The Passion of the Christ

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that part was where Luke was writing to a Roman Official trying to make the Romans see them as not being bad. So that really doesn't show that. Religious texts aren't meant to be history, they are meant to be works of faith that is the whole purpose of them, history is dealing with sources research, and the straight facts. The Bible combines stuff which historians wouldn't touch (parables, stories, etc)

[Mr Dust]

I'm really not getting where you're trying to go with this. You're claiming to throw out the entire Bible as being in any way factual because it had parables in it? Of course there are parts of the Bible where stories and metaphors are used. My point is that Jesus really said them, as the Bible claims. And that Jesus said what the Bible says he did. That's historical fact. Of course it's not meant to detail the Roman empire from 0-70 AD. What it was doing, however, was telling of the life of Jesus... a HISTORICAL FIGURE. The Bible DOES claim to tell that that's actually what Jesus said, did, etc. And just because the main thrust isn't to be a history textbook doesn't mean you can chalk the whole thing up to being fantasy.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Mr Dust
I still stand by my original point. Unless you have direct evidence to the contrary, any historical document is to be given the benefit of the doubt. ...

... And why should the Bible not be taken literally? If only in some cases, what's your criteria for choosing which parts are literal and which parts are not?


Do you really want to open this can of worms?

I'm going to assume that, deep down, you don't, so I won't go there specifically.


I'll mearly say that history is verified and analyzed as small bits, not as volumes. Because event X is listed in a source, and has evidence to support it's occurance, assuming that event Y, from the same source, automatically has similar evidence to support it is a logic leap. It's making an assumption. It's taking a leap of faith. If you wish to make that leap of faith, and accept such assumptions as fact, that is your choice. However, attempting defend it's authenticity by scientific and historical standards is futile.




I feel that, given the direction this seems to be headed, I will politely step aside and refrain from further comment so as to avoid potentially offending anyone.

It's been fun, kids. :cool

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am just saying historians don't like looking at stories and parables they aren't facts. Plus there are no sources in the bible (were did this fact come from etc) it is just not history from an historian's point of view and that is my point and I am stick to it (you have to understand I am a historian that is my field I know where I am coming from).

[Draken Chakara]

I still have to say that they are historical. Of course it's not written as a history book. But they are eyewitness accounts, which, last I checked, are viable as historical sources.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I am just saying historians don't like looking at stories and parables they aren't facts. Plus there are no sources in the bible (were did this fact come from etc) it is just not history from an historian's point of view and that is my point and I am stick to it (you have to understand I am a historian that is my field I know where I am coming from).


Then you have not taken the historical record properly. The Bible is a verifiable historical document that describes actual historical incidents by eyewitnesses, which, as Draken points out is exactly the definition of a historical document. The New Testament is chock full of them and Luke, you will find is a top class historian ans he preciesely locates events and also gives time references.

If you are dismissing the Bible out of hand as an invalid document, you have misunderstood it's purpose. It is a historical chronical of the Jews and their God, plus the events relating to it. The physical historical people existed. events described (leaving out any mystical events) happened. acheology keeps on finding the events happened and the people existed.

If there were no mystical references, the Bible would not be disputed as a first class historical factual text

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well my problem is some of it cannot be history, I am thinking of the several areas, first you have the book of Revelation that is not histrory, nor is all of these letters, and stuff by the Propehts that is faith based things. Then you have stories like Jonah and the Whale these morality based things. Finally my biggest problem is the first 12 (?) chapters of Genesis. That whole thing is impossible. If that was true the world would be 6000 years old. That would be insane beause that would mean Eve had incest with her kids. And then you have the problem of the world population coming out of that there is no way 6 Billion people came out of Eden plus you have the Flood which destroyed everything a few centuries later. It would be impossible for people to scatter that fast and then have different races as well (it takes a 1000's of years for people to change like that). For those reasons I can't look at the bible as history, sure there are some historical things in the bible about Jesus, early Christianity, the creation of Israel and stuff like that but the whole thing just isn't a historical work and it isn't suppose to be the purpose of the Bible is a religious work for the faithful to preach morality and it serves that purpose very well.

[imported_Akrabbim]

Well, first off, the days in Genesis are not necessarily relating to the creation of the universe. Many scholars believe that the 6 days may refer to the creation of Eden itself, or may be figurative days. As well, the entire lineage of mankind is probably not listed in the opening chapters. It is very likely that generations were skipped. The term "son of" is used to mean "decendant of" in many cases. As well, the the story of Jonah is meant to be literal. It's not an allegory. The Flood does have some evidence for it as well. Not to mention, look at the books like I and II Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel. Those are basically histories of the kings, and archeology is backing up their existance left and right. The books of the prophets are similar, because they continually say things like "In the third year of the reign of this or that king..."

And of course the whole Bible isn't a history book. You're quite right in saying that it's not. But that doesn't mean you can discount it as a historical document. Those documents are the writings of the early church leaders. From those, you can put a time-frame on the writing of the Bible itself, as well as to verify the claims of Jesus. Just because a document uses allegory doesn't mean it's not historical.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Its not a true document historians only use it for certain things, and probably only Bibical historians (even some of them concentrate more on Archaeology). You wouldn't see any Roman historians using it to find out the history of Rome. But I am not going to argue about it, it is just my opinion.

[Doc Milo]

Finally my biggest problem is the first 12 (?) chapters of Genesis. That whole thing is impossible. If that was true the world would be 6000 years old.

Let's assume that the Bible is correct and literal in the book of Genesis. And let's assume that science is also correct in it's placing of the age of the earth and universe. Are these two mutually exclusive? The answer is no.

Yes, if you take the Bible literally, which is my assumption from above, the world would only be 6000 years old. And, as well with my assumption, if you take science's dating as a fact, the world would be what is it, billions of years old? And yet, I will prove that these two do not contradict with few simple questions and answers.

Now, remember, all these arguments are assuming the truth of both the Bible and science:

1. Q: How old was Adam two days after his creation?

1. A: Adam was two days old two days after his creation.

2. Q: How old did Adam look two days after his creation?

2. A: Adam looked in his twenties two days after his creation.

3. Q: Was Adam, according to the Bible, created an infant who grew fast?

3. A: No, Adam was created as a grown man.

4. Q: If God can create Adam to look 20 something on the day of his creation why couldn't He have created the world, seven days after its creation, to look billions of years old?

4. A: There is no reason why He couldn't.

And if He did then the world is only billions of years old by the perception of man, but in actuality would be only 6000 years old.

Remember, the truth as man understands it is based upon man's limited perceptions. We dismiss the Bible as a historical document because it contains "supernatural phenomena" but supernatural phenomena is only supernatural because we don't understand it, because our perceptions are limited. We dismiss it because it contains things that "can't possibly be true" and must then be symbollic and not literal. But they only "can't possibly be true" because we don't understand it, because we have limited perception.

[Marcus Telcontar]

You wouldn't see any Roman historians using it to find out the history of Rome

Bible is set in the Middle East and is about a small patch of land on the east shore of the Mediterranian. OF COURSE is not for Roman historians!

It happens to be pretty bloody good for historians in the Middle East.What did you expect and why are you applying different standards for historical documents than to the Bible? It jsut so happens IT is the original authority on Israel and Hebrew history

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Let's assume that the Bible is correct and literal in the book of Genesis. And let's assume that science is also correct in it's placing of the age of the earth and universe. Are these two mutually exclusive? The answer is no.

Yes, if you take the Bible literally, which is my assumption from above, the world would only be 6000 years old. And, as well with my assumption, if you take science's dating as a fact, the world would be what is it, billions of years old? And yet, I will prove that these two do not contradict with few simple questions and answers.

Now, remember, all these arguments are assuming the truth of both the Bible and science:

1. Q: How old was Adam two days after his creation?

1. A: Adam was two days old two days after his creation.

2. Q: How old did Adam look two days after his creation?

2. A: Adam looked in his twenties two days after his creation.

3. Q: Was Adam, according to the Bible, created an infant who grew fast?

3. A: No, Adam was created as a grown man.

4. Q: If God can create Adam to look 20 something on the day of his creation why couldn't He have created the world, seven days after its creation, to look billions of years old?

4. A: There is no reason why He couldn't.

And if He did then the world is only billions of years old by the perception of man, but in actuality would be only 6000 years old.

Remember, the truth as man understands it is based upon man's limited perceptions. We dismiss the Bible as a historical document because it contains "supernatural phenomena" but supernatural phenomena is only supernatural because we don't understand it, because our perceptions are limited. We dismiss it because it contains things that "can't possibly be true" and must then be symbollic and not literal. But they only "can't possibly be true" because we don't understand it, because we have limited perception.



What's the incentive for a supreme being to make the universe appear to be older than it actually is? To give us false data as some sort of barometer to measure and differentiate between those to take everything on faith and believe in he/she/it regardless, and those who examine the available information empirically and evaluate the possibilities based upon it?

One has to be willing to question the morality of a creator that would do as such while simultaneously claiming to uphold and stand for similar such moral principles.


More immediately, however, if one is going to accept the possibility that the universe really is mearly 6000 years old, and that the universe was given the appearance of age by it's creator, one must also accept the distinct possibility that the universe only came into being, for example, a few minutes ago, and that we all have complete false memories of all events that we believe had taken place before the "creation," as well as the appearance of age by being placed in certain situations with access to certain knowledge and objects. In that case, one must additionally be willing to accept that the Bible, like every other written text, contains a record of events which never actually took place, and was compiled as part of the false past created in under the "appearance of age" paradigm.


And before you state that an "actual old age" model is as unjustifiable as once built upon the premise of mearly the appearance of age, one must consider the base upon which each of the concepts is built. One is built upon empiricism. The other is built upon faith. While choosing one over the other is as much a personal preference issue as any number of things we choose in any given day, empiricism being the fundemental basis of science allows logical access to certain other scientific principles, one of which is Occam's Razor. Faith doesn't have that ability... it's simply faith.

If you choose faith, so be it. You have that choice under the premise of free will. As I mentioned before, however, faith relies on itself, and is thus fundamentally unapplicable within the realm of logic.



Okay... I promise... I'm really done this time. If someone really wants to get into this further, catch me on AIM or something.

[Jedi Master Carr]

it is not just that there is still the incest problem. You are telling me god allowed Eve to have sex with her kids, yuck. And second the evil sun, Cain, ran off and married somebody, who in the world did she marry if there was nobody else??? See I have problems with stuff like this. Also bible scholars will tell you the First part of Genesis was written during the time of King David, the Jews were trying to come up with the history of the world and this was there explanation. Personally I treat it as just a story and not the literal truth.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Actually, Genesis is traditionally credited to Moses, who did not live during the time of David by a long shot.

And no, God did not allow Eve to have sex with hre kids, that's disgusting. However, brothers and sisters could have married at that time. The theory there is that God created "Man" to be perfect. As such there were no chances that interbreeding would cause birth defects, but after the Fall of Man we have become physically more and more imperfect (which is why we don't live for hundreds of years like they are recorded to have lived in Genesis) and so such close interbreeding results in birth defects.

The other theory is that God created other men and women after he created Adam and Eve, and the other people lived outside of the Garden.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Actually most bibical scholars say it was written during David's time they have evidence (archaeological) I just don't believe any of it its too fantisful for me, I believe in evolution over that I figure god works slow and chose that path it works for me.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I was a Christian Studies minor in college, and I did take a few classes on theology, and the New Testament and the Old Testament. Genesis is credited to Moses.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
I was a Christian Studies minor in college, and I did take a few classes on theology, and the New Testament and the Old Testament. Genesis is credited to Moses.

oh snap

[Jedi Master Carr]

This is not what I have read in bibical studies book most scholars say Moeses didn't write anything and it Genesis was credited to Moses more out of Tradition. Give me some time and I will find a source.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Call me curious, but where do you think that the atheist gets their set of values on how to live?

You know...I've tried staying out of this thread, but I went back and read about 5 pages of it today, and found this one. I have to respond to it...sorry LD.

It seems that view of atheism is based on the old fashioned notion that we are born a blank slate. Based on my father...who is an avid atheist - We are not. What follows are his feelings, not my own - since I am more akin to an agnostic(and also not nearly intelligent enough to come up with this on my own), but I feel I have to lay down the opposing argument here.

We are born with much of our moral wiring. We are by nature social animals Our true presuppositions are not based upon logic, and are not logically deducible. They are based on evolution. Most of us are born with certain moral predispositions like we are born with two eyes. Philosophers could argue that logically we should have one eye or three eyes or no eyes. The fact that I have two eyes *might* be "proven" to be totally irrational. But this is an exercise in futility. It does not change the fact that I have two eyes. Much of our moral system is inherent in the same way.

Morals are not truly relativistic. They are evolutionistic. Nature assumes some variation is much more useful in the dynamic real world. This is true even though some variations are actually dangerous.

Basically we are flesh wrapped around DNA. Our bodies are nothing more than a chemical vessel. Our brains are chemicals trying to understand chemistry. We are rational because chemistry is rational. We merely mimic our own components. This is the ultimate foundation of logic.

The ancients had it right when they worshipped the sun. We are tthe by-products of nuclear fussion. We feel like part of the universe because we *are* part of the universe. We love nature because we are nature. We imitate nature because we are nature.

If anything is God, it is the collective *us*. We are the Universe trying to understand itself. All knowledge is derived from the physical we are all members of. We are the natural evolution of the godless creator.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I think you're all looking at the Genesis account the wrong way. Yes, it says God created the world in seven days. It doesn't say how God did it, only that it was in fact God who accomplished the Creation of the world.

Consider this point:

God is ETERNAL. That is, God is above time and space. So just how long is one day to God? For us, a day is 24 hours. But for an eternal being, a day is however long He wants it to be.

The Genesis creation is an affirmation of WHO created the universe.

[James Prent]

This is LD - thanks CMJ for that explaination. :)

Also, I believe in the literal six day week described in Genesis. If you ever read Creation theory, including the case for a young Earth, and the case for a literal world-wide flood as described in Genesis, it's quite fascinating.

Of course, when it comes to creation vs. evolution it all comes down to belief, as JMC stated.
I just don't believe any of it its too fantisful for me, I believe in evolution Because it takes just as much faith to believe in God creating the world in 6 days as it does to believe that there was nothing and then there was something, and over millions of years the something turned into the Earth and all it's inhabitants.

I could throw a tub of Legos into the air a bazillion times and not once would the pieces come down and build a house.

Which is why I believe that there must be a Creator.

[Taataani Meorrrei]

The problem with your aforementioned example is that the universe isn't just throwing legos in the air once. It does it infinite times.

[Ka' el Darcverse]

And where did the matter come to start the first throwing of legos or the matter to create that matter come from and that one and that one and that one, the problem with that is you have an infinite amount of times where you can say where did the last one come from? So the theory that something just blinked into existence is no more feasible than our belief that there was an eternal God who blinked us into existence. Fig made an interesting point that we could have been created 5 minutes ago and all of this is fabricated, it still doesn't answer the question of just whom fabricated it.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Ok so it did it infinite times until the legos of nothing fell together and made an amoeba. And then it did it again infinite times until the amoeba turned into something greater than itself.

It's still just as far fetched if not more, in my opinion, as a six day creation.

[CMJ]

I am also very skeptical of the 6 day creation - but Genesis has even more glaring problems than that IMHO.

[Jedieb]

Big freakin' meteor comes our way and wipes out the human race. Roaches and bees have the planet to themselves. And the universe... goes on without us without missing a beat. To me, organized religion is about human arrogance. If God creates us in his image, then we must be pretty damn important! It really must be all about us! We're the center of the universe, not some rock orbiting an average sized ball of gas, tucked away on the spiral of a galaxy full of BILLIONS of other balls of gas. That galaxy of course being just one of billions of others.

Organized religion is an attempt by humanity to make sense of something it will never really know. If someone wants to believe that the Bible has the cosmic answers about life and how it was created, then good for them. I see absolutely no difference between Genesis and a Native American creation myth involving a bear and an eagle.

Being an agnostic I like to think there's some higher power out there. What I don't believe is that it's some old white guy in a flowing white robe watching every move I make. Passing judgement on me if I don't happen to choose the right book to pray to. I also believe it's a HAND'S OFF power. It doesn't give a rat's butt about us or what we do with our time in this universe. It pays as much attention to us as it did to the dinosaurs. We've been stumbling around on this rock trying to make sense of life for a few hundred thousand years. Recording our history for even less than that. Given our destructive tendencies it's hard to imagine our species surviving for millions, let alone billions of years. We'll be gone one day, but life and the universe will continue without us just fine.

While I've got my time to play on this cosmic stage I'll be content to take care of the flesh bags under my roof and try not to snuff out any of the ones around me. Unless they're Mary Kate and Ashley fans. These people need to be hunted down and exterminated.

[Doc Milo]

The other theory is that God created other men and women after he created Adam and Eve, and the other people lived outside of the Garden.

This is actually supported in the book of Genesis. I've read it many times, and have always come away with the distinct impression that God created others that lived outside the Garden. Adam and Eve were the first humans. But God did create others.

Another way of putting LD's Lego idea:

A watch is resting on a rock in the middle of a park. What makes more sense:

To believe that all the components of that watch, the hands, the gears, the face, the numbers, the metal slats that make the metal band, all came together on that rock and formed into a watch.

Or a watchmaker made a watch and placed it there on a rock in the middle of the park.

???

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't have a problem with explaining some of genesis I think there are problems with it still. First I think you could explain that time is infite to go and 1 day to God is like 1 Million or 1 billion years to us, ok that make sense that it took 6 billion years to create the world there are six days. Otherwise there are problems, I just don't see Human living side by side with the dinos, those Velicoraptors and T-Rexs would have had us as afternoon snacks, so I can buy the other theory (I have heard several theolgies who buy this theory) Ok that is fine, and I can even take the bit about God creating other people and the Bible just not dealing with it, maybe it got deleted I don't know. The next problem I have is the Flood. First off it could not be world wide, if it was how did 3 people make 6 billion in 4000 years? There is no way that could happen it would just be impossible. If there was a flood it was regional maybe just in the Israel area. Heck it could been section of Mesopotamia. In ancient times that area had a lot of bad floods and the Sumerians and Bablyonians came up with their own myths about Gilgamesh who finds a person very much like Noah. It fits with the area. My problem is taking the bible literally because that is impossible mostly because of numbers. For example there is no way that people could have come here to North America after the flood, not in the numbers that were here when the Spaniards took it over it is just impossible. That is why I am more comfortable with taking liberties with the bible and saying well it doesn't mean it that way it then does make more sense. Although I still don't think it happened that way. I have more faith in science that the first chapters of Genesis.

[CMJ]

From the Epic of Gilgamesh - Credit goes to my father for finding anything and everything remotely anti-religious. ;) I'm more of a true agnostic like my mother, but it's hard not to be aware of alot of this stuff because of Pop.
**********************
A council of gods including Anu, Bel, Ninip, Ennugi, and Ea assembled together in the city of Shurippak on the bank of the Euphrates. Together they decided to send a great deluge, but Ea, the wise lord, did not agree. So he went to the reed hut of Pir-napishtim, his favorite human, and spoke to the wall, telling Pir-napishtim to tear down his house and build a ship. Ea urged, "leave all thou dost possess and save thy life, and preserve in the ship the living seed of every kind." Ea then gave instructions on how to build the ship which was to be six stories high with nine apartments per story. Pir-napishtim built the ship 120 cubits high and 120 cubits wide, then smeared it with bitumen on the inside and pitch on the outside. On the seventh day it was ready.

Pir-napishtim gathered all of his possessions, his family, house servants, animals and beasts of the field and the workers, and sent them into the ship, and they shut the door.

At the appointed time the Night Lord sent rain. "The thunder god swept over the heavens, blotting out the sunlight and bringing thick darkness. Rain poured down the whole day long and the earth was covered with water; the rivers were swollen; the land was in confusion; men stumbled about in the darkness, battling with the elements."

Seeing this, the mother god, Ishtar, lamented, "The elder race hath perished and turned to clay because I have consented to evil counsel in the assembly of the gods. Alas! I have allowed my people to be destroyed. I gave being to man, but where is he?"

Ishtar was not alone. "The earth spirits were weeping with Ishtar: they sat down cowering with tightened lips and spake not; they mourned in silence."

For six days and nights the tempest raged, water gradually covered the earth. On the seventh day it stopped. Pir-napishtim "called out over the waters. But all mankind had perished and turned to clay." He opened the window, and the sunlight streamed through. "I was dazzled and sank down weeping and the tears streamed down my face. Everywhere I looked I saw water."

The ship drifted towards the country of Nitsir, and struck a mountain top there. For six days it held fast. On the seventh, Pir-napishtim sent forth a dove, but it found no land to rest upon, so it returned. Then he sent forth a swallow, and it returned. Then he sent forth a raven, and it flew away, not returning.

So Pir-napishtim made an offering on the mountain. "The gods smelt the sweet savour, and they clustered like flies about the sacrificer." The mother god Ishtar drew near, and spoke, "Oh! these gods! I vow by the gems upon my neck that I will never forget! I will remember these days for ever and ever. Let the gods come hither to the offering, save Bel alone, because he ignored my counsel, and sent a great deluge which destroyed my people."

But Bel came to see what all the commotion was about. He saw the ship, and he became enraged against the other gods and spirits of heaven. He said, "Hath one escaped? It was decreed that no human being should survive the deluge." Bel's son, Ninip accused Ea.

Ea spoke up for himself. "Thou art the lord of the gods, O warrior. But thou wouldst not hearken to my counsel and caused the deluge to be. Now punish the sinner for his sins and the evil doer for his evil deed, but be merciful and do not destroy all mankind. May there never again be a flood."

Bel pondered Ea's words for a while then entered the ship. He led Pir-napishtim forth, and also his wife, who he made kneel down beside her husband. Bel stood between them and gave his blessing, saying, "In time past Pir-napishtim was a man. Henceforth Pir-napishtim and his wife will be like unto deities, even us."

************************
Now, if that isn't good enough for some, the Babylonians borrowed this story from their predecessors, the Sumerians. The Sumerian Noah is named Ziusudra. He is described as a pious and god-fearing king, constantly watching for divine revelations. From a wall he hears a voice informing him of a decision by the gods to send a flood which is meant to "destroy the seed of mankind." He is instructed to build a giant boat. The flood comes and rages for seven days and nights. Then Utu, the sun god, comes forth again and Ziusudra opens the window, prostrates himself and offers sacrifices. The gods, An and Enlil, "cherished Ziusudra. Life like a god they gave him." Ziusudra, just like Pir-napishtim, becomes god-like.

There are many other flood myths, including Indian, and the Greek Deucalion and Pyrrha. While it is certainly possible that the Hebrew myths influenced the Greeks or Indians, it is much more lkely the Babylonians or Sumerians did so. It is not possible that the Hebrews influenced the Sumerians since they predate the Hebrews by probably two thousand years.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Actually, CMJ, it's because just about *every* known civilization has a flood myth that gives the Flood story credibility. Most archaeologists will agree that there is evidence that there was at the very least a large regional flood in the Mesopotamian area, due to a heavy layer of silt that is found there.

But why would India have a flood story about a flood that took place thousands of miles away? For that matter, why would the Greeks, etc etc...why do we see this same myth reappearing all over the world? Could it be that the Bible is right and there was a world wide flood that carved out the Grand Canyon and changed the face of the earth?

Abraham was probably a Sumerian from the city of Ur, and subsequently the father of the nation of Israel. I love ancient history. The tower of Babel was most likely a ziggarut (sp?) made by what we call the Sumerians or the Babylonians. When you think about how the Bible fits right in with what secular researchers have discovered and found it's really fascinating.

[Jedi Master Carr]

But here is my problem with that there is no way three people could recreate the entire population of the world. How did the indians come here? How did people get to the Polynesian islands its just not possible because of that. My opinion the Greeks borrowed the story, also the Romans have no story about the flood except using the same Greek story (the Romans borrowed all their myths.) The Chinesse have no flood story nor do the Egyptians (they actually saw rain as a godsend there as when the Nile flooded it produced the best crops), and Aztechs nor Incas have such myth. So that says something. About India The Indus Valley was a area that was easily proned to flooding as well. So I think that is why that story exists there. My speculation is there were regional flooding around Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley and the Greeks just borrowed the story from Mesopotamia.

Also about the Tower of Babel, most Zigharuts aren't that tall the Great Pyramid is 5x taller than the largest Zigharut, my point here is if God got mad at the Bablyonians why didn't he get mad at the Egyptians? The whole point of the Pyramid was a symbol to reach to the stars while at the same time being the burial place of the Pharaoh. I just see that as moral stories to help teach lessons I just can't take stuff like that literally.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Originally posted by Doc Milo

To believe that all the components of that watch, the hands, the gears, the face, the numbers, the metal slats that make the metal band, all came together on that rock and formed into a watch.

Or a watchmaker made a watch and placed it there on a rock in the middle of the park.

???

The universe is distinctly different to a watch. A watch has parts that need to be fitted together exactly - there's no chance in it. The universe could have been formed through a serious of entirely random reactions over time. Trial and error is how we learn everything. Eventually, something comes together that causes a reaction. It's science.

[James Prent]

If you read the Bible you'd know that God was pretty mad at the Egyptians too.

As for the Tower of Babel, it wasn't the fact that it actually reached to the heavens, it was that the people building it were building it to get closer to the heavens and as such to become like gods themselves. And they never finished it.

In the Bible, there were 8 people who survived the flood, Noah, his three sons and all of their wives. If Adam and Eve could have populated the world by themselves I don't see how it would be more difficult for 8 people to do. :)

And Jen-Jen, love you to death but you can't tell me that a watch has more parts that need to be set together perfectly in order to work than the human body.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The problem is moving around it would have been impossible at time to get to North America except by Boat, and boats couldn't travel that far until Roman times so it is just impossible since there were people there for certain by the time of the Egyptians. I believe in regional floods there is just no way that the whole world was covered because of the problems with North America, Africa, Australia, and China.

[Hayes Muirso]

And Jen-Jen, love you to death but you can't tell me that a watch is more complicated than the human body.

All I'm saying is that a watch isn't made out of chemical reactions. We have evolved over time, adapting to changes in our ecosystem- we can develop and change without any kind of divine intervention, especially given the length of time we and the planet have been around.

[James Prent]

Actually JMC, Biblical scholars do believe that the earth was once one continent, and it wasn't until some time after the Flood that the continents divided. There's a verse in Genesis that I can't look up right now that points towards this.

[Draken Chakara]

Originally posted by Dasquian Belargic
The universe is distinctly different to a watch. A watch has parts that need to be fitted together exactly - there's no chance in it. The universe could have been formed through a serious of entirely random reactions over time. Trial and error is how we learn everything. Eventually, something comes together that causes a reaction. It's science.

Actually, that doesn't work. You mentioned "trial and error". Trial and error presupposes a design. Random reactions will lead to nothing, no matter how many times you try them. With inorganic things, such as amino acids, there is no mechanism to move toward an ordered structure. Mathematically, the enzymes that form amino acids are impossible to form by radom chance (this is according to Dr. Wichramashinge (sp?)). If even the COMPONENTS of amino acids can't be created by chance, how is the rest of it supposed to work?

And just so you know, the universe is MUCH more exacting than a watch. If you'd like, I'll quote specifics (according to Dr. John Pokinghorne), but basically, if even the smallest amount of stuff is off in the universe, it will not even possibly be able to support life. To use the analogy that he used, the level of exactitude needed for this universe to be able to support life is akin to taking aim at a one square-inch target on literally the other side of the universe and hitting it dead on.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by James Prent
Actually JMC, Biblical scholars do believe that the earth was once one continent, and it wasn't until some time after the Flood that the continents divided. There's a verse in Genesis that I can't look up right now that points towards this.

Geologist say that isn't so it was millions years ago when that was the case, there is geological proof of that.

[CMJ]

Okay LD...other civilizations(older mind you than Hebrew) have flood myths, so that proves the Hebrew myth correct?? Surely you're kidding. It should be obvious to any impartial observer that Noah's story was *not* original. If it was inspired by God, then God, besides being a mass murderer, supreme god of genocide, (Could Satan be any worse? And if he were, how could one measure it?) is also an unimaginative plagerist. A god might be forgiven for genocide but never for plagerism. No true god would have to resort to it. ;)

One thing lost in the Noah story is the ultimate resposibility of the gods. Noah's god is justified in his actions because of the *supposed* wickedness of man. But just how wicked were they? Enough to deserve this, seriously? And what of the guilt of all the children and "unborn" children? Did they deserve to be drowned? At least the Babylonian myth does not try to transform mass murder into a some sort of twisted morality play. In fact, the Babylonian myth knows the gods have done an *unjust* thing, a criminal thing. When the Bible tells the same story, somehow it's the victim's fault. The "blame the victim" mentality is truly sickining.

[Jedi Master Carr]

yeah that is another thing God just wipped out humanity that isn't very comfortly know that if God is like that, might be another reason I have never liked the Flood story and have chosen to not look at it literally.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Uh, I say again, the creation accounts are not to say HOW it happened, but WHO did it.

Myth or real, the story isn't supposed to convey fact. The story is meant to convey truth. Fact can only be useful in itself in the context in which is it written. Truth has much broader range of application than that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I don't doubt a supreme being created the universe the only thing I doubt is that part of genesis as the literal truth I am fine if that is completly true and that God still created the Universe.

[Doc Milo]

In those other stories, CMJ, the gods are shown as fallible -- "doing a criminal thing" implies their judgment to be a mistake. If they make a mistake, they are fallible. If they are fallilble, then they are not true gods -- they are not creators, but merely beings "faking" godhood, beings that may or may not have been custodians of humankind, but not creators of it.

The Jewish/Christian God, on the other hand, has always been portrayed as infallible. An eternal being, Creator of heaven and earth. He can't make mistakes. Thus his judgement must be just -- and mans sin so great that it justified the punishment. But the same Bible also shows that God also loved his creation so much that He humbled Himself to take human form, come to earth in the Man Jesus the Christ, teach us how to live, walk among us, be betrayed by us, suffer and die, take upon himself the sins of the world, and reconcile man to Himself.

Humankind was not the victim of the flood, but a race that deserved the punishment meted upon them.

[Jedi Master Carr]

You see I have a problem that a God doing that to me is evil that is just my stance I can't see God killing millions even for those reasons, it just doesn't fix with the loving forgiving god in the New Testment. This god is more like something out of Zorasterism and those gods weren't infalliable.

[Doc Milo]

The God of the New Testament is one that will judge the world one last and final time, ending with the battle of Armageddon and the return of Christ in Glory.

The judgements are a way for God to get peoples attention. To show them the evil of their ways and have them turn to Him for comfort and guidance....

[Lilaena De'Ville]

The Flood occurred before those civilizations formed. The descendants of Noah formed the civilizations, and thus the civilizations passed the story of the Flood down from generation to generation by verbal record (as it wasn't until the Sumerians that writing was invented).

Noah was a follower of the true God, but obviously not all of his descendants kept the faith. Abraham came from the city of Ur, and followed the true God to Canaan, where the nation of Israel was eventually formed, and Moses wrote down through divine revelation the Biblical account of the worldwide Flood.

And that explains how all civilizations could have a version of the Flood account. As time went on the verbal communication credited the flood to their other gods, fallible gods who often make mistakes. Which, as Milo says, makes them not real gods.

As far as God wiping the slate clean (Etch-O-Sketch World Senario) with the Flood...as a perfect and holy being with no sin in Him, God cannot abide evil, and it is His right to ultimately judge. We all deserve death, and probably the only thing keeping God from flooding us all out again is the fact that He promised Noah that never again would He cover the earth with a Flood. And the rainbow is a sign of that promise.

Before the Flood the earth was covered with a 'firmament' of water, this protected the Earth from the harmful rays of the sun, and the dew was heavy enough to water the world. There was no reason for rain, which is why Noah's contemporaries thought he'd lost his mind when he built his boat - what was a flood to a civilization that had never seen rain?

When the Flood came, the water shield in the atmosphere came down, deluging the earth. It says in Genesis that water came from the deep and from the skies. The great waters tumbled animals and creatures into mass graves, tore huge channels into the earth, uprooted mountains and built up new ones with intense volcanic and seismic activities. Hence mass graves filled with dinosaurs all tumbled together and buried instantly under tons of earth...and fossilized.

Did dinosaurs go on the ark? Certainly - but it was a new world that greeted the survivors. Without the water shield, the ultraviolet rays etc. (can't recall the exact theory) caused the dinosaurs and other now exinct creatures to die out. They simply couldn't survive the changes caused by the Flood.

Brontosaurus never made it on the Ark, unfortunately he was the result of an over zealous scientist putting the skull of one dinosaur onto the body of another one.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
In those other stories, CMJ, the gods are shown as fallible -- "doing a criminal thing" implies their judgment to be a mistake. If they make a mistake, they are fallible. If they are fallilble, then they are not true gods -- they are not creators, but merely beings "faking" godhood, beings that may or may not have been custodians of humankind, but not creators of it.

The Jewish/Christian God, on the other hand, has always been portrayed as infallible. An eternal being, Creator of heaven and earth. He can't make mistakes. Thus his judgement must be just -- and mans sin so great that it justified the punishment. But the same Bible also shows that God also loved his creation so much that He humbled Himself to take human form, come to earth in the Man Jesus the Christ, teach us how to live, walk among us, be betrayed by us, suffer and die, take upon himself the sins of the world, and reconcile man to Himself.

Humankind was not the victim of the flood, but a race that deserved the punishment meted upon them.

In the Old Testament all there are - are MISTAKES made by the Jewish/Christian God. If you turn off your ability to see that, then I don't know what to say. Suffice it to say, just because he can judge *me* does not mean I can't jude *him*. Now I sort of believe in a supreme being of some sort, but it's definitley not *that*diety. Throughout the OT(well especially Genesis) all he does is kill, support murderers and thieves, etc.. If that's THE God, I'm sorry - he's just not worth worshipping. He's a vengeful, spoiled, brat nothing more or less.

[Draken Chakara]

What mistakes are you referring to?

[CMJ]

Remember I was raised by parents who never kept thoughts on these matters to thereselves. So once again, I must credit my dad for the crux of this argument - it is very honestly his. I studied Christianity in college(as well as philosophy and other religions), but I can't ignore the fact that I was influenced by my parents - much the same way believers are influenced by theirs. I make no bones about that.

Having said that - where should I start? I guess at the very beginning....

In a furious six days God created the universe, complete with everything any god would ever need including his first two worshippers, Adam and Eve. Why would God go to the trouble? The Bible doesn't tell us, at least not directly. But since he created everything, he owned everything, and like any man of property, God had his favorite possession called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (BTW: Why exactly did he need this - he knew Good from Evil) He didn't want anybody messing with this tree, especially not those upstarts, Adam and Eve.

God says to Adam, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." There we have it. God reveals the true purpose of creation, what he had been itching to do for eons -- create law. Without law, one cannot have obedience, and for this god, obedience is the key.

This first and only law seemed simple enough and it looked like the perfect solution, except for one little hitch. There was this second god in the neighborhood, a really despicable thing, aptly disguised as a serpent. One day Eve struck up a conversation with this lowly god, and to her surprise, she discovered it had its own story to tell, a story quite different from God's story. She became exposed to that ingredient that keeps all great fictions and religions moving along -- conflict. ;) The serpent tells her to go ahead and eat of the forbidden fruit, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." In case you missed it, the serpent is calling God a liar. This was a question that simply HAD to be answered. Was that one and only first law really meant for her and Adam's good? Why does God get to decide? Isn't "good" a matter properly decided by them? Why not put it to a vote? Can one solitary god be trusted to decide such a thing?

What's a girl to do?

The serpent's temptation is hard to resist. After all, who doesn't want to be wise? Eve succumbs, then tempts Adam. They are thrown out of favor and out of the garden forever.

Note that neither Adam nor Eve die on the day they eat of the forbidden fruit as God had warned. The serpent was right. In fact, Adam goes on to live 930 years, and Eve bears three children. Perhaps God misspoke.

The unavoidable fact is, God did lie -- at least if this story is taken literally. I'm sure LD, Doc, and co. would deny this, claiming something like their spirits died to God, or their COUNTDOWN to death began. Apparently they think God is incapable of expressing himself with any sort of clarity. If God had meant their spirits would "die," then why didn't he just say so, precisely? If he had meant the countdown to death would start on that day, why didn't he just say so? It seems simple enough. Either one cannot take God's words literally, or God is a liar, or he is not competent of accurately expressing his thoughts, or he changed his mind. It is perfectly reasonable to assume God is a liar, especially in light of the remainder of Genesis. After all, he has absolutely no problem with supporting liars, deceivers, and murderers, and he himself is a murderer-holic, so why would he have any compunction about lying to Adam? The only way the literalist can explain away God's sticky moral problem is to add non-literalism to God's words. They must impose their special, metaphorical interpretation of "death."

There is an obvious question we must ask. Why doesn't God want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge? Is it, as fundementalists think, to keep evil from entering the universe, as if Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit changed the essence of God's perfect plan with one swallow? But God says that now Adam and Eve are "like one of us" -- knowing good from evil. Notice it's the tree of Good AND Evil, not the tree of Evil. It's not that evil didn't exist before the big swallow, it's that Adam and Eve didn't KNOW it existed. Neither did they know that Good existed -- this despite the fact that God was a regular drop-in. What kind of conclusion are we forced to draw from that? Adam knew God but didn't know Good? Surely not. After all, how could God not be Good? We could rather say that Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong. But why wouldn't God want mankind to know right from wrong? Maybe because now man has the ability to decide these things for himself. He is no longer a slave to God's moral pronouncements. He has a moral sense of his own. Perhaps he can judge God as well!

More to come.....

[Draken Chakara]

Wow. That's a very interesting analysis. Your logic is quite sound, but, as with all logical arguments, there are two parts. There is the logic itself, and the truth of the premises. In this case, the logic is good, but your premises are all terribly terribly off. Let's start from the top.

First, God did not "need" Adam and Eve, nor did He "need" the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He created both. He created man because He wanted to bring them into fellowship with Himself, and to love Him. It was a choice, not a need. If God wanted these two people to love them, He had to give them free will. Without free will, there is no such thing as love. For that reason, we have the tree. It was put there so that Adam and Eve would have a choice. They could choose to love God and obey Him, or they could choose not to. You are, however, correct about the law being necessary for obedience (because, quite obviously, you can't have obedience with nothing to obey). However, that was not the main purpose of creation. The main purpose, God's main purpose, was and is to draw us into fellowship with Him.

Second, Satan is not a rival god. He is a created being who rebelled against God. Again, God allows him to still be around because of the whole free will thing. And yes, he did call God a liar. It doesn't mean he was telling the truth. Why give Satan the benefit of the doubt from the get go? And "good" is not an arbitrary concept. It is not to be decided by man. Nor is it even something to be decided by God. Instead, goodness IS what God is. Things that are good are not just made-up concepts... they are the very nature of God Himself.

It is true that they would die when eating of the tree. Before eating of the tree, they were immortal. When they broke trust with God and ate, He took the immortality from them. Yes, they both lived quite some time. But, they still died. Before that, they wouldn't have. And you're taking the concept of "literal" to rediculous levels. First off, you're dealing with a translation of Arimaic (I do believe) to English, so you may not be interpreting the phrase correctly. Not to mention, you can't call something totally false if it uses a figure of speech. For example, let's say you saw me just sitting somewhere, and asked what I was doing. And then I'd reply, "Oh, I'm just spinning my wheels." Would you then call everything else I ever said totally untrustworthy because I was not literally holding wheels that I owned and spinning them? I would certainly hope not.

And obviously the eating of the fruit was not the introduction of evil into the universe. The fall of Satan was at some point before the creation. As well, the act of taking the fruit was evil, not only the eating, because they disobeyed God. The obedience was the main issue. As to why He chose that tree to forbid, who knows? It's immaterial. Anyway, it is not the "tree of good and evil" but the "tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil". I figure God didn't want them to know of the law of what was good and evil. As Paul said, with the law came death. As I stated a moment ago, they obviously knew how to be evil... they did so before they ever ate.

And by eating, they did not "gain a moral sense of their own". They gained God's law.

So... what's next?

[Jedi Master Carr]

CMJ I like your arguments this why I don't take that literally it is too problematic. As I said that part of Genesis was mostly created by the Hebrews during the time of David to try and explain things. What is interesting talk to any Jew and they will tell you that part of Genesis is a story and none of them believe it happened. Also about the flood stories, why then do the Egyptians, nor the Chinesse have such stories? Also and I say again dinos and humans could not have lived together they would have eaten us for breakfast.

[CMJ]

I don't have alot of time, so I can't really do justice to your post right now - nor post a further argument(though quite honestly, I'm contemplating dropping this, I may have opened too big a can of worms).

I will admit, you have some interesting points and your argument is very valid. But quite like you felt about mine, just because you argued your case well does not mean I agree with you. ;)

The point I was trying to make about things being literal still stands. The Genesis story is a parable more than anything IMHO(whether it's a good or bad one I'll get to when I have more time). When folks tell me the story is fact...100%...no issues because it has to be, well.... I just have to take them at their full word to show them how ridiculous it is to do so.

Yes, I'm being condescending..I apologize.

Anyways, I don't have a ton of time right now...I'll try and post more this evening.

[Draken Chakara]

No offense taken... I understand what you mere attempting. What I was trying to get across is that the word "literal" doesn't mean exactly what some seem to think it does. The way I take it, the Word of God is indeed literal, but it does have poetic elements to it. The poetic elements must be taken in the correct historical context to be understood correctly.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
As I said that part of Genesis was mostly created by the Hebrews during the time of David to try and explain things.This was already adressed but you are continuing to say this as fact, when Genesis has been and most likely always will be credited to Moses.

Edit: I looked up a random Google site to see what I could find on the subject, and the traditional view is as I said, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch [first five books of the Bible] with probably Joshua his successor finishing up the bits that happen after Moses' death. That is the traditional conservative view.
Traditional Conservative View: The Pentateuch was written by Moses during Israel's wilderness period, with additions made after his death, perhaps by Joshua. Since archeology has now proven that writing existed in the time of Moses, and since Moses would probably have been educated in the palace, it is not unlikely that he would have been his people's scribe as well as their leader.

The liberal view is as you say, Carr, although it is only a hypothesis and not supported by tradition or, in fact, anything else either.


Liberal View: Liberal scholars believe the Pentateuch is a compilation of a variety of sources and that it was edited into its final form during the Babylonian Exile. They consider the songs of Deborah and of Miriam to be among the oldest writings of the Old Testament. The liberal view relies on the documentary hypothesis, which speculates that the Pentateuch utilized the following sources:

1. Yahwist - Presumably written during David's reign, it refers to God as Yahweh.
2. Elohist - Presumably written in the northern part of the divided kingdom, around the 9th century BC, it refers to God as Elohim.
3. Deuteronomic - Presumably, the Deuteronomic code was written during the reign of Hezekiah. Scholars accepting this hypothesis believe this code is "the book of the law" rediscovered during Josiah's reign. Deuteronomic historians are also credited with writing Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
4. Priestly - Finally, it is presumed that during the Exile, the priests collected the previous three sources and edited the Pentateuch into its final form, no doubt adding new material of their own in the process. The Pentateuch was then known as the "Torah" or law.

These sources do not actually physically exist today. Their prior existence is merely a hypothesis based on some scholars' interpretations of the textual evidence.emphasis added. http://www.literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/bibhist.html

Also about the flood stories, why then do the Egyptians, nor the Chinesse have such stories? Also and I say again dinos and humans could not have lived together they would have eaten us for breakfast.

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
The Flood occurred before those civilizations formed. The descendants of Noah formed the civilizations, and thus the civilizations passed the story of the Flood down from generation to generation by verbal record (as it wasn't until the Sumerians that writing was invented).

Noah was a follower of the true God, but obviously not all of his descendants kept the faith. Abraham came from the city of Ur, and followed the true God to Canaan, where the nation of Israel was eventually formed, and Moses wrote down through divine revelation the Biblical account of the worldwide Flood.

And that explains how all civilizations could have a version of the Flood account. As time went on the verbal communication credited the flood to their other gods, fallible gods who often make mistakes. Which, as Milo says, makes them not real gods.

second edit:

<a href=http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/devotionals/devotionals/nohighercalling_week07.htm>Analysis of Chinese characters</a> Admittedly written from a conservative Christian perspective, but not without factual truth inside that no one would refute.

<a href=http://across.co.nz/GENESIS-China.htm>Genesis - Echoes from China</a> Another interesting article, this one footnoted and carefully researched.

[CMJ]

I guess my problem is - if it's literal it's literal. Reading poetic license into Genesis is what should be done - with the whole book. You can't say "Oh well, this is what it was trying to say here" and not expect folks to do so with the rest of it. Practice what you preach. ;)

According to what it DOES say if God had his way we would be like infants, comfortably nursing while across the street our neigbors are being devoured, we not knowing or caring. But with our knowledge of good and evil we become outraged. Adam and Eve lost their innocence. Their eyes opened to the evil around them, including God's. Their moral sense caused their suffering. At the same time they rejected God's autocratic rule.

*This* was Eve's sin. She judged for herself. The knowledge of good and evil was not spoon fed to her, not portioned out at God's whim. It was no longer imposed through divine proclamation. She took it. She becomes an equal partner in her own moral system, asserting her right to recognize evil for herself.

God does not want the competition. He, too, eats from the Tree of Knowledge. Like sharks and seals(or choose the metaphor), we and God seem natural enemies.

As punishment, God says to Eve, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Most folks take this to mean Eve, and all of her female descendents, are to suffer this same punishment. Because of Eve, all women suffer in childbirth, and they all must submit to their husband's rule. Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, says:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children." (1 Tim 2:11-13)

(Note: Paul is a moron. Adam was just as deceived - he just skips out on the blame game.)

Eve's so-called first transgression condemns ALL women to suffer equally, and defines women's place in this "godly" scheme of things. Why do modern women subject themselves to a religious dogma that wants to keep them down at all costs(there are tons more examples, believe you me)? This barbaric theme of indirect responsibility -- that an individual is to be punished or blessed, not because of her actions, but because of another's actions (her mother's mother's mother's...mother), is the major theme of Christianity(and Jewish folks), and is wholeheartedly embraced by fundamentalists. And then we wonder why some Christians blame Jews for Christ's death(by the same token it makes it more clear why the Passion tale upsets Jews so much). Apparently God doesn't mind holding grudges against those that had nothing to do with the transgression. :p

Should Adam and Eve be punished at all? What was their great sin? Not a hint can be found of any major felony. Eve did not steal Adam's food or cut off his head. She did not offend Adam in any way. She offended the great Creator of the Universe. She hurt his little feelings. Poor baby. We should remember this. Sins are crimes against God, not crimes against humanity. This is why the very concept of sin is pure propagandistic hogwash.

More to come later - I'm still at work, and I have to try to look busy. ;)

[Wei Wu Wei]

Whoa, slow down. If you're going to blame God for doing evil (by which you become a blasphemer), then I must ask you what God's crime was?

First of all, concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil--I have an analogy to explain why God would not want His creation to eat that fruit.

When a baby is born, and is only beginning to explore the world in which it lives, does it know right from wrong? Does a baby know that taking something without asking is wrong? Does a baby know that breaking things is rude? Of course not! In fact, babies don't know the difference until they grow older and they learn these things on their own. But during this time in which babies do not know right from wrong, are they punished for it? How can you punish someone who does not know right from wrong?

God did not want His creation to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because God did not want to have to punish His creation for doing wrong. When a man breaks the law, he is tried, judged, and given the proper punishment. But is the government evil for holding the man responsible for his wrong doing? I dare say not!

However, unlike the government, God will readily forgive anyone who regrets what they have done wrong. If a person regrets his or her choice to do wrong, then God will forgive them and will not remember that man's wrongdoing.

And those that do not regret what they have done and seek forgiveness instead choose to accept their proper punishment. You would dare call God unjust because He holds us responsible for what we do?

I've got two cliches that work very well together right about now.

1) Knowledge is power.

2) With power comes responsibilty.

We know the difference between good and evil, and have the power to choose between one or the other. We know when we do wrong, and we know when we do right. And so we must also be responsible for the choices we make.

Parents do not want to punish their children, but feel that they must punish their children if they want their children to grow to be responsible, good, morally upright adults. I don't know a single parent that hates having to punish a son or daughter. And so it is with God. In fact, God searches for any little reason to forgive us so that we might not be punished.

God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to see whether or not Adam and Eve would choose to obey Him. He did not make them act one way or the other.

As far as the punishment of Eve is concerned, Adam was also punished to hard work and toil. He was to endure the pain of supporting not only himself, but also Eve. Every single day.

And as far as Paul is concerned, Paul also commanded men to love their wives unto the point of giving up their entire lives for their spouses, just as Jesus gave up his entire life for the church.

Please do not use Scripture to suit your own ends. Do yourself a favor and read the entire Bible for yourself, instead of picking out the bits and pieces that you want to read.

[CMJ]

Okay...before I anger anyone else here: this is what I was leading up to. The biggest problem with a literal reading of the Bible is the limitations it puts on God. It's common knowledge among human beings that if one wants to tell a powerful moral story, one does not use fact, one uses FICTION. "Moby Dick" is not fact, "The Great Gatsby" is not fact, "Hamlet" is not fact. Is there any truly great piece of the written word that is not, essentially, a fiction?

Yet these fictions mean so much! Hard core literalists seem to be saying their god is unaware of the power of fiction. They severely limit his literary license. Picture it -- God sits in his shabby little office, hunched over the divine keyboard, knocking out his cheap little docu-dramas -- inspiration for the masses. No creative artist would stand for such a thing! Surely a god would reject this narrow minded position.

Strict, literal interpretation of the Bible cheapens the message, cheapens the story, cheapens the religion. It brings it down to the level of raw data, facts and figures, historical happenings.

Eh...I've come to the conclusion I should just shut up now. Sure I could debate some more, but no need to irritate anyone else - or burn another bridge. Sorry if I offended anyone by looking critically at things.

[Jedieb]

Strict, literal interpretation of the Bible cheapens the message, cheapens the story, cheapens the religion. It brings it down to the level of raw data, facts and figures, historical happenings.
Plus, strict literal interpretations are inevitably hypocritical ones. Hypocritical because no one would apply the same value to all portions of the bible. As CMJ already quoted;m "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children." (1 Tim 2:11-13) How can anyone swallow that today? Don't you just end up picking and choosing what the Bible got right and what it didn't? Again, I see no difference between the Bible and a thousand year old Native American totem pole.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Actually LD the Catholic Church doesn't not believe Moses wrote the first five books. I have a Catholic Bible and it says play as day that Moses most likely didn't write the first five books. And they were written later. Also Moses for all we know didn't know how to write. The Egyptians wrote Hiroglphics (sp) and he may have been taught in those but I doubt anybody else could have read them. It is hard to do know what language the early Hebrews wrote since there is no writting from them available.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You didn't even read what I quoted JMC. But that's okay.

And Jedieb, although Timothy is actually what someone wrote (and meant it literally), everything must be taken in the context of the culture that it was written in.

As far as women being easily decieved, where do you think mechanics make all their money? This is why I believe that women should not be pastors of churches, because women can be easily led astray. Not *all* women, but it is a gender tendency. As far as the learning in silence, that is considered to be a cultural Middle Eastern thing, although it's hard to learn when you're jabbering.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I did read it but I just don't agree with it, I am also very skeptical of sources from the internet. That is just the historians in me (I was never allowed to use internets sources in school). I am not keep arguing about it I think we are both entrenched in our positions.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

As far as women being easily decieved, where do you think mechanics make all their money? This is why I believe that women should not be pastors of churches, because women can be easily led astray. Not *all* women, but it is a gender tendency.

:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[imported_Eve]

A couple things:

1 - LD: people that think like you are the reason women are kept down in the world, generally. I can't believe you said that, or think that. Maybe YOU're that way, but I am certainly not, and neither are a lot of other women.

Women may be deceived by mechanics because they may not know anything about cars, or because those who run the auto shop have a lack of business ethics, not because they have a tendency to be indifferent about things generally. Really, you're argument isn't worth responding to, but I thought you could hear from a woman who isn't easily led astray by stereotypes (which are considered a negative and discriminatory thing).

2 - Faith and fact are two different things. It's okay to have faith but as long as those who have faith presume their faith as fact, no one will get anywhere with each other here.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
As far as women being easily decieved, where do you think mechanics make all their money? This is why I believe that women should not be pastors of churches, because women can be easily led astray. Not *all* women, but it is a gender tendency. As far as the learning in silence, that is considered to be a cultural Middle Eastern thing, although it's hard to learn when you're jabbering.

what.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

all right just forget I said anything.

[CMJ]

*pokes head in*

Must. Not. Respond.

;)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

:o thanks CMJ I appreciate that. I should just keep my mouth shut too.

[Doc Milo]

About why God would create something to appear aged when it wasn't -- I'll use an analogy:

You want to plant a garden. You have choices to make. You can turn the dirt in your backyark, fertilize it, plant seeds, water them, and wait for the garden to grow. Or you can section off a piece of your back yard, put down your potters soil, and transplant plants that have already begun to grow.

In either case your garden, two days after planting it, is two days old. But . . . one seems older than the other.

When writing a book, I don't start with the beginning of my main character's life. I start in the middle of his life. My character might be twenty years old. But, in actuality, he's only two days old two days after I begin writing. Because I exist outside the timeline of the character, I can do anything to it. The character, in his world, percieves a great deal of time has gone by, when in reality only a short span of time has gone by.

One of the problems we have is that we can't contemplate nothingness, and we can't contemplate something that exists outside of what we know to be space/time. When God created man, he already knew of man's fall. To him, it all happens at once.

Let's put it this way. Let's say I create a computer, and a program, and in that computer I create two different forms of Artificial Intelligence. One is given a great deal of knowledge, and I place it there to keep watch over the second AI I create, one that I want to see how it will grow. The first AI uses the freedom I give it to change its programming, and corrupts the second AI. In order for my experiment to work, I have to find a way to return the second AI back to the state it was in when I created it, so I begin introducing things to the program. One of them is another AI that is meant to cleanse the second AI from the influence of the first, and to destroy the first AI in the process. Did I need to do this because I made a mistake? No. I created things and gave those things a free will, and with that free will those AIs have chosen different paths. My programming is sound, there is no mistake in it. That the AI is able to make such choices is proof that I did not make a mistake in the programming, for I created the AI to make its own decisions and to have a free will. That it chose not to follow my prescribed course is not a mistake on my part, but if the AI goes too far down the bad course that it threatens to really corrupt the core of the program, I as the creator of that AI have a right to destroy it. That doesn't make me evil. I only want to save the structure of the program and return it to the place where I want it to be...

It's late right now, so this isn't coming out quite like it had when I thought of the analogy -- but hopefully my point is understood anyway....

[Wei Wu Wei]

Originally posted by Eve
Faith and fact are two different things. It's okay to have faith but as long as those who have faith presume their faith as fact, no one will get anywhere with each other here.

I like that. I like that a lot. In fact, I think I made a similar post a bit before.

But yes, religion (or faith, we can use the words almost interchangeably here) is meant to convey truth, not fact. And believe it or not, fact and truth can in fact coexist peacefully.

[Jedieb]

This has been around the net for years. I just found it today and thought it was pretty funny. It's a satirical letter written to radio talk show windbag Dr. Please Ignore the Naked Pictures My Ex Posted on the Internet Laura.



Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Let's assume that the Bible is correct and literal in the book of Genesis. And let's assume that science is also correct in it's placing of the age of the earth and universe. Are these two mutually exclusive? The answer is no.

Yes, if you take the Bible literally, which is my assumption from above, the world would only be 6000 years old. And, as well with my assumption, if you take science's dating as a fact, the world would be what is it, billions of years old? And yet, I will prove that these two do not contradict with few simple questions and answers.

Now, remember, all these arguments are assuming the truth of both the Bible and science:

1. Q: How old was Adam two days after his creation?

1. A: Adam was two days old two days after his creation.

2. Q: How old did Adam look two days after his creation?

2. A: Adam looked in his twenties two days after his creation.

3. Q: Was Adam, according to the Bible, created an infant who grew fast?

3. A: No, Adam was created as a grown man.

4. Q: If God can create Adam to look 20 something on the day of his creation why couldn't He have created the world, seven days after its creation, to look billions of years old?

4. A: There is no reason why He couldn't.

And if He did then the world is only billions of years old by the perception of man, but in actuality would be only 6000 years old.

Remember, the truth as man understands it is based upon man's limited perceptions. We dismiss the Bible as a historical document because it contains "supernatural phenomena" but supernatural phenomena is only supernatural because we don't understand it, because our perceptions are limited. We dismiss it because it contains things that "can't possibly be true" and must then be symbollic and not literal. But they only "can't possibly be true" because we don't understand it, because we have limited perception.

Of course He COULD do that, but the question is: WHY would God do this?

Why does He create supernovas that appear to us like stars, and once we see their light we have to conclude that the star never existed?

He made it so insanely complex that it's hard to believe.

Okay, a Big Bang is hard to believe either, but things gradually evolving into these complex things over billions of years seems a lot more logical than creating all these things at once pretending they are much older than they really are.

[Master Yoghurt]

Thats quite some necro bump O_o

This is an interesting discussion whatever you may believe about existance of an allmighty deity, at least from a philosophical point of view, so I will add some thoughts of my own. However, before I continue, I will add a disclaimer:

Nothing of what I say is intended to infuriate people, I fully respect and tolerate peoples faith and belief systems. I am aware its a sensitive topic, and because people are feeling so strong about it, anything being said on the subject naturally may stirr some emotions. Having said that, I encourage anyone who risk replying to this thread to try have an open mind and discuss in an intelligent manner without resorting to flames.

Got that? :) Ok, here goes..

A fundemental problem for anyone trying to rationalize the bible is the vast amount of inaccuracies, contradictions and errors. I mean there are thousands, just look here for some samples:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Another problem is; <a href=http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm>at the time it was written</a>, the idea of ethics and justice was quite different to what it is today. So there are some rather disturbing instances of intolerance and injustice, moral standards which do not apply to a modern society.

Is it not about time we think for ourselves rather than building our moral and belief system on something that was written by man more than 2000 years ago? Is it not about time we realize our success or failures in life relies on our own choices, not because of a superficial being assumed to exist, yet no one have seen or can prove exist?

If there really is an allmighty supreme being who created everything, controlling all that is to come, why does he allow terrible tragedies to happen. If the presumtion is God is "all good" and all powerful, why let evil happen? My claim is, if God really does exist, he cant be all good and all powerful. He could be one or the other, but not both at the same time.

About the genesis or the creation of the universe. It is often argued that since the universe is so large and complex, how could it be all happen in a physical phenomenon like a Big Bang. Surely it must have started by a higher power? My reply to that is, if the universe is complex, the creator must have been infinitively more complex, and that brings us into a circle argument and back to the original problem; what created God. IMO, for a conscious being to have that kind of power is simply unimaginable. If God really is that powerful, you have a serious problem explaining the dilemma above, about God letting evil happen.

[CMJ]

I believe we've discussed religion at length in the past. ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

I need one of those marcos which indicates posters running from thread as fast as possible :p