understanding. In this case you could say that scientific measurements were came to a reasonable conclusion about the age of the earth, but they were wrong because the earth was created to have the signs of age. (Like stone-washed jeans, that look old and worn even when they are new.) Is there a reason that a Bible-believing Christian would have to reject this possibility?


(As I said before, I don't really like this idea - I'd rather that people chose not to believe Genesis literally. But at least if they considered this idea, they wouldn't have to try to come up with tactics to make scientific measurements and arguments look false.)
I'm not sure if I completly understand but let me try to answer and you let me know if I am even close...Could God's creation been made to look older than it really is? I think so, I think Adam was not born as an infant, but a grown man...I think that stars that are millions of light years away were made so they could be seen instantly...and I also think that since there was one creator that there are going to be a lot of similarities in species(if something like the wrist works in humans, why not use a similar design in cats and dogs?)and I think that is one of the biggest problems, that people see similar aspects in animals and assume evolution over a common creator.I hope this is somewhat what you were looking for...If I was way off let me know.

[jesus_freak]

So then my question is this; if microevolution is ok in your view (one form of dog evolving to adapt to an environment), but macroevolution isn't ok (one form of dog evolving to the point that it's a new species, it can't breed with dogs, so it is a nondog), what is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution? If it doesn't happen, there must be something stopping it? What is it?

I don't know if I totally agree. Alaskan rabbits can reprduce with Minnesotan rabbits, and Minnesota rabbits can reproduce with Florida rabbits, but Alaskan rabbits can not reproduce with Florida rabbits. They are all rabbits but not all able to reproduce amungst them selves.

[jesus_freak]

I am trying to determine if JF is willing to concede that religious acceptance of scientific facts can change over time. If JF does concede this, we have a starting point for an interesting discussion as to what other scientific claims can be accepted.
Sure I will accept that...I mean the church used to think the earth was the center of the universe for example...and I am pretty sure that the church used to claim that the earth was flat.
The church I agree can be wrong, but the Bible never is. When science said the earth was flat, the Bible said it was round, well before science knew of bacteria, or germs, the Bible was stating to wash your hands after touching a dead body. These are just a few examples.

[bruto]

Ok i will answer these questions to the best of my knowledge, and my best ability...I do not claim to speak for every Christian, and I will adimit that I probably am the least studied on these topics of all the people in here...again I will tell you what I beleive.
1)No. I do not beleive that there is any scientific evidence for evolution...I beleive the Bible the Bible says that God created man in his image so that would be one reason why.
2)micro evolution or the evolving of kinds...ok dogs for example...I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant, and my examples may not satisfy you, but I do not beleive in evolution.

I surely hope you don't claim to speak for every Christian!

I'm put in mind of my children when they were very small. An accident would be about to occur, or would just have occurred, and I would say "try not to do X;" child would respond "I'm not trying to do X!" and I would respond "There's a difference beween trying not to and not trying to!"

You may not be trying to be ignorant, and I have no real interest in trying to get you to believe in evolution if you don't want to, but I think you owe it to yourself at least to try a little harder not to be ignorant, so that you don't argue against evolution by attributing to evolutionary theory such egregiously stupid and ignorant notions as you seem to think it supports.

If, as you admit, you're the least studied on these issues as anybody here, You would probably do yourself a favor not to argue specifics at all.

[bruto]

I don't know if I totally agree. Alaskan rabbits can reprduce with Minnesotan rabbits, and Minnesota rabbits can reproduce with Florida rabbits, but Alaskan rabbits can not reproduce with Florida rabbits. They are all rabbits but not all able to reproduce amungst them selves.

Explain mules.

[temporalillusion]

I'm not sure if I completely understand but let me try to answer and you let me know if I am even close...Could God's creation been made to look older than it really is? I think so, I think Adam was not born as an infant, but a grown man...I think that stars that are millions of light years away were made so they could be seen instantly...

But wouldn't that make God intentionally deceptive? To what end? Or if not, why not?

and I also think that since there was one creator that there are going to be a lot of similarities in species(if something like the wrist works in humans, why not use a similar design in cats and dogs?)and I think that is one of the biggest problems, that people see similar aspects in animals and assume evolution over a common creator.I hope this is somewhat what you were looking for...If I was way off let me know.

That makes some sense.. and that's exactly what we don't see. We see many different things that perform the same function but are very different "design" (the eye for example). Plus we see designs that are clearly not the "right" way of doing things (our backs aren't very well suited for walking upright). And we see things which clearly show relationship but are "broken" (we need Vitamin C to live, and we have the mechanism to make it ourselves, but we have a genetic defect which turns off the mechanism, and we share that exact genetic defect with many other mammals in the exact same way, so either that defect was "designed in", or that defect is from a common ancestor).

I used to be where you are, the problem is that MANY of the arguments against evolution don't even understand evolution.

[jesus_freak]

Explain mules.
Mules, zeedonks and zorses

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v22/i3/p33_zonkey.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v22/i3/p32_zorse.jpg
Zonkeys are the result of a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey (left above). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a Horse and a Zebra, known as a Zorse.


Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur. Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp

[Hokulele]

Sure I will accept that...I mean the church used to think the earth was the center of the universe for example...and I am pretty sure that the church used to claim that the earth was flat.
The church I agree can be wrong, but the Bible never is. When science said the earth was flat, the Bible said it was round, well before science knew of bacteria, or germs, the Bible was stating to wash your hands after touching a dead body. These are just a few examples.

OK, that's a good starting point. There are several passages in the Bible that imply the earth is in the center of the universe. These include Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10, Psalms 104, and Chronicles 16:30. BTW, these are the standard passages used by the modern geocentrists as can be seen at the site www.geocentricity.com (http://www.geocentricity.com). If these passages can be read as "artistic license" rather than actual fact, meaning the earth really does move, not the sun, would you be willing to concede that parts of Genesis can be seen the same way?

[temporalillusion]

I don't know if I totally agree. Alaskan rabbits can reprduce with Minnesotan rabbits, and Minnesota rabbits can reproduce with Florida rabbits, but Alaskan rabbits can not reproduce with Florida rabbits. They are all rabbits but not all able to reproduce amungst them selves.

a) source?

b) if so, that goes to support that the concepts of macro and micro evolution don't really mean anything, and even the special line of species that creationists seem to think cannot be crossed doesn't mean anything. So tell me then since one group of rabbits cannot cross-breed and share genetic code with another group, what stops them from eventually evolving to the point that they are visibly different?

EDIT: And what's a "kind", how is that defined?

[jesus_freak]

OK, that's a good starting point. There are several passages in the Bible that imply the earth is in the center of the universe. These include Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10, Psalms 104, and Chronicles 16:30. BTW, these are the standard passages used by the modern geocentrists as can be seen at the site www.geocentricity.com (http://www.geocentricity.com/). If these passages can be read as "artistic license" rather than actual fact, meaning the earth really does move, not the sun, would you be willing to concede that parts of Genesis can be seen the same way?
I would have to go through and look at each verse or verses individualy. Are you trying to get at Genesis is not to be taken litteraly or what? Im confused.

[skeptifem]

uh yeah you do. You said you do. You said you know very little, and still have a strong opinion. Thats ignorance. There is no harm in reading both sides of an issue and THEN deciding instead of just picking whatever you feel is right.



You forgot to answer why you choose to be ignorant and have an opinion anyway.

[jesus_freak]

Ecclesiastes 1:5,
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

We use sun rise and sun set today, yet we know the earth rotates around the sun.I don't think this is saying the earth is the center of the universe.
Joshua 10
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
I think this is kind of the same point...I already explained what I thought about it earlier...but no I still don't think this implies the earth as the center of the universe.
Psalms 104
19 The moon marks off the seasons,
and the sun knows when to go down.
I assume this is the verse you are talking about...I don't know what to tell you other than I still say something like "what time is sun down? " again I know the earth rotates around the sun and yet I say that.
1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
I guess you will have to explain to me what you are getting at on this one. Is it the fact that the earth rotates and it is saying the earth cannot be moved?

[Hokulele]

I would have to go through and look at each verse or verses individualy. Are you trying to get at Genesis is not to be taken litteraly or what? Im confused.

Yes, I do think this leads to the point that many parts of the bible, including Genesis cannot be read literally. The Ecclesiastes quote is as follows (KJV):

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

If you read that literally, the sun is running around all over the place. If you can agree that parts of the bible should not be taken as a literal description of the universe, how do you determine which parts are true, and which are "artistic license" or merely descriptive? For example, do you agree that the 6 days of creation can be read in an interpretive mode, rather than literally?

[Hokulele]

Sorry, you were posting at the same time.

Anyway, yes, today we do use the terms "sun comes up" and "sun goes down" in a non-literal manner. Do you know the writer of the bible meant it the same way? How can you tell which parts are simply a "turn of phrase" rather than literal truth?

[RationalReverend]

Exactly. Like I said, they are contradictory.

Actually, no they are not, just as God's decision to punish does not negate his omni benevolence, but rather his attributes mitigate each other.

[RationalReverend]

Yes, I do think this leads to the point that many parts of the bible, including Genesis cannot be read literally. The Ecclesiastes quote is as follows (KJV):

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

If you read that literally, the sun is running around all over the place. If you can agree that parts of the bible should not be taken as a literal description of the universe, how do you determine which parts are true, and which are "artistic license" or merely descriptive? For example, do you agree that the 6 days of creation can be read in an interpretive mode, rather than literally?

Uhh, no Christian believes that poetic devices should be read literally, that is not what they mean by literal. They mean simply that the words mean what the words say, obviously we must understand figures of speech and poetry to be as such, but the other is always making a real and literal point. In this case the author of Ecclesiastes is saying in a roundabout poetic way that the sun rises and sets cyclically. A non-literal reading would be saying something allegorical like "Hmmm I think here that sun stands for happiness and that happiness comes and goes." That is a non-literal reading. When Christians say they read the bible literally they do not mean every single word, they merely mean that the author is making a point and we should not assume allegory or poetry when there is none. No Christian thinks Jesus was literally calling himself a door, and to pretend that such statements are in opposition to literal reading of the text is buffoonery.

[jesus_freak]

Anyway, yes, today we do use the terms "sun comes up" and "sun goes down" in a non-literal manner. Do you know the writer of the bible meant it the same way? How can you tell which parts are simply a "turn of phrase" rather than literal truth?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one...When I say "what time does the sun rise? I litteraly mean what time does the sun rise over the Eastern horizon...I don't know what greek word is used or its meaning.

[Lonewulf]

JF:

The church can make mistakes, but the Bible is literal truth, right? Why?

The church MADE the Bible. Or do you disagree?

[Hokulele]

Uhh, no Christian believes that poetic devices should be read literally, that is not what they mean by literal. They mean simply that the words mean what the words say, obviously we must understand figures of speech and poetry to be as such, but the other is always making a real and literal point. In this case the author of Ecclesiastes is saying in a roundabout poetic way that the sun rises and sets cyclically. A non-literal reading would be saying something allegorical like "Hmmm I think here that sun stands for happiness and that happiness comes and goes." That is a non-literal reading. When Christians say they read the bible literally they do not mean every single word, they merely mean that the author is making a point and we should not assume allegory or poetry when there is none. No Christian thinks Jesus was literally calling himself a door, and to pretend that such statements are in opposition to literal reading of the text is buffoonery.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one...When I say "what time does the sun rise? I litteraly mean what time does the sun rise over the Eastern horizon...I don't know what greek word is used or its meaning.

I guess my point here is how do we know which ones are "figures of speech" and which ones are literally true? Some of the "sun stood still" quotes are in Joshua, which surely isn't poetry. Could the passage describing creation be called a "figure of speech"? If you claim it cannot be read this way, how do you know?

[jesus_freak]

The church MADE the Bible. Or do you disagree?
Not sure what your next point is but yes I disagree. I beleive that every word in the Bible was inspired by God and he used the "authors" of the Bible the same way that we would use a pen.

[flume]

But wouldn't that make God intentionally deceptive? To what end? Or if not, why not?
I brought up this idea), not JF, as a possible way that Bible-believers could reconcile Genesis with the apparent scientific fact.
(the idea is described in my posts above.)

I think your questions might be a reason why a Bible-believer might reject that option. (I have wondered what objections they might have against that idea.) You raised it from the science side, but I also think it could be raised from the Bible side. They might argue that God would NOT be deceptive, so therefore science MUST be wrong and carbon dating conclusions MUST be flawed etc. Perhaps there are Bible verses that could be used to say that God would NOT be deceptive.

My thinking (as a non-Bible believer and non-Bible expert) is that humans don't have the knowledge to second-guess why God would do something. There are verses in Job where God asks Job where he was when the earth was created and does he know the details about the natural universe. To me it seems like you could make an argument for the fact that a Christian can't assume he or she can guess how God would have created things. So you can't assume that a young earth with the appearance of age is meant to be deceptive.

I think you can argue either way - that a young earth can't have the appearance of age because God wouldn't deceive or that you don't have the information to say that creating a young earth with the appearance of age was meant to deceive.


(I'm not sure whether it is a useful idea. I'm trying to figure out a way that people who absolutely will not give up a literal belief in Genesis can be convinced to stop trying to degrade and distort science. This seemed like one way.)

[RationalReverend]

JF:

The church can make mistakes, but the Bible is literal truth, right? Why?

The church MADE the Bible. Or do you disagree?

The Bible is truth because it is Revelation, it is the communication of God to men.

As for the Church made the Bible, yes and no. Apostles under the guidance of the Spirit of God wrote the New Testament that is true, but such error as is common in the church has no place in the scriptures because of the aforementioned guidance. If you are trying to steer this towards a canon debate, then speak plainly.

[Lonewulf]

Not sure what your next point is but yes I disagree. I beleive that every word in the Bible was inspired by God and he used the "authors" of the Bible the same way that we would use a pen.

Every word was inspired by God. Okay. I can't demand evidence for this because there is none, naturally. You have to make that darn "leap of faith" thing.

Okay, then. Humans make mistakes, the Church makes mistakes. The Bible was writ by human hands. Yet, you think that the Bible (of all sources available) was writ indirectly by God, and thus it's infallible. Fine, fine.

What secondary sources have been directed by God? Dante's Inferno, for instance?

[Zep]

Mules, zeedonks and zorses

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v22/i3/p33_zonkey.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v22/i3/p32_zorse.jpg
Zonkeys are the result of a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey (left above). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a Horse and a Zebra, known as a Zorse.


Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur. Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.aspPlease tell us how different the DNA of donkeys, zebras and horses is?

Or put another way: If they were different kinds, in the AnswersInGenesis sense, how can they produce offspring at all?

[RationalReverend]

I guess my point here is how do we know which ones are "figures of speech" and which ones are literally true? Some of the "sun stood still" quotes are in Joshua, which surely isn't poetry. Could the passage describing creation be called a "figure of speech"? If you claim it cannot be read this way, how do you know?

Well, they tend to be pretty obvious. If you read the Joshua passage in context he can continue fighting because the sun is still up. It is painful obvious that it is meant literally. In Ecclesiastes the way it is written makes it obvious that it is a poetic device. If you cannot see the difference you are being willfully ignorant. But since that probably won't satisfy you, let me also say that even if it weren't just obvious, the study of it in the original Hebrew, as well as general knowledge of the text itself would help greatly. For example, Ecclesiastes is in the style of Wisdom literature and it is given over to poetic devices. Ta-dah!

[Lonewulf]

The Bible is truth because it is Revelation, it is the communication of God to men.

Sure it is.

[jesus_freak]

I guess my point here is how do we know which ones are "figures of speech" and which ones are literally true? Some of the "sun stood still" quotes are in Joshua, which surely isn't poetry. Could the passage describing creation be called a "figure of speech"? If you claim it cannot be read this way, how do you know?
I don't know. All I know is that God could make it appear that the sun stopped moving, or seem like he stoped the sun from moving...I think by reading the whole Bible I realized it is true, and most non beleivers like to take verses out of context or try and focus on a few verses that if read a certain way seem to be wrong. I just continue to study the Word and go from there.

[RationalReverend]

Every word was inspired by God. Okay. I can't demand evidence for this because there is none, naturally. You have to make that darn "leap of faith" thing.

Okay, then. Humans make mistakes, the Church makes mistakes. The Bible was writ by human hands. Yet, you think that the Bible (of all sources available) was writ indirectly by God, and thus it's infallible. Fine, fine.

What secondary sources have been directed by God? Dante's Inferno, for instance?

None. I bet I know where this is leading.

[Lonewulf]

I don't know. All I know is that God could make it appear that the sun stopped moving, or seem like he stoped the sun from moving...I think by reading the whole Bible I realized it is true, and most non beleivers like to take verses out of context or try and focus on a few verses that if read a certain way seem to be wrong. I just continue to study the Word and go from there.

And this is what is defined as being "willfully ignorant". When you don't question, just assume, and then move on without questioning.

[RationalReverend]

Sure it is.

Sweet, glad we got that settled then.

[Lonewulf]

None. I bet I know where this is leading.

None at all?

None, period?

No matter how many others wrote down about God, or claimed to be prophets or to have revelations? What about the Qu'ran? Mohamad claimed to be a prophet of God. Why do you doubt him, but not doubt, say, Jesus' apostles?

Is there some form you have to fill out to be a "true" Revealer, or is there some kind of sign somewhere?

[jesus_freak]

Please tell us how different the DNA of donkeys, zebras and horses is?

Or put another way: If they were different kinds, in the AnswersInGenesis sense, how can they produce offspring at all?
I think these questions are answered in that article.

[Beleth]

Actually, no they are not, just as God's decision to punish does not negate his omni benevolence, but rather his attributes mitigate each other.
Actually, yes they are, because mercy is inherently unfair to the wronged. Justice mitigated is not justice.

[RationalReverend]

None at all?

None, period?

No matter how many others wrote down about God, or claimed to be prophets or to have revelations? What about the Qu'ran? Mohamad claimed to be a prophet of God. Why do you doubt him, but not doubt, say, Jesus' apostles?

Is there some form you have to fill out to be a "true" Revealer, or is there some kind of sign somewhere?

Islam is a Christian based heresy. There is a lot of evidence that Mo was exposed to Christianity and Gnosticism, the three biggest being his employment as a trader, the stories in the hadith that say so, and the passages in the Quran that are perverted versions of stories in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Gnostic works. It is painfully obvious that he borrowed his stories, and the errors in them prove them less than genuine. If you want to make an argument about what is revelation the Quran is the last place you want to look. Especially since it contains such golden nuggets of awesome as telling his followers to test what he said by the Bible. He failed the test.

[Hokulele]

Well, they tend to be pretty obvious. If you read the Joshua passage in context he can continue fighting because the sun is still up. It is painful obvious that it is meant literally. In Ecclesiastes the way it is written makes it obvious that it is a poetic device. If you cannot see the difference you are being willfully ignorant. But since that probably won't satisfy you, let me also say that even if it weren't just obvious, the study of it in the original Hebrew, as well as general knowledge of the text itself would help greatly. For example, Ecclesiastes is in the style of Wisdom literature and it is given over to poetic devices. Ta-dah!

OK, so when "sun stood still" in Joshua it is literally true, then that implies that the sun is "moving" at all other times, so in a sense, this is still a figure of speech or literary device. I mean, the sun is somewhat always "standing still" relative to earth.

Regarding the rest of this response, it is easy to say that I am willfully ignorant, but what about people who are truly ignorant through no fault of their own? How will they know which parts of the bible to trust? Also, what about those of us who have not read the original Hebrew (or Aramaic or Greek where that may apply)? How can we possibly know which portions to take literally?

This is the problem I have with literal interpretation of the bible. Figures of speech change over time, and there are no big "Poetry Here" flags. We are left to interpret the words as best we can. I have seen two people who's opinions I trust (my father's pastor and my father) completely disagree over interpretation. If it were all poetry, or all literal, these kinds of discussions wouldn't happen, and we could all agree when science and religion diverge.

[Hokulele]

I don't know. All I know is that God could make it appear that the sun stopped moving, or seem like he stoped the sun from moving...I think by reading the whole Bible I realized it is true, and most non beleivers like to take verses out of context or try and focus on a few verses that if read a certain way seem to be wrong. I just continue to study the Word and go from there.

Actually, I agree with you here, but it is hard to have a discussion over an Internet forum without picking selective quotes. I have found that when reading the bible in context, the bits that "seem to be wrong" tend to stand out to me. There are sections of the bible that illustrate this better, but since I had started out with earth/sun-centered universe, I was trying to stay on topic rather than jumping all over the place. I have to head to bed now, but will try to address this better when I have a chance. Thanks for your honest replies on this.

[skeptifem]

You forgot to answer why you choose to be ignorant and have an opinion anyway.


hey
you
cant
ignore
SUPER DUPER
BIG TEXT CAN YOU?

[Lonewulf]

Islam is a Christian based heresy. There is a lot of evidence that Mo was exposed to Christianity and Gnosticism, the three biggest being his employment as a trader, the stories in the hadith that say so, and the passages in the Quran that are perverted versions of stories in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Gnostic works. It is painfully obvious that he borrowed his stories, and the errors in them prove them less than genuine. If you want to make an argument about what is revelation the Quran is the last place you want to look. Especially since it contains such golden nuggets of awesome as telling his followers to test what he said by the Bible. He failed the test.

How do you succeed this "test", then?

[RationalReverend]

OK, so when "sun stood still" in Joshua it is literally true, then that implies that the sun is "moving" at all other times, so in a sense, this is still a figure of speech or literary device. I mean, the sun is somewhat always "standing still" relative to earth.

wonders never cease. The sun stood still. It is written from their perspective, we still say sunrise and sunset, to demand otherwise or pretend you don't understand is to manufacture an argument out of nothing. The obvious idea is that they had more daylight to continue fighting. Period. End of story.


Regarding the rest of this response, it is easy to say that I am willfully ignorant, but what about people who are truly ignorant through no fault of their own? How will they know which parts of the bible to trust? Also, what about those of us who have not read the original Hebrew (or Aramaic or Greek where that may apply)? How can we possibly know which portions to take literally?

What about people who are truly ignorant, if I read the Chronicles of Narnia and totally misunderstand the meaning of the whole thing, how can that possibly effect the integrity of the work itself! That is like saying if I speak, but am misunderstood, then I did not in fact speak correctly. That is fallacious logic. However, this kind of ignorance does exist, and that is why we instruct. Crazy people like me go to school and learn old dead languages so they can instruct others.


This is the problem I have with literal interpretation of the bible. Figures of speech change over time, and there are no big "Poetry Here" flags. We are left to interpret the words as best we can. I have seen two people who's opinions I trust (my father's pastor and my father) completely disagree over interpretation. If it were all poetry, or all literal, these kinds of discussions wouldn't happen, and we could all agree when science and religion diverge.
Ah, the old "There are varied opinions about interpretation so it can't be literal and true!" People disagree, sometimes an author says something and we must try to understand exactly exactly exactly what he meant, and that process of examination does not mean he didn't speak literally. People tend to disagree on certain specifics, but on the whole, the core is pretty unanimous. Disagreement over interpretation also does not disprove the literal/truthful quality of the text for the same reason as stated in my last example.

As for figures of speech, again, we have people who study the old languages, and they would find your challenges pointless. Let me be plain: 1)We know a great deal about Biblical Hebrew 2) We can easily identify poetic structures and figures of speech

[RationalReverend]

Actually, yes they are, because mercy is inherently unfair to the wronged. Justice mitigated is not justice.

Why not? because you say so? The satisfaction of their guilt was already paid by Christ, so their is nothing for the wronged to seek. The debt of the sinner to the wronged has been paid in God's blood. When God's mercy mitigates his justice and he makes anew a sinner, then the satisfaction of his Justice was met by his own blood.

[RationalReverend]

How do you succeed this "test", then?

1) By coming from an Apostle (there aren't any anymore) or a Prophet (not any of these anymore either in the OT sense) 2) by being totally compatible with the Bible as we have it

[Lonewulf]

1) By coming from an Apostle (there aren't any anymore) or a Prophet (not any of these anymore either in the OT sense)

How do you verify that the Apostles were speaking the truth?

2) by being totally compatible with the Bible as we have it

I am dubious that "as we have it" is even a reliable source from the original, even if the original was fictitious or trustworthy.

[RationalReverend]

How do you verify that the Apostles were speaking the truth?

They were entrusted the Church by Christ.



I am dubious that "as we have it" is even a reliable source from the original, even if the original was fictitious or trustworthy.

Then you don't know much about textual criticism or you have been listening to too much Ehrman.

[Beleth]

That is like saying if I speak, but am misunderstood, then I did not in fact speak correctly. That is fallacious logic.
It's not definite, but it's certainly possible that you did not in fact speak correctly, which led to the misunderstanding.

But here, we're talking about the Bible, which contains God's words. God of course would speak so as to not be misunderstood. And yet, here we are, with almost as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of the Bible. This suggests one of three things to me:
1) God is unable to speak so as to not be misunderstood.
2) God wanted to be misunderstood.
3) God did not speak at all; men did.

If you have a fourth possibility, I'd love to hear it.

[RationalReverend]

But here, we're talking about the Bible, which contains God's words. God of course would speak so as to not be misunderstood. And yet, here we are, with almost as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of the Bible.
God spoke through the prophets to the people in a specific time and a specific context. They understood just fine. If God speaks in a language I do not know, if I want to know what he said, I learn the language. To satisfy your argumentation, everyone in the world would have to speak the same language or God would need to make some magic bibles! Neither requirement is fair. God spoke clearly, if people cannot hear, then that does not call into question God's ability to speak. You are slavishly attempting to turn the faults of our race into the faults of God.



This suggests one of three things to me:
1) God is unable to speak so as to not be misunderstood.
2) God wanted to be misunderstood.
3) God did not speak at all; men did.

If you have a fourth possibility, I'd love to hear it.

4) God spoke clearly and was understood in the time that he spoke. Our job as Christians is to examine the text in light of that context and thereby understand God.

Again for your claims to be satisfied God would have to forcibly take hold of anyone who read the Bible and feed them the meaning of every text, and your demand is ridiculous and unreasonable.

[Beleth]

Why not? because you say so?
No, because words mean things, and I know what those meanings are.

The satisfaction of their guilt was already paid by Christ, so their is nothing for the wronged to seek. The debt of the sinner to the wronged has been paid in God's blood.
So the debt has been paid. That's justice; that's not mercy.

When God's mercy mitigates his justice and he makes anew a sinner, then the satisfaction of his Justice was met by his own blood.
If God is satisfied, then again, that's justice, not mercy.
Mercy would be God making anew a sinner without being paid.

[RationalReverend]

Well, I'm off to play some Gears of War. I will respond to anything that quotes me tomorrow.

[RationalReverend]

No, because words mean things, and I know what those meanings are.

So do I, and you are irrationally bending mercy into meaning injustice.


So the debt has been paid. That's justice; that's not mercy.
If God is satisfied, then again, that's justice, not mercy.
Mercy would be God making anew a sinner without being paid.

Uh no, it is mercy because God does not make them pay for their own crimes. He maintains His justice, however, with his own blood.

[Lonewulf]

They were entrusted the Church by Christ.

Ah, right, okay.

Then you don't know much about textual criticism or you have been listening to too much Ehrman.

Haven't ever heard of Ehrman, nor have I ever heard what he had to say. Your claim is not based on anything but a presumption (prejudice, I guess?)

Ah well, it was a mistake to try to start up a debate with a theologian.

[autumn1971]

RationalReverend, I feel I may be getting repetitive on the religion boards, but what do you make of Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38. Please note that these are not passages which can concievably be put forth as poetic, unless the almighty is a truely crappy poet, and that these passages contradict each other directly in revealing the lineage of Jesus. One of the few things these passages agree on is the patrimony of Jesus being worldly.

This is not poetic license.
This is not a case of the lineages being confused by the Greek tradition of male lines v. the Jewish tradition of female lines. If that was all it was, the ancestors of Jesus often interbred.
This is a direct argument, stated twice, concerning the fulfillment of specific necessities of messiah-hood.

[Beleth]

God spoke through the prophets to the people in a specific time and a specific context. They understood just fine. If God speaks in a language I do not know, if I want to know what he said, I learn the language.
But what if God wants you to understand what He said, instead of you wanting to understand God? Does God not want His meaning to be known to us today?

To satisfy your argumentation, everyone in the world would have to speak the same language or God would need to make some magic bibles! Neither requirement is fair.Why? Because you say so? Why is it unfair for everyone to speak the same language?

God spoke clearly, if people cannot hear, then that does not call into question God's ability to speak. You are slavishly attempting to turn the faults of our race into the faults of God.Oh, I'm the slavish one? Really. You fall down before some being who hasn't bothered to do anything for at least two thousand years, whereas I have spent my life looking into what's really going on in the universe so that I can come to an informed opinion, and I'm the slavish one. I see.

Perhaps you should think more before you speak.

4) God spoke clearly and was understood in the time that he spoke. Our job as Christians is to examine the text in light of that context and thereby understand God.But that's simply not Yahweh's modus operandi. When He wants someone to listen, He goes and talks to that person. The Bible is full of first- and second-hand accounts of people "touched by God". Yet He hasn't sent down a prophet you agree with since Jesus.

Again for your claims to be satisfied God would have to forcibly take hold of anyone who read the Bible and feed them the meaning of every text, and your demand is ridiculous and unreasonable.Again, why? Because you say so? Is it more reasonable for countless billions of people to learn three ancient languages and still not come to the same conclusion about what the texts mean?

[Zep]

I think these questions [about animal DNA] are answered in that article.The question was directed towards you, so I would appreciate an answer from you.

I can also read and quote all sorts of books about stuff I don't understand, but does that make them valid? If they happen to confirm my prejudices, does that make them right?

Incidentally, AnswersInGenesis are a pathetically inept crowd of bunglers masquerading as scientists. The vast majority of them (and there are pitiful few as it is) have no qualifications to speak of, on any subject they propound on. Those few that do are either deluded soft-heads, or they are actually "real" scientists in their day-jobs weekdays, and cynically evangelistic (and money-grubbing) creationists only on Sundays.

[Beleth]

So do I, and you are irrationally bending mercy into meaning injustice.
Not at all. Rather, you are slavishly regurgitating a nonsense concept because one of your teachers drilled it into your head.

Uh no, it is mercy because God does not make them pay for their own crimes. He maintains His justice, however, with his own blood.
Uh, no. That's simply not what mercy means.

Have fun with Gears of War. I see no reason to continue this conversation.

[RationalReverend]

RationalReverend, I feel I may be getting repetitive on the religion boards, but what do you make of Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38. Please note that these are not passages which can concievably be put forth as poetic, unless the almighty is a truely crappy poet, and that these passages contradict each other directly in revealing the lineage of Jesus. One of the few things these passages agree on is the patrimony of Jesus being worldly.

This is not poetic license.
This is not a case of the lineages being confused by the Greek tradition of male lines v. the Jewish tradition of female lines. If that was all it was, the ancestors of Jesus often interbred.
This is a direct argument, stated twice, concerning the fulfillment of specific necessities of messiah-hood.

whose confused? One line is through his mother, and one line is through the male side. Both parents were Jewish so I can't really fathom why having some common ancestors is a point of negation.

[RationalReverend]

Ah, right, okay.
I'm answering these questions from a Christian perspective. That is what we believe.



Haven't ever heard of Ehrman, nor have I ever heard what he had to say. Your claim is not based on anything but a presumption (prejudice, I guess?)
My claim is based on the fact that Textual Criticism produces results, and we can reconstruct a very good rendering of the original text based on the greek manuscripts we have, not to mention the multitudes of translations we have in a myriad of languages. I will admit I assumed this was about to go into the copies of copies of copies argument and responded that way. I apologize for my rudeness.


Ah well, it was a mistake to try to start up a debate with a theologian.
Debates have rules and moderators, this is a discussion, and I'm sorry I have made you feel as if you cannot dialog with me.

[Lonewulf]

I'm answering these questions from a Christian perspective. That is what we believe.

That's cool.

My claim is based on the fact that Textual Criticism produces results, and we can reconstruct a very good rendering of the original text based on the greek manuscripts we have, not to mention the multitudes of translations we have in a myriad of languages. I will admit I assumed this was about to go into the copies of copies of copies argument and responded that way. I apologize for my rudeness.

Your apology is accepted, although that was what I was thinking about.

What about the claim that many of the passages in the bible (ignoring the Apostles and probably much of the New Testament) were voted on by a council, putting in what mainly appealed to the people at the time period?

Debates have rules and moderators, this is a discussion, and I'm sorry I have made you feel as if you cannot dialog with me.

What I said was in frustration.

[RationalReverend]

Not at all. Rather, you are slavishly regurgitating a nonsense concept because one of your teachers drilled it into your head.
Hardly, I've never had an apologetics class, it is just painfully obvious stuff. If you cannot understand the concept as I am relating then I am deficient in speech, and if this be the case I am sorry, or you are unable to understand, willfully or unwillfully.


Uh, no. That's simply not what mercy means.From the American Heritage Dictionary:
mer·cy (mûr'sē)
n. pl. mer·cies
Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency.
A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.
Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: It was a mercy that no one was hurt.
Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy.By this definition what I am saying falls perfectly in line with the definition of mercy. God's law dictates punishment, and if he chooses not to punish the one guilty in the eyes of the law, then that is mercy. The fact that he pays the satisfaction of his own law does not negate his mercy, it magnifies it.


Have fun with Gears of War. I see no reason to continue this conversation.I did have fun thanks, and whether you continue or not is your prerogative.

[jesus_freak]

Incidentally, AnswersInGenesis are a pathetically inept crowd of bunglers masquerading as scientists. The vast majority of them (and there are pitiful few as it is) have no qualifications to speak of, on any subject they propound on. Those few that do are either deluded soft-heads, or they are actually "real" scientists in their day-jobs weekdays, and cynically evangelistic (and money-grubbing) creationists only on Sundays.
Ahhh...they don't follow your thoughts and beleifs so you just slap them with a label of "not real scientists" You know calling people names because the don't agree with you is pretty sweet. I get the feeling from your post that you think of your self as the smartest one on this board and you are doing us all a favor by throwing in you two cents worth...Well I'm not impressed or intimidated. You claim that your time is worth so much...so much that you can not even take a $50 challenge for a 5 minute phone call? But yet you have plenty of time to hang out on a message board(for free I presume). For the most part this thread has been kept pretty civil and I actually thought we were having some good discussions. I will not let you or a few others on here ruin the good thing that the rest of us got going.

[RationalReverend]

What about the claim that many of the passages in the bible (ignoring the Apostles and probably much of the New Testament) were voted on by a council, putting in what mainly appealed to the people at the time period?

Well, passages of texts were never discussed as in regard to Canon, but rather texts as a whole. Back when The DaVinci Code came out, there were all sorts of Grandiose claims that the Council of Nicea (325) among others were in fact the ones who decided what was in the Bible. The truth is by that time the Canon was pretty much set. It is true that councils have affirmed the Canon and its exclusivity, but never did anyone sit down and say this one that one this one and then we poof had a canon. Also, the reception of books in the Canon is not universally the same. The Gospels for example were unanimously accepted very early on, as were the Pauline Epistles a little later. We have evidence though in the Patristics that the works in our current canon were viewed as authoritative very early on. Justin Martyr for example (c.150) quotes many NT works in the same way as he does OT works. There are earlier examples, but you get the idea. Short and Sweet: these works were copied and kept and held as sacred from the beginning, but the process of collecting them in a single volume took time. Mainly, it just wasn't done in those days. In fact, Christians pretty much are the reason the codex or book form is used today rather than scrolls. Christians were the first to do it widespread. So, until that practice developed people would naturally just have kept the letters and copied the letters individually. (sorry that was so longwinded)



What I said was in frustration.
No worries mate, we all get frustrated and sometimes are rude, even us Christians.:)

[Zep]

Ahhh...they don't follow your thoughts and beleifs so you just slap them with a label of "not real scientists" You know calling people names because the don't agree with you is pretty sweet. I get the feeling from your post that you think of your self as the smartest one on this board and you are doing us all a favor by throwing in you two cents worth...Well I'm not impressed or intimidated. You claim that your time is worth so much...so much that you can not even take a $50 challenge for a 5 minute phone call? But yet you have plenty of time to hang out on a message board(for free I presume). For the most part this thread has been kept pretty civil and I actually thought we were having some good discussions. I will not let you or a few others on here ruin the good thing that the rest of us got going.I'll make it clear for you point by point:

0) I understand the AnswersInGenesis crowd extremely well. There is nothing they have produced that has ever stumped me. But that's hardly a cause for me to crow - most average intelligence people can do the same with ease (if they put their prejudices to one side first). Honestly, JF, the stuff AiG produce is barely up to children's comic-book standard - in fact, they are aiming it precisely at the uneducated, naive and uninformed! They are not trying to win Nobel prizes, they are trying to propagandise to the most easily influenced people (who are the most likely to pay up for this rubbish).

1) With only a pitiful few exceptions, AiG are NOT real scientists by ANYONE'S standards. Really. They make stuff up like crazy, including their qualifications, and have done so for decades. It's been documented fully. Isn't there some biblical warning about giving false witness? Perhaps these guys should read that and think about it a bit...

2) I don't care if you are unimpressed or unintimidated by me. That's hardly my point. The evidence is abundant that the AiG people are either wilfully ignorant or cynically conniving, whether either of us likes it or not. So, for your own benefit, I would suggest not espousing them as good role models for your cause.

3) I fully admit I am NOT the most intelligent guy on this forum by a long chalk. But then, how would you know who is and who is not? You seem to have trouble enough as it is realising that AiG is cerebrally bankrupt. Can I suggest some honest and dilligent research on your part will serve you well?

4) My time IS worth that much. A phone call from here to the USA will cost me more than $50 for the amount of time required to be on air with your self-inflated radio jocks.

5) No, it's not free for me to "hang out" here. But I get far better value for a lot longer, for far less than $50.

Please understand that I am not trying to be rude to you, and wish you to stay and talk more, as you are well-mannered and coherent, and certainly welcome to do so. But there are some very unpleasant facts about the people you have proposed as your models, i.e. AiG, that they will never tell you, their erstwhile followers.

Make research your tools, evidence your treasure, knowledge your goal!

[El Greco]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47975
Some people also say that Christ never lived.Give it time and people will say that 9/11 never happened.

Exactly like people who say that evolution didn't happen and isn't happening.

[Ossai]

jesus_freak
The church I agree can be wrong, but the Bible never is. When science said the earth was flat, the Bible said it was round, well before science knew of bacteria, or germs, the Bible was stating to wash your hands after touching a dead body. These are just a few examples. Actually, it’s the bible that declared the earth flat. Quotes from The Flat Earth Bible (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
• I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
• Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
• Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
• Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
• Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
• Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
• Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
• Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
• Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
• Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”

Not sure what your next point is but yes I disagree. I beleive that every word in the Bible was inspired by God and he used the "authors" of the Bible the same way that we would use a pen. Then how do you justify the numerous contradictions?


RationalReverend
The Bible is truth because it is Revelation, it is the communication of God to men. And this is based on what? The absurdities contained in the bible, YHWH must be a real joker.

The satisfaction of their guilt was already paid by Christ, so their is nothing for the wronged to seek. The debt of the sinner to the wronged has been paid in God's blood. When God's mercy mitigates his justice and he makes anew a sinner, then the satisfaction of his Justice was met by his own blood. Then why bother repenting? As long as you’re Christian you can do anything and you get a free pass to heaven.

To satisfy your argumentation, everyone in the world would have to speak the same language or God would need to make some magic bibles! Neither requirement is fair. God spoke clearly, if people cannot hear, then that does not call into question God's ability to speak. You are slavishly attempting to turn the faults of our race into the faults of God. Sorry, still god’s fault. God designed people in such a manner that they could not understand. Design flaw.

Again for your claims to be satisfied God would have to forcibly take hold of anyone who read the Bible and feed them the meaning of every text, and your demand is ridiculous and unreasonable. No it’s not. God, being omnipotent could easily do so with no cost to himself. It’s sadistic that he doesn’t make the meaning clear.

Uh no, it is mercy because God does not make them pay for their own crimes. He maintains His justice, however, with his own blood.

whose confused? One line is through his mother, and one line is through the male side. Both parents were Jewish so I can't really fathom why having some common ancestors is a point of negation. You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.

Ossai

[SimonD]

God spoke through the prophets to the people in a specific time and a specific context. They understood just fine. If God speaks in a language I do not know, if I want to know what he said, I learn the language. To satisfy your argumentation, everyone in the world would have to speak the same language or God would need to make some magic bibles! Neither requirement is fair. God spoke clearly, if people cannot hear, then that does not call into question God's ability to speak. You are slavishly attempting to turn the faults of our race into the faults of God.

4) God spoke clearly and was understood in the time that he spoke. Our job as Christians is to examine the text in light of that context and thereby understand God.

Again for your claims to be satisfied God would have to forcibly take hold of anyone who read the Bible and feed them the meaning of every text, and your demand is ridiculous and unreasonable.

If God spoke so clearly, then how comes the Bible contradicts itself?

[ChristineR]

Ahhh...they don't follow your thoughts and beleifs so you just slap them with a label of "not real scientists" You know calling people names because the don't agree with you is pretty sweet. I get the feeling from your post that you think of your self as the smartest one on this board and you are doing us all a favor by throwing in you two cents worth...Well I'm not impressed or intimidated. You claim that your time is worth so much...so much that you can not even take a $50 challenge for a 5 minute phone call? But yet you have plenty of time to hang out on a message board(for free I presume). For the most part this thread has been kept pretty civil and I actually thought we were having some good discussions. I will not let you or a few others on here ruin the good thing that the rest of us got going.

I don't see how you can say this. Honestly, and I'm pretty sympathetic to fundamentalist Christians, having been one myself. Try this. Read through AnswersInGenesis, all of it if you can. Then read through Talk Origins' 29 Evidences for Macro Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Answers in Genesis is just a bunch of outrageous speculation, oddities deliberately misinterpreted and taken out of context, and a history of the funnier mistakes and hoaxes that briefly fooled some legitimate scientists. It's high points are complex statistical analyses of data that have no meaning.

There is no comparison. If you were just to come forward and say "It's a mystery and although I have theories, I don't understand why all the evidence is wrong but my belief in Bible literalism is so strong and so fundamental to my being that I cannot accept it" I would wonder about your mental health, but at least I'd respect you and your opinions.

[bruto]

So god spoke clearly to the prophets back then, and all was fine, but now it's not clear? If we're to believe the bible, Adam and Eve, Abraham and the lot did not need the kind of anti-rational faith that is called for now. They met God and bargained with him in ways that (if it were true) would require no leap of faith at all, any more than I would need faith to believe that my neighbor across the street exists.

Aren't we supposed to be talking about God almighty here? What kind of deity would be so inefficient, inconsistent and sloppy? A true and viable God of the sort the bible describes could manifest himself unambiguously to everyone he wants. The usual copout that God wants faith, and faith doesn't work if there is certainty, fails in this case, because it's clear from the biblical text that God did not require that level of faith once upon a time. If the bible is true, he manifested himself clearly enough to erase all doubt.

So what prevents the almighty and all benevolent and all wise god from fixing the problem now? Why did he want understanding to be clear then, but now makes a puzzle of it? Is he on sabbatical? Lost his voice? Dead? Or is old Jehovah just the mean-spirited tinpot desert demiurge that a bunch of stone age nomads imagined because they could not think of anything better?

[jesus_freak]

Actually, it’s the bible that declared the earth flat. Quotes from The Flat Earth Bible (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
• I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
• Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
• Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
• Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
• Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
• Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
• Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
• Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
• Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
• Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”

Don't see anywhere that it says the earth is flat...but I can understand this one pretty clearly...
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).

[jesus_freak]

Here are some other verses that were way ahead of science.

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

[jesus_freak]

"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord. . . " (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV).

"Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24, NIV).

"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (1 Corinthians 15:41).

lev.17:11 describes the value of blood, "for the life of the flesh is in the blood..."

I could go on and on but even non beleivers have to be pretty amazed by some of these.

[edge]

Explain mules.

Mules cannot make new mules they are sterile.
End of the line.
There's a verse for that.

[edge]

So god spoke clearly to the prophets back then, and all was fine, but now it's not clear? If we're to believe the bible, Adam and Eve, Abraham and the lot did not need the kind of anti-rational faith that is called for now. They met God and bargained with him in ways that (if it were true) would require no leap of faith at all, any more than I would need faith to believe that my neighbor across the street exists.

Aren't we supposed to be talking about God almighty here? What kind of deity would be so inefficient, inconsistent and sloppy? A true and viable God of the sort the bible describes could manifest himself unambiguously to everyone he wants. The usual copout that God wants faith, and faith doesn't work if there is certainty, fails in this case, because it's clear from the biblical text that God did not require that level of faith once upon a time. If the bible is true, he manifested himself clearly enough to erase all doubt.

So what prevents the almighty and all benevolent and all wise god from fixing the problem now? Why did he want understanding to be clear then, but now makes a puzzle of it? Is he on sabbatical? Lost his voice? Dead? Or is old Jehovah just the mean-spirited tinpot desert demiurge that a bunch of stone age nomads imagined because they could not think of anything better?

If he gave us a perfect prophesy then things would be predestined, so we cannot know of the things to come exact hours, dates.
Only Jesus is able to look into the future clearly.
That would cancel out freewill also.
There are signs to read from them, “prophesies” as warnings.

He wants us to have faith, blind faith, which is different from the scales on your eyes.
When we remove the scales on our eyes we have faith and see even more clearly although you may call us blind it means the opposite has occurred.

[edge]

If the bible is true, he manifested himself clearly enough to erase all doubt.

That time is coming soon.

Pay attention.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2374529#post2374529
The great lie.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1877033#post1877033
The beast.
Thanks for this slingblade.
;)

[Foster Zygote]

Islam is a Christian based heresy. There is a lot of evidence that Mo was exposed to Christianity and Gnosticism, the three biggest being his employment as a trader, the stories in the hadith that say so, and the passages in the Quran that are perverted versions of stories in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Gnostic works. It is painfully obvious that he borrowed his stories, and the errors in them prove them less than genuine. If you want to make an argument about what is revelation the Quran is the last place you want to look. Especially since it contains such golden nuggets of awesome as telling his followers to test what he said by the Bible. He failed the test.

As the Jews see it, Christianity is a Jewish based heresy. There is plenty of evidence that Paul and the other early Christian writers were exposed to numerous pagan beliefs common to the period in which they wrote. It is painfully obvious to historians that they borrowed their stories as well.

[fuelair]

hey
you
cant
ignore
SUPER DUPER
BIG TEXT CAN YOU?

A weasler ignores under the loudest of circumstances!:D

[Hokulele]

Well, they tend to be pretty obvious. If you read the Joshua passage in context he can continue fighting because the sun is still up. It is painful obvious that it is meant literally. In Ecclesiastes the way it is written makes it obvious that it is a poetic device. If you cannot see the difference you are being willfully ignorant. But since that probably won't satisfy you, let me also say that even if it weren't just obvious, the study of it in the original Hebrew, as well as general knowledge of the text itself would help greatly. For example, Ecclesiastes is in the style of Wisdom literature and it is given over to poetic devices. Ta-dah!

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think I am going back to Ecclesiastes again. It does seem to make my original point. Here is the quote in context:

[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

So, it is meant to be a cyclical fact in a list of cyclical facts. Although today we can say "That's just a figure of speech, it is obvious that they did not mean that literally.", I think at the time it was written, it was meant literally. The author and the intended audience honestly believed the sun "hasteth to his place where he arose" since they knew they were operating in a geocentric system. In the 1500's this began to change. By around 1600, most people accepted a heliocentric model of the solar system. After 400 years of heliocentricity, we view this passage and similar ones much differently.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?

[fuelair]

Why not? because you say so? The satisfaction of their guilt was already paid by Christ, so their is nothing for the wronged to seek. The debt of the sinner to the wronged has been paid in God's blood. When God's mercy mitigates his justice and he makes anew a sinner, then the satisfaction of his Justice was met by his own blood.
Not justice - you may think it is - and I do hope you are never in a situation where you find out how wrong that belief is.

[edge]

Evil Began with the Angels, Not With Man
But evil in the universe did not begin with man, evil began with the angels, in fact. with Lucifer, the highest of all the angels. Lucifer, later to become Satan the Destroyer, was originally God's prime minister in the court of heaven until he revolted along with a third of the angelic hosts. (See "Who is Satan?") Hebrews 2:5 says that the age which is to come (the millennium) will not be under the jurisdiction or rule of the angels. This statement implies that the age we live in now is under the rule and government of the angels. A careful study of the angels and their work as revealed in the Bible shows that God uses the angels not only as messengers but also as his instruments in the government of the forces of nature (storms, winds, floods, hurricanes, etc.). Angels are also mighty "princes" in charge of the affairs of nations (Daniel 10:10-21).
Nature Disrupted by the Angelic Revolt and the Fall of Man
The disruption of the old creation resulting from the fall of Lucifer and a host of angels is the root cause for death coming into human experience, as noted above. What is often overlooked, is the fact that nature itself was also drastically affected (Gen. 3:17,18, Rom. 8:19-22) by the angelic revolt. Lucifer before his fall evidently held "the highest and most important post in the administration of the universe...what we would call God's prime minister to use a human analogy." (Ref. 1). His defection from his high post in God's government of the cosmos was serious indeed, not only for man, but also for nature.
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
What are some of the possible consequences the fall of the angels may have had on the creation itself? These disruptions in the physical universe seem to have included some or all of the following:
· The "quality" of time experienced by our first parents in the Garden of Eden was drastically changed at the time of their fall.
· At least five separate "curses" from God which are consequences of human sins are mentioned in Genesis. In some way we do not yet understand the fecundity of nature was reduced by these curses, indicating a reduction of sustaining power from God into the physical creation. Opportunistic weeds, bugs, diseases and maladies are some of the results.
· The Second Law of Thermodynamics was apparently not in effect before the fall---the universe was previously self-renewing, The Second Law can be stated in three ways: (1) Energy to do useful work is becoming less available with the passage of time. (2) Orderly systems have a tendency to fall apart, collapse, rot and decay with the passage of time, and (3) The information content of a system (a measure of the degree of order) tends to decrease with the passage of time. Our once orderly, perfect universe is running apart, losing its order and splendor and becoming inexorably more chaotic with the passage of time. (Ref. 3)
· There was quite possibly no radioactive decay before the fall due to a greatly stability of certain atomic nuclei which are now unstable or marginally stable. Radioactive decay may be a consequence of the fall, (see Col. 1:17, 2 Peter 3:10*) (Ref. 4).
· Catastrophes and "natural" disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and famines were unknown in the creation before the fall. Predatory behavior in the animal world was unknown. Thorns, thistles, pests, and disease were unknown.

It's not God who does these things right now in our time.
This isn't to long for you to read is it?

http://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml

[fuelair]

So do I, and you are irrationally bending mercy into meaning injustice.



Uh no, it is mercy because God does not make them pay for their own crimes. He maintains His justice, however, with his own blood.
Other than believing that IF THERE WAS A GOD, IT SHOULD BE HUNTED AND KILLED FOR ITS' CRIMES,I want criminals to pay for theirs' themselves.:mad: :mad:

[Beleth]

Islam is a Christian based heresy. There is a lot of evidence that Mo was exposed to Christianity and Gnosticism, the three biggest being his employment as a trader, the stories in the hadith that say so, and the passages in the Quran that are perverted versions of stories in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Gnostic works. It is painfully obvious that he borrowed his stories, and the errors in them prove them less than genuine. If you want to make an argument about what is revelation the Quran is the last place you want to look. Especially since it contains such golden nuggets of awesome as telling his followers to test what he said by the Bible. He failed the test.
Would that you apply the same level of critical thinking and study to the problems with Christianity that you do to the problems with Islam.

Let me guess. You were raised in a Christian neighborhood, weren't you?

[edge]

As the Jews see it, Christianity is a Jewish based heresy. There is plenty of evidence that Paul and the other early Christian writers were exposed to numerous pagan beliefs common to the period in which they wrote. It is painfully obvious to historians that they borrowed their stories as well.

Which Jews the ones that had Jesus crucified and their linage there after?


Then why bother repenting? As long as you’re Christian you can do anything and you get a free pass to heaven.

That’s a lie.
That’s back sliding.

Sorry, still god’s fault. God designed people in such a manner that they could not understand. Design flaw.

Read my last post.
No it’s not. God, being omnipotent could easily do so with no cost to himself. It’s sadistic that he doesn’t make the meaning clear.


Read the post before that.

You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.

Ossai

So he was born into his house, his line?
Doesn’t say anything about genetics?

[SimonD]

A weasler ignores under the loudest of circumstances!:D

As typical with religious people they only answer the questions that are not to hard. Once the going gets tough they will side step the question, or, as I got a lot at school, tell you that you are a bad person for not believing in the Bible.

I am still waiting for JF to answers Slingblade's question in the "JF challenge" thread

[SimonD]

Which Jews the ones that had Jesus crucified and their linage there after?

The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews

[Lonewulf]

The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews

Er, it's not *really* that simple. The Jewish church did have a hand in Jesus' execution, but the romans were the ones that carried it out (though the Caesar did not want Jesus' blood on his hands).

However, Jesus was a rabbi. So if the Jews kill a Jew, then you could say that a Jew was martyred on the cross, therefore we should respect Judaism. :D

[SimonD]

Er, it's not *really* that simple.

It never is :)

The Jewish church did have a hand in Jesus' execution, but the romans were the ones that carried it out (though the Caesar did not want Jesus' blood on his hands).

However, Jesus was a rabbi. So if the Jews kill a Jew, then you could say that a Jew was martyred on the cross, therefore we should respect Judaism. :D

The argument that the Jews killed Christ has been used to murder them in huge numbers throughout history. I just feel that we need to make the distinction.

[hgc]

Which Jews the ones that had Jesus crucified and their linage there after?
I like that lineage bit. I guess you mean all the Jews who didn't become Christians, right? That lineage? Would those be the same ones making matzo with the blood of Christian children?

JEWS! Killing Christ since before you were born! Don't accept substitutes.

[edge]

Many Orthodox Jews are now turning to Christ they are making the distinction, recognizing the New from the Old, albeit slowly.
It was the way it had to come about, not every Jews fault, many where followers of Christ..........Gods plan.
You can't condem the whole population.

[FaisonMars]

Then you don't know much about textual criticism or you have been listening to too much Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman is a respected New Testament scholar at UNC who wrote Misquoting Jesus, which is about the problems of reconstructing the "original" New Testament from the earliest manuscripts-- it's an excellent book. He's also written on the historical Jesus and on the gospels that were left out of the NT canon.

Are you casting aspersions on Ehrman's work? If so, are they based on any evidence that is not based on your faith? If so, have you presented your opposing view to the community of religious scholars?

[edge]

I like that lineage bit. I guess you mean all the Jews who didn't become Christians, right?
No, the ones who where evil and hypocrites there after, just like any other nationality.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
As the Jews see it, Christianity is a Jewish based heresy. There is plenty of evidence that Paul and the other early Christian writers were exposed to numerous pagan beliefs common to the period in which they wrote. It is painfully obvious to historians that they borrowed their stories as well.


Christianity is a Jewish based heresy.
Who where these that said that and acted on that premise?

[Ossai]

jesus_freak
Don't see anywhere that it says the earth is flat...but I can understand this one pretty clearly...
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). Did you even bother checking out the link I provided. Put the quotes in context, they all support a flat earth; the Babylonian cosmology to be specific.
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).

Why not throw a bit more context in:

9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.

10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness.

11 The pillars of the heavens quake,
aghast at his rebuke.

12 By his power he churned up the sea;
by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.

13 By his breath the skies became fair;
his hand pierced the gliding serpent.

14 And these are but the outer fringe of his works;
how faint the whisper we hear of him!
Who then can understand the thunder of his power?"

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
And a bit more
29 Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds,
how he thunders from his pavilion?
30 See how he scatters his lightning about him,
bathing the depths of the sea.
31 This is the way he governs [d] the nations
and provides food in abundance.
32 He fills his hands with lightning
and commands it to strike its mark.
Apparently YHWH is the one tossing lightning bolts around.

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV). Babylonian cosmology. Look at the illustration on the previous link I provided.

I could go on and on but even non beleivers have to be pretty amazed by some of these. What is supposed to be the amazing bit? The poetic language?

Ossai

[bruto]

If he gave us a perfect prophesy then things would be predestined, so we cannot know of the things to come exact hours, dates.
Only Jesus is able to look into the future clearly.
That would cancel out freewill also.
There are signs to read from them, “prophesies” as warnings.

He wants us to have faith, blind faith, which is different from the scales on your eyes.
When we remove the scales on our eyes we have faith and see even more clearly although you may call us blind it means the opposite has occurred.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm not talking about perfect prophesy. I'm talking about reasonably unambiguous manifestation. It's clear, if you choose to believe the bible, that god once upon a time made himself quite clear. He walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. He bargained with Abraham. He handed Moses the commandments, written on stone. He spoke to Job from the whirlwind. Why did he not demand blind faith in biblical times? Why now? Why should he demand blind faith? And what is the faith actually supposed to be in? The scriptures are ambiguous, their sources poorly known, selected from a much larger body of literature by medieval churchmen. The only reason to consider that the scriptures are genuine and divine is the authority of churches - the same churches which have for millennia used those scriptures to justify war, persecution, enslavement, genocide, political, moral and ecclesiastical corruption. Why would a halfway reasonable God demand that we exercise blind faith in the authority of churches, and why would a halfway reasonable God expect us not to question writings so malleable?

[skeptifem]

Don't see anywhere that it says the earth is flat...but I can understand this one pretty clearly...
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).



Many of those quotes says the earth doesnt move. Isn't that innaccurate enough? Would you defend the use of a school science book that said multiple times that the earth doesnt move at all? Or that bats are a type of bird(yes, the bible really says that)?


This is what I meant by choosing ignorance. You are choosing to be ignorant of obvious innacuracies in the bible in favor of pointing out what was correct, while still saying the bible is literally true. I would like to know why you wont even learn the opposing sides points and consider them. I would really, really like to know why you wont even look.

[Ossai]

edge
Then why bother repenting? As long as you’re Christian you can do anything and you get a free pass to heaven.
That’s a lie.
That’s back sliding. How is that a lie? That is what the majority of Christian churches teach. Jesus forgives everything.

Sorry, still god’s fault. God designed people in such a manner that they could not understand. Design flaw. Read my last post. Where do you find that tripe? It’s the same as most of your religion, people making $#!+ up. Got any evidence whatsoever to back up any of what you posted?
Let’s turn it around. What would you accept as evidence to falsify the bit you quoted earlier?

No it’s not. God, being omnipotent could easily do so with no cost to himself. It’s sadistic that he doesn’t make the meaning clear.
Read the post before that. I did. It does not address the point raised.

You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.
So he was born into his house, his line?
Doesn’t say anything about genetics? Do you even know the messianic prophecies? Please list them.

Ossai

[hgc]

No, the [Jews] who where evil and hypocrites there after, just like any other nationality.
So the Jews who killed Jesus were evil and hypocrites? How so? Didn't God send his only son to die on the cross? Are you saying God's plan depends on evil hypocrites for fulfillment? I am sooooo confused.

[skeptifem]

A weasler ignores under the loudest of circumstances!:D



I got a giggle or two out of it :p

[FaisonMars]

nails3jesus0, does your username indicate you are a triclavianist??!!

Heresy!

http://objectiveministries.org/pastorscorner/

[RationalReverend]

As the Jews see it, Christianity is a Jewish based heresy. There is plenty of evidence that Paul and the other early Christian writers were exposed to numerous pagan beliefs common to the period in which they wrote. It is painfully obvious to historians that they borrowed their stories as well.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity are sister religions both emerging from the same Ancient Jewish Religion. As for the claims of borrowing, substantiate that. I wouldn't go with the standard Mithraism claim, because only lackwits who knew nothing about Mithraism make that claim.

[RationalReverend]

Would that you apply the same level of critical thinking and study to the problems with Christianity that you do to the problems with Islam.

Let me guess. You were raised in a Christian neighborhood, weren't you?

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore...I was beginning to hope.

[RationalReverend]

Bart Ehrman is a respected New Testament scholar at UNC who wrote Misquoting Jesus, which is about the problems of reconstructing the "original" New Testament from the earliest manuscripts-- it's an excellent book. He's also written on the historical Jesus and on the gospels that were left out of the NT canon.

Are you casting aspersions on Ehrman's work? If so, are they based on any evidence that is not based on your faith? If so, have you presented your opposing view to the community of religious scholars?

Did you actually read Misquoting Jesus? The book was a pile of crap, not mention he cited himself in it like 45 times. His basic argument is that since the story of the woman caught in adultery is in our Bibles we can't trust them! That argument makes no sense, simply because we can identify that that passage does not belong! The very fact that we even know an errant passage is their proves the effectiveness of our textual criticism. Ehrman also has a habit of relying on D to prove his point, but even introductory TC students know that D is filled with all sorts of weird stuff, and given the poor quality of the Latin translations of the Greek also found in the text, the person who constructed it didn't do the greatest job. You are right in asking the question "Who are you to question Bart Ehrman!", and the answer is someone who has read Bruce Metzger and some of the work of the Alands. Their names appear on the most popular Greek manuscripts you can buy today, namely the NA27 and the UBS4.

[skeptifem]

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore...I was beginning to hope.


Im sure everyone is impressed with your debate skills at this point :rolleyes:

[RationalReverend]

As typical with religious people they only answer the questions that are not to hard. Once the going gets tough they will side step the question, or, as I got a lot at school, tell you that you are a bad person for not believing in the Bible.

I am still waiting for JF to answers Slingblade's question in the "JF challenge" thread

What hogwash, the ratio in this thread of atheist to Christians must be 20:1, complaining about people getting overwhelmed is ridiculous. Especially when one must deal with an onslaught of the same old questions asked 10 different ways. Sometimes responding to atheist arguments is a mind-numbingly boring affair because you have addressed the same argument time and again. It also difficult to motivate oneself when it is clear the majority of people are interested only in winning arguments, and not in talking or having our faiths dialog. Do me a favor go to a Christian Philosophy forum and start a discussion proclaiming the utter lack of veracity to the Christian claim and see what happens.

[RationalReverend]

Im sure everyone is impressed with your debate skills at this point :rolleyes:

I'm sure everyone is impressed with your critical reading skills at this point :rolleyes:.

She said she wished I would examine my own faith the way I examined the claims of Islam. She was insulting me and calling me blind and ignorant. She has no way of knowing to what degree I have examined my faith or doubted it, and so such a claim is baseless. There is nothing to say really, because she believes me duped by upbringing, and frankly this is not the first thread where she has demonstrated nothing but hostility towards me. She should feel free to move on any time.

[RationalReverend]

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think I am going back to Ecclesiastes again. It does seem to make my original point. Here is the quote in context:

[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

So, it is meant to be a cyclical fact in a list of cyclical facts. Although today we can say "That's just a figure of speech, it is obvious that they did not mean that literally.", I think at the time it was written, it was meant literally. The author and the intended audience honestly believed the sun "hasteth to his place where he arose" since they knew they were operating in a geocentric system. In the 1500's this began to change. By around 1600, most people accepted a heliocentric model of the solar system. After 400 years of heliocentricity, we view this passage and similar ones much differently.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?

The author of Ecclesiastes may very well have held a Geocentric viewpoint, but the point of the text is not to declare the veracity of the Geocentric viewpoint, but to make a point about the continuance of the age. The argument isn't whether the Bible uses Geocentric language, it clearly does, and moreover that language reflects the Near Eastern Cosmology, the argument is that while that language is used it is not used to teach, but to convey some other idea. For Example: Before the foundations of the earth were laid, you were chosen. The point of such a statement would not be that the earth rests on pillars, but rather that even before their was an earth God had a plan for you. (Note: the sentence used above is not a direct quote of a Bible passage, but is just used for convenience sake.) In that way the text makes a literal point using language we would not interpret literally. For more information on how we do this and how we tell, look up Hermeneutics, the Grammatical-Historical Method, etc.

[RationalReverend]

Not justice - you may think it is - and I do hope you are never in a situation where you find out how wrong that belief is.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
jus·tice (jŭs'tĭs)
n.
The quality of being just; fairness.

The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law The administration and procedure of law.
A judge.
A justice of the peace.

The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law The administration and procedure of law.
A judge.
A justice of the peace.
Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Abbr. J. Law
A judge.
A justice of the peace. Seems like my usage is fully in accord with the definition of the word.

[edge]

So the Jews who killed Jesus were evil and hypocrites? How so? Didn't God send his only son to die on the cross? Are you saying God's plan depends on evil hypocrites for fulfillment? I am sooooo confused.

Just like they where.

Ossai said,

I did. It does not address the point raised.

Take them friggen scales off your eyes and wake up.

Why don't you put up the messianic prophecies up here am I suppose to do everything for you!

[edge]

RationalReverend, great avatar, I'm glad to see you here!
They are tiring.

Sometimes responding to atheist arguments is a mind-numbingly boring affair because you have addressed the same argument time and again. It also difficult to motivate oneself when it is clear the majority of people are interested only in winning arguments.

I got to agree.

[RationalReverend]

And this is based on what? The absurdities contained in the bible, YHWH must be a real joker. Good argument thanks for opening my eyes. :rolleyes:


Then why bother repenting? As long as you’re Christian you can do anything and you get a free pass to heaven.
Because repentance is the quality of a genuine Christian, a Christian who sins indiscriminately and without repentance and remorse is not a Christian at all. Christians have an obligation to obey the teachings of Christ, as the text says "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me." It does not say "Say a prayer, go to church, and do what you like." I know you have probably seen that attitude and for that I am sorry.


Sorry, still god’s fault. God designed people in such a manner that they could not understand. Design flaw. This is a fallacious argument because it assumes their are people who can never understand and that therefore God must not want to be heard. Even those ignorant on their own can be instructed and taught, which is what the church is supposed to do. Again, your demand for universal language or for God to take hold of minds is an unfair standard by which to judge revelation.


No it’s not. God, being omnipotent could easily do so with no cost to himself. It’s sadistic that he doesn’t make the meaning clear.
see above


You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.
No I'm not, in Luke Joseph is the son of Heli by his marriage to Mary. Heli is his father-in law. Notice in Matthew his father is named Jacob. Mystery solved.


If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.
I'm trying to figure out why you would say this as David is in both lineages....Luke 3:31-32 and Matthew 1:6

[Beleth]

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore...I was beginning to hope.
I said that discussion was over, sweetcheeks. This is a different discussion. And I have no doubt that you hoped that that discussion was over.

Were you raised in a predominantly Christian neighborhood?
What was the dominant religion in the Middle East at the time of Jesus's birth?

[RationalReverend]

If God spoke so clearly, then how comes the Bible contradicts itself?

The Bible has a multitude of witnesses, I would not call their minor variations contradictions (dun dun dunnnnnnn). And frankly, most discrepancies are easily explained through copying errors. However, if you want to view the difference in numbers of rooster crows as evidence of contradiction, then go ahead, that is your prerogative.

[RationalReverend]

I said that discussion was over, sweetcheeks. This is a different discussion. And I have no doubt that you hoped that that discussion was over.

Were you raised in a predominantly Christian neighborhood?
What was the dominant religion in the Middle East at the time of Jesus's birth?

Yes, I was obviously afraid to continue the discussion with you, you personally terrify me, especially your inability to follow a logical progression. Maybe you should call Doctor X to come sort me out.

[RationalReverend]

RationalReverend, great avatar, I'm glad to see you here!


Good to be here, my first thread here was promising, I hope more are like that one than this one.

[Beleth]

She said she wished I would examine my own faith the way I examined the claims of Islam. She was insulting me and calling me blind and ignorant. She has no way of knowing to what degree I have examined my faith or doubted it, and so such a claim is baseless. There is nothing to say really, because she believes me duped by upbringing, and frankly this is not the first thread where she has demonstrated nothing but hostility towards me. She should feel free to move on any time.
This post made me chuckle numerous times.

The hostility you perceive I have towards you has but one source: the hostility you have towards me. The only one calling you blind and ignorant is your own superego, darling.

When I read your critique of Islam, all I could think to myself was "you know, I could write the exact same paragraph and replace 'Islam' with 'Christianity', 'Mo' with 'Paul' or 'Peter' or 'Jesus', and 'Christianity' with 'Zoroastrianism', and it would still be true."

The fact that you don't realize that means that you haven't been as critical of the beliefs you were raised in as you have of others. That is how I know how deeply you have examined your beliefs.

And as for moving on, well, you have my permission to do so at any point.

[Beleth]

Yes, I was obviously afraid to continue the discussion with you, you personally terrify me, especially your inability to follow a logical progression.
When you provide one, I'll be sure to follow it.

Maybe you should call Doctor X to come sort me out.
Naah, I have realized that it doesn't take a heavyweight like him to deal with the likes of you. Even an ignoramus like myself can do it.

Now go play some more Gears of War, that's a good lad.

[RationalReverend]

When you provide one, I'll be sure to follow it.
It would be an exercise in futility


Naah, I have realized that it doesn't take a heavyweight like him to deal with the likes of you. Even an ignoramus like myself can do it.
So far all I see is recycled garbage, besides he would be ever so much more fun to talk to.


Now go play some more Gears of War, that's a good lad.
Now go get an education in Religion, that's a good lass.

[RationalReverend]

This post made me chuckle numerous times.
Glad to be of service, laughter is a universal medicine


The hostility you perceive I have towards you has but one source: the hostility you have towards me. The only one calling you blind and ignorant is your own superego, darling.
I have no genuine hostility towards you, I merely find you annoying the way one finds a gnat annoying or an unpleasant odor.


When I read your critique of Islam, all I could think to myself was "you know, I could write the exact same paragraph and replace 'Islam' with 'Christianity', 'Mo' with 'Paul' or 'Peter' or 'Jesus', and 'Christianity' with 'Zoroastrianism', and it would still be true."

Again, you assume I haven't looked into such claims, and the fact of the matter is that Christianity is based on Judaism, it is not based on Zoroastrianism or Mithraism or any other 1st century religion that you can make vaguely sound like Christianity. Christianity is thoroughly Jewish in origin. <----that's a period.


The fact that you don't realize that means that you haven't been as critical of the beliefs you were raised in as you have of others. That is how I know how deeply you have examined your beliefs.
Gee whiz Batman, I better put on my foil helmet so Beleth can stop reading my mind and magically knowing my beliefs and how I came to them.

[Beleth]

It would be an exercise in futility
Having seen what you consider "logic", I agree.

So far all I see is recycled garbage, besides he would be ever so much more fun to talk to.Oh, do. Do go talk to him. By all means. Unless your ego and the frailties of your arguments won't permit you to, of course.

Now go get an education in Religion, that's a good lass.:dl:
I'm sorry, what were you saying about "recycled"?


I am carrying around a copy of Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus in my backpack right now, even as I type this. I've only been half-heartedly reading it over the last few months, but your recent comments about it have rekindled my interest in finishing it.

[edge]

It was directed at nails3jesus0 anyway,L.M.A.O.
Beleths, about 16 or 18 or there abouts.

[SezMe]

Did you actually read Misquoting Jesus? ... His basic argument is that since the story of the woman caught in adultery is in our Bibles we can't trust them!
I can't speak for mfaison but I can answer "yes" for myself.

If you think that is his "basic argument" then I have a question for you:

Did you actually read Misquoting Jesus?

[skeptifem]

I'm sure everyone is impressed with your critical reading skills at this point :rolleyes:.


Oh yes, I should really work on that. Because I thought I saw you reply to an assertion with a post asking another poster stop asking you things. my bad. ;)

[FaisonMars]

Did you actually read Misquoting Jesus? The book was a pile of crap, not mention he cited himself in it like 45 times. His basic argument is that since the story of the woman caught in adultery is in our Bibles we can't trust them! That argument makes no sense, simply because we can identify that that passage does not belong!


Yes, I read it and enjoyed it. It made a lot of sense to me, but I will admit that I am not a New Testament scholar, I'm just a skeptic with a layperson's interested in textual criticism.

The point of that example is that that story was added by a later scribe (perhaps it migrated from the margin to the text). It is not in the earliest manuscripts.

His whole point is that it is impossible to get back to the original text due to many problems, including transcription errors and the doctrinal inclinations of particular scribes.


The very fact that we even know an errant passage is their proves the effectiveness of our textual criticism.


No, it just proves that there are sections of the current NT canon that are not in the earliest manuscripts. We still do not know what the "original" text was, if there was such a document!

Ehrman points out that the earlier texts and the texts with the more complicated interpretations are more likely to be accurate (less influenced by later scribes). Those early texts leave out a lot that modern Christianity holds dear, such as the doctrine of the Trinity.


Ehrman also has a habit of relying on D to prove his point, but even introductory TC students know that D is filled with all sorts of weird stuff, and given the poor quality of the Latin translations of the Greek also found in the text, the person who constructed it didn't do the greatest job. You are right in asking the question "Who are you to question Bart Ehrman!", and the answer is someone who has read Bruce Metzger and some of the work of the Alands. Their names appear on the most popular Greek manuscripts you can buy today, namely the NA27 and the UBS4.


First of all, most popular does not equal most accurate.

I wish I had more time to learn about TC-- over time I'm learning. I'm more inclined to trust the secular work of Ehrman (a secular professor of history) than the work of someone who teaches at a seminary (e.g., Metzger), given the probable biases (but that's not proof of one person's perspective over the other... I'd have to look at the arguments).

[Beleth]

I have no genuine hostility towards you, I merely find you annoying the way one finds a gnat annoying or an unpleasant odor.
That's because I am telling you things you have decided you do not want to hear. Whereas you are just telling me things I have heard numerous times before, weighed, and found lacking.

Again, you assume I haven't looked into such claims, and the fact of the matter is that Christianity is based on Judaism, it is not based on Zoroastrianism or Mithraism or any other 1st century religion that you can make vaguely sound like Christianity. Christianity is thoroughly Jewish in origin. <----that's a period.
It is exactly these kind of demonstrably false (or at the very least debatable) answers that lead me to believe that you have not looked at Christianity with the same critical eye that you have looked at Islam. You have seen what you want to see and ignore the rest.

Gee whiz Batman, I better put on my foil helmet so Beleth can stop reading my mind and magically knowing my beliefs and how I came to them.
I find it fascinating that people can post their beliefs and then think that it takes some sort of paranormal ability to know their beliefs. Unless what you post is not what you believe, of course...

[Beleth]

Beleths, about 16 or 18 or there abouts.
See, RR, here's the guy you gotta worry about wearing the tinfoil hat around.

Please, edge, do share with us how you came to that conclusion.

[RationalReverend]

Having seen what you consider "logic", I agree.
We can just keep doing this back in forth for amusements sake, but it is pretty pointless


Oh, do. Do go talk to him. By all means. Unless your ego and the frailties of your arguments won't permit you to, of course.
I always enjoy talking to those more educated than me, if he posts here I would be delighted to converse with him.


I am carrying around a copy of Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus in my backpack right now, even as I type this. I've only been half-heartedly reading it over the last few months, but your recent comments about it have rekindled my interest in finishing it.
Be sure to read the notes section as well.

[RationalReverend]

Oh yes, I should really work on that. Because I thought I saw you reply to an assertion with a post asking another poster stop asking you things. my bad. ;)

Thanks for the tip, you are so right! If I for example said to you that you had never examined critically your atheism, I'm sure you would treat such a statement as a valid argument.:rolleyes:

[RationalReverend]

The point of that example is that that story was added by a later scribe (perhaps it migrated from the margin to the text). It is not in the earliest manuscripts.

His whole point is that it is impossible to get back to the original text due to many problems, including transcription errors and the doctrinal inclinations of particular scribes. And the world's foremost scholars in Textual Criticism would disagree. The sheer number of Koine Greek manuscripts (over 5,000) and the huge number of different language manuscripts allows us to reconstruct a text with a very good idea as to the original.



No, it just proves that there are sections of the current NT canon that are not in the earliest manuscripts. We still do not know what the "original" text was, if there was such a document!

Ehrman points out that the earlier texts and the texts with the more complicated interpretations are more likely to be accurate (less influenced by later scribes). Those early texts leave out a lot that modern Christianity holds dear, such as the doctrine of the Trinity.
Yes, but the fact that we know that such passages are not in the oldest manuscripts proves the veracity of our Criticism, because we can then eliminate them from the text. When I read John 7:53-8:11 I know it doesn't belong there. That is TC working.



First of all, most popular does not equal most accurate.

I wish I had more time to learn about TC-- over time I'm learning. I'm more inclined to trust the secular work of Ehrman (a secular professor of history) than the work of someone who teaches at a seminary (e.g., Metzger), given the probable biases (but that's not proof of one person's perspective over the other... I'd have to look at the arguments).

Well, those are the Greek New Testaments used in the scholarly world. As for not trusting Metzger because he is from a Seminary, that is ridiculous. The same standards of research apply to Seminaries as to any colleges. Moreover, Metzger has done a lot more in the field than Ehrman has. The Alands are German and if anyone can address the Bible with dispassionate rationalism, then it is the German School of Thought.

[RationalReverend]

That's because I am telling you things you have decided you do not want to hear. Whereas you are just telling me things I have heard numerous times before, weighed, and found lacking.
uhh ditto


It is exactly these kind of demonstrably false (or at the very least debatable) answers that lead me to believe that you have not looked at Christianity with the same critical eye that you have looked at Islam. You have seen what you want to see and ignore the rest.
you are free to wrongly believe whatever you want about me, I can't open my head and prove otherwise so have fun.


I find it fascinating that people can post their beliefs and then think that it takes some sort of paranormal ability to know their beliefs. Unless what you post is not what you believe, of course... I posted what I believe, not I how came to believe it, you filled in the rest, and you continue to make assumptions.

[Beleth]

uhh ditto
lol wtf d00d

I posted what I believe, not I how came to believe it, you filled in the rest, and you continue to make assumptions.
And yet you don't show that those assumptions are wrong. Fascinating.

I always enjoy talking to those more educated than me, if he posts here I would be delighted to converse with him.
He doesn't post here. You know where he posts. Like I said, the only thing preventing you from conversing with him is you.

[FaisonMars]

Maybe Beleth and RR could put each other on ignore and we could get back to having Jesus_Freak talk about evolution and geocentrism. I'm still curious why JF thinks that antediluvian animals were vegetarian.

[Ossai]

RationalReverend
And this is based on what? The absurdities contained in the bible, YHWH must be a real joker.
Good argument thanks for opening my eyes. From the level of discourse you’ve so far posted
The author of Ecclesiastes may very well have held a Geocentric viewpoint, but the point of the text is not to declare the veracity of the Geocentric viewpoint, but to make a point about the continuance of the age. The argument isn't whether the Bible uses Geocentric language, it clearly does, and moreover that language reflects the Near Eastern Cosmology, the argument is that while that language is used it is not used to teach, but to convey some other idea. For Example: Before the foundations of the earth were laid, you were chosen. The point of such a statement would not be that the earth rests on pillars, but rather that even before their was an earth God had a plan for you. (Note: the sentence used above is not a direct quote of a Bible passage, but is just used for convenience sake.) In that way the text makes a literal point using language we would not interpret literally. For more information on how we do this and how we tell, look up Hermeneutics, the Grammatical-Historical Method, etc. It’s rather apparent that you cherry pick and declare the bible to say one thing but mean another. Even if a simple reading of the verse proves you wrong.

Because repentance is the quality of a genuine Christian, Where is this explicitly declared?
a Christian who sins indiscriminately and without repentance and remorse is not a Christian at all. No true Scotsman. Or do you have some magic Christian sense?
Christians have an obligation to obey the teachings of Christ, as the text says "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me." It also mentions dusting off your shoes and continuing forward? So shouldn’t people only be exposed to Christianity once then never have to deal with it again, if that is what they wish?

This is a fallacious argument because it assumes their are people who can never understand and that therefore God must not want to be heard. Nope. According to the majority of Christian doctrine, god designed all people to be that way. How many billions of examples of people that can never understand do you want? How about the entire native population of South America between approximately 350 C.E. and 1500 C.E.?

Even those ignorant on their own can be instructed and taught, which is what the church is supposed to do. Again, your demand for universal language or for God to take hold of minds is an unfair standard by which to judge revelation. Based on what? The only way to heaven is through Jesus, according to the bible. That means that everyone born prior to Jesus is doomed to hell. Everyone born during the time of Jesus but not having the benefit of directly interacting with him is doomed to hell and that 9/10 of the world’s population since that time is going to hell. Overall a rather conservative estimate, it expands if you limit it to one particular denomination/sect of Christianity instead of everyone that declares themselves a Christian.
If you go with the tri-omni god then this is all god’s fault because YHWH set the whole thing up this way from the very beginning, has the power to change it, but doesn’t.

You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.
No I'm not, in Luke Joseph is the son of Heli by his marriage to Mary. Heli is his father-in law. Notice in Matthew his father is named Jacob. Mystery solved. Nope, look at a direct translation the word used is for father not father-in-law.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.
I'm trying to figure out why you would say this as David is in both lineages....Luke 3:31-32 and Matthew 1:6 But the link from Joseph to David is broken by direct edict of YHWH forever banning the line from Davidic descent.

The Bible has a multitude of witnesses, I would not call their minor variations contradictions (dun dun dunnnnnnn). And frankly, most discrepancies are easily explained through copying errors. However, if you want to view the difference in numbers of rooster crows as evidence of contradiction, then go ahead, that is your prerogative. No need to get that pedantic. How many apostles were present when Jesus returned and ascended to heaven and what was the order of events after the burial?


edge
I did. It does not address the point raised.
Take them friggen scales off your eyes and wake up.
Why don't you put up the messianic prophecies up here am I suppose to do everything for you! What scales? I am awake. You’re the one that has claimed Jesus was the messiah (Christ) therefore the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

Ossai

[Beleth]

Maybe Beleth and RR could put each other on ignore and we could get back to having Jesus_Freak talk about evolution and geocentrism.
Or, if it bothers you, you could put us both on ignore.

[FaisonMars]

Or, if it bothers you, you could put us both on ignore.

Oh no, I've been finding the things each of you post independently fairly interesting, it's just the last two pages of ad hom that I've found tedious.

And you both have awesome avatars. :)

[SezMe]

Or it is an interesting discussion and deserves its own thread.

[RationalReverend]

Oh no, I've been finding the things each of you post independently fairly interesting, it's just the last two pages of ad hom that I've found tedious.

And you both have awesome avatars. :)

touche, I will let it rest

[Hokulele]

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think I am going back to Ecclesiastes again. It does seem to make my original point. Here is the quote in context:

[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

So, it is meant to be a cyclical fact in a list of cyclical facts. Although today we can say "That's just a figure of speech, it is obvious that they did not mean that literally.", I think at the time it was written, it was meant literally. The author and the intended audience honestly believed the sun "hasteth to his place where he arose" since they knew they were operating in a geocentric system. In the 1500's this began to change. By around 1600, most people accepted a heliocentric model of the solar system. After 400 years of heliocentricity, we view this passage and similar ones much differently.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?

The author of Ecclesiastes may very well have held a Geocentric viewpoint, but the point of the text is not to declare the veracity of the Geocentric viewpoint, but to make a point about the continuance of the age. The argument isn't whether the Bible uses Geocentric language, it clearly does, and moreover that language reflects the Near Eastern Cosmology, the argument is that while that language is used it is not used to teach, but to convey some other idea. For Example: Before the foundations of the earth were laid, you were chosen. The point of such a statement would not be that the earth rests on pillars, but rather that even before their was an earth God had a plan for you. (Note: the sentence used above is not a direct quote of a Bible passage, but is just used for convenience sake.) In that way the text makes a literal point using language we would not interpret literally. For more information on how we do this and how we tell, look up Hermeneutics, the Grammatical-Historical Method, etc.

Ignoring for now the purpose of the particular phrase I chose, please answer my original question.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?

[RationalReverend]

Ignoring for now the purpose of the particular phrase I chose, please answer my original question.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?

Such distinctions need not be made. The Old Testament never intended to function as a science manual, and when it uses Geocentric language it never says "Yahweh has instructed me to tell you the earth is flat!" It is an assumption of their writing because of their day not a teaching of the text. If your next question is how do we know, the answer is by reading the text! Again, the clues are obvious.

[Hokulele]

Such distinctions need not be made. The Old Testament never intended to function as a science manual, and when it uses Geocentric language it never says "Yahweh has instructed me to tell you the earth is flat!" It is an assumption of their writing because of their day not a teaching of the text. If your next question is how do we know, the answer is by reading the text! Again, the clues are obvious.

(Bolding mine). Thanks. This is all I was really asking. Originally this question and thread was directed to Jesus Freak, as I was interested in his opinion since his comments against evolution seemed to be based on treating Genesis as a science text. I really appreciate your patience in dealing with my questions, as I now have a better understanding of your views.

FWIW, I agree about reading in context, but I have found that often when discussing biblical passages and how they might apply to the modern world, certain people tend to do exactly what we have been discussing. That is, taking passages out of context and treating them as a stand-alone argument.

[skeptifem]

Thanks for the tip, you are so right! If I for example said to you that you had never examined critically your atheism, I'm sure you would treat such a statement as a valid argument.:rolleyes:

I would explain, rather than ignore.

[RationalReverend]

(Bolding mine). Thanks. This is all I was really asking. Originally this question and thread was directed to Jesus Freak, as I was interested in his opinion since his comments against evolution seemed to be based on treating Gensis as a science text. I really appreciate your patience in dealing with my questions, as I now have a better understanding of your views.

FWIW, I agree about reading in context, but I have that often when discussing biblical passages and how they might apply to the modern world, certain people tend to do exactly what we have been discussing. That is, taking passages out of context and treating them as a stand-alone argument.

You can still read the Bible as a Spiritual Text (as opposed to a science manual) and have grounds to evolution. One does not need to view Genesis scientifically to conclude that evolution is incompatible, because the creation is depicted as an actual event. The point of the text is that it is by God's hand that the world was created, and it is very easy to view evolution as in conflict with that.

[LibraryLady]

If a judge on earth sentences a criminal to prison does that not make him a merciful loving man/woman? No it makes him just and God is waaaaaay more just than any man. Does God want you to go to hell? I don't think so, and that is what you are implying.

There aren't any requirements that a judge be merciful and loving, only that he mete out justice. According to my Christian friends, God is supposed to be loving and merciful, forgiving our sins. I can't put that together with the idea of eternal punishment.

[FaisonMars]

One does not need to view Genesis scientifically to conclude that evolution is incompatible, because the creation is depicted as an actual event. The point of the text is that it is by God's hand that the world was created, and it is very easy to view evolution as in conflict with that.

Does that also apply to the Creation of the Universe, or only to the Creation of Adam of Eve? Could Genesis be poetic language of the Big Bang and the evolution of the Universe? The creation of the stars is written as an actual event after the creation of the earth, which is not consistent with modern astronomy.

Can one accept astronomy and be a Christian?

[Beleth]

There aren't any requirements that a judge be merciful and loving, only that he mete out justice. According to my Christian friends, God is supposed to be loving and merciful, forgiving our sins. I can't put that together with the idea of eternal punishment.
Exactly.

The idea of infinite punishment for finite sins is incompatible with my concepts of both justice and mercy. How can an infinite punishment fit a finite crime?

[Hokulele]

You can still read the Bible as a Spiritual Text (as opposed to a science manual) and have grounds to evolution. One does not need to view Genesis scientifically to conclude that evolution is incompatible, because the creation is depicted as an actual event. The point of the text is that it is by God's hand that the world was created, and it is very easy to view evolution as in conflict with that.

I don't agree personally, but I think we can agree to disagree on certain points, as long as we understand the methodology used to arrive at a conclusion.

After all, I was never very pleased with the whole "Eve after Adam" thing. I always preferred Genesis 1:27 where they are side by side. :)

[RationalReverend]

I don't agree personally, but I think we can agree to disagree on certain points, as long as we understand the methodology used to arrive at a conclusion.

After all, I was never very pleased with the whole "Eve after Adam" thing. I always preferred Genesis 1:27 where they are side by side. :)

The second account is merely a more detailed recounting of a section of the simpler first story. It is a common Near Eastern story telling technique found in other Near Eastern Epics. Here is a citation from a source I used in a paper on Genesis. “Comparative studies show that the telling of human origins in doublet is a feature observed in Sumerian and Babylonian stories. In Enki and Ninmah (2000 BC) the first account of human life is a general one, with creation by nipping off clay, and the second covers the same ground in more detail. Babylonian Atrahasis has the first creation account from the remains of the slain deity mixed with clay, and the second elaborates, showing that humans were first created in seven pairs by clipping off clay. In both cases the former is general and the second is specific.” Kenneth Matthews. 1996. Genesis 1-11:26 Broadman and Holman Publishers pg29

[Zep]

Such distinctions need not be made. The Old Testament never intended to function as a science manual, and when it uses Geocentric language it never says "Yahweh has instructed me to tell you the earth is flat!" It is an assumption of their writing because of their day not a teaching of the text. If your next question is how do we know, the answer is by reading the text! Again, the clues are obvious.To us, they usually are, I agree.

But there are those to whom it is painfully UNobvious and so they read it absolutely literally. They really do NOT see the poetic language, the historical context, or any of the underlying morality story. To them, it is as "real" as a magazine they buy today.

This stems, of course, from sheer ignorance. Clearly you are a well-read person, and we can all politely discuss the finer points of this subject. That is great. But the ignorants cannot do this. Biblical truths as written are the ONLY truths they know - it underpins their lives. And to even question it with external facts raises spectres they dare not face, as they know they are ill-equipped to battle them. So they vehemently oppose and reject any questioning whatsoever of the literal words on the pages. To the point that they will invent towers of illogic to hide in and guard themselves from these assaults... Have you seen AnswersInGenesis??

[FaisonMars]

The second account is merely a more detailed recounting of a section of the simpler first story. It is a common Near Eastern story telling technique found in other Near Eastern Epics.

I agree with RR, and if you are interested in this kind of thing, I recommend reading Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan, which traces the myths in the Hebrew Bible back to their Mesopotamian origins.

[Zep]

I agree with RR, and if you are interested in this kind of thing, I recommend reading Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan, which traces the myths in the Hebrew Bible back to their Mesopotamian origins.Good heavens! You mean...the Bible is...NOT written by God? :eek:

[edge]

See, RR, here's the guy you gotta worry about wearing the tinfoil hat around.

Please, edge, do share with us how you came to that conclusion.

I read your mind! :)

[RationalReverend]

I agree with RR, and if you are interested in this kind of thing, I recommend reading Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan, which traces the myths in the Hebrew Bible back to their Mesopotamian origins.

Let's not draw my words into conclusions they don't warrant. Elements of the story of the earliest part of Genesis are not so much borrowed by the ancient Israelites as shared with the Near Easterners around them. The OT versions are distinctly their own and one would be perfectly reasonable to view them as correctional tellings of the common story. In fact, that could also be the reason that the name for God changes between the two tellings. One is more universal Elohim while the other is more personal a composite Yahweh-Elohim. It makes perfect sense to think that they used Elohim to describe "pre-Israelite realities" in the more vague story and the composite to transition to the more specific claims of Genesis. In other words here is the part of the story you are familiar with Near Easterners, but this is the rest of the story of how Yahweh began a work with us. The composite strengthens the claim by then linking the personal deity of the ancient Israelites with the familiar Near Eastern concept of Creation.

[RationalReverend]

To us, they usually are, I agree.

But there are those to whom it is painfully UNobvious and so they read it absolutely literally. They really do NOT see the poetic language, the historical context, or any of the underlying morality story. To them, it is as "real" as a magazine they buy today.

This stems, of course, from sheer ignorance. Clearly you are a well-read person, and we can all politely discuss the finer points of this subject. That is great. But the ignorants cannot do this. Biblical truths as written are the ONLY truths they know - it underpins their lives. And to even question it with external facts raises spectres they dare not face, as they know they are ill-equipped to battle them. So they vehemently oppose and reject any questioning whatsoever of the literal words on the pages. To the point that they will invent towers of illogic to hide in and guard themselves from these assaults... Have you seen AnswersInGenesis??

If you think Christians aren't aware of such problems you are sorely mistaken. Just a week and a half ago while we were on break in class my Koine Greek professor discussed this very thing with us. And I attend a very conservative Baptist college. (I mean conservative in the theological sense of course) We are not blind to ignorance, but we do not discredit people simply because they are ignorant. There is no crime in a simple faith, and I will not be that snobby college prick that rains of some uneducated persons parade for absolutely no real reason. The AIG people are not stupid or ignorant, they offer alternatives to the vitriol Christians face in atheists everywhere and as long as you exist they will exist.

[RationalReverend]

I read your mind! :)

Quick let's form Voltron!

[Beleth]

Quick let's form Voltron!
Methinks you already have; your assumption about me is just as uncannily accurate as edge's is.

[RationalReverend]

Methinks you already have; your assumption about me is just as uncannily accurate as edge's is.

I'm sorry Beleth, let's hold hands and sing Cumbaya! and all the parts where it says My Lord, you can say Myself or My Science.

[Beleth]

Heh, I'd say My Lord too; that's how the song goes, after all. I don't change the words to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer when I sing it either.

And you do have a cool avatar. Maybe next time I'm in Jesus's Dead Body, Texas, I'll buy you a round of whatever you're drinking!

[RationalReverend]

Heh, I'd say My Lord too; that's how the song goes, after all. I don't change the words to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer when I sing it either.

And you do have a cool avatar. Maybe next time I'm in Jesus's Dead Body, Texas, I'll buy you a round of whatever you're drinking!

So, you are familiar with Corpus Christi. That is not common on the internet though for some reason the oddest mix of people I've come across on the net have known it. May I ask where you are from? Are you an Austinite?

[SezMe]

The AIG people are not stupid or ignorant, they offer alternatives to the vitriol Christians face in atheists everywhere ...
I'll leave the first part on the table untouched and simply remark that Vitriol Street runs both ways and most of the traffic is in the other direction.

[RationalReverend]

I'll leave the first part on the table untouched and simply remark that Vitriol Street runs both ways and most of the traffic is in the other direction.

I have seen more unbridled arrogance and snobbery on this board than I have seen anywhere on the internet, and I post on forums dedicated to combative sports where egos abound.

[Roboramma]

2)micro evolution or the evolving of kinds...ok dogs for example...I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant, and my examples may not satisfy you, but I do not beleive in evolution.

Not to get too involved in this discussion, but I think Dr Adequate's response to this sort of thing was probably the best I've ever seen:

Strange News From the Monkey House (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62289)

A little peice for those who don't follow links:
Giraffes in the distance were peacefully looming;
the sloths took it easy; the flowers were blooming;
the monkeys were eating bananas or "grooming",
and that's when the trouble began:
for the witnesses swear (there's a dozen at least)
they saw one of the monkeys break off from the feast,
and a puzzled expression came over the beast ---
and then it turned into a man.

The press and the media grew very excited;
they quoted the monkey (it said "I'm delighted",
then sniffed at the mike and attempted to bite it)
but public reaction was mixed.
The scientists cried in despair and vexation
"We're baffled completely; for your information
all theory and practice forbids a saltation
without a between and betwixt."

But even for the creationists here, click the link, read the whole poem, it's good.

[Beleth]

Not as familiar with the town as with the Latin. Moderately familiar with Texans, though. Familiar enough to know that Austin is about the only town I'd fit in in.

I was raised in Chicago, and now live in Silicon Valley. (My previous Location: tag was "Sylvia Browne's back yard".)

[RationalReverend]

Not as familiar with the town as with the Latin. Moderately familiar with Texans, though. Familiar enough to know that Austin is about the only town I'd fit in in.

I was raised in Chicago, and now live in Silicon Valley. (My previous Location: tag was "Sylvia Browne's back yard".)

Yes, you would fit in quite nicely *snicker*

lol

[Zep]

If you think Christians aren't aware of such problems you are sorely mistaken. Just a week and a half ago while we were on break in class my Koine Greek professor discussed this very thing with us. And I attend a very conservative Baptist college. (I mean conservative in the theological sense of course) I was not arguing at all that such was the case. It was actually a senior clergyman (our bishop, actually) who was also my English master in my final year of school (of 30+ years ago!) who outlined this issue to me. Since many societal ills can be sheeted home firmly to this perpetual mass ignorance, and history shows that most religions encourage it for a variety of reasons, I feel it is beholden on the churches to seek solutions.

And it is to their credit that some of the leading academic schools today are also founded on religious principles that espouse a solid study of modern science, and pass out students who can contribute greatly to the common weal. Conversely, it is to their eternal discredit that some other religious schools disdain science to their pupils as "evil" and "heretical", and resort to lies and mis-statements about the subject.


We are not blind to ignorance, but we do not discredit people simply because they are ignorant. There is no crime in a simple faith, and I will not be that snobby college prick that rains of some uneducated persons parade for absolutely no real reason.This is a plain strawman argument. You are attributing to me things I did not say or even indicated, and then tearing into them.


The AIG people are not stupid or ignorant, they offer alternatives to the vitriol Christians face in atheists everywhere and as long as you exist they will exist.Oh dear. We were off to a flying positive start here, too. And then this happened...

Well, let me be VERY clear. The few dozen people who constitute AiG are either blindly ignorant, or wilfully ignorant. Their motives are not clear, and they are not simon pure as they would like people to believe. However I suggest you do a little research on them yourself - take a look at the revealing viewpoints of real scientists when they tried to interact with AiG. If it wasn't so serious, it would be a scream...

Are you sure you wouldn't like to change your mind before we delve any deeper? (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/answers_in_genesis2.htm)

[Hokulele]

The second account is merely a more detailed recounting of a section of the simpler first story. It is a common Near Eastern story telling technique found in other Near Eastern Epics. Here is a citation from a source I used in a paper on Genesis. “Comparative studies show that the telling of human origins in doublet is a feature observed in Sumerian and Babylonian stories. In Enki and Ninmah (2000 BC) the first account of human life is a general one, with creation by nipping off clay, and the second covers the same ground in more detail. Babylonian Atrahasis has the first creation account from the remains of the slain deity mixed with clay, and the second elaborates, showing that humans were first created in seven pairs by clipping off clay. In both cases the former is general and the second is specific.” Kenneth Matthews. 1996. Genesis 1-11:26 Broadman and Holman Publishers pg29



Thanks. Actually, I did know this, hence the smiley at the end of my post.

[Beleth]

Yes, you would fit in quite nicely *snicker* lol
Oh, grow up.

[SezMe]

I have seen more unbridled arrogance and snobbery on this board than I have seen anywhere on the internet, and I post on forums dedicated to combative sports where egos abound.
The internet is but a very small segment of Real Life. And this board is a very small segment of the internet.

Perhaps you should get out more?

[SimonD]

What hogwash, the ratio in this thread of atheist to Christians must be 20:1, complaining about people getting overwhelmed is ridiculous.

I was not complaining about anything. JF simply did not answer the question. Thank-you for backing my claim, as instead of answering the question, you have attacked me

Especially when one must deal with an onslaught of the same old questions asked 10 different ways. Sometimes responding to atheist arguments is a mind-numbingly boring affair because you have addressed the same argument time and again..

When why would you come to a skeptics website? Seems pretty silly to complain that people will be asking these questions, on such a site. I never asked you to come here, but if you are going to express your religious views on skeptics website, you had better be prepared to defend them

It also difficult to motivate oneself when it is clear the majority of people are interested only in winning arguments, and not in talking or having our faiths dialog..

I am quite happy to have a discussion with anyone. But to have a discussion, you have to answer the questions that are asked. Not attack or ignore people when they ask them


Do me a favor go to a Christian Philosophy forum and start a discussion proclaiming the utter lack of veracity to the Christian claim and see what happens.

No thanks, I had enough religious brain washing when I was a child. I am old enough to work things out myself. I like to think for myself. I don't like being told what to think

[SimonD]

The Bible has a multitude of witnesses, I would not call their minor variations contradictions (dun dun dunnnnnnn). And frankly, most discrepancies are easily explained through copying errors. However, if you want to view the difference in numbers of rooster crows as evidence of contradiction, then go ahead, that is your prerogative.

Okay, well perhaps you can answer this contradiction for me.

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Was he hanged or gutted? I fail to see how different witness could have such different stories. Perhaps one is wrong?

[Beleth]

I have seen more unbridled arrogance and snobbery on this board than I have seen anywhere on the internet, and I post on forums dedicated to combative sports where egos abound.
Considering your second-ever post on this forum assumed that someone was too stupid to use Google, I'd say you found only what you brought here yourself.

[RationalReverend]

Considering your second-ever post on this forum assumed that someone was too stupid to use Google, I'd say you found only what you brought here yourself.

Well now isn't that interesting, you went back through my posts. How sweet, I knew you had a crush on me, but I didn't know it was that bad. I think it is clear in that post that I was trying to be helpful to a random stranger, not make fun of them. All they had to do to find what they were looking for was google. I have in fact come across older people who could work a forum but were not familiar with search engines. It happens, but glad to know you are checking up on me snookums.

[RationalReverend]

Okay, well perhaps you can answer this contradiction for me.

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Was he hanged or gutted? I fail to see how different witness could have such different stories. Perhaps one is wrong?

the rope broke...

[RationalReverend]

The internet is but a very small segment of Real Life. And this board is a very small segment of the internet.

Perhaps you should get out more?

If only it were just the JREF forums, too bad it has happened countless times in person. The saddest part is the assumption that I am mentally deficient. Oh well. Let me be clear that I am not somehow holding every individual atheist responsible for the encounters I've had. That is grossly unfair, and I don't assume an atheist is going to be an arrogant jerk, but rather form that open only after he/she/it has proven it so.

[SimonD]

the rope broke...

:jaw-dropp

You are just guessing. Please quote the passage from the Bible that says the rope broke.

[RationalReverend]

:jaw-dropp

You are just guessing. Please quote the passage from the Bible that says the rope broke.

there of course is none, and I could go through how such a theory makes sense given certain details of the hanging, but I fear it would be wasted on you

[Tony]

there of course is none, and I could go through how such a theory makes sense given certain details of the hanging

Your "theory" is irrelevant. You correctly state that there is no verse that says the rope broke. An honest person and true christian would recognize this and concede this error. However, you are not a real christian, you give the Bible, not Jesus, primacy. The Bible is your idol. Because of that, you are forced to make ***** up in the false hope of making your absurd holy book internally consistent. If your god exists, he sees your BS and your heresy clearly. You're fooling no-one but yourself and your fellow deluded christ-bots.

[SimonD]

there of course is none, and I could go through how such a theory makes sense given certain details of the hanging, but I fear it would be wasted on you

Being rude again RR. Thats real christain of you. I would like a apology for this.

Thanks Tony.

[Blutarsky]

Okay, well perhaps you can answer this contradiction for me.

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Was he hanged or gutted? I fail to see how different witness could have such different stories. Perhaps one is wrong?

Is this one really that hard? He was hanged. When you die, after a few days you blow up like a balloon. If the person was left to hang for long enough their bowls could most certainly gush out when they hit the ground like the Acts verse says it did...even if he wasn't cut down or the rope broke, his guts could still breach just because of the internal pressure.

Matthew says he was hanged, Acts appears to be discussing the aftermath...nowhere in the Acts verse does it say he wasn't hanged or that the proximate cause of death was disembowlment.

Lastly, while Matthew's account may well have been first hand knowledge as asserted, the reference in Acts is not attributable to a specific source and is likely a reprisal of the story.

[skeptifem]

I have seen more unbridled arrogance and snobbery on this board than I have seen anywhere on the internet, and I post on forums dedicated to combative sports where egos abound.


oh so youve met curious kathy?

[skeptifem]

If only it were just the JREF forums, too bad it has happened countless times in person. The saddest part is the assumption that I am mentally deficient. Oh well. Let me be clear that I am not somehow holding every individual atheist responsible for the encounters I've had. That is grossly unfair, and I don't assume an atheist is going to be an arrogant jerk, but rather form that open only after he/she/it has proven it so.



Of course instead of answering for your own snobbery, you suggest another poster is obsessed with you. Thats not very rational.

[Blutarsky]

Of course instead of answering for your own snobbery, you suggest another poster is obsessed with you. Thats not very rational.Here is a good book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Develop-Your-Sense-Humor/dp/0766160203) you may be interested in.

[edge]

oh so youve met curious kathy?

Un-like you she is a Christian...I would like to meet her rather than the likes of you any day.

The other theory is the tree limb broke.
I think Blutarsky made a very good point.
You people crack me up so worried about the small things.
Step outside of the box once and see if there is anything to it.
Too much pride I guess?
;)How to Develop Your Sense of Humor

[FaisonMars]

Matthew says he was hanged, Acts appears to be discussing the aftermath...nowhere in the Acts verse does it say he wasn't hanged or that the proximate cause of death was disembowlment.

Lastly, while Matthew's account may well have been first hand knowledge as asserted, the reference in Acts is not attributable to a specific source and is likely a reprisal of the story.

That's not the biggest contradiction in the story, nor the biggest contradiction in the Bible.

Matthew:

3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."


Acts:

18 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.

20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'


Maybe his bowels gushed out when the rope broke, or he was disemboweled (anyone seen the movie "Hannibal?"), but did Judas buy a field with the money he got from the Romans, or not? Or did the priests buy a field in which to bury foreigners? If the Bible is inerrant, why can't they agree on the origin of the name of the "Field of Blood?" Did Judas die there or not? It's not just two stories from different perspectives, there are contradictions. And this is NOT the most blatant.

[Zep]

Is this one really that hard? He was hanged. When you die, after a few days you blow up like a balloon. If the person was left to hang for long enough their bowls could most certainly gush out when they hit the ground like the Acts verse says it did...even if he wasn't cut down or the rope broke, his guts could still breach just because of the internal pressure.

Matthew says he was hanged, Acts appears to be discussing the aftermath...nowhere in the Acts verse does it say he wasn't hanged or that the proximate cause of death was disembowlment.

Lastly, while Matthew's account may well have been first hand knowledge as asserted, the reference in Acts is not attributable to a specific source and is likely a reprisal of the story.I'd like to suggest that this ghoulish "medical" scenario isn't factual - dead bodies left hanging do not behave like that, even when cut down.

The second verse quoted would be far more realistic and thus "true" if Judas had jumped from a high place to commit suicide. Say, from the top of a cliff or building (they had plenty of those in and near Jerusalem at the time). However that doesn't gel with the first verse which says he hanged himself.

[edge]

10 and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me." Who is the lord that now holds the money?
Who is they?
Who they talking about now?as the Lord commanded me."

Judas bought a field;

Could this be another Judas that works for The chief priests ?
Could this describe what happens when they throw the body of Judas that betrayed Christ into a grave?
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. did they leave out one word, Judas was brought?

It's soo easy, believe in Christ and you will know for sure what is truth!
Judas died....

[Beleth]

Well now isn't that interesting, you went back through my posts. How sweet, I knew you had a crush on me, but I didn't know it was that bad.
Get over yourself.

I think it is clear in that post that I was trying to be helpful to a random stranger, not make fun of them. All they had to do to find what they were looking for was google.
The truth is, what came up in Google was the poem by that name, not the short story they were looking for. You came across snobbish and condescending, even when you didn't mean to.

Which, by the way, is my point. When you misinterpret the motives of others, the fault is yours, not theirs. If you see unbridled snobbery and arrogance here, it is because that is what your own mindset has brought to our table.

[edge]

Love is in the air...:)

[edge]

Love is in the air...:)

[edge]

Love is in the air...:)

[Hokulele]

Un-like you she is a Christian...I would like to meet her rather than the likes of you any day.

The other theory is the tree limb broke.
I think Blutarsky made a very good point.
You people crack me up so worried about the small things.
Step outside of the box once and see if there is anything to it.
Too much pride I guess?
;)How to Develop Your Sense of Humor

OK, if you would prefer a larger issue to deal with, here goes. The main reason I no longer agree with any of the branches of christianity I have had experience with, is that each one of them used the bible as justification for the inferiority of women. OT, NT, take your pick. Don't even get me started on Paul's letters. Although many ancient cultures subscribed to this view, it was rarely codified so explicitly and repeatedly. Gods and goddesses abound in other mythology. Even today, many demoninations refuse to allow women in leadership roles, and worse, if you look at early Catholic doctrine, some members of the church went so far as to declare women had no souls. :eye-poppi

As I stated, this has mainly been my experience. I would be interested to see how some of the posters on this forum view the bias and how it is applied in their theology.

ETA: Usually I do have a fairly decent sense of humor (look at some of my responses to DJJ!), but this topic just really annoys me.

[edge]

What are mans laws today?
They are the same as gods’ laws. If you obey mans laws you obey Gods laws.
That’s the rule in general.
Backs then the laws were set up for the hunter and the nester.
Everybody is a hunter today and a nester.
I nest sometimes mostly when I'm on this forum.
I like the conversations that woman bring to the table, so we don't follow what they were following in the OT Or the NT.
Those where rough times, especially for woman.
People that try to make their woman adhere to what is described in the OT, or the NT are fools.
I had seen an example of that on a TV. the other night on wife swap.
But there were two examples from one extreme to the other, makes for a good show but I couldn’t deal with either one of the extremes, not in my life.

I couldn’t take a total fanatic bible thumper nor could I take a tattoo freak, there is a happy median.
On here I might sound like a fanatic but in real life I only instruct when the interest is there or a person is curious or when need be.
I hate to see smart people in here that to me appear to be, I don’t want to say it, but lost.
The skeptics are looking at things from a different perspective and are fast, to at least pick up on false teachings, they are in fact what a believer is suppose to spot too.
So in Away there is a reason for them to be what they are.
But I also hope that they can see the light in the least amount of time, to be saved also.
It’s about love not hate.
There’s a few on here that will invoke my mom died because of, ?,. and why didn’t God have some compassion and save the kids or such.
My dad died of a brain tumor and was a believer and never felt that way at all, if anything it was the opposite, he knew Christ so well, he was at ease. He was happy to leave; he knew what was going to happen. He even left my family a sign that he was there.
You ask and I shall tell.
All children are innocent and have a free ticket to god.
I don’t hate him for taking my father because I know that we will see each other again unless I burn.
But then he may only burn the bad off, baptism by fire, which may mean exactly that.
For some of us it may be the only hope.
I’m just as bad as anybody, but you all make me see even better.
You make me work and I appreciate that.
I try to write on here about real life things mostly, because that’s what matters the here and now.
:) Hokulele I hope this helps?

[SezMe]

:words:

You ask and I shall tell.

:words:
:) Hokulele I hope this helps?
I ask - I can hardly wait.

If that satisfies Hokuele then she is worse off than you - but I'm pretty confident I know what her response will be.

[Hokulele]

What are mans laws today?
They are the same as gods’ laws. If you obey mans laws you obey Gods laws.
That’s the rule in general.
Backs then the laws were set up for the hunter and the nester.
Everybody is a hunter today and a nester.
I nest sometimes mostly when I'm on this forum.
I like the conversations that woman bring to the table, so we don't follow what they were following in the OT Or the NT.
Those where rough times, especially for woman.
People that try to make their woman adhere to what is described in the OT, or the NT are fools.

I try to write on here about real life things mostly, because that’s what matters the here and now.
:) Hokulele I hope this helps?

Yes, this does. Thanks for responding. I clipped it down a bit to highlight a few points. I agree that everybody today is both a hunter and a nester, and that everybody should have a chance to be either or both, regardless of gender. I also agree with you that most people prefer a happy medium. The problem is that the bible is clearly (very clearly) worded another way. If I am to throw out a huge set of rules, conditions, and restrictions based on gender, what other parts of the bible may not apply to modern life? What makes this difficult is there are so many places where it seems easy to say, "Well, that obviously no longer applies." For example, it would be very easy for a person to say something along the lines of "well, if gender discrimination no longer applies, sexual orientation discrimination no longer applies."

Personally, I don't think any one should ever have to endure discrimination for anything whether it be religious beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation. I feel very strongly that everyone should have the opportunities to pursue a career (or not), practice a religion (or not), or choose a partner (or not). Unfortunately, this is not what the bible teaches.

On a side note, it is so refreshing to have a discussion on religion between two people without it having to degenerate to name-calling. :)

[Hokulele]

I ask - I can hardly wait.

I that satisfies Hokuele then she is worse off than you - but I'm pretty confident I know what her response will be.

Hopefully I didn't disappoint you. I am a skeptic and an atheist, but I don't like to be rude to people (unless someone earns it). Should you be applying for the $1M? ;)

[edge]

I ask - I can hardly wait.

I that satisfies Hokuele then she is worse off than you - but I'm pretty confident I know what her response will be.

There are signs.
Now you must give me one good honest reason why you want me to tell?
I can e-mail Hokulele or pm her with that information with out you seeing it unless you can give me a good reason why I should post it here.

I'll explane why I ask you this.

[SezMe]

There are signs.
Now you must give me one good honest reason why you want me to tell?
I can e-mail Hokulele or pm her with that information with out you seeing it unless you can give me a good reason why I should post it here.

I'll explane why I ask you this.
Well, you offered and I took you up on the offer. Period. You didn't state that you needed a reason before you would follow through with your offer.

Do explain why you ask.

[Hokulele]

There are signs.
Now you must give me one good honest reason why you want me to tell?
I can e-mail Hokulele or pm her with that information with out you seeing it unless you can give me a good reason why I should post it here.

I'll explane why I ask you this.

OK, I can accept that some people have received signs. I am not one of them. What about those of us who have never had that experience? Is there some objective way we can read the bible and determine which parts to accept, and which to reject? If not, do we get credit for behaving in a kind and moral manner to all people, even though we were never personally contacted? Sorry to throw so many questions into one post, but one kind of led to the next.

[Ossai]

Blutarsky
Is this one really that hard? He was hanged. When you die, after a few days you blow up like a balloon. If the person was left to hang for long enough their bowls could most certainly gush out when they hit the ground like the Acts verse says it did...even if he wasn't cut down or the rope broke, his guts could still breach just because of the internal pressure. Apparently you and RationalReverend share a common reading problem, basic comprehension.

The actual question from simon dalton was Okay, well perhaps you can answer this contradiction for me.

Judas died how? [snip]

Was he hanged or gutted? I fail to see how different witness could have such different stories. Perhaps one is wrong?
The entire strawman above assumes Judas was already dead.


Matthew says he was hanged, Acts appears to be discussing the aftermath...nowhere in the Acts verse does it say he wasn't hanged or that the proximate cause of death was disembowlment. Let’s check the bible on this. Oops, looks like your wrong again.
NIV Acts 1:18 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.

Ossai

[edge]

Personally, I don't think any one should ever have to endure discrimination for anything whether it be religious beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation. I feel very strongly that everyone should have the opportunities to pursue a career (or not), practice a religion (or not), or choose a partner (or not). Unfortunately, this is not what the bible teaches.

It's about change and Love, you have to evolve into religion sort of.
This is where evolution really starts in a sense; you are guided to the right ways.
He lets you know in your heart what to keep.

[edge]

but I'm pretty confident
Are you?

[Hokulele]

It's about change and Love, you have to evolve into religion sort of.

This is interesting, as it is not what I have seen in real life. The people I personally know who have converted to a particular religion tend to be fairly gung ho. It seems to be an almost instantaneous conversion. On the other hand, most people I know who admit to atheism (generally in private, rarely in public), tend to have moved towards this admission slowly. It seems to be more difficult to release a religious belief than to gain one. It would be educational to see how both the atheists and theists on this thread have come to their conclusions.

Me, I was one of the slow conversions to atheism. I may still have a few agnostic remnants, but they don't bother me as much as they used to. :D

[Hokulele]

but I'm pretty confident
Are you?

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I am actually very confident in my personal beliefs. They don't match yours, but they have been worked out over more years than I would care to admit publicly. :) They work for me and the people around me, my husband included (at least I haven't had any complaints yet). If I have made an incorrect decision, I am willing to accept that and any consequences. Although personally, I don't think there will be any.

[edge]

SezMe says,but I'm pretty confident

Are you?

[Tanstaafl]

This may shock you edge, but we are pretty much all very confident that hell doesn't exist.

[edge]

This may shock you edge, but we are pretty much all very confident that hell doesn't exist.

Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil

[RationalReverend]

Get over yourself.


The truth is, what came up in Google was the poem by that name, not the short story they were looking for. You came across snobbish and condescending, even when you didn't mean to.

Which, by the way, is my point. When you misinterpret the motives of others, the fault is yours, not theirs. If you see unbridled snobbery and arrogance here, it is because that is what your own mindset has brought to our table.

Someone else asked if he/she had meant the story or the poem and at the point that I had last checked she had not answered. I stopped following it. No big deal. You can try to make something of it if you want, knock yourself out sweetheart.

[bignickel]

Is this one really that hard? He was hanged. When you die, after a few days you blow up like a balloon. If the person was left to hang for long enough their bowls could most certainly gush out when they hit the ground like the Acts verse says it did...even if he wasn't cut down or the rope broke, his guts could still breach just because of the internal pressure.
When you use your brain like this, do people nearby hear the sound of grinding gears?

[flume]

On a page on Jack Chick's website there was a link to an essay http://www.chick.com/bc/1994/beetle.asp?wpc=beetle.asp&wpp=a about the bombardier beetle. The essay claimed that the bombardier beetle couldn't have evolved because it would have blown itself up in the process.
But if someone explained a series of changes by which the bombardier beetle could have evolved another beetle or insect, I suppose they would dismiss it as microevolution.