NationStates Jolt Archive

This seems to a very people theory of how the world began with Christianity, Islam and Judaism but even though I am a Christian, I believe it is false. I have found 5 errors in it which I wish to point out: 1. It says God created man in his image, even though Jesus describes God as the exact OPPOSITE of what the normal, sinning human is like. God isn't a being up in heaven, he is a spirit that is everywhere, all the time. Always has been, always will be. 2. The order of creation goes against known science. God creates the earth and plants before the sun, even though plants need to sun to create food for themselves and they would die off because of the extreme cold. Even though God creates "light and darkness" to seperate the days, it's not clear exactly what those are and why then we would need the sun? 3. The fact that God creates mates for every kind of animal to reproduce and then finds Adam lonely. Well duh, if you did it for the rest of them, why not him? Makes God appear ignorant. 4. The fact he keeps saying "it was good" even though he knew humans would screw up, get kicked out of Eden, create death and sin, start world wars, killed each other, etc. He knew it was going to happen and yet he still created man and then punishes animals even though they didn't and don't sin. 5. The fact that God "allowed" Satan in the Garden and then told them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's like telling a little kid, you can have any snack you want while I'm gone except those cookies over there. Unless you have ice cream or candy, those cookies will be eaten. The forbiden seems so much more appealing and interesting than the allowed. Given that God "created' humans, he should have seen it coming. Other errors I found were that God rested, even though he is most powerful "thing" imaginable (rest is a human and animal trait), why God even "created" everything, was he just bored or was this a hobby of his? I doesn't mention any reasons in the Bible, how did he make man from dirt, especially if we are now made up of skin and tissue (the name "Adam", which happens to be my name, in Hebrew means "of the earth"). That's always puzzled me and finally, why did Adam wait until after getting kicked out of Eden to finally do the deed with Eve? That wouldn't have been a sin since God to told the animals to "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it", which would have also included humans, but it's only first mention of the humans having sex after they are kicked out. Plus, in certain version of the Bible, God says "us" when speaking about who will create man. Who is "us" and also, why is Eve punished so harshly with painful child birth and the fact she will become Adam's "slave" (God says he will be her master). Finally, why is women made from man, even though it women who later give life themselves with child birth? I understand the Bible was written by men and so naturally it would favour men. And I know no one was there to witness creation, so this isn't a documented report but still, the flaws that even common knowledge should notice and remove seem to be frequently put in. This obviously an attempt to explain the earth's origins but it still leaves me with too many questions. By the way, I am not an athiest out to disprove religion, I am just a practicing Christian who doesn't just take the Bible literally but actually thinks about what he's reading and maybe even questions it, although I never question the teachings of Christ. Feel free to post your beliefs, but preferably no name calling or large amounts of swearing (I do swear myself but not ever other word like some people). Questions based on Genesis 1-4, New Living Translation.

It's been debated to death.

The evolutionists keep winning.

Creationism is 110% bullshit.

Dude, did you read anything I said? I just said it was mostly bs. It also wasn't a debate about which was true or not, given I only mention evolution in my poll question. Evolution is certainly not without error though.

Dude, did you read anything I said? I just said it was mostly bs. It also wasn't a debate about which was true or not, given I only mention evolution in my poll question. Evolution is certainly not without error though.
True. Of course, Creation is riddled with more error than an NSYNC concert has synthesizers.
Evolution is one of the more sound scientific theories though. It isn't entirely without error, but it isn't very far off.

Dude, they're called paragraphs... learn to use them :)

Before I start, I am a Latter-Day Saint, so I am not bound to Mainstream Christian doctrine.. so i will try to answer to the best of my ability.This seems to a very people theory of how the world began with Christianity, Islam and Judaism but even though I am a Christian, I believe it is false. I have found 5 errors in it which I wish to point out: End paragraph 1 ;) 1. It says God created man in his image, even though Jesus describes God as the exact OPPOSITE of what the normal, sinning human is like. God isn't a being up in heaven, he is a spirit that is everywhere, all the time. Always has been, always will be.Excuse me? Where does it say he has no body? In Exodus Moses talked to God Face to Face, as a Man talketh to another man. 2. The order of creation goes against known science. God creates the earth and plants before the sun, even though plants need to sun to create food for themselves and they would die off because of the extreme cold. Even though God creates "light and darkness" to seperate the days, it's not clear exactly what those are and why then we would need the sun? Well, like you hinted at, it is unclear whether or not there was a sun at this time or if it was dark before light was specifically mentioned. Astronomically, the light obviously comes first. In Mormon scripture, this is the verse describing the event:

14 And the Gods organized the lights in the expanse of the heaven, and caused them to divide the day from the night; and organized them to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years;

15 And organized them to be for lights in the expanse of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

16 And the Gods organized the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; with the lesser light they set the stars also;

17 And the Gods set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to cause to divide the light from the darkness.

We see here that the light could very well have existed, it just wasn't fully organized... ie, this could be when the Earth began to spin? Hardly a reason to dismiss the entire theory.
3. The fact that God creates mates for every kind of animal to reproduce and then finds Adam lonely. Well duh, if you did it for the rest of them, why not him? Makes God appear ignorant. Bah, merely a formality in the Creation Process. God Could very well have just poofed the entire Earth into existance all at once if he wanted. This is a symbolic gesture... one interpretation of this adam before eve thing is that Eve was created from Adam's Rib, from his side, symbolizing that Woman was to walk side by side with man, for they were equals.

Again, this is a pretty weak case for dismissing creationism... 4. The fact he keeps saying "it was good" even though he knew humans would screw up, get kicked out of Eden, create death and sin, start world wars, killed each other, etc. He knew it was going to happen and yet he still created man and then punishes animals even though they didn't and don't sin.This just sounds like an attack on the entire religion out of blatant ignorance. I choose to ignore this question, as it is very vague. 5. The fact that God "allowed" Satan in the Garden and then told them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's like telling a little kid, you can have any snack you want while I'm gone except those cookies over there. Unless you have ice cream or candy, those cookies will be eaten. The forbiden seems so much more appealing and interesting than the allowed. Given that God "created' humans, he should have seen it coming. And your point is... what? He gave them two commandments, Don't eat the fruit, and replenish the Earth. They can not replenish the Earth without knowledge. This was another very key event we call "The Fall." It symbolizes the beginning of this probationary state called life. The beginning of free will and free agency. The first sin. And the First Repentance. It's the beginning of Mortality.

Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.

They say ignorance is bliss... well, You don't know joy if you don't know misery. There must needs be opposition in all things.
Other errors I found were that God rested, even though he is most powerful "thing" imaginable (rest is a human and animal trait), why God even "created" everything, was he just bored or was this a hobby of his? I doesn't mention any reasons in the Bible, how did he make man from dirt, especially if we are now made up of skin and tissue (the name "Adam", which happens to be my name, in Hebrew means "of the earth"). That's always puzzled me and finally, why did Adam wait until after getting kicked out of Eden to finally do the deed with Eve? That wouldn't have been a sin since God to told the animals to "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it", which would have also included humans, but it's only first mention of the humans having sex after they are kicked out. Plus, in certain version of the Bible, God says "us" when speaking about who will create man. Who is "us" and also, why is Eve punished so harshly with painful child birth and the fact she will become Adam's "slave" (God says he will be her master). Finally, why is women made from man, even though it women who later give life themselves with child birth? I understand the Bible was written by men and so naturally it would favour men. And I know no one was there to witness creation, so this isn't a documented report but still, the flaws that even common knowledge should notice and remove seem to be frequently put in. This obviously an attempt to explain the earth's origins but it still leaves me with too many questions. By the way, I am not an athiest out to disprove religion, I am just a practicing Christian who doesn't just take the Bible literally but actually thinks about what he's reading and maybe even questions it, although I never question the teachings of Christ. Feel free to post your beliefs, but preferably no name calling or large amounts of swearing (I do swear myself but not ever other word like some people). Questions based on Genesis 1-4, New Living Translation.
Wow... you certainly do not have the mindset of a Christian... you are not seeking answers, you are seeking to disprove. If you REALLY want to know the answers to these questions, you shouldn't look for the answers on some Atheist Website, or ask a bunch of liberals on NS... you should ask the guy who knows. God. You know how to Pray, right? If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to men Liberally.

A lot of the stuff above sounds like you don't even know your own religion, only what ignorant non-christians have told you about it.

Come on, why are you going to the Chevy Dealership to ask about a Honda?

Faith preceeds the answers.

How many more quotes and slogans can I throw at you? lol

I firmly believe in this maxim: logic and god DO NOT MIX.

No matter what logical holes you think you find in a theology/mythology, there is alway some way for god to get around it, because he/she/it/we can break any rule. A religiou person can always come up with some explanation for even the most reasonable objection to their theology. Hell, I can even come up with ways for god to get around almost anything, and I'm not even religious!

here's some of the more common ones:
"We humans cannot understand God's plan."
"God is good and benevolent, therefore everything is the way it should be."
"He ignores your pathetic "laws of physics", puny mortal!"

All of these are valid statements if you accept the premise that God exists and is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-knowledgable (I'm not sure if that's a real word, but you know what I mean).

God cannot be assaulted by reason, nor reason by god. It all comes down to which one you choose to believe in.


:
"Faith preceeds the answers."
Exactly my point.

"Wow... you certainly do not have the mindset of a Christian... you are not seeking answers, you are seeking to disprove."

By the way, "seeking to disprove" is literally the very foundation of science as we know it. Scientific "truths" are always verified by vigorous and exhaustive attempts to prove them wrong. All theories that science still holds (and by the way, uses to heal your illnesses, cook your food, and power and invent your appliances) are only there because they have not yet been disproven by this rigorous and ongoing process.

Maybe we should all take what this person considers to be a "Christian mindset" and go back to bloodletting as the universal cure for all illnesses and throw out our microwaves and computers in favor of a few sticks and a donkey.

Once again, god and reason are diametrically opposed. No wonder I find religion so unappealling; I really like my air conditioner.

"Wow... you certainly do not have the mindset of a Christian... you are not seeking answers, you are seeking to disprove."

By the way, "seeking to disprove" is literally the very foundation of science as we know it. Scientific "truths" are always verified by vigorous and exhaustive attempts to prove them wrong. All theories that science still holds (and by the way, uses to heal your illnesses, cook your food, and power and invent your appliances) are only there because they could not be disproven by this rigorous process.

Maybe we should all take what this person considers to be a "Christian mindset" and go back to bloodletting as the universal cure for all illnesses and throw out our microwaves and computers in favor of a few sticks and a donkey.

Once again, god and reason are diametrically opposed. No wonder I find religion so unappealling; I really like my air conditioner.You misunderstand. This guy is asking for answers from everyone but the person he should be asking.

Like I said, it's like asking a Chevy dealer about a Honda... you aren't going to get the answers you're looking for, unless of course you're actually interested in the Chevy, and just want an excuse to forget about the Honda.

You misunderstand. This guy is asking for answers from everyone but the person he should be asking.

Like I said, it's like asking a Chevy dealer about a Honda... you aren't going to get the answers you're looking for, unless of course you're actually interested in the Chevy, and just want an excuse to forget about the Honda.


On that point I agree with you, at least in a way: he should look both places for his answer. And any other places that might apply. You were absolutely right to point out that he should look at religious people (the Honda dealers, to carry your analogy) if he wants to buy a Honda. But I would contend that he also should look at the Chevy dealers to see if maybe he'd rather get a Chevy than a Honda. And he should at least give the Dodge and BMW dealers a look before he just takes the Honda.

I feel that my point still stands that we should seek to disprove in many situations, although I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement about seeking answers/disproving.

On that point I agree with you, at least in a way: he should look both places for his answer. And any other places that might apply. You were absolutely right to point out that he should look at religious people (the Honda dealers, to carry your analogy) if he wants to buy a Honda. But I would contend that he also should look at the Chevy dealers to see if maybe he'd rather get a Chevy than a Honda. And he should at least give the Dodge and BMW dealers a look before he just takes the Honda.

I feel that my point still stands that we should seek to disprove in many situations, although I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement about seeking answers/disproving.
Yes, I agree with you. I was merely stating that, based on the questions he asked, he seems to know next to nothing about his religion. His questions on Christianity and points against it sound like they are from an Atheist's viewpoint on Christianity.

1. It says God created man in his image, even though Jesus describes God as the exact OPPOSITE of what the normal, sinning human is like. God isn't a being up in heaven, he is a spirit that is everywhere, all the time. Always has been, always will be.

Just one thing I'd like to add to the discussion about point one: I think you're taking this quote a bit too literally. Man created in God's image doesn't necessarily mean that God looks like man - after all, God's pretty big. I like to think of that upper quote as God created man with some God-like qualities. For one, our ability to create. Just about every human being tends to create something in their lives. It can be anything: a community, model airplanes, a garden, a home, a short story, whatever. Creating something with your own two hands can bring you closer to an all-creator.

Sort of a spin-off on the original meaning, I admit. My only point is that spirituality tends to be a bit deeper than literal meanings.

"Wow... you certainly do not have the mindset of a Christian... you are not seeking answers, you are seeking to disprove."

By the way, "seeking to disprove" is literally the very foundation of science as we know it. Scientific "truths" are always verified by vigorous and exhaustive attempts to prove them wrong. All theories that science still holds (and by the way, uses to heal your illnesses, cook your food, and power and invent your appliances) are only there because they have not yet been disproven by this rigorous and ongoing process.

Maybe we should all take what this person considers to be a "Christian mindset" and go back to bloodletting as the universal cure for all illnesses and throw out our microwaves and computers in favor of a few sticks and a donkey.

Once again, god and reason are diametrically opposed. No wonder I find religion so unappealling; I really like my air conditioner.

You seem to be saying that science and religion are an either or proposition. If you are religious, you obviously dont believe in air conditioners and there for cant have one?

Many of scientific discoveries have been perpetrated by religious scholars. In fact, for a good portion of history, knowledge was solely preserved by religious institutions.

Perhaps Genisis has to be taken with a grain of salt, I dont know. It seems perfectly plausible to me, and no one has yet to disprove it.

Perhaps Evolution has to be taken with a grain of salt, I dotn know. It seems perfectly plausible to me, and no one has yet to disprove it.


And about the whole rib thing.. reminds me of that joke... God says to Adam "I can make a perfect mate for you, but it will cost you one eye, and one testicle." Adam, that stingy bastard, says "What can I get for a rib?"

You seem to be saying that science and religion are an either or proposition. If you are religious, you obviously dont believe in air conditioners and there for cant have one?

Many of scientific discoveries have been perpetrated by religious scholars. In fact, for a good portion of history, knowledge was solely preserved by religious institutions.

Perhaps Genisis has to be taken with a grain of salt, I dont know. It seems perfectly plausible to me, and no one has yet to disprove it.

Perhaps Evolution has to be taken with a grain of salt, I dotn know. It seems perfectly plausible to me, and no one has yet to disprove it.


And about the whole rib thing.. reminds me of that joke... God says to Adam "I can make a perfect mate for you, but it will cost you one eye, and one testicle." Adam, that stingy bastard, says "What can I get for a rib?"

Nice post. Someone in an earlier thread stated that good and evil didn't exist because they were man-made creations. I wonder if that guy believes in plastic...

The Enter key is our friend...

This seems to a very people (popular?) theory of how the world began with Christianity, Islam and Judaism but even though I am a Christian, I believe it is false. I have found 5 errors in it which I wish to point out. . .

Whoa, lots of questions. I’ll try to answer a few. You might do good to consult a priest about these things. I recommend a Catholic one, they seem to have the story straight.

Creation is a metaphor, part of a myth. A myth is a story that is ripe with metaphor and symbolism. The trick is to learn the meaning behind words like, "God created man in his image." Metaphor is not meant to be read literally; when you do that, it makes no sense.

In the Summerian Epic of Gilgamesh the father God Anu calls to the goddess of creation, Aruru, to create Enkidu as a companion for Gilgamesh. “You made him, O Aruru, now make his equal; let it be as like him to his own reflection, his second self. . . So the goddess conceived an image in her mind, and dipped her hands in water and pinched off clay; she let it fall in the wilderness, and noble Enkidu was created.“ Gilgamesh is god, and Enkidu is mankind; this is the metaphor. This is the same thing God did when he created man “in his image”: he made a second self, a part of Him. If you understand God as a part of us, within us, this makes more sense: inside ourselves, our selves are a noble reflection of Godliness. It is only our free will that allows us to choose to drift apart from that.

The clay or dirt we are made from is the “body” of the earth, mother of all life (Mother Earth, Mother Nature, represented in Aruru in the above story). Carl Sagan once said we are all --the earth and all life on it --made of “star stuff.” In this symbolism, we are all components of the planet we live on.

The Summerian story of creation was adopted into the Hebrew mythology, albeit with a new interpretation. It also influenced the Babylonians, Assyrians and Hittites creation stories. The Babylonians had an Epic of Creation called Enuma Elish. We know of the Enuma Elish from tablets unearthed in 1848 from the library of Assurbanipal, last king of Assyria. The tablets date 1000 years before his day, to 1750 BC, and the stories they tell were already thousands of years old when they were written. The myths of the serpent's "fall" from exaltation to Earth, and Noah's Arc, are also part of the Enuma Elish.

There are two creation myths in the Bible. In Genesis 2, God is "Elohim" from the tribe of Hebrew who settled north and called themselves Israelites. In Genesis 1, God is "Yahweh" of the tribe of Judah, who settled in the south. Elohim is a plural form of "El" which means "god" (also the name of the Canaanite father god), so it is sometimes translated as "gods." Both texts of Genesis were re-written after the Exile to bring them more in line with each other.

God imagry and Goddess imagry have an important difference when it comes to Creation. God “speaks” the world into being with words; words originate in the mind and are made real by speaking them. He speaks it, and it is so. It is this same faculty that “breathes” life into mankind. Aruru uses the same faculty except that she doesn’t have to speak it aloud in order to bring it from subjective reality into objective reality. Hers is a participatory creation, so that what she thinks is immediately made so; man is envisioned in her mind and created from her body.

Creation, taken literally as in the Bible, is the beginning of existence. Participatory creation, though, is going on all the time, every moment of every day, all around us. We participate in creation. We do this by actively participating in living. We participate by loving. We participate by making new things. We have children, and make art and literature and music, and make friends, and have pets, and go fishing. . . Just as the goddess made us from her body, we make life happen around us. In the Father God religion, God is apart form his creation, not a part of it. He makes it and stands back, admires his work and says, “This is good.” And when he said that, it was so. Creation is something reserved for him, though, and placed way back at the beginning of time so we don’t have any chance of participating in it --his is not a participatory religion.

Man is not an animal, not in the Bible, not in the Hebrew tradition. There, man is apart from the animals --symbolically set apart from and at odds with Nature (just as God is apart from his Creation). Man a) has a mind or intellect, b) is conscious of his role, and c) is a reflection of Godhood. Animals don't get to have these things. And historically speaking, d) the religion of the Mother Goddess was in the process of being replaced by the religion of the Father God. So, man was created solo (just as God is One) and the women was an afterthought (I imagine there were some heavy protests). ;-)

There was no hanky-panky in the Garden of Eden for the same reason: because man is not an animal. God gave man free will, the ability to choose his own path --he chose to disobey, to turn away from God’s will. Some say the story is a metaphor for man’s rise in consciousness from a state of harmony with nature, one with the animals, to a state where he is self-conscious and self-aware (symbolized in hiding his nakedness, his "nature"). Others say it is a metaphor for a loss of innocence. I think the first explanation is more symbolically appropriate.

So God created man and then, as an afterthought, created a woman for him. Eve (whose name means “life”) is the bringer of death. Life brings death --this is a fact of life we all know, today. People kill other life-forms to eat them; without life killing and eating life, all life would perish. They knew it then, too. The Mother Goddess knew this --with her participatory religion, killing to eat was a part of participating in her. But for the Father God religion, they needed a reminder, an explanation. Eve is given a title in Genesis 3:20, the “Mother of all Living”. She is the Mother Goddess, in an interpreted form.

Mythology is an interesing study, I highly recommend it.

I'll just go from here, although I've seen lots of interesting points. I don't see any real conflict between the 2 theories as long as you don't take one or the other too literally(sp). The main thing to remember is the period that the book of Genisis was written. Man(the race) was well set in several pattrens and habits before the book was ever written. Thus it had to be written in such a way as for Man to understand it.

Mark Twain once wrote a story that started with someone saying "Approximately 4 billion years ago..."(note: not to be taken as a direct quote. it's been a while. I'd love to find the story again) and then goes on with an arguement about how long this history telling is going to take and how much detail it will have. The orator finally asks how much paper is available. The scribe states about 7 days worth. The orator responds with, "are you sure that's all I have to work with, Arron?" "Yes Moses, 7 days, no more"

It's an amusing story but the idea is sound.

1. It says God created man in his image, even though Jesus describes God as the exact OPPOSITE of what the normal, sinning human is like. God isn't a being up in heaven, he is a spirit that is everywhere, all the time. Always has been, always will be.

Says who? As was pointed out earlier He has appeared in human form before. It has also been stated that He can't be looked upon in his purest form. God is a Being beyond our understanding at this point, by the very definition of God. This point is irrelevant to the subject anyway. What does His form have to do with whether or not He Creatred everything?

2. The order of creation goes against known science. God creates the earth and plants before the sun, even though plants need to sun to create food for themselves and they would die off because of the extreme cold. Even though God creates "light and darkness" to seperate the days, it's not clear exactly what those are and why then we would need the sun?

If you look to Evolution, it shows that the Earth generated it's own heat for quite a while. As the surface cooled enough for life to withstand it, it would still be generating enough heat to sustain life against the cold. And we know that ther is plant and animal life in the depths of the ocean that survive down there sans light and (relative) heat. Thus life could exsist on Earth prior to the (completed) formation of the sun.

3. The fact that God creates mates for every kind of animal to reproduce and then finds Adam lonely. Well duh, if you did it for the rest of them, why not him? Makes God appear ignorant.

Given that God made Man intelligant as compared to the animals, it could be possible that He had woman already in the wings and waitied until Adam asked for companionship. The idea that it was sought for as opposed to always there would have made Eve more precious to Adam, instead of him taking her as a given. Makes God appear as if He plans for the long term (by human perspective). Remember to think of God as the Parent and Man as the Child

4. The fact he keeps saying "it was good" even though he knew humans would screw up, get kicked out of Eden, create death and sin, start world wars, killed each other, etc. He knew it was going to happen and yet he still created man and then punishes animals even though they didn't and don't sin.

By what definition do you claim that animals are punished? In addition He is commenting on His work, not what Man will do with it later.

5. The fact that God "allowed" Satan in the Garden and then told them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's like telling a little kid, you can have any snack you want while I'm gone except those cookies over there. Unless you have ice cream or candy, those cookies will be eaten. The forbiden seems so much more appealing and interesting than the allowed. Given that God "created' humans, he should have seen it coming.

Once created, He had to allow Free Will, including the oppurtunity to mess up. I can not even begin to count the times I let my children do something, even knowing that it would hurt them, either emotionally or physically. They had to learn to choose for themselves and to accept their responsibilities for their actions. I didn't allow anything that would permanantly damage them or kill them and neither did God. Since you are claiming Christianity, Christ is our "band-aid" if you will (not intending to reduce the importance of Christ). He had hopes that Adam and Eve would obey, as I have hopes that my children do as I say.

I doesn't mention any reasons in the Bible, how did he make man from dirt, especially if we are now made up of skin and tissue (the name "Adam", which happens to be my name, in Hebrew means "of the earth").

By the theory of Evolution, we arose from primordial ooze. Wouldn't that be like dirt or mud to early Man?

That's always puzzled me and finally, why did Adam wait until after getting kicked out of Eden to finally do the deed with Eve? That wouldn't have been a sin since God to told the animals to "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it", which would have also included humans, but it's only first mention of the humans having sex after they are kicked out.

Who says they waited till then? Just because it's not documented doesn't mean it didn't happen? They didn't list every single minute of their lives. How long were they in the Garden until that serpent finally got Eve to eat the apple? (There is also debate as to whether or not the serpant was actually Satan or simply an agent) From NIV Genesis 3:16 "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;" Sounds to me as if she already had children. If she didn't then how would she understand the increase, if she hadn't experianced the pain before?

Plus, in certain version of the Bible, God says "us" when speaking about who will create man. Who is "us"

That's the easiest of all the questions. It states in the New Testament that Christ was with the Father even in the beginning and all of creation was made through Christ. Although it could also be argued that the "we" included the Angels

and also, why is Eve punished so harshly with painful child birth and the fact she will become Adam's "slave" (God says he will be her master). Finally, why is women made from man, even though it women who later give life themselves with child birth?

Logicaly the serpant sufferred most of all. This race lost their limbs and became one of the most feared and hated creatures. The female who listened to the serpant, was punished but to a lesser degree. and finally the male was punished but the least of all. All bore great punishments, but males the least of the three.

I'll just go from here, although I've seen lots of interesting points. I don't see any real conflict between the 2 theories as long as you don't take one or the other too literally(sp).
The entire point of science is to find facts that can be taken literally.

The main thing to remember is the period that the book of Genisis was written. Man(the race) was well set in several pattrens and habits before the book was ever written. Thus it had to be written in such a way as for Man to understand it.
Perhaps it's time God made a second edition better fitting the patterns and habits of modern Man.

Mark Twain once wrote a story that started with someone saying "Approximately 4 billion years ago..."(note: not to be taken as a direct quote. it's been a while. I'd love to find the story again) and then goes on with an arguement about how long this history telling is going to take and how much detail it will have. The orator finally asks how much paper is available. The scribe states about 7 days worth. The orator responds with, "are you sure that's all I have to work with, Arron?" "Yes Moses, 7 days, no more"

It's an amusing story but the idea is sound.
It's possible to describe 4.55 billion years in the same amount of time as 7 days, if you don't go into too much detail. Just replacing "and it was evening, and it was morning, one day" with "and five hundred million years passed" would have been a good start.

If you look to Evolution, it shows that the Earth generated it's own heat for quite a while.
How is that related to evolution?

As the surface cooled enough for life to withstand it, it would still be generating enough heat to sustain life against the cold. And we know that ther is plant and animal life in the depths of the ocean that survive down there sans light and (relative) heat. Thus life could exsist on Earth prior to the (completed) formation of the sun.
Except that science (not evolution, which is a different branch of science irrelevant to this topic) holds that the sun already existed before the Earth started to orbit it.

Once created, He had to allow Free Will, including the oppurtunity to mess up.
How could we have free will before we had morality? (Remember, it was the fruit that gave it to us.)

From NIV Genesis 3:16 "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;" Sounds to me as if she already had children. If she didn't then how would she understand the increase, if she hadn't experianced the pain before?
I thought it meant an increase in pain, compared to when she's not childbearing.

That's the easiest of all the questions. It states in the New Testament that Christ was with the Father even in the beginning and all of creation was made through Christ. Although it could also be argued that the "we" included the Angels
Or maybe God is an arrogant snob who likes to use the "royal we".

Logicaly the serpant sufferred most of all. This race lost their limbs and became one of the most feared and hated creatures.
Actually, if they lost their limbs by evolution, then that means it must be a survival ADVANTAGE - not so much of a punishment, eh?

The female who listened to the serpant, was punished but to a lesser degree. and finally the male was punished but the least of all. All bore great punishments, but males the least of the three.
Interestingly, the bible was written by males. Maybe they were just trying to find an excuse for declaring themselves superior to their female counterparts? (I can imagine it. The Israelite females congregate around Moses, demanding equal rights. "Nonsense!" the prophet retorts confidently. "You are inferior and must subject yourselves to males in every way, because... because..." suddenly, his voice starts to faulter. "Because God said so!" he finally spits out, earning him a slap from Tsipora.)

The mormon person certainly felt a need to attack my dismissal of creation. Many attacks included God appeaing in human form which of course he can do given he is the highest being but he could take the image of anything. I respect many of the answers I recieved and found some of them very interesting but my point isn't to disprove God's power, because I for not one minute doubt him, no I was simply pointing out things I found irregular or strange. Also, the person who said I do not have a mindset of a Christian because I question one part of Bible? The Bible was not to be taken literally in every part, and the parts I find to be irregular I begin to think about. Also, it's called "Christianity" e.g. Christ. I follow his teachings and those he passed on to his disciples. I am less concerned with the Old Testiment beause I find there to be two different imgaes of God. The Old Testiment one seems more war like and more human like while the one Jesus describes seems more loving and patient. I think the latter. Obviously I have offended people, even though there are plenty of people who religion is bs all together. People obviously think I am either an athiest or just a stupid, uniformed Christian and while I am not 100% poisitve about everything to do with Christianity, I simply find an error with the Creation Story. Some believe that these can be answered with other various passages in the Bible, mind you, Jehovah's Witness use one verse to justify being opposed to blood transfusions (I believe the real translation is actually opposing cannibalism). Finally the mormon person believes he knows more about my religion than I do, even though he is not part of m,ainstream Christianity. I come from the Methodist Chruch, so I do not take the Conservative Christian view of the Bible. Maybe my questions are a little shaky but thats why I made this thread, so that people could have input and speak their own views. I am offended thought that I am called ignorant because I am unclear on one part of the Bible, because my understanding of the New Testiment is far great than that of the Old because I believe the New is more of the basis fro Christianity than the Old
The Old simply helps to explain what happened Jesus, where he came from, where the Israelis came from, etc. By the way, I simply am not saying it's either or with science or religon, I see that they can both be tied together and in some occasions compliment each other.

I'm sorry if you felt that way about what I said... my real point is that it really sounds like you look at Christianity from the standpoint of an Atheist... Why do you ask a liberal forum such as NS instead of asking someone in your religion, or God Himself? You do believe in prayer, right?

Wow can everyone just shut the fuck up? Accept that Creationism is bullshit, but that Evolution is not a concrete law of science yet.

Stop arguing pointlessly and wasting board space! This has been debated a million times! Creationists keep loosing because all they have is the word of one book, written thousands of years ago by people who believed in their religion fanatically. And on top of that, it was written from oral stories passed on for many generations. Some of the stories are even blatant thefts from other cultures! *cough*Noah's Ark Story*cough* Kinda puts the entire book (at least the Old Testament) into doubt. And because of that, they have no proof except their blind faith. (No pun intended.)

Note: Imamitenise = Aisetaselanau, It is not my account, however I occasionally post with it.

Well, I go to a Christian School and there are very right wing Christians there who do not allow the Bible to really be thought about but instead take it all literally from Genesis 1:1 to Revalation 22:21 and I guess I hear so much I I disagree with, I feel like the religionis starting to become too right wing for me. I feel if I can disprove something that they hold so dearly that they will drop some of the extreme views they have (e.g. no inter racial marriage, gays all go to hell, abortion doctors are tools of the devil). You may believe those things yourself but I just find them too extreme. I admitt I almost have a fear of some of the people in my religion and I want them to end the extremism and reconsider some of their beliefs. I donno, not every seems that Liberal on this thread, including yourself. And I do believe in God and prayer but I feel that people in my own religion may hate me for this belief and dismiss me as a tool of the anti-Christ.

Well, I'll tell you, a lot of that does sound extreme... you don't have to label it as right-wing though, there are a lot of perfectly sane non-extreme right wingers, and it could be offensive :)

Anyway, I personally see no reason not to take the Bible literally as far as it has been translated correctly. Do you believe it to be the word of God, or otherwise? And what DO you believe about the Bible? You mentioned you believe most of the new testament.. but how can you believe Christ performed all these miracles but think it impossible that the creation happened the way it did? Do you believe Christ did in fact do all those miracles, or are you suggesting that the Bible is merely an exaggeration, and that you should only believe what you want to believe in it, and ignore the rest...

That is the problem. It's hard to find a happy medium: either the children find it too right-wing or the adults find it too left-wing. I go to a Roman Catholic school however they don't ram it down your throat. It's good.

Capsule Corporation, are you talking to me? Sorry I got a bit lost without quotations.

I don't follow any religion, and I was a physics student, I think there is more to life on Earth than evolution. I chose the 3rd option, after thinking about choosing the 4th.

That is the problem. It's hard to find a happy medium: either the children find it too right-wing or the adults find it too left-wing. I go to a Roman Catholic school however they don't ram it down your throat. It's good.

Capsule Corporation, are you talking to me? Sorry I got a bit lost without quotations.
lol does anything I said have to do with what you said, or the post just before mine :)

I do believe that many of the messages of the Bible are the word of God, it is more the spin that some religious put on them that worries me. Do you mean what do and don't I believe about the Bible? I don't believe creation is impossible, I simply believe that it was a story that ancient man used to explain the beginning and that it could have happened in a variety of ways. God could have done it that way, I'm saying that maybe it was different and yes, I believe that Jesus literally did those miracles. I wouldn't call things in the Bible "exaggeration" but that the earlier stories would have been passed down by mouth and therefore may have been changed depending on what that person telling them wanted it to be like. I don't believe the Bible is false, I believe some it is actually simply stories God wanted to told to pass on a point and that not everything in it actually happened but God just wanted to give examples.

OK, so overall, you don't believe that all of the Bible is the Word of God, and that it was mostly written by man alone, but that God's word was (at least on occasion) correctly quoted. Am I correct in assuming this?

The Bible is there... there is little or no spin in and of itself... Don't listen to the spins of other religions if you don't like it... interpret how you want. But if you, like you sound like you do, don't even believe the Bible to be 100% true, or even 90% true... you're gonna find things kinda hard.

Again, I ask you to try prayer. It's YOUR faith that matters, and the opinions of others do not. It's a matter of believing in God, and asking HIM for help and answers.

If you want to talk to God, pray. If you want God to talk to you, read the scriptures. Through faith and prayer, you will be guided through the scriptures. (I'd suggest a bible that has an index in the back btw)

EDIT: I apologize, after rereading your post you make a lot more sense lol... But there's a difference between actual events and the stories... Pray about it.

I am an evolutionist, however since I am agnostic I don't totally shun the idea of God possibly creating the universe through science

lol yeah, just because you're a Christian doesn't mean your telescope is a liar lol I believe planets and stars are formed in nebulas and all that...

But in the same way I believe the human body is far too complicated to have no intelligent design involved, I believe God organized the universe as well.

lol does anything I said have to do with what you said, or the post just before mine :)

Ok sorry I just wasn't sure.

What did you reread and how did it change you? I'm a little puzzled. To answer your questions in order, yes it was Gods word. Still, puzzled lol.

I don't have the time or energy to read all of these posts so I'll just post something I've always found interesting.

In the Great Flood story, God floods the earth, save Noah, his family and his menagerie. Interesting thing: God says it was to punish the wicked and after the fact he was so dismayed at the carnage he promised to never do it again (hopefully I got that right). Now if God is omnipotent and knows all that is to come and has been, wouldn't he know that:

A) evil people wouldn't disappear and only come back from the ones God chose to save

B) that he would be dismayed by the carnage afterwards.

I guess God isn't omnipotent. He does have flaws. Its only humans who labelled him as omnipotent. The flawed leading the flawed. That is if God exists (but probably not).

Although history backa up the existence of Jesus and Moses its sad when their conversations with God are done when NO ONE ELSE is around. It doesn't end with them, most relgious sect founders do this. God is shy apparently.

I've seen a recent theory that a glacial lake - Lake Missoula - on the great north american glacier during the last ice age inevitably spilled into the ocean and caused a worldwide flood which is the basis of the flood myths found all over the world which seem to have happened around the same time. It's the most scientific theory I've seen yet. And maybe there were animal-transporting ships large enough back then to act as a basis for the Ark. It would explain that big Ark-shaped dent in the earth around Mt. Ararat that has anchor stones nearby, plus a bunch of other details.

Noah's Flood is likely one of those fairy tales that have a basis in real life events. However, the Bible interpretation is just a parable. A bunch of scared people with survivor's guilt trying to find a rational reason why God would do such a thing so they create a story about Noah.

Interesting site:

http://www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained9.htm

(don't know the validity of data. its all just a theory but it looks convincing)

(I don't care if its not a creationalism story. It just goes to show how these old stories can emerge by people trying to explain and therefore demystify the world around them when they didn't have the scientific process. How everything began is the biggest mystery of all since no one was around at the time and both stories are just loaded with parables on how God thinks people whould live.)

The Babylonians had an Epic of Creation called Enuma Elish. We know of the Enuma Elish from tablets unearthed in 1848 from the library of Assurbanipal, last king of Assyria. The tablets date 1000 years before his day, to 1750 BC, and the stories they tell were already thousands of years old when they were written. The myths of the serpent's "fall" from exaltation to Earth, and Noah's Arc, are also part of the Enuma Elish.
I found an online text (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm) of the Enuma Elish, but if there was a mention of a flood or ark of any kind, I must have overlooked it. Care to help me out?

Eve is given a title in Genesis 3:20, the “Mother of all Living”. She is the Mother Goddess, in an interpreted form.
Even though all animals and plants already existed by the time she was created? Remember that it's Adam who called her that, not God. I think being love-smitten might have affected his judgement.

There are way too many creation myths to worry about believing any of them.

Personally, I'm fond of the one where Fox is running around in circles bored because he has nobody to play with and keeps going faster and faster and faster until the Earth is created and Coyote, who has been watching, comes along and places men on the Earth so Fox will have someone to play with and stop making Coyote dizzy.

Why do Christians always assume they have a lock on religion?

I found an online text (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm) of the Enuma Elish, but if there was a mention of a flood or ark of any kind, I must have overlooked it. Care to help me out?
Excellent. I'll check it out when I get home from work and get back to you.

Even though all animals and plants already existed by the time she was created? Remember that it's Adam who called her that, not God. I think being love-smitten might have affected his judgement.
It's a different symbolism. Hers is a participatory creationism. It's going on all around us in every moment of every day, and we are the participants. The making of Enkidu happens every day to female humans giving birth (human bodies are made from hers and so we who are a part of her, and emulate her buy mixing the flesh of our bodies and the life-giving waters to make a child, participate in her creation).

Eve is a hold-over from godesses like Aruru, but the symbolism was modified to fit into the Hebrew mythology. Nothing of Adam or Eve is mentioned between the time God created them and the time they were put into the Garden of Eden as "caretaker" types.

Anyway, I personally see no reason not to take the Bible literally as far as it has been translated correctly. Do you believe it to be the word of God, or otherwise?

Do you believe that God created the entire world twice, in totally different orders? One of the times he made lots of men and women and then I guess maybe he got rid of all of them and just made Adam and Eve instead? Because if you don't believe that God made the world twice, then you don't take the Bible literally either.

I firmly believe in this maxim: logic and god DO NOT MIX.

And the conclusion one comes to due to the ineffable God model is that we can never know anything about God because we lack the logic to understand Him. Thus the idea of an overarching truth and morality are wrong, as are most religions, for teaching His supposed values because he is illogical and humans lack the capacity to understand his divine ways.

If God is flawed then He's not God, just some universal janitor chap.

Shit, I voted for the wrong one.

(Yet another reason why computer voting is bad.)

First of all, who could possibly think "a mix of both" brought the universe into being? Second who could possibly be a christen and not be a creationist, either you believe the bible or you don’t. If, as some say, the bible is part right, than it is worthless because the only "right" parts are the one you decide on, thus making it your own religion that you try to give legitimacy by associating it with something more respected than your self.

The bible is either completely correct or it is worthless.

You all seem to have missed that the laws and science that governs the universe could, by there definition, not apply to something that created them.
No one could explain or understand the god of the bible, he is omni-present, completely outside of the physics of matter of energy and is perfect (actually he would set the standard for perfect and thus always be so). Thus no one could possibly find something God did rough sense he is the standard by which "rite" is measured.

If god exists He, by definition, is perfect.

:D P.S. That’s me going theology on your ass! :D

Actually you don't have to be a creationist and a yet still be a Christian. It's called Christianity for a reason idiot, not Creationanity or whatever. By the way, the mix of both is a creation-evolution mixture which states God created the Universe and Earth and then created the small organisms. He gave them certain conditions so they could evolve and he had a guiding hand in the whole thing to make sure nothing went horribly wrong. The Earth is like a science experiment with variables and what not, that's what a mix of both is.


P.S. That's me telling you to SHUT THE HELL UP!

The bible is either completely correct or it is worthless.

So what I have told you was true . . . from a certain point of view.

There was a famous "Noah" skit by Flip Wilson. To make a long skit short here are some of the things Noah said as God told him to build an ark.

"Right ... what's an ark?"
"Right ... what's a cubit?"

As Moses said, "these are indeed a stiff necked people," and these were the people who wrote down the words inspired by God. The truths of the Bible, are indeed correct ... from a certain point of view. One does, however, make a grevious mistake in failing to distinguish between the truth of the Bible and the details that the writers of the Bible used.

Although in one sense the Bible alone is sort of worthless. The Enuch said as much when he replied "how can I (understand what I am reading) unless someone explains it to me?" That's why the Church is the pillar and bulwurk of truth. The Bibles says that, and the Bible is true ... from a certain point of view.

First of all, who could possibly think "a mix of both" brought the universe into being?

You could believe that God created evolution, for starters.

Second who could possibly be a christen and not be a creationist, either you believe the bible or you don’t.

What a silly thing to say.

If, as some say, the bible is part right, than it is worthless because the only "right" parts are the one you decide on, thus making it your own religion that you try to give legitimacy by associating it with something more respected than your self.

If your religion doesn't involve meditation and prayer to try and determine the truth, and its just a bunch of whatever someone else told you, your religion has no legitimacy. Sorry.

The bible is either completely correct or it is worthless.

What a goofy thing to say. Do you believe that God condones slavery and genocide? Do you believe that creation happened twice in different sequences? Do you believe in the geocentric theory of the Universe? If the answers are no, you have already chosen which parts of the Bible that you find to be "worthless."

If god exists He, by definition, is perfect.

However, the people that wrote the Bible down, are not, by definition, perfect.

:D P.S. That’s me going theology on your ass! :D

That's me going logic and theology on your ass! =)

Creation.
































Tired of debating this subject into the ground. I believe for my own reasons. I have seen and felt things most people have never seen or felt before.

Evolution: much more evidence in favor of evolution than in favor of creationism.

Concerning christians: if you don't believe in creation, why would you believe anything else in the bible? Is it just a book in which you can fabricate your own truth? If you don't believe anything of the bible, how are you a christian then?

Interesting quote: "If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?" (Justin Brown)

Also, many of the biblical stories have roots in older Greek, Babylonical, etc. myths, which proves for me that it's just a bunch of myths: nothing less but also nothing more.

Last but not least: problem of creationism: who created God?
Occam's razor teaches us that the easiest solution is often the correct one: the easiest here is one without God: only the origin of the universe should then be explained, otherwise the origin of God should be explained too.

Too late now for adding further comments... I wish you all a good day/night :)

A last intelligent quote :)
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'."
(Anonymous)

Evolution is also bullshit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record. Look into it. While I don't fully agree with creationism, evolution isn't right, either. Currently, there IS no widely-accepted scientific theory on the origin of life.

Evolution is also bullshit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record. Look into it. While I don't fully agree with creationism, evolution isn't right, either. Currently, there IS no widely-accepted scientific theory on the origin of life.
i looked into it, and i don't see what you're talking about. neither do the professors i have had for the last 4 years, who are evolutionary biologists by trade. odd, how internet hacks always assume everyone is as uninformed as they are...

This debate will never end because whoever wants to beleive in one or the other (i.e. creation or evolution) will do that.
Personally, I read a great book which answered a lot of my questions. I found it most gratefying. The book is called: Is Their a Creator Who Cares About You? published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I really recommend this book to anyone interested in the topic.

The main problem in these debates, is that Darwin's theory was never supposed to be read by the public. Tell me - how many of you know the scientific theory on the formation of stars, or even how your own computer works inside? Evolution was supposed to be simply another scientific theory to be debated and improved upon by scientists - why should the general public care about something that takes many lifetimes to have a noticable effect? Evolution only became popular (in the sense of widely known, not necessarily widely agreed with) BECAUSE creationists made such a big stink about it. However, these laymen - most of whom probably couldn't even fix their own car - simply couldn't understand the fine details of the scientific theory, leading to evolution being widely misunderstood. Some even intentionally misrepresent it in an attempt to discredit it.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, is as true as any other part of science. But most people debating it don't really understand what they're talking about, and their false understanding of the theory of evolution can, of course, usually be easily debunked - leading them to misbelieve that they have disproven evolution.

This is comparable to building a marble sculpture of a car and then complaining that it won't start.

Concerning christians: if you don't believe in creation, why would you believe anything else in the bible? Is it just a book in which you can fabricate your own truth? If you don't believe anything of the bible, how are you a christian then?
Oh, come on. There is no rule that says someone has to believe the whole Bible is literal truth in order to be a Christian. Even I know that. :-)
(Although it would make you a proper Protestant.)

If you have free will, then your actions in the present, in accord with how Christianity is taught by your Church and your beliefs, are what make you a Christian.

Also, many of the biblical stories have roots in older Greek, Babylonical, etc. myths, which proves for me that it's just a bunch of myths: nothing less but also nothing more.
You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) A myth is a story that teaches an idea (not talking about the modern usage of "myth" that refers to common misconceptions). This is a good thing. Myth is a good thing.

Last but not least: problem of creationism: who created God?
Occam's razor teaches us that the easiest solution is often the correct one: the easiest here is one without God: only the origin of the universe should then be explained, otherwise the origin of God should be explained too.
No, the easiest solution is the aforementioned myths. Evolution is very convoluted.

I believe that Creation as stated in the Bible is true.

I believe that Creation as stated in the Bible is true.

Which story? Genesis 1 or 2?

Both.

The main problem in these debates, is that Darwin's theory was never supposed to be read by the public. Tell me - how many of you know the scientific theory on the formation of stars, or even how your own computer works inside? Evolution was supposed to be simply another scientific theory to be debated and improved upon by scientists - why should the general public care about something that takes many lifetimes to have a noticable effect? Evolution only became popular (in the sense of widely known, not necessarily widely agreed with) BECAUSE creationists made such a big stink about it. However, these laymen - most of whom probably couldn't even fix their own car - simply couldn't understand the fine details of the scientific theory, leading to evolution being widely misunderstood. Some even intentionally misrepresent it in an attempt to discredit it.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, is as true as any other part of science. But most people debating it don't really understand what they're talking about, and their false understanding of the theory of evolution can, of course, usually be easily debunked - leading them to misbelieve that they have disproven evolution.

This is comparable to building a marble sculpture of a car and then complaining that it won't start.
That's how I feel about the creationists. :-)

Nobody even wants to hear about the myths. *snif*

I think people here are not here to represent a professorial view of studied learning --I know I'm not --they are here representing a common view, what they see looking out at the world from their kitchen windows (so to speak). If someone were to take a professorial role, he or she would probably be drown out in the noise of all the shouting. This is partly why I started a thread called, "The Internet: Fueling Understanding or Ignorance?"

Sure, most of them are butting heads. But if you reach even one person with a message that moves them, then I think it's worthwhile to put up with all the shouting.

No, the easiest solution is the aforementioned myths. Evolution is very convoluted.
The underlying idea of evolution is fairly simple. Of course, tracing the actual ancestries of creatures leads to extreme convolution - however, if God went into any detail about creation (rather than just mentioning it briefly in the prologue), it would probably become quite complicated too. Plus creation raises many new questions, such as where God came from.

Most importantly, however, is the THE FOSSILS ARE IN PERFECT ACCORDANCE WITH EVOLUTION, but in many cases the creationists couldn't come up with anything better than "God put that there to deceive us". If you claimed that your computer works on tiny elves running about instead of electricity, I could simply hook up a voltage meter and prove you wrong. The same also holds for creation vs evolution, except that people intentionally divert their eyes from the voltage meter's screen.

As a matter of fact, the fossil record supports Creation.

If you want to find out more about Creation, read Ken Ham.

Both.

So you believe God created everything twice? What happened to the other universe?

That's how I feel about the creationists. :-)

Nobody even wants to hear about the myths. *snif*
Umm, bad analogy. We DON'T want people to hear about evolution, at least, not originally. The original plan was that scientists would discuss the origin of life among themselves while laymen just relax and enjoy the end product without worrying about where it came from - the same way you enjoy your computer without knowing how it works. Unfortunately, creationists messed this plan up.

So you believe God created everything twice? What happened to the other universe?

No. Genesis 2 came after Genesis 1.

Ken Ham is a) bias and b) a bit odd and not to be taken too seriously. A video of him speaking to a group in which he uses very vague evidence for Temme's beliefs and should not be taken above that of regular scientists involved in those fields.

Ken Ham is a) bias and b) a bit odd and not to be taken too seriously. A video of him speaking to a group in which he uses very vague evidence for Temme's beliefs and should not be taken above that of regular scientists involved in those fields.
Far below, in fact.

No. Genesis 2 came after Genesis 1.

Ok, so you're telling me that God made everything just like it says in Genesis 1. The ground, the light, the water, and all the animals. And then God made lots of men and women and said be fruitful, go forth and multiply.

Then, after that was all done, there were no men anywhere and no animals and God made Eden. God noticed that there were no men so God made one single man (since somehow all the ones that had already been made had disappeared). God placed this one man in Eden and then (since all the animals had disappeared mysteriously too) God made all the animals and had this one guy name them. Then, God made a single woman out of Adam's rib (since all the women that God had already made disappeared with all the men that God had already made). They were the only two people (cuz I guess God was still looking for all the ones that disappeared) until they sinned and got kicked out. Then God decided that the people that had already been made were never going to be found and told Adam and Eve to start having sex.

Seriously, do you actually read the Bible? Or do you just assume that what your preacher says is right?

Okay, I was wrong. Genesis 2 happens at the same time as Genesis 1. I just checked in my Bible. Genesis 2 is like a snapshot of the 6th day of Genesis 1.

Temme, why aren't you on MSN right now?

How 'bout we fucking stop making threads like this? I'm getting sick of all this bullshit. Debating religion goes nowhere. Neither party will ever convince the other of anything.

I couldn't care any less which was true because with all the problems we have now we should be trying to solve them.

Okay, I was wrong. Genesis 2 happens at the same time as Genesis 1. I just checked in my Bible. Genesis 2 is like a snapshot of the 6th day of Genesis 1.

So you agree that God created animals before humans, as per the first (priestly) creation story. Then, all those animals disappeared and God recreated them *after* he made Adam. God also made lots of men and women at the same time that he made one man and then waited to make one woman much later (after all the new animals since the old ones apparently weren't good enough).

The truth is that scholars see Genesis (and, in fact, pretty much the whole Torah) as being written (or at least put in writing for the first time) by two different authors. Later, the two were merged into a single scripture.

The priestly account of creation is meant to show how wonderful God is. Look, if God said "let there be light," there would instantly be light! It also places humankind at the pinnacle of creation, but not as its sole purpose.

The other account (I can't remember the technical name for it) is demonstrating the view that man was not the pinnacle of creation, man was the entire purpose of creation. All else was created for man (and I do mean man, not humankind). It also espouses the view that man fell from grace and that's why bad stuff happens.

Without being completely illogical, the two accounts cannot be mixed. A lot of people like to claim that the second account is just an expansion of the first, but things occur in completely different orders, so this is not actually possible. This is much like when people try and explain away the contradictions in the Gospels, instead of just realizing that each Gospel is meant to show a different aspect of Christ. The exacting little details don't really matter much to the point of the story.

I found an online text (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm) of the Enuma Elish, but if there was a mention of a flood or ark of any kind, I must have overlooked it. Care to help me out?
My bad, the story of Noah's (Utnapishtim's) Ark is related in the Epic of Gilgamesh online text (http://www.garone.net/tony/utnapishtim.html).

I shall endeavor to better check my facts before posting next time.

Nitro Records, how bout respecting peoples right to free speech and shuting the fuck up. No one whats to hear whinny bullshit like whats coming through your mouth right now.

Actually you don't have to be a creationist and a yet still be a Christian. It's called Christianity for a reason idiot, not Creationanity or whatever. By the way, the mix of both is a creation-evolution mixture which states God created the Universe and Earth and then created the small organisms. He gave them certain conditions so they could evolve and he had a guiding hand in the whole thing to make sure nothing went horribly wrong. The Earth is like a science experiment with variables and what not, that's what a mix of both is.


P.S. That's me telling you to SHUT THE HELL UP!

I already addressed your argument in my original post, if you or anyone else cant understand my statement, don’t reply with what you assumed I was saying. If you ask for clarification I will gladly give it but don’t insult me for your confusion.

I already addressed your argument in my original post, if you or anyone else cant understand my statement, don’t reply with what you assumed I was saying. If you ask for clarification I will gladly give it but don’t insult me for your confusion.

You then proceeded to completely ignore my reply to your original post - so don't complain if someone doesn't directly answer everything you said. The person you just replied to wasn't "replying with what they assumed you were saying," they were replying as to exactly how you can believe in both creation and evolution.

This is an impossible argument to make. You can't make the Bible-thumpers open their eyes and the Bible-thumpers just can't brainwash the scientists. However...

I'm an agnostic, and I go with the theory of evolution because it's the only logical one. I think that the theory of evolution would make a God even more powerful, even if it does go against what's documented in every religious text of the world. If you choose to believe, this God created the universe out of a total vacuum and (planned?) and oversaw the development of an ameoba into a human being. I think that this gives God even more power and logic than that metaphoric myth about an apple tree and a talking snake; a myth that alienates half the world's population and makes God seem like a pretty insensitive guy.

This is an impossible argument to make. You can't make the Bible-thumpers open their eyes and the Bible-thumpers just can't brainwash the scientists. However...

I'm an agnostic, and I go with the theory of evolution because it's the only logical one. I think that the theory of evolution would make a God even more powerful, even if it does go against what's documented in every religious text of the world. If you choose to believe, this God created the universe out of a total vacuum and (planned?) and oversaw the development of an ameoba into a human being. I think that this gives God even more power and logic than that metaphoric myth about an apple tree and a talking snake; a myth that alienates half the world's population and makes God seem like a pretty insensitive guy.

Wow, a voice of reason. I just wish you were a Christian. That way I wouldn't have to feel like I'm the only one who can actually read.

Oh, come on. There is no rule that says someone has to believe the whole Bible is literal truth in order to be a Christian. Even I know that. :-)
(Although it would make you a proper Protestant.)


Believing only parts of the bible is crazy, that's just the 'what fits me well is true' theory. And don't say you don't have to believe the bible to be a christian, otherwise it would not be necessary to believe in Jezus to be a christian. Jezus' life has been fully covered only by the bible, allthough some roman texts speak about a special person, but Gandhi also was special and not child of God.


You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) A myth is a story that teaches an idea (not talking about the modern usage of "myth" that refers to common misconceptions). This is a good thing. Myth is a good thing.


Not when the story of Jezus birth is based on a much older Egyptian myth... This makes me conclude that christianity just rewrote an older story and that the story of jezus' birth in the bible is untrue... Then all christianity falls into pieces... if that is untrue, why would he have existed (as son of God) anyway?


No, the easiest solution is the aforementioned myths. Evolution is very convoluted.

Why would that be? The idea of God is so incomprehensible that no human can understand it (say all churches). How much more difficult can it get?

--
"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand."
-- Frederick the Great

Believing only parts of the bible is crazy, that's just the 'what fits me well is true' theory.

Actually, done properly, it is the "what fits God well is true" theory.

Not when the story of Jezus birth is based on a much older Egyptian myth... This makes me conclude that christianity just rewrote an older story and that the story of jezus' birth in the bible is untrue... Then all christianity falls into pieces... if that is untrue, why would he have existed (as son of God) anyway?

I hope you are being facetious here?

Actually, done properly, it is the "what fits God well is true" theory.
In fact, it's the "what fits my personal image of God well is true" theory.

In fact, it's the "what fits my personal image of God well is true" theory.

(a) Everyone who believes in God has their own personal image of God, so this is not really a new idea.

(b) If you are truly asking for guidance in your decisions about God, I believe God will give it. So it can really be "what fits well with God," at least to the extent that you can follow the guidance.

(a) Everyone who believes in God has their own personal image of God, so this is not really a new idea.
No, but it's still more like "what fits me well is true" than "what fits God well is true".

(b) If you are truly asking for guidance in your decisions about God, I believe God will give it. So it can really be "what fits well with God," at least to the extent that you can follow the guidance.
Provided God actually exists. If he doesn't, then everybody's image of "him" is purely personal and not divinely guided.

Believing only parts of the bible is crazy, that's just the 'what fits me well is true' theory. And don't say you don't have to believe the bible to be a christian, otherwise it would not be necessary to believe in Jezus to be a christian. Jezus' life has been fully covered only by the bible, allthough some roman texts speak about a special person, but Gandhi also was special and not child of God.
It is not crazy if you believe that part of the Bible is stories meant to teach lessons, and part of it is historical record, and sometimes even in the same Book. This is not "picking and choosing what to believe", it is believing that some of it was meant to be taken literally and some of it is metaphor. Some of it is true history, and some of it is true mythology.

Jesus' life is mentioned in numerous scrolls excluded from the Bible, including the Gnostic "Secret Book of John", that was found at Nag Hammadi in 1945.

Not when the story of Jezus birth is based on a much older Egyptian myth... This makes me conclude that christianity just rewrote an older story and that the story of jezus' birth in the bible is untrue... Then all christianity falls into pieces... if that is untrue, why would he have existed (as son of God) anyway?
The story of the birth of the god-child to a virgin mother is a very common parallel theme in many religions in the area of the Mediterranean and Middle-East (the Summerian Dumuzi, the Babylonian Tammuz, Phrygians Attis, and the Greek Dionysos and Adonis). You could conclude, then, that this would be one of the myths that you are meant to learn from, rather than an historical fact. The man Jesus no doubt had a rather ordinary birth, but the story of the Chirst-child became his --the myth was identified with him. Nothing falls apart; it's like the Christ's story is a handle that is attached to Jesus' life, and one he lives up to.

Why would that be? The idea of God is so incomprehensible that no human can understand it (say all churches). How much more difficult can it get?
God is not so incomprehensible in all religions. ;-)

Understanding what myth is and how the stories informed Jesus life is a big step towards making it simpler.

Provided God actually exists. If he doesn't, then everybody's image of "him" is purely personal and not divinely guided.

Granted. But if this is true the whole discussion is pretty much pointless, now isn't it?

You then proceeded to completely ignore my reply to your original post - so don't complain if someone doesn't directly answer everything you said. The person you just replied to wasn't "replying with what they assumed you were saying," they were replying as to exactly how you can believe in both creation and evolution.

I didn’t say you couldn’t believe in a mix of creation and evolution. I said that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

You just replied to what you thought I said, when actually reading (I know its annoying, all those letters and no pictures...) my post would have clearly shown the distinction.

Just to make it clear from the outset, I am strongly Christian, but am also strongly anti-fundamentalist. Apparently to some people, this means I don't exist, but I guess you can't please everyone.

1) With respect to arguing with fundamentalist, there are a few very choice passages that are best applied to relieving them of their delusions:

A) Ask them how Judas Iscariot died. According to the Gospel according to Matthew, Judas hung himself. According to Acts of the Apostles (written by the same person who wrote the Gospel according to Luke, which incidentally admits itself not to be a first-hand account, but rather a compilation of stories about Jesus), Judas took his money and bought land with it, and then fell over in the field and burst open when he hit the ground. As these two accounts are mutually exclusive (kind of hard to asphyxiate yourself with a noose while you're laying down), they're kind of screwed no matter what.

B) According to a passage in the Book of Joshua, God erased a day by making the sun rise in the west and set in the east. According to what we know about the physical universe, there are two ways to do such an act: turn the earth around on it's axis, or move the sun around the earth. Unfortunately, we also know that if were to so much as stop the earth's rotation, to say nothing of getting it going the other way, the earth would be shattered and most of what remained would plunge headlong into the sun. As we clearly aren't fried by the sun and the earth is intact, they have to either admit that one part of the Bible is incorrect, or they have to go farther than even the Pope is willing to go and say that the Sun really does revolve around the Earth.

C) According to the Book of Genesis, the universe was created in six days. Trouble is, the Sun was created on day four (or was that three. . .can't be sure. . .). So that naturally begs the question: if a day is measured by the positioning of the earth in relation to the sun, how in the nine levels of hell do you measure a day if there is no sun? Theoretically, you could be talking about a 24-hour period, a 25-hour period, or a seven-million year period.

Now, some people might not be willing to listen, in which case you just have to write them off as terminally unable to grasp and utilize reason. Most people, however, will be willing to acceed to what the Mighty Club of Reason is currently pounding into their head: if logic cannot support what a passage of the Bible is saying, then it must be taken as symbolic in nature only, not literally true.

2) Just as a point of clarification about virgin-birth and it's relationship to other religions: virgin-birth was never an accepted part of Scripture until after Augustine in the fifth century. You see, if you go back to the original Greek text, the word that they specifically use in Matthew is parthenos. Now, incidentally, that word has two possible meanings. The first is virgin. The second is simply unmarried mother. It was only after Augustine offered his Every-Sperm-Is-Sacred/Every-Insemination-Is-Satanic doctrine that people figured that it might not be appropo to teach that sex is permissable only in the context of marriage and only in the context of procreation when their Great Leader was, according to their own texts, born out of wedlock.

3) Christianity is perfectly compatible with evolution and any other scientific field. What is incompatible is most of the Torah, and some choice other parts of the Old and New Testament (at least when literally interpreted), as well as the bulk of the decisions for how the Bible is to be interpreted as offered by people like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.

The core of Christian doctrine, however, has never been that God did the impossible by flooding the world high enough to soak Mt. Ararat (there isn't enough water in the world to do that), or that Mary did the impossible by magically getting pregnant sans hanky-panky, or that Jesus did the impossible by taking a walk over the local lake. The core of Christian doctrine has always been: Love others as you would have them love you. Treat others with charity, compassion, and mercy. Give what you can for the poor. Stand up for what is right and just, irrespective of the consequence. The standard by which a Christian is to be judged has never been whether they believed there really were 33 baskets of bread crumbs collected by the Apostles from the crowds who listened to Jesus, but whether they took Jesus' message to heart and lived it in the manner of the centurion, or Stephen, or Paul, or any of countless other moral heroes found within the book.

4) Finally, I realize that it's an excellent way to boost your post count, but would all of you naysayers stop with the "why post on this" crap?! So what if it's been done before? This might be a chance to offer new information, new insight, or something that someone has never seen before that might make a genuine change of heart. At the very least, this presents us with a better understanding of our pre-existing ideas. That in itself is worthwhile, far more so than simply assuming evolution or creationism reflexively without having to critically analyse and defend it.

First of all, Creationism makes a lot of sense, and so does Evolutionism; they are not necessarily incompatible. But of creation I'm sure, of evolution, it makes sense, though there are still loopholes to be sorted out.

Second of all, Creation makes perfect sense. I mean the fact in itself, in explaining where all this stuff came from, though perhaps the order is a little sketchy. That's just logical. Anyone who has studied a trounce of philosophy knows that. Show me where something comes out of nothing, or where something lasts unchanging forever, and i'll have doubts of creationism. But there is NOTHING like that. Everything is corruptible, decomposable, everything suffers change.

Third, don't take the bible too literally. Obviously the writer of the tale wasn't around as an eye-witness. His testimony is meant to give an explanation with emphasis on metaphors to highlight important concepts involved. Whether there really was a tree or not, who knows. The important thing is that Eve ate of it, and Adam chose to eat too, fully conscious of the act of disobedience. Mankind was the summit of God's creation, therefore, by their fall, they affected everything.

Man is created in God's image through the gift of the will. The human will is infinite, in that you can want anything and everything. Also, love is an act of will (hopefully guided by reason, but it receives guidance only).

Who says Adam and Eve didn't have sex in the Garden of Eden? The story wasn't a reality show; it gave the bare necessities, what was necessary and that's it. Like go read about Jesus' life growing up in Nazareth. It says virtually nothing.

The thing about Eve being formed of Adam's side explains the intrinsic relation between men and women: this is as strong support of womens' rights as anything, because males and females share common creation. Also, this is one reason why Christians generally consider marriage as something between a man and a women, and not any other combination of males and females.

As to why God let the serpent into the Garden; well, supposedly you had to pass a test of love (obedience) to get into heaven. The fallen angels, for example, are those that failed. This was God's way of testing man. Adam and Eve failed the test.

Anyways, this is more than I meant to write. But here's one question for you and others: if you do believe in God, and that if not all-knowing, that he's at least somewhat more intelligent than us, then don't you think he had a good reason for doing what he did? Maybe we just can't grasp it, from the not-God perspective. But to say that we know better than God, kind of seems like picking from that Tree all over again.

In reply to the post previous to mine, kind of sounds extreme on the other side to say that Jesus did not work any miracles. All the apostles, minus Judas, layed down their lives as witnesses of that miracle. If you don't believe God can work a miracle, then that's a low-estimation of him.

While I agree with you that the book of Joshua event was most likely figurative, and that even the drying of the River Jordan so that the Israelites could cross over may have been caused by an earthquake...regardless, it's important to see God's hand behind it.

However the Gospels were not written in that same style, and I do not question the authenticity of the miracles therein recorded; read the end of the Gospel of John - they knew those things to be true. (Judas' death was not a miracle.)

:rolleyes: i only half believe in Christ and DONT believe in god. If there was so many saints and self-sacrifices 2000 years ago, how come nobody does it now? Has god last his fame? Or does the general public know more about evolution to believe in the outrageous old testament?

The core of Christian doctrine, however, has never been that God did the impossible by flooding the world high enough to soak Mt. Ararat (there isn't enough water in the world to do that), or that Mary did the impossible by magically getting pregnant sans hanky-panky, or that Jesus did the impossible by taking a walk over the local lake. The core of Christian doctrine has always been: Love others as you would have them love you. Treat others with charity, compassion, and mercy. Give what you can for the poor. Stand up for what is right and just, irrespective of the consequence.
There are plenty of passages in both the Old and New Testaments showing that God is anything except peaceful and loving. Matthew 10:34-37 is a nice example.

If your religion is one of loving your neighbor as yourself, then great - you have my respect. Your religion, however, is not Christianity and does not believe in the bible. It is a separate religion that copies (plagiarises?) a couple of names from the Christian bible but completely changes their personalities.

Second of all, Creation makes perfect sense. I mean the fact in itself, in explaining where all this stuff came from, though perhaps the order is a little sketchy. That's just logical. Anyone who has studied a trounce of philosophy knows that. Show me where something comes out of nothing, or where something lasts unchanging forever, and i'll have doubts of creationism. But there is NOTHING like that. Everything is corruptible, decomposable, everything suffers change.
You're saying that if I can show you scientific support that creation is possible, then you will discredit creation? Or do I misunderstand that creation is the belief that God, who lasts and had lasted unchanging forever, created the world out of nothing?

Third, don't take the bible too literally. Obviously the writer of the tale wasn't around as an eye-witness. His testimony is meant to give an explanation with emphasis on metaphors to highlight important concepts involved. Whether there really was a tree or not, who knows. The important thing is that Eve ate of it, and Adam chose to eat too, fully conscious of the act of disobedience. Mankind was the summit of God's creation, therefore, by their fall, they affected everything.
How could it have been a concious act if they didn't gain knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit?

The thing about Eve being formed of Adam's side explains the intrinsic relation between men and women: this is as strong support of womens' rights as anything, because males and females share common creation. Also, this is one reason why Christians generally consider marriage as something between a man and a women, and not any other combination of males and females.
Share common creation, yes, but still with the woman being part of the man, and created as an afterthought. Gender equality would be to create both from the same patch of dirt at the same time. God didn't do that.

As to why God let the serpent into the Garden; well, supposedly you had to pass a test of love (obedience) to get into heaven. The fallen angels, for example, are those that failed. This was God's way of testing man. Adam and Eve failed the test.
Judging from his actions and morals in the bible, God is not worthy of love.

Anyways, this is more than I meant to write. But here's one question for you and others: if you do believe in God, and that if not all-knowing, that he's at least somewhat more intelligent than us, then don't you think he had a good reason for doing what he did? Maybe we just can't grasp it, from the not-God perspective. But to say that we know better than God, kind of seems like picking from that Tree all over again.
You CAN find a reason for many things in the bible, if you look at it from the right angle. The problem is that most religious people don't want to hear this reason. (That reason most commonly being that God is a sadistic hypocrite tyrant.)

I didn’t say you couldn’t believe in a mix of creation and evolution. I said that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

Either way, you're dead wrong.

Either way, you're dead wrong.

Clever reply, unspecific and short, just the kind of thing that makes me reconsider my position. You are clearly me intellectual superior, please tell me what to think and I will follow it without question.

Please refer to my signature for furtherer information on what I think of you.

Creation is created through evloution!!!

Creation is created through evloution!!!


Those extra exclamation points really make me think you know what your talking about.

right when i post on a topic, everyone I "silent" :eek:

There are plenty of passages in both the Old and New Testaments showing that God is anything except peaceful and loving. Matthew 10:34-37 is a nice example.

If your religion is one of loving your neighbor as yourself, then great - you have my respect. Your religion, however, is not Christianity and does not believe in the bible. It is a separate religion that copies (plagiarises?) a couple of names from the Christian bible but completely changes their personalities.

Yes, yes, yes, the whole "I have come with a sword" routine. You should note, however, that God was not the one who said that. It was Jesus, a man. By conflating the two, you are making the very mistake I was talking about: confusing Scripture with the centuries of interpretation that's been built up around it.

Now, before you continue calling me a heretic, allow me to make at least one, in my opinion irrefutable, point. The Bible is a large, extremely complex and often contradictory document. Now, in order to make heads or tails of this work as an authentic piece of wisdom handed down from ancient times, we need to understand two things: First, that there will be some parts that we may just have to take on faith. For example, Epicurus made the point 500 years before Christ that an omnipotent, all-good God was incompatible with our world because of the existence of evil, so we would be forced to interpret any such document that came along (the Bible included) making such a claim as actually advocating a God that was all-good or all-powerful, not both (religious philosophers have long tried to reconcile this, but truth be told, most of their arguments hold no water after the devastation wreaked by mankind upon itself in the 20th century). I myself have chosen the former. I could give you legitemate logical reasons for why God is all-good but not all-powerful, but ultimately it comes down to a matter of faith: I believe that God is good, and therefore I cannot believe that he is all-powerful.

Second, that after faith has given you a few ground rules, anything that comes afterwards composes not a religion as much as a science of logic, a science that must be adjustable in the face of both experience and reason. If a part of the theology that you've constructed is untenable in the face of either, then it must be discarded.

Now, back to the main point, while this might mean that, for example, I take a low Christological viewpoint (Jesus was a divinely-inspired human as opposed to a goofy amalgamation of man and God, a view that mind you is perfectly compatible with Scripture), or that the miracles of God in the Old Testament, like the rain of fire on Sodom, was actually just a simple volcano, this hardly means I'm not a Christian, nor still does it mean that I've cheated my way out of anything or plagiarized anything. I'm simply replacing one set of rules on how to interpret the existing Scripture with what I believe, and more importantly what I can argue for, is a better set. If that makes me unChristian, then you're going to have to eventually concede that the last Christian died on the Cross, because every follower of his since then has in one way or another been doing exactly the same thing I'm doing now. St. Augustine did it. Thomas Aquinas did it. St. Jerome did it. Irenicus did it. St. Anselm did. Martin Luther did it. Pope John Paul is even now doing it. So please take a little consideration before you say that I am not a Christian simply because what I've used reason to evaluate and develop doesn't jive with what your local minister says on Sunday.

The Former West seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his position on a religion he isn't even part of is an incompitent moron who should not be taken seriously. And then when people try to justify their beliefs, he claims they are beiong repetative, even if they are answering a question of his. By the way, you must have never read Genesis to thinkt he two are incompatible, given that first plants and water come, then fish and birds (fish could have evolved wings by going onto land and then would have used the wings like their old fins), then animals and finally man. Funny, the two sound fairly alike. And either way, you are dead wrong.

Erm, no. The idea that the world was created in six days, and that all of the past and present biological flora and fauna ever found in the world were created on days 3, 4, 5, and 6 is pretty damn incompatible with evolutionary theory in any form. That's why I take them figuratively, as in, they were origin stories of a desert people with a great historical tradition but a piss-poor understanding of the fossil record. I don't see it as undermining God or the Church to say that this is the case, because Jesus' moral teachings can hardly be said to rest on such an origin story.

Dude, I wasn't talking to you Xenophobialand, although I thank you for your input. As far as the Six Day stuff goes, the Bible leads people to believe a hundred different things, a second to us is a thousand years to God, visa versa, etc. I chose to not worry about that too much.

Whoops. Sorry.

Yes, yes, yes, the whole "I have come with a sword" routine. You should note, however, that God was not the one who said that. It was Jesus, a man. By conflating the two, you are making the very mistake I was talking about: confusing Scripture with the centuries of interpretation that's been built up around it.

Now, before you continue calling me a heretic, allow me to make at least one, in my opinion irrefutable, point. The Bible is a large, extremely complex and often contradictory document. Now, in order to make heads or tails of this work as an authentic piece of wisdom handed down from ancient times, we need to understand two things: First, that there will be some parts that we may just have to take on faith. For example, Epicurus made the point 500 years before Christ that an omnipotent, all-good God was incompatible with our world because of the existence of evil, so we would be forced to interpret any such document that came along (the Bible included) making such a claim as actually advocating a God that was all-good or all-powerful, not both (religious philosophers have long tried to reconcile this, but truth be told, most of their arguments hold no water after the devastation wreaked by mankind upon itself in the 20th century). I myself have chosen the former. I could give you legitemate logical reasons for why God is all-good but not all-powerful, but ultimately it comes down to a matter of faith: I believe that God is good, and therefore I cannot believe that he is all-powerful.
Exodus 4:11, Isaiah 45:7, Ezekiel 21:3, Amos 3:6, 5:18-20. Not to mention the many many times that he slaughters large amount of people. Or even small amounts of people for ridiculous reasons. Joshua chapters 6-7 is my favorite, though by no means the only one. It's long, so here's a summary.
God: Kill everybody in there, man, woman, child, and even their livestock. And don't you dare take any spoils. Why? Because I said so, that's why.
Joshua: Yes, my Lord.
God: I'll even help you with a miracle. *makes the walls around Jericho fall*
Israelites: *storm in and kill everybody as ordered*
Achan: I'll just loot some spoils. No one'll notice.
God: Now onto the next city. Take no prisoners!
Joshua: Sure. *sends 300 soldiers to the next city*
God: *causes the invaders to get decimated in the battle, even though none of them even knew about Achan's treachery*
Joshua: Oh high and mighty God, why in thy infinite wisdom hast thou forsaken us?
God: Achan has taken spoils from Jericho even though I said not to!
Joshua: Hey Achan, what did you do?
Achan: Umm, yes, I stole some stuff. I'll admit my guilt, and tell you where I hid it, and give it back, and... Hey! Don't hurt me!
God: Infidel! Kill him and his entire family for defying me! Never mind I told Moses not to punish fathers for the crimes of sons or sons for the crimes of fathers! (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Israelites: Yes, oh high and mighty supremely righteous and infinitely forgiving Lord!

C) According to the Book of Genesis, the universe was created in six days. Trouble is, the Sun was created on day four (or was that three. . .can't be sure. . .). So that naturally begs the question: if a day is measured by the positioning of the earth in relation to the sun, how in the nine levels of hell do you measure a day if there is no sun? Theoretically, you could be talking about a 24-hour period, a 25-hour period, or a seven-million year period.

Day: "The time of light". - Webster's Dictionary

According to Genesis, God created light before he created the sun. This would suggest that the sun was not recognized as the source of the light of day when the story was written.

Originally Posted by a summary/paraphrase of Joshua 6-7
God: Kill everybody in there, man, woman, child, and even their livestock. And don't you dare take any spoils. Why? Because I said so, that's why.
Joshua: Yes, my Lord.
God: I'll even help you with a miracle. *makes the walls around Jericho fall*
Israelites: *storm in and kill everybody as ordered*
Achan: I'll just loot some spoils. No one'll notice.
God: Now onto the next city. Take no prisoners!
Joshua: Sure. *sends 300 soldiers to the next city*
God: *causes the invaders to get decimated in the battle, even though none of them even knew about Achan's treachery*
Joshua: Oh high and mighty God, why in thy infinite wisdom hast thou forsaken us?
God: Achan has taken spoils from Jericho even though I said not to!
Joshua: Hey Achan, what did you do?
Achan: Umm, yes, I stole some stuff. I'll admit my guilt, and tell you where I hid it, and give it back, and... Hey! Don't hurt me!
God: Infidel! Kill him and his entire family for defying me! Never mind I told Moses not to punish fathers for the crimes of sons or sons for the crimes of fathers! (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Israelites: Yes, oh high and mighty supremely righteous and infinitely forgiving Lord!

*sigh*

And this proves. . .what? That the Israelites at the time would attribute their victories and failures to Divine Providence? Am I supposed to gasp at this? Of course they would. That fact, however, has little or no bearing on whether or not God did or did not actually condone the actions taken by the Israelites. There is no necessary connection between the two, any more than if I had a hallucination that I believed came from God that commanded me to kill the President necessarily means that God really did order me to do such a thing by altering my neurochemical state, a thing that he cannot do by virtue of a thing called the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy (to alter my dopamine levels, for example, would require an input of energy on a closed system).

Jesus provided a great means of evaluating God and the Bible when he summed up the Levitican and Deuteronomical Law: Do unto others as you would have do unto you. This is the central core of Jesus' teachings, and because Jesus was Divinely Inspired, it's a good bet that God feels the same way. From this, it's perfectly reasonable to figure that those actions in the Bible that do not fit with this doctrine were errors or attempts to use God to justify immoral events.

Day. Period of Earth's rotation on it's axis, usually divided into 24-hour increments. . .

Either way you choose to define it, the argument still stands. If you want to say that it's a period of rotation, then you have to answer how that can be measured without the sun. If you're talking about a period of light intersperced with periods of darkness, then you're still not able to make a chronological measurement of how long a day is.

And this proves. . .what? That the Israelites at the time would attribute their victories and failures to Divine Providence? Am I supposed to gasp at this? Of course they would. That fact, however, has little or no bearing on whether or not God did or did not actually condone the actions taken by the Israelites.
Joshua was a prophet, and not just any prophet, but Moses's disciple. Furthermore, God seemed to like him enough to provide him with a miracle upon request, something so unique that "there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man" (Joshua 10:12-14). I'd say God seems to approve of Joshua's actions, and some might even say they were divinely inspired.

So, it's possible that Joshua was just making excuses for his own behaviour, but that would be obviously contradictory to the "facts" written in the bible.

There is no necessary connection between the two, any more than if I had a hallucination that I believed came from God that commanded me to kill the President necessarily means that God really did order me to do such a thing by altering my neurochemical state, a thing that he cannot do by virtue of a thing called the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy (to alter my dopamine levels, for example, would require an input of energy on a closed system).
He can obtain the matter by rearranging the atoms of the air around you. Or, for that matter (no pun intended), by rearranging the atoms of food in your stomach. As for energy, I'm sure the drop in room temperature would be hardly noticable.

Of course, there's an entirely different reason that God can't tell you to do anything, and that reason is that he does not exist.

Jesus provided a great means of evaluating God and the Bible when he summed up the Levitican and Deuteronomical Law: Do unto others as you would have do unto you. This is the central core of Jesus' teachings, and because Jesus was Divinely Inspired, it's a good bet that God feels the same way. From this, it's perfectly reasonable to figure that those actions in the Bible that do not fit with this doctrine were errors or attempts to use God to justify immoral events.
So you're saying that this one passage is more important than many many other contradictory passages in the bible? Basically, you're choosing to believe only those passages in the bible that support your opinion on morality, ignoring the others.

Although, maybe you're right. Maybe that is the basis of biblical law. Maybe the Israelites do enjoy having their cities stormed and their woman and children slaughtered. Why wouldn't they? The guys in Genesis 22:1-10 and Leviticus 10:1-6 don't seem to care much about their children.

Day. Period of Earth's rotation on it's axis, usually divided into 24-hour increments. . .

Either way you choose to define it, the argument still stands. If you want to say that it's a period of rotation, then you have to answer how that can be measured without the sun. If you're talking about a period of light intersperced with periods of darkness, then you're still not able to make a chronological measurement of how long a day is.
In order to define the day as a period of rotation on its axis, you first have to define the earth as a globe. If I'm not mistaken, that didn't happen until the time Greek civilization was predominant. The Genesis myth predates that by a wee bit.

Clever reply, unspecific and short, just the kind of thing that makes me reconsider my position. You are clearly me intellectual superior, please tell me what to think and I will follow it without question.

Please refer to my signature for furtherer information on what I think of you.

You referred to your personal definition of Christianity and assumed that it was the same as everyone else's - specifically, those who actually are Christian. To do so makes your reply unworthy of a longer response. I have already stated my position on this, and others have stated theirs as well. You still continue to think that your personal definition is the end-all-be-all.

Joshua was a prophet, and not just any prophet, but Moses's disciple. Furthermore, God seemed to like him enough to provide him with a miracle upon request, something so unique that "there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man" (Joshua 10:12-14). I'd say God seems to approve of Joshua's actions, and some might even say they were divinely inspired.

So, it's possible that Joshua was just making excuses for his own behaviour, but that would be obviously contradictory to the "facts" written in the bible.

Prophet hardly means Divinely Inspired. If memory serves, Moses was a greater Prophet than Joshua, and yet he was punished with dying before reaching the Promised Land because he caused hit the rock with his staff instead of doing what God told him. David was considered God's chosen king and a prophet, and that didn't stop God from "making" his children kill and rape one another as payment for what he did to Tamar. Jonah was a prophet, and that didn't stop God from pursuing him to the ends of the earth and then offering him up as an entree for a spermacetti.

Now, I suppose you could argue that I've just proved your point: God is a vindicative old bastard if he does exist and this stuff is true. While I don't deny the first hypothetical, I do deny the second, at least the way it is written. While all that stuff could have happened (there have been real whalers who were swallowed and then retrieved from whales, although if memory serves, the sailor in question was found alive and somewhat bleached when the whale was rendered), it's hardly necessary for God to have done it, and the fact that these people were considered Prophets of the Lord and capable of doing "miracles" at odd intervals is hardly in and of themselves a rationale for believing that the atrocities they also committed must also have been ordained by God.


He can obtain the matter by rearranging the atoms of the air around you. Or, for that matter (no pun intended), by rearranging the atoms of food in your stomach. As for energy, I'm sure the drop in room temperature would be hardly noticable.

Of course, there's an entirely different reason that God can't tell you to do anything, and that reason is that he does not exist.


So he's capable of fundamentally altering the universe at the quantum level? While I admit that this would be a Godly power indeed, the idea is absurd. There are plenty and enough variables as is that are perfectly capable of explaining atomic function without the Hand of God coming into play. God is many things, but a magic fix for the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not one of them.


So you're saying that this one passage is more important than many many other contradictory passages in the bible? Basically, you're choosing to believe only those passages in the bible that support your opinion on morality, ignoring the others.

Although, maybe you're right. Maybe that is the basis of biblical law. Maybe the Israelites do enjoy having their cities stormed and their woman and children slaughtered. Why wouldn't they? The guys in Genesis 22:1-10 and Leviticus 10:1-6 don't seem to care much about their children.
[/quote]

No, I'm not "choosing to believe only those passages in the bible that support your opinion on morality", I'm trying to make sense of Jesus' teachings, and in the context of what I have said, most of his other stuff falls neatly into place.

To give you a basic overview, Jesus in Matthew and Luke (possibly in Mark too, but I can't remember exactly) specifically said that the foundation of the Law was: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now, as you point out, this is at least initially ridiculous when you actually look at Levitican and Deuteronomical law. In that, there are essentially three sets of rules: those that basically agree with Jesus' idea (an example of this would be the laws governing charity toward the poor), those that are indifferent to Jesus' rule (e.g. the rule that stipulates against the mixing of grain types, or the combining of different cloths in the same garment, or some of the sexual purity laws concerning male emissions and female menstruation), and those that in general are antithetical to his rule (an example would be the stoning of an adulterous woman, of the death of a witch, etc., etc., etc.). But if you look at most of the rest of Jesus' actions, you will find that he is quite willing himself to violate those laws of the second and third varieties (for example, he specifically mocked the Pharisees when they questioned him about his apostles working on the Sabbath, as at the time his apostles were trying to get food. His response was that so long as you were trying to survive or trying to do a good deed, the Law could be bent, as it was made to serve man, and not the other way around. The other is his refusal to allow the people of a village to stone a prostitute. Note that he did not automatically forgive her for her sins, instead sending her to the temple to be purified, but he did openly defy the practicing of the letter of the law, in favor of the spirit that he championed). At the same time, he was adamant in his defense of the first (for example, his extreme defense of marriage and extreme distaste for adultery, as divorce and adultery are in many ways the ultimate betrayal of a spouse, hardly fitting in with his ethos. Additionally, you can barely flip a page without tripping over one of Jesus' castigation of the rich for their failure to help the poor).

As such, given that Jesus first told us what the true intent and spirit of the law was, and secondly was willing to live it in a way that, with a few exceptions (namely his withering of the fig tree and his use of the scourge on the vendors at the Temple) at once upheld his own Law while openly defying the officially-sanctioned letter of the law of the Pharisees and Sadducees that he so detested, I think I have a more than adequate justification for why his rule has primacy over Levitican or Deuteronomical Law.

As for whether God exists or not, of course he does. His existence is a prerequisite for any absolute moral code, and as moral relativism is logically impossible, God not only does exist, but He must exist. He just doesn't interfere with physical laws, that's all.

In order to define the day as a period of rotation on its axis, you first have to define the earth as a globe. If I'm not mistaken, that didn't happen until the time Greek civilization was predominant. The Genesis myth predates that by a wee bit.

You've just proved my point: in order for people today (not 2600 years ago, when the Torah was officially codified) to believe literally in the Genesis myth, they would have to deny one of three things:

1) That the earth revolves around the sun
2) That God cannot in and of himself stop the inertia that's currently hurling us around the sun from shaking the planet apart were he to suddenly stop it's rotation, reverse it, and then start it up again.
3) That the world is a sphere.

In my book, anyone who wants to argue with me on any one of those grounds is welcome to do so, because you've just labeled yourself as a complete fool in the process. The only other option you have is to admit that in this context, the passage from Joshua isn't literally true, and therefore, fundamentalism isn't correct in at least one instance.

The Former West seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his position on a religion he isn't even part of is an incompitent moron who should not be taken seriously. And then when people try to justify their beliefs, he claims they are beiong repetative, even if they are answering a question of his. By the way, you must have never read Genesis to thinkt he two are incompatible, given that first plants and water come, then fish and birds (fish could have evolved wings by going onto land and then would have used the wings like their old fins), then animals and finally man. Funny, the two sound fairly alike. And either way, you are dead wrong.

"to thinkt he two are incompatible" (you may want to fix that)

The Former West seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his position on a religion he isn't even part of is an incompitent moron who should not be taken seriously. And then when people try to justify their beliefs, he claims they are beiong repetative, even if they are answering a question of his. By the way, you must have never read Genesis to thinkt he two are incompatible, given that first plants and water come, then fish and birds (fish could have evolved wings by going onto land and then would have used the wings like their old fins), then animals and finally man. Funny, the two sound fairly alike. And either way, you are dead wrong.

I hate to point this out, but *you* must not have read Genesis if you think there is only one order given.

So he's capable of fundamentally altering the universe at the quantum level? While I admit that this would be a Godly power indeed, the idea is absurd. There are plenty and enough variables as is that are perfectly capable of explaining atomic function without the Hand of God coming into play.
The same holds fo everything else. What DO you need God for?

But if you look at most of the rest of Jesus' actions, you will find that he is quite willing himself to violate those laws of the second and third varieties (for example, he specifically mocked the Pharisees when they questioned him about his apostles working on the Sabbath, as at the time his apostles were trying to get food.
In Matthew 15:1-7 and Mark 7:1-13, he seems to be doing quite the opposite.

As such, given that Jesus first told us what the true intent and spirit of the law was, and secondly was willing to live it in a way that, with a few exceptions (namely his withering of the fig tree and his use of the scourge on the vendors at the Temple)
Ah yes. The only person to have ever been documented to destroy a fig tree for being out of season.

at once upheld his own Law while openly defying the officially-sanctioned letter of the law of the Pharisees and Sadducees that he so detested, I think I have a more than adequate justification for why his rule has primacy over Levitican or Deuteronomical Law.
Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21 don't seem to be very friendly.

As for whether God exists or not, of course he does. His existence is a prerequisite for any absolute moral code, and as moral relativism is logically impossible, God not only does exist, but He must exist. He just doesn't interfere with physical laws, that's all.
So then how does he exist, if he cannot affect the physical world?

And if you are right then why are most atheists still good moral people?

Moral relativism is not only possible, but factual. My morals disagree with those of the Old Testament, and with the people of that time in general. You have moral relativism right there.

Evolution has been proven. There are fossils that show one species evolving into anohter.
The religious people just ignore this evidence. Or claim it is not enough evidence. Yet they belive their religion which has no evidence, and they expect others to belive it too.

I'm thinking they didn't know the sun revolved around the earth...i'm mean vice-versa.

as for light - sun: take light figuratively. Light is perceived by the the strongest of senses, sight, as well as the weakest, touch through warmth. Light is a metaphor for understanding, wisdom, goodness, health, safety, etc. Therefore, creating light before the sun, it was cleared up that God is the originator of all these things, not the sun. The sun was demoted in its place in the universe as just another object. Notice that all around them, other peoples and cultures were worshipping natural phenomena as gods - take the Eqyptians, or Greeks for example, with their mythologies.

It's much easier to believe in something you can see than something you can't; hence Christ's words to Thomas. Hence the de-emphasis on material objects in the story of creation.

I forget all of Milostein's pointers to my last post, except the woman-man creation thing. If you think God creating them from the same patch of dirt at the same time is better, excuse me, but that's your opinion. The whole connection of a rib makes an intrinsic link/bond between male and female, something your perspective might not convey. The Bible is supposed to be timeless, being able to communicate its message to anyone of any time and place. It isn't a scientific journal or a work of Shakespeare. That is not it's goal. It's purpose is to tell you that God exists, that God loves you and why you should love him in return.

Also, on the story of the flood, the fact that such a myth exists in cultures around the world, seems to suggest that there was some event that each culture in its own way sought to explain - an anthropological argument for the existence of the flood.

Evolution has been proven. There are fossils that show one species evolving into anohter.
The religious people just ignore this evidence. Or claim it is not enough evidence. Yet they belive their religion which has no evidence, and they expect others to belive it too.

Or they just accept the fact that creation and evolution can coexist.

Evolution has been proven. There are fossils that show one species evolving into anohter.
The religious people just ignore this evidence. Or claim it is not enough evidence. Yet they belive their religion which has no evidence, and they expect others to belive it too.
Wow. Mutating fossils. That must be something to see.

Speaking of evidence, I'm surprised there hasn't been any Creation Scientist viewpoints, nor anyone defending such a viewpoint (so far as I've seen) on this thread.

Honestly ... I can't believe this thread is still alive ...

I voted for evolution, but thats not a complete answer. I am an athiest, so I don't believe in creation. I also don't think the bible was meant to be taken literally. What evolution doesn't explain is where the first life came from. I think the religious view is more of an excuse for not knowing. Was anyone around when the universe was created, no, so to say god did it makes no sense because your just repeating what youv'e been told by someone else who doesn't have any proof.

I forget all of Milostein's pointers to my last post, except the woman-man creation thing. If you think God creating them from the same patch of dirt at the same time is better, excuse me, but that's your opinion. The whole connection of a rib makes an intrinsic link/bond between male and female, something your perspective might not convey.

Maybe he/she should just stick to the priestly account of creation in the Bible then, and leave the second (Adam and Eve) one alone.

"Wow. Mutating fossils. That must be something to see.

Speaking of evidence, I'm surprised there hasn't been any Creation Scientist viewpoints, nor anyone defending such a viewpoint (so far as I've seen) on this thread."

He meant the different stages animals went through.. each stage dying, leaving a fossil and the remaining of that evolving over many years. Here's somethin for yas:

Earliest form of horse, AKA Eohippus or Dawn Horse
http://members.tripod.com/cavanaughc/57f8c590.jpg
From over 60 million years ago..
"Eohippus probably stood about 14 inches high at his shoulder"
"Actually its head and body looked more like a deer and it had 5 toes on each of it's two front feet and three on his two hinds."

The next biggest change was into this, Mesohippus
http://members.tripod.com/cavanaughc/5808c6b0.jpg
35 to 40 million years ago..
"This era would see the Mesohippus a much larger version of Eohippus standing 18 to 24 inches at the shoulder"
"...it was one of the first three-toed specimens. The fourth toe turned into a nubbin. This can be seen even on the horses of today, The callous nub at the back of the leg at the fetlock on today's horses is what is left of the once fourth toe."

30 million years ago came the Miohippus
http://members.tripod.com/cavanaughc/5818c630.jpg
"He was larger standing at a minimum of 24 inches at the shoulder and weighing in at much more than the Mesohippus"
"The evolution evidence shows that the Mesohippus and the Miohippus co-existed as their species overlapped for more than 4 million years... These findings indicate as many as three species of Mesohippus and two species of Miohippus existing at the same time."

25-20 million years ago... the Merychippus
http://members.tripod.com/cavanaughc/5828c5f0.jpg
"This horse stood over 36 inches (ten hands) at the shoulder and although he still had 3 toes there had been some changes. In the past the weight of the animal was on the outside toes, by now most of the weight was carried on the inside toe and the outside toes served little or no purpose"
"The teeth changed to those more like today's horses... The outside toes had now began to shrink in size as they were no longer needed and the foot pad and single toe would begin to develop into what we know as a horse hoof."

Next,
http://members.tripod.com/cavanaughc/5838c600.jpg
"The last significant link in the horse evolution change before arriving at Equus was Pliohippus. This was the first singled toe, or hoofed, horse. This Equss prototype was about 12 hands at the shoulder and had strong leg ligaments to add to his speed and power. This is considered by many to be the direct descendent to the Equss that would develop about 5 million years later."


"The early Equus had zebra like bodies and short donkeys like heads. They had tails although short and stiff and straight up manes. Many of the strains of horses died off for reasons unknown aside from the obvious but Equus managed to survive and is where we find the basis for the modern day horse."

I hope this is enough evidence for you :)
Here's the link where I got it
http://members.tripod.com/cavanaughc/horse_evolution.htm

Honestly ... I can't believe this thread is still alive ...
I'm a little surprised to. I came to this thread to say what I wanted to say and then make clever and insulting replies to the many people who I knew would desperately yell at me and try to convince me I was wrong. Your right thou, arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics, except nobody wins. But its always good for a laugh when you elicit stupid responses from people who don’t have the excuse of being handicapped. :D

I'm a little surprised to. I came to this thread to say what I wanted to say and then make clever and insulting replies to the many people who I knew would desperately yell at me and try to convince me I was wrong. Your right thou, arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics, except nobody wins. But its always good for a laugh when you elicit stupid responses from people who don’t have the excuse of being handicapped. :D

I saw nothing "clever" in any of your posts. You made a completely false assertion and then waved away anyone who told you differently as "Special Olympics competitors."

It's purpose is to tell you that God exists,
If I can't take it literally, then why should I believe in the existence of God any more than everything else written in it?

that God loves you and why you should love him in return.
The biblical depiction of God is a sadistic hypocrite tyrant. Even if there were undeniable proof of his existence, I would refuse to serve him.

Wow, The Former West thinks it clever to make fun of and compare people he disagrees with to athletes in the special olympics. Many of your posts argue against a previous post and yet your response is that you already tackled that issue. Plus, making fun of people with disabilites is a true low for you. And now you think our repsonses are stupid? At least we do not degrade those who have disabilities.

You've just proved my point: in order for people today (not 2600 years ago, when the Torah was officially codified) to believe literally in the Genesis myth, they would have to deny one of three things:

1) That the earth revolves around the sun
2) That God cannot in and of himself stop the inertia that's currently hurling us around the sun from shaking the planet apart were he to suddenly stop it's rotation, reverse it, and then start it up again.
3) That the world is a sphere.

In my book, anyone who wants to argue with me on any one of those grounds is welcome to do so, because you've just labeled yourself as a complete fool in the process. The only other option you have is to admit that in this context, the passage from Joshua isn't literally true, and therefore, fundamentalism isn't correct in at least one instance.
Or perhaps they could speculate that people didn't associate the light of day with the sun back when the story was first conceived. Have you ever been out before dawn and seen a false-dawn? The sky brightens long before the sun comes up.

The Bible is supposed to be timeless, being able to communicate its message to anyone of any time and place. It isn't a scientific journal or a work of Shakespeare. That is not it's goal. It's purpose is to tell you that God exists, that God loves you and why you should love him in return.
To paraphrase a wise man, If you have to have someone tell you why it is you should love them, then you're not doing it right.

Wow, The Former West thinks it clever to make fun of and compare people he disagrees with to athletes in the special olympics. Many of your posts argue against a previous post and yet your response is that you already tackled that issue. Plus, making fun of people with disabilites is a true low for you. And now you think our repsonses are stupid? At least we do not degrade those who have disabilities.

I wasn’t trying to be clever. I was making a sarcastic response to someone’s (they will remain unnamed for now) signature at the bottom of every post which says:

“Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics:
You may win, but you're still retarded.”