whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: Joe on January 22, 2010, 04:02:32 PM

Title: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Joe on January 22, 2010, 04:02:32 PM
For those who don't think the bible contradicts itself, they need read no further than Genesis 2.

Genesis has two creation stories.  Scholars tend to think that the second story (adam's rib) was written first.  But, no matter, the stories are incompatible regardless of the which was written first.

In Genesis 1, the Hebrew god created everything in six days.  On day five animals were formed.  On day six, the supreme being created man and woman.  The creation of man and woman was done the same way.  That is, woman was created by the Hebrew god directly and not from Adam's rib.

In Genesis 2, at some unspecified time, the Hebrew god created Adam then he created the animals then he created Eve from Adam's rib.

Notice that this is not a semantic or translational problem.  The problem is with the sequence of events.  They do not match.  They contradict each other.  I have yet to get an intelligent reply to this from christians.

I find it interesting that the Bible begins with a contradiction.  The creation stories should be highlighted in red with this disclaimer:  This book contains inaccurate and contradictory information.  It should not be taken literally.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Agga on January 23, 2010, 04:01:36 PM
Sup, Joe.

I find it interesting that the Bible begins with a contradiction. 
Well it appears to have started as it meant to go on.

Quote
The creation stories whole bible should be highlighted in red with this disclaimer:  This book contains inaccurate and contradictory information.  It should not be taken literally.
Popped in a little correction there.


Agga :)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Count Iblis on January 23, 2010, 07:37:46 PM
It's actually pretty easy to resolve this contradiction, though I've never seen a Christian use the following argument. The two creation accounts are accounts of two separate things. Genesis 1 is about the creation of life, the universe, and almost everything in it. Genesis 2 is the account of the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. In particular, Adam and Eve wouldn't be the only humans created by YHWH. This resolves a number of problems, like where Cain and Abel's wives came from.

Of course I immediately see why Christians wouldn't like this solution. It buggers up their whole notion of Original Sin (note: not all Christians have the same view of Original Sin, so this would only be a problem for some Christians). Adam and Eve introduced sin into the world, but how did all the other people become sinful? If the rest of humanity didn't sin then why did YHWH have to destroy everyone (except some descendants of A&E!)? On the flip side if they didn't sin, then sin must have been thrust upon them by Original Sin, which makes the way YHWH set up the whole thing even more absurd than previously thought.

In the end it doesn't matter that the Bible is riddled with contradictions. Christians will either accept it as a flawed book, but still have faith. Or they'll deny that any contradictions exist and come up with the most preposterous of rationalizations, and still have faith.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ReasonIsOutToLunch on January 23, 2010, 07:45:07 PM
Welcome to the forum, Joe. If only the contradictions ended at the first two chapters, perhaps I could have remained deluded. Oh wait, yay for babble inaccuracies and contradictions in a way they freed me from the mind virus.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Crocoduck on January 24, 2010, 12:19:23 AM
the real reason why the two accounts conflict is because they were written by two different people at two different times with different theologies.

the 2nd account is the older of the two and was written by someone in a time when gods still had human form, walked, talked etc... (as in he walked the garden looking for adam and eve, calling to them, making them clothes etc)

the 1st account is written some time later when gods are more like mystical entities and do everything from afar as supernatural forces.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Count Iblis on January 24, 2010, 01:18:47 PM
the real reason why the two accounts conflict is because they were written by two different people at two different times with different theologies.

IINM, one account was written by someone who believed in the god El and the other was written by someone who believed in the god YHWH. The stories pre-date the syncretic merger of El and YHWH.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jetson on January 24, 2010, 02:42:23 PM
I was told by a True Christian, or at least one who knows better than all of the others, that the second account is the spiritual account, while the first creation story is the physical creation.  Go figure.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Joe on January 24, 2010, 04:51:57 PM
@countiblis,

You wrote,
"It's actually pretty easy to resolve this contradiction, though I've never seen a Christian use the following argument. The two creation accounts are accounts of two separate things. Genesis 1 is about the creation of life, the universe, and almost everything in it. Genesis 2 is the account of the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. In particular, Adam and Eve wouldn't be the only humans created by YHWH. This resolves a number of problems, like where Cain and Abel's wives came from."

This does not resolve the contradiction. A literalist interpretation means that everything in the bible is true.  Genesis 1 has animals created before humans were.  Genesis 2 has man created, then animals, then woman.  The sequence is incompatible, hence a contradiction.  I appreciate your comment, but the contradiction is not resolved.
Joe
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Count Iblis on January 25, 2010, 12:13:41 AM
This does not resolve the contradiction. A literalist interpretation means that everything in the bible is true.  Genesis 1 has animals created before humans were.  Genesis 2 has man created, then animals, then woman.  The sequence is incompatible, hence a contradiction.  I appreciate your comment, but the contradiction is not resolved.

In my resolution the animals created in Genesis 2 were not the animals created in Genesis 1. They were animals created specifically for the Garden of Eden.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: raytech70 on March 24, 2012, 05:15:39 AM


In Genesis 2, at some unspecified time, the Hebrew god created Adam then he created the animals then he created Eve from Adam's rib.

Atheists miss this all the time because they heard someone else mention it and then they turned and look -- yep another Bible contradiction.

God made the first set of animals as part of the main creation week and then after creating Adam noted that the animals were not adequate and that he would need a "help-mate."  As another poster put it: these animals were meant for the Garden of Eden with Adam.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: BaalServant on March 24, 2012, 05:28:59 AM
IINM, one account was written by someone who believed in the god El and the other was written by someone who believed in the god YHWH. The stories pre-date the syncretic merger of El and YHWH.

Praise Ba'al to that.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: BaalServant on March 24, 2012, 05:36:03 AM
God made the first set of animals as part of the main creation week and then after creating Adam noted that the animals were not adequate and that he would need a "help-mate."  As another poster put it: these animals were meant for the Garden of Eden with Adam.

Welcome to the forum, raytech70.

If genesis is describing two creation events, where did the fish of the seas reside in the garden of eden?

Why would a god have the sense to make mates for all the animals, except for humans?

Why would a god that had just made everything in the universe (except for a woman) need to copy off of a rib?

Edit:  Well, shoot.  Just realized I replied to a necroed thread.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Tero on March 24, 2012, 07:57:43 AM
It should not be too hard to merge the two. Them four gospels though...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: BaalServant on March 24, 2012, 04:10:36 PM
It should not be too hard to merge the two. Them four gospels though...

If you have to change details to merge the two, then they don't agree.

As for them four gospels, here's a pictorial layout. 

(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2778/christercontradictionbw.jpg)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on March 25, 2012, 12:36:16 PM


In Genesis 2, at some unspecified time, the Hebrew god created Adam then he created the animals then he created Eve from Adam's rib.

Atheists miss this all the time because they heard someone else mention it and then they turned and look -- yep another Bible contradiction.

God made the first set of animals as part of the main creation week and then after creating Adam noted that the animals were not adequate and that he would need a "help-mate."  As another poster put it: these animals were meant for the Garden of Eden with Adam.

Genesis 1
Day 1
Light, Day and Night.
Day 2
Oceans below and oceans above. The dome that holds up the oceans above.
Day 3
Plants
Day 4
Sun, Moon and the stars.
Day 5
Animals
Day 6
"In the image of god he created them: male and female, he created them."
Day 7
zzzzzzzzzzz

Genesis 2
In order

It's funny how god's first act after saying, "It's not good for a man to be alone," that instead of creating Eve, he makes animals and commands Adam to find a mate among them.  &)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 25, 2012, 01:09:59 PM
It's funny how god's first act after saying, "It's not good for a man to be alone," that instead of creating Eve, he makes animals and commands Adam to find a mate among them.  &)

More proof it was written by goat and sheep herders  ;D
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: atheola on March 25, 2012, 01:45:05 PM
Now now..marriage should be between one man and one..uhhh...errr...goat?  Puppy dog?  Mosquito?.... God: Oh medammit.. I forgot something again.. Adam, c'mere...this won't hurt a bit...by the way..go chew on that milky weed over there..yeah, the one with petty flower on top...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 03, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
If you're willing to believe in talking snakes from the get-go, such interweaving of 2 different stories into one, such as this, the description of what animals were to go into the ark, and the two obiously very different stories about David weaved into 1 mostly-incoherent one isn't going to be a problem for you.

Add 2 parts J source, 2 parts E source, sprinkle liberally with P source, and you're well on your way to a wonderfully half-baked story.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 07, 2012, 04:00:45 PM
One might also wonder how you create light then, after a few days, you create the source of the light.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on April 07, 2012, 04:25:30 PM
Given that it's not true, there is no need to require accuracy. And I've heard a number of excuses from christians about the inconsistencies. They're the only ones that have to make sense of it. We know better.

You would think it would be like, you know, a really big clue. But they don't see it that way. Don't ask me why. I'm not that gullible. So I can't relate.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: B_w_m on April 09, 2012, 08:56:16 PM
I just think it's absolutely crazy that the "GOD" that made the entire universe, natural laws, science, physics, and every single thing that our minds can possible comprehend or ever comprehend was tired and had to take a break or a time out after seven days.
I think this is a great point that you had brought up about contradictions in the bible, and this once again shows that the all mighty that made everything molecule in the universe can't write a decent book that any two people can read and have the same idea's about. Trying to find clear consistence sense in the bible is only based on the F word...faith. If you use logic for the bible, you will never understand it.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on April 09, 2012, 10:26:10 PM
Welcome to the Forums.

I also like to follow with this: If god created me, then he gave me a brain. He therefore expects me to use it. (parable of talents)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: changeling on April 10, 2012, 08:23:22 AM
Using your anology for (parable of talents) as pertains to your brain.
He expects you to give it back to him along with  everything you 
have learned, and be brainless again.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on April 10, 2012, 09:01:16 AM
He does want mindless automatons saying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD God Almighty. Who was, and is, and is to come." 24/7 like the 4 living beasts.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 15, 2012, 02:17:11 AM
Notice that this is not a semantic or translational problem.  The problem is with the sequence of events.  They do not match.  They contradict each other.  I have yet to get an intelligent reply to this from christians.
Yeah - the fact is that all the creation stuff is out of order with what we know about the evolutionary process.. 
Quote
I find it interesting that the Bible begins with a contradiction.  The creation stories should be highlighted in red with this disclaimer:  This book contains inaccurate and contradictory information.  It should not be taken literally.
My bible from the catholics states by the previous pope, in a narrative, that the book should not be taken literally and instead be read as a moral guideline..

I think we should treat religion like cigarettes - require them to put a therapists' warning 'This text may cause anxiety, depression, and/or insanity..'
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 15, 2012, 07:44:34 AM
   Here is my take on Genesis 1 and 2 for what it is worth.  First of all the bible, as best we know, was written without chapters and verses.  So originally there was no division between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 2:1.  Genesis 1 and 2 was simply the authors account of creation and not two separate accounts.  Secondly, as I understand it, biblical Hebrew had no tenses in their written language such as past, present and future tenses.  This had to be determined by the context and or the style of writing at the time it was written. (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/hebrew-tenses )
Thirdly, although possible, it is unlikely that the author would contradict himself in such a short space of writing.
 
Here is how I think we should understand Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1 is a generalized account of creation.  There are no details about how God went about creating.  Just a simple statement that God created such and such on this day or that day.  This includes the creation of Adam and Eve.  Genesis 2 starts with the conclusion of creation week by God resting on the seventh day.  By verse 5 of Genesis 2, the author picks up the creation account at the beginning of day three, in Genesis 1, where God causes the dry land to appear and just before the creation of vegetation.  In verse 7 of Genesis 2, the author leaps ahead to day six when God creates man.  Here, we learn the details of Adam's creation being formed from the dust of the ground and God bringing him to life.  The author then regresses to day 3 again where we learn of the creation of the Garden of Eden.  It only makes sense to build the corral before we buy the horse to put in it.  Back to day six, after man is created he is placed in the garden.  In verse 18 of Genesis 2, still the 6th day of creation, God states his intention to create a helper for Adam.  But before he does that, he brings the animals that he had already created earlier on that day, to Adam.  Remember, that biblical Hebrew had no effective way to communicate tense in their language.  It had to be determined in part by the context.  Verse 19 of Genesis 2 reads in most translations something like this: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:..."(KJV).  From our perspective it would seem that the animals were created after Adam.  But many translators recognized the past tense of this verse and added the word "had" before the word “formed” to keep the account in context and to impart understanding of the scripture in our language (see the translations: God's Word Translation, Douay-Rheims, New International Version and The Darby Translation.).  Also, you might refer to the footnote in Bullinger's, "The Companion Bible", on verse 19 of Genesis 2 which refers the reader back to Genesis 1:24 of the original account of the creation of the animals.

The reason that God brought the animals to Adam before creating his helper may be two fold.  First, to let Adam name them as stated in the verse and also to let Adam get acquainted with the newly created animals.  Remember, Adam himself, was just created.  He probably didn’t know his, you know what, from a hole in the ground.  Although the animals were cute and cuddly, the closest thing to Adam was a chimpanzee who was rather ugly in the face, didn’t walk upright, had hair all over it and didn’t smell right.  God was about to change all that to Adam’s delight.  After causing a sleep to come over Adam, God created his helper (still on the 6th day) who Adam called woman because she was made from him.  Here was a creature that looked like him, yet different.  She walked upright, didn’t have hair all over her body, smelled delightful, and was very beautiful beyond description.  The woman was created from Adam’s rib instead of the dust of the ground because, as stated, Adam was to cleave to his wife and they were to become one flesh.  God intended them to be in a close and intimate relationship with the woman being created from Adam’s rib instead of a separate entity from the dust of the ground.  “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen. 2:23).

In summary, Genesis 1 is a generalized account of creation.  Genesis 2 is the account of creation in more detail, especially on day 6 of creation.  The scriptures as originally written had no chapter or verse divisions which sometimes create misunderstanding. Biblical Hebrew does not convey tense effectively. Lastly, it would seem unlikely for the author to contradict himself so soon after generalizing the creation account.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 15, 2012, 09:11:47 AM
The attempt to mesh more than one version of a story into one story is why we have repeats throughout.

If Adam named the animals, where'd he come up with "Thomson's Gazelle"? 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Grogs on April 15, 2012, 10:30:51 AM
   Here is my take on Genesis 1 and 2 for what it is worth.  First of all the bible, as best we know, was written without chapters and verses.  So originally there was no division between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 2:1.  Genesis 1 and 2 was simply the authors account of creation and not two separate accounts.  Secondly, as I understand it, biblical Hebrew had no tenses in their written language such as past, present and future tenses.  This had to be determined by the context and or the style of writing at the time it was written. (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/hebrew-tenses )
Thirdly, although possible, it is unlikely that the author would contradict himself in such a short space of writing.
 
Here is how I think we should understand Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1 is a generalized account of creation.  There are no details about how God went about creating.  Just a simple statement that God created such and such on this day or that day.  This includes the creation of Adam and Eve.  Genesis 2 starts with the conclusion of creation week by God resting on the seventh day.  By verse 5 of Genesis 2, the author picks up the creation account at the beginning of day three, in Genesis 1, where God causes the dry land to appear and just before the creation of vegetation.  In verse 7 of Genesis 2, the author leaps ahead to day six when God creates man.  Here, we learn the details of Adam's creation being formed from the dust of the ground and God bringing him to life.  The author then regresses to day 3 again where we learn of the creation of the Garden of Eden.  It only makes sense to build the corral before we buy the horse to put in it.  Back to day six, after man is created he is placed in the garden.  In verse 18 of Genesis 2, still the 6th day of creation, God states his intention to create a helper for Adam.  But before he does that, he brings the animals that he had already created earlier on that day, to Adam.  Remember, that biblical Hebrew had no effective way to communicate tense in their language.  It had to be determined in part by the context.  Verse 19 of Genesis 2 reads in most translations something like this: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:..."(KJV).  From our perspective it would seem that the animals were created after Adam.  But many translators recognized the past tense of this verse and added the word "had" before the word “formed” to keep the account in context and to impart understanding of the scripture in our language (see the translations: God's Word Translation, Douay-Rheims, New International Version and The Darby Translation.).  Also, you might refer to the footnote in Bullinger's, "The Companion Bible", on verse 19 of Genesis 2 which refers the reader back to Genesis 1:24 of the original account of the creation of the animals.

I think you're going to need a chiropractor after that much mental contortion.  :D If what you say about tenses is correct, then the context would imply that if I say "A happened and then B happened and then C happened" then A came before B, which came before C. You're essentially claiming that B and C came before A simply because you want it to be so. Likewise, the biblical translators recognized the contradiction between the two chapters and massaged the language to try to rectify (or cover up) the contradiction. It's simply a case of special pleading. They start out with the assumption that there are no contradictions, so therefore any translation that prevents a contradiction must be the correct one even if it's highly implausible.

More specifically, the chapter thing is a red herring - the first account ends at 2:3, so it's not like the idea that there are two different stories there is the result of the story being split over 2 chapters. For your 3rd point, you make a valid point - one author probably isn't going to tell a story and then immediately tell another one that contradicts the first. However, if there were two different accounts, written by two separate authors and then stitched together, it would make a lot more sense. Indeed, modern textual criticism indicates that this is almost certainly the case.


The reason that God brought the animals to Adam before creating his helper may be two fold.  First, to let Adam name them as stated in the verse and also to let Adam get acquainted with the newly created animals.  Remember, Adam himself, was just created.  He probably didn’t know his, you know what, from a hole in the ground.  Although the animals were cute and cuddly, the closest thing to Adam was a chimpanzee who was rather ugly in the face, didn’t walk upright, had hair all over it and didn’t smell right.  God was about to change all that to Adam’s delight.  After causing a sleep to come over Adam, God created his helper (still on the 6th day) who Adam called woman because she was made from him.  Here was a creature that looked like him, yet different.  She walked upright, didn’t have hair all over her body, smelled delightful, and was very beautiful beyond description.  The woman was created from Adam’s rib instead of the dust of the ground because, as stated, Adam was to cleave to his wife and they were to become one flesh.  God intended them to be in a close and intimate relationship with the woman being created from Adam’s rib instead of a separate entity from the dust of the ground.  “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen. 2:23).

Go back and reread this: Gen 2:18 - "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 2:19-20 - [God makes beasts, birds, etc and brings them to Adam] then "But for Adam no suitable helper was found." 2:21-22 - God makes woman from man's rib. Your context argument is ridiculous in light of this ordering. God says that he will make a helper for Adam, then what does the very next sentence describe? Creating the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. And to drive that home, after describing those things, it says "But for Adam no suitable helper was found." There is no reason to say that God is going to make a helper for Adam, start describing animals, say "nope, no helper there," and then describe the creation of Eve unless the "I will create" was describing creating the animals, birds, etc. In other words, the translations you cite aren't translating the Hebrew to "God had formed" rather than "God formed" because of the context, but rather they translated it that way in spite of the context because they had an agenda to promote.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 15, 2012, 06:57:48 PM
Thanks Ice Monkey and Grogs for your response.  I am planning a reply but it may be several days before I can get back to you as I have several errands to perform over the next couple of days that will take me out of town.  Grogs, your reply was insightful and I especially appreciated your pointing out the fallacy.  As written I can see how you would consider it a red herring.  I didn't mean it as such and will attempt to explain it as it pertains to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 16, 2012, 10:30:13 AM
truthseekertwo, are you the same truthseeker we’ve had here before? 

The genesis stories contradict each other, the events differing and in different orders.  It makes absolutely no sense to claim that the author would tell the same story and tell it wrong once. 

There’s no reason to think the bible story authors were particularly smart.

I’m assuming you are a Christian.  Your god is shown to be quite an idiot in Genesis, with thinking that Adam would be able to have an aardvark as a “helpmeet”.  It’s not Adam who is having trouble understanding, its your god.  As for your claism about how the tensense screw things up, well, it does and funny how a god couldn’t take that into consideration.  As always this god is limited by the humans who created it.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on April 16, 2012, 11:35:11 AM
First of all the bible, as best we know, was written without chapters and verses.

True.

So originally there was no division between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 2:1.

I think probably true.

Genesis 1 and 2 was simply the authors account of creation and not two separate accounts.

Not true.  Furthermore, this view is only taken seriously by fundamentalists and literalists.  People who know better understand the bible - specifically the Pentateuch - was written by several people and edited by a couple others. Style, language, genre, topics, theology all point to different authors in different periods. 

For example. It is known that the northern kingdom of Israel worshipped a god called El (or elohim)while the southern kindgom of Judea worshipped a god called yhwh.  We also know both these gods were present in a Canaanite pantheon of gods that included Baal and Asherah.  Not coincidentally, that pantheon was called elohim - literally "the lords".  Yeah, plural.  The people of israel got their hinies whooped by some other middle eastern power (Assyrians perhaps?) and fled to Judea.  The two nations were similar enough that they could become one.  To do that they needed to combine their traditions and myths into one.  So they did. But it wasn't easy and they did not do a very good job of it.

The book of Job has a narrative interrupted by poetry right in the middle of it, for chrissakes. 

   
Here is how I think we should understand Genesis 1 and 2.

You are free to interpret how ever you like.  Unfortunately, the facts are not on your side.

Although the animals were cute and cuddly, the closest thing to Adam was a chimpanzee...

Only if you do not even believe in "micro-evolution". Otherwise, it would have been an ape like basis which evolved into various apes at lighting fast speed after The Flood.

Lastly, it would seem unlikely for the author to contradict himself so soon after generalizing the creation account.

Yes, it would be unlikely.  Which is why only people with emotional investment in it believe it was written by one author. However, it would be possible and likely for two different, but similar stories from neighboring peoples to have contradictions.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on April 16, 2012, 01:36:57 PM
truthseekertwo, are you the same truthseeker we’ve had here before? 

Nope. Different person.

EDIT: Since he said he'd be out doing, "errands over the next couple of days," I took the liberty to answer to stop any confusion asap. I hope neither of you mind since the question would only be considered directed towards me, if TS2 and I were the same.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 18, 2012, 09:12:54 AM
sorry TS, I was mistaking your screen name with that one nitwit in one of the mailbag threads.  my apologies.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on April 18, 2012, 09:13:58 AM
that one nitwit in one of the mailbag threads

Your specificity is impressive. &)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 18, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
that one nitwit in one of the mailbag threads

Your specificity is impressive. &)

yeah, right after writing that, I thought "velkyn, you are one dumb woman".  ;D 

can't remember the screen name but it did start with "truth".  and I recall some folks, including probably me, who did get TS confused with them. 

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on April 18, 2012, 09:27:56 AM
can't remember the screen name but it did start with "truth".  and I recall some folks, including probably me, who did get TS confused with them. 

truthsearcher?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 18, 2012, 09:28:59 AM
truthsearcher?

you got it. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 18, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
Very funny Grogs.  :)  However, you did hit the nail on the head.  Understanding how to apply A, B and C in this instance was problematic at best.  Following is an explanation of why this verse is so confusing even to scholars.  By the way, it’s not because I want it to be so.   I try to follow this advice…”Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thess. 5:21).  I think this is good advise whether you believe the bible to be factual or not.  It does no one any good to believe in something that has been proven false.  The key word, here, is proven. 
 
The Revised Standard Version of the bible is considered to be a literal translation of the scriptures.  This means that the translation is a word for word translation as much as the two languages will allow and still be understandable.  Here is what the version records in Gen. 2:19: “So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”  In the English we would consider this sentence to be present perfect tense.  This is where the problem is.  We read it and understand it in English.  Therefore we conclude that Adam was created before the animals which is in direct conflict with the Gen. 1 account.  Although Hebrew and English have much in common there are other aspects of the two languages that are not in common.  How the tense is communicated is one of them.  English is a tense language meaning that the tense is conveyed in the sentence.  Hebrew is an aspectual language meaning that the same form of the verb can be seen as either past, present, or future depending on the context.

Context can refer to how a word is used in a sentence as well as how a sentence is used in relation to the subject matter which in this case is the creation.  In Gen. 2:19 not only can the context in this case be seen to occur in this sentence alone but it also can be seen in the broader context of the creation account in general.  Some translators seeing this did one of two things to convey the tense of this passage.  If the translation was a literal translation they would most often insert a reference referring back to Gen. 1:24 in the margin.  Or if the translation was liberal (like the NIV) they would add the word “had” to the passage in question as well as a marginal reference to 1:24.  They didn’t do this because they wanted it to be so but because they honestly believed that the Hebrew demanded it and to convey the correct meaning to an English speaking audience. 

The normal Hebrew word order is  verb (V) first, subject (S) second and object (O) last.
In English it is S, V, O.  However, Hebrew also uses the SVO order but when it does it is signifying a change in tense that must be understood by the context.  This is usually done with what is called a qatal verb which also helps to signify a change in meaning.  The placing of the subject ahead of the verb instead of the reverse, is a device used for the purpose of  changing a verb from the perfect into a pluperfect verb.  When a pluperfect is used in a narrative sentence it often signifies an interruption or break in continuity of the narrative.  In other words, the first part of this sentence, “So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air…, is not connected directly to the second part in order of occurrence , …and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”
Rather it refers the first part of this sentence back to an early occurrence. In this case, Genesis 1:24, which is the second use of context, the context of the creation account as a whole.  But that is not all. 

As I have stated, placing the subject before the verb suggests the pluperfect (or prior occurrence) instead of the perfect (present occurrence).  In Hebrew it is not the verb that changes but the word order that changes the verb and this in turn conveys a disconnection or discontinuity from the narrative.  When this happens the “waw” conjunctive (the word “and”) in the sentence becomes the “waw” disjunctive (but, so, now, etc.).  The NIV translates this perfectly.  “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field…”  Here you have not only the “waw” disjunctive (now) but you have the past tense “had formed” as suggested by the reverse word order (SVO).

To be fair, however, I will have to say that the qatal verb is not present in this verse.  The general consensus has been that to have a SVO word order it must be accompanied by a qatal verb.  In this passage a vayyiqtol verb is used.  A vayyiqtol verb generally marks chronological succession.  In the case of 2:19 that would mean that the first part of the sentence is connected to the second part.  However, the consensus about the vayyiqtol verb has been that it must have a VSO word order.  Neither of these two conditions exist in 2:19.  Studies that have been done over the past several years have looked for and found examples of vayyiqtol verbs connected to reversed word orders (SVO) that speak of past events.  (See:http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1995_46_1_08_Collins_WAYYIQTOL_Pluperfect.PDF)

That’s their opinion and it may hold water in time.  However, I have my own opinion.
This is the way I see how the problem may be worked out.  The word order (SVO) suggests an event that already happened (which is supported by the context of the whole creation account) but the vayyiqtol verb tells us that the past event is connected to naming of the animals.  The reason the vayyiqtol verb was used with the reverse word order may be because it all happened on the same day.  In other words, the two events of forming the animals and naming them were too close together to warrant a qatal verb.  The only thing missing in this verse is the creation of man between the forming of the animals and Adam naming them.  The author didn’t feel the need to do that because he already established that fact in chapter 1 (only 22 verses ago). 
 :)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 18, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
I try to follow this advice…”Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thess. 5:21).  I think this is good advise whether you believe the bible to be factual or not.  It does no one any good to believe in something that has been proven false.
No evidence of your god or any of the essential events of the bible.  Also, what is good, ts2?  Your god says that genocide is good, that slavery is good, that killign children is good, as long as they forward its plans. 

As far as I understand, all bibles claim that they are the most literal.  The RSV, the KJV or NKJV, NAB, etc each has its promoters as the most accurate version of what their god "really meant". 

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 18, 2012, 05:04:27 PM
Hello velkyn,

Thank you for responding.

I wasn’t trying to provide evidence for God or for events of the bible beyond Genesis 1 and 2.  My posts where in response to Joe who started this thread.  He said he had yet to get an intelligent reply from Christians to the contradictions in Gen. 1&2 .   I was giving him and others (yourself included) my opinion on this subject.  As to whether or not it’s an intelligent reply is a matter of perspective.

Your sole question to me was, “what is good?”  My answer is very little.  But that is not God’s fault, as I understand you imply.  Although God allows genocide, slavery and the killing of children and on special occasions sanctions it, it’s all for the good of mankind.
When I say for the good of mankind, I mean all of mankind.  I can explain if you would like.

There are three types of bible translations: word-for-word (or literal), thought-for-thought (or liberal) and paraphrase.  A word-for-word translation attempts to translate the Hebrew and Greek into a word of similar meaning in English.  Three of the translations you mentioned, the RSV, KJV and NKJV are of  this type.   

The thought-for-thought translation expresses the meaning of a sentence into a similar meaning in English.  This type of translation is not as useful as the word-for-word in
doctrinal study but can be used as an aid.  The NAB, NIV and NRSV are translations of this type.

Lastly, the paraphrased translation presents the bible in simple everyday language that is easy to read and doesn’t worry about word-for-word or thought-for-thought expressions of the original language.  Examples of this type are the TLB and the NLT.   All translations are just that, translations.  They all contain some errors in translation. 

I know of some religions that claim that the KJV is an inspired version.  As far as I am concerned, no versions are inspired.  The scriptures in the original languages are thought by most to be inspired. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 18, 2012, 05:29:04 PM
As to whether or not it’s an intelligent reply is a matter of perspective. <snip>
perspective from some fairly intelligent intellectuals, mind you..
Your sole question to me was, “what is good?”  My answer is very little.  But that is not God’s fault, as I understand you imply.  Although God allows genocide, slavery and the killing of children and on special occasions sanctions it, it’s all for the good of mankind.
Bullshit; liar; fool.  you're an idiot for even saying this...
When I say for the good of mankind, I mean all of mankind.  I can explain if you would like.
Yes, please explain to me how the genocide of the Jews back in ww1&2 was 'good for all mankind'.  Or any genocide for that matter.  Greater kill?  We're not lions or chimpanzees with rabies or zombies eating brains.  (However I would like to much on your brain - might be tasty..)
There are three types of bible translations: word-for-word (or literal), thought-for-thought (or liberal) and paraphrase.  A word-for-word translation attempts to translate the Hebrew and Greek into a word of similar meaning in English.  Three of the translations you mentioned, the RSV, KJV and NKJV are of  this type.   

The thought-for-thought translation expresses the meaning of a sentence into a similar meaning in English.  This type of translation is not as useful as the word-for-word in
doctrinal study but can be used as an aid.  The NAB, NIV and NRSV are translations of this type.

Lastly, the paraphrased translation presents the bible in simple everyday language that is easy to read and doesn’t worry about word-for-word or thought-for-thought expressions of the original language.  Examples of this type are the TLB and the NLT.   All translations are just that, translations.  They all contain some errors in translation.  They contain errors in logic and defy all scientific knowledge..
I corrected that for you..
I know of some religions that claim that the KJV is an inspired version.  As far as I am concerned, no versions are inspired.  The scriptures in the original languages are thought by most to be inspired.
Inspired by people that wanted power in this place, or forced control.  Not meant to be translated into english by idiots that would rather believe in fallacies and magical tales instead of reality and science..
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 18, 2012, 07:40:12 PM
Hello jeremy0

I apology profusely for my poorly chosen words and for any offence that I may of caused you or anyone else on this forum.  I didn’t mean that genocide was good or any other atrocity for that matter.  What I meant is that God is going to work for our good, all the ills that befall us.  For the most part, God has nothing to do with the calamity that befalls the world but it does not make him happy to see people suffer.  He does allow it, however, but for a good reason.  The times that God intervenes in human affairs is few and far between.  I am speaking of  the world as a whole and not those who trust in him.  At times God does intervene and wipes out entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah.  It pains him to do so but in this case it was for their own good and not God’s.  If after reading this post you still want my explanation for the sufferings of the world please let me know and I will be glad to provide one.   Just give me a few days to prepare.  If I don’t hear from you I will not write one.  Again, my sincere apologies.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 18, 2012, 10:02:15 PM
I apology profusely for my poorly chosen words and for any offence that I may of caused you or anyone else on this forum.
Apology accepted.  Now we can discuss this..
Quote
I didn’t mean that genocide was good or any other atrocity for that matter.  What I meant is that God is going to work for our good, all the ills that befall us.  For the most part, God has nothing to do with the calamity that befalls the world but it does not make him happy to see people suffer.  He does allow it, however, but for a good reason.  The times that God intervenes in human affairs is few and far between.  I am speaking of  the world as a whole and not those who trust in him.
At least we agree on the matter of genocide now... (however)
Quote
At times God does intervene and wipes out entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah. 
God can commit genocide and that makes it ok?
Quote
<snip>  If after reading this post you still want my explanation for the sufferings of the world please let me know and I will be glad to provide one.
I would like to hear this debate further..

Also, it is unnecessary to apologize to a person like myself.  I'm fairly humble for my part.  I tend to view everyone as equals.  Just as I called you an idiot for your statements, I keep in mind that I am also one at times as well.  Perhaps I was wrong at lashing out at you.  If I were your god, I would save everyone since I would already know how, and there would be no need for any suffering whatsoever.  I have better ways already for you to learn what I want people to learn..

I was defending the intelligence of this forum community, nothing further, and your apology was basically to these people.  Most people in my life owe me some sort of apology, and I never get it.  At least you have a decent heart, and know when to retract or show positive emotion.  So from now on I will treat you with some dignity..  Thanks, and please share your point of view - I wouldn't mind arguing or agreeing if it makes sense to me, but I will defend my point of view on the subject. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on April 19, 2012, 07:25:33 AM
What I meant is that God is going to work for our good, all the ills that befall us.  For the most part, God has nothing to do with the calamity that befalls the world but it does not make him happy to see people suffer.  He does allow it, however, but for a good reason.  The times that God intervenes in human affairs is few and far between.  I am speaking of  the world as a whole and not those who trust in him.  At times God does intervene and wipes out entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah.  It pains him to do so but in this case it was for their own good and not God’s

Bold mine.  How could you possibly know those things?  It seems to me you assume god to be good and working for our benefit.  Then, you carry that assumption with you into your reading of the OT. 

And how was the destruction of S&G "for their own good"?  You are saying it was for their own good that they were killed and ostensibly sent to hell.  There was no lesson learned, no "teaching moment", no opportunity to reform or repent.  How is that for their good?  It seems to me it was only for punishment.  Which is to say, to satisfy yhwh.  So it was for yhwh's good, not the Sodomites.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on April 19, 2012, 07:50:29 AM
sorry TS, I was mistaking your screen name with that one nitwit in one of the mailbag threads.  my apologies.

Nothing to apologize for, in my opinion. You asked for clarification, then not wanting to potentially wait days for a response, you proceded to respond to the post. Forum and phone tag both suck. Best to nip it in the bud.  ;D

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: gonegolfing on April 19, 2012, 11:16:30 AM
Hello jeremy0

I apology profusely for my poorly chosen words and for any offence that I may of caused you or anyone else on this forum.  I didn’t mean that genocide was good or any other atrocity for that matter.  What I meant is that God is going to work for our good, all the ills that befall us.  For the most part, God has nothing to do with the calamity that befalls the world but it does not make him happy to see people suffer.  He does allow it, however, but for a good reason.  The times that God intervenes in human affairs is few and far between.  I am speaking of  the world as a whole and not those who trust in him.  At times God does intervene and wipes out entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah.  It pains him to do so but in this case it was for their own good and not God’s.  If after reading this post you still want my explanation for the sufferings of the world please let me know and I will be glad to provide one.   Just give me a few days to prepare.  If I don’t hear from you I will not write one.  Again, my sincere apologies.

Here we go again !

Cart before horse. You believe these things to be true--its an article of faith for you. But you most certainly do not know these things to be true, so please knock it off with the language indicating that you think you do. Can you first prove conclusively that a god exists ? No.

So, if and only when, you can direct us to the evidence of a god's existence to back up your claims, will we then take a serious look at this deity and consider what we will do next. I truly wish this supposed god would reveal itself and shut you faithheads up--and make you all redundant. A smart god would have done that long ago anyways--with all ineptitude you people constantly display.

By the way, and if you were to be correct, isn't it marvelous--and aren't you just so special--that you are privy to this vital information on the nature of a god and yet billions have not been so far ? 

But, if you choose to try and explain the relentless suffering and anguish in our world, then we can all see it coming with your explanation: garden--temptation of rib woman by talking snake--free will--fall--curse--worldwide suffering, anguish, and hardship. In other words--our own damn fault.

But knock yourself out man.

Quote
I apology profusely for my poorly chosen words and for any offence that I may of caused you or anyone else on this forum

May have ? You did offend us all, and did so by insulting our intelligence with trying to get us to think true such baseless and immoral nonsense. Your ideas of a god are only your opinions and done so with a mix of your own version of morality and drenched then with your emotions. That's it and only it. The god-idea is a primitive idea that was birthed by credulity, ignorance, and the fears of the ancients and our earliest ancestors.

The christian religion is a harmful and distorted knock off of earlier pagan religions of the east and so you better just get used to it TST. Civilizations, spirit and ritual worship, flood stories, virgin births, and moral philosophy long predate your Hebrews/Israelites and their rib story, so you better open up your eyes and mind to those facts and start reading what has historical truth without fictional embellishments, and value !.

Your religion is nothing but a nasty plagiarism. You should be embarrassed to call it your own.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 19, 2012, 03:00:04 PM
Thanks jeremy0,

Hello screwtape.  You and jeremy0 have similar questions so I will try to answer both of
you at once on this one point.  As to how I could possibly know these things, it is written
in God’s revealed word.  However, although the truth is in plain sight, it is also somewhat hidden.  It is like a bunch of letter O’s arranged in rows and columns with a letter C imbedded in them. (See illustration below)  The O’s are God’s word in general and therefore truth as well but the C is God’s truth on a particular point, say God’s love for mankind.  If we are looking for another point of truth, say about hell, the letter that was a C turns back into an O (or God’s word in general) and one of the other O’s on this page will turn into the letter C (the truth about hell) and so on.  Of course the page of O’s would be much larger and more C’s would be scatter among them as in reading the bible.  This is how God reveals his truth yet hides it.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The scripture that reveals this truth is a double edge sword.  It tells us how God reveals truth and hides it the same way. (Isa. 28:9-13 NKJV)

I don’t assume God to be good or that he is working for our benefit. (Isa. 25:7-9; Jer. 29:11)

How was it good for the people of S&G to be destroyed?  God is like a father who loves his children.  I am a father and you may be too.  As fathers we punish our children for wrong doing by grounding, spanking and loss of privileges.  Afterwards, we try to make them understand why they were punished.  God is no different only better except he has one option we don’t.  He can kill them.  It sounds cruel, I know.  But to God it may be more like grounding (no pun intended).  Sexual immorality has been in the world since near the beginning of creation.  However, Sodom and all the cities of the plain had reached the pinnacle of sexual sin.  Disease was probably rampant with no cures and relationships destroyed.  With no cure for diseases their babies were increasingly being
born with the same diseases.  They were a nest of sin and disease that not only harmed themselves but others as well, as in the case of Lot and his family.  And because their sexual immorality was an addiction, they couldn’t stop.  Just look at the AID’s epidemic in South African.  So God in his love and mercy decided to end theirs lives.  But they are not lost.  They are just dead awaiting a resurrection to be judged. They will be found wanting for sure but Christ had not yet died for the sins of mankind.  Here is the thing; God has said that all sins (repented of) will be forgiven man except for the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  Sin could not be forgiven until the death of Christ.  The Sodomites cannot be judged until they are resurrected.  Their eyes will be opened to the truth and most will repent and accept the sacrifice of Christ.  Those who don’t will be cast into the lake of fire to be destroyed and not suffer.  God does not do this lightly for he desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4).






Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 19, 2012, 05:05:59 PM
It is like a bunch of letter O’s arranged in rows and columns with a letter C imbedded in them. (See illustration below)
I recognized the 'C' in your nice little puzzle almost immediately.  I can tell you this - I vastly studied the preachings of Jesus..  I will say this - if you, yourself, wants to know what is 'hidden from you', first you need to see that thee correct way to translate Jesus is to look at what he says from his own supposed perspective (remember - doing only what is good, saying only good, etc.)  Then your 'hidden C's' will be revealed to you, as his message starts to make sense instead of sounding like insanity...

However, there are pieces of his message that don't fit in this manner, which is the only correct way to translate jesus' message - Anyone that does not hate mother/father/neighbor/brother/sister cannot be my desciple.  When people think I came to save them, they are mistaken - I came to spread bloodshed, fire, and war.  I want it to be brother against brother, father against son, a divided house...
These are also (approximately) things that Jesus said.  It shows that he was just a man, preaching for a better tomorrow, if people were to 'wake up' to his message as he wanted..  If that happens, indeed you seem 'enlightened'.  However, it doesn't make him a God, for obvious fallacies in the story..

Quote
The scripture that reveals this truth is a double edge sword.  It tells us how God reveals truth and hides it the same way. (Isa. 28:9-13 NKJV)

I don’t assume God to be good or that he is working for our benefit. (Isa. 25:7-9; Jer. 29:11)
Now you retract from previous arguments due to the 'evidence' presented here by other members..

Let's look at S&G: it was said God turned a lady into salt.  The two cities were destroyed during a storm.  Nothing was ever able to live in that location again.  The location was historically, approximately, documented.  According to these puzzle pieces, the only two places I can think of that have too much salt in it for anything to survive is the Dead Sea and also the Great Salt Lake.  Since Salt Lake is out of the question as a geographic location for S&G, that leaves the Dead Sea as its currently resting-in-peices place..
If you want further discussion on S&G, start here - http://www.sfbsc.com/about-the-dead-sea (http://www.sfbsc.com/about-the-dead-sea)[2]  Multiple stories in this one article, even relating to the Dead Sea and religious history...  S&G may not have actually been destroyed, but in reality a made-up story in order to scare people into thinking God can kill you if he wants..

Case in point - when, in modern recorded history, has god killed or destroyed anything?  Also, when was the last time somebody saw an 'Angel'?  Latter case with Joseph Smith I don't count - he was insane..

Quote
<snip>Just look at the AID’s epidemic in South African.  So God in his love and mercy decided to end theirs lives. 
So you are saying that God should 'kill off most Africans due to an AIDs epedemic?  I am waiting for a response to this as well..
Quote
But they are not lost.  They are just dead awaiting a resurrection to be judged.
I reject the theory of judgement due to obvious issues - if God intends to forgive all men sins, but yet he still has to 'judge man based on their actions in life', or 'judged based on what is done', then he most certainly does not intend to save anyone.  If I were an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God and Creator, I have a better way to save everyone than have them live short (or stillborn) lives and then 'judge them based on whatever they due regardless of cruelty, invalid punishment, or any other harm that was done to the person that would be causal in that person taking future actions..'

If all it takes is for rampant humping to cause God to hate you, kill you, love you and then judge you to hell (If God decided to kill them, I doubt they have much of a chance), then I would consider the majority of all human life damned.  As that is not the case, and I could further argue to the contrary, and was keeping God mostly out of it since Jesus was the main topic of this particular post by me, but I will wait for further rebuttal that God kills and punishes and then condemns and that is somehow a 'righteous thing'... :D


[1] No righteous or relatively good man would want to kill anyone, let alone send them to their enemies or a pit of hellfire for eternal suffering, or even a day of suffering.  That is called torture, and torture is in no means righteous in any way or form.

[2] It is also possible, albeit far-fetched, that earth crust displacement caused the 'sinking' of these cities of Lot, as described in the link that I posted here later down describing history and the Hebrew Bible, and their way of explaining the 'phenomina' was that 'God did it due to our sins'...

[3] God causing/intending/performing acts of violence such as killing/torturing/causing suffering strikes a nerve with me, hence my heated emotion during this discussion.  I'm respecting my statement of treating you with dignity, however.  If not, I'd be very picky..
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 19, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Hello gonegolfing,

You are right.  I can not prove conclusively that God exists.  But you can.  No one can prove the existence of God to others.  He must be experienced on an individual level.  No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44).  Do I believe in the existence of God?  Yes!  How do I know that he exists?  Through personal experience.  God is a personal God.  He loves you just as much as he loves me.  God is no respecter of persons but loves all of mankind equally.  Has God called you?  If you are reading these posts then he is calling.  It is up to you to answer the call and have your own personal experience that will prove God to you.  “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6).

As I have said, God is no respecter of persons but loves all equally.  If I possess knowledge that you lack, God holds me responsible for the truth he has given me.  If I sit on it, I make myself  irresponsible.   The billions you speak of will have their time at God’s choosing.   Satan is ultimately responsible for sin but we have our responsible for sin as well.  Sin (our sin) is the reason for all the ills of the world.

I don’t claim to know everything.  For as long as I have set myself to know the truth, I am still learning.   It is true that I hold a lot of opinions but my position on that has been to  “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thess. 5:21).  If I am wrong on something and it can be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I will change my view.  There is no value in believing in something that is false.

Your are right about Christianity being harmful especially when used by evil men to further their own aims.  You are also right that Christianity has incorporated pagan practices into religion.  Both are wrong.  But that is not God’s fault. Here is what God instructed Israel to do:  "When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.'  You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it (Deut. 12:29-32)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: JeffPT on April 19, 2012, 06:47:46 PM
No one can prove the existence of God to others.  He must be experienced on an individual level.  No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44).  Do I believe in the existence of God?  Yes!  How do I know that he exists?  Through personal experience.  God is a personal God.  He loves you just as much as he loves me.  God is no respecter of persons but loves all of mankind equally.  Has God called you?  If you are reading these posts then he is calling.  It is up to you to answer the call and have your own personal experience that will prove God to you. 

Can you tell me what the fundamental difference would be for someone who said this about your God and someone who said this about any other of the thousands of gods that have come before yours? 

Also, if you believe personal experiences to be valid ways to determine the truth, then what do you say to the fact that personal experiences can be modified drastically simply with chemical input? 

As I have said, God is no respecter of persons but loves all equally.

What real world evidence do you have to back this up?  I'm not talking about the bible; I'm talking real world evidence.  And if you find you can not provide that, and that I could provide you with ample evidence that good and bad things happen all the time in the world, then why would anyone form the opinion that there is this powerful being out there that loves all of us?  It doesn't make any sense at all. 

I don’t claim to know everything.  For as long as I have set myself to know the truth, I am still learning.   It is true that I hold a lot of opinions but my position on that has been to  “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thess. 5:21).  If I am wrong on something and it can be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I will change my view.  There is no value in believing in something that is false.

Alright then.  Let's talk about the most important tenant of your religion... the resurrection of Jesus.  Now, given that the bible actually says that if Jesus is not risen, then your faith is in vain, what solid evidence do you have that the events of the resurrection actually took place?  Keep in mind, you said you are looking for the truth here, right?  The bible is the ONLY contemporary source that claims Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead 3 days later.  There are no outside sources, no extra eyewitness testimonies, no tomb to examine, no cross to look at, no body to dissect.  We do not know who wrote the gospel stories, nor do we know who wrote a good many of the other books in the bible as well.  We also know that people do not (not ever) rise from the dead after 3 days.

Given that information, if one is looking for the truth, is it more likely that the events took place as described in the gospel accounts, or that they simply never happened and they were made up?  Again, I am going with the notion that you are looking for truth here.  Do people rise from the dead after 3 days?  No.  Do people make up stories?  Yes.  Which is more likely true?  Please be honest with yourself here. 

If I wrote a book that said my great great grandfather rose from the dead after 3 days, would you think I was making it up or that it actually happened if all I could give you was my personal testimony on it?  If you answer that one differently, please explain why you did so. 

Your are right about Christianity being harmful especially when used by evil men to further their own aims.  You are also right that Christianity has incorporated pagan practices into religion.  Both are wrong.  But that is not God’s fault.

If God has the power to stop it with a single thought, but doesn't, what does that mean to you?  Could that not be a good reason to think maybe God really isn't there? 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 19, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I'll add my input to this as well...
He must be experienced on an individual level.  No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). 
I used to think this - that God 'draws you in'.  What is actually happening is you are searching for what you are looking for, you may find something that confirms your beliefs, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that God had something to do with it.  The fact that you experience God invisibly confirms what these people are saying - you have still no evidence.  Again, I used to say similar things.  Now I see my flaws in statements such as these..
Quote
God is a personal God.  He loves you just as much as he loves me.  God is no respecter of persons but loves all of mankind equally
See bolded.  These two things cannot be in co-existence, especially when dealing with a higher-intellect or 'deity'...
Quote
Has God called you?  If you are reading these posts then he is calling.  It is up to you to answer the call and have your own personal experience that will prove God to you.  “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6).
I will retract on my previous restrictments - you are an idiot.  The fact that people are reading this is because they have interest in the discussion.  It is no evidence that you are having a personal experience with God.  If you pray to god, you are christian.  If god answers you, you are insane...
The fact is, nobody has ever had a personal experience with God that 'proved Him to me'.  Again, I'll point to the fact that I once thought these things - does that mean I have 'tasted the fruit and am now turning away?'  No.  It means I see the flaws in statements such as these - again - no factual evidence except a self-fulfilling prophecy to believe in something you already wanted to believe in..
Quote
<snip for repetitiveness> If I possess knowledge that you lack, God holds me responsible for the truth he has given me.  If I sit on it, I make myself  irresponsible.   
This is actually the correct way to 'save people' - through understanding and reasoning - giving them something you lack.  Something I am trying to do right now.  I find it particularly interesting that these atheists on this forum understand your religion better than you do..  That being said, I'll point to your earlier argument that an all-powerful god with which everything is possible, still relies on mercilessly killing and betraying people to extend his 'salvation strategy'.  I ought to be your god in this case, since I am better than your god, and more people would be saved with me.[1]
Quote
The billions you speak of will have their time at God’s choosing.   Satan is ultimately responsible for sin but we have our responsible for sin as well.  Sin (our sin) is the reason for all the ills of the world.
If satan is the cause of all sin, there again is no reason for judgement or damnation or destruction or killing.  You don't understand what you are saying.  Also, Satan is no more real than the idea of God.  In fact, at least through multiple dimensions or realities there exists the possibility for higher forces than we know in our own existence.  But again, there is nothing that says a free thinker and a free mind is condemned for not believing that this is possible with our current knowledge.  Additionally, we are now claiming belief in things we cannot experience, see, understand, or study..  no evidence.

Also, if I were to kill this imaginary Satan with my powers, would you then agree that you will no longer 'sin'?  Also, please explain your definition of 'sin'..[2]

Quote
For as long as I have set myself to know the truth, I am still learning.   It is true that I hold a lot of opinions but my position on that has been to  “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thess. 5:21).  If I am wrong on something and it can be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I will change my view.  There is no value in believing in something that is false.
I love it how Christians always put 'For' in front of what they say to make it sound more religious..   ;D
Yes, there is no value in believing something that is false.  Since you have not made any case for your argument that is valid in any way except with 'words from the Bible', and there is no evidence supporting your claim as I have offered, (see my previous response to Hebrews and Lot, and what you stated), then I would say I have already proven to you that you should change your view.  I see nothing wrong, however, in you believing in a pixie-spreader after this discussion, because apparently you believe what you want because you want to, and not because it has valid supporting logical reason..
 :o

Quote
<snip>You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it (Deut. 12:29-32)
Here, you are falling for the old, scare tactic.  This statement is intended to scare people into believing, and doing what the author tells you to do.  Additionally, I would like to point out that an all-loving God as you stated, would not 'hate abominations' for any logical reason.  There are no abominations, there are just variations.  You could say I am an abomination for having an injury to my face - and then I would call you an asshole, retard, and biggot for putting me down.

Additionally, regarding this discussion, I would like to bring your God to justice for the 'damnation, suffering, torture, hatred, wickedness, and biggotry of all the people I gave a shit about'.  That would be an interesting court case..

I would like to further my explanation to include the story of santa claus..
Santa Loved all the children equally, and gives all the good children gifts, and gives the hated, naughty children lumps of coal.  Now, how is this story any different from your story of God and Satan?

I'll also add this: we have proven, through physics, that traveling backwards in time is impossible - it is a paradox.  We have shown and verified that you can travel forward in time.  But, this is pointless, as you cannot then go back...

That being said - how does satan or god accomplish the art of causality in people 'sinning' and 'doing good or having a personal experience with god', when there are, what, 6bln people on earth today, and according to the bible every one of them sins multiple times a day, every day, and has God's influence on them all day, every day?  Do you see that this is impossible?  Time would have to not exist then, for just god and satan.  It defies physics.  What more proof can I give you?  The fact that God or Satan influences our lives is a paradox of science and reasoning..

[1] I say this because with the claims you make, you refer to the bible, we have proven you wrong through reasoning and history so far, and you still accept it with undeniable fallacies.  The fact of this makes you blind.  I will quote Einstein: 'peace can only be brought about through common understanding'.  It does not take genocide or mass-murder to bring about something I want.  Einstein also said 'religion without science is blind'.  You would do well to listen to reason before making bold statements about your 'unrespectful God'...

[2] I hope you can see the pun in this statement - I keep laughing at the people that say 'protect yourself against satan at these end of times', and look to people as if they were satan himself just because they seem like 'good people that are actually wolves in sheep-skin clothing'.  You kind of people are so blind it is ridiculous.  Also, I was claiming to have supernatural powers.  This is obviously false.  Also, you would still sin even if I got rid of your 'cause of sin'.  An invisible, non-existent red dude with horns doesn't magically cause everybody all around the world to sin every day.  It is your own actions.  This is akin to saying Santa Claus delivers presents to all the little boys and girls across the globe in a flying cart in one single night..  This is putting the blame of your own wrongdoings on something that doesn't exist to make you feel better about having done it.  That said, even some 'sin' is a completely natural thing to do, and its suppression is a dangerous thing to enforce on people...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on April 20, 2012, 07:48:08 AM
As to how I could possibly know these things, it is written in God’s revealed word. 

I don't think it is.  I mean, some of the things you have said about god are directly contradicted by scripture.  For example, you said "God has nothing to do with the calamity that befalls the world".  But in Isaiah 45:7 yhwh says "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things".  Now, it depends on what bible you use, but that can also be translated as "I created Good and Evil".  Either way you choose, though, it contradicts what you said.

In addition, I do not see how an omnipotent being cannot have everything to do with events, either good or bad. If you are omnipotent and omniscient, the buck stops with you. 

Other things you have said, you just have no way of knowing.  Like, how god feels or when god is intervening.  For all you know, I am moved by god to intervene with you right now, trying to set your misguided beliefs aright.  You might object, but you have no basis for it.


However, although the truth is in plain sight, it is also somewhat hidden.

Why?  You use the father analogy in your post.  Let's stick with that.  Are the rules you give to your kids cryptic, hidden and inscrutable?  Or are they clear, in plain language and understandable to them?  If the former, for what purpose?  How does it serve them for the rules to be in secret code?

 
I don’t assume God to be good or that he is working for our benefit. (Isa. 25:7-9; Jer. 29:11)

I have not idea what idea you are trying to communicate.  The Isaiah verses are cryptic and out of context.  Jeremiah seems to indicate yhwh is responsible for everything because there is a "plan".  To me that means fate, which means no free will, which means we are just a puppet show being played out.  Which means it is monstrously unjust for anyone to be sent to eternal torture because their choices were never their own.

How was it good for the people of S&G to be destroyed?  God is like a father who loves his children.  I am a father and you may be too.  As fathers we punish our children for wrong doing by grounding, spanking and loss of privileges.

I understand what you are saying.  This is a common xian meme.  However, I think you have not thought this through.  After you have punished your children, they learned a lesson.  They live on to apply that lesson.  If you simply killed them, as yhwh did, they may have learned a lesson, but it would have been pointless since they would not have been able to apply the lesson.  What good is a lesson if you are dead moments after you learn it?

He can kill them.  It sounds cruel, I know. 

It sounds cruel because it is cruel.  And unjust.

However, Sodom and all the cities of the plain had reached the pinnacle of sexual sin.

That is not scriptual, strictly speaking.  That is the interpretation of your perverted mind.  Think about sexual sin a lot, do you?

Disease was probably rampant with no cures and relationships destroyed. 

Neither is this scriptural.  You have an active imagination.

So God in his love and mercy decided to end theirs lives.

In his love and mercy, he killed them?  ZOMG! Hilarious!  Straight out of Monty Python! 

You are one warped individual. 

But they are not lost.  They are just dead awaiting a resurrection to be judged. They will be found wanting for sure...

So in what way have they learned anything?  How are they able to apply their lesson? 


 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on April 20, 2012, 09:46:23 AM
Nice.

To teach them a lesson as loving father, he kills them. Then they sleep for thousands of years. They may know that god punished them, but really, would they know why?

List the last 5 major Earthquakes. Tell us what sins the people commited to get that loving punishment. If you don't know, how would the dead?
 Then fast foward to judgement. Since they were dead, the never had a chance to learn from thier mistakes or sins. They also never had a chance to repent. Then they get to stand before god:

God: Hey Sinner!
Sinner: Yes.
God: It says here you looked lustfully at your bro's wife right before the Earthquake, I made to punish you for your sins. Since you never repented of that sin, you must burn in Hell for ALL eternity!
Sinner: Wait! I didn't have a chance...
God: BURN! BURN! BURN!
Sinner: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

A way of describing this scenario is Double jeopardy. Another words, you pay punishment for the same crime(s) twice. Only a unethincal immoral evil bastard would do such a thing.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: gonegolfing on April 20, 2012, 10:59:02 AM
TST:

Quote
Hello gonegolfing,

You are right.  I can not prove conclusively that God exists.  But you can.  No one can prove the existence of God to others.  He must be experienced on an individual level.  No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44).  Do I believe in the existence of God?  Yes!  How do I know that he exists?  Through personal experience.  Has God called you?  If you are reading these posts then he is calling.  It is up to you to answer the call and have your own personal experience that will prove God to you.

Your admission that you cannot prove a god exists pretty much shows us that your here to preach to us. I'm not sure if your aware or not, but most atheists here were former long times theists and some with, or the equivalent of, seminary training. Your going to be "preaching to the choir" so to speak. It's against forum rules as well. ;)

We can believe anything we can perceive of, through the personal experience claim. However, personal and anecdotal experiences are irrelevant when you're trying to prove something such as the supernatural objectively. Such claims demand evidence--clear, current, reliable, unambiguous, and definitive proof for the human senses to experience and observe. I don't for one second buy into the claim that an all powerful spirit god couldn't make itself temporally perceivable to us--all powerfulness would enable it to do so quite easily in my estimation. And--you must remember--that your god of the bible supposedly made multiple visible appearances to people.

Quote
The billions you speak of will have their time at God’s choosing.   Satan is ultimately responsible for sin but we have our responsible for sin as well.  Sin (our sin) is the reason for all the ills of the world.

You've exonerated the creator of sin. You cannot do that. If such an entity were to exist, God--not satan--is responsible for all sin in our world. An omniscient god knows in advance what will occur at all times and places. Who created satan ? god. Who knew in advance that satan would "fall" ? god. Who knew in advance that satan would deceive the rib woman ? god. Who could have aborted this disastrous plan then ? god......but it did not. God knowingly create sin and rebellion as a part of its plan and that billions of his creation would suffer eternal torture as a result of this foreknowledge. In my mind that malevolent, utterly irresponsible, selfish, and unjust.

And don't forget as well that bible god itself claims in its book to be a jealous god and does in fact create evil.

It's estimated that since our earliest ancestors there have been more than 100 Billion humans that have existed on the planet. According to the scriptures--and you know they are there--the majority of humanity will live in eternal torture..... Is this a good plan ? Is this the best plan that an infinitely intelligent and loving and merciful god can come up with. Would you kill or torture your own children for lack of love and disobedience. Could you allow your mind to be so callous as to damn your children forever for such finite and harmless to you infractions ? No you could not TST.

Quote
I don't claim to know everything.  For as long as I have set myself to know the truth, I am still learning.   It is true that I hold a lot of opinions but my position on that has been to  “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thess. 5:21).  If I am wrong on something and it can be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I will change my view.  There is no value in believing in something that is false.

Yes, and isn't that the crux of your problem ? You want to prove the truth of the god-idea, but confess that you cannot do so. Do you want that which is only good for you ? Or do you want that which is right and honest ? I know you want the latter, and so in doing the opposite you not only contradict yourself, but you waste your life and harm your integrity by being in such a position.

This isn't about you being wrong--But about accepting the facts. The fact is, that there is zero current evidence for the existence of the supernatural. You don't have to change your view, it's already been changed for you and has been done so by refutation and lack of evidence. "The view" has been defeated as having meaningful value and solid empirical ground to stand on, so all you are is a fearful holdout of an unproved idea that has acted for the most part throughout history as nothing but pernicious and manipulative meme.


Quote
Your are right about Christianity being harmful especially when used by evil men to further their own aims.  You are also right that Christianity has incorporated pagan practices into religion.  Both are wrong.  But that is not God’s fault.

Of course such behaviour is not a god's fault--as a god is yet to be proved to exist, and so how could blame be placed on something for which there is zero evidence ?

You've allowed the structure of the god-idea to disable your ability to understand just how important evidence is to truth. Faith does not, and could never prove truth. I have "faith" or reasonable expectations that the sun will rise tomorrow and do so because of my observation of the hard evidence and the experience that I have had with the sun itself. Not only do I think in my mind there is a sun, but the fact that it has burned the shit out of human skin and blinded many is some of the hard evidence that I need to know that my thinking and perceptions of the sun are objectively true.

Some of your statements are not only unfounded, but quite disturbing as well, and you people wonder why we get strident and deem the most of you with at least mental abnormalities and at most all out mental illness ?

You may not like those labels, but tough luck there Skippy. You bring it all upon yourself.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on April 20, 2012, 11:44:29 AM
Has God called you?  If you are reading these posts then he is calling.

I do not understand this^.  What do you mean?  please explain.


“But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6).

This^ too.  I do not understand how to have faith in god before I believe god exists. 

I understand having faith.   I have faith.  Lots of it.  I have faith in my wife, my parents, my siblings.  I have faith I will have a job tomorrow.  I have faith the sun will rise in approximately 17 hours.  I have faith in Derek Jeter. 

But my faith is in things that I can see obviously exist.  And my faith is based on observed facts and history.  None of that is the case with god. 

So, tell me, how is faith even applicable to god, unless you are talking about blind faith?  And even that is an enigma to me.  I cannot "just do it".  I have no idea how to try to have faith.  The best way I can explain it to you would be to ask you to try to believe in the tooth faerie. 

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 20, 2012, 12:18:15 PM
I see I’m a bit late to the party. 

Your sole question to me was, “what is good?”  My answer is very little.  But that is not God’s fault, as I understand you imply.  Although God allows genocide, slavery and the killing of children and on special occasions sanctions it, it’s all for the good of mankind.
When I say for the good of mankind, I mean all of mankind.  I can explain if you would like.
Stop right there.  Your god encourages and approves of genocide, slavery, the killing of children, etc.  I’ve read the bible too, was a Christian and this god does not simply “allow” these horrible things.  Now, if your god was the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being that Christians claim,  there would be no need to have to use horrible events for “good”.  Your god could do anything it wants without harming anyone. That’s a limitation on humans in a world where there is no absolute good or evil.  This world.  So you fail there right off.   

Quote
There are three types of bible translations: word-for-word (or literal), thought-for-thought (or liberal) and paraphrase.  A word-for-word translation attempts to translate the Hebrew and Greek into a word of similar meaning in English.  Three of the translations you mentioned, the RSV, KJV and NKJV are of  this type. The thought-for-thought translation expresses the meaning of a sentence into a similar meaning in English.  This type of translation is not as useful as the word-for-word in doctrinal study but can be used as an aid.  The NAB, NIV and NRSV are translations of this type. Lastly, the paraphrased translation presents the bible in simple everyday language that is easy to read and doesn’t worry about word-for-word or thought-for-thought expressions of the original language.  Examples of this type are the TLB and the NLT.   All translations are just that, translations.  They all contain some errors in translation. 
  AKA the usual Christian magic decoder rings.  You all pick and choose what you want to be literal or metaphor.  Generally it goes “anything that is icky, that’s metaphor.  Anything I like is literal”.  and of course no evidence to support that anything in the bible actually happened.  I always love a god that cant’ get its message through and allows death and destruction to be caused by this.

You make your god impotent with your excuses.  Pretty typical for a Christian.  Wants to have a god but doesn't wnat this omnimax being to be responsible for anything.   Also, your god does not exist much less "call".  I was a Christian and then lost my faith.  I prayed and prayed to this god to help me and got nothing.  So much for your magical claims about how one should "really" contact god.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 20, 2012, 01:43:28 PM
Hello JeffPT

No.  There would be no fundamental difference as to what one claimed about their god as opposed  to my God as long as we said the same thing.  It would be you said and I said, the same thing.  Net result…no difference.  However, I can only know what I know about my own experiences with God and cannot speak to what others say about their experiences.  As to how God communicates with us it is through his spirit.  Since he created our brains he would know how to communicate with us whether it be through electrical impulses, chemical input or some other way we have never thought of.

The bible is a real world record and was written by real world people.  It would have to be or we wouldn’t have the bible in the real world.  You need not provide evidence that good and bad things happen all the time in the world.  I watch CNN. (:  You wouldn’t think that most people would believe that there is a loving God.  But they do, even if they don’t understand him.  Once God reveals himself to you, you begin to see that God is an all powerful loving God who cares deeply about his creation.

Since the bible is a real world record written by real world people it serves as a credible source of  evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It is no surprise to me that there are no other contemporary records for the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of  Christ.  Jesus only preached for three and half years and was well received by most.  It was only the last few months that the Jewish priests at the time got the people all stirred up which forced a trial that was illegal in the first place and had him crucified.  Then they paid off the guards that guarded the tomb to lie about how the disciples came in the night and stole the body.  I don’t think I would be writing a record about that either.  As for the Roman’s, they didn’t care about it one way or the other.  To them he was just another Jew to crucify. 

Just because we know that people don’t rise from the dead after 3 days is no proof that one didn’t especially in the light of the only contemporary record of the time that said he did.  Besides, we are not talking about “people” rising from the dead after 3 days.  We are talking about one man who rose from the dead after 3 day and 3 nights for the purpose of conquering death for all people.

If your book was the bible and your great-great grandfather was Jesus Christ I would believe it.  If not why would I?  My explanation would be that your book is not the bible and your great-great grandfather is not Jesus Christ.

God does have the power to stop all wrongs but chooses not to for a reason.  God’s way of life is to love others as you love yourself.  Since Satan rebelled against God he was rejecting that way.  There are only two basic ways of life.  The giving of yourself to others for their good with no thought of reward (God‘s way). Or the getting for yourself without regard for others (Satan‘s way).  Although God could of stopped Satan in his tracks, he couldn’t eradicate the idea that Satan injected into the minds of God’s creation.  Oh, he could of but then all he would have was obedient robots with no free will choice.  Since God wanted free will choice for his creation just like he has, he had to allow Satan’s challenge to play out.  In the end it will be seen that God’s way leads to peace, happiness and prosperity.  While Satan’s way leads only to misery, death and destruction.  We are experiencing Satan’s way now but he has deceived us into thinking that we can somehow fix it.  As long as we think we can fix it, God will allow us the opportunity until we make our final decision to push the button and eradicate all life on this planet.  Before that happens, God will intervene to save us.  We no longer have the argument, we can fix it.
There are no more options to try, we are at the end of our rope.  God can now make thing right and no one will doubt that God exists.
 

 




Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: truthseekertoo on April 20, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
To jemery0:

However, there are pieces of his message that don't fit in this manner, which is the only correct way to translate jesus' message - Anyone that does not hate mother/father/neighbor/brother/sister cannot be my desciple. When people think I came to save them, they are mistaken - I came to spread bloodshed, fire, and war. I want it to be brother against brother, father against son, a divided house...
These are also (approximately) things that Jesus said. It shows that he was just a man, preaching for a better tomorrow, if people were to 'wake up' to his message as he wanted.. If that happens, indeed you seem 'enlightened'. However, it doesn't make him a God, for obvious fallacies in the story..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 14:26;  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

In this sentence, Jesus was employing the use of a hyperbole and overstatement for emphasis.

Hyperbole (? /ha??p?rb?li?/ hy-PUR-b?-lee;[1] Greek: ????????, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]
Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[3] Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy, although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton. (Wikipedia: Article: Hyperbole)

I have notice that you tend to take everything literally.  That works for a science textbook but just about everything else man has written employs every writing technique known to man.  The statement is meant to imply that we are to love God more than our family or even ourselves.  Notice Matt. 10:37;  “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t assume God to be good or that he is working for our benefit. (Isa. 25:7-9; Jer. 29:11)
Now you retract from previous arguments due to the 'evidence' presented here by other members..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You missed my intended meaning.  Admittedly I have worded it poorly.  I should of worded it: I don’t “just” assume God to be good or that he is working for our benefit,  I know it. Isa. 25:7-9;  “And He will destroy on this mountain The surface of the covering cast over all people, And the veil that is spread over all nations.  He will swallow up death forever, And the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; The rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth; For the Lord has spoken.  And it will be said in that day: "Behold, this is our God; We have waited for Him, and He will save us. This is the Lord; We have waited for Him; We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation." (NKJV)

Jer. 29:11;  “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (NKJV) 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple stories in this one article, even relating to the Dead Sea and religious history... S&G may not have actually been destroyed, but in reality a made-up story in order to scare people into thinking God can kill you if he wants..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just an opinion and an assumption.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  So you are saying that God should 'kill off most Africans due to an AIDs epidemic? I am waiting for a response to this as well..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.  I can not judge them.  That is God’s responsibility

This is my last post.  I want to thank all of you for your replies.  It has been an experience and I have learned a lot. 


Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: naemhni on April 20, 2012, 01:52:55 PM
This is my last post.

TruthSeekerToo, if you change your mind about this and decide to continue posting, please learn to use the quoting function.  Posts such as the one you just made are hard to read because it is difficult to determine who is saying what.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 20, 2012, 03:11:05 PM
TS2,

Your claims are the same as all theists.  You are sure that your version is right but withno evidence.  You make baseless claims and have nothing to support them. And you tell outright lies, whether out of ignorance or spite I have no idea. 

No, the bible is not a record of real events as you have tried to claim.  None one essential event in the bible can be shown to have happened. No genesis, no exodus, no Sodom or Gomorrah, no magical birth or resurrection. It’s all as mythical as any other religion’s claims. 

People do believe in gods but not your personal version.  They all have their own, and they all contradict each other.  Each “god” tells his followers to hate the followers of another “god”.   You claim that your god “revealed” itself to you and that’s what everyone else says. How can we tell who is telling the truth? 

Claiming that the bible is credible evidence for the events in it is just like saying that since the Iliad mentions Athena and Poseidon as being real that means that they are as real as your supposed god.  Do you agree? Are Athena and Poseidon as real as Jesus Christ and the Christian God?  If you don’t, then you’ve just shot your argument dead.  This supposed savoir of your is claimed to have had thousands of people following him just outside of Jerusalem, right around the same number of a Roman legion.  And you want to pretend that the occupying force in a fractious country wouldn’t have noticed. &)  You want to ignore your own bible’s claims that there were dead walking in the streets, the sun going dark and an earth quake strong enough to rip a curtain in half, and no one notice.  Do you realize how stupid of an excuse that is?  There is no evidence of any trial or anyone being cruxifed with thieves (your bible can’t even agree on what those thieves did), or anyone being “resurrected” and coming back to do, per your bible, so many magical events that there would not be enough books on the earth to record them all.  You depend on hoping others are as ignorant about your bible as you obviously are.   

Then you claim that you “know” that your god allows bad things to happen for a reason.  But of course you can’t actually tell us what that is.  And you intentionally use the lie that yoru god only “allows” such horrible things.  As I said, and as I can demonstrate, he approves of them and encourages them. You worship a god that does horrible things.  The golden rule, to treat others as you would like ot be treated, isn’t from your religion. It’s been around far longer than that and people have been decent and humane for far longer than your little religion and indeed in spite of it.  Your god doesn’t even live up to that.  Your god fails at even living up to the definition of love in the bible.  Your god is simply “might equals right” a primitive and ignorant notion. 

You try to claim free will but again show how ignorant you are of your own bible, and that you’ve created your own religion.  There is no free will in your bible.  Your bible has your god interfering constantly which means no free will.  It would be nice if some Christian would actually know their bible and not try to lie to former Christians who do.

The willful ignorance and arrogance that so many Christians evince is sad. The impotence they confer on their god is funny though. Poor god, can’t stop satan, can’t eradicate anything in anyone mind’s but oh can force people to obey him when they don’t want to (see the Pharoah), etc.  The ignorance of your own religion makes you funny, TS2 but nothing special. Such a pathetic and dangerous fatalism you have.  it’s not your god that does anything, it’s only hard and dirty work by humans.

now, go live on an island somewhere with no computer, no modern medicine and no modern foods if you are so pious.  Since you’re not, keep on truckin’ hypocrite.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 20, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
<snip - invalid> Since he created our brains he would know how to communicate with us whether it be through electrical impulses, chemical input or some other way we have never thought of.
He created our brains so he could cook them and eat them!!!   ;D  Remember what I said to you - if you talk to god, you're christian; but if god responds, you are insane.  Common psychological point..
Quote
The bible is a real world record and was written by real world people.  Once God reveals himself to you, you begin to see that God is an all powerful loving God who cares deeply about his creation.
Still, unfounded arguments - God 'revealed' himself to S&G and is definitely not 'an all powerful loving God' - do you want me to point to other people's sufferings?  Should I tell them - look, god doesn't love you.  You're probably damned.  Look at how much you suffer..
Bullshit.  God has never revealed himself to anyone except the ficticious stories like the burning bush..  again, I point to another person's argument that an omnipotent god could indeed manifest in our world to 'reveal himself'.. pervert.

I agree that (1) the bible was written by real world people.  However, (2) it was written, even the five gospels, at different times and in different places to appeal to particular audiences for acceptance to spread the religion at the time.  It is not, however, a real-world record in any shape or form.  It is a story told by authors.  Nothing more.
Quote
Since the bible is a real world record written by real world people it serves as a credible source of  evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  <snip - due to lies and make-believe>
Liar.  Who paid off the guards?  Where was that recorded?  Again, no credible source of evidence whatsoever except a story in a book.  That's like me saying Harry Potter existed 500 years ago and defeated The Dark Lord with Magic!!  I love and worship Harry Potter!! Or the Dark Lord!! doesn't matter, they're both omniscent..
Quote
Just because we know that people don’t rise from the dead after 3 days is no proof that one didn’t especially in the light of the only contemporary record of the time that said he did.  Besides, we are not talking about “people” rising from the dead after 3 days.  We are talking about one man who rose from the dead after 3 day and 3 nights for the purpose of conquering death for all people.
Then I have conquered death and should 'rise after 3 days..'  I'll bet you a billion dollars I won't rise after 3 days.  You had better be ready to pay up to my late family..
Quote
<snip>There are only two basic ways of life.  The giving of yourself to others for their good with no thought of reward (God‘s way).
Then we are all doing exactly this, regardless of our 'postures'..
Quote
Or the getting for yourself without regard for others (Satan‘s way). 
Which you also do.  Explain this...
Quote
<snip>Before that happens, God will intervene to save us.
I have ample evidence that shows to the contrary.. there will be no intervention to global warming, nuclear weapons, or widespread rampant diseases.  God has never intervened in recent history regardless of samples of what I just mentioned.  I tell you what - while you are saying 'we can't fix it', and I am saying 'we can', you will be the dumbass that dies like a sheep while I was fighting for your worthless asses.  I do this constantly, while you idiots pray that some miraculous thing happens.  Prayer: 'the realization that you are doing something without actually having to do jack shit.' 
Quote
There are no more options to try, we are at the end of our rope.  God can now make thing right and no one will doubt that God exists.
No more options?  You seem dumfounded in your short-sightedness and futility.  I tell you again - you pray, I'll do the actual work trying to fix your broken shit.  Hopefully my work saves both of our asses, and that finally proves myself..
<snipt..>
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: gonegolfing on April 23, 2012, 09:12:16 AM
Truthseekertoo:

Quote
This is my last post.  I want to thank all of you for your replies.  It has been an experience and I have learned a lot.

Seriously ? And just what is that ?

Has what you have learned, going to convince you to stop displaying the cowardice that you willingly do by not accepting the facts about your existence and the scientific explanations for the reality that we exist in ? 

Has what you have learned, given you the inspiration and courage to face your future with passion and hope and to do so without the god-idea, and to relax your disappointments, unpleasant thoughts, and fears of your mortality ?

Has what you have learned, shown to you clearly--as it should--that we atheists are normal, loving, and moral individuals. And especially, that our arguments for our position are sound and although our position is not a position that you can hold, you see clearly why we do ?   

If not, then you have learned nothing and your experience meant nothing.

That was your last post because the well ran dry for you--you ran out of gas--there was no wood left for the fire--the air got to thin to breath-- yada..yada..fucking cliche' yada...... Which is the sum total of what you brought to the table when you came here--a bunch of preachy phrases and opinions that betrayed you and exposed your lack of depth and original thought.

See ya. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on April 25, 2012, 03:17:54 PM
I have not read every post in this thread and the topic has changed so please forgive me.  I also don't have a perfect understanding of the Bible nor history so please forgive me again.  I would, however, like to chime in with my understanding of these things in light of the Bible.  I will try to be brief.

To the best of my knowledge the Bible account does not claim that Adam and Eve were perfect.  It says creation was "very good".  But either way you look at things the perfection was only relative as the Bible also says "only God is good".  Adam and Eve were perfectly suited for the life that God had made for them which was to live in a paradise, to take care of it, and to multiply.

And to touch on the subject of human suffering I will give my understanding.  A major theme in the Bible is the question "Can man survive without God?"  This question was first raised in Genesis and indeed many still prefer a world without God.  If God constantly intervened then that question could never be settled and would exist for all eternity, in heaven and earth.  It has been admitted in this thread that God has not intervened.  So the question is what has been the result?  I surely don't need to enumerate all the human failings in history.  But as bad as things have been/are the question has not yet fully been answered as many people still hold out they can do fine without God, although history does not support this claim.  From my understanding, God will not intervene until the point that "no flesh would survive".  At this point there will be not even a sliver of doubt that "man has dominated man to his own injury."

Also I would like to say about Sodom and Gomorrah and other similar places that their destruction was not God trying to teach them a lesson but rather it was God's judgment that they were worthy of nothing but death just like the flood of Noah's day.  An even larger destruction is prophesied for the future for the "wicked".
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 26, 2012, 08:21:15 AM
I have not read every post in this thread and the topic has changed so please forgive me.  I also don't have a perfect understanding of the Bible nor history so please forgive me again.  I would, however, like to chime in with my understanding of these things in light of the Bible.  I will try to be brief.
To the best of my knowledge the Bible account does not claim that Adam and Eve were perfect.  It says creation was "very good".  But either way you look at things the perfection was only relative as the Bible also says "only God is good".  Adam and Eve were perfectly suited for the life that God had made for them which was to live in a paradise, to take care of it, and to multiply.
So, your god decided to make something that would fail?  Interesting.  And it seems that they weren’t made perfectly suited for living in paradise or take care of it or multiply since if they were, they would never have eaten the apple.  With your logic, this means that your god made them so they would have no choice but eat the apple thus damning everyone if you believe in the nonsense of original sin.
Quote
And to touch on the subject of human suffering I will give my understanding.  A major theme in the Bible is the question "Can man survive without God?"  This question was first raised in Genesis and indeed many still prefer a world without God.
Well, jst, since we’ve been doing fine so far, your god has failed to support this claim of yours.  There is no evidence for yoru god’s mere existence, much less that it does anything at all. 
Quote
If God constantly intervened then that question could never be settled and would exist for all eternity, in heaven and earth.
But god has intervened and that demonstrates that this god isnt’ at all interested in the free will you would try to claim.  This god of yours repeated interfered in the most drastic ways possible, a flood that killed everyone but one drunkard and his family plus animals (which is hysterical since its such a myth), he made everyone’s langage different, he repeatedly commanded genocide, and then he decided that he needed to interfere again by requiring a bloody murder of supposed himself to himself.  If all of the miracles claimed now by Christians, he’s still interfering with free will.  Looking in the bible we see that your god intentionally makes sure people will never be able to accept this nonsense of his (Romans 9 and what Jesus says when asked why he uses parables) so much for free will there.  We have a god that in 2 Thessalonians intentionally makes people believe a lie.   And if we look to the supposed future, this god really is a manipulating twit and even goes to the length of killing all of the people that don’t accept him and *then* works with his supposed greatest enemy to corrupt the people who are left.  what a good god.  &)   

Quote
It has been admitted in this thread that God has not intervened.
No, it has been said that god doesn’t intervene since he doesn’t exist and we see repeatedly that per the bible and per Christian claims this god has intervened.  So who are the true Christian here so we know who to believe, jst? 
Quote
So the question is what has been the result?  I surely don't need to enumerate all the human failings in history.  But as bad as things have been/are the question has not yet fully been answered as many people still hold out they can do fine without God, although history does not support this claim.
Ah, yes history does show that people do much better without this god.  We have far fewer witch and heretic burnings now that Christian idiots don’t do that even though their bible says to kill anyone who doesn’t believe like they do.  They get further and further from their primitive violent religion.  Countries who have less religious belief (and no megalomaniacs running them) do much better.
Quote
From my understanding, God will not intervene until the point that "no flesh would survive".  At this point there will be not even a sliver of doubt that "man has dominated man to his own injury."
And one more Christian who has a different baseless opinion from the rest.  I do like to watch Christians be so sure that their version is the only “right” version.  It’s also amusing to watch someone cite Matthew 24 and its lunacy that the stars will fall from the sky and that the flood was real. Ah, the ignorance of the bible authors. 
Quote
Also I would like to say about Sodom and Gomorrah and other similar places that their destruction was not God trying to teach them a lesson but rather it was God's judgment that they were worthy of nothing but death just like the flood of Noah's day.  An even larger destruction is prophesied for the future for the "wicked".
  Oh yes, the lovely claim that somethings aren’t worthy anything but death.  So, since Paul said that god finds that a lot of things worthy of death (Romans 1), seems your god is now rather impotent.  Got all of that hatred and murder by the hand of god in your bible and now with the same types of people around, poor thing can’t do anything about them.  Yep, there are all sorts of “prophecies” and I do enjoy watching Christians make claim after claim when it will happen and failing.  It’s like watching a child insist that they’ll “get” those who have shown them wrong.  What a pathetic sadistic fantasy. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 26, 2012, 05:06:58 PM
Also I would like to say about Sodom and Gomorrah and other similar places that their destruction was not God trying to teach them a lesson but rather it was God's judgment that they were worthy of nothing but death just like the flood of Noah's day.  An even larger destruction is prophesied for the future for the "wicked".
I've already answered the 'mysteries of S&G in another topic..'  Also, you make a conflicting claim - that God doesn't intervene and that's obvious, however, here in the bible we have god intervening...

Conclusion: garbage belonging in the trash-can...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on April 27, 2012, 08:06:16 PM
Well, jst, since we’ve been doing fine so far, your god has failed to support this claim of yours.  There is no evidence for yoru god’s mere existence, much less that it does anything at all.

How so?  God is not supporting his claim.  He's allowing humans to support theirs.  They're the ones claiming they best rule the earth.  Maybe you measure success differently than I but I don't think humans are doing a very good job.  I tend to agree with the Bible's view that "man has dominated man to his own injury.  All this suffering that you blame on God is ridiculous.  Man is running the show, not God.  If babies die and other sad things happen it because humans cannot fix it.  It's their failure!  Remember humans don't need God.  This is your claim.

Quote
But god has intervened

Okay let me clarify.  God has only intervened to the extent required to make sure his purposes are fulfilled in the end.  He has not interfered with man's attempt to take care of their selves.  And yes, as sometimes recorded in the Bible, this has been judicial destruction at times. 

Oh and by the way.  The Bible never says they at an apple.  You must know nothing about what you're talking about.  Just kidding, not about the first statement, but this is the attitude I get around here.  I think it's starting to rub off.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on April 30, 2012, 09:57:31 AM
How so?  God is not supporting his claim.  He's allowing humans to support theirs.
Lovely excuse here.  You claimed that your god exists, and that the bible is true, which would mean that yoru god repeatedly interfered with humanity and isn’t interested at all in allowing humans to live without his interference at all.  You see, jst, your claims don’t jibe with the stories your bible tells or the stories your fellow theists tell.  You want to claim that your god is hands off but they claim that he’s doing miracles all of the time.  Please do show evidence supporting your claims are the valid ones.  Show that your god exists at all. 
Quote
They're the ones claiming they best rule the earth.  Maybe you measure success differently than I but I don't think humans are doing a very good job.
Oh yes, the usual theist claim that the humans are failing and it’s just been getting *worse* since we decided that gods weren’t so important.  Well, jst, we’ve ended diseases that killed millions.  We’ve ended slavery (something your god approves of) in much of the world and are trying our best to eliminate all together.  We have fewer wars in the world and definitely fewer based on idiots who war over whose invisible friend is the best.  Back in eras where gods were popular, we didn’t give a damn about the environment and we had rivers that caught on fire, people dumping chemicals willy-nilly, and no one cared.  Now that we know that there is no magical god to come and save us, we have very human and very secular laws that help the environment.
Quote
I tend to agree with the Bible's view that "man has dominated man to his own injury.  All this suffering that you blame on God is ridiculous.  Man is running the show, not God.  If babies die and other sad things happen it because humans cannot fix it.  It's their failure!  Remember humans don't need God.  This is your claim.
I love how theists like you want to excuse your god.  Poor thing, it can’t do anything.  And babies dying?  Hmmm, death rates of children at birth and in the first years of life were vastly higher when the majority of people worshipped your god.  Now, they have dropped substantially thanks to human actions, not some ludicrous god. 
Quote
Okay let me clarify.  God has only intervened to the extent required to make sure his purposes are fulfilled in the end.  He has not interfered with man's attempt to take care of their selves.  And yes, as sometimes recorded in the Bible, this has been judicial destruction at times.
And thus there is no free will.  See there, where *you* have admitted that there is some magical plan that your god has?  What a fail.  And judicial destruction?  ROFL.  That’s rich, the annihilation of everything on the face of the earth because your poor little god got upset that humans forgot about him since he didn’t show himself.  What a pathetic brat. I do love sycophants like you who are all about might equals right.

Quote
Oh and by the way.  The Bible never says they at an apple.  You must know nothing about what you're talking about.  Just kidding, not about the first statement, but this is the attitude I get around here.  I think it's starting to rub off.
The bible says that they ate a fruit.  Since apples have had mystical connotations since long before your religion, people who have claimed to believe in the bible god have claimed it’s been an apple.  It’s also been claimed to be a pomegranate since that’s also considered a mystical fruit.  But since you can’t show that any of this utter nonsense was real, it’s a moot point.  Your religion has nothing unique about it, not even claiming that “fruit” will get a human in trouble. . 

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on April 30, 2012, 11:48:08 AM

How so?  God is not supporting his claim.  He's allowing humans to support theirs.

Because God is Imaginary...  An imaginary tart cannot support his own claims simply because he/she isn't there to do so.  Maybe they are hiding out in the other reality(ies) just to bring us justice that he couldn't show us the truth to begin with (truth being a fallacy when dealing with something that just hasn't been completely false [however, almost everything right now points to its falseness..])

Quote
I tend to agree with the Bible's view that "man has dominated man to his own injury.  All this suffering that you blame on God is ridiculous.  Man is running the show, not God.  If babies die and other sad things happen it because humans cannot fix it.  It's their failure!  Remember humans don't need God.  This is your claim.
I want to reiterate your statements (1) God doesn't intervene (2) god intervenes, but only in the ancient days, now he never does (3) now man runs the show and has been the whole time   What the fuck is it then??
Just put the blame on god for incompetence and let's be done with it!

Quote
Okay let me clarify.  God has only intervened to the extent required to make sure his purposes are fulfilled in the end.  He has not interfered with man's attempt to take care of their selves.  And yes, as sometimes recorded in the Bible, this has been judicial destruction at times.
And, here we are.  He only intervenes in order to accomplish his objectives.  Rubbish.  I can't believe you have bought into such ridiculous stories.  You can look at the posts you have been making on this forum, and easily realize that the bible was written by different groups, by different authors, at different times to try to appeal to their audience and push Christianity.  When you are quoting and talking about the bible, generally you are referring to 0BC-land - a place and time that was completely different today.  And, when you can't explain your position, you keep changing the meaning.  Total Rubbish + lying = farce.  Judicial destruction as the only means to save a race of intelligent (or rather dumb) beings displays a completely incompetent god, relying on man's way of doing things as a means to an end.  This is complete crap.  You are one of those 'yay! I'm saved and everyone not in my religion isn't' kind of people.  I revere that as the most grotesque and ignorant race of religious bastards out there.[1]

Quote
Oh and by the way.  The Bible never says they at an apple.  You must know nothing about what you're talking about.  Just kidding, not about the first statement, but this is the attitude I get around here.  I think it's starting to rub off.

Your nonsense is indeed rubbing off - I don't care if they ate a freaking rubix cube, if we continue to eat it then we should still be getting poisoned by the 'truth of knowledge of good and evil'.  Who the fuck cares what type of fruit it was - it was just a fucking story that was made up.  Talking snake.  period.

[1] Here I am calling you a bastard since you don't fit into this group.  We are actually the ones to be saved, for using our brain and proving to your god that we can think and reason clearly.  Pun against you intended..
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 01, 2012, 10:18:41 PM
Just a story? Well, it is certainly a story. So, if one looks at it in that light, a number of very interesting stylistic devices fairly jump out. Two creation accounts? One is cosmocentric; the other is anthropocentric. The order of the events is not accidental, nor is it the result of the author's stupidity. It is an example of chiasmus. (http://www.drmardy.com/chiasmus/definition.shtml) If you look at Genesis as an example of ancient literature (which it is, of course), what emerges is a rather sophisticated literary work that is quite fascinating.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 01, 2012, 10:38:21 PM
Welcome Plain Jane.

If the creation account is indeed a  chiasmus, does that in any way add to its validity? I can see where it might add to its value as literature. But I don't see how that helps authenticate the story.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 01, 2012, 10:42:54 PM
It fascinates me that you find a story written by people in 0BC to still be fascinating..  I guess I still find it fascinating that there are some people in the world, like the nomads (where are these guys still found?  Forgot) still think that the world is flat, and their reasoning is picking up a stone and dropping it.  If the world was round, we would all fall away on the other side!

It's just a book - I will re-iterate that it was written for its time, for its own audiences.  It has underwent several revisions since those times, to better fit what we knew at certain times along the way, just so it still makes sense.  And the fact that a lot of it is still shrouded in mystery and we struggle to 'interpret' it, that we have to find 'hidden meaning' that only appears to the righteous, and that in the beginning of the writings in the NT the message was 'hidden from people, so that those on the outside could listen but not understand'; then yes, I would conclude these are just 'stories'...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 01, 2012, 11:20:34 PM
If the creation account is indeed a  chiasmus, does that in any way add to its validity?
Depends on what you mean by validity! I am not very sympathetic to those who want to use Genesis as a science text book. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. What does the story say about the human condition?

The RCC is not blazing any trails here. St Jerome says somewhere that Genesis was written "after the manner of a poet". His contemporary, St. Augustine, wrote a whole treatise called "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" which starting with Gen. 1:1, asks questions that would bewilder (and, possibly, enrage) any fervent literalist. I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.

Of course, it works the other way around, too. People who still get all uptight because the OT classes bats among birds also need to remember that it isn't a science text book. There is something else going on.  :)


 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 01, 2012, 11:31:35 PM
Bats are mentioned when theists tell us that the OT is a science book. And we get that a lot around here.

The bible may well be a very interesting, and perhaps even exciting, work of literature. However, that attribute gets lost easily when adherents insist that the book is the word of their god and start stabbing, etc. over the issue.

I wouldn't have to be an atheist if the bible god (along with all other god claims) was just seen as a story and the Cliff Notes version was the bigger seller.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Zankuu on May 02, 2012, 05:41:31 AM
I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.

Welcome Plain Jane,

I agree. But what are your thoughts on original sin? If Adam and Eve, the tree, and the talking snake are allegorical- what does this mean for sin? What about souls? Are those concepts allegory as well? And if it is, what does this mean for the Jesus character in the New Testament? Where does the metaphorical view end and the literalism begin?

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 02, 2012, 08:58:32 AM
If the creation account is indeed a  chiasmus, does that in any way add to its validity?
Depends on what you mean by validity! I am not very sympathetic to those who want to use Genesis as a science text book. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. What does the story say about the human condition?
So this is what your magic decoder ring says, Jane?  I've been looking for years for someone who knows exactly what this god really means.  Are you the one with the "right" answers?  Can you provide evidence to me showing that?
Quote
The RCC is not blazing any trails here. St Jerome says somewhere that Genesis was written "after the manner of a poet". His contemporary, St. Augustine, wrote a whole treatise called "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" which starting with Gen. 1:1, asks questions that would bewilder (and, possibly, enrage) any fervent literalist. I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.
The text isn't so rich.  It's a pretty standard creation myth that most religions have, and it's pretty much like any of Rudyard Kipling's "Just-so" stories.    I do admit it is quite fantastical, as are most of the claims of the bible.  Are those all metaphor too?  Can I consider the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be only a myth that describes mankind becoming more caring toward each other and not a literal occurence?
Quote
Of course, it works the other way around, too. People who still get all uptight because the OT classes bats among birds also need to remember that it isn't a science text book. There is something else going on.  :)
  That's a pretty standard claim from a Christian, that their book really truly does mean somethign else when the Christian finds it convenient.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 10:54:35 AM
I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.

Welcome Plain Jane,

I agree. But what are your thoughts on original sin? If Adam and Eve, the tree, and the talking snake are allegorical- what does this mean for sin? What about souls? Are those concepts allegory as well? And if it is, what does this mean for the Jesus character in the New Testament? Where does the metaphorical view end and the literalism begin?
Well, they may or may not be allegorical but, and in this venue I need to use the word carefully, they are certainly mythological. Now myth, as literary types tend to use the word, does not mean fiction. It means that the story reflects certain truths but, clearly, the author wasn't there and is handing on his people's collective understanding of the past and God's dealings with humanity. Story is, after all, the chief way the ancients remembered and passed on their histories. In other words, I agree with the RCC that the story tells us about an event at the beginning of human history that broke the intimate bond between God and man. The details are actually quite fascinating-- the story, tree, snake, and all, is actually quite sophisticated. Maybe we can talk about that another time.

Jesus is in a different category. We have a number of contemporary and near contemporary primary historical sources that testify to his existence and doings. Something I notice frequently is that many atheists assume that the Bible is a book. It isn't. It is a compilation of a lot of books. In the New Testament we have 26 independent, primary, historical sources that tell us about a specific person at a specific time and place. (I leave Revelation out, since it is an example of apocalyptic literature-- a genre beloved at the time but hardly to be taken literally.) We don't have nearly as much good evidence for most of the people in the ancient world, produced so near in time, too, as we do for Jesus. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of trained historians who deny the historicity of Jesus.

Original sin is a funny subject. Not every denomination understands it the same way. We (the RCC) are adamant that Christians should understand that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam. Thus we are not punished for what he did. Rather, we suffer because of what Adam did. Essentially, what died first when Adam disobeyed God was the perfect spiritual nature he had been given-- What he lost, he could no longer pass on to his descendants. Thus, we have a propensity to sin that none of us can resist.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Zankuu on May 02, 2012, 11:05:07 AM
The details are actually quite fascinating-- the story, tree, snake, and all, is actually quite sophisticated. Maybe we can talk about that another time.

Sounds good to me.

Original sin is a funny subject. Not every denomination understands it the same way. We (the RCC) are adamant that Christians should understand that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam. Thus we are not punished for what he did. Rather, we suffer because of what Adam did.

I see. So rather than original sin you believe in an ancestral sin. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 02, 2012, 11:56:02 AM
Well, they may or may not be allegorical but, and in this venue I need to use the word carefully, they are certainly mythological. Now myth, as literary types tend to use the word, does not mean fiction. It means that the story reflects certain truths but, clearly, the author wasn't there and is handing on his people's collective understanding of the past and God's dealings with humanity.
Literary types?  what types are those? Myth: a usually traditional story of ostensibly (being such in appearance, plausible not demonstrably real) historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.  Now an allegory is the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence (both from Merriam-webster)  They both seem to mean a fiction, one to convey a generalization of human behavior. The bible can be seen as that. So is it all allegory and all mythical? 
Quote
Story is, after all, the chief way the ancients remembered and passed on their histories. In other words, I agree with the RCC that the story tells us about an event at the beginning of human history that broke the intimate bond between God and man. The details are actually quite fascinating-- the story, tree, snake, and all, is actually quite sophisticated. Maybe we can talk about that another time.
And we know that those rememberings were not always accurate or even truthful aka big fish stories. 
Quote
Jesus is in a different category. We have a number of contemporary and near contemporary primary historical sources that testify to his existence and doings. Something I notice frequently is that many atheists assume that the Bible is a book. It isn't. It is a compilation of a lot of books. In the New Testament we have 26 independent, primary, historical sources that tell us about a specific person at a specific time and place. (I leave Revelation out, since it is an example of apocalyptic literature-- a genre beloved at the time but hardly to be taken literally.) We don't have nearly as much good evidence for most of the people in the ancient world, produced so near in time, too, as we do for Jesus. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of trained historians who deny the historicity of Jesus.
Tah-dah, the invocation of special pleading.  No, we do not have these things you claim, Jane. Lots of Christians want to believe that such things exist but they don’t.  And no the bible isn’t a bunch of primary historical sources.  You evidently don’t know what that term means. We have no idea what the originals were or might have said and we know the bible’s books have undergone changes and simple get things utterly wrong.  You repeat the lie about historical personages in comparison to Jesus.  We have plenty and they aren’t making claims of magic happening so there is little reason to doubt what we have.  I also am not impressed by your counting or your knowledge or your appeal to authority.  We have no evidence for a man/god, the Jesus *you* are claiming to be real.  You are not claiming a itinerate rabbi that had stories told about him, not a collection of myths about many different people. Let me ask you, do you belive that Emperor Vespasian healed people? Why or why not?   
Quote
Original sin is a funny subject. Not every denomination understands it the same way.
Not every denomination accepts it.
Quote
We (the RCC) are adamant that Christians should understand that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam. Thus we are not punished for what he did. Rather, we suffer because of what Adam did. Essentially, what died first when Adam disobeyed God was the perfect spiritual nature he had been given-- What he lost, he could no longer pass on to his descendants. Thus, we have a propensity to sin that none of us can resist.
  So, since you think you know the “right” answers, are you willing to be in a competition between various types of Christians to see who is the TrueChristian?  I do love the equivocation between punishment and suffer.  One suffers a punishment, Jane.  If we did nothing wrong, we should not have to suffer for it, if your god is the benevolent being you claim.  It’s like saying well “suzy spilt the milk and was punished by having no cookies, but we’re also not giving any cookies to jimmy because he was on the planet at the same time”. 

And funny for Adam having a  “perfect spiritual nature” that he screwed up first thing.  I guess it wasn’t so perfect. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 12:20:16 PM
It fascinates me that you find a story written by people in 0BC to still be fascinating..
  Different strokes, I guess! But do you really mean that you don't understand why we still read ancient literature? Not Homer? Virgil? Beowulf? Song of Roland? Song of the Nibelungs?

I see. So rather than original sin you believe in an ancestral sin. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not sure I understand. All actions have consequences. There was an original sin, the disobedience of Adam, and the result of that was the loss of the uncorrupted spiritual nature with which he had been endowed at creation. Since he no longer had it, he could not pass it on to his children. All he had to give was his corrupted nature.  So, we, like all who have gone before, inherit it, too.

I do love the equivocation between punishment and suffer.  One suffers a punishment, Jane.  If we did nothing wrong, we should not have to suffer for it, if your god is the benevolent being you claim.  It’s like saying well “suzy spilt the milk and was punished by having no cookies, but we’re also not giving any cookies to jimmy because he was on the planet at the same time”. 
Oh? Tell that to the 4 children who, as I type this, are grieving for their father who was killed by a drunk driver last night. The drunk's sin is the cause of the kids' suffering; such is the nature of reality. They did nothing to deserve it. No man is an island and all that. What we do impacts others around us, sometimes with horrific  results.

Quote
And funny for Adam having a  “perfect spiritual nature” that he screwed up first thing.  I guess it wasn’t so perfect.
Yes, it was perfect.  Some people don't take the notion of free will seriously enough. God could have created a race of puppets. For some reason he did not. We really are the masters of our destiny in the way that ultimately matters. It is a great gift but a terrifying one, too.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 02, 2012, 12:26:02 PM
There was an original sin, the disobedience of Adam, and the result of that was the loss of the uncorrupted spiritual nature with which he had been endowed at creation. Since he no longer had it, he could not pass it on to his children. All he had to give was his corrupted nature.  So, we, like all who have gone before, inherit it, too.

But you said "we do not inherit the guilt of Adam."  It kind of looks like you are saying we did.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 02, 2012, 12:44:10 PM
Oh? Tell that to the 4 children who, as I type this, are grieving for their father who was killed by a drunk driver last night. The drunk's sin is the cause of the kids' suffering; such is the nature of reality. They did nothing to deserve it. No man is an island and all that. What we do impacts others around us, sometimes with horrific  results.
  The drunk is at fault, not some magical sin. Now, if your god does exist, I do wonder about such a god that does nothing and allows a father to be killed by a drunk.  As I pointed out, and which you avoided, your bible has nothing about free will, so why not interfere with a miracle yet again?  Omnipotent, omniscient surely he can?  Or was it part of “God’s Plan” that a man die with four children now grieving?   
Quote
Yes, it was perfect.  Some people don't take the notion of free will seriously enough. God could have created a race of puppets. For some reason he did not. We really are the masters of our destiny in the way that ultimately matters. It is a great gift but a terrifying one, too.
“Yes it was perfect”.  Care to stomp your feet again, Jane? It works about as well as making a claim with no evidence.  Nothing shows it was or even that your story is true. 

Again, your bible has nothing about free will, it has your god repeatedly interfering with humanity, so no free will.  Your bible says that your god controlled the pharaoh so it could show off.  It controlled the Egyptians so the Israelites could take their gold and silver.  Your bible says that some people have absolutely no choice to be able to accep this god of yours.  So much for free will.  You have no idea about free will so your opinion about people taking it seriously enough is just silly.  You obviously don’t when you make such things up to excuse your god’s impotence and evidence non-existence. 

“for some reason”,  the only reason is it doesn’t exist.  Christians all make claims that contradict each other and are as baseless as the next.  We get the Calvinists with their predestination and you with your pious assurances that you are right and that we have free will.  Can’t both be true and since none of you have evidence, I see that you are both making things up.  I agree with you up to a point. We are masters of our own destiny, limited by our psychology and the laws of physics and chemistry.  We can’t fly on our own no matter how much we hope we can.  No gods to bother us at all.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
But you said "we do not inherit the guilt of Adam."  It kind of looks like you are saying we did.

No, I do not mean to say that at all. But what Adam did impacts the rest of us. For anyone who is interested, original sin (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#389) is discussed in the Catechism. For our purposes, it might be enough to say that what Adam and Eve did had profound consequences for all of creation. Their relationship is corrupted, work becomes bitter and hard, and death enters the world. Adam and Eve could not pass on to their descendants what they no longer had-- that uncorrupted, spiritual nature.

Now, again, we are dealing with a story. Obviously, as a Christian, I believe the lesson it tells but I do so not because the story can comprehensively answer all the questions it raises but because I believe in Christ, the second Adam who made good for us what the first Adam spoiled. If I were not a Christian, I would still enjoy the Old Testament literature very much. I would still understand how much it tells us about the ancient world, its customs, beliefs, etc. But I would not accord it any more honor than I do the Illiad. Of course, I am a fan of Homer, too...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 02, 2012, 01:13:50 PM
No, I do not mean to say that at all. But what Adam did impacts the rest of us.
why did it *have* to? and how is spiritual nature passed on?  the sperm? the egg?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 01:18:36 PM
The drunk is at fault, not some magical sin.
What on earth is a magical sin? What do you think sin is?

Quote
Now, if your god does exist, I do wonder about such a god that does nothing and allows a father to be killed by a drunk.  As I pointed out, and which you avoided, your bible has nothing about free will, so why not interfere with a miracle yet again?  Omnipotent, omniscient surely he can?  Or was it part of “God’s Plan” that a man die with four children now grieving?   
It would be lovely if every time a thug pulled the trigger on a gun, roses came out instead of bullets. But that is not the nature of reality. It would be lovely, if every time an arsonist struck a match and threw it into a pile of leaves in a forest, it would rain lemonade. But that is not the nature of fire. Or rain. You can't have it both ways. Either we are puppets or we are not. Free will is all over the Bible. How could you possibly miss it?

Demanding constant miracles; intervention to prevent the outcome of our actions, plays havoc with reality. Laws that are constantly circumvented are no longer laws and we can wave bye-bye to science. I can't even imagine what a totally unpredictable world would look like. Well, for one thing, there would be no such thing as a miracle since nothing can be a miracle in a world that does not work in predictable ways.

One really doesn't need a decoder ring to read the Bible intelligently and think about what one is reading. However, it is a mistake to suppose that you can pick up an ancient work of literature written over at least 1000 years in a couple of different languages and in different places and expect it to be as transparent as your daily newspaper. It isn't going to be. Not by a long shot.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Zankuu on May 02, 2012, 01:20:52 PM
I am not sure I understand. All actions have consequences. There was an original sin, the disobedience of Adam, and the result of that was the loss of the uncorrupted spiritual nature with which he had been endowed at creation. Since he no longer had it, he could not pass it on to his children. All he had to give was his corrupted nature.  So, we, like all who have gone before, inherit it, too.

The idea behind original sin is that every human to be conceived after "The Fall" deserve hell due to the liability of the first, original sin. I like to similize this with beating new born puppies with a newspaper because their mother peed on the floor.

By comparison ancestral sin isn't nearly as radical. This concept of sin acknowledges that while a gateway sin did occur, we aren't responsible for it. So it doesn't suggest that a person is liable for another person's transgression. The first sin does allow for sin into individual lives, and it is the burden faced by all to come since Adam.

Does this help clear things up?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 01:30:12 PM
The idea behind original sin is that every human to be conceived after "The Fall" deserve hell due to the liability of the first, original sin. I like to similize this with beating new born puppies with a newspaper because their mother peed on the floor.
By comparison ancestral sin isn't nearly as radical. This concept of sin acknowledges that while a gateway sin did occur, we aren't responsible for it. So it doesn't suggest that a person is liable for another person's transgression. The first sin does allow for sin into individual lives, and it is the burden faced by all to come since Adam.

Does this help clear things up?
Yes, thanks. But that is not the Catholic understanding of the matter. I best let the Catechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#389) explain it:
By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.  ...

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I must say that I have found the notion of original sin as "contracted and not committed" very helpful.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on May 02, 2012, 01:33:35 PM
Yes, it was perfect.  Some people don't take the notion of free will seriously enough. God could have created a race of puppets. For some reason he did not. We really are the masters of our destiny in the way that ultimately matters. It is a great gift but a terrifying one, too.

Sorry, but I have to chime in. According to the bible, there is no free will. Everything that happens, is according to his will. You are like Rose DeWitt Bukater before getting onto the Titanic. It already happened, yet you watch it as if it's happening right now. Rose appears to have freewill but she really does not, because Kate is just going according to the script. No matter what she does, she cannot alter the outcome because it has already been seen. Even in the incarnation you watch, all events that happen, happened months ago before the film was released to the theaters. Then there's those that saw it in theater in '97 as well. Rose was meant to live, Jack was meant to die[1], they were never meant to be together. Life is the same way according to the bible.

God knew that drunk was going to kill him, yet in his infinite he didn't give a warning... no way to prevent the tragedy. Now 4 innocents and others have to suffer for it.

It's the same... when 2 people believe they're "meant to be together." They're made specifically for each other. God made it impossible for them to be happily married to anyone else, and if they're meant to be, they have no choice but to marry, so how's that "freewill?"
 1. iirc he died in the water holding the wood she was floating on.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 02, 2012, 01:53:33 PM
The drunk is at fault, not some magical sin.
What on earth is a magical sin? What do you think sin is?
the claims by a ignorant xenophobic people that some actions are considered bad by a supernatural force.   For instance, your supposed supernatural force had a thing about menstruation, working on a special day (which Christians can’t agree on), eating shrimp, etc.  Sins only tangentially have anything to do with benefit and harm.  Orgininal sin is even funnier since it does depend on magic.  Oooh, the entire world got like it is from"sin" with a poof.   
Quote
Now, if your god does exist, I do wonder about such a god that does nothing and allows a father to be killed by a drunk.  As I pointed out, and which you avoided, your bible has nothing about free will, so why not interfere with a miracle yet again?  Omnipotent, omniscient surely he can?  Or was it part of “God’s Plan” that a man die with four children now grieving?   
It would be lovely if every time a thug pulled the trigger on a gun, roses came out instead of bullets. But that is not the nature of reality. It would be lovely, if every time an arsonist struck a match and threw it into a pile of leaves in a forest, it would rain lemonade. But that is not the nature of fire. Or rain. You can't have it both ways. Either we are puppets or we are not. Free will is all over the Bible. How could you possibly miss it?[/quote]  Yep, it would be lovely.  And yep, it’s not the nature of reality.  No miracle is, not even the ones you’ve deluded yourself into believing.  You see, you can’t have it both ways, Jane.  I do love how you claim “free will is all over the bible” but you haven’t shown one instance of it. 

One thing Christians forget is that their god did indeed say that the thought of the deed was just as bad as the deed.  So, even if your god cared about free will, one could have it stop people after they thought of something horrible to do and stop them right then; no one else would need to be involved or harmed.  But no, this god has conveniently become impotent when its worshippers have to excuse its inaction.
Quote
Demanding constant miracles; intervention to prevent the outcome of our actions, plays havoc with reality. Laws that are constantly circumvented are no longer laws and we can wave bye-bye to science. I can't even imagine what a totally unpredictable world would look like. Well, for one thing, there would be no such thing as a miracle since nothing can be a miracle in a world that does not work in predictable ways.
  Ah, so you do agree that your fellow Christians are wrong.  So please do show me you are the True Christian here.  Yep, constant miracles would mess things up. Miracles of any kind at any time destroy free will. But your god had no problem with this before so why the excuse now?  Is it because miracles don’t happen and you have to self-edit your religion to explain why your Pope doesn’t bother going to Lourdes but goes right to a high tech hospital?  So much for believing that this god takes care of mankind as much as he takes care of the birds and the lilies.  Of course, looking out at the roof across from me, those birds don’t get much god attention either.
 
Quote
One really doesn't need a decoder ring to read the Bible intelligently and think about what one is reading. However, it is a mistake to suppose that you can pick up an ancient work of literature written over at least 1000 years in a couple of different languages and in different places and expect it to be as transparent as your daily newspaper. It isn't going to be. Not by a long shot.
  No, I agree with that. I have read the bible without a decoder ring and read it “intelligently” and think about what it says.  And I get something entirely different from you.  So, your claim of doing something “intelligently” was only you saying that you believe that only those who agree with your and your own personal version of what the bible says are intelligent.  No problem, all types of Christians here make that accusation and again, all of them differ and all of hem have no evidence that their version is the right one. 

Pity your god is so impotent and evidently so bloodthirsty that it can’t get past humans who hmmm, use different languages per its will right?  and who can’t correct anything about the bible to make it clearer and not have people kill each other over it.  I seem to recall Catholics and non-Catholic Christians murdering each other over such arguments about who know what their invisible friend wanted the bestest.  The 30 Year War was all about this nonsense, killing hundreds of thousands from hunger, plague, and war.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 02, 2012, 01:53:53 PM
By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.

Except the Serpent doesn't actually tempt them. He just tells Eve that god lied about them dying if they ate from the tree. He never actually tells them to eat from it.

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.  ...

He forgot the part about the pain of childbirth and the subjugation of women towards men.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Aaron123 on May 02, 2012, 01:55:32 PM
Demanding constant miracles; intervention to prevent the outcome of our actions, plays havoc with reality. Laws that are constantly circumvented are no longer laws and we can wave bye-bye to science. I can't even imagine what a totally unpredictable world would look like. Well, for one thing, there would be no such thing as a miracle since nothing can be a miracle in a world that does not work in predictable ways.

Thing is; isn't prayer an example of "demanding constant miracles"?

If so, sounds like you're saying that prayers are meaningless.


Quote
However, it is a mistake to suppose that you can pick up an ancient work of literature written over at least 1000 years in a couple of different languages and in different places and expect it to be as transparent as your daily newspaper. It isn't going to be. Not by a long shot.

Well, this much, I certainly agree with.  Though you really have to wonder; if the book is so important, why not update it so that the meaning is plain to everyone that reads it today.  It's a total failure on god's part not to update The Important Book for 2,000-odd years...  :angel:
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Quesi on May 02, 2012, 02:16:00 PM


If I were not a Christian, I would still enjoy the Old Testament literature very much. I would still understand how much it tells us about the ancient world, its customs, beliefs, etc. But I would not accord it any more honor than I do the Illiad. Of course, I am a fan of Homer, too...

Welcome to the forum Jane.

I don't think that there are many people here who would disagree with you.  The OT is a complex, fascinating document, which speaks volumes about the customs and values of an ancient society.

Where I think you will find disagreement is if you present the God of the OT as representing values that most of us would embrace.  I think that most of us who have read the OT find the God to be violent and petty. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on May 02, 2012, 02:22:56 PM
Ditto. What I read in the OT was the seed that led to my eventual loss of faith. I, as a teenage boy in the bible belt, felt it was just too damn sexist.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 02, 2012, 03:38:23 PM
For our purposes, it might be enough to say that what Adam and Eve did had profound consequences for all of creation. Their relationship is corrupted, work becomes bitter and hard, and death enters the world. Adam and Eve could not pass on to their descendants what they no longer had-- that uncorrupted, spiritual nature.

But that is kind of the point of it, the injustice.  How on earth did two people's "sin"[1] affect all of creation?  You cannot say it was a natural consequence.  Natural consequences follow regular, natural laws.  Throw a rock and it lands according to laws of dynamics. Natural consequence.

This was action taken by yhwh.   There is no reason that yhwh could not have said, "you two are in the dog house, but when you have kids, they can come back to Eden."  He's allegedly omnipotent and wrote the rules, so he can change them on a whim.  Except that ending would not have fit the old hebrews' needs.  They were trying to do science, trying to explain the universe around them.  And what they saw was people acting like talking, hairless apes. 

2350 years later[2], Charles Darwin explained why much more convincingly.

But I would not accord it any more honor than I do the Illiad. Of course, I am a fan of Homer, too...

So, you see where I am coming from. 
 1. I actually think what eve did was nothing short of heroic, sort of a hebrew prometheus
 2. give or take
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 04:19:37 PM
Thing is; isn't prayer an example of "demanding constant miracles"?
No. Prayer is conversation with God. We make our needs and wants known to him not because he doesn't already know but because we need to be reminded over and over again that God is there and knows our needs better than we do. We know that God may say no. We know that he may give us something totally unexpected that does, in fact, answer our need far better than we could have foreseen. But asking for things is not the major point of prayer. If you look at the structure of the Lord's prayer, you get a pretty good model for what a prayer is supposed to be-- First, praise, prayer for the His will to be done (which obligates us to do our part), then we pray for our needs, ask for the forgiveness of sins and acknowledge that we forgive those who have sinned against us (if we haven't, we have work to do), and we pray for His help in avoiding our own peculiar temptations.

The thing is, it is a particularly obnoxious and modern American  phenomenon among Evangelicals to "expect a miracle every day". Miracles still occur and are amply attested but God is not a performing bear. He performs miracles to bring about ends he desires, as needed. But most of the time, normal means are more than sufficient.

Quote
If so, sounds like you're saying that prayers are meaningless.
No, conversation with your best friend and father is never meaningless. It changes us, it reminds us of who God is and what he has done for us.

Quote
Though you really have to wonder; if the book is so important, why not update it so that the meaning is plain to everyone that reads it today.  It's a total failure on god's part not to update The Important Book for 2,000-odd years...  :angel:

You know, I never cease to be amazed when atheists say this-- and I have heard it a million times. The Bible is not a magic book. It was neither written by God, nor was it dictated by God. But more to the point, those of you who hold that opinion are expecting it to bear a weight that no book could ever bear. The interpretation of scripture and elucidating its meaning are the province of the Church, specifically the Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church. There was no Bible for the first hundred or so years of the Church's existence. It was the first bishops and apostles who preached, taught and trained the next generation of teachers, preachers, and bishops. Even if there had been a Bible, before the invention of printing, who could have afforded one? Even with the invention of the printing press, books were fabulously expensive. Then there are issues of literacy, etc.  No, Jesus handed teaching authority to the Church. What happens when every one decides what the Bible means for himself? Well, for starters, 34000 plus denominations (supposedly) all claiming to understand it better than anyone else. There is no interpretation so utterly mad, that it can't find an audience. No, updating the Bible would do nothing to change that.

I think there is a great deal more that has been asked but I will have to review what has been written to see what I left unanswered. More later, if need be.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 02, 2012, 08:01:39 PM
No. Prayer is conversation with God.

Is it a conversation or a monologue?



 We know that God may say no.

So might the Milk Jug.

We know that he may give us something totally unexpected that does, in fact, answer our need far better than we could have foreseen.

That's amazing!  So might the Milk Jug!

But asking for things is not the major point of prayer.

You're right.  It is designed to reinforce belief. Think of god as a mind virus that takes over brains.  This is one of its defense mechanisms.  Prayer is a daily (hourly, whatever) reinforcement, reminder, to keep you immune system (rational mind) from going into effect and ridding the mind of the infestation.


Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 02, 2012, 10:11:57 PM
If your god gives me the free will to get drunk tonight, drive my car and kill a father of four, where did the dad's free will go? Why is my free will more important than his? If I have the free will to make mistakes, shouldn't he have had the free will to know when to duck?

Last weekend I was telling my neighbor that my niece had lost her unborn baby. He thinks the world of her and that of course made him sad. But then he said that was better than what his sister had gone through back in the 70's. She had a full term baby who was born with no brain. It lived for about an hour.

Whose free will was involved there?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 10:18:18 PM
If your god gives me the free will to get drunk tonight, drive my car and kill a father of four, where did the dad's free will go?
Oh dear. Really? Free will has to do with making moral choices. You failed when you decided to drink to excess and, especially when you then got in a car. What is the quite foreseeable end of hurtling down the highway in 2000 lb projectile and crashing into another car? What has the victim's free will got to do with knowing when to duck? What moral choice is involved in making that decision?

Quote
Last weekend I was telling my neighbor that my niece had lost her unborn baby. He thinks the world of her and that of course made him sad. But then he said that was better than what his sister had gone through back in the 70's. She had a full term baby who was born with no brain. It lived for about an hour.

Whose free will was involved there?
What moral choice was being made? By whom? What does free will have to do with miscarriages and still births? Those are very painful, sad events. But they do not involve free will.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 02, 2012, 10:23:29 PM
So there is no advantage to making good moral decisions because your god will still let you be a victim. Okay, I get it.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 02, 2012, 10:26:12 PM
Where did God ever promise to protect us from the harm our fellow humans can do to us? Exactly how would he bring that off while still respecting our free will?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 02, 2012, 10:37:16 PM
Just the other day an athlete said after a game that god had helped his team win. I was just assuming this this god guy had other interests besides baseball. And that he might take kindly to his followers and stuff.

Again, my bad.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2012, 10:38:36 PM
So there is no advantage to making good moral decisions because your god will still let you be a victim. Okay, I get it.

Post removed: Preaching.

Jstwebbrowsing,

If you wish to use biblical verses as a part of your arguement or statement, that is fine. But posting only biblical passages is clearly preaching, and not allowed on this forum. Feel free to restate your position using your own words, but please refrain from using only the words of your bible.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 02, 2012, 10:47:34 PM
Where did God ever promise to protect us from the harm our fellow humans can do to us? Exactly how would he bring that off while still respecting our free will?

Show me one part of the bible where it even says we have free will.

Come on, we'll go two for one again. It'll give you a chance to make up for your cowardly and pathetic showing in the other thread. I'll start by showing you how there isn't free will.

Number 1
Rom.8:29-30
    For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Predestination itself rules out any possibility of free will. As well as this passage clearly says that we do not possess it.

Number 2
 Th.2:11-12
    God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.

God intentionally causes people to believe in a falsehood so that they can go to hell.

Actually I'll do a third to your one.

Number 3

Free will cannot exist in a world inhabited by an all-knowing being. In order to possess omniscience god must know the outcome of every choice that is ever or will ever be made by myself or anyone. Which means that events can only ever unfold as he has foreseen them. So there cannot possibly be free will.

I'll do one more for kicks. So keep in mind that this is FOUR pieces of evidence against free will in Christianity to the ONE that you've been asked to provide.

Number 4

The very nature of the Christian worldview negates the concept of free will due to the existence of hell and gods rules. We are given the ability to choose (according to you) however we must make only the choices that god wants us to make or suffer for it eternally. This not "free" will. At best it's circumstantial will. At worst we call it coercion. It is a threat of force designed to make us behave in a manner that we do not necessarily want to behave in. Free will would be if we could decide our own moral codes and our own sense of justice. Instead these are imposed upon us by a tyrannical bully who shouts from on high "Do it or I'll give you a good spanking."

So there you have it. Four pieces of evidence or reasoned arguments that show we do not have free will in the Christian worldview. I'll be waiting.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
I do not understand.  It is my belief the Bible itself provides all the answers.  The Bible itself teaches that a person should not state their opinion above what the Bible itself says.  The scriptures quoted were not a wall of text or anything.  In my opinon preaching is telling a person what to believe.  This is quite the oposite of quoting scripture and letting a person decide for himself.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 02, 2012, 11:00:58 PM
I do not understand.  It is my belief the Bible itself provides all the answers.  The Bible itself teaches that a person should not state their opinion above what the Bible itself says.  The scriptures quoted were not a wall of text or anything.  In my opinon preaching is telling a person what to believe.  This is quite the oposite of quoting scripture and letting a person decide for himself.

From the rules:

No Preaching - For the purposes of this forum, preaching is defined as the posting of religious proclamations/texts or inculcated religious doctrine without intent to engage members on its validity or support with evidence.

You can quote scripture if you want but you have to be able to make your own arguments. You can use it as a support for an argument but simply quoting random bible verses mindlessly is just preaching and counter-productive to a conversation. Also generally unappreciated. If all you can do is quote the bible then essentially what you're saying is that you have no real argument of your own.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2012, 11:08:36 PM
Quote
So there is no advantage to making good moral decisions because your god will still let you be a victim. Okay, I get it.

The Bible shows that God has subjected all of creation to suffering.  Christians do not shy away from this suffering.  In fact, all the holy people in the bible suffered greatly, usually at the hands of non-believers.  Sometimes, however, the suffering was a result of their own wrong doing. 

Jesus himself is a prime example of unwarranted suffering.  A perfect man comes into the world and he is killed.  The prophets....killed.  The apostles.....killed.

However christains are willing to endure this suffering because it is only temporary.  The reward for doing so more than compensates.  So this is not unjust.

The bible sums it up like this:

Quote
8Consequently I reckon that the sufferings of the present season do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. 19For the eager expectation of the creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. 23Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom. 24For we were saved in [this] hope; but hope that is seen is not hope, for when a man sees a thing, does he hope for it? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we keep on waiting for it with endurance.

Romans 18-25
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2012, 11:10:30 PM
In fact it is all this suffering that justifies God to act at Armageddon.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 02, 2012, 11:25:04 PM
In fact it is all this suffering that justifies God to act at Armageddon.
Why does God only seem to care about the FAT middle-aged white guy?

 So free-will and it's use by humans angers God enough to pull an Armaggedon? Why hate when he could simply educate?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 02, 2012, 11:26:58 PM
Quote
So there is no advantage to making good moral decisions because your god will still let you be a victim. Okay, I get it.

The Bible shows that God has subjected all of creation to suffering.  Christians do not shy away from this suffering.  In fact, all the holy people in the bible suffered greatly, usually at the hands of non-believers.  Sometimes, however, the suffering was a result of their own wrong doing. 

Jesus himself is a prime example of unwarranted suffering.  A perfect man comes into the world and he is killed.  The prophets....killed.  The apostles.....killed.

However christains are willing to endure this suffering because it is only temporary.  The reward for doing so more than compensates.  So this is not unjust.

The bible sums it up like this:

Quote
8Consequently I reckon that the sufferings of the present season do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. 19For the eager expectation of the creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. 23Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom. 24For we were saved in [this] hope; but hope that is seen is not hope, for when a man sees a thing, does he hope for it? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we keep on waiting for it with endurance.

Romans 18-25
show me a Christian in America that is truly suffering? I MEAN TRULY SUFFERING..bet you can't.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2012, 11:30:23 PM
I would say christians in the U.S.A. have things relatively easy.  But christians univerally get sick, grow old, and die.  This is also what christians are subjected to. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 02, 2012, 11:38:23 PM
I would say christians in the U.S.A. have things relatively easy.  But christians univerally get sick, grow old, and die.  This is also what christians are subjected to.

So you've gone from Christians suffering at the hands of unbelievers and the suffering of all of creation to Christians get old and die? Yes, Christians have it really hard.

If you would like to know suffering. Here's a group of Christians burning "witches" in Kenya.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1fe_1310865020 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1fe_1310865020)

Now what was that about Christian suffering again?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Aaron123 on May 03, 2012, 12:09:45 AM
No. Prayer is conversation with God. We make our needs and wants known to him not because he doesn't already know but because we need to be reminded over and over again that God is there and knows our needs better than we do. We know that God may say no. We know that he may give us something totally unexpected that does, in fact, answer our need far better than we could have foreseen. But asking for things is not the major point of prayer. If you look at the structure of the Lord's prayer, you get a pretty good model for what a prayer is supposed to be-- First, praise, prayer for the His will to be done (which obligates us to do our part), then we pray for our needs, ask for the forgiveness of sins and acknowledge that we forgive those who have sinned against us (if we haven't, we have work to do), and we pray for His help in avoiding our own peculiar temptations.

If prayer is a "conversation" with god, does he talks back?  If so, have you ever attempted to transcribe or record his words?


Quote
The thing is, it is a particularly obnoxious and modern American  phenomenon among Evangelicals to "expect a miracle every day". Miracles still occur and are amply attested but God is not a performing bear. He performs miracles to bring about ends he desires, as needed. But most of the time, normal means are more than sufficient.

So what are these "miracles" you speak of?


Quote
No, conversation with your best friend and father is never meaningless. It changes us, it reminds us of who God is and what he has done for us.


Again, is it a back-and-forth conversation, or is it just talking to the air?


Quote
You know, I never cease to be amazed when atheists say this-- and I have heard it a million times. The Bible is not a magic book. It was neither written by God, nor was it dictated by God. But more to the point, those of you who hold that opinion are expecting it to bear a weight that no book could ever bear.


The bible is considered to be The One True Guide to Life.  That alone means it has a heavy burden of proof.


Quote
The interpretation of scripture and elucidating its meaning are the province of the Church, specifically the Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church. There was no Bible for the first hundred or so years of the Church's existence. It was the first bishops and apostles who preached, taught and trained the next generation of teachers, preachers, and bishops. Even if there had been a Bible, before the invention of printing, who could have afforded one? Even with the invention of the printing press, books were fabulously expensive. Then there are issues of literacy, etc.  No, Jesus handed teaching authority to the Church. What happens when every one decides what the Bible means for himself? Well, for starters, 34000 plus denominations (supposedly) all claiming to understand it better than anyone else. There is no interpretation so utterly mad, that it can't find an audience. No, updating the Bible would do nothing to change that.

The bible means whatever someone wants it to mean.  Looks like we agree there.  However, this means there is nothing special about this book.  Thus far, I see no reason why we should uphold the bible over the Koran, the book of Mormon or any other religious text.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 12:52:11 AM
Quote
So you've gone from Christians suffering at the hands of unbelievers and the suffering of all of creation to Christians get old and die? Yes, Christians have it really hard.

Yes this is suffering for christians.  A Christian's hope is for eternal life and this is what is promised if he is faithful.  In the meantime, they are subjected to this system of things in which they grow old and die.  Please keep in mind that Jehovah's Witensses don't believe all christians go straight to heaven, or ever go to heaven for that matter.  Most of these chritians are awaiting a paradise earth.  However this paradise earth won't come until this system of things is removed.  This is why the Bible says there is a "New heaven and new earth".  The new earth won't arrive until the old one is done away with.

There is no need for a christian to ever die now but they must.  Consider what is posted above.

"Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom."

This apostle is one of those christians that Jehovah's Witnesses believe will go to heaven but this applies also to those that will live forever on a paradise earth.  The worst part of the suffering is not what others do to christians.  The worst part of a christian's suffering is enduring this world while awaiting the next.

Quote
If you would like to know suffering. Here's a group of Christians burning "witches" in Kenya.

No, there are no Chistians burning witches in Kenya nor have Christians ever burned witches at the stake.  Perhaps a "christian" did but not a Christian.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Astreja on May 03, 2012, 01:04:37 AM
No, there are no Chistians burning witches in Kenya nor have Christians ever burned witches at the stake.  Perhaps a "christian" did but not a Christian.

Ah, the "not a true Christian" argument.  How convenient:  Just select the nice people for your team and disown the ones whose behaviour embarrasses you.

I think that motivation is the  key to sorting this out.  If someone commits a crime because they believed they were doing good in the eyes of a specific god, then I think it's quite reasonable to classify them in the set "People who believe in god X."  You can, of course, subdivide the set into "People who believe in X and do/do not burn people as witches," but at the top level they still share the same belief.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 01:28:53 AM
Quote
Ah, the "not a true Christian" argument.  How convenient:  Just select the nice people for your team and disown the ones whose behaviour embarrasses you.

Please define what is a christian?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 01:36:51 AM
Please define what is a christian?

Anyone who claims to be one. Since christianity has no clear definition, that's the closest you'll get to one.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 01:41:02 AM
That is absurd.  Anyone else care to try?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 01:42:27 AM
That is absurd.  Anyone else care to try?

It's not absurd. Why don't you try to define what a christian is?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 01:44:44 AM
Yes it is absurd.  If someone claims they are a democrat then for a fact are they a democrat?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 01:47:01 AM
Yes it is absurd.  If someone claims they are a democrat then for a fact are they a democrat?

False analogy. As I have explained, "christian" is not well defined. "Democrat" is. So is "atheist", BTW.
Since you apparently missed my request (and Astreja's definition), I'll ask you again: Define it yourself.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:02:45 AM
A Christian is defined as someone who is "like christ" or "christlike".

Quote
If you cannot understand that simple rule of logic, you're an idiot.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 02:04:24 AM
A Christian is defined as someone who is "like christ" or "christlike".

Now, what does it mean to be "christlike"? And while you're at it, who is this "christ"?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:07:41 AM
Quote
Now, what does it mean to be "christlike"?

Someone that lives their life like Christ did, at least as far as humanly possible.

Quote
And while you're at it, who is this "christ"?

The life of Jesus Christ is recorded in the Christian scriptures.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 02:08:46 AM
The life of Jesus Christ is recorded in the Christian scriptures.

What are those?
Also, note that you haven't actually defined anything yet. You're just hinging one definition on another.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:10:53 AM
Those that are in the latter part of the Bible beginning with Mathew and ending with Revelation.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 02:11:45 AM
Those that are in the latter part of the Bible beginning with Mathew and ending with John.

Which version?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:14:30 AM
I require an english version.  I prefer the New World Translation but I often compare several versions.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 02:17:22 AM
I require an english version.  I prefer the New World Translation but I often compare several versions.

Alright.
Quote from: Matthew 10:34
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Quote from: Luke 12:51
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

I think "Luke" is between those two books you mentioned, right?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:21:04 AM
Quote
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Quote
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

Yes this is true.  What do you think it means?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 02:24:43 AM
Yes this is true.  What do you think it means?

So it's also a matter of interpretation. As you can see, the definition (and I mean the FULL definition) is up to personal interpretation which, for all purposes and effects, makes it meaningless. Only you interpret the Bible in the exact way that you do, so only you are a "real" christian.
Or maybe not. I haven't seen you start any wars recently. Hitler was probably a better christian than you'll ever be.

By the way, if atheists act like the Bible says Jesus did, does that mean that they're actually christians? What about muslims and mormons?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:40:39 AM
Quote
So it's also a matter of interpretation

No it's a matter of finding the truth.  The Bible clearly shows there is only one truth. 

Quote
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
Ephesians 4:5

This does not allow for thousands of denominations and interpretations.

Quote
  Also, note that you haven't actually defined anything yet. You're just hinging one definition on another.

Yes I have but only in the broadest sense.

Quote
False analogy. As I have explained, "christian" is not well defined. "Democrat" is. So is "atheist", BTW

No it is not.

Christians are Christlike as democrats democratlike.  But I will make it simpler.

Is someone a U.S. citizen because they claim to be one?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 02:47:25 AM
No it's a matter of finding the truth.  The Bible clearly shows there is only one truth. 

Quote
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
Ephesians 4:5

This does not allow for thousands of denominations and interpretations.

Strangely enough, that "one truth" is claimed by every denomination of christianity there is. All 38,000+ of them. Jesus says he came to bring war and division. You did none of those, as far as I know.
By your own logic, Hitler was a better christian than you will ever be. Unless, of course, you wish to add yet another interpretation to the Bible.
So much for YHWH's "inerrant" and "perfect" book.

Yes I have but only in the broadest sense.

No, you haven't. Case in point:
Christians are Christlike
You've yet to define what "christlike" means without hinging on your personal interpretation of the Bible.

Is someone a U.S. citizen because they claim to be one?

The definition of "USA citizen" is clear, so no. They need to either have been born in the USA or have obtained citizenship through passing whatever trials were set forth to get it.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:52:19 AM
Quote
Strangely enough, that "one truth" is claimed by every denomination of christianity there is. All 38,000+

So 37,999+ must be lying.  According to the Bible the truth is there.  Will one ever find it?  That remains to be seen.  The Bible says that it is possible.

Hitler and Christ have nothing in common.  You have stated another absurdity.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 02:54:56 AM
So 37,999+ must be lying.  According to the Bible the truth is there.  Will one ever find it?  That's up for debate.

So odds are you're lying as well. Why should anyone take you more seriously than the other 37,999+?

Hitler and Christ have nothing in common.  You have stated another absurdity.

Jesus came to bring a sword. Hitler caused WWII. Jesus came to bring division. Hitler made people take sides. Jesus said to kill homosexuals, among others. Hitler did so. Jesus said to pray in private. Hitler did.

It's amazing how many similarities there are between them, isn't it?q

EDIT: I have to get ready to school now, and tomorrow I'm spending most of the day away from home, so I'll only reply in a few hours and then I won't reply for a long time.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 03:02:10 AM
Quote
So odds are you're lying as well. Why should anyone take you more seriously than the other 37,999+?

Just as every man must face death alone every man must face this question alone.  What is the truth of Jesus' teachings? 

I don't advise you to listen to me.  I advise you to pray for wisdom and discernment and study the Bible and never give up until you find the truth.  I will help you as much as I am able.

However the fact that you would even compare the Life of Christ with the life of Hitler shows the amount of your unreasonableness.  As long as this is so I see no need for me to do so.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on May 03, 2012, 06:04:10 AM
Just as every man must face death alone every man must face this question alone.  What is the truth of Jesus' teachings? 

Begging the question. You assume there's a historical Jesus, that he taught something nobody else did, and that there's actually some truth to it.

I don't advise you to listen to me.

Good. I don't advise anyone to listen to you either.

However the fact that you would even compare the Life life of Christ with the life of Hitler shows the amount of your unreasonableness.

I showed you how they are similar. You simply regurgitated this statement every time I did. Show me how they're not the same.

Also, I fixed your typo. Life, like most words, isn't capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 03, 2012, 09:12:15 AM
Where did God ever promise to protect us from the harm our fellow humans can do to us? Exactly how would he bring that off while still respecting our free will?

My post was obviously nonsense, but only because I often make the mistake of assuming that a god who thought free will was important to me would also, by definition, sort of want to let me live long enough to exercise it.

If I'm dead a birth I can't. If I'm killed by someone else exercising their own free will, my ability to do so ends immediately.

Its like giving a kid the batteries to a new toy and telling him that's all he gets. That the toy is something he'll never have, but that he should appreciate the batteries anyway.

Seems like a silly way to run a universe.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 03, 2012, 09:17:32 AM
Where did God ever promise to protect us from the harm our fellow humans can do to us?

I think that is the point.  Theodicy.  What is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient deity doing letting people hurt each other?  When you are an omnimax god, all the bucks stop with you.

Also, I disagree with your free will definition.  Why is it only "moral" choices?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 03, 2012, 10:37:45 AM
Hilarious to watch Jane ignore the evidence that her god has nothing to do with free will.  Please Jane, then explain how free will works with a constantly interfering god?  Tell me how the pharoah, the egyptians, etc had free will when your god controlled them?  It's so cute to watch someone play pretend that a written medium doesn't exist if it has questions and points she doesn't like.   ;D

and jst, the same claims that if one just prays hard enough, his god will respond.  Sorry, jst, I've prayed sincerely for your god to hele me retain my faith when I was losing it and got nothing.  No wisdom or discernment.  Yuo know, this god in evidently hiding itself, is also screwing with my "free will" in that it is intentionally preventing me from making an informed decision.  Again, so much for the baseless claims of theists. 

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 03, 2012, 11:15:31 AM
Just as every man must face death alone every man must face this question alone.  What is the truth of Jesus' teachings? 

I don't advise you to listen to me.  I advise you to pray for wisdom and discernment and study the Bible and never give up until you find the truth.  I will help you as much as I am able.

However "truth" requires evidence. Which you don't have. That's why there are over 38000 different versions of Christianity. If there were actual truth, there would be evidence that one could point to that would clearly show who is right and who is wrong. So if the bible contains truth and the truth is yours, where is your evidence that you're right?

Why can you only fall back on mindless preaching to prove anything you say? Shouldn't reall truth be stronger than that?

However the fact that you would even compare the Life of Christ with the life of Hitler shows the amount of your unreasonableness.  As long as this is so I see no need for me to do so.

Why not? Jesus proclaimed death on anyone who wouldn't hear his message. Sounds pretty close to Hitler to me. Again why are you so instantly dismissive of the point, and of Lucifer for making it. Shouldn't your truth be able to stand up its detractors? If it really were true of course.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 03, 2012, 12:06:28 PM
Quote
Strangely enough, that "one truth" is claimed by every denomination of christianity there is. All 38,000+

So 37,999+ must be lying.  According to the Bible the truth is there.  Will one ever find it?  That remains to be seen.  The Bible says that it is possible.

Hitler and Christ have nothing in common.  You have stated another absurdity.
..and you are also lying..  If after 2,000 years the only thing you can agree on collectively as a group of people all studying similar books, and there is 38,000+ of you saying you still haven't 'found the truth in it', then obviously you are lying stating that you have. 
The thing Hitler and Christ have in common is that they both caused massive genocide...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 03, 2012, 02:23:06 PM
Where did God ever promise to protect us from the harm our fellow humans can do to us? Exactly how would he bring that off while still respecting our free will?

My post was obviously nonsense, but only because I often make the mistake of assuming that a god who thought free will was important to me would also, by definition, sort of want to let me live long enough to exercise it.

This baffles me. Where do you find any support for this position in scripture or in your own experience? Doesn't the daily newspaper alone adequately acquaint you with the horrors humans inflict on other humans? Why would the ability to make moral choices have anything to do with how long you live? The ability to choose to do good rather than evil is a necessary precondition of salvation and only available to mankind. Jesus wasn't sent to the lions and tigers for a reason. They do not exercise free will. They are killers but not murderers. Only man can sink that low and it is only man who can rise far above it.

Quote
Seems like a silly way to run a universe.
If you say so.

Where did God ever promise to protect us from the harm our fellow humans can do to us?

I think that is the point.  Theodicy.  What is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient deity doing letting people hurt each other?  When you are an omnimax god, all the bucks stop with you.
That is the price of giving us freedom and letting us make moral choices. If we do not have free will, then we cannot be free. God could have created us robots who could only do what is right but we would not be free moral agents as we are now. This is an awesome responsibility and the reason not a single one of us will escape judgment.

I will say that the problem of suffering, particularly innocent suffering, is the only argument that I can take seriously that is offered against the existence of God. There is a profound mystery there.

Quote
Why is it only "moral" choices?
What other kinds matter? I am quite certain that God does not care if we prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:36:37 PM
Quote
I've prayed sincerely for your god to hele me retain my faith when I was losing it and got nothing.

I am very sorry to hear this.  Such a prayer is certainly within the realm of a prayer that God would answer.  I would ask however, if you did anything in addition to praying?  I would also ask if there was something in particular that was damaging your faith?

Quote
However "truth" requires evidence.

I would put forth the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which I am not a member, as evidence.  I'm not really sure what evidence would be convincing to you.

Quote
Shouldn't reall truth be stronger than that?

You mean even in the face of so many trying to obscure the truth?  The truth must be strong but not always as plain as the nose on one's face.

Quote
The thing Hitler and Christ have in common is that they both caused massive genocide....

No Jesus didn't.  Jesus never instructed his followers to carry out genocide.  Hitler did.

Quote
If after 2,000 years the only thing you can agree on collectively as a group of people all studying similar books, and there is 38,000+ of you saying you still haven't 'found the truth in it', then obviously you are lying stating that you have.

The Bible shows that the truth is like a light that gets brighter and brighter until the full dawn of day. 

"But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day" -- Proverbs 4:18

I propose that the truth was obscured with darkness with the death of Jesus and his apostles. In time, it will be uncovered again.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 02:43:30 PM
Quote
I will say that the problem of suffering, particularly innocent suffering, is the only argument that I can take seriously that is offered against the existence of God. There is a profound mystery there.

It is my understanding that God is not currently ruling this world but rather he is allowing man a chance to do it himself apart from God.  If God did not allow this suffering then this would support the claim that the world does not need God.  The Bible calls Satan the "ruler of this world" and states that the "whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."

Once Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, mankind "struck out on it's own."  At least this is my understanding.  God even told them that they would suffer.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 03, 2012, 02:52:44 PM
jst, Jane, NATHAN:

I just want to make myself clear to you:  All it took for me to repent my religion was reading through this site.  It was the last barrier - Jesus - for my rationalization for religion to be broken.  Science broke everything else.  This site gives clear reasoning as to why these religions are myths..  prayer doesn't work.  Jesus distinctly, on multiple occasions, said it would.  It's just that simple.  When NOTHING HAPPENS, it's pretty clear that we are being DELUSIONAL ABOUT IT...

All I've seen you all do is rationalize with yourselves why things don't happen, why this or that, and it all sounds insane.  Quoting biblical scripture as if it could show these people something is nonsense, especially when they have all studied it astoundingly.  These people know the historical features of these religions, they know all about religions that I never studied to any extent..

What I am saying is, you are reasoning yourselves into things that support your claims.  When I saw this site - I immediately looked for more refutation about god/jesus, and more evidence to the contrary.  I also looked for evidence for god/jesus, and my conclusion was that the evidence for god/jesus was all based on scripture passages that weren't actually evidence for anything, false claims, superstition, or the outright denial of any evidence against what they were preaching.  I have found no factual evidence supporting the god theory.  None.  I have, however, found a multitude of evidence supporting the idea that god is imaginary.  Clearly you all have not done your own research on these matters..

Also, I find it not amusing to point your fingers at these people saying they are not saved, or that you feel you need to save them from anything whatsoever.  According to my previous beliefs, if Jesus was actually saying what was the truth, all these people are already saved..[1]
 1. See my first quote below.  Just as the light would have already reached your finger, Jesus would have already saved everyone, if the afterlife held any sort of truth or Jesus was any sort of truth, etc...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 03, 2012, 03:03:18 PM
I am very sorry to hear this.  Such a prayer is certainly within the realm of a prayer that God would answer.  I would ask however, if you did anything in addition to praying?  I would also ask if there was something in particular that was damaging your faith?
  Oh, the magic spell routine.  What else do I have to do, jst?  Stand on my head?  Recite Jabberwocky backwards?  And golly, jst knows just what God will answer!  The bible and lack of any evidence whatsoever for this god is what destroyed my faith. I know I’ve disappointed you with not giving you a reason to tell me that I’m just “angry” at God.
Quote
I would put forth the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which I am not a member, as evidence.  I'm not really sure what evidence would be convincing to you.
Oooh, does this mean that Scientologists are as valid and a “true” as your religion then? 
Quote
No Jesus didn't.  Jesus never instructed his followers to carry out genocide.
Read Luke 19 dear.  And then if you believe the nonsense in Revelation, tell me what happens in there.
Quote
The Bible shows that the truth is like a light that gets brighter and brighter until the full dawn of day.
The bible has been shown to be full of lies and contradictions. So much for any truth in it.  You’ve claimed that some how yoru god isnt’ in charge of the world.  Well, do demonstrate that.  Show me that your claim is true and the claim of a Christian who says that miracles are happening and that everything is God’s will is wrong.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 03, 2012, 03:06:44 PM
The ability to choose to do good rather than evil is a necessary precondition of salvation and only available to mankind.
  Ah no.  Your bible has various ways to be saved and can't seem to decide on one.  We have the claim that god gives his grace, aka the ability to be saved, only to a select few (romans 9 and when JC talks about why he uses parables).  We then have JC sayign that belief is all one needs.  Then we have that works are either another way to be saved (the sheep and goats speech) or have to be combined with belief (James).  Then Paul claims that it is only through childbirth that women can be saved. Free will is never mentioned.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 03, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Jst - Jesus was the direct cause of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and a multitude of bloody wars from the Romans all the way through the middle ages...

What other genocide do you want?

Just read through the Gospel of Thomas, a recording of Jesus sayings, and tell me he didn't intend to bring fire, blood, and war.  What amazes me is he got everything he wanted, just because people believed in him - even the terrible stuff...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 03:44:09 PM
Well sometimes my children fight too, although I've not taught them to do so.  I guess somehow Jesus is to blame.  I guess Jesus is to blame for you ignorance too.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 03, 2012, 03:46:01 PM
Well sometimes my children fight too, although I've not taught them to do so.  I guess somehow Jesus is to blame.
Your children fighting are in no relation to Jesus inadvertantly but I could prove by his sayings, deliberately causing the massive wars, torture, and killing in those times...  So yes, he is responsible for those wars. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2012, 04:19:48 PM
Okay so then it would be my fault they fight?

I mean Jesus did say he came to bring a "sword", but he never instructed his followers to pick one up so it would seem to me that his statement must mean something other than his followers commiting genocide.  The only instruction I can think of where Jesus gave instruction about taking up a sword is when he told his disciple to put away his sword.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 03, 2012, 05:20:48 PM
Okay so then it would be my fault they fight?

I mean Jesus did say he came to bring a "sword", but he never instructed his followers to pick one up so it would seem to me that his statement must mean something other than his followers commiting genocide.  The only instruction I can think of where Jesus gave instruction about taking up a sword is when he told his disciple to put away his sword.
You're missing my point.  I didn't say Jesus instructed anyone to do anything.  I'm saying that because of his teachings, we fought numerous wars and committed genocide..  And there's evidence within his sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that it was his direct intention...

The only reason it would be your fault that your children fight would be because of your dna you passed to them as well as bad parenting skills..  There is a thread we have going about parenting your children without use of violence.  I suggest you read into it..
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 04, 2012, 08:04:06 AM
Okay so then it would be my fault they fight?

I mean Jesus did say he came to bring a "sword", but he never instructed his followers to pick one up so it would seem to me that his statement must mean something other than his followers commiting genocide.  The only instruction I can think of where Jesus gave instruction about taking up a sword is when he told his disciple to put away his sword.

jst, you really need to actually read your bible. 
Quote
Luke 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

We have again in Luke where your supposed savior also says that those who do not accept him as their king are to be brougt before him and killed (Luke 19).    This is not a person who is saying "kiddies, don't fight".   Each ignorant Christian is sure that their version of what they want their god to have said is the only "right" one and that those who disagree are "evil" by definition.  So they find it their "holy duty" to exterminate those who don't agree.  Now, if your god exists, it allows this killing and destruction to continue without lifting a finger to correct anyone about their delusions.  Considering that this god intervened constantly before modern man started to question things, it should have no problem interfering now with oh, how about appearing in every church everywhere and saying "you idiots, these people (insert sect here) have it right" or "you idiots none of you have it right".  But it doesn't.  It allows people to be killed, starved, maimed, etc just like it allowed Job's family to be murdered for its little bet. 

Not much of a god. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 04, 2012, 08:19:09 AM
We have again in Luke where your supposed savior also says that those who do not accept him as their king are to be brougt before him and killed (Luke 19). 

Ah! Another example of your vast understanding of the Bible.

No, dear. Jesus says no such thing. He is telling a story in human terms to make a point about what is expected of those who serve their king and what will happen to those who rebel against their lawful ruler.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: HAL on May 04, 2012, 08:26:43 AM
Jane,

Did you read my post earlier? Cut the snide remarks -

"Ah! Another example of your vast understanding of the Bible."

(that goes for both sides) and stick to the facts. Back up your statements with facts, not quips that people have it wrong. Show them why they are wrong.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 04, 2012, 09:54:53 AM
Ah! Another example of your vast understanding of the Bible.

No, dear. Jesus says no such thing. He is telling a story in human terms to make a point about what is expected of those who serve their king and what will happen to those who rebel against their lawful ruler.
Jane, first, I’m waiting for you to show evidence that your understanding is the only “right” way.  Do you have any?  Can you show me your version of Christianity is better than someone else’s?  Can you show me that you are more correct than me other than you just virtually stamping your feet and declaring “I’m right everyone else is wrong.”?  Evidence is required, Jane.  Not just you deciding you are the OneTrueChristian tm

Second, I agree, the parable is saying what will happen if you disobey your lawful ruler, and in the parable the lawful ruler is Jesus Christ/God and he says that people who do not obey Jesus Christ/God are to be brought before them and murdered. 

Your argument might hold water if we were talking about the other parables that say that this god of yours will do the murdering itself.  The parable of the tenants for one; the parable of the bags of gold in Matthew for another.  JC was fond of this type of parable warning that those who don’t agree with him would be harmed by his father. They both say god himself will murder or cast into hell anyone who doesn’t obey him.  However, the parable of the minas, though very similar, doesn’t end like that.  We have your supposed savior saying directly that believers are the ones who should do the killing of the unbelievers.  That last sentence in the parable of the minas is a problem for Christians who want to claim that their god is good.
Quote
Luke 19: 25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

here we have the ruler (JC) talking to the believes (those who have the minas) and we have a demand for murder to be done. It is very unusual but it’s there in your bible, of which you cherry pick the things you want to believe in and ignore those you don’t, claiming that the bible is man-made except for the parts you like.  For you, this part isn’t right but oh the baseless story of the resurrection simply must be true.  And you, and other Christians of various sects, have yet to provide evidence that this is the case. 

Evidence is expected, not anecdotes, not vague claims of prophecy, not forgeries of documents, not mentions of Christians, etc.  Christians can’t even agree on where the tomb of Jesus is and one would think that would have been rather important to them if any of this had occurred.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 04, 2012, 10:13:39 AM
Ah! Another example of your vast understanding of the Bible.

No, dear. Jesus says no such thing. He is telling a story in human terms to make a point about what is expected of those who serve their king and what will happen to those who rebel against their lawful ruler.

Jane, first, I’m waiting for you to show evidence that your understanding is the only “right” way.  Do you have any?  Can you show me your version of Christianity is better than someone else’s?


Oh dear, always going off-topic to make wild accusations that have nothing to do with anything I have actually said. Here is a good example.  There is no one on the planet who doesn't recognize a parable when he sees one. So we won't waste time on that.

Quote
Can you show me that you are more correct than me other than you just virtually stamping your feet and declaring “I’m right everyone else is wrong.”?  Evidence is required, Jane.  Not just you deciding you are the OneTrueChristian tm
Ah, the angrytm Internet atheist! Where have I claimed anything remotely like this? Where, Velchen? Where? Evidence is required. Stamping your feet makes me laugh. Next you'll threaten to huff and puff and blow my house down.

Quote
Second, I agree, the parable is saying what will happen if you disobey your lawful ruler, and in the parable the lawful ruler is Jesus Christ/God and he says that people who do not obey Jesus Christ/God are to be brought before them and murdered. 
In the parable the ruler is an earthly king of the sort the ancient world was painfully familiar with. Yes of course we are to draw the analogy to God. But analogies do not and cannot correspond 100% God does not slay anyone. He rejects them and sends them to hell, just as they deserve.

The same thing holds for all the other parables you mangle.

Quote
Evidence is expected, not anecdotes, not vague claims of prophecy, not forgeries of documents, not mentions of Christians, etc.  Christians can’t even agree on where the tomb of Jesus is and one would think that would have been rather important to them if any of this had occurred.
Since he isn't there, why would it be important?  As for the rest- oh brother.  There is plenty of information out there for anyone who wants it. You don't. You are frantic to avoid even the shadow of a doubt about your disbelief. Your fear and hatred ooze from ever word you write. What on earth happened to you? Were you raised in some horrible cult where you were beaten every day? Were you not allowed to date until you were 21? Did your father arrange your marriage over your protests? What? What explains your wild, confused, verbose spewing?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 04, 2012, 10:17:13 AM
Still can't produce a single viable piece of evidence for anything,huh?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 04, 2012, 10:43:35 AM
Still can't produce a single viable piece of evidence for anything,huh?
As annoyingly obtuse as you are, and as unable to read anything with the slightest comprehension, I must admit that it would intrigue me to see you actually tell me one concrete matter you would like me to produce evidence for. Not that doing so will shut you up because your mind is closed more tightly than a bank vault. But it might still be amusing to me.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Historicity on May 04, 2012, 10:44:18 AM
Noblemen do not travel to foreign countries to receive a throne.  They normally inherit it or conquer.   The nobleman in the story, however, fits an incident in history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus)
Quote
Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea by the last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. Before setting out, he quelled with the utmost cruelty a sedition of the Pharisees, slaying nearly three thousand of them. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty; but in 4 BC Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (not king) until 6 AD when Judaea province was formed, under direct Roman rule, at the time of the Census of Quirinius.

The first wife of Archelaus is given by Josephus simply as Mariamne ... whom he divorced to marry Glaphyra. She was the widow of Archelaus' brother Alexander, though her second husband, Juba, king of Mauretania, was alive. This violation of the Mosaic law along with Archelaus' continued cruelty roused the ire of the Jews, who complained to Augustus. Archelaus was deposed in the year 6 and banished to Vienne in Gaul; Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea became the Roman province of Iudaea.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 04, 2012, 11:02:18 AM
As annoyingly obtuse as you are, and as unable to read anything with the slightest comprehension, I must admit that it would intrigue me to see you actually tell me one concrete matter you would like me to produce evidence for. Not that doing so will shut you up because your mind is closed more tightly than a bank vault. But it might still be amusing to me.

I already have. I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that Jesus exists, remember our little game? Or is my little game the reason you can only seem to resort to Ad Hominems?

Come now, caper for my amusement, my little monkey.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 04, 2012, 11:35:35 AM
^ Fail
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 04, 2012, 11:47:26 AM
Oh dear, always going off-topic to make wild accusations that have nothing to do with anything I have actually said. Here is a good example.  There is no one on the planet who doesn't recognize a parable when he sees one.  So we won't waste time on that.
  So you can’t show me that your understanding is the correct one. That is good to know. A parable is short story to instruct, Jane.  The instructions in the parable of the minas is this god is to be accepted and that those who do not accept him are to be killed before him.  Parables use symbology, the king equaling JC in this instance as you noted.  What does this mean symbolically since you seem to be sure I’m wrong.  “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
Quote
Ah, the angrytm Internet atheist! Where have I claimed anything remotely like this? Where, Velchen? Where? Evidence is required. Stamping your feet makes me laugh. Next you'll threaten to huff and puff and blow my house down.
I’m not angry, hate to disappoint you though.  And ah, the time-honered attempted by a Christian to anger someone by intentionally mis-spelling a screen name. Oh, I’m so hurt :D Every theist thinks that they are have the right answers. You have repeatedly claimed that the Roman Catholic church that you follow is the only right one.  I know this because you believe in what you say.  It’s not that hard to figure out, Jane.  But if you want evidence of your own words, I’m happy to oblige:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach.
You claiming the RCC is right.

I have not been able to read the entire thread but this last bit caught my eye. Where does Jesus say that the Jews should kill their children? He doesn't, of course.
Yet to give evidence so baseless claim to know everything.
Err, no. God gave us free will, which means the ability to make moral choices. We can either follow God or follow a path or our own devising. Anyone who goes to hell, chooses to do so.
you claiming you are right when plenty of ther Christians don’t agree with you.  Need I go on?

Quote
In the parable the ruler is an earthly king of the sort the ancient world was painfully familiar with. Yes of course we are to draw the analogy to God. But analogies do not and cannot correspond 100% God does not slay anyone. He rejects them and sends them to hell, just as they deserve.  The same thing holds for all the other parables you mangle.
and one more time for good measure where you decide you and only you know the “right” answer.  As for your claim that your god does not slay anyone, let me remind you of david’s son, Uzza,
Quote
1 Samuel 6: 19 But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them
other translatiosn has the number as 50,070. 
Quote
1 Kings 20: 35 By the word of the LORD one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused.36 So the prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the LORD, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.

Again, Jane, you really should read your bible.  It would help with your mistakes.

Quote
Since he isn't there, why would it be important?  As for the rest- oh brother.  There is plenty of information out there for anyone who wants it. You don't. You are frantic to avoid even the shadow of a doubt about your disbelief. Your fear and hatred ooze from ever word you write. What on earth happened to you? Were you raised in some horrible cult where you were beaten every day? Were you not allowed to date until you were 21? Did your father arrange your marriage over your protests? What? What explains your wild, confused, verbose spewing?
You certainly pick and choose what’s “important” Jane.  Why is St. Peter’s important if no one is there?  Why is the supposed location important if no one is there?  why do thousands of Christians, including Catholics, venerate one or the other of the two supposed tombs of JC?  (there are more, one in India, and I think one in Japan if I’m not mistaken)  And again we have you making claims but showing no evidence at all and using the same lie as you have before.  No Jane, I am not close-minded or rebelling or whatever other fantasies you have conjured for yourself to excuse your failure.  If there is evidence I want to see it.  I do not want personal anecdotes, or vague claims of prophecy, or forgeries or siting of Christians or watching Chrsitians disagree with each other.  None of those are evidence.  I want to see a miracle, which your god had no problem in doing in your stories. 

I want to see evidence that the flood happened.  I want to see that other people noticed the very big events your bible claims.  where is the evidence for hundreds of thousands of people wandering around in the desert for 40 years?  Why did no one notice that Egypt lost its army and a large percentage of its population and livestock?  The other kingdoms around it would have loved that.  Why did no one notice an earthquake of a magnitude to massively shake the temple anywhere near the time that this savior of yours supposedly died (another thing that Christians can’t agree on) or the dead walking the streets? or the sun going dark?

And oh my, the personal attacks. :D  and the desperation to connect your claims to my posts.  I guess if you have nothing else, nasty fantasies are all you have.  Alas, for you none of them are true and your continued attempted to create an atheist strawman to attack is doing nothing but serving as comedy.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 04, 2012, 11:58:55 AM
^ That would be more believable if you didn't have drool running down your chin.
Why do truthfulness and brevity so elude you? This is a verbose pack of lies. Pick one and one only of the lies you have packed into this post for me to respond to.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 04, 2012, 12:28:00 PM
I cannot believe I feel compelled to respond to this insofar as someone would compare Hitler to Jesus.

As was shown earlier Jesus stated he would bring division.  The Bible, as it always does, shows what this means.

“When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left."  (Mathew 25:31-33)

This means he will seperate those that please God from those that do not.

As was pointed out Jesus also said he came to bring a sword.  Again, the Bible shows the meaning.

"And I saw the heaven opened, and, look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. His eyes are a fiery flame, and upon his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God. Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. And out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty."  (Revelation 19:11-15)

Ultimately Jesus is to destroy those that fight against God.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 04, 2012, 12:44:12 PM
^ That would be more believable if you didn't have drool running down your chin.
Why do truthfulness and brevity so elude you? This is a verbose pack of lies. Pick one and one only of the lies you have packed into this post for me to respond to.

more insults and the demonstration of your inablity to refute even a single point that I have made.  You may pick whatever you'd like to address, Jane.  questions are to be answered and if you have a rebuttal of a point I've made, you can present evidence against it. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 04, 2012, 12:49:37 PM

I'm calling a time out.

This thread will be locked for 24 hours, or until I get around to unlocking it.  Whichever is longer.

 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 05, 2012, 07:10:30 AM
okay.  the pool is open again.  Be excellent to each other.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 05, 2012, 01:03:22 PM
Excellent? Well, yes, since I have the facts. But I wouldn't bother responding to a woman I believe is mentally unstable but for the fact that I suffer from a chronic condition-- Lastworditis.

...

Plain Jane's post was mostly deleted due to her continuation of embedded snide remarks show above, which will only serve to cause others to reply in-kind. A productive conversation cannot be had by either side unless we stop the quips and insults. Stick to the facts.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 05, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
I have stuck to the facts. Hopefully, you pointed out what I must change to suit you because, quite frankly, everything I wrote is true, and stated much more gently than the garbage that has been heaped on me,.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: HAL on May 05, 2012, 01:12:45 PM
I have stuck to the facts. Hopefully, you pointed out what I must change to suit you because, quite frankly, everything I wrote is true, and stated much more gently than the garbage that has been heaped on me,.

Try posting again but I won't tolerate any more snide remarks - by either side or the thread will be locked again. Everybody should be able to state facts without insults if we are all adults. But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 05, 2012, 01:15:29 PM
You are clearly wrong as every single post in every single thread demonstrates. You just don't tolerate push back. Now, either you will allow me to write the truth or you won't. But understand this, i do not wish to remain here. I already indicated why I was posting again. Do you really not understand that there is value in truth?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 05, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
You are clearly wrong as every single post in every single thread demonstrates.

Please feel free to prove this. You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidene for your claims.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 05, 2012, 01:41:10 PM
So you can’t show me that your understanding is the correct one. That is good to know. A parable is short story to instruct, Jane. ... Parables use symbology, the king equaling JC in this instance as you noted.
If I noted it, as you say, does that not mean that I have shown you that my understanding is the correct one?

Quote
You have repeatedly claimed that the Roman Catholic church that you follow is the only right one.  I know this because you believe in what you say.  It’s not that hard to figure out, Jane.
Let's see. I have repeatedly claimed that the RCC is the only right one. But not really. You know this because I believe what I say!  Well, there is no arguing with that.
Quote
But if you want evidence of your own words, I’m happy to oblige:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach.
You claiming the RCC is right.


Thanks to Dictionary.com, I can demonstrate that you have misunderstood:

it strikes me that
Fig(urative). it seems to me that. ...

Thus, when I wrote:  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. my meaning was:It seems to me that the CCC approach is correct.  Thus your claim that I am stating that it is correct is shown to be incorrect. I stated my opinion.

Err, no. God gave us free will, which means the ability to make moral choices. We can either follow God or follow a path or our own devising. Anyone who goes to hell, chooses to do so.
Quote
you claiming you are right when plenty of ther Christians don’t agree with you.  Need I go on?


Yes. You need to explain to me why I must account for every difference of opinion on a subject, when I make a statement or express my opinion. It will slow things down mightily if I must restate what I have already said (Original sin is a funny subject. Not every denomination understands it the same way (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,12167.msg501437.html#msg501437)) and must do so every time I post on the subject.

Beyond that, the vast majority of Christendom does believe in free will. Evidence for that statement? Go to adherents.com (or any one of many other statistical sites) and look up which body of Christians is the largest in the world. Not by a little but by a lot. Then tell me why I must account for the views of small clusters of sects and a few denominations before I post anything here.

Quote
You certainly pick and choose what’s “important” Jane.  Why is St. Peter’s important if no one is there?  Why is the supposed location important if no one is there?  why do thousands of Christians, including Catholics, venerate one or the other of the two supposed tombs of JC?  (there are more, one in India, and I think one in Japan if I’m not mistaken)  And again we have you making claims but showing no evidence at all and using the same lie as you have before.
What claims have I made? What lies?

Re tombs: Christ’s is not particularly important because he is not there. St. Peter’s is important because he is there. Christians venerate all the sites associated with Jesus, either real or legendary. They always have and always will. The fact that there are a couple of places that contend for the honor of being his temporary tomb is irrelevant to me and to many others.

Quote
I want to see evidence that the flood happened.  I want to see that other people noticed the very big events your bible claims.  where is the evidence for hundreds of thousands of people wandering around in the desert for 40 years?  Why did no one notice that Egypt lost its army and a large percentage of its population and livestock?  The other kingdoms around it would have loved that.  Why did no one notice an earthquake of a magnitude to massively shake the temple anywhere near the time that this savior of yours supposedly died (another thing that Christians can’t agree on) or the dead walking the streets? or the sun going dark?


Since I have not so much as breathed a word about any of this, what is the relevance of this to me? Why are you writing long posts that jump from one unrelated subject to another? Why the accusations that I am desperate to connect my claims (what claims???) to your posts? What on earth does that even mean? I am not attempting to create an atheist straw man (whatever that is supposed to mean). You have gone so far beyond anything that I have written that I am utterly baffled.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 05, 2012, 02:21:16 PM
Just out of curiousity, you do realize that trying to give me a negative point does not negate the validity of the statement?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 05, 2012, 03:38:24 PM
Evidence of a deluge:  Some evidence is that people, aside from Judaism and Christianity have passed down similar stories.

We all know it exists in Christianity and Judaism.  But similar accounts exist in Babylon, Greece, the Finish, Chinese, Korea, Islam and the Mandaeans of Northern Iraq.  Native Americans also expressed this belief in their early encounters with Europeans, though they had not written it down previously.  In Hindu mythology, texts like the Satapatha Brahmana mention the story of a great flood.  There are many others but this is just from a quick search from Wikipedia.   I think there must be some hint of truth in these "myths".  Geologists (aka scientitsts) seem to accept this as will be shown later.

Other evidence includes finding seashells on tops of mountains.  Some later came to believe it was because of glacial periods.  But there is no way of telling whether glaciers, a flood, pr both are actually accountable.  The only fact is that seashells have been found on tops of mountains. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark#Noah.27s_Ark_and_science

And ideas have been put out to explain this "hint" of truth:

"Some geologists believe that quite dramatic, unusually great flooding of rivers in the distant past might have influenced the legends.[citation needed] Also episodes of massive flooding of short duration of ocean coastal areas have been caused by tsunamis. One of the latest, and quite controversial, hypotheses of long term flooding is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BC from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. This has been the subject of considerable discussion, and a news article from National Geographic News in February 2009 reported that the flooding might have been "quite mild".

"There also has been speculation that a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea caused by the Thera eruption, dated about 1630–1600 BC geologically, was the historical basis for folklore that evolved into the Deucalion myth. Although the tsunami hit the South Aegean Sea and Crete it did not affect cities in the mainland of Greece, such as Mycenae, Athens, and Thebes, which continued to prosper, indicating that it had a local rather than a regionwide effect."

Another hypothesis is that a meteor or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean around 3000–2800 BC, created the 30 kilometres (19 mi) undersea Burckle Crater, and generated a giant tsunami that flooded coastal lands.[4]
 
It has been postulated that the deluge myth may be based on a sudden rise in sea levels caused by the rapid draining of prehistoric Lake Agassiz at the end of the last Ice Age, about 8,400 years ago.

If there is no evidence at all like you claim then why so many hypothesis from geiologists?  I can only assume that geologists do not agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

It should be obvious that SOMETHING happened to cause all these myths.

So there IS evidence or geologists would dismiss it entirely.




Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on May 05, 2012, 03:53:51 PM
Neither a meteor nor a tsunami equate to 40 days and nights of rain to the point of covering the entire world, inluding Mt Everest, with 15 cubits of water. Glaciers melt as they recede causing flooding in local area. Just because it's evidence of a flood, doesn't mean it's talking about that flood. Floods happen every year.

Seashells at the top of mountains is explained by the "just a theory[1]" known as Plate Tectonics. This explains Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Mountains, Valleys like Rift Valley/Death Valley, Tsunamis, why certain geographic features over vast oceans resemble each other[2], AND why seashells are at the top of mountains.

You see, you're putting the cart before the horse. Ancient man found shells in places far from water and tried to explain 'why' to thier fellows. If you pretend to know the answers, you become king of your tribe. If you say, "I don't know," people will ignore you and go to the next person hoping that person will pull something out of thier *** and follow them. Like Mohammed and why children sometimes look like the mother and other times like the father. The only wrong answer in these situations was to say, "I don't know." You make up any other kind of BS and people will believe it for thousands of years, regardless to how wrong you were.
 1. the same way gravity, electricity, music, and evolution are "" "".
 2. Africa and South America
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: wright on May 05, 2012, 04:01:13 PM


If there is no evidence at all like you claim then why so many hypothesis from geiologists?  I can only assume that geologists do not agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

It should be obvious that SOMETHING happened to cause all these myths.

So there IS evidence or geologists would dismiss it entirely.

No one here is disputing there were massive floods in prehistory. However, there is no evidence of a world-wide flood, as per a literal reading of Genesis.

There is certainly evidence of the flooding of different regions at various periods, including records kept by local cultures. This is not surprising, as early agricultural societies (and even nomadic societies) depended on rivers for water and arable land.

But again, there is no evidence that every culture, world-wide, experienced a catastrophic flood at exactly the same time. Such an event would leave traces that could be easily dated to the same period; AFAIK, this has never been shown to be true.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Rustybeatz on May 05, 2012, 04:15:15 PM
I do love the equivocation between punishment and suffer.  One suffers a punishment, Jane.  If we did nothing wrong, we should not have to suffer for it, if your god is the benevolent being you claim.  It’s like saying well “suzy spilt the milk and was punished by having no cookies, but we’re also not giving any cookies to jimmy because he was on the planet at the same time”. 
Oh? Tell that to the 4 children who, as I type this, are grieving for their father who was killed by a drunk driver last night. The drunk's sin is the cause of the kids' suffering; such is the nature of reality. They did nothing to deserve it. No man is an island and all that. What we do impacts others around us, sometimes with horrific  results.
[/quote]

I don't mean to go too far back in the convo, but, in order for the drunk death to be equivocated with original sin, wouldn't all of humanity have to suffer for the drunk's actions and not just the kids? 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 05, 2012, 04:36:11 PM
Evidence of a deluge:  Some evidence is that people, aside from Judaism and Christianity have passed down similar stories.


Where did all the water come from?

And what about the Chinese and the Egytians? Their empires were thriving at the time.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Seppuku on May 05, 2012, 04:42:05 PM
I don't know if you've seen this thread or not Jane, but I figured as it addresses you behaviour here, I will link you to it.

Clicky (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22498.0.html)

But I refuse to engage you on these topics until:

You calm the f**k down. You stop with the childish behaviour, you stop with the insults, you stop the frothing at the mouth hostility, you don't treat people like they're fucking idiots and you show some God damn respect. You are perfectly welcome to disagree with us, we allow and encourage this discourse, but when you participate on THIS forum you leave that attitude at the door. We do not have this trouble with other theists - do you see JST or Magicmiles behave like a child? No. I suggest reading the thread I linked because there's useful responses there. In said thread I've tried explaining EXACTLY how to avoid the road you're on (and that's a ban, you've already broken several forum rules).

Don't like the fact this response contains profanity directed at you? Then please try not insulting my peers.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 05, 2012, 05:23:44 PM

It should be obvious that SOMETHING happened to cause all these myths.

Yes there is. Humans have always built cities near large sources of water, until roughly modern day. So stories about floods would be extremely common among those cultures. Just as every culture tells stories about great hunters and warriors, or great leaders. It's for the same reason all cultures have love stories, and stories of revenge, and of young insignificant farm boys who grow up to be kings. We still tell disaster/apocolypse stories in our movies and literature even though we know they're largely unrealistic.

These things are common to the human experience. Because they speak to certain things common to us as a species.

You can't just assume that because a lot of humans have thought of something it has any genuine truth to it. That's where real evidence comes in.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: JeffPT on May 05, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
Evidence of a deluge:  Some evidence is that people, aside from Judaism and Christianity have passed down similar stories.

If the entire world flooded over, killing every living thing on it except for Noah and his family, there would be no other stories from Babylon, Greece, the Fins, the Chinese etc.  All the people who could have told that story or remembered the events would be dead. 

But we do have stories of flooding from many different places that we must account for.  Can you think of a non-deity reason for this?  Here is a simple reason... civilizations require water. All of the early civilizations from around the globe cropped up around water sources.  Large water sources are known for doing what?  Flooding.  It happens all the time.  That doesn't mean the entire world flooded over. 

There are many others but this is just from a quick search from Wikipedia.   I think there must be some hint of truth in these "myths".  Geologists (aka scientitsts) seem to accept this as will be shown later.

I just gave you a rational explanation for why there are many flood stories throughout history in different regions of the world.  Where does the logic of it fall apart for you? 

Other evidence includes finding seashells on tops of mountains.  Some later came to believe it was because of glacial periods.  But there is no way of telling whether glaciers, a flood, pr both are actually accountable.  The only fact is that seashells have been found on tops of mountains.

Plate tectonics Jstwebbrowsing.  When continents collide, they get pushed upward.  Ocean bottoms that were once covered in creatures from the sea can eventually become mountain tops.  If you don't believe me, go ahead and draw little sea shells on your fingernails, put your hands on a table with the fingers facing each other and push them together.  What happens to your fingers? They go up.  As an aside, when they rub against one another, the friction causes earthquakes as the large rock masses slide past.  The reason you don't see it personally is that it happens over millions of years, but it's simple to understand, and we know it happens.  The earthquakes you can see, however. 

It should be obvious that SOMETHING happened to cause all these myths.

Yes, and that SOMETHING is lots of local flooding on large scales because all civilizations require fresh water sources and those sources flood a lot.  You would have lots of flood stories if that happened, wouldn't you?  And that would also explain why some cultures have no flood stories at the same time.  This is, by far and away, a simpler way to understand the stories. 

So there IS evidence or geologists would dismiss it entirely.

There is copious amounts of evidence that local floods happen all the time.  There is no evidence that the entire world flooded over.  Sorry. 

Here is the thing Jstwebbrowsing.  For most of your life, you've been taught a certain way. To believe certain things.  You've been given ONE side of a very, VERY two sided argument and you have clung to your side because it's all you've known.  Don't feel bad; there are millions of people like you out there.  Now, however, you are dealing with people who have been given lots of information from both sides of the argument and who have come to the reasonable conclusion that all of these things you talk about are better explained by reasonable, evidence based methods.  Science offers better answers than God does.  It's that simple.  Don't you think it's in your best interest to listen to BOTH sides?  We have good reasons to think that God is not real.  Lots of them.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 05, 2012, 09:54:47 PM
Well first notice rain is not the only thing the Bible says caused the flood.  "The floodgates of the watery deep were opened."

There is also the theory that only the world, as Noah knew it, suffered this calamity.  Or even all of civiliation at that time was the extent of the "world" flood.

The more I learn the more I'm coinvinced it's true.  So we know that a flood "could" have occurred and we have Noah saying a flood "did" occur.  Is this not evidence?

So SOMETHING did happen to Noah.  He described it as a flood.  At what point do we stop believing his record?  As soon as he mentions God?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 05, 2012, 10:30:12 PM
Evidence of a deluge:  Some evidence is that people, aside from Judaism and Christianity have passed down similar stories.


Where did all the water come from?

And what about the Chinese and the Egytians? Their empires were thriving at the time.
there was an ice-age.....ice melted...localized flooding ,,,,,ignorant sheep herders get flooded and write about it as a world flood because they had no knowledge of anything outside the immediate area they lived???
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: JeffPT on May 05, 2012, 10:35:18 PM
Well first notice rain is not the only thing the Bible says caused the flood.  "The floodgates of the watery deep were opened."

The bible is just a book that says things that may or may not have happened.  What 'floodgates of the watery deep' is the book talking about?  If you would like to prove there is a watery deep area on our planet with enough water to overflow the entire earth above Mt. Everest, be my guest.  If you can't, then please consider that the book just might be wrong here.   

There is also the theory that only the world, as Noah knew it, suffered this calamity.  Or even all of civiliation at that time was the extent of the "world" flood.

You mean, the theory that it was a local flood.  Yeah, that's what we're trying to tell you.  Noah's "entire world" (if the man even existed) was probably condensed to an area no bigger than Guam. 

The more I learn the more I'm coinvinced it's true. 

What?  Are you being serious here?  I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous.  So when we say that the flood stories could be local stories, that doesn't make you think... hmm, maybe they have a point there?  When we tell you about how plate tectonics move the bottoms of the oceans upward slowly over time which explains why sea shells are on top of the mountains, you don't think... maybe they're on to something with that?  The more you learn you think it's true?  Really dude?  I can't... I don't even know what to say to you.  That's completely nuts. 

If you are learning your 'facts' from religious websites, then you are obviously going to get arguments that defend the notion that the Noah story is real.  What you THEN have to do is clear your mind of the faith you have that God exists and logically consider-very seriously-the arguments from people who disagree with the arguments and the grounds they give for their disagreement.  Only then can you really say you've heard both sides of the argument honestly and are ready to make a conclusion.  If you do that, you'll quickly appreciate the fact that the "Noah's flood story is real" side is patently stupid.  It's just not realistic for so many reasons. 

In all seriousness now... forget that you believe in God for a moment and just consider the facts.  Given what we know of our world... Is it likely that a 900 year old guy built a boat that housed 2 of every species in the ENTIRE WORLD on it, and floated around for 40 days and 40 nights until the rain covered every inch of the earth, and then when it stopped, he repopulated the planet by having sex with his kids?  Or is it MORE likely that the people back then... just made something up, or wrote down a local flood myth?  PLEASE be serious now.  Which is more likely? 

So we know that a flood "could" have occurred and we have Noah saying a flood "did" occur.  Is this not evidence?

Evidence that the Earth was covered with water during Noah's life and that every other civilization on Earth died out as a result of it?  I have a hard time stopping myself from laughing at this question.  No.  It is obviously not evidence. 

Local floods DO occur.  We have a book that claims the entire world was covered with water.  There is no evidence that this has EVER occurred at any time. 

So SOMETHING did happen to Noah.  He described it as a flood.  At what point do we stop believing his record?  As soon as he mentions God?

Jstwebbrowsing...  The bible is a work of art, not a non-fiction historical record.  We stop believing Noah's story the minute it makes claims that would typically make you say "There is no fucking way" if you read them in any other book.  If you don't do that, then you're being dishonest, because you know as well as I do, that if you read a story about a man that lived to be 900 years old, you'd say... 'Yeah right.  Whatever. This shit is not real."

Believe it or not, YES, every single person in your life who has taught you about God COULD be wrong here. They really could.  And so could you.  You have to allow that possibility to sink in, or you will gain nothing from being here.  Open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong and that everything you've been taught is a lie.  There is a whole other world out there for you to look at.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 05, 2012, 10:35:31 PM
Well first notice rain is not the only thing the Bible says caused the flood.  "The floodgates of the watery deep were opened."

There is also the theory that only the world, as Noah knew it, suffered this calamity.  Or even all of civiliation at that time was the extent of the "world" flood.

The more I learn the more I'm coinvinced it's true.  So we know that a flood "could" have occurred and we have Noah saying a flood "did" occur.  Is this not evidence?

So SOMETHING did happen to Noah.  He described it as a flood.  At what point do we stop believing his record?  As soon as he mentions God?
On the northwest coast of Canada we had flood stories as well....the waters from the ice-melt had to go somewhere....we could also journey by land between Alaska and Haida Gwaii at some point in time....now it is a threating shallow strait between Alaska and Haida Gwaii.

 The earth has been through MANY changes.....none of them biblical in nature
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 05, 2012, 10:41:04 PM
Jst, we pay attention of evidence and logic.

We are told that the ark came to rest on Mt. Arat. Which is over 16,000 feet high. Water has a bad tendency to level out on its own, which means that for the water to be that deep, it had to cover all of the globe, even if some mountain rangers were not covered.

Now you just said that maybe that the water might have only flooded that region. It would have had to be much shallower not to affect the rest of the world. And remember your argument about sea shells (you didn't mention that they were fossils, but you did mention the sea shells) that you said prove the flood. They are found near the tops of the Himilayas, which are, like, you know, almost twice as high as Mt. Arat.

And while you are saying maybe, we are saying definitely. That there is definitely not enough water to flood that deep, that there is definitely no evidence to show that it ever did. We are saying that there are definite explanations, with multiple proofs, that the continents move around, that mountain ranges are formed out of low lying rock when such masses meet and cause the surrounding land to be pushed upwards. We can map the specific rock formations that match exactly where South America broke away from Africa. We can also map the same exact fossilized species that existed in both of those rock samples.

We have living tree colonies that are over 35,000 years old. We have amazing cave painting in France that are dated at 35,000 years old. Which have never been under water, or they would have been destroyed. We have a planet full of plants, few of which would be able to survive so long under water. Especially 6 miles of water, which would put thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch on the land and grind most anything organic into dust. Biblical adherents ignore the fact that fresh water fish cannot handle salt water, and vice versa. Only a few can do that, like the salmon, and then only during certain parts of their life cycle. So how did the fish survive water that was too salty to be fresh, too fresh to be salty?

Why is Crater Lake, an extinct volcano in Oregon that is , at the lowest point on the rim, about 7,000 feet high, filled with wonderful, fresh, drinkable water? Were it once filled by flooding seas, it should be salty. It has no runoff and it's water level is controlled by rain/snowfall and evaporation. Were it at one time full of sea water, it would still be salty. Even if the water was not as fully salty as the ocean.

And there is other evidence. We have drilled through the ice cores in Greenland, where every winter a new layer of ice is formed, and where every years layer is discernable because of seasonal changes in the snow, which becomes ice as it is buried under the next decade worth of snow. And we have ice cores going down through over one million such layers. Just to be clear. One million layers equals one million years.

We have living tree colonies that are over 35,000 years old. They could not have survived a flood. We have amazing cave painting in France that are dated at 35,000 years old. Which have never been under water, or they would have been destroyed.

A geologically explainable flood and deluge occurred at least ten times in the Pacific Northwest, where Lake Missoula, an ancient body of water, occasionally breached ice and rock dams, allowing water to flood across Northern Idaho and Eastern Washington, then down the Columbia to the ocean. Those floods left huge, and I mean huge, deposits of river rock. The largest such deposits in the world. Water came out of the lake in such huge volumes it equalled ten times the flow of all other rivers in the world. Water that sat in the lake right where I am sitting right now in Montana (I would be under water if it were 12,000 years ago) ended up in my home town in Oregon just a couple of days later. A distance of about 450 miles as the crow flies, 650 via the route it took.

There are no other, and I repeat, no other rock deposits in the world that large. None. If an epic scale flood of the sort you think happened covered, or mostly covered, this planet, time and time again the evaporating waters (and where would it go?) would get trapped behind mountain ranges until it could all flow out and such huge floods should have happened all over the world. But they didn't.

12Monkeys Haida tribe and other native Americans have oral histories that go back to the time of the migration from Asia, 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Archaeological evidence confirms humans have inhabited this continent at least that long. The many pieces of evidence that have been excavated from sites on both the North and South American continents would have been washed away in any flood that covered them that deeply.

Sandals woven of sagebrush, over 10,000 years old, were found in a cave in Oregon. Any worldwide flood would have destroyed them completely. They survived because they were in a dry cave in a desert.

My list could go on literally for days. We have a multitude of reasons to know (not doubt) that there was no flood.

None of this evidence was gathered specifically to disprove a flood. It was gathered in efforts to find out what the history of our planet has been via geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology and other specialties. Chemists and physicists, botanists and ethnographers, all have gathered evidence that matches well with other evidence of a much older and never flooded earth. And all have gathered evidence that matches not at all with the biblical account of a flood.

In other words, we can explain the whys of many an earthly phenomenon, and not one requires or even hints at a huge deluge. Not one. Yes, there have been regional floods which left plenty of evidence. The whole of the Mediterranean sea filled up via a flood when a natural dam near the Rock of Gibraltar broke. The Black Sea filled from the Mediterranean in a similar fashion. But those events took place long before there were people. And the evidence for those and other localized floods abound. But for a world-wide flood? Not one shred of evidence. Not one.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 05, 2012, 11:03:25 PM
They have evidence from about 12,000 ago but our stories go back about 18,000 years that I know of....not much time though when you look back millions of years
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 05, 2012, 11:11:47 PM
Didn't mean to shortchange your people there, 12. A friend here on the Flathead Reservation told me that her oral history goes back about around 12,000 years and I extrapolated.

Her tribe considers the story sacred and transmits it only orally. Is the Haida story treated similarly, or is it published in any way? I would love to hear such a story.

I did read a book (the name of which I sadly forget) about ten years ago that was the history of one native group. It started in Siberia and the departure was inspired by multiple earthquakes. Man I wish I could remember what that book was. Their story was incredible. And beautiful.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 05, 2012, 11:12:50 PM
Well first notice rain is not the only thing the Bible says caused the flood.  "The floodgates of the watery deep were opened."

Do you know what's actually under the earths crust? And do you know how much water it would actually take to do what the bible says?

There is also the theory that only the world, as Noah knew it, suffered this calamity.  Or even all of civiliation at that time was the extent of the "world" flood.

Which contradicts what the bible says.

The more I learn the more I'm coinvinced it's true.  So we know that a flood "could" have occurred and we have Noah saying a flood "did" occur.  Is this not evidence?

No. Are you kidding? Ok, let's look at this in the best possible light. We have one thing that could have happened (if you ignore reality and about half the laws of science) and we have a two thousand+ year book which says that it did occur (but not in anyway that any of the other civilizations were around at the time noticed). In what warped frame of mind does that constitute evidence?

So SOMETHING did happen to Noah.  He described it as a flood.  At what point do we stop believing his record?  As soon as he mentions God?

No, we don't believe it from the beginning. We remain neutral, we investigate the claim and find evidence (which is none) and we then reject it if the evidence is not sufficient.

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 05, 2012, 11:16:59 PM
Didn't mean to shortchange your people there, 12. A friend here on the Flathead Reservation told me that her oral history goes back about around 12,000 years and I extrapolated.

Her tribe considers the story sacred and transmits it only orally. Is the Haida story treated similarly, or is it published in any way? I would love to hear such a story.

I did read a book (the name of which I sadly forget) about ten years ago that was the history of one native group. It started in Siberia and the departure was inspired by multiple earthquakes. Man I wish I could remember what that book was. Their story was incredible. And beautiful.
I was just telling you what I know was not offended... Which story are you reffering to ....creation story? or the story that may date back to how we came to be here?

 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 05, 2012, 11:22:21 PM
My Flathead friend said her peoples oral history covered the migration from Siberia to the present. She did not say if a creation story was included.

The book I read did not include a creation story.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jaimehlers on May 05, 2012, 11:38:36 PM
Jst:  As you say, there are similar flood stories in other cultures besides the Hebrew one.  But that doesn't prove anything as far as a flood actually happening.  First off, all these different groups communicated with each other, and thus cultural diffusion would have ensured that the stories got spread around.  Second, as others have pointed out, there's evidence which strongly contradicts the whole idea of a worldwide flood, and to a large degree a localized one according to the lineage timeline in the Bible.  Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the flood story as related in the Bible is literally true, especially when you consider the improbability of several of the elements of the story; the huge number of animals that would have to have ridden on the boat without killing each other, the amount of food necessary to feed all those animals, the seaworthiness of a boat that large, just to name three.

Per Occam's razor, the explanation that makes the least number of assumptions is the most likely to be true.  There are a large number of assumptions implicit in the Noah story; how did Noah keep the predators from killing other animals, or each other for that matter?  How did he get them to the boat?  Where did he store the huge amount of food necessary to feed all those animals for the months, possibly years, that the boat was out on the water?  How did he store all that food without spoilage?  How did he feed the carnivores?  How did the boat survive the pounding of the wind and waves as the deluge came down?  This is by no means a complete list, but it should certainly illustrate why the idea of the flood as written in the Bible is problematic at best.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 06, 2012, 12:15:13 AM
My Flathead friend said her peoples oral history covered the migration from Siberia to the present. She did not say if a creation story was included.

The book I read did not include a creation story.
our creation stories put us on Haida Gwaii from the begining of time......
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 06, 2012, 12:16:40 AM
..glad to see this rubbish has been thoroughly answered and battered.  I like my fish crispy..  As well as my muscles and sea-shells that I find fossilized on mountain-tops..   8)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 06, 2012, 12:29:18 AM
My Flathead friend said her peoples oral history covered the migration from Siberia to the present. She did not say if a creation story was included.

The book I read did not include a creation story.
our creation stories put us on Haida Gwaii from the begining of time......

18,000 years ago would be about right then. For we humans. That is far older than most cultures can claim.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Astreja on May 06, 2012, 12:37:33 AM
IMO, the reason there are so many flood stories is simple.

Civilizations tend to grow near bodies of water, rather than out in the middle of deserts or way up in the mountains.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Add Homonym on May 06, 2012, 05:46:29 AM
Gord blimey.

Since there is no global flood known to science, then science would predict the existence of complex inter-species relationships that could not be explained by the Noah's ark story. Noah could rescue a select groups of animals from one continent, but there is no way for him to re-establish some complicated inter-species parasitic/comensal arrangements (esp animals vs plants).

The Noah's ark story has little concern for the extermination of plant life - showing naivety of the person who wrote it;  not even aware that plants and grass would be killed. The dove comes back with a live olive leaf (apparently). This is told with a straight face. Given that the story spells out every other little detail, you expect some kind of mention of how all the plants survived, and how Noah sowed grass seeds, so that the cattle could eat. It requires a naive fantasy to ignore the problem by the writer, and the same naivety not to notice by the reader.

We know that environments that have suffered disaster, like UK, which was under an ice sheet, become very simple. We would expect to see a very simple world ecosystem, with no complex relationships, if the story of Noah was true. (But we don't) So, it requires further fantasy from creationists that God sped up evolution after the flood, to bring back biodiversity, so that it matched fossil records.

Animal-plant comensal relationships are a good place to start, if you want to rid yourself of the delusion of Noah. Look at Armarillus, Mistletoe, Eucalypt, Mistletoe bird.  A creationist offered me a solution to this problem: he reckoned that there were giants rafts of vegetation that floated around in the ocean, which preserved plant life and these types of relationships. (Rafts that humans could have lived on.)

There is no way to escape the delusion of Noah, you will always be able to dig yourself back into the delusion, with a new invention that is not detailed in the Noah story, and has no factual evidence.




Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on May 06, 2012, 08:08:46 AM
Well first notice rain is not the only thing the Bible says caused the flood.  "The floodgates of the watery deep were opened."

Floodgates...

Do you know what's associated with floods? I live near a river, and it floods all the time so I do. A wall of water. It looks like a dam had burst, but of course If god had made a dam, it wouldn't have burst. Like the windows in the firmament that allows rain, the gates provide the wall of water for floods.

However the reality is, the same mechanism that creates the wall of water, is the same exact mechanism that creates the flood to begin with. Rain. Lots and lots of rain.

Thay didn't know 6" of rain, river goes up gradually.... 13" there's so much run off, it creates a wall of water. It took someone else, much later to decide to measure rain. The bible is simply an appeal to ignorance. They had no idea how the world worked, they simply stated how it looked from the most basic way.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Historicity on May 06, 2012, 08:14:39 AM
The Burckle Crater impact would have had 2 effects:

1) Tsunami.
2) An enormous amount of seawater blasted upward into a corona that would fall back to Earth as a salty rain in a circle away from the blast center.

Babylonian myth says that the Leviathon (LTN) under the direction of Tiamat, the Demoness of Chaos, once made a bid for the sea to take over the land.

That might be what is described in the various flood legends around the Indian Ocean.  But as I said in another thread on this, we must remember that there are repeated stories from Germanic and Slavic sources of talking bears who once had a civilized life and even founded the cities of Berlin and Berne.  You can have a lot of similar stories with no basis.


Here is one that Astreja can check more easily.  I think she has the sources.  I once read a digested version of the creation story of the Eddas.  It had one of those flood legends.  But the legend sounded to me like an exaggeration of a jöjkullhlaup, that is, when geothermal heat melts a glacier from below so it contains a hidden lake of water until it bursts out.  This has wiped out -- really eradicated -- places in Iceland such as a town that disappeared in an instant as recently as the 1700s.

I read other descriptions one of the supposed universal flood legend.  The Mayan one is not about rain but about a tsunami.  Considering the volcanoes in the Caribbean...

The Chinese and Japanese legends are creation stories about land arising from the chaos of the seas, not about a flood that happened after the Earth was settled.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Historicity on May 06, 2012, 08:43:03 AM
Other evidence includes finding seashells on tops of mountains.  Some later came to believe it was because of glacial periods.  But there is no way of telling whether glaciers, a flood, pr both are actually accountable.  The only fact is that seashells have been found on tops of mountains.

Plate tectonics Jstwebbrowsing.  When continents collide, they get pushed upward.  Ocean bottoms that were once covered in creatures from the sea can eventually become mountain tops.  If you don't believe me, go ahead and draw little sea shells on your fingernails, put your hands on a table with the fingers facing each other and push them together.  What happens to your fingers? They go up.
Both wrong.  No one says that the grinding glaciers could leave intact shells.

JeffPT, you are partially right about the plate tectonics.  You don't know that below those shells in mountain ranges are complete limestone layers vertically sandwiched.  This is thousands of feet of lime from an old ocean bottom.  The mountains on either side are the old shores of  2 continents that collided and pushed up.


Divergence.  In 2000 I participated on a skeptics forum in Oregon and Washington.  The head of it had done some original research.  For instance an artifact was found in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, a rock with 500 million year old seashells embedded and an x-ray showed a metal object inside.  Not a tool.  There was a high tech coil of some sort.  This produced 2 speculations:

1) Ancient astronauts.
2) A creationist said it was an artifact from an advanced civilization drowned in the Flood.

The skeptic got a professional opinion from a geologist that when lime washes out and mixes with mud it can sometimes form a lump low grade naturally occurring concrete.  Old seashells washing out can become part of that.  As for the device, he took the x-ray to a spark plug collector who identified it as a Ford Model A spark plug.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 06, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
I don't have any time left but let me clarify something. 

I have always understood that the "world" that was destroyed was not the earth itself, but rather the "world of mankind".  I believe this misunderstanding is what causes some believers to think that God is going to destroy the earth with fire in the future.  This is not so, according to my beliefs.  The "world or mankind", minus any of those God chooses to spare, will be destroyed but not the earth itself.

I have known for a long time that at that time people did not populate the entire earth.  However, when picturing the flood I always pictured people living all over the globe, so out of necessity the "entire earth" had to have been flooded.  Sometimes I am so blonde.  But a global flood need not be the case if all of mankind was localized.

And I have always accepted that large parts of the Bible are written from the point of view of a human, in this case Noah.  So the entire earth as he knew it was destroyed.

So to me the only possible questions left are:

1.  How local was the flood?  Was the "world of mankind" really destroyed in it's entirety?
2.  Did Noah have anvance warning?
3.  Did Noah build an ark and survive it?
4.  Did all the flood myths originate from an original?  If so then is the Bible's version accurate.

What was the "watery deep"?  I've often asked this question to myself and I never could figure it out, and didn't really do any research on the matter.  But now I am reasonbly sure it referred to either a tsunami or the sea.  And I think most likely the latter, or even a combination of the two.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: mrbiscoop on May 06, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
    If you keep changing the definitions for words and moving the goalposts then there isn't anything you can't accept. Looks like you might be headed in the right direction with the waffling though.
    Oh by the way, at the time that Noah's flood was supposed to have happened there were people  present on all the continents except for Antarctica.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 06, 2012, 07:41:55 PM
I don't have any time left but let me clarify something. 

I have always understood that the "world" that was destroyed was not the earth itself, but rather the "world of mankind".  I believe this misunderstanding is what causes some believers to think that God is going to destroy the earth with fire in the future.  This is not so, according to my beliefs.  The "world or mankind", minus any of those God chooses to spare, will be destroyed but not the earth itself.

Let me clarify something. Who cares? How do you know your beliefs are real? That's what you keep avoiding. How do you justify this with actual evidence. What makes your beliefs anymore right than any other Christian who says different. If you can't answer that you're all you're doing is babbling like a lunatic. So why should anyone care?

I have known for a long time that at that time people did not populate the entire earth.  However, when picturing the flood I always pictured people living all over the globe, so out of necessity the "entire earth" had to have been flooded.  Sometimes I am so blonde.  But a global flood need not be the case if all of mankind was localized.

But they weren't. This another one of those things you avoided before. There were many civilizations that were alive and well when the flood was supposed to have occured. The Chinese empire went on throughout the entire time period and never noticed. It certainly didn't effect the Egyptians.The Jomon period started in Japan, the first Korean civilizations were forming. Not one of them even noticed the entire Earth being swallowed up by water, which you think is something they would have written about.


And I have always accepted that large parts of the Bible are written from the point of view of a human, in this case Noah.  So the entire earth as he knew it was destroyed.

Except it's not. It's written from the third person narrative perspective. That's because the author is detailing things from the perspective of both Noah and god and is in both of their heads. It is not written from Noahs perspective and it certainly isn't written by Noah, so this is just ridiculously ignorant. This isn't even an interpretation thing, it's a basic education of english literacy thing.

2.  Did Noah have anvance warning?
3.  Did Noah build an ark and survive it?


Neither of these matter at all unless the bible and flood are true.

4.  Did all the flood myths originate from an original?  If so then is the Bible's version accurate.

No on both counts. The evidence is clear.

What was the "watery deep"?  I've often asked this question to myself and I never could figure it out, and didn't really do any research on the matter.  But now I am reasonbly sure it referred to either a tsunami or the sea.  And I think most likely the latter, or even a combination of the two.

However you have never researched it. And you still have failed to respond to where all of the water came from. There is not enough water on earth to even begin to do that. And we know that there are no underground fissures containing more water than the earth's surface about five times over.

I think I've mentioned this before but you always seem to avoid the real questions and points. Why is that, Jst?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: kaziglu bey on May 06, 2012, 08:13:36 PM
jst, please take a moment to read what I posted in another thread a few minutes ago (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22523.msg503189/topicseen.html#msg503189) regarding floods, water and math. The flood is just not possible. You want proof? There is mathematical proof. Unless you can show me the math to refute what I present there, then it's time you admit defeat. It's incredible that you even buy your own desperate apologetics here.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 06, 2012, 08:25:25 PM
Jst, lets try this again. According the Genesis, the ark came to rest on "The Mountains of Araret". The base of those mountains is at 5,000 feet. The peaks go as high as 16,000 feet. A flood that was deep enough to float the ark just up to the 5,000 foot level, would, by necessity, put 5,000 feet of water everywhere else on the planet that was that height or below. So most of the rest of the world would, by necessity, also be under water. This could not be a local event. That is not an option.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Omen on May 06, 2012, 10:19:25 PM
The sun can evaporate ( estimate ) 1 trillion tons of water in a 24 hour period over the earth.  There are 10,266,195,028,681,000,000 tons of water on earth.  In order for the flood to even remotely occur ( and ignoring the fact that there isn't enough water present on earth to accomplish the task ), there would need to be 10.2 million times the amount of energy delivered in a single day to evaporate that amount of water ( again ignoring we're not calculating for the extra water needed to even flood the earth ).

The result is that there wouldn't be water, so much as there would be an atmosphere comprised of nothing but super heated plasma.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Add Homonym on May 07, 2012, 12:25:21 AM
[4] There were giants in the earth in those days;

Wrong, but there were pygmies. Why were there no giants in Australia?

[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Apparently, marsupials in Australia were beyond reproach, even though God regretted making animals in ANE.

[11] The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Check. Pretty much the whole Earth had violence and fornication in it. Were people of the ANE simply worse than Chinese, or are Chinese still awesome? Perhaps we should buy Great Wall of China cars.

[12] And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Pretty much

[13] And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

All flesh

[17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Good plan.

[18] But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

And the Chinese and Australian aboriginals were above reproach, and had an implicit covenant.

[20] Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Why save birds, if they can fly to Australia?

[1] And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Also, the Chinese and Amerindians were righteous.

[4] For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

At least we know how to interpret the prophecies of Daniel, when he says something, it could mean anything.

[6] And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Or 42. When you add up the digits of 600, it actually means 42 in ancient Hebrew numbers known only to me.

[8] Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

At least we know what the Bible means by 'every': some. This helps interpret Revelation.

[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.


Now we have new definitions for Biblical "all", and "whole".

[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Now we have a new definition of "cubit". A mountain is 15 cubits high.

[15] The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

The ark is 20 times as long as a mountain. I never noticed that bit of stupid before.

[23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

[1] And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark:

Wish I had a photographic memory like God.

[3] And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.


The waters rolled off the side of the Earth.

[5] And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


After 10 months, the water is down to 15 cubits again.

[17] Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

When you cover plants, even locally with 15 cubits of water, they die. No mention of how the plants came back to feed the cattle.

[19] Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

Great. Still the new definition of Biblical "every" is about 100.

[21] And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.


And even if God did smite 'every' living thing, 'every' means about 100, so no problems for most people.

[10] And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
[11] And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
[12] And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:


So, the covenant was only established with those animals on the ark. He could flood others again.

[14] And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

He made rainbows everywhere.

blah blah.


Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jaimehlers on May 07, 2012, 02:07:54 AM
Also, the ark was 30 cubits high.  You know, twice the height of the mountains that were covered by the floodwaters.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Iamrational on May 07, 2012, 04:44:14 AM
I read a scientist say that in order for all the granite (that houses the fossils for instance) to be created during the short span of the flood, it would have created so much heat it would have boiled the oceans away a thousand times over. The energy would have been unimaginable, let alone survivable for Noah and his wood boat. That is something seldom mentioned.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 07, 2012, 06:56:42 AM
I've said this before - I do not understand why the churchies don't just claim magic when it comes to the flood.  Instead, they try to justify it rationally, making all kinds of violence upon reason and science, torturing the English language in unspeakable ways to try to make it plausible that it actually happened.  I cannot understand why they never, ever just say "it was a fuckin' miracle!" and be done with it. 

Oh, no.   Instead we get treated to "well, there is a theory that there are caverns at the bottom of the oceans that the water shot out of...." or "well, the windows of heaven is not a literal term, it is figurative and just means it rained heavily..." or "you see, back then there was just one continent and the Earth was smaller.  As the water entered the earth by accretion, the earth expanded and the tectonic plates shifted and that is how the continents drifted...".  Puuuh-leeeeze. 

Attention xians: Just throw down your Get Out Of Reason Free card and say "Miracle".  All those other explanations make you look crazy and stupid.  I know, "magic" is crazy and stupid too.  And as a 21st century person you know you should have very good reasons for believing things.   But it just isn't working, and I think you know that. 

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Seppuku on May 07, 2012, 08:14:03 AM
Agreed. I thought the whole point of faith was to believe without evidence? It seems all people want to do is butcher science because it's able to provide back up to its claims whereas religion can't. When somebody has to make these explanations with poor and most of the time, idiotic, reasoning it says to me that their faith is so weak that they have to try and rationalise it. I think the 'true' believers of Christ and if God is real, the kind of people that will have earned tickets to board the angel express are people who simultaneously have faith in God and accept all of the sciences, because that takes real faith. To still believe in God when you've got so much to challenge it. Self deceit or even lying to others and twisting science is not faith, it's delusion.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on May 07, 2012, 08:36:31 AM
Agreed. I thought the whole point of faith was to believe without evidence?

Holy shit, Sep, don't get me started on faith.  They haven't a clue what they mean when they say "faith".  They are so confused.  They are told to have faith, but not blind faith.  But they describe faith exactly as they would describe blind faith, which they know is a fraud.  Or they describe faith so ambiguously as to be meaningless.  And then they turn around and start to justify everything because they know they have to, but they also aren't supposed to.  Ugh.  It must suck being religious.  I'm surprised they don't get dizzy and fall down all the time.  It's like a dog chasing his own tail.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: kaziglu bey on May 07, 2012, 09:14:34 AM
I've said this before - I do not understand why the churchies don't just claim magic when it comes to the flood.  Instead, they try to justify it rationally, making all kinds of violence upon reason and science, torturing the English language in unspeakable ways to try to make it plausible that it actually happened.  I cannot understand why they never, ever just say "it was a fuckin' miracle!" and be done with it. 
<snip>

I think it is interesting that people of faith, who by definition believe without evidence, would look to reason, logic, and science to provide them with the evidence for their beliefs. I can see only two possible outcomes. Evidence for their beliefs could be found, at which point it would no longer be faith, or that evidence contrary to their faith would be found, at which point their faith would just seem silly. We have yet to see a single example of the first case. Yet we see here in this forum, multiple times a day, that people of faith try to use science and evidence to justify their beliefs, and they have failed every single time. Not one believer of any faith has ever been able to provide actual evidence of their beliefs.

Time and time again we see believers of all stripes dismissing thorough, significant, and yet unrefuted scientific evidence and the conclusions drawn from them, in favor of the "evidence" provided to them in their Holy Book, of which also no believer has been able to show which version of scripture is the correct one, and why. Again, it's a matter of faith that they trust that they are being force fed the correct bullshit.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Omen on May 07, 2012, 09:17:35 AM
Agreed. I thought the whole point of faith was to believe without evidence? It seems all people want to do is butcher science because

I look at it as Christian hubris, a result of cognitive dissonance with the kind of equivocating rationale where as long as you can insert 'something' ( regardless of how asinine it is ) it's ok to believe.  Notice that most of their apologia are thinly veiled arguments against intellectualism, education, and science.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 07, 2012, 09:27:31 AM
Though screwtape made a great point about god just providing the water, it there really were a god and he were that omni-upset with humans, a very simple "poof"of the David Copperfield variety, but real, could have disposed of the problem instantly. It's not like the dude was powerless or something.

But of course, not actually existing puts the kibosh on a lot of his plans...

Added:

Not only that, but he hand picked a small family, made them get busy for a few years, drowned the planet, and that family did what? Went bad almost immediately. I can't blame Noah for getting drunk, of course, but everything went downhill fast and soon humans were back on track to be a**holes again. It was all for naught.

Couldn't god see that coming?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Alzael on May 07, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
Though screwtape made a great point about god just providing the water, it there really were a god and he were that omni-upset with humans, a very simple "poof"of the David Copperfield variety, but real, could have disposed of the problem instantly. It's not like the dude was powerless or something.

But of course, not actually existing puts the kibosh on a lot of his plans...

Added:

Not only that, but he hand picked a small family, made them get busy for a few years, drowned the planet, and that family did what? Went bad almost immediately. I can't blame Noah for getting drunk, of course, but everything went downhill fast and soon humans were back on track to be a**holes again. It was all for naught.

Couldn't god see that coming?

I think this here is why religious people still look to reason and logic to support their god. Because they kind of have to. Even if you just shrug your shoulders and say god did it, it still doesn't make any sense.

For instance let's say that god did just create all the water. As PP points out there was no reason for it. God could have just poofed everyone out of existence with no need to do things the long and stupid way. So the story still makes no sense, all you've done is chage which part becomes nonsensical.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 07, 2012, 09:47:52 AM
Evidence of a deluge:  Some evidence is that people, aside from Judaism and Christianity have passed down similar stories.

We all know it exists in Christianity and Judaism.  But similar accounts exist in Babylon, Greece, the Finish, Chinese, Korea, Islam and the Mandaeans of Northern Iraq.  Native Americans also expressed this belief in their early encounters with Europeans, though they had not written it down previously.  In Hindu mythology, texts like the Satapatha Brahmana mention the story of a great flood.  There are many others but this is just from a quick search from Wikipedia.   I think there must be some hint of truth in these "myths".  Geologists (aka scientitsts) seem to accept this as will be shown later.
Jst, please explain how the Egyptians didn’t notice any flood.  You keep avoiding this and it makes you look like an idiot and a poor liar.  And no geologists do not “seem to accept this as will be shown later”. 

Quote
Other evidence includes finding seashells on tops of mountains.  Some later came to believe it was because of glacial periods.  But there is no way of telling whether glaciers, a flood, pr both are actually accountable.  The only fact is that seashells have been found on tops of mountains.
  You show your willful ignorance.  As truthseeker has shown you, it was plate tectonics, not glaciers and not your magical and baseless flood.  There are plenty of ways to tell what makes something happen and your theist lies that there are not are amusing and utterly wrong.   

Quote
And ideas have been put out to explain this "hint" of truth:
alterate theorys of flooding mechanisms cut for space. And yep, no evidence of the flood as claimed by your bible here in any one of the other theories on how a large flood could have occurred. All fail to fit the nonsense in the bible. Lake Agazziz is the funniest one though, being in North America.  Might be fun for the Mormons though. 
Quote
If there is no evidence at all like you claim then why so many hypothesis from geiologists?  I can only assume that geologists do not agree with you.
  Well, jst, geologists do agree with me, in all of the above since not a one of them supports the biblical lie of a world wide flood that covered all of the mountains. 
Quote
It should be obvious that SOMETHING happened to cause all these myths.
So there IS evidence or geologists would dismiss it entirely.
No, there is no evidence for the flood in the bible.  Not one scrap. You seem unable or unwilling to admit you and your bible are wrong. There’s lots of floods that can be documented all over the place and yep, those examples above have evidence of one kind or another.  Your magical bible flood does not. Your attempts to claim that the events above “could” have caused some flooding, are amusing since they are spread all over time and poor Jews and Christians can’t even begin to figure out when they want it to “really” have occurred. 

Floods occur often and since civilizations are often established on rivers, they get exposed to floods.  If they want to make up a story that accounts for their need to make up a myth about how their god shows it’s power and how to take care of the problem of evil, they simply extrapolate that if a small flood kills and destroys, then a really ridiculously big one would be what their god would use.   No god needed only human propensity to make stories up to explain things. 

Well first notice rain is not the only thing the Bible says caused the flood.  "The floodgates of the watery deep were opened."
No evidence of anything that could be construed to be this.  Oh and it’s “And the springs of the watery deep and the floodgates of the heavens became stopped up, and so the downpour from the heavens was restrained.” per the ridiculous Watchtower website.
Quote
There is also the theory that only the world, as Noah knew it, suffered this calamity.  Or even all of civiliation at that time was the extent of the "world" flood.
So your bible is wrong again and has propagated a lie.
Quote
The more I learn the more I'm coinvinced it's true.  So we know that a flood "could" have occurred and we have Noah saying a flood "did" occur.  Is this not evidence?
No, a world wide flood covering mountains could not and has not occurred.
Quote
So SOMETHING did happen to Noah.  He described it as a flood.  At what point do we stop believing his record?  As soon as he mentions God?
As soon as one sees that there is no evidence.  No evidence for a “Noah” at all.  No evidence for any big boat. No evidence of animals being gathered. No evidence of 40 days of rain nor of any springs or floodgates or fountainsn being opened.  No evidence of any bottleneck in humanity’s genetics at any of the times that Christians would desperately try to claim the flood occurred. 
I don't have any time left but let me clarify something.
I have always understood that the "world" that was destroyed was not the earth itself, but rather the "world of mankind".  I believe this misunderstanding is what causes some believers to think that God is going to destroy the earth with fire in the future.  This is not so, according to my beliefs.  The "world or mankind", minus any of those God chooses to spare, will be destroyed but not the earth itself.
and more excuses and “interpretations” from a Christian.  Yep, all without any evidence that you are any more correct than anyone else, but lots of evidence that you like all Christians have to make up things to excuse your god’s failures.
Quote
I have known for a long time that at that time people did not populate the entire earth.  However, when picturing the flood I always pictured people living all over the globe, so out of necessity the "entire earth" had to have been flooded.  Sometimes I am so blonde.  But a global flood need not be the case if all of mankind was localized.
No, you are not “so blonde”, you are willfully ignorant.  And I do like to see you again evidently claiming that your bible is lying when it’s convenient for you.

Quote
And I have always accepted that large parts of the Bible are written from the point of view of a human, in this case Noah.  So the entire earth as he knew it was destroyed.
Ah, the magic decoder ring method of how a Christian decides that they know what was “really” meant by their god.
Quote
So to me the only possible questions left are:
1.  How local was the flood?  Was the "world of mankind" really destroyed in it's entirety?
Then your bible was wrong.  And which one of the events that Christians want to claim, events with real evidence btw, do you want to claim was the “real” one?
Quote
2.  Did Noah have anvance warning?
no evidence of Noah at all so the question is moot.  Shall we also discuss if the citzens of Athens had any “advance” press about when Poseidon and Athena were going to compete for the chance to have the city named after them?  It’s just as “real” of an event as your nonsense.

Quote
3.  Did Noah build an ark and survive it?
well, jst, your bible lies about a world-wide flood covering mountains, so why not have it lie about an ark that could not survive as described and that Christians can’t even agree on?

Quote
4.  Did all the flood myths originate from an original?  If so then is the Bible's version accurate.
No evidence for a world-wide flood as described in the bible again.  Ancient Egyptians themselves show your claims of every culture having such a myth to be nonsense so no reason to assume an original.
Quote
What was the "watery deep"?  I've often asked this question to myself and I never could figure it out, and didn't really do any research on the matter.  But now I am reasonbly sure it referred to either a tsunami or the sea.  And I think most likely the latter, or even a combination of the two.
And no reason you should think that the “springs of the watery deep” aka “fountains of the deep”  is “reasonably” tsunami or the sea.  Quite an amusing variation of your “reasonableness” &)  We get your “reasonable” claim and then others from Christians who are sure you are wrong and they are right, and all sure that they are “reasonable”.  There is no reason to think that the authors of Genesis didn’t think that there were literally gushing fountains of extra water from magical sources, since we have no evidence or such things now.  There is no reason to claim a tsunami was “really” what the fountain was since they knew what waves looked like.  Even the Boxing Day tsunami didn’t look like a fountain.  Fountains were around since at least the 6 century BCE and since the oldest copy of Genesis we have seems to be from around the 2nd century BCE, they would have known what fountains were.  And again, no ability to agree when this “should” have happened.   
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 07, 2012, 03:02:27 PM
If I noted it, as you say, does that not mean that I have shown you that my understanding is the correct one?
Not even remotely.  Really, thinking that if you get one part of something right, that means you get it all right automatically?  No, Jane. It doesn’t work like that.  For such an accomplished scholar, one would have thought you would have known that. 
Quote
Let's see. I have repeatedly claimed that the RCC is the only right one. But not really. You know this because I believe what I say!  Well, there is no arguing with that.
So, where have you said that the RCC isn’t the only right one, Jane.  Where is this caveat of your “not really”.   Since you seem to indicate that you don’t believe what you say, I find that fascinating, that you proselytize something that you have evidently no trust in.  Or is it simply that you are trying your best to avoid responsibility for your claims by now claiming that they are really only unsupported opinions like any other theist’s claims?
Quote
But if you want evidence of your own words, I’m happy to oblige:
[quoe]The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach.
You claiming the RCC is right.
Quote
Thanks to Dictionary.com, I can demonstrate that you have misunderstood:
it strikes me that
Fig(urative). it seems to me that. ...
Thus, when I wrote:  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. my meaning was:It seems to me that the CCC approach is correct.  Thus your claim that I am stating that it is correct is shown to be incorrect. I stated my opinion.
  Ah, so you don’t actually believe what the RCC says?  You only think it “might” be true? Interesting.  Seems that someone might be as agnostic as many here. &)  It just “strikes” you as the right approach but you have nothing to support that it is, they might be correct, they might not. Thanks for the evidence that even such a theist as you has nothing to support their beliefs as being the truth that they want to claim.     
Quote
Yes. You need to explain to me why I must account for every difference of opinion on a subject, when I make a statement or express my opinion. It will slow things down mightily if I must restate what I have already said
  Jane, you claim that your beliefs are the only right ones for a Christian.  You have made statements that are absolute, that God does this, that God does that with no caveats of “I think that God does this or that”.  You have tried to establish yourself as an authority.  Other Christians do the same thing and none of you have any evidence to support your claims.  In this instance about free will. 
Quote
Beyond that, the vast majority of Christendom does believe in free will. Evidence for that statement? Go to adherents.com (or any one of many other statistical sites) and look up which body of Christians is the largest in the world. Not by a little but by a lot. Then tell me why I must account for the views of small clusters of sects and a few denominations before I post anything here.
Nice appeal to popularity fallacy there, Jane.  You need to show that your claims of being the right brand of Christianity, and yep, you’ve done it again with your attempts to support your claims of being right with such pathetic fallacies, is the only right one.  Now, since JC said that his followers would be able to do miracles just like him and even greater, that should be easy for you.  You can start by healing an amputee.  Otherwise, no matter how many people might believe something, it simply isn’t true.   
Quote
What claims have I made? What lies?
I’ve shown you, Jane. Repeatedly.  Playing dumb like this is funny to watch but doesn’t remove your lies. 
Quote
Re tombs: Christ’s is not particularly important because he is not there. St. Peter’s is important because he is there. Christians venerate all the sites associated with Jesus, either real or legendary. They always have and always will. The fact that there are a couple of places that contend for the honor of being his temporary tomb is irrelevant to me and to many others.
Oh yes?, then show me that St. Peter is there, Jane.  And it’s amusing again to see you declare things irrelevant to you.  It’s a sure indication that you simply have no answer and realize the problem you have.  Your religion is built on special places and bits and piece of human bodies and claims of magical relics. But that one special place where the most important act of your religion supposedly took place, darn you have no idea where it is.   Since your religion lost that location, what else has it made mistakes in or made up?  Why believe that any of your myths occurred at all?   
Quote
Since I have not so much as breathed a word about any of this, what is the relevance of this to me? Why are you writing long posts that jump from one unrelated subject to another? Why the accusations that I am desperate to connect my claims (what claims???) to your posts? What on earth does that even mean? I am not attempting to create an atheist straw man (whatever that is supposed to mean). You have gone so far beyond anything that I have written that I am utterly baffled.
  Because your entire religion is based on the claims that these events are true.  No exodus, no events around the cruxifiction to be notice, then your religion falls apart since it is based on lies.  And if you are too ignorant of the English language to realize the times you’ve claimed something, then alas I can do little for you.  A claim is when you say something happened or something is real etc.  Until you can support those claims with evidence, those claims are by definition baseless, no more than the claim of a child that they’ve seen the “real” Santa Claus in their living room. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 07, 2012, 03:46:36 PM
What a verbose way of saying that you aren't listening to me or anyone else. It doesn't matter what we actually say. You see theist and you react like a bull reacts to a red flag. You simply launch into a confused tirade that has nothing to do with what has actually been written. If others want to indulge you, that is their call. I won't bother any further, although I will continue to correct your egregious errors of fact, if it amuses me to do so.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Historicity on May 07, 2012, 06:27:59 PM
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Apparently, marsupials in Australia were beyond reproach, even though God regretted making animals in ANE.

Uhhh, this actually came up in my confirmation class in America.

The answer supplied to me was that God (maybe) made a network of land bridges and the kangaroos hopped back.  Then the land bridges sunk.

I objected that it would take less energy to out some kangaroos into suspended animation and keep them under a force field dome at the bottom of the ocean for the duration.

A more modern YEC answer which I have seen on some site cites the Bible:
Quote
Gen 10:22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,

Missed it, I'll bet.  "for in his days was the earth divided"   See? Plate tectonics.  The Noachian Flood happened in Pangaea.  The marsupials hopped to the Australian region of Pangaea and then it split away with only a little massive uncovering of lava from the mantle that would boil the seas.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on May 08, 2012, 03:13:29 AM
Re tombs: Christ’s is not particularly important because he is not there. St. Peter’s is important because he is there. Christians venerate all the sites associated with Jesus, either real or legendary. They always have and always will. The fact that there are a couple of places that contend for the honor of being his temporary tomb is irrelevant to me and to many others.


Oh yes?, then show me that St. Peter is there, Jane.  And it’s amusing again to see you declare things irrelevant to you.  It’s a sure indication that you simply have no answer and realize the problem you have.  Your religion is built on special places and bits and piece of human bodies and claims of magical relics. But that one special place where the most important act of your religion supposedly took place, darn you have no idea where it is.   Since your religion lost that location, what else has it made mistakes in or made up?  Why believe that any of your myths occurred at all?

Plain Jane, please answer this. The Pope was once the only person on Earth worthy to have god speak to him, so everything he said was from god. The pope was infallible. Then one day, after many many years the RCC had to change thier position to that he is only infallible with moral issues. It makes you wonder how somone who gets exposure to a source of All-Knowing-ness, yet get reduced to knowing only what was already in thier head, and personally feel. Why? Because they were so wrong about everything. They didn't just stop being infallible with everything.... they never were to begin with. Yet, for over a thousand years, they had every Christian hoodwinked. It's like tradition: the longer you believe something, the more true it is. People believed disease was caused by sin, or demons, or judgement from god... yet it took someone who once believed that[1], to find out that wasn't true. Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it? Despite having an All-Knowing and All-Powerful god on his side, he had to rely on a physican. Christianity, and the RCC is a beakon of truth, just as much as the 'Church of the Holy Chicken'. Heck, 'The Engine that Could,' is just as true[2] as the bible. I guess this means there really are sentient talking train engines? No, we know with the evidence we have, train engines are not sentient and they do not talk.

You know why 'Appeal to Popularity' is a fallacy do you not? It's 'Lemming Syndrome.' ie. If everybody was jumping off a cliff, would you? You betcha, and I'm damn proud of it! 
 1. and trying to cure it under that premise.
 2. "spritually true," too
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Maggie the Opinionated on May 08, 2012, 07:42:39 AM
Plain Jane, please answer this. The Pope was once the only person on Earth worthy to have god speak to him, so everything he said was from god. The pope was infallible. Then one day, after many many years the RCC had to change thier position to that he is only infallible with moral issues.
This is simply not true. That was never the position of the pope. In fact up until the Renaissance, popes and kings were always fighting. Many popes were incredibly weak. Some were taken prisoner by rulers. This vague notion you have of some immensely powerful figure who ruled the world carrying out all sorts of cruel punishments of everyone who got in his way is pure mythology and is primarily the work of the reformers who needed to justify their heresies.
Quote
Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it? Despite having an All-Knowing and All-Powerful god on his side, he had to rely on a physican.
Where do you get this stuff? The Pope is just a man and a sinner just like everyone else. Infallibility is a very limited doctrine  and means that when he pronounces authoritatively on some matter of doctrine or morals, it is binding on the Church. He does not do this by himself. Such pronouncements (and there are only two) are the result of years, sometimes centuries of discussion among the bishops and theologians.

Jack Chick is not the best source of information about Catholicism.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 08, 2012, 10:34:07 AM
What a verbose way of saying that you aren't listening to me or anyone else. It doesn't matter what we actually say. You see theist and you react like a bull reacts to a red flag. You simply launch into a confused tirade that has nothing to do with what has actually been written. If others want to indulge you, that is their call. I won't bother any further, although I will continue to correct your egregious errors of fact, if it amuses me to do so.
Jane, your response is quite gratifying.  I see you cannot refute anything I have said.  And you continue to lie ineptly since by my post and in it, my direct responses to you, one can see that I do respond to exactly what you have said.  If you wish to claim that my response was "confused", I do expect evidence.  I have requested evidence repeatedly for many things you have claimed and you have failed consistently.  So much for your false claims of ever correcting anyone of "egregious errors of fact". and in your last post more evidence where you again repeat that you are sure that your religion is the only right one with your claim of heresies
Quote
primarily the work of the reformers who needed to justify their heresies.


Your ignorance of your own religion is quite amusing.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Quote
The pope's universal coercive jurisdiction
Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship.
The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority.

Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The gift of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed Christ's words (John 20:23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme magisterium — authority to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all. Here, too, Peter is subordinated to none save his Master alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in their scope by their reference to the ends of the kingdom and to them only. The authority of Peter and his successors does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the Church they are not concerned.

Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet there is a manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom. That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in Apocalypse 3:7: "He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ and His chosen vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of the keys. 

If your god existed, and cared to help humanity, your god could have told his viceregent on earth how to stop the Plague. It didn't.  Indeed, your religion was part of the problem, in its fear of the supernatural. The expected answer from a theist is usually where they claim that their god has the “right” to do this, kill millions and that it must be part of some “plan”.   It's also amusing that this god of yours evidently can't make itself clear so it takes the RCC "centuries" to figure it out.  :)  Oh and there seem to have been at least 4 intances of speaking "ex cathedra", not "two" as you've claimed
The Pope is just a man and a sinner just like everyone else. Infallibility is a very limited doctrine  and means that when he pronounces authoritatively on some matter of doctrine or morals, it is binding on the Church. He does not do this by himself. Such pronouncements (and there are only two) are the result of years, sometimes centuries of discussion among the bishops and theologians.

Jack Chick is not the best source of information about Catholicism.


But you are indeed right, popes are just men.  Nothing special about them at all or their pronoucements, which change as society changes.  I’ve been enjoying watching "The Borgias" to see that in Technicolor.  :)  Jack Chick isn't much of a source, and neither are you.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 09, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
for someone who was wondering where "stuff" was got, Jane, you seem to have found other threads more interesting than this one after the "stuff" was shown to you. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on May 09, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
Well, at least she responded to 33% of the points I made. It's considerably more than I'm used to. Of course, my first point wasn't my own, but re-stated via bolding since she made a blanket dismissive response for the post that I pulled it from.  &)
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on May 14, 2012, 05:58:42 PM
At least she did what every other theist does is respond with ignorance or rubbish, completely dodging the argument and then tucking tail to a different place.  A happy place..   :P
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: velkyn on May 15, 2012, 08:23:13 AM
I do see that she checked in yesterday.  I know she can't post here if she's still in the ER.  She could have posted in there though.  8) 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: AI-0010 on May 19, 2012, 10:33:45 PM
Velkyn:

Have you noticed that all religions follow a certain trend?  If you were getting your terot cards read, this is the same kind of language that the surviving religions all use - it's generic enough so it can be applied to almost anything, thereby relating to the individual.

In all situations, religious leaders use the religion to push their own agendas.  The 'followers' of that religion just go along with it as though the leader has the authority to tell them what to do.  Religions are detesting to me - the fact that I can't get into a decent 1-1 conversation with any religious person without it becoming a heated conversation is a problem.  Especially when the belief system of the individual is so disconnected from reality that they either don't listen, refute what you say with nonsense, or try to prove themselves by preaching their own beliefs.  This is both aggrivating and irritating - so I tend to get angry. 

I guess from now on I need to stop talking when I get pissed, even if it's online..
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Graybeard on May 20, 2012, 02:24:47 PM
Plain Jane, please answer this. The Pope was once the only person on Earth worthy to have god speak to him, so everything he said was from god. The pope was infallible. Then one day, after many many years the RCC had to change their position to that he is only infallible with moral issues.
This is simply not true. That was never the position of the pope. In fact up until the Renaissance, popes and kings were always fighting. Many popes were incredibly weak.

Which makes you wonder why God inspired the College of Cardinals to elect them in the first place.

Quote
This vague notion you have of some immensely powerful figure who ruled the world carrying out all sorts of cruel punishments of everyone who got in his way is pure mythology and is primarily the work of the reformers who needed to justify their heresies.

Maggie, you are a Liar for Christ – it isn’t “pure mythology” – you are thinking of Christianity in general; that is “pure mythology”.

The pope titles himself, Christ’s vicar on earth. He claims to be “in touch with God.” He claims that he and his priests are the only way to Jesus – how does he know this? Well, mainly because he made it up to establish a rich living for himself and his cronies.
Quote
Quote
Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it? Despite having an All-Knowing and All-Powerful god on his side, he had to rely on a physican.
Where do you get this stuff? The Pope is just a man and a sinner just like everyone else.

Answer the question! Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it?

Could it be because the pope and God are idiots when it comes to medicine and science?
Quote
Jack Chick is not the best source of information about Catholicism.

and neither is the pope – he makes it up as he goes along to protect his business’s own interests.

Do we forget how the RCC is the largest and most profitable business in the world?
Do we forget how the RCC is listening to accountants and lawyers to avoid having to pay out $$$$Billions for child abuse?
Do we recall how the Vatican welcomed Hitler’s diplomats?
Do we remember the investments they make in the German pornography industry?

They are deluded liars and hypocrites selling snake oil to the poor and gullible.

Would you take money of someone who you have told will burn in Hell for ever unless they join your club? I don't know about you, Maggie, but my morals would not let me.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 02:36:48 PM
Most of the confusion surrounding these two chapters is based on the following assumption: Chapter 2 is re-telling the story of the Sixth Day in Chapter 1.

But that is not logically conclusive. Logically, these are two different peoples.

Genesis 1:25-27.

Gen 2:18-19.

Genesis 2:5.


P: the first humans Gen 1:25-27.

Q: foragers

R: tillers of the ground

~R: NOT tillers of the ground Gen 2:5.

IF the "men and women" "created" on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q), OR they were tillers of the ground (R).

"and there was NOT a man to till the ground." (~R).

THEREFORE, IF the "men and women" "created" on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q).

P -> (Q ^ R) : (P -> Q) v (P -> R)
~R
P -> Q


VALID REASONING. ARCHAEOLOGICALLY and ANTHROPOLOGICALLY SOUND

Foraging precedes Agriculture in human history

No time is articulated between the 7th day and the formation of "eth ha Adam" - we don't know how long that was.

To "keep the garden" and to eat "of the garden". (Gen 2:15-16) When you eat what you tend and grow, that's Agriculture, not Foraging. This was not said of the sixth day.

The Sixth Day creation were foragers.

Eve is called the mother of all "living".

Eve is NOT called the mother of all "mankind".

Therefore, when Cain went to the land of Nod, clearly a placed already named by somebody (Cp 2:11-14), he could take a wife from among the Sixth Day creation.

The folks in Chapter two were a different people entirely from the Sixth Day Creation, They were a family of Agriculturists. (This will limit quite a bit the scope of the flood of chapter 9).
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on June 08, 2012, 02:39:15 PM
<snip>

euroclydon, I'm going to give you a piece of advice: stop trying to make yourself look smart by using "P" and "Q" and whatever. It's not working. All it does is make your posts confusing and impossible to understand, which, IMO, amounts to little more than preaching.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 02:42:10 PM
Quote
euroclydon, I'm going to give you a piece of advice: stop trying to make yourself look smart by using "P" and "Q" and whatever. It's not working. All it does is make your posts confusing and impossible to understand, which, IMO, amounts to little more than preaching.

This time I labeled my variables.

Therefore, I am not buying your wares.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on June 08, 2012, 02:44:39 PM
This time I labeled my variables.

This is not a computer program. We are not computers. Labeling doesn't do jack shit to help your posts. If you don't believe me, wait until someone else sees your post and says the exact same thing.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 02:48:55 PM
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on June 08, 2012, 02:51:32 PM
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I can take the heat[1], and I'd much rather cook than listen to you. Unfortunately, I'm not hungry, so you're all I've got[2]. That said, your failed attempt to look smart is pretty revealing. You probably can't tell what I mean, but I'm sure other people can.
 1. One of the many perks my genes have given me.
 2. Hyperbole. It'll be a sad day when all I've got is you.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Azdgari on June 08, 2012, 02:57:06 PM
The "P" and "Q" are superfluous, as the terms to which they are being applied are terms, using English words.  Those words can be used in place of P and Q, thus simplifying reading and removing the need to look back at what the variables mean.

If you cannot compose your post without using the "P" and "Q" to keep yourself from getting confused, then the option is always available to take them out after you've finished the post but before the post is submitted.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 03:01:02 PM
I am not confused.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Emily on June 08, 2012, 03:08:21 PM
I believe I learned from Historicity that when trying to use variables in the case euroclydon is using it, it's easier to follow by using meaningful letters. Like, foragers would be F, etc
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: One Above All on June 08, 2012, 03:09:11 PM
I am not confused.

Then I'm sure you can do without them.
That's a sarcastic challenge, by the way. I do not believe you can make your point without trying to make people confused as to what it is.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Azdgari on June 08, 2012, 03:16:14 PM
I am not confused.

Well, of course not, and I never implied that you were.  If I'm right, then you're avoiding confusion for yourself by using those variables.  I'm just saying that you can take them out afterward and your reasoning will be clearer to your audience.  That way, you still aren't confused, and neither is anyone else.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 05:02:00 PM
Foraging precedes Agriculture in human history

No time is articulated between the 7th day and the formation of "eth ha Adam" - we don't know how long that was.

To "keep the garden" and to eat "of the garden". (Gen 2:15-16) When you eat what you tend and grow, that's Agriculture, not Foraging. This was not said of the sixth day.

The Sixth Day creation were foragers.

Eve is called the mother of all "living".

Eve is NOT called the mother of all "mankind".
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Azdgari on June 08, 2012, 05:32:12 PM
...to whom is that a response?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 05:37:12 PM
...to whom is that a response?

To anybody that was confused by P -> Q
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Azdgari on June 08, 2012, 05:42:09 PM
So in other words, to nobody?

Because P -> Q is not confusing.  Your occasional incoherence while using it, is.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: jeremy0 on June 08, 2012, 05:43:30 PM
^^ you still haven't shown anything to me.  Taking the bible and translating it in your own ways won't help your case, either.  You're applying symbolic meaning to things that weren't supposed to have symbolic meaning in the first place.  You imply that Eve wasn't the first woman created, but rather the first of the 'chosen ones'.  I don't see how you have any reasonable argument, so I'll just leave it at that...
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Tinyal on June 08, 2012, 05:51:23 PM
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I second the opinion that euroclydon's posts use far too much of this p and q crap, apparantly some attempt to use formal logic on a belief system that depends on faith (and has zero to do with logic).

Basically, I read his posts the same as others who insist on dragging out the meaning of the word 'meaning', without saying anything useful - just a bunch of nonsense dressed up to go out for the evening.

Dressed up or not - it's all still nonsense (and I agree, very close to preaching if not exactly so).



"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Graybeard on June 08, 2012, 06:09:07 PM
Foraging precedes Agriculture in human history

No time is articulated between the 7th day and the formation of "eth ha Adam" - we don't know how long that was.

To "keep the garden" and to eat "of the garden". (Gen 2:15-16) When you eat what you tend and grow, that's Agriculture, not Foraging. This was not said of the sixth day.

The Sixth Day creation were foragers.

Eve is called the mother of all "living".

Eve is NOT called the mother of all "mankind".
I'm sure that there is something in what you say but, unfortunately, I suspect others are in the same position as I and do not know why you have posted this.

Could I ask you give some introduction to the above and any other new ideas. If the ideas are unrelated to the thread, then a new thread will be in order.

As it is, it would be all too easy to conclude that you are being somewhat eccentric.

Thanks
GB Mod
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on June 08, 2012, 08:30:25 PM
I am not confused.

Maybe.  But it's not all about you.  The point of communication is to have other people understand what you are saying.  If they don't, you are not communicating. 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 09:18:44 PM
Quote
As it is, it would be all too easy to conclude that you are being somewhat eccentric.

Please accept my humorous interlude.

Inspector Dreyfus was called "mad" several times.

"And you are redundant, Professor! Madness does not preclude achievement!"

My eccentricity is not a negation of fact.
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: euroclydon on June 08, 2012, 09:29:51 PM
I am not confused.

Maybe.  But it's not all about you.  The point of communication is to have other people understand what you are saying.  If they don't, you are not communicating.

You're right.

Not all atheists are like this, but in my experience their ridicule of the Bible is accompanied by the words "logic" or "logical".

How many times have Christians been told to read their own Bible? Rightfully so, for they say "Christ" and don't know a thing about Him.

HYPOCRITES!

If an atheist ridicules the Bible with a consistent bombardment of "the Bible is illogical" "that's illogical" "Be logical"...

...AND THEY HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT LOGICAL METHOD OR ITS SYMBOLS!!!! USELESS! HYPOCRITES!

As a man, my anger takes cntrol in situations when it should not
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Ivellios on June 09, 2012, 08:05:16 AM
I was once told by a Christian that the OT simply points to Jesus and the old laws, excluding the 10 commandments, is no longer relevant. But if they were to read Lev 18 (the Law of Moses), they would say Lev 18 IS relevent.

Something cannot be irrelevent and relevent at the same time. I suppose you think that this is entirely logical though, do you not?

Edit: I like the whole 25 "Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for it's sin, and the land vomited out it's inhabitants."

How does land sin? How does it vomit?
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: screwtape on June 09, 2012, 08:50:07 AM
If an atheist ridicules the Bible with a consistent bombardment of "the Bible is illogical" "that's illogical" "Be logical"...

...AND THEY HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT LOGICAL METHOD OR ITS SYMBOLS!!!! USELESS! HYPOCRITES!

As a man, my anger takes cntrol in situations when it should not

Well, if you are trying to convince anyone here of anything, you'll have better fortune keeping that in check.


Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Graybeard on June 09, 2012, 05:36:32 PM
If an atheist ridicules the Bible with a consistent bombardment of "the Bible is illogical" "that's illogical" "Be logical"...

...AND THEY HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT LOGICAL METHOD OR ITS SYMBOLS!!!! USELESS! HYPOCRITES!
Your capitals are simply untrue. What you suggest is that prior to the use of symbols in logic, logical thought/opinion of the contents of the Bible was the domain of useless hypocrites. I cannot agree with that.

We have no more intelligence, simple better tools and reference works.

Furthermore, it is not at all unreasonable to say that a talking snake with legs, a talking donkey, or walking on water is at all a logical thing to accept.

Then there is a famous cartoon

(http://quackingalone.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/miracle_occurs.jpg)

that explains the logic of miracles.

Basically, if you start with a false assumption, everything that follows is worthless. It certainly is not logic. or, as I would say, "the Bible is illogical" ; )
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Hatter23 on June 13, 2012, 11:00:32 AM
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Playing labeling and pseudo logic word games no more prove your case than any other purveyor of woo.

What what you accept as good evidence that someone was a wizard, a real spell casting can effect reality wizard? I can be reasonably certain it wouldn't be the same thing you are asking for us to accept for your claims.



 
Title: Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
Post by: Grimm on June 13, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Logic 101, euroclydon:

When you begin with an assumption, your entire argument predicates on that assumption being true.

Allow me to use an example to explain why your arguments fail despite their structure, based on your foundational issue:

Harry Potter is a literary series consisting of several books.  Over the span of its authorship, it has a remarkable degree of internal consistency; events that happen within the book are, generally, straightforward and comprehensible.  The books are internally logical - accepting the core premise of 'magic', they make sense, both in how the world is constructed and how the story fits together around that construct.

However internally consistent the books may be, however, they are not evidence for the existence of magic, only that the supposition that if magic exited, the world would have a certain shape that strongly resembles the world we have now.  In Harry's world, London exists. King's Cross Station exists.  Little cottages exist.  The geography makes sense, and matches up to reality; the characters could be part of our world, except for the magical bits. 

Unfortunately, they cannot be considered histories - magic doesn't exist. 

If you picked up these books without context, or- even better - with a dust jacket that proclaimed them to be absolutely true in every word, with events that took place in the late 50's - would you, after reading them, consider them histories.. or would it make more sense to point out that magic itself is illogical based on our current understanding of the world, and dismiss them as fantasy?

If the core assumption of 'truth' is illogical - that's the illogic you hear us talk about the most.  Donkeys don't talk.  People don't rise from the  dead.  Nobody heals with a touch.  Tyre is still standing.  Bald men don't send bears out to kill children that ridicule them.  These things just ... don't happen.  The world doesn't, and as best we can tell, never has worked that way.

You begin from the assumption and viewpoint that the bible is true and is internally consistent.  You build all of your logical proofs from these assumptions, and use these assumptions to prove themselves (like you did with the 'who was at the tomb' question).  I don't care if the bible had the same level of consistency as Rowling's work - it doesn't make the events true, or make the argument of the faith valid.

The entire flood event (for example) is illogical on its face, given what we know about genetics, migrations, the age of the world, and more (not to mention the thriving societies of c.a. 4000BCE that just didn't notice it happening).  That it is internally consistent doesn't help it in the slightest.

Get the point?  All of your logic doesn't save you if your core assumptions are insupportable.