NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard those clever Christian arguments about dispensations enough times to make me want to vomit! Look, if I were running the Universe, there would not be so many damn rules, nor any Hell to begin with, no sacrifice of my son to prevent what I could have prevented some other, easier way, and no Devil. None of it makes sense. The god of the bible would be a madman, even if he did exist.

"Get well soon!" -Hallmark

Thanks!

Funny. How about the virgin birth, the resurection and any number of other biblical events. I dont think those can be explained without the existance of God. Also there is the problem of the Big bang breaking the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Biblical events. Now that's funny. All sorts of mythological fairy tales written around the same time people thought queens were giving birth to half-man, half-bull hybrids.

I've heard those clever Christian arguments about dispensations enough times to make me want to vomit! Look, if I were running the Universe, there would not be so many damn rules, nor any Hell to begin with, no sacrifice of my son to prevent what I could have prevented some other, easier way, and no Devil. None of it makes sense. The god of the bible would be a madman, even if he did exist.

I am not sure what you are refering to when you say dispensations, so I can't respond. I do agree with you about the concepts of Hell, Devil and others.

"But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment. This is far from the justice of God. If Adam was a sinner, what is the sin of Abraham? What is the fault of Isaac, or of Joseph? Of what is Moses guilty?

But Christ, Who is the Word of God, sacrificed Himself. This has two meanings, an apparent and an esoteric meaning. The outward meaning is this: Christ's intention was to represent and promote a Cause which was to educate the human world, to quicken the children of Adam, and to enlighten all mankind; and since to represent such a great Cause -- a Cause which was antagonistic to all the people of the world and all the nations and kingdoms -- meant that He would be killed and crucified, so Christ in proclaiming His mission sacrificed His life. He regarded the cross as a throne, the wound as a balm, the poison as honey and sugar. He arose to teach and educate men, and so He sacrificed Himself to give the spirit of life. He perished in body so as to quicken others by the spirit."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 119)

I've heard those clever Christian arguments about dispensations enough times to make me want to vomit! Look, if I were running the Universe, there would not be so many damn rules, nor any Hell to begin with, no sacrifice of my son to prevent what I could have prevented some other, easier way, and no Devil. None of it makes sense. The god of the bible would be a madman, even if he did exist.

There you have it. If the Bible is one hundred percent literally true and the choice is between an eternity with the whack-job bipolar God depicted therein and an eternity in some unknown hell . . . well, that's a tough choice.

I don't think it's really possible that a higher being, a deity capable of creating the universe with a word would quite fit the profile set forth in the Bible. I'm not a divine being, but if I treated my cat with half the wrath God has dropped on his peeps, I'd be on cat number thirty by now. But I don't do that, and I'm just some dude. I think it's only fair to expect a little more from our higher powers than we expect from ourselves.

Then if god did not create the options who did?
We create the options. We observe and think, make suppositions and come to conclusions. A man who walks into a bank with a gun creates options for himself as soon as he thinks, "Hmm, you know... I could use this gun to get money the easy way." God is not to blame for his thoughts; god does not interfere in us, does not make the decisions for us. He grants us free will.

Thanks!
Note, I quoted my source. :)

We create the options. We observe and think, make suppositions and come to conclusions. A man who walks into a bank with a gun creates options for himself as soon as he thinks, "Hmm, you know... I could use this gun to get money the easy way." God is not to blame for his thoughts; god does not interfere in us, does not make the decisions for us. He grants us free will.
He did not really CREATE the option ... he chose an existing option there is a difference

He did not really CREATE the option ... he chose an existing option there is a difference
I think we have a small semantical difference. When an option is percevied, it comes into existence. If it's not perceived, it was never an option. If it never occurs to the man with the gun to rob the bank, then that isn't an option for him in that instance.

I think we have a small difference in semantics. When an option is percevied, it comes into existence. If it's not perceived, it was never an option.
Ahhh you are taking it as kind of a Schrödinger cat sort of thing (know there is differences but along the same lines)

Ahhh you are taking it as kind of a Schrödinger cat sort of thing (know there is differences but along the same lines)
I guess.

My arguments tend to lean towards the human perspective, the subjective one. In other words, they tend to put control and responsibility for the universe where they belong, with the individual. :)

I guess.

My arguments tend to lean towards the human perspective, the subjective one. In other words, they tend to put control and responsibility for the universe where they belong, with the individual. :)
But see we have learned your belief does not necessarily line up with rank and file Christians (or within an small variance no one believes EXACTLY the same thing … perceptive differences)


But anyways of to my applied encryption class argue with you later

I don't think it's really possible that a higher being, a deity capable of creating the universe with a word would quite fit the profile set forth in the Bible. I'm not a divine being, but if I treated my cat with half the wrath God has dropped on his peeps, I'd be on cat number thirty by now. But I don't do that, and I'm just some dude. I think it's only fair to expect a little more from our higher powers than we expect from ourselves.[/QUOTE]

I think what you are saying here is because/if God created the Universe then there should never be any bad thing ever happen to anyone because He loves His creation, therefore everything should be just wonderful so then His children would love Him because they were so happy and wonderful. (Runons for effective.)

But if you look at all of creation nothing works like that. The earth has earthquakes and/or volcanoes and things get hurt whether it is animals, plants or people. It is a part of the process. If I were to give my children everything that they asked for they would not be happy. In fact I sometimes keep my mouth closed when they are about to do something that may cause them some level of pain because I know that they need to make their own decisions in life; and I need to show them that I love them even when they make mistakes. It is apart of becoming an adult.

People make decisions. It is a part of life that can't be avoid. Making decisions opens up the possibility of hurting oneself. You learn from the mistakes.

I do not believe there is an upper being because we have no proof he exists, so I will not believe until they can prove he really exists. nontheless i respect the people wo do believe.

Note, I quoted my source. :)

Yes, I did notice that. Very clever!

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.


Well... I am open to the possibility of a higher deity. But I don't believe in the validity of any of Earths religions. I consider them silly, anthropomorphic, contradictory and illogical at best. And thus am not the least bit intimidated by their threats. Telling me 'I'll go to hell' is about as effective as telling me 'The boogeyman is going to get me.' And taken just as seriously. But since I don't have much patience with people I consider idiotic, it won't make me act very nice towards you.

Besides, I am not a social and gregarious person. So I have no use for organized religion anyway.

My case against the existence of a deity is that the universe seems to lack any order at all. Its entirely random. Things like 'an ecosystem' aren't stable. They constantly change in a bloody race of survival and extinction.

Actually if we were created, why in such a violent world full of war, disease, natural disasters and what not more... If we are so special why do we live on a planet that could be destroyed or at least ecologically devastated by any stray asteroid that comes sailing in at the wrong time? In a Galaxy thats bound to crash into another galaxy along the next few billion years and that could virtually sent, at any time a deadly wave or radiation or way from its core?

That, and I loathe and despise the loudmouth moralhound fundie brutes with a passion. And with good reason. They're plans and goals if fulfilled are mutually exclusive with my happiness. So I won't mourn the loss of any of those.

Astronomy is also a hobby of mine. And seeing how huge the universe is, combined with the aforementioned chaos, I can only conclude that the human race simply isn't anything special. Most humans are entirely self-serving anyway. So whats so great about them? The crown off existence? Pah... More like one of those ghastly hats with wax fruit on it. If with a few good apples here and there at least.

I think what you are saying here is because/if God created the Universe then there should never be any bad thing ever happen to anyone because He loves His creation, therefore everything should be just wonderful so then His children would love Him because they were so happy and wonderful. (Runons for effective.)

...If I were to give my children everything that they asked for they would not be happy. In fact I sometimes keep my mouth closed when they are about to do something that may cause them some level of pain because I know that they need to make their own decisions in life; and I need to show them that I love them even when they make mistakes...

People make decisions. It is a part of life that can't be avoid. Making decisions opens up the possibility of hurting oneself. You learn from the mistakes.

That's absolutely not what I'm saying, because we're not talking about God standing back and allowing mankind to learn by trial and error. We're talking about our old friend the hands-on OT God snuffing out all life on earth except one little boatload. We're talking about an OT God who demands a parent sacrifice his child as a sign of loyalty. We're talking about an OT God who punishes disobedience in all sorts of unsavory ways. We're talking about an NT God who saves all who call him "daddy," and casts the rest into flame.

This isn't a parent who tells their child "fire hot" and then lets them learn the lesson with a candle. This is a parent who lays out the rules of the house and, on first violation, drowns the kid in the bathtub. What I'm saying is that the God of the Bible is a petty, draconian, and fickle chap. If you scaled his actions down to the household level and made God a single dad, Human Services would take the surviving children away in a heartbeat. If we've got a higher being, I don't think he fits that bill. That's what I'm saying.

I personaly do not believe in a higher being of sorts but I understand that I as well as everyone else is on a personal path to understanding whatever it is to be understood be it a religion or something else. I respect and care for many people who are Christians for example but what I find annoying is when evangelical christians try to polarize people into a "one true religion" debate. Although I understand it is their opinion and I can respect that I don't feel that it truly helps anything but actually helps to foster resentment of other religions.

The Biblical stories, like in the old testament, are not about the events they relate; the relation of the events of the story is actually incidental to what the story is about. The events are a vehicle to guide understanding, addressed to a specific audience who understood the symbolism. It's not a narrative history. The flood is not about the people drowning --it's not about the people in the story at all. It's about you, the reader. It's about the feeling of safety and salvation that you, as a reader, get from accompanying the survivors in their search for solid ground to stand on. This is true of all myths (before the word became synonymous with "lies"); their meaning transcends the story and moves your consciousness. That is the metaphor, the power of trope.

The Biblical stories, like in the old testament, are not about the events they relate; the relation of the events of the story is actually incidental to what the story is about. The events are a vehicle to guide understanding, addressed to a specific audience who understood the symbolism. It's not a narrative history. The flood is not about the people drowning --it's not about the people in the story at all. It's about you, the reader. It's about feeling of safety and salvation you, as a reader, get from accompanying the survivors in their search for solid ground to stand on. This is true of all myths (before the word became synonymous with "lies"); their meaning transcends the story and moves your consciousness. That is the metaphor, the power of trope.

This I agree with. But even as symbol, I think the Bible is deeply flawed. Even if presented as a fiction, the OT God is still presented as a figure to be revered above all others and his actions are to be used as a model or a tool for understanding. And I don't think all readers accept the Bible as symbolic.

That's absolutely not what I'm saying, because we're not talking about God standing back and allowing mankind to learn by trial and error. We're talking about our old friend the hands-on OT God snuffing out all life on earth except one little boatload. We're talking about an OT God who demands a parent sacrifice his child as a sign of loyalty. We're talking about an OT God who punishes disobedience in all sorts of unsavory ways. We're talking about an NT God who saves all who call him "daddy," and casts the rest into flame.

This isn't a parent who tells their child "fire hot" and then lets them learn the lesson with a candle. This is a parent who lays out the rules of the house and, on first violation, drowns the kid in the bathtub. What I'm saying is that the God of the Bible is a petty, draconian, and fickle chap. If you scaled his actions down to the household level and made God a single dad, Human Services would take the surviving children away in a heartbeat. If we've got a higher being, I don't think he fits that bill. That's what I'm saying.

I think your interpatation of the Bible and the reality of what the Bible is saying are different. Just as the flood is symbolic so is Hell. Jesus did not believe in a physical hell, in my opinion. You have decided what the Bible means and then you criticize it for meaning that. It doesn't seem fair. Now if you were to ask those people who believe in such a strict literal interpatation of the Bible to look at the meanings in a more symbolic way your argument would make more sense to me.

PMCC is a good tool to use. Spearman's rank is effective as well, but the binomial distribution is irrelevant in this case.

I would just like the point out that Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and Mormons are all Protestant. There are only two macro-denominations in Christianity. Though you could go into all the Abrahamic religions, which are also referred to as desert monotheism who all originally worshipped the same monotheistic God: Chrsitianity (Catholic/Protestant), Judaism, Islam, Mandaeanism, Bahá'í, Sikhism, Rastafarianism, Samaritanism, Druze, and probably others I'm not aware of. All Abrahamic religions are Judaic, however, as that was the original religion that all broke off of.


actually its catholic/protestant/orthodox

If we've got a higher being, I don't think he fits that bill. That's what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this statement. Remember the OT was intended for a different time and place. Humanity has grown.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

The same reason you don't believe in unicorns and pegasi.

You cannot take such an old book as the literal truth. In many cases, it is out of date. Homosexuals are an accepted part of society now... blah, blah, blah. I really can't be bothered to argue. Creationists need a slap. But I do feel that I believe in a God, mainly from a Christian point of view, but the far right Christians are fools. Goooooooodnight.

How do I get to the thread about bivariate data anomalies, etc?

I don't know if it has been mentioned here but some schools of thought in buddhism worship gods/dieties.

Though Buddhism I beleive is fairly contradiction free and Modern in terms of its aspects in ones life. and In buddhism it is an interesting mix of predestination and free will. Because all actions are related and every action was effected by the previous actions and will affect all other reactions thereafter.

How do I get to the thread about bivariate data anomalies, etc?

Go back to the start and begin again.

all arguments for the existence of god require one to start from a position of faith, ie. many religious arguments ask valid questions about the nature of the universe but then make the leap of faith (leap of logic more like) to blame it on God. I accept that we cannot entirely know the universe etc., but i do not believe in an omnipotent creator, certainly not the christian idea of god.

I don't understand guys, you're not being very helpful. Come on guys, help me out. I run this forum. If you don't help I will forward your email addresses to www.spammenow.com.

I don't know if it has been mentioned here but some schools of thought in buddhism worship gods/dieties.

Though Buddhism I beleive is fairly contradiction free and Modern in terms of its aspects in ones life. and In buddhism it is an interesting mix of predestination and free will. Because all actions are related and every action was effected by the previous actions and will affect all other reactions thereafter.

'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'
From the sayings of Budhha

I don't understand guys, you're not being very helpful. Come on guys, help me out. I run this forum. If you don't help I will forward your email addresses to www.spammenow.com.

What don't you understand about, "Go back to the start and begin again."

Stop it. Just tell me. Stop bringing up useless information and trying to create a fight.

I don't understand guys, you're not being very helpful. Come on guys, help me out. I run this forum. If you don't help I will forward your email addresses to www.spammenow.com.
You are a) an obvious idiot, b) a liar and c) not helping your case with threatening.
Get lost, wanker, and let the adults have a nice conversation.

I just never saw any reason to believe in a god/gods. My own sense and senses serve me pretty well where figuring out the world is concerned; as for giving it purpose, I think it does that pretty well on its own. Morality I can come by on my own and through contact with other people--I don't think I need God to threaten me with hell before I can become a moral person. (No offense intended to those who look to a God as their source of morality--this is opinion, to be taken with a healthy grain of salt.)

As for giving life purpose--does it really need one? Can't I take life at face value, in all its marvelous beauty, without needing some higher being to credit with it? As a matter of fact, I think that claiming God had to create it, that it couldn't come into existence on its own, takes all the wonder out of nature. I mean, this little planet's only been around for six billion years (give or take), and already it's populated with chemicals raised to consciousness! If that's not magnificent I don't know what is.

I think your interpatation of the Bible and the reality of what the Bible is saying are different. Just as the flood is symbolic so is Hell. Jesus did not believe in a physical hell, in my opinion. You have decided what the Bible means and then you criticize it for meaning that. It doesn't seem fair. Now if you were to ask those people who believe in such a strict literal interpatation of the Bible to look at the meanings in a more symbolic way your argument would make more sense to me.

Yeah, I was mostly going after the literalists. I think the Bible can be a valuable guide for how to act in the world, if it is open to interpretation and a bit of picking and choosing. But at the same time, I recognize the literalist response to this: "If you can pick and choose, what kind of guide is it? You're like a boat without a rudder." The only way I can respond to that is "an incomplete and outdated one."

But even as symbol, what kind of deity is it that is presented in the Bible? In some books, he's very much a drop-in and see how things are going kind of guy. A very warm, human God. The kind of God you could have a beer with. In other books, he's the shoot-first, Chuck Norris God. We jump from the respect-my-works God to the fear-my-wrath God to the overreaction God with kung fu-grip. Sometimes he's out to wreak some vengeance, sometimes he's out selling salvation. He's very fallible and very fickle.

I think this is because the Judeao-Christian-Muslim God is founded on this idea of deity based on man. Not that man was made in God's image, but vice versa. So we've got this Mission Impossible-style mask jammed on over God so he looks more like a young Charlton Heston with a big beard, and all of his acts are cast in human terms, with human emotions. But this means that he's also got all the human failings. For example, anger. A mortal sin, yet God gets angry. He's got all the power, but he behaves like Sonny Corleone.

Do I believe in that? No. I believe it's an attempt to anthropomorphize the big scary mysteries of the world, same as the Greeks or Egyptians tried before. Once you strip out all the "fear of a bully God" stuff, the Bible isn't necessarily a bad guide, so long as people could govern themselves in the face of a coincidental universe without the threat of a divine beatdown.

If you dont beleave in God then you probably do not want God to show himself again untill after you beleave. you would understand what i mean if you read the book of Revelation in the Bible its the last book. its all about all the horable things that will happen b4 Jesus comes back for the beleavers. God has told the would when he will come back and i am looking forward to it but all unbelievers should fear it.

"Woe unto you that desire the Day of the Lord! To what end is it for you? The Day of the Lord is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him, or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the Day of the Lord be darkness and not light? Even very dark, with no brightness in it? I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Thought you offer me burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice run down like a river, righteousness like an ever-rolling stream." Amos 5: 18-24

What Amos was getting at is that just being a believer isn't enough as far as Yahweh's concerned. The people of Amos’ day were going through religious motions, but they were rejected by the Lord because it was not true worship. Worship must begin with a right heart- and, as far as Amos was concerned, is only true worship if done at Jerusalem. They were also involved in social injustices, taking advantage of the poor and widows and aliens – all evidence that they did not have true faith. Social justice would be evidence of a true and right heart. True faith should work itself out into everyday righteousness. Otherwise, could be religious hypocrisy and just going through the motions, which is false worship, unacceptable and rejected by the Lord. Joyful anticipation of the Day of the Lord, then, is, by your own cosmology, rather unwise.

When was the last time you practiced justification through good works?

Yeah, I was mostly going after the literalists. I think the Bible can be a valuable guide for how to act in the world, if it is open to interpretation and a bit of picking and choosing. But at the same time, I recognize the literalist response to this: "If you can pick and choose, what kind of guide is it? You're like a boat without a rudder." The only way I can respond to that is "an incomplete and outdated one."

But even as symbol, what kind of deity is it that is presented in the Bible? In some books, he's very much a drop-in and see how things are going kind of guy. A very warm, human God. The kind of God you could have a beer with. In other books, he's the shoot-first, Chuck Norris God. We jump from the respect-my-works God to the fear-my-wrath God to the overreaction God with kung fu-grip. Sometimes he's out to wreak some vengeance, sometimes he's out selling salvation. He's very fallible and very fickle.

I think this is because the Judeao-Christian-Muslim God is founded on this idea of deity based on man. Not that man was made in God's image, but vice versa. So we've got this Mission Impossible-style mask jammed on over God so he looks more like a young Charlton Heston with a big beard, and all of his acts are cast in human terms, with human emotions. But this means that he's also got all the human failings. For example, anger. A mortal sin, yet God gets angry. He's got all the power, but he behaves like Sonny Corleone.

Do I believe in that? No. I believe it's an attempt to anthropomorphize the big scary mysteries of the world, same as the Greeks or Egyptians tried before. Once you strip out all the "fear of a bully God" stuff, the Bible isn't necessarily a bad guide, so long as people could govern themselves in the face of a coincidental universe without the threat of a divine beatdown.

We tend to think of God, and the Bible tends to protray God with the emotion and attributes of humans. This is understandable because we are trying to describe and understand something that has created us. It is sorta like the chair trying to describe the furniture maker. If we look at the progressive nature of God's revelation we see that what we know about God is expanded with each succesive Revelation. The OT is different from the NT. The words of Christ show us a side of God that was not fully explained in the NT. Muhammed brings new light to our ability to understand who God is what God wants from His creatures. And now with Baha'u'llah we have a Messenager of God proclaiming the unity of God, the Prophets and humanity.

At any rate, faith does not require a lack of scepticism - most organized faiths demand a lack of scepticism.
No, the very word "faith" connotes that one is not questioning.

Maybe the “laws” of thermodynamics are incomplete? They still are theory’s if so they can always be modified
That is true, but it is also true that creationists always cite thermodynamics to counter what they believe is wrong, but it just turns out that they don't understand the laws of thermodynamics and/or the thing they're trying to prove or disprove.

Thank you :) I remember denying the antecedent … entry level philosophy is great stuff
I thought that was more logic than philosophy...I guess they're pretty intertwined at times.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

Read this, it will help explain that to you. Although in a more direct answer to your individual question, sin is our creation. We create it by disobeying God.
Smooth move--citing a source that calls itself "Christian Thinktank". And if God created man, then didn't God also create sin, albeit indirectly?

Like I said, I'm perfectly willing to believe in a watchmaker.
I hope you're aware that "watchmaker" is primarily used in the creation/evolution argument. It refers to intelligent design, which is just silly. Evolution is a blind watchmaker.

You all talk as if God is as solid as one of us.

Is that so?

Or could God, or Allah, or Dagda just be part of us? Perhaps God is hope? Maybe God is just a feeling?

Nobody religious ever stated God was anything else.

The human mind cannot comprehend a God in God's true form, because it is limited to knowledge by trial of error only.
Desert monotheism claims that God is an omniscient and omnipotent intelligence. I recently heard that some people think that God is DNA, which I find an interesting thought, but silly when you think about it. Especially when one must consider abiogenesis, RNA, and potential silicate self-repliacting entities before organic life.

Doctor: This pill will save your life. If you dont take it you will die
Patient: What kind of choice is that? Where's the free will in that?
Patient: Why do I need to take the pill?
Doctor: Because you will die if you don't.
Patient: But what is it that will cause me to die if I don't take the pill?
Doctor: Because you will die if you don't.
Patient: ...Could you at least tell me what the pill is made of?
Doctor: I can not tell you that.
Patient: Are you even a real doctor?
Doctor: ...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html
Again with the thinktank!

As for giving life purpose--does it really need one? Can't I take life at face value, in all its marvelous beauty, without needing some higher being to credit with it? As a matter of fact, I think that claiming God had to create it, that it couldn't come into existence on its own, takes all the wonder out of nature. I mean, this little planet's only been around for six billion years (give or take), and already it's populated with chemicals raised to consciousness! If that's not magnificent I don't know what is.
this post made me so happy, especially this second paragraph :). i totally agree with you.

actually i believe its the other way around. look at what science has produced. the fine tuned universe that makes life on earth possible. the fact that we are alive today and talking. how did we get here? blind chance? i dont think so, if you say there is evidence for no God, show it to me.

Blind chance, no, natural selection over billions of years, yes.

God doesnt send us to hell, we send ourselves there. God didnt create a race of robots. he wants his creation to love him. we have free will. we can listen to him and obey him, or we can rebel. if man rebels and doesnt do what god wants, he sins. sin has a punishment, which is hell. if you dont ask for forgiveness, you go to hell. God wants you to be with him, but hes given you a choice, because he loves you, to make up your own mind.

and before just dissmissing God, you might want to do alittle investigation. is it smart to say blindly there is no God? if there is no God, then nothing matters, but if there is a God, and the Bible is true about heaven and hell, what does that mean? it means that hell awaits you. personally, i decided to investigate to find the truth. jsut saying there is no God is not enough for me.

First of all, you assume that the only option is the Chist-Islam god (note I left Judeaism out because they have not eternal hell). I propose a question, what if another god exists, and what if hell as stated in the bible, does exist, and what if the only requirement for not going there is to not worship another god?
There, I have written it down, it has as much proof as the god of abraham, come except my way out of hell, don't worship the god of abraham.

Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

I don't believe because logical say there's no God. I can't be more logical.

Care to expand upon that? Or are you someone who still clings onto the logical falacy that an omnibenevolent god and nautral suffering are mutualy exclusive?

Actually be deifiniton omnibenevelent (which the new testament/(insert name of islam bible-equivalent, it alludes me at the moment, claims god/allah is) beings have control over EVERTHING, that is all positrons, negatrons, and neutrons and their sub particles, has the ability to comprehend what any even minicule change will cause even until the end of time, and is whole heartedly devoted to helping everyone and keeping them safe, secure, happy, health, and alive. There fore such a being, if it existed would have stopped the techtonic plates from shifting and stopped the tsunami, would have altered the brain signals of Hussein's terrorists to turn them into peacful farmers, would cause water vapor to form over parched land giving it rain, would stop the man from leaping out of a window. If he was by definiton, omnibenevelent he could(omni) and would(benevolent) do all of these things.
So, uber-religious people please stop answering logical arguments by saying, "Umm god still exists, he defys your logic."

if we had proof that God exests then that would take away the need for faith. faith is knowing with out seeing. i know that God is god because of things that have happened in my life.

God: I refuse to submit proof because I exist on faith, and faith can only exist without proof.
Scientists: But what about the babelfish, such a useful creature could have never evolved on its own. Therefore it proves you exits.
God: Oh my I never thought of that.
Narriator: And poof, as god dissapears in a cloud of logic, the scientists then when on to prove that up was down and black was white and they were destroyed at the next zebra crossing.
(Sorry, I just had to)

I don't understand guys, you're not being very helpful. Come on guys, help me out. I run this forum. If you don't help I will forward your email addresses to www.spammenow.com.
I believe that threatening someone is against forum rules.
Please try not to do it again.
Thanks.
:)

yes it does. in a simplyfied term we are here because God wanted some one to take delite in. he was lonely i gess you could say. if you dont understan try reading the bible and really read it for info not just to say you did and still did not get it. thats what i did and now i have a better understanding.

Wow, I think thats the worst reason to be in existance, to be someone's plaything. Personally I'd rather just be self-replicating DNA.

If you dont beleave in God then you probably do not want God to show himself again untill after you beleave. you would understand what i mean if you read the book of Revelation in the Bible its the last book. its all about all the horable things that will happen b4 Jesus comes back for the beleavers. God has told the would when he will come back and i am looking forward to it but all unbelievers should fear it. God lets people choose. He lets the person have free will and with that comes sin. (the bible refers to God as a he.)

Hmm, lets look at the book of revalations from the point of a historian, its collection of prophecies written in the form of a story using much imagery to incite people against the roman athority and the jew who had banished the writer. Roman athority - the beast. He tells the people to gather an army at the town of Harmgedo and to march on Jerusalem to free it from roman and Jewish athority and place it under the control of christians. That if they do they will be given a free pass to heaven.

AKA. the writings of a pissed off madman.

You all talk as if God is as solid as one of us.

Is that so?

Or could God, or Allah, or Dagda just be part of us? Perhaps God is hope? Maybe God is just a feeling?

Nobody religious ever stated God was anything else.

The human mind cannot comprehend a God in God's true form, because it is limited to knowledge by trial of error only.

WooHooo!!!!!!!!!!1111oneoneoneonetwothreefour
An explination that I can understand and accept, that 'god' is simply a personification of our concience(sp), and maybe 'hell' is simply our unconcience(again sp) mind berating us for all of the bad things we did, and heaven is sleeping peacfully knowing that we were good and sucessful that day. Trasnfer that to the great sleep of death and everything seems to fall together. No dogma, no books, no nothing.

just too answer the original question

3 things

1.) where's the proof

2.) how come there are so many?

3.) if there is a god, who's right

I dont believe because it pisses really religious people off , more than anything, But I also want proof before I go believing something that sounds utterly ridiculous.

Because science and faith are fundamentally mutally exclusive. Science requires incessant skepticism, and faith, by definition, requires a lack of skepticism.

I don't think so. I'm very skeptical by nature, which is precisely why I find it hard to believe thatthe universe could have existed without a God.

I don't think so. I'm very skeptical by nature, which is precisely why I find it hard to believe thatthe universe could have existed without a God.

Thats not skepticism. Thats a person who can't handle not knowing so instead of waiting around for empirical data, which may or may not come in his or her lifetime, this person feels its ok to fill in the blanks with superstitious tales of the supernatural.

Its a cosmic nightlight that makes you feel enlightened in the absence of true knowledge. Its one that people feel very comforted around because it also shines a very unique light upon you that makes you feel universally significant enough to believe that the universe could not exist without you existing forever in a conscious state along with it.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.


Because there is no hard evidence, anywhere, or at any time, to indicate the presence of any such "god".
Particularly since the bible was written by men, any such "gospel" would automatically be flawed and worthless.

No such "benevolent" god would allow his church to become the monster that it has.

No kind, loving , benevolent diety would allow millions to be sluaghtered in a world war, nor even allow hundreds of thousands to die in a natural disaster.

Moreover the idea that any entity made EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, is silliness at its finest.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

Because there is absolutely no proof that there is a higher deity. Likewise, I don't actively NOT believe, because there's just as little proof there.

Also, would Buddhists be considered "Non-belivers", seeing how they don't have an Uber-Mastah like most other religions?

I'm a Buddhist/Catholic :D

I hope you're aware that "watchmaker" is primarily used in the creation/evolution argument. It refers to intelligent design, which is just silly. Evolution is a blind watchmaker.

That's not how I've heard and seen "watchmaker" used. I know the original use of the analogy was to illustrate that, because there is a world that is beyond man's ability to create, there must be a craftsman of greater skill. And I know Dawkins turned the same analogy around with The Blind Watchmaker, to illustrate that evolution is not an intelligent designer.

The analogy, as I've heard it used, gets more at the metaphor of the watch than at the supposition of a creator by his creation. It gets more at the automation of the watch: that the watchmaker put the clockwork in motion and stepped back. That the laws of physics and mechanisms like evolution were the creation (not the firmament and all the "7 days" hooey), and everything else that happened simply played out according to these systems.

I'm more willing to believe a thing like this, because it isn't contradicted by evidence at hand. It still requires faith without reason, but it doesn't require faith in the face of reason.

Of course, I'm equally willing to believe in the fluke, in pure chance and the one in ten trillion long shot.

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.

"why are we here?" God sent put us on earth so we could have a chance at redemption.

"why are we here?" God sent put us on earth so we could have a chance at redemption.
So we exist to be tested ... somehow more depressing then most people thing being athiest should be

"why are we here?" God sent put us on earth so we could have a chance at redemption.

Yeah, that makes sense...

Redemption from what? What did we do BEFORE he put us on earth that required us to redeem ourselves?

if there is no god, then why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? something cannot come from nothing, and its easy to see that today, we have something (the universe).

So... every 'something' has to have come from something -- everything has to be the result of a prior cause.

Where did the something you identify as God come from? Who created the Creator?

If there must be a Creator because everything requires something to create it, you cannot logically stop that line of reasoning at some convenient point and then declare a special pleading -- that the entity you wish to believe in is the only thing in cosmos that doesn't reuire a prior cause. And if God can exist without being caused by something before Him, then other 'somethings' can exist under the same circumstances.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
I don't believe in a god (or a multitude of gods), but I don't deny the existence of them either. It's just that all evidence so I've seen so far points to this conclusion:

Either:
There are no gods
There is a (or are) god(s) but they don't interact with the world by any other means than quantum mechanics.

I don't see why people thank god for saving one's life in a tight situation, as why would a god let thousands and thousands die violently but every once in a while decide to spare one single person. Just because?

I don't think so. I'm very skeptical by nature, which is precisely why I find it hard to believe thatthe universe could have existed without a God.
Then you are just ignorant. I am not trying to insult you at all, but that is the only reason that true skeptics have faith.

I'm a Buddhist/Catholic :D
Thank you! I'm trying to tell people that Buddhism in its purest form is a philosophy, not a religion. People keep bringing up the fact that many Buddhist temples have gods and all that nonsense, but those are just the sects of Buddhism that have turned it into a religion. There can be Zen Christians and Jewish Buddhists.

The analogy, as I've heard it used, gets more at the metaphor of the watch than at the supposition of a creator by his creation. It gets more at the automation of the watch: that the watchmaker put the clockwork in motion and stepped back. That the laws of physics and mechanisms like evolution were the creation (not the firmament and all the "7 days" hooey), and everything else that happened simply played out according to these systems.

I'm more willing to believe a thing like this, because it isn't contradicted by evidence at hand. It still requires faith without reason, but it doesn't require faith in the face of reason.
Then you are a deist. Deists are better than theists, in my opinion, but I still prefer atheism or agnosticism. Why is it so hard to believe that the universe has laws? Why does there always have to be something to create those laws just because they exist? Everything seems to be so logical and all that to use, but in other universes the physical laws might be different, and the people there might think "Wow, this all is so unlikely to be true, so someone must've created it!" No, no, no! They just exist! I do not deny the existence of a god, but I do not think there is one.

Of course, I'm equally willing to believe in the fluke, in pure chance and the one in ten trillion long shot.
What? Are you referring to abiogenesis? Because, as I said supra, there is no "chance" or "one in ten trillion long shot". It is the way it is, and there is no current probability that the universe exists the way it does. Of course, if it turns out there is a multiverse with different physical properties and laws in each universe, then there actually is a probability, and I'll let you go on with that train of thought yourself because I'm too lazy to finish elucidating that thought right now. If science progresses and we figure out past our own universe, then perhaps there is a chance and all that, but with current knowledge, there is none.

What? Are you referring to abiogenesis? Because, as I said supra, there is no "chance" or "one in ten trillion long shot". It is the way it is, and there is no current probability that the universe exists the way it does.

The probability of abiogenesis occouring without intervention is roughly equivilent to that of detonating a nuclear explosive in a local branch of Tesco's and in the middle of the blast radius is a fully formed strawberry gateau.

The probability of abiogenesis occouring without intervention is roughly equivilent to that of detonating a nuclear explosive in a local branch of Tesco's and in the middle of the blast radius is a fully formed strawberry gateau.
Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. He explains there why it is so hard for humans to accept abiogenesis and why its likelihood is so low. According to current knowledge, it has only occurred once in our entire universe. In organismic time, the probability of that ever occuring is so low as to be unable to be imagined by most humans. Even in evolutionary and geological time ti is still pretty unlikely. But there is a certain time perspective from where it doesn't quite seem so farfetched. E.O. Wilson didn't coin a term for this, and I don't even know is astronomical time would sufficiently cover the chances of abiogenesis. However, there are many theories as to how abiogenesis occured. I am familiar with two. The most commonly accepted is the primordial soup theory, seconded by the Cairn-Smith theory. The latter, dealing with self-replicating silicates pretty much creating the organic molecules necessary for life to spontaneously generate, just blew my mind. But I might just be going over your antiabiogenetic mind. :p

Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. He explains there why it is so hard for humans to accept abiogenesis and why its likelihood is so low. According to current knowledge, it has only occurred once in our entire universe. In organismic time, the probability of that ever occuring is so low as to be unable to be imagined by most humans. Even in evolutionary and geological time ti is still pretty unlikely. But there is a certain time perspective from where it doesn't quite seem so farfetched. E.O. Wilson didn't coin a term for this, and I don't even know is astronomical time would sufficiently cover the chances of abiogenesis. However, there are many theories as to how abiogenesis occured. I am familiar with two. The most commonly accepted is the primordial soup theory, seconded by the Cairn-Smith theory. The latter, dealing with self-replicating silicates pretty much creating the organic molecules necessary for life to spontaneously generate, just blew my mind. But I might just be going over your antiabiogenetic mind. :p

Those theorys for origins for life give no point to the meaning of life. Something as special and precious (And un-understandable) as life is far to important to dismiss as an acciedent. I personally cannot accept abiogensis because it cannot be proved for certianly. You can theorise about it, the way you do with string theory, but it cant be accounted as truth. Certianly not yet.

I see no evidence that there is a god, and if there is, he/she/it obviously is not all-good or all powerful (200,000+ dead in the tsunami), because an all-good and all-powerful being would have prevented the tsunami. Why do you believe that there is a god?

Those theorys for origins for life give no point to the meaning of life. Something as special and precious (And un-understandable) as life is far to important to dismiss as an acciedent. I personally cannot accept abiogensis because it cannot be proved for certianly. You can theorise about it, the way you do with string theory, but it cant be accounted as truth. Certianly not yet.
Being a one in an unimaginable number fluke is not special? Seems infinitely special to me.

I see no evidence that there is a god, and if there is, he/she/it obviously is not all-good or all powerful (200,000+ dead in the tsunami), because an all-good and all-powerful being would have prevented the tsunami. Why do you believe that there is a god?

Do I have to explain this to everyone. Ok, I will explain it to you too. Read this

Ok I can see the anger people get here at nautral evil. People often say "If God exists how can he allow X to happen and for Y many people to die/suffer horribly etc". While this arguement I am about to present does not console for grief, it does explain it logicaly.

The issue of "undeserved" suffering (the kid didn't "deserve" to die; the virus victim didn't "deserve" to suffer so much);

Underserved suffering. Thats a logical falacy. That would sugesst that we only get what we deserve. And so the following things would be true

- Almost no one could win the £3 million lottery Jackpot.
- EVERY flip of a coin would have to go to the most 'virtuous' person(!)
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...
- All MINOR illnesses would be 'intelligent'--chickenpox would only infect the 'bad students' and not 'the good students' in a schoolroom (for example)...
- Those doing 'evil' acts would never live long enough to 'change their ways'
- Forgiveness can NEVER occur--the evil would die before that.

So thats a problem with getting what you "Desereve" and another problem is this. Deservedness presupposes some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him

Those theorys for origins for life give no point to the meaning of life. Something as special and precious (And un-understandable) as life is far to important to dismiss as an acciedent.
I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that, because I would've spit it all out. How can you say such a thing!?! Are you proposing that life is more important than itself? Life is an accident, my friend. Just as the seeming randomness of evolution is much more beautiful than intelligent design, the seeming randomness of abiogenesis is far more beautiful than creationism. Anyone who says such a thing does not comprehend life itself!

I personally cannot accept abiogensis because it cannot be proved for certianly. You can theorise about it, the way you do with string theory, but it cant be accounted as truth. Certianly not yet.
You are right, however there have been many experiments that point to abiogenesis being possible. Just because we can't recreate a star on Earth does not mean that they are all created by god. It is fully accepted in the biological community that abiogenesis occurred. Because of the sheer unlikeliness that life ever emerges, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to observe abiogenesis. Not to mention that our conditions are certainly not as close to a those when spontaneous generation occurred, so we can not properly emulate it. But abiogenesis is a reality. But why should I spend so much effort arguing with someone who thinks that life is too "special" and "precious" to leave it up to chance!

D- Almost no one could win the £3 million lottery Jackpot.
- EVERY flip of a coin would have to go to the most 'virtuous' person(!)
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...
- All MINOR illnesses would be 'intelligent'--chickenpox would only infect the 'bad students' and not 'the good students' in a schoolroom (for example)...
- Those doing 'evil' acts would never live long enough to 'change their ways'
- Forgiveness can NEVER occur--the evil would die before that.
Wow, you just disproved your own God. :D

Wow, you just disproved your own God. :D

Read my point. I was saying that the idea that there is "Deserved suffering" and "Undeserved suffering" is stupid and why.

Underserved suffering. Thats a logical falacy. That would sugesst that we only get what we deserve.
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
-Marcus Cole, Babylon 5

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.

1. Well the ocean then the first sighn of a human being was on the southern tip of africa.
2. You will never have that answer.
3. Your body is made up of engery. Engery never dies it just transfers. The belief of reincarnation is true then.

SCIENCE RULES

You are right, however there have been many experiments that point to abiogenesis being possible. Just because we can't recreate a star on Earth does not mean that they are all created by god. It is fully accepted in the biological community that abiogenesis occurred. Because of the sheer unlikeliness that life ever emerges, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to observe abiogenesis. Not to mention that our conditions are certainly not as close to a those when spontaneous generation occurred, so we can not properly emulate it. But abiogenesis is a reality. But why should I spend so much effort arguing with someone who thinks that life is too "special" and "precious" to leave it up to chance!

1. A sun is diffrent, we can see that occuring.

2. The arguement "Its very unlikely we could replicate & observe abiogenesis because it would take too long" is like saying I can prove for certianty that Christ will return, even though it may not happen in my lifetime. Its flawed.

1. Well the ocean then the first sighn of a human being was on the southern tip of africa.
2. You will never have that answer.
3. Your body is made up of engery. Engery never dies it just transfers. The belief of reincarnation is true then.

SCIENCE RULES

No.2 is is 'to reproduce'

"Woe unto you that desire the Day of the Lord! To what end is it for you? The Day of the Lord is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him, or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the Day of the Lord be darkness and not light? Even very dark, with no brightness in it? I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Thought you offer me burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice run down like a river, righteousness like an ever-rolling stream." Amos 5: 18-24

What Amos was getting at is that just being a believer isn't enough as far as Yahweh's concerned. The people of Amos’ day were going through religious motions, but they were rejected by the Lord because it was not true worship. Worship must begin with a right heart- and, as far as Amos was concerned, is only true worship if done at Jerusalem. They were also involved in social injustices, taking advantage of the poor and widows and aliens – all evidence that they did not have true faith. Social justice would be evidence of a true and right heart. True faith should work itself out into everyday righteousness. Otherwise, could be religious hypocrisy and just going through the motions, which is false worship, unacceptable and rejected by the Lord. Joyful anticipation of the Day of the Lord, then, is, by your own cosmology, rather unwise.

When was the last time you practiced justification through good works?

you dont get to heaven through good works it says that in the new testiment but i dont know where exactly sorry. i try to be a good person b/c i think it helps others know that there is a loving and caring God that cares about them too. i am not perfict.

god is evil! He's just trying to trick us into thinking he's good. Diabolical....

3. Your body is made up of engery. Engery never dies it just transfers. The belief of reincarnation is true then.
Umm...no. So sorry, but no.

2. The arguement "Its very unlikely we could replicate & observe abiogenesis because it would take too long" is like saying I can prove for certianty that Christ will return, even though it may not happen in my lifetime. Its flawed.
No, not that it would take too long. It is because the likelihood that it will occur is far beyond organismic time. It would take far longer than the whole past and future existence of Homo sapiens for there to be a measurable likelihood. This is contrary to the Second Coming, which is supposedly inevitable. The difference is that one is depeds on time, and one depends on likelihood.

Read my point. I was saying that the idea that there is "Deserved suffering" and "Undeserved suffering" is stupid and why.
Oh, I know. But there is a fair and just God, then there should be no undeserved suffering.

No.2 is is 'to reproduce'
incorrect. we are here because those before us have chosen to reproduce. whether or not our purpose is to reproduce is quite debatable. after all, there are many humans who choose not to reproduce, yet who find more meaning in their lives than other humans who breed like rabbits. unless you are prepared to claim that you know the ultimate purpose of human existence, you cannot answer the question.

Oh, I know. But there is a fair and just God, then there should be no undeserved suffering.
Fair and just by human standards, because that is the only way we can understand him. We have to hold god to our standards in order to assign him any characteristics.

Do I have to explain this to everyone. Ok, I will explain it to you too. Read this

Ok I can see the anger people get here at nautral evil. People often say "If God exists how can he allow X to happen and for Y many people to die/suffer horribly etc". While this arguement I am about to present does not console for grief, it does explain it logicaly.

The issue of "undeserved" suffering (the kid didn't "deserve" to die; the virus victim didn't "deserve" to suffer so much);

Underserved suffering. Thats a logical falacy. That would sugesst that we only get what we deserve. And so the following things would be true

- Almost no one could win the £3 million lottery Jackpot.
- EVERY flip of a coin would have to go to the most 'virtuous' person(!)
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...
- All MINOR illnesses would be 'intelligent'--chickenpox would only infect the 'bad students' and not 'the good students' in a schoolroom (for example)...
- Those doing 'evil' acts would never live long enough to 'change their ways'
- Forgiveness can NEVER occur--the evil would die before that.

So thats a problem with getting what you "Desereve" and another problem is this. Deservedness presupposes some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him

Well, I am saying that if there is a god who is both all-good and all-powerful, he/she/it would be compelled to prevent suffering (ie: all-good) and would have the power to do it (ie: all-powerful). I am saying that if there is an all-powerful and all-good god, he/she/it would have to prevent evil, both natural (as in the case of the tsunami) and man-made (as in the case of the holocaust). Since neither of these events were prevented, logically either there is no god, or there is a god who is either not all-good or not all-powerful, and therefore unable or unwilling to prevent suffering.

its because we must justify the unfair things in the world and what we do not understand that we created god, theres nothing more to it than some seemingly perfect human that we wish everyone was like.

Read my point. I was saying that the idea that there is "Deserved suffering" and "Undeserved suffering" is stupid and why.

Perhaps you would like to re-read your own argument.

Then, cross reference it with scripture... say, Sodom... that'd be a good place to start.

Then, you'll understand why Gnostikos perceives that you just silver-bulletted your own mythology.

Those theorys for origins for life give no point to the meaning of life. Something as special and precious (And un-understandable) as life is far to important to dismiss as an acciedent. I personally cannot accept abiogensis because it cannot be proved for certianly. You can theorise about it, the way you do with string theory, but it cant be accounted as truth. Certianly not yet.

An almost frightening level of hypocrisy.

You cannot accept abiogenesis, because it cannot be proved for certainty.

And yet, you accept that a big floaty ghost whisked the world out of nothing, and made clay people on it.

Because, of course, there is evidence for that?

Thats not skepticism. Thats a person who can't handle not knowing so instead of waiting around for empirical data, which may or may not come in his or her lifetime, this person feels its ok to fill in the blanks with superstitious tales of the supernatural.

Its a cosmic nightlight that makes you feel enlightened in the absence of true knowledge. Its one that people feel very comforted around because it also shines a very unique light upon you that makes you feel universally significant enough to believe that the universe could not exist without you existing forever in a conscious state along with it.

No data is ever going to come along to tell us how the univ was created, I mean, think about it. Where could possibly get that info from, short of the univ. itself tipping us off. And even if the universe was created by the big bang, where did the mass come from? I personally believe that the big bang is just as good an explanation as the other, as we can't possibly know how it started. But my point is that there had to be some impetus. Call it what you like... God, Oversoul, Kool-Aid, its irrelevant to my arrguement. I simply stating that the the universe could not exist by itself. For me, I have chosen the Christian God as the one that I think created the universe because of many reasons of which I will not bore you with at this conjuncture. And I personally don't care if he did it by standing on his head and wiggling his nose. What matters is that we are here now, and we have to deal with this question.

PS: Why is it skepticism to doubt Chrisitanity, but not skepticism to doubt Athiesm. And don't try to pretend that that's not a belief. If one believes something (such as atheism) then its is a belief of that one. That's just simple semantics.

PS: Why is it skepticism to doubt Chrisitanity, but not skepticism to doubt Athiesm. And don't try to pretend that that's not a belief. If one believes something (such as atheism) then its is a belief of that one. That's just simple semantics.
Well, that would be doubting doubt. Beign skeptical about being skeptical. It gets a bit tricky.

No data is ever going to come along to tell us how the univ was created, I mean, think about it. Where could possibly get that info from, short of the univ. itself tipping us off.
No data is ever going to come along to tell us what all matter is made of--I mean, think about it. Where could we possibly get that information from, short of matter or the universe itself tipping us off? Do underestimate physicists.

And even if the universe was created by the big bang, where did the mass come from?
You don't actually know what the big band theory states, do you? And not to mention the fact that there are many theories now as to how the universe was created. I really don't know enough physics for all that yet, but I do know that you know less.

I personally believe that the big bang is just as good an explanation as the other, as we can't possibly know how it started.
The big bang theory is just as plausible as Genesis? What about the Scandinavian creation myth where the world was created from the body of a beast (name eludes me at the moment)? How about the Shinto creation myth, which is actually probably closer than the Christian one, at least in regards to how life came about.

But my point is that there had to be some impetus. Call it what you like... God, Oversoul, Kool-Aid, its irrelevant to my arrguement. I simply stating that the the universe could not exist by itself.
Precisely why it is now often seen that our universe is not alone, that there are indeed multiverses and all that. I learned this a while ago, but don't quite remember it at the moment.

And I personally don't care if he did it by standing on his head and wiggling his nose. What matters is that we are here now, and we have to deal with this question.
Well, we don't have to, per se. We just want to through natural human curiosity. And, yes, we do have to deal with it now, not thousands of years ago.

Well, that would be doubting doubt. Beign skeptical about being skeptical. It gets a bit tricky.
Very, especially since that typically results in either no change, or extreme fanaticism.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
no evidence.

i'm agnostic, so don't get in with this "well, there's no evidence there isn't either" i've been through that.

You don't actually know what the big band theory states, do you? And not to mention the fact that there are many theories now as to how the universe was created. I really don't know enough physics for all that yet, but I do know that you know less.


No, I don't know all that much about it, just thejist and like I said, I don't care. As for physicists discovering the origins of matter, who's to say the universe operated in the same way billions of years ago. Isn't it possible that space-time is in a constant flux? I mean we can already observe the rules of space-time warping in some places (IE black holes). We've only been seriously studying quantum mechanics and such for the last 100 or so years, so we have no way of knowing if space-time is a constant thing or not. Basically, I'm trying to say that anything they could infer would be based on rules the present day and wouldnot neccesarily apply to the origins of the universe. As far as science goes, we really don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. And with the infinite complexity of the universe we never will. Ever heard of the chaos theory? This theory is becoming more in more popular because physicists are discovering the deeper delve, the farther down the hole goes.

As for physicists discovering the origins of matter, who's to say the universe operated in the same way billions of years ago. Isn't it possible that space-time is in a constant flux? I mean we can already observe space-time warping in some places (IE black holes). We've only been seriously studying quantum mechanics and such for the last 100 or so years, so we have no way of knowing really. Basically, I'm trying to say that anything they could infer would be based on rules the present day and wouldnot neccesarily apply to the origins of the universe.
That is true. But they can obvserve evidence of what has happened in the past. There are some things that are just too impossible to learn, but do not underestimate what physicists are capable of.

As far as science goes, we really don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

We have no fecking idea. And that is one of the beauties of it.

Also, I believe Genesis cannot be taken literally. If you take it literally, you're not using the brain God/Kool-Aid gave you.

We have no fecking idea. And that is one of the beauties of it.

I agree, science does indeed kick ass.

Also, I believe Genesis cannot be taken literally. If you take it literally, you're not using the brain God/Kool-Aid gave you.

Exactly! Genesis must be taken as a story, which was made to explain things that couldn't be scientifically explained. Each culture has a creating story of its own.

Yeah, I think whole thing is one big allegory. well, at least the first part about the snake, Adam and Eve, and Eden.

Exactly! Genesis must be taken as a story, which was made to explain things that couldn't be scientifically explained. Each culture has a creating story of its own.


I prefer the one where a sentient plant-animal hybrid decended from space and landed on antarctica where it created a grand civilization on the barren earth, and accidentally lost control of a science experiment that led to a giant black pulsating blob from which native life on this planet came from.

Ia Ia Cthulhu fhtagn!

I feel that science offers more believable answers to life's big questions than religion does.

A friend of mine once told me that a good philosophy/religion must answer 3 questions:
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?

I became an atheist after it occured to me that Christianity doesn't answer the 2nd question.
1. I came from my parents, going all the way back to whoever made the Big Bang go bang.
2. To love and cherish all life, and to accept that suffering is how we grow in experience (even if we don't understand it). To create as our Creator has done.
3. Reincarnation.

I believe that God sent us here not only to test us, but to have us learn what is good, and what is evil, and like I said, to cherish all life. Squash the mosquito that carries malaria, yes. But know that in doing so, you are cherishing your own life and the lives of your fellow humans.

Though there is suffering, I have a theory that God was thinking of something other than obedience when He made the tree of good and evil and then Adam and Eve ate the apples. I believe that He really wanted us to learn about Good and Evil, despite the suffering that followed. But at that point in time, we were Not Quite Ready Yet, so it was something that was supposed to happen later, but happened too early. Thus we have suffering and the struggle to survive. Any questions?

1. I came from my parents, going all the way back to whoever made the Big Bang go bang.
2. To love and cherish all life, and to accept that suffering is how we grow in experience (even if we don't understand it). To create as our Creator has done.
3. Reincarnation.

I believe that God sent us here not only to test us, but to have us learn what is good, and what is evil, and like I said, to cherish all life. Squash the mosquito that carries malaria, yes. But know that in doing so, you are cherishing your own life and the lives of your fellow humans.

Though there is suffering, I have a theory that God was thinking of something other than obedience when He made the tree of good and evil and then Adam and Eve ate the apples. I believe that He really wanted us to learn about Good and Evil, despite the suffering that followed. But at that point in time, we were Not Quite Ready Yet, so it was something that was supposed to happen later, but happened too early. Thus we have suffering and the struggle to survive. Any questions?


Fairly interesing idea, but I do have one question, if that is true then when do I get my empty space to make my own universe and play around with it?

Fairly interesing idea, but I do have one question, if that is true then when do I get my empty space to make my own universe and play around with it?
When you learn how to create your own personal pocket universe with a Make-your-own-Black-Hole kit! and for only $19.99, too! And that's not all, for we'll throw in a Galactic Keychain for free!

Do I have to explain this to everyone. Ok, I will explain it to you too. Read this

Ok I can see the anger people get here at nautral evil. People often say "If God exists how can he allow X to happen and for Y many people to die/suffer horribly etc". While this arguement I am about to present does not console for grief, it does explain it logicaly.

The issue of "undeserved" suffering (the kid didn't "deserve" to die; the virus victim didn't "deserve" to suffer so much);

Underserved suffering. Thats a logical falacy. That would sugesst that we only get what we deserve. And so the following things would be true

- Almost no one could win the £3 million lottery Jackpot.
- EVERY flip of a coin would have to go to the most 'virtuous' person(!)
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...
- All MINOR illnesses would be 'intelligent'--chickenpox would only infect the 'bad students' and not 'the good students' in a schoolroom (for example)...
- Those doing 'evil' acts would never live long enough to 'change their ways'
- Forgiveness can NEVER occur--the evil would die before that.

So thats a problem with getting what you "Desereve" and another problem is this. Deservedness presupposes some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him


And you say something would be wrong with that? You get what you deserve sounds good to me. The "Evli Cities" makes no sense because how can an entire city be evil, but other than that, wouldn't it be good if bad things happened to bad people? We would have alot less bad people, thats for sure. I am agnostic/ soft athiest, I have no clue if there is a God and I do not want to waste my life worshiping something that may not exist. I live my life as a good person, not because I want to go to heaven, but because that is the right thing to do. I have seen too many bad things happen to good, God Worshipping people to believe there is a God, or if there is one, that he deserves our worship.

And you say something would be wrong with that? You get what you deserve sounds good to me. The "Evli Cities" makes no sense because how can an entire city be evil, but other than that, wouldn't it be good if bad things happened to bad people? We would have alot less bad people, thats for sure. I am agnostic/ soft athiest, I have no clue if there is a God and I do not want to waste my life worshiping something that may not exist. I live my life as a good person, not because I want to go to heaven, but because that is the right thing to do. I have seen too many bad things happen to good, God Worshipping people to believe there is a God, or if there is one, that he deserves our worship.
There are no "bad people"; there are only good people who do bad things. We call them mistakes. Generally, nothing is irreparable, except of course for people who have forgivance issues.

I am not talking about someone who steals the last cookie from the cookie jar, I am talking about murder, rape etc. Tell a rape victim that nothing is irrepairable. Tell a murder victim or the family nothing is irrepairable. It has nothing to do with forgiveness issues and that is wrong to say. Someone gets raped and they either have to get over it and forget about it (impossible) or you think they have forgiveness issues? How can you say that? Even a small thing like theft, mugging, burglary etc. Mugging victims usually never walk down the street alone after their incidents, not because of their issues but becuase of the fear the criminal put in them. Burglary victims often have to move or buy expensive security systems before they can feel safe. And what about family heirlooms stolen, wedding rings etc? Repair a stolen watch passed down through 5-6 generations? No way. And that has nothing to with with the victims issues, it is the issues of the criminal who committed the crime and the other criminals in our society who could commit those crimes again in the future.

How can someone say that people commiting crimes and hurting others getting what they deserve is bad? Should we now randomize arrests too? When we have a murder just pick the first person we see and lock them up?

I am not talking about someone who steals the last cookie from the cookie jar, I am talking about murder, rape etc. Tell a rape victim that nothing is irrepairable. Tell a murder victim or the family nothing is irrepairable. It has nothing to do with forgiveness issues and that is wrong to say. Someone gets raped and they either have to get over it and forget about it (impossible) or you think they have forgiveness issues? How can you say that? Even a small thing like theft, mugging, burglary etc. Mugging victims usually never walk down the street alone after their incidents, not because of their issues but becuase of the fear the criminal put in them. Burglary victims often have to move or buy expensive security systems before they can feel safe. And what about family heirlooms stolen, wedding rings etc? Repair a stolen watch passed down through 5-6 generations? No way. And that has nothing to with with the victims issues, it is the issues of the criminal who committed the crime and the other criminals in our society who could commit those crimes again in the future.

How can someone say that people commiting crimes and hurting others getting what they deserve is bad? Should we now randomize arrests too? When we have a murder just pick the first person we see and lock them up?
Forgiving is not "forgetting about it." Forgivance happens. As for forgivance issues, what you said above is precisely to what I was referring; you are a one with forgivance issues. You hypothesize a situation in which you could never forgive, even though in this imaginary situation no actual wrong has been done. Even in imagination, you cannot forgive.

There are no "bad people"; there are only good people who do bad things. We call them mistakes. Generally, nothing is irreparable, except of course for people who have forgivance issues.
Generally nothing can be set back to the “way it was” so in a way irreparable

The idea just seems a little ludicrous.

Imagine if I were to walk up to you and tell you that Pete the Intersteller Omnirabbit created the universe and all of its inhabitants because of a bet he had with John the Unisquirrel. These two are all powerfull and exist outside of all logical rules and reasoning and you can tell their presence when you get that feeling that somebody is watching you. Pete also plans to fertilise a virgin to create a rabbit/human avatar who will come to earth and save us all from the Evil Ooshons. The rabbit man will also signal the end times where believers will spend eternity in the overwarren of joy and unbelievers will be eaten.

You can't possibly prove me wrong. You can't deny that it explains the creation of life the universe and everything. You can't fail to see that it is utter nonsense.

The idea just seems a little ludicrous.

Imagine if I were to walk up to you and tell you that Pete the Intersteller Omnirabbit created the universe and all of its inhabitants because of a bet he had with John the Unisquirrel. These two are all powerfull and exist outside of all logical rules and reasoning and you can tell their presence when you get that feeling that somebody is watching you. Pete also plans to fertilise a virgin to create a rabbit/human avatar who will come to earth and save us all from the Evil Ooshons. The rabbit man will also signal the end times where believers will spend eternity in the overwarren of joy and unbelievers will be eaten.

You can't possibly prove me wrong. You can't deny that it explains the creation of life the universe and everything. You can't fail to see that it is utter nonsense.
Some people can fail to see that if they wish it enough. I find it amazing what people can talk themselfs into (specialy if they have been conditioned from birth)

Forgiving is not "forgetting about it." Forgivance happens. As for forgivance issues, what you said above is precisely to what I was referring; you are a one with forgivance issues. You hypothesize a situation in which you could never forgive, even though in this imaginary situation no actual wrong has been done. Even in imagination, you cannot forgive.

Yes, my examples were all imagination TO ME but these crimes are real to many people. Maybe this is why you can believe there is someone above us, you have obviously never been hurt or had someone close to you hurt in this way. Tell me that you would have no problem forgiving someone who kills your mother or rapes your wife, and you are completely lying. If you were to tell a family member of a murder victim or a rape victim that they have forgiveness issues you would be met with strong anger. I cannot understand where the victim has any issues, other than the issues that the criminal put into their mind from what they did. I do not forgive anyone who kills someone, (who knows what they are doing), anyone who rapes someone, and anyone who commits any other unnecessary act to harm a fellow human being and if you were a victim in any of these situations you would feel the same way.

I do not forgive anyone who kills someone, (who knows what they are doing), anyone who rapes someone, and anyone who commits any other unnecessary act to harm a fellow human being and if you were a victim in any of these situations you would feel the same way.
You are not alone in feeling this way, though I don't share it. You are in with the majority, I think; most people today do not even want to give forgivance a try.

And you say something would be wrong with that? You get what you deserve sounds good to me. The "Evli Cities" makes no sense because how can an entire city be evil, but other than that, wouldn't it be good if bad things happened to bad people? We would have alot less bad people, thats for sure. I am agnostic/ soft athiest, I have no clue if there is a God and I do not want to waste my life worshiping something that may not exist. I live my life as a good person, not because I want to go to heaven, but because that is the right thing to do. I have seen too many bad things happen to good, God Worshipping people to believe there is a God, or if there is one, that he deserves our worship.

No, what I am saying is that the idea of "Desereved suffering" is a logical falacy without a God.

There are no "bad people"; there are only good people who do bad things. We call them mistakes. Generally, nothing is irreparable, except of course for people who have forgivance issues.

Explain the 'good' in Hitler, or Gengis Khan, or any leader of the Mongolian horde?

I dont believe in a higher being personnaly, but if under the right circumstances when I may be in a state of sadnessor mourning, like all other people I would be comforted by the fact that there may be a supreme being looking out for me in my time of need.
As a Catholic I've been taught that "God" must exist, but I feel proof must be shown for me to come to grips with this idea of an almighty.
Though even though I'm not a practicing Catholic, that doesn't mean all my belifes and principals don't follow the church. I do not believe in straying far from the main parts of the 10 commandments; but following some of them is optional in my opinion.

Also the idea of a same sex marrige is not for me. Not because God decreed it, but the fact that I feel strongly against it. Also I'm pro abortion for the right circumstances and along with other ideas. But this is not the proper thread for these topics..... :)

Explain the 'good' in Hitler, or Gengis Khan, or any leader of the Mongolian horde?

I can tell you there is no "good" in either of them!

Fairly interesing idea, but I do have one question, if that is true then when do I get my empty space to make my own universe and play around with it?
Free will.

Explain the 'good' in Hitler, or Gengis Khan, or any leader of the Mongolian horde?

Trying to make the world a 'better' place for 'their' people.
Off course, your definitions of 'better' and 'their' may vary, but I'm sure none of them woke up one morning and went "Ha haha! Ha haha-haha! (think Mandark) Let's be evil!".

I can tell you there is no "good" in either of them!

You'd be wrong, though.

Hitler, for a start, was an artist, and the force for much innovation.

Just because his MAIN political ideology was an unpopular one, doesn't equate to there being NO good in him.

You'd be wrong, though.

Hitler, for a start, was an artist, and the force for much innovation.

Just because his MAIN political ideology was an unpopular one, doesn't equate to there being NO good in him.
Did you see "Max"?

(*still looking for someone here who actually saw the movie*)

Did you see "Max"?

(*still looking for someone here who actually saw the movie*)

Actually, yes I did... being possible the biggest John Cusack fan in this hemisphere... and I though it was excellent, although a little imaginative about the facts.

Actually, yes I did... being possible the biggest John Cusack fan in this hemisphere... and I though it was excellent, although a little imaginative about the facts.
Haha :-) Kudos.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
I don't believe in a "higher deity" because it's mostly window-dressing for the real thing. Christianity, for instance, paints an anthropomorphized image of symbol that it holds up in place of the deity. The symbol is nothing worth worshipping, and leads to people mistaking the symbol for the thing it represents (as often happens in astrology). It's organized religion that creates the confusion.

I think the word for what i am is diest.
I beleive that the universe existing is proof enough that there is a higher deity, but deffinately not in the christian or jewish sence.

I don't believe in a "higher deity" because it's mostly window-dressing for the real thing. Christianity, for instance, paints an anthropomorphized image of symbol that it holds up in place of the deity. The symbol is nothing worth worshipping, and leads to people mistaking the symbol for the thing it represents (as often happens in astrology). It's organized religion that creates the confusion.

Exactly.

If there IS a god (or gods), he/she (or they) will not be found in any of the "Idiots Guide to..." holy books.

When you start reducing the ineffible to definitions you can fit within a language (ESPECIALLY a language as cumbersome as English), you have already lost sight of the infinite.

You'd be wrong, though.

Hitler, for a start, was an artist, and the force for much innovation.

Just because his MAIN political ideology was an unpopular one, doesn't equate to there being NO good in him.

So would you rather Hitler have been stopped by God or allowed to do on with the Halocaust without influence from the "Higher Power". If someone is up there he has a moral responsibility to control things like that. If it had been you and you had the power to stop the things going on wouldn't you? You would have to, but our "Higher Power", the one we should model our lives after did not, therefore if he is there I do not feel he needs worshipped or he is not there.

So would you rather Hitler have been stopped by God or allowed to do on with the Halocaust without influence from the "Higher Power". If someone is up there he has a moral responsibility to control things like that. If it had been you and you had the power to stop the things going on wouldn't you? You would have to, but our "Higher Power", the one we should model our lives after did not, therefore if he is there I do not feel he needs worshipped or he is not there.

Well.. why would a god be bound by the same morality as us? Who is to say that genocide isn't GOOD from a godlike perspective? The Old Testament paints a clear picture of 'god' as the purveyor of genocide and human-rights abuse.

Who can say that suffering and death don't improve us somehow?

Why SHOULD a deity intervene in the affairs of mortals? Why should 'god' stop Hitler, when man is perfectly capable?

Personally - I don't think much of a 'god' that allows innocents to suffer.

But, that is far below my concern... since the utter lack of evidence for any deity at all, makes the 'morality' of a 'possible god' irrelevent.

Well.. why would a god be bound by the same morality as us? Who is to say that genocide isn't GOOD from a godlike perspective? The Old Testament paints a clear picture of 'god' as the purveyor of genocide and human-rights abuse.

Who can say that suffering and death don't improve us somehow?

Why SHOULD a deity intervene in the affairs of mortals? Why should 'god' stop Hitler, when man is perfectly capable?

Personally - I don't think much of a 'god' that allows innocents to suffer.

But, that is far below my concern... since the utter lack of evidence for any deity at all, makes the 'morality' of a 'possible god' irrelevent.
i dont think anyone agreed with hitler when he thought up that, hell i dont think anyone gave the nazi soldiers mercy for following orders of a man who thought like that. nice try though

Well.. why would a god be bound by the same morality as us? Who is to say that genocide isn't GOOD from a godlike perspective? The Old Testament paints a clear picture of 'god' as the purveyor of genocide and human-rights abuse.

Exactly. Am I the only person who remembers Sodom? Fire and death just for anal sex? God's not just amoral, he's a bloody homophobe.

i dont think anyone agreed with hitler when he thought up that, hell i dont think anyone gave the nazi soldiers mercy for following orders of a man who thought like that. nice try though

When Hitler thought up what?

Hitler was millenia away from being the first Genocidalist.

The Old Testament portrays genocide as good. The US is Founded on principles of Genocide. Manifest Destiny is the resurrected form of the rape of Canaan.

Hitler wasn't the FIRST voice to champion Eugenics... it was already an established 'theory' long before Hitler.

And, again, one has only to look at the Old Testament to see examples of Eugenic principles, in the preservation of the sanctity of the blood of Israel.

Hitler was hundreds of years from being the first person to relocate or execute on an anti-Semitic basis. In Europe, centuries earlier, Jews had been forced to wear yellow, for example... and in some cases (as in Lincoln) Jews were executed en masse, for being Jews.

And, once again, the Old Testament CLEARLY supports anti-Semitism. Only the most superficial examination of the Biblical texts could ignore that the Cannanites were Semitic, as were all those other tribes that the Hebrews were so intent on killing.

So - what is it you think Hitler did, that didn't have a contemporary historic precedent, AND direct approval via scripture?

When Hitler thought up what?

Hitler was millenia away from being the first Genocidalist.

The Old Testament portrays genocide as good. The US is Founded on principles of Genocide. Manifest Destiny is the resurrected form of the rape of Canaan.

Hitler wasn't the FIRST voice to champion Eugenics... it was already an established 'theory' long before Hitler.

And, again, one has only to look at the Old Testament to see examples of Eugenic principles, in the preservation of the sanctity of the blood of Israel.

Hitler was hundreds of years from being the first person to relocate or execute on an anti-Semitic basis. In Europe, centuries earlier, Jews had been forced to wear yellow, for example... and in some cases (as in Lincoln) Jews were executed en masse, for being Jews.

And, once again, the Old Testament CLEARLY supports anti-Semitism. Only the most superficial examination of the Biblical texts could ignore that the Cannanites were Semitic, as were all those other tribes that the Hebrews were so intent on killing.

So - what is it you think Hitler did, that didn't have a contemporary historic precedent, AND direct approval via scripture?
ok i think i will end this conversation and walk away

Exactly. Am I the only person who remembers Sodom? Fire and death just for anal sex? God's not just amoral, he's a bloody homophobe.

Actually... close examination of scripture shows that anal intercourse WAS NOT one of the sins of Sodom... in fact, I'm not sure it is ever even mentioned in the context of Sodom.

The city was being destroyed for 'wickedness', long before the Angels went to the town... that was, after all, why they were there.

They were there to destroy Sodom, and to save Lot - so he could go, get drunk, and have sex with his own children.

I recall a Pope standing in a balcony in France calling for the first crusade that obliterated almost all the Jewish communites between Europe and Jerusalem.

I swear, this retarded crusaders were running around hacking up any Jewiwsh towns they found.

ok i think i will end this conversation and walk away

Good choice.

I wish others admitted defeat as gracefully.

Well.. why would a god be bound by the same morality as us? Who is to say that genocide isn't GOOD from a godlike perspective? The Old Testament paints a clear picture of 'god' as the purveyor of genocide and human-rights abuse.

Who can say that suffering and death don't improve us somehow?

Why SHOULD a deity intervene in the affairs of mortals? Why should 'god' stop Hitler, when man is perfectly capable?

Personally - I don't think much of a 'god' that allows innocents to suffer.

But, that is far below my concern... since the utter lack of evidence for any deity at all, makes the 'morality' of a 'possible god' irrelevent.
W00t! I think you should go and have sex with as many members of the opposite sex as is possible, so that your genes may flourish as much as possible!

And, once again, the Old Testament CLEARLY supports anti-Semitism. Only the most superficial examination of the Biblical texts could ignore that the Cannanites were Semitic, as were all those other tribes that the Hebrews were so intent on killing.

what? the old testament is the history of the jews. maybe you didnt know this but the hebrews and jews are the same people. early on they were called hebrews, then during the exile in babylon they were given the name jews.

W00t! I think you should go and have sex with as many members of the opposite sex as is possible, so that your genes may flourish as much as possible!


*volunteers to be first in line for GNI*

W00t! I think you should go and have sex with as many members of the opposite sex as is possible, so that your genes may flourish as much as possible!

Lol... such high praise is hard to live up to... :)

*volunteers to be first in line for GNI*

Sigh... it's a hard job... but, who am I to oppose the wishes of the lovely Peech, and the orders of the mighty Gnostikos...

what? the old testament is the history of the jews. maybe you didnt know this but the hebrews and jews are the same people. early on they were called hebrews, then during the exile in babylon they were given the name jews.

And? What is your point?

The Hebrews and/or Jews... whichever name... are NOT the only Semitic peoples.

The Cannanites were Semites... therefore the Hebrews waged an anti-Semitic genocide war.

so your saying jews are anti-semitic?

Why don't you believe in God?
I dunno.. I guess I don't really see any reason to believe in him. Plus, if he did exist, I would probably have to join a religion, and for the most part those seem to tell you what to think, but I'd rather think for myself.

i think it IS natural to believe in "god"
can you think of a culture that has existed that did not have religion?

give us twenty years, and there will be many. science is takin the place of god in society. We as humans have always required an explanation of our existitende, and it's never enough to just say, we exist. we need rationale for the things we do. For most of our existence the image of God, whatever god you may worship, filled that role quite nicely. Then some people started looking at the corruption of the churches and the serious failings in simple logic of the bible, and needing other answers. Then came science. As science progresses, god is weeded out. We're getting our explanations, and these one don't require lip service to an invisible man in the sky.

At any rate, that's not why i don't believe in god. I don't believe in god for the same reason you do. That feeling in the pit of your stomach. That subconscious knowing. That's all it is. You get that before you start explaning your beliefs. then comes the rationalizations. Aside from the above paragraph, i never got around to making those.

science is takin the place of god in society.

others would say science is making a case for a god.

I do not believe in god. I make no attempt to rationalize it because it is, of course, not provable or disprovable. The idea simply doesn't make sense to me. I look at the world and I see a place that doesn't think or feel the way we do. It just exists, and lets us live how we will.

However, I also think that the religious impulse is a natural one in the human mind, and that just because science is uncovering the universe bit by bit, that does not mean that people will stop believing in god. Reverence is an emotion that cannot be avoided any more than our other emotions, even by those of us who don't believe in god.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

Okay. I'm going to do an experiment. I have a book in my hand. I'm gonna ask god that if he exists, to prove it to me. I'm gonna ask him that when I let go of the book, to keep it floating.

Huh. Nothing. It just fell to the ground. That's my logical explanation. Now, why don't you give me a logical explanation as to why you believe in him?

Okay. I'm going to do an experiment. I have a book in my hand. I'm gonna ask god that if he exists, to prove it to me. I'm gonna ask him that when I let go of the book, to keep it floating.

Huh. Nothing. It just fell to the ground. That's my logical explanation. Now, why don't you give me a logical explanation as to why you believe in him?

So if God doesn't obey your command you don't believe in God. That is not logical if we are starting with the thesis that God exits. Because if God exits we are supposed to obey God. Now, if you are starting with the thesis that God does not exist you should have a different thesis.

so your saying jews are anti-semitic?
I've always thought that aint-Semitic was a really bad term, since Jews are not the only Semites. But in contemporary use, anti-Semitic means anti-Jew, so we must bow down to colloquialisms.

A mistake many people make. God's charachter does not change throught the two testements. It appers to, but what is actually changing is the nature of the circumstances. In the Old Testement sin = death. No way round that. Not just the physical death but also the spirtual death. Because the wages of sin were death God had the right to kill anyone at any time (the fact that he let the Human race exist at all was an extreme act of mercy on his part). Jesus's crucifixtion changes things. Sin no longer has to mean spiritual death but there is a condition. Faith. Trust that Jesus's death is enough to keep you from spiritual death. Now because you can make that decision to believe at any time, it means that God gives you as long a time as possible, with as much chance to hear the Gospel as possible (Hence the great commision, spread the word).

The original G_D/S of the bible were male/female and of Chaldean origin.The second offering was Phoenecian in nature and the female was dropped while EL remained.Not only did GODS character change according to the political expedient of the moment.Hell was created for the supposedly loving and merciful New Testament GOD.Now your punishment could be carried beyond death.Ask an Orthodox Jew about hell (Christianized version,not sheol) in their writings.Doesn,t exist until Zoroastrian influence after Babylonian captivity.
Next item: according to bible he created human race the way they are.Seems either he is not omniscient or not much of a god.Giving free-will and then punishing for using free-will is illogical and immoral.Would you treat your family that way?

So if God doesn't obey your command you don't believe in God. That is not logical if we are starting with the thesis that God exits. Because if God exits we are supposed to obey God. Now, if you are starting with the thesis that God does not exist you should have a different thesis.

Look, If I'm trying to disprove god, I'm going to start with the thesis that he doesn't exist, ok? If I were writing an essay on how pickles taste good, I wouldn't have 'Pickles taste bad' as my thesis.

Also, it is logical. According to most religions, god is loving. I'm sure a loving god would hate to see me go to hell, so he would prove to me he existed. So, I actually have two possible things you could learn if you believed in god or not.

1st thesis: He doesn't exist: Point proven. God doesn't exist
or
2nd thesis: God does exist: This means he's an asshole who wants me to burn in hell.

Look, give me a logical reason for his existing now. I've defended my point twice. Defend yours.

Hell was created for the supposedly loving and merciful New Testament GOD.


Hell was not created for humans. It was created for the devil. It is just the place that humans will go if they choose to ignore God acording to the Bible


Next item: according to bible he created human race the way they are.Seems either he is not omniscient or not much of a god.Giving free-will and then punishing for using free-will is illogical and immoral.Would you treat your family that way?

In freedom there is always a path not taken. The law enables us to be free, that does not mean that it does not punish us when we do wrong.

Okay. I'm going to do an experiment. I have a book in my hand. I'm gonna ask god that if he exists, to prove it to me. I'm gonna ask him that when I let go of the book, to keep it floating.

Huh. Nothing. It just fell to the ground. That's my logical explanation. Now, why don't you give me a logical explanation as to why you believe in him?

Ha ha ha. Very funny. The "Prove yourself logic". What kind of God jumps around for those far lesser than him like a dog. Since when does the concept of God in any way ever mean a being that obey's human commands.

Ha ha ha. Very funny. The "Prove yourself logic". What kind of God jumps around for those far lesser than him like a dog. Since when does the concept of God in any way ever mean a being that obey's human commands.

Huh. Isn't that what god is supposed to do when we pray?

Huh. Isn't that what god is supposed to do when we pray?

No, people get confused about prayer like that. Read the lord's prayer. God will not give you everything you ask for. Sometimes he will sometimes he wont. He answers all prayers, not always with yes though. God's will be done throught all things. He gives us what is good for us. We dont always understand what is good for us (frequently quite the oppisite)

Huh. Isn't that what god is supposed to do when we pray?

Would a loving God give you something that was harmful to you? if you only pray when you want something your concept of God is about 4k yrs old.

Would a loving God give you something that was harmful to you? if you only pray when you want something your concept of God is about 4k yrs old.

So, a book staying in the air is harmful. I wouldn't have thunk it.

No, people get confused about prayer like that. Read the lord's prayer. God will not give you everything you ask for. Sometimes he will sometimes he wont. He answers all prayers, not always with yes though. God's will be done throught all things. He gives us what is good for us. We dont always understand what is good for us (frequently quite the oppisite)

Proof plz.

The universe is my higher being.

I'm agnostic because it sickens me how many members of every religion think they're the only ones who could possibly be right. You have to think pretty damn highly about yourself to think you have it all figured out, atheists included. We don't know anything! We can't possibly!

Voltaire said that "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."

In my opinion, people want the security that when they die, they'll go to Heaven. It's a crutch. I'm strollin' unassisted.

So... No proof, anyone?

No, people get confused about prayer like that. Read the lord's prayer. God will not give you everything you ask for. Sometimes he will sometimes he wont. He answers all prayers, not always with yes though. God's will be done throught all things. He gives us what is good for us. We dont always understand what is good for us (frequently quite the oppisite)

Pray to Jehovah>>>Pray to Horus>>>Pray to Mary>>>Pray to Allah>>>Pray to Jesus>>>Do not pray>>>Results will be equal.

Error in wording of post about hell.Was created for God to punish after death since original teachings did not have a hell.And if Gods will shall be done regardless then,nobody can disobey,thus nobody needs saving because all are obedient to how created.

Hell was not created for humans. It was created for the devil. It is just the place that humans will go if they choose to ignore God acording to the Bible



In freedom there is always a path not taken. The law enables us to be free, that does not mean that it does not punish us when we do wrong.

My argument is that GOD created us this way,so,to punish something for being what you made it to be is illogical and immoral.

The LAW entered later according to the bible.GOD saw and said IT IS GOOD.Was he lying or did he just not know what was going to happen?

All creation punished for one child eating what was left in her reach by a loving god?Remember,they did not know sin,so it could not be wrong.

Pray to Jehovah>>>Pray to Horus>>>Pray to Mary>>>Pray to Allah>>>Pray to Jesus>>>Do not pray>>>Results will be equal.
Until you start getting into quantum physics. Some quantum theories are trippy in their own right!

so your saying jews are anti-semitic?

Don't be ridiculous.

Are Germans Nazis?

No - although some are / or have been.

So - some Jews are / or have been, Anti-Semitic.

And, that isn't just confined to the fact that Hebrews persecuted other Semites...

Watch the movie "The Believer" - it is inspired by a true story, about a Jewish Neo-Nazi.

I have to assume you are not a Christian - since a fairly shallow reading of the Bible illustrates the various tribes of Shem, and also explicitly details the Hebrew genocide on those Semite tribes.

I've always thought that aint-Semitic was a really bad term, since Jews are not the only Semites. But in contemporary use, anti-Semitic means anti-Jew, so we must bow down to colloquialisms.

Not at all. I have never used Anti-Semitic to mean JUST Jews... and I don't suspect many people do - except through laziness, or ignorance of the fact that there are more tribes of Semites.

Hell was not created for humans. It was created for the devil. It is just the place that humans will go if they choose to ignore God acording to the Bible


Really Neo? Show me the verses, please?

I'd like to see where Scripture says that Hell was created for the Devil.

Oh - and the bit where it says "the place that humans will go if they choose to ignore God acording to the Bible". That would be a curious phrase to find in scripture... since scripture was canonised AFTER it was written... so it would be anachroistic for it to debate itself, no?

Let me guess, Neo... this is more of the stuff you just 'heard somewhere', right?

To get back to the original question, I don't believe there's someone up there with a plan for me. I believe I make my own decisions. And I don't want to be restricted by "God's Calling".

Secondly, I don't believe in organized religion. It has way too much potential to cause hate towards people who aren't in your group. If not looked after carefully, the world of churches can turn into a huge version of high school. In my eyes, that's basically what a church is, a huge clique.

I'd never say that every church or every church goer is like that, just that a large perecentage is. I used to be extremely religious, I know.

I like to call myself an Agnostic Pagan. I believe that the earth holds power, and that each soul holds power. Personally, I don't think there's a higher power up there, but I'm not going to say I know there isn't. No one can prove whether there is or is not. And I don't think anyone ever will.

Personally, I see a lot of loopholes in the bible and it's story, and a lot of things that don't add up. I do think the basics are good though, like being kind to others, and your family.Those things are always important, whether you believe in a higher power or not.

I honestly dont beleive in all this. If we were not talking about relegion it would be foolish to beleive in one thing that is imagined differently all around the world, something that has never been seen, and has not been proved to exist. In my opinion beleiving in God is like beleiving in magic. What really ticks me off is that people actually fight over it.

I have never used Anti-Semitic to mean JUST Jews... and I don't suspect many people do

this was on teh merriam-webster site..


Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective
- an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun

this was on teh merriam-webster site..

Which is ridiculous to me, because the definition of Semitic on Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1Se·mit·ic
Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3 : JEWISH


Clearly shows Jewish as being the LOWEST interpretation of Semitic.

Clearly shows Jewish as being the LOWEST interpretation of Semitic.
But not the term "anti-Semitic". Linguistics can get pretty ridiculous at times.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

Because there is no proof of it, I do not choose to believe in it.

I choose to look at it this way - should I believe in a higher power? And if so, which one? They all sseem to conflict. I, instead, chose science, because it has far fewer holes and more proof. I am not a blind faith type person. Blind faith leads to dead-ends and other bad things.

AND... Just for fun:

Anti-Evolutionism Site (http://objective.jesussave.us/) <- Hoax or for real?

Also check the Creationism science fair, brought to you by the above site: 2001 Science Fair (http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html)

And why macs are pagan, daemons are evil, and open-source is communist (http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html)

But not the term "anti-Semitic". Linguistics can get pretty ridiculous at times.

And yet, Merriam Webster ignores the fact that, even in the context of being Jewish - Anti-Semitism is a term used to describe an anti-Zionist movement.

The lazy use of english (the same thing that makes people call the USA a Democracy) is not sufficient reason for me to embrace incorrect use of words.

Anti - Semitism is, literally, opposition to Semites.

Jews were not the only Semites. In fact, a large proportion of the enemies of the Old Testament Hebrews were Semitic peoples.

There is too ready an acceptance of positive discrimination, post-Holocaust. Everyone talks about the evil done to the Jews, but ignores the decimation of the Romani, or the fact that more Poles died in concentration camps than did Jews.

Everyone ignores the Russian dead.

And the backlash of WW2 is that people are modifying even their speech to avoid being tarred with the same brush.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.
just a side note: people that dont believe in a deity are called Atheists not non-believers, many Atheists believe in a great deal of things. example. Atheists believe there is no deity.

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

I wasn't raised that way. My grandma went to church - before WW II, my mom had some sort of religious initiation (don't know the name of it - confirmation?). She didn't see the point to send me to learn about such things.
When I was 16 I was reading the bible, because my girlfriend went to church.

After the war my grandma had to take care of the kids and work and find her other kids through the red cross - not much time to believe in someone else than in one's own hard work.

My other grandparents didn't have much to do with the church as well. They probably didn't even have a bible. They worked hard and believed in each other.

I found the bible quite boring, like how many kids Abraham had (900? - very busy guy) and how many kids his kids had and so on.

Then the killing of the firstborn. And a "test" where Abraham is asked to kill his own son and he doesn't even question that - which was just like the SS killing jews without questioning that order, (or Americans "following orders" in an Iraqi prison - to take a more recent example).


Just following orders and worshipping the leader sounds very much like North Korea. Not my cup of tea.

Really Neo? Show me the verses, please?

I'd like to see where Scripture says that Hell was created for the Devil.


Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels

Matthew 25:41

My argument is that GOD created us this way,so,to punish something for being what you made it to be is illogical and immoral.


Would you rather have the ability to do whatever you want and know whatever you want with the ability to chose between good and bad or would you rather be a preprogramed being only capperbile of doing good.


All creation punished for one child eating what was left in her reach by a loving god?Remember,they did not know sin,so it could not be wrong.

They knew it was a sin because God told them. He didnt use the word "sin" but sin is doing what is contary to God.

I do not belive in the teachings of the catholic church or there rules because they were man made. But i do believe that there is someone out there a higher power! :p

Oh - and the bit where it says "the place that humans will go if they choose to ignore God acording to the Bible". That would be a curious phrase to find in scripture... since scripture was canonised AFTER it was written... so it would be anachroistic for it to debate itself, no?

Let me guess, Neo... this is more of the stuff you just 'heard somewhere', right?

I was talking as in within Christian logic. IE Christians believe that if you ignore God (The Christian God, portrayed in the Bible) then you go to hell. Thats basic scriptural knowlegede.

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels

Matthew 25:41


Thats becuase the concept of Hell as a place of torture didnt occur UNTIL the book of Matthew.

The OT refers to Hell as "Being away from God."
No mention of torture and hell in the same phrase until the New testament.

This means that the people who really got Christianity rolling were using Hell to frighten people into its ranks.

This is one of the main reasons why Christianity is so thouroughly corrupted.

Thats becuase the concept of Hell as a place of torture didnt occur UNTIL the book of Matthew.

The OT refers to Hell as "Being away from God."
No mention of torture and hell in the same phrase until the New testament.

This means that the people who really got Christianity rolling were using Hell to frighten people into its ranks.

This is one of the main reasons why Christianity is so thouroughly corrupted.

I was simpley answering Grave's question. If you want to get into a debate on the concept of hell I will. It seems to me that Jesus's description is much more valid than OT ones. Maybe being away from God is akin to torment, I dont know. It certianly would make sense.

I was simpley answering Grave's question. If you want to get into a debate on the concept of hell I will. It seems to me that Jesus's description is much more valid than OT ones. Maybe being away from God is akin to torment, I dont know. It certianly would make sense.

So then, if Jesus description of hell is more accurate, then why does he say in one of the Apochryphal (sp?) books, Peter, I believe, that not only does everyone eventually get out of hell, but implies that EVERYONE goes there, for a time, after thier death.

He then tells Peter not to tell anyone for fear that it would give people free riegn to go out and sin all willy-nilly.

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels

Matthew 25:41
If you notice, the whole passage of Matthew 25:31-46 is metaphors.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Etc.
Metaphors: the Son of Man, angels with him, the throne, the heavenly glory, the kindgdom, the King, the shepard, the goats... there is nothing here that does not mean something else beyond its literal interpretation.

All religions were devised by people, ignorant people at that, and no person can possibly answer any question that religion is supposed to answer.
It would be nice to think that there's a place to go after death but it just doesn't make sense. Life and consciousness is the functioning of the human brain and when it stops working, it stops working!

The religious answer to it all of having a higher creator simply doesn't solve anything. Science is trying to break the problems down into simpler parts, so the answers become simpler. Evolution shows us that all we have to answer is how the first steps to life occurred, from simple amino acids to replicating strands of genes and proto-DNA.

If you believe in a creator you have to answer the question, well where did God come from? Now god is infinitely more complex than a human, he supposedly knows the whereabouts of every single sub-atomic particle in the Universe, not just now but for the entire past and future. Such a being would be unrecognisable to us, completely un human-like. It wouldn't recognise our existance as we wouldn't recognise the existance of single bacterium.

So where is he/it? Where did it come from, and why does it never do anything?

Would you rather have the ability to do whatever you want and know whatever you want with the ability to chose between good and bad or would you rather be a preprogramed being only capperbile of doing good.

Let's try this again Neo.

Do people in Heaven sin or do evil things?

Let's try this again Neo.

Do people in Heaven sin or do evil things?

They are capperbile of it but they dont (see lucifier). My understanding of the nature of heavenly beings (Abrev HB) is no better than any other human but from what I do know I can piece together the following

1) Due to the nature of HB's they are caperbile of sinning and doing evil things but they do not. Nor do they have original sin.

2) HB's have a great better perspective on the world than we do. I dont know it's full extent but I guess they can see all time and all places.

3) HB's do not have the same power as God, but I think they have a similar understanding/level of intellegence (Dont quote me on that one, this is only what I have piceced together from various readings about them and logical/theological assumptions)

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.


aha! first things first, let's put this into 'logical' order shall we? Why DO you believe in a higher deity? Then we can explain why we don't; just look at what you reply with...

I don't believe in a higher power because I look at the world and see so much suffering and whatnot and I can't fathom that there's something more powerful that could stop all of this and yet doesn't. I find it rather digusting that people think there's a higher power who just lets this happen.

aha! first things first, let's put this into 'logical' order shall we? Why DO you believe in a higher deity? Then we can explain why we don't; just look at what you reply with...

No, he asked first. If you cant defend your non belief you have no place in this thread. Go instead starting a thread asking why people do believe. Dont ask the oppisite question in a thread which has stated its purpose at the begining. Go on, go make they "Why do you believe" thread. Dont go make stupid attempts to avoid answering.

I don't believe in a higher power because I look at the world and see so much suffering and whatnot and I can't fathom that there's something more powerful that could stop all of this and yet doesn't. I find it rather digusting that people think there's a higher power who just lets this happen.

Go see the deserved suffering thread. That point is delt with there.

No, he asked first. If you cant defend your non belief you have no place in this thread. Go instead starting a thread asking why people do believe. Dont ask the oppisite question in a thread which has stated its purpose at the begining. Go on, go make they "Why do you believe" thread. Dont go make stupid attempts to avoid answering.

okay then, you want my opinion?

I am a strong atheist, as I believe God is a notion invented merely as [sorry for the repition of quotes] opium of the people. It's very nice having something to fall back on, and for many people that's all God is. To me, this isn't enough, personally I find myself enough to fall back on, I don't personally need a higher being whom I can't perceive in any way except conceptually. Now, obviously, I don't want to have a go at others merely for having different beliefs to mine; but I think it's interesting that there is so much more proof on the side of atheism than on the side of the proof of God. It's easy to say that the Bible is proof enough, but I could easily say that about Darwin's works, could I not?

A common atheistic argument is "if God is benevolent, why does so much suffering occur?", etc, etc.....I basically agree with this also, as I believe that either God is able to prevent suffering, but isn't bothering, which obviously makes him malevolent, and thus surely, if he put evil in the hands of us to solve, and he is evil by not stopping it himself, then we should destroy him under his own instruction?

Also, there are fundamental flaws in the Bible [the 'ultimate proof'] which I'm sure you've heard before and argued against or for before, but I think that the main, seriously worrying one is the lack of mention of dinosaurs.....we have fossils, bones, and other proof for these creatures, and fundamentalist christians believe the world in 12, 000 years old, judging by the age of people in the Bible.......why weren't the dinosaurs mentioned? it seems to mention pretty much everything else, doesn't it?

Last but in NO WAY least,

think of the possibility that the Bible is the word of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, infinite being...........and weigh that up with the possibility that it was a bunch of bored people who became friends with an excellent magician about 2000 years ago, in the town of Jerusalum; where there was, also, a lack of a mental asylum..

by the way, my message above is only the start of my beliefs about God, it is ismply too late and I am too tired to continue..hehe

I don't believe in a higher power because I look at the world and see so much suffering and whatnot and I can't fathom that there's something more powerful that could stop all of this and yet doesn't. I find it rather digusting that people think there's a higher power who just lets this happen.

i think that shows that there is a problem between God and man. ever think that we bring this trouble on ourselves? there was no suffering until mankind sinned against God.

"Three philosophers are seated in a plane. The first man said that he heard that during the early hours of the night, hijackers took over the controls. As he spoke, the plane lunged to the left and thrust a number of passengers against the wall, seriously injuring some of them.
After the second man gained his composure, he said, “Because of what just happened, I don’t believe that this plane was ever made.” Even though his statement didn’t make sense, he continued to maintain that the entire plane, with its seats, windows, lighting, air conditioning, engines, etc., happened by accident.
As the third philosopher began to give his thoughts, the plane again lunged to one side. This time it was so violent that many passengers were seriously injured and two elderly people were killed. He was obviously shaken, but was able to share his thoughts about what had happened. He said that despite what was happening on the plane, he thought all was well in the cockpit.
It was then that someone quickly passed a hand-written note to the first man. It read, “Hijackers! All to be thrust out of the plane. Parachute under seat. Put it on now. Going to cut the lighting. Be ready to jump!” As he read its words, his eyes widened. This confirmed that something was radically wrong. He quickly reached under his seat and put the parachute on, and then passed the note on to the second philosopher.
The second man read the words on the note. He smiled said, “This note hasn’t used correct grammar. “Parachute under seat” isn’t even a complete sentence…” With that, he crumpled the note and dropped it to the floor.
The third man, still shaken by what had happened on the plane, picked up the note and read it. He said, “It sure looks authentic. It does have the airline’s letterhead. What’s happening on the plane does add up to something being radically wrong…I think I now believe there is something wrong.” However, he then sat in his seat, not bothering to put his parachute on, or even to pass the note on to others!
The first passenger is a genuine convert. He understands that the issue of suffering--disease, pain and death shows that something is radically wrong between God and man. His knowledge of the jump that he must take through the door of death causes him to trust in the Savior.
The second man is an atheist. He uses the issue of suffering to somehow make an illogical leap into the philosophy that there is no God. The thought that the whole of creation, with its flowers, its birds, the sun, the moon, the animal kingdom, the beauty of the seasons, the incredible variety of succulent fruit trees, etc., all happened by accident. He exalts himself above the mind of his Creator, and condescendingly becomes a critic of the Word of God. He maintains it is full of errors and therefore can’t be trusted.
The third man is an average person. He believes in God. He even believes the Bible. He is easily convinced that something may be wrong between man and God…but he doesn’t see his urgent need to put on the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we awaken these two men?
For the answer, let’s go back to the plane. The first man simply needs to tell the other two philosophers to look out of the window for a moment, and to think about the 25,000-foot fall. Their knowledge of the unbending law of gravity should kick in, and from there common sense should do the rest. It should cause both men to look under their seat for the parachute.
The issue of suffering is not something the Christian should avoid. It is glaring evidence that man has rejected God—all is not well on board the flight. It works for our cause, not against it. All these things—pain, disease, droughts, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.—should cause the thinking person to investigate the claims of the “note” of God’s Word, and see its explanation."

seriously worrying one is the lack of mention of dinosaurs.....we have fossils, bones, and other proof for these creatures, and fundamentalist christians believe the world in 12, 000 years old, judging by the age of people in the Bible.......why weren't the dinosaurs mentioned? it seems to mention pretty much everything else, doesn't it?

dinosaurs are in the bible. Job 40:15-41:34

dinosaurs are in the bible. Job 40:15-41:34

oh really? what does it say about them? [I'm genuinely intrigued]

oh really? what does it say about them? [I'm genuinely intrigued]

ill just give a few verses of the descriptions so you can get an idea. in these passages it describes two:
the behemoth -
It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.”
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”
leviathan:
“No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
“Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
“His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
“His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
“On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea”
Leviathan is a “reptile that is in the sea.”

oh yea, ill add this: notice how it describes the leviathan "Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.” - paleontologists beleive ,i think its the kronosaurus, that they found a cavity in the skull in which they think containted toxic chemicals.

I don't believe in God partly because it is my gut feeling, but mainly because I know that to believe in a god is to place a limit on what you believe humanity can accomplish. Anyway, I have no doubt that there is something greater than me, but when I say something I mean very vaguley. Certainly no conscious being and not some new age life force either. If I had to call it anything I would call it 'everything'. As far as I'm concerned, God is just an attempt to put the universe into the form of a conscious being, because as conscious beings we are unable to contemplate anything else. I am finding this all very hard to explain with this puny thing called language. What is out there is sort of scxermfropradythinjkop.

ill just give a few verses of the descriptions so you can get an idea. in these passages it describes two:
the behemoth -
It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.”
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”
leviathan:
“No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
“Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
“His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
“His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
“On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea”
Leviathan is a “reptile that is in the sea.”

oh yea, ill add this: notice how it describes the leviathan "Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.” - paleontologists beleive ,i think its the kronosaurus, that they found a cavity in the skull in which they think containted toxic chemicals.

The Behemoth is a hippo, Leviathan is a crocodile.

The Behemoth is a hippo, Leviathan is a crocodile.

Wrong, Tail like a ceader indicates that it pointed up. Hippos tails dont do that. Hippos bones are nowhere near as strong as described.

Wrong, Tail like a ceader indicates that it pointed up. Hippos tails dont do that. Hippos bones are nowhere near as strong as described.

First - the strength of the bones is most likely metaphor... perhaps for the strength and resilience of the beast. No beast ever discovered has ACTUALLY had iron ribs... not even dinosaurs.

Second - a tail that sways like cedar, can easily represent the fact that it sways. Alternatively, it could mean that the tail was 'stiff' or stubby.

Don't call 'wrong', purely based on your OWN speculations, Neo.

If you can PROVE me wrong, you have the right to call 'wrong'. AT the moment, you are just voicing your own opinion, but claiming it as superior.

Just by the way: Eastons' Bible Dictionary has this to say:

BEHEMOTH: Some have supposed this to be an Egyptian word meaning a "water-ox." The Revised Version has here in the margin "hippopotamus," which is probably the correct rendering of the word. The word occurs frequently in Scripture, but, except here, always as a common name, and translated "beast" or "cattle."

First - the strength of the bones is most likely metaphor... perhaps for the strength and resilience of the beast. No beast ever discovered has ACTUALLY had iron ribs... not even dinosaurs.

Second - a tail that sways like cedar, can easily represent the fact that it sways. Alternatively, it could mean that the tail was 'stiff' or stubby.

Don't call 'wrong', purely based on your OWN speculations, Neo.

If you can PROVE me wrong, you have the right to call 'wrong'. AT the moment, you are just voicing your own opinion, but claiming it as superior.

Apologies, but you did the same thing by claiming the leviathan WAS a hippo and the Levigathan WAS a crocodile. To repoint, we both have interpertaitions of which either could be right. But to point this out, I wasnt claiming that the beast actually "Had" iron ribbs, just that comparing the strength of hippo bones to iron would have been a falacy. They aren't that strong.

Apologies. To repoint, we both have interpertaitions of which either could be right

See the edit above.

Serious bible scholars do NOT promote dinosaurs - the evidence (as in Easton) suggests the Hippo and Crocodile.

See the edit above.

Serious bible scholars do NOT promote dinosaurs - the evidence (as in Easton) suggests the Hippo and Crocodile.

1) Who are you to say who is and isnt a serious bible scholar

2) You were just as arrogent as me when you said the Leviathan WAS a crocadile and the Beamoeth WAS a hippo

The Behemoth is a hippo, Leviathan is a crocodile.

Although an elephant or hippopotamus can eat grass (or lie in a covert of reeds and marsh), neither an elephant or a hippopotamus has a “tail like a cedar” (that is, a tail like a large, tapered tree trunk). In adinosaur book you will find lots of animals that have “tails like a cedar.”

We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered.

Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references (we have not listed them all) refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile (and both of these are fierce) neither of these is a sea creature. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land. Further, the question “Who can open the doors of his face. . . .” implies that nobody can pry Leviathan’s jaws open. Yet we are all familiar with “alligator wrestlers” who routinely pry open an alligator’s jaws. Alligators do not match the description of Leviathan—and we are not done yet.

The description of the scales is interesting. Several verses describe these great scales. Compared to Leviathan’s armor, iron is like straw and arrows ca not make it flee. Let’s face it, an arrow can do a lot of damage to a crocodile or alligator. This is not a description of either of them—or any living animal we are aware of.

And now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal that can spew fire in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle has a built-in flame thrower, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree?

Serious bible scholars do NOT promote dinosaurs

that is completely wrong. how many books written by biblical scholars have you read to form that conclusion?

1) Who are you to say who is and isnt a serious bible scholar

2) You were just as arrogent as me when you said the Leviathan WAS a crocadile and the Beamoeth WAS a hippo

Neo - you amuse me.

You question my scriptural erudition, and yet, of the two of us - only one of us has actually read the bible.

Not only do I read it in English, but also the Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. You have yet to complete it foe the first time in English.

Am I wrong?

I also enjoy it in French, but that is an affectation - since it is a modern translation, and not a 'historical' form.

Okay - so, of the two of us, I am the 'bible expert', yes? If for no other reason than the fact that I have bothered to read from cover to cover.

And, not only do I enjoy the KJV (which is by far my favoured (although heavily erroneous) translation - but I also regularly read a variety of different translations, to give me a better perspective on the text.


Now - let's look at the cedar verse, shall we?

KJV gives "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together".

The Standard Version gives "He moveth his tail like a cedar: The sinews of his thighs are knit together".

Darby gives "He bendeth his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are woven together".

Young gives "He doth bend his tail as a cedar, The sinews of his thighs are wrapped together",

Now - we reach an interesting translation when we get to Douay Rheims, which gives "The shades cover his shadow, the willows of the brook shall compass him about".

As a matter of interest, the Hebrew gives us "Chaphets Zanah 'erez Giyd Pachad Sarag", which, when using the most popular translation modes for each term, can be translated to something like "The tail gives delight, as the cedar (used in ritual purification), and the sinew (of the) thigh (is) intertwined".

So - How many of those translations actually compare the tail of Behemoth to a tree? None. Some say the tail 'moves like cedar', some say the tail 'bends like cedar'. Douay Rheims says that Behemoth dwells in shadows.

None say anything about 'standing like a tree'.

Okay.

So, we move on to 'serious bible scholars'.

Eastons Bible Dictionary gives "Behemoth: Some have supposed this to be an Egyptian word meaning a "water-ox." The Revised Version has here in the margin "hippopotamus," which is probably the correct rendering of the word. The word occurs frequently in Scripture, but, except here, always as a common name, and translated "beast" or "cattle"".

Further, Easton gives the following guides for translating 'erez (cedar). Cedar:(Heb. e'rez, Gr. kedros, Lat. cedrus), a tree very frequently mentioned in Scripture. It was stately (Ezekiel 31:3-5), long-branched (Psalms 80:10; 92:12; Ezekiel 31:6-9), odoriferous (Cant 4:11; Hosea 14:6), durable, and therefore much used for boards, pillars, and ceilings (1 Kings 6:9,10; 7:2; Jeremiah 22:14), for masts (Ezekiel 27:5), and for carved images (Isaiah 44:14).

Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary suggests an elephant, and, indeed an alternate translation of 'tail': "The description here given of the behemoth. 1. His body is very strong and well built. His strength is in his loins, v. 16. His bones, compared with those of other creatures, are like bars of iron, v. 18. His back-bone is so strong that, though his tail be not large, yet he moves it like a cedar, with a commanding force, v. 17. Some understand it of the trunk of the elephant, for the word signifies any extreme part, and in that there is indeed a wonderful strength. So strong is the elephant in his back and loins, and the sinews of his thighs, that he will carry a large wooden tower, and a great number of fighting men in it. No animal whatsoever comes near the elephant for strength of body, which is the main thing insisted on in this description".

Smith's Bible Dictionary asserts again, the Hippo: "Behemoth
(great beasts ). There can be little or no doubt that by this word, (Job 40:15-24) the hippopotamus is intended since all the details descriptive of the behemoth accord entirely with the ascertained habits of that animal. The hippopotamus is an immense creature having a thick and square head, a large mouth often two feet broad, small eyes and ears, thick and heavy body, short legs terminated by four toes, a short tail, skin without hair except at the extremity of the tail. It inhabits nearly the whole of Africa, and has been found of the length of 17 feet. It delights in the water, but feeds on herbage on land. It is not found in Palestine, but may at one time have been a native of western Asia".

John Wesley's Commentary on the Whole Bible, gives:"Behemoth - Very learned men take the leviathan to be the crocodile, and the behemoth to be the river - horse, which may fitly be joined with the crocodile, both being well known to Joband his friends, as being frequent in the adjacent parts, both amphibious, living and preying both in the water and upon the land. And both creatures of great bulk and strength. Made - As I made thee. Grass - The river - horse comes out of the river upon the land to feed upon corn, and hay, or grass, as an ox doth, to whom also he is not unlike in the form of his head and feet, and in the bigness of his body, whence the Italians call him, the sea - ox....
Tail - Which though it be but short, yet when it is erected, is exceeding stiff and strong. Thighs - The sinews of his thighs. His thighs and feet are so sinewy and strong, that one of them is able to break or over - turn a large boat".

So - now, I assume you will apologise for your arrogance, retract your accusation of arrogance that you levelled on myself - and willingly concede that "serious Bible scholars" do, indeed, suggest the Hippo (and the crocodile - we can examine that in detail too, if you like).

Although an elephant or hippopotamus can eat grass (or lie in a covert of reeds and marsh), neither an elephant or a hippopotamus has a “tail like a cedar” (that is, a tail like a large, tapered tree trunk). In adinosaur book you will find lots of animals that have “tails like a cedar.”

We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered.

Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references (we have not listed them all) refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile (and both of these are fierce) neither of these is a sea creature. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land. Further, the question “Who can open the doors of his face. . . .” implies that nobody can pry Leviathan’s jaws open. Yet we are all familiar with “alligator wrestlers” who routinely pry open an alligator’s jaws. Alligators do not match the description of Leviathan—and we are not done yet.

The description of the scales is interesting. Several verses describe these great scales. Compared to Leviathan’s armor, iron is like straw and arrows ca not make it flee. Let’s face it, an arrow can do a lot of damage to a crocodile or alligator. This is not a description of either of them—or any living animal we are aware of.

And now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal that can spew fire in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle has a built-in flame thrower, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree?

Let me refer you to the missive I just posted for Neo. I am far from the only 'scholar' to have suggested Hippo or Crocodile.

Regarding fire... I suspect you are dealing with a metaphor there, unless you really do believe that Behemoth is also some kind of cyborg dinosaur, since scripture clearly describes metal body parts.

Oh, by the way - you might want to look further into your Hebrew mythology before you start making assumptions. While Behemoth (in Bestiary - that is, allegorical - form) may be massive, the Ziz (large Roc-like bird) is almost certainly more massive, and Re'em is doubtless far larger:

"Many monsters were created on the Sixth Day, some destroyed during the Flood, some still with us. The re'em is described as a giant even among these strange animals. At any given time, only two exist, one male and one female, because had more of them existed, the world could not support them. No one is certain what the re'em looks like. The sources describe him as fierce, fast, and indomitable. Scholars argue about the number of his horns, some say he has one, like a unicorn or a rhinoceros. Some say two, and he could be related to the giant aurochs (Bos primigenius), a species of a wild ox that became extinct during the sixteenth century. On the other hand, he may be a purely mythological creature, based on the bas-reliefs of the huge Mesopotamian and Egyptian beasts that were unquestionably familiar to the Jews of the Talmudic era".

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/bestiary/articles.html

Justifidians, your metaphor of the three people in the plane is completely bogus. I'd say the first man is the atheist because he uses his senses and common sense to work out the reality. The second man is the god-botherer because no matter what argument you put forward he'll just keep on believing what he wants to regardless of contrary evidence.

Also with this bible discussion, the dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years ago. Homo sapiens are less than 100 thousand years old. Neanderthals were still around 30 thousand years ago. So that's 59 Million 900 thousand years between the two, and I don't believe us sapiens were keeping records before abou 10 thousand years ago.

So there's no way anyone who wrote the bible would know about dinosaurs. Plus the old testament is basically written down heresay and folk lore, copied down by pretty ignorant people. (That's not an insult by the way, everyone was ignorant back then regardless of IQ).

So the bible should be regarded as a piece of ancient heritage, but it should not be treated as sacrosanct academic fact.

Instead of calling religion opium of the masses I'd suggest it is more like prozac. Stops you getting depressed about your true position in the universe. The problem with this is it also stops you actually finding the answers to the big questions yourself.

Instead of arguing silly points in the old testament, why not argue the large generic questions that crop up from all religions.

Such as: -

How could an afterlife be possible?
What about reincarnation?
What kind of being would an omniscient, omnipotent god be?
Is it worth asking any of these questions because they can never be answered since you have to die first?

So - now, I assume you will apologise for your arrogance, retract your accusation of arrogance that you levelled on myself - and willingly concede that "serious Bible scholars" do, indeed, suggest the Hippo (and the crocodile - we can examine that in detail too, if you like).

You havent answered my question. What qualifies you to make statements as to who is and isnt a serious bible scholar. To do so would mean that you are in a supireror position to all bible scholars so you can judge who is "Serious" and who is not. Also you still haven't apologised for your original arrogence in assuming the beamoth and levithan WERE hippos and crocs.

You havent answered my question. What qualifies you to make statements as to who is and isnt a serious bible scholar. To do so would mean that you are in a supireror position to all bible scholars so you can judge who is "Serious" and who is not. Also you still haven't apologised for your original arrogence in assuming the beamoth and levithan WERE hippos and crocs.

I suggest you re-read my post, Neo.

It explains it all... unless you are under the impression that Easton, Henry, Smith and Wesley are not the top critical minds in the field?

So, who would you consider a greater expert on scripture?

As far as I can tell, ALL the big guns in the theological arena side against you on this matter, and I am hardly arrogant for concurring with their opinion.

On the contrary - you object to the foremost Christian thinkers, setting yourself somehow far above great scriptural analysts, and dare to voice your objections against them (and me) as though you had some authority.

You really need to back up, stop the noise, and apologise, Neo.

You've lost this one... it's just going to make you look bad.

Whether a higher being or not, I believe, partly for my own sanity - otherwise what is the point of being good, caring or even alive? But more than that, I have prayed on a few occasions for other people, either to get well, or get they job the want or that their wedding day would be sunny, small things but I also prayed for my granny to survive a heart attack when the doctors and surgeons all said she wouldn't...she was let out the following day as being fit as a fiddle! So I say my thanks to who or whatever listened to me and I keep on believing.

P.S. This is my own view and I do not ram it down other peoples throats! We all make our own choices and take our own paths, good luck to you!

This is my own view and I do not ram it down other peoples throats! We all make our own choices and take our own paths, good luck to you!
Well said.
Peace be upon you.

I suggest you re-read my post, Neo.

It explains it all... unless you are under the impression that Easton, Henry, Smith and Wesley are not the top critical minds in the field?

So, who would you consider a greater expert on scripture?

As far as I can tell, ALL the big guns in the theological arena side against you on this matter, and I am hardly arrogant for concurring with their opinion.

On the contrary - you object to the foremost Christian thinkers, setting yourself somehow far above great scriptural analysts, and dare to voice your objections against them (and me) as though you had some authority.

You really need to back up, stop the noise, and apologise, Neo.

You've lost this one... it's just going to make you look bad.

While the people you said may "be" serious biblical scholars, that does not discount those who support me being serious bible scholars.

Same reason i don't belive in the bogeyman.

they are both inane and clearly an invention of the human mind.

While the people you said may "be" serious biblical scholars, that does not discount those who support me being serious bible scholars.

Okay, Neo - bring it.

Who are the 'biblical scholars' that you are citing?

Come on, I pulled big names here, and they all agree with my side, which makes your assertion a mockery, does it not?

Not only that, but I (and Easton, Wesley, et al) can back my claim up - which makes me far from arrogant... in fact it just makes me the messenger of some of the elite minds in the field.

On the contrary - it is YOU that has made an insupportable claim, based on an insupportable assertion (that is - your erroneous assessment of what the 'cedar' reference means) - and you appear to be utterly unable to offer even one single credible and accepted confirmation of your idea.

Thus - your assertion WAS arrogant.

And you have yet to apologise for such vulgar manners - but, you've never apologised for that behaviour in the past, so I don't REALLY expect you to start now.

I find it highly amusing that you concede that Easton, Wesley, et al... MIGHT be 'serious' scholars... are you really THAT poorly informed about the theology that you claim as your own?

Retire gracefully now, Neo... at this point, I will accept an earnest apology, and admission of error.

Your argument, my friend... is a zombie... It is only still moving because it is too mindless to realise it is already dead.

Dr Farid Abou-Rahme and Dr Jonathan Sarfati are two who support my arguement. Want to keep going?

Wrong, Tail like a ceader indicates that it pointed up. Hippos tails dont do that. Hippos bones are nowhere near as strong as described.

Then the bible's description is wrong :p

i urge you to read all of this. dont make assumtions, they can bite you in the end.

In the context of Job 38-41, God is in the midst of asking Job a lengthy series of questions—the entire purpose of which was to show the patriarch that he did not know nearly as much as he thought he did when he charged God foolishly. If the creatures in Job 40-41 were, in fact, mythological, Job then could (and likely would!) have turned to God and asked, “Lord, what’s your point? These creatures are mythological!” God’s argument would have collapsed of its own weight. The context (which also refers to other real animals such as horses, hawks, and ostriches) becomes critical, especially considering the purpose and intent of God’s questions to Job. That the leviathan was referred to in ancient mythological literature is beyond question. But this does not prove that mythological creatures are under consideration in Job 40 and 41.

allowing for the use of highly poetic language at times, the book of Job remains realistic throughout (Anderson, 1974, p. 288). Job was a real person (cf. Ezekiel 14:14,20; James 5:11) who experienced real pain. He challenged a real God that was (and is) alive. Jehovah described real creatures in Job 38 and 39. And so there is no legitimate reason for rejecting behemoth and leviathan as real animals.

God was concerned in His discussion with Job with the appearance and habits of these creatures in the present. God “is not interested in imaginary creatures from the dim mythological past—he is concerned with the actual present, with the vast universe as it is governed by its Maker” (Gordis, 1965, p. 119).

God’s purpose in glorifying His creation would not be served by describing mythological creatures derived from a polytheistic background. In his commentary on Job, Gordis elaborated on this point:

A passing mythological reference, such as we encounter in Isa. and Ps., is conceivable, but not an extended description of primordial beasts the reality of which the exalted monotheism of the author of Job had rejected. The point need not be labored that an uncompromising monotheism is the indispensable religious background for the book of Job and for the discussion of the issue of evil which it raises. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that Job parts company with Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian Wisdom precisely here—the book is not a lament on suffering, nor even a complaint to the gods, but a challenge to the one God, whose hallmark is justice and who is being charged with having violated His own standard.

that these creatures are real would seem to be quite conclusive, for Job 40:15 states explicitly that behemoth and Job are equally God’s creatures (Anderson, 1974, pp. 288-289). Speaking to Job, God said, “Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee” (40:15, emp. added).

Scholars who take the mythological approach when interpreting Job 40-41 simply are making comparisons to their liking. They have been so captivated by “apparent” parallels in ancient literature that they have lost sight of the basic exegetical test—the relevance and appropriateness of the interpretation within the context of the book of Job (Gordis, p. 569).

now for hippos and crocadiles...

What are these flesh-and-blood creatures that Jehovah employed to impress upon Job his puniness when compared with God’s omnipotence? Older expositors like Thomas Aquinas thought that perhaps behemoth was the elephant, while leviathan was the whale (e.g., Gibson, 1905, p. 220). But since Samuel Bochart’s two-volume work Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacrae Scripturae was published in 1663, most modern critics have labeled the animals in question as the hippopotamus and the crocodile (Wilson, 1975, 25:1).

Their basic claim is that the hippopotamus fits many of the characteristics of behemoth, while the crocodile aligns itself very closely with leviathan. This position has become so popular in modern times that few commentators have bothered to challenge the proposed identification of these beasts. In fact, even some versions of the Bible identify these creatures in the marginal notes or chapter headings as the hippopotamus and the crocodile.

For example, Gordis confidently stated: “Behemot is to be identified as the hippopotamus and Leviathan as the crocodile” (1978, p. 571). Edgar Gibson wrote: “...there can be little doubt that” behemoth corresponds with the hippopotamus, and “there can be no doubt here leviathan means the crocodile” (1905, p. 223). In his practical book on Job, Theodore Epp confidently affirmed: “The first animal mentioned is the behemoth or the hippopotamus” and the leviathan “was a large crocodile” (1967, p. 175). Again, however, after making such definite statements, little evidence is offered, except for making a few comparisons between the animals. Actually, in more than one commentary the reader will find ample time spent answering objections, but little to none laying out concrete evidence supporting the author’s particular theory.

While it is true that a few similarities do exist between the behemoth and the hippo, and between the leviathan and the crocodile, many of the descriptive details do not seem to fit either creature. These differences are so numerous and significant that they cannot be overlooked.

It has been suggested by some scholars that the word behemoth itself derives from a hypothetical Egyptian compound p’-ih-mw (pehemu), meaning “the ox of the water” (Mitchell, 1996, p. 127). But, as Marvin Pope observed, “no such word has yet been found in Coptic or Egyptian and no known Egyptian designation of the hippopotamus bears any close resemblance to the word Behemoth” (1965, p. 268).

The behemoth is said to be “chief [i.e., largest] of the ways of God” (40:19). Surely this would rule out the hippo, since at full size it is but seven feet high (Thompson and Bromling, n.d., p. 5). An elephant is twice the size of a hippopotamus, and yet even it was dwarfed by certain extinct creatures. For example, the creature once popularly referred to as Brontosaurus (now known more accurately as Apatosaurus) grew to weigh more than 30 tons, whereas the hippo weighs in at only around 4 tons (Jackson, 1983, p. 86).

The text indicates that no man could approach the behemoth with a sword (40:19), nor was he able to capture him (40:24). the hippopotamus was hunted frequently and captured successfully by the Egyptians (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353). Hartley observed:

Egyptian pharaohs took pride in slaying a hippopotamus. There are numerous pictures in which the pharaoh, hunting a hippopotamus from a papyrus boat, is poised to hurl his harpoon into the animal’s opened mouth, thereby inflicting a fatal blow (1988, p. 524).

The leviathan also is represented as unapproachable and too mighty to be apprehended by men. The Lord said:

Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue with a cord? Canst thou put a rope into his nose? Or pierce his jaw through with a hook?... If one lay at him with the sword, it cannot avail; Nor the spear, the dart, nor the pointed shaft (41:1-2,26).
It is clear that the leviathan is represented as “too powerful and ferocious for mere man to dare to come to grips with it” (Pope, p. 268). He is “beyond the power of men to capture” (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353). Leviathan is “peerless and fearless” (Strauss, 1976, p. 437). Contrariwise, the crocodile—like the hippopotamus—was hunted and captured by Egyptians. Herodotus discussed how they captured crocodiles (Rowley, 1980, p. 259), and how that, after being seized, some even were tamed (Jackson, 1983, p. 87). Such a scene hardly depicts the animal of Job 40:15ff.

According to Jehovah, the leviathan’s “sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning torches, and sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils a smoke goeth, as of a boiling pot and (burning) rushes. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth forth from his mouth” (Job 41:18-21). Some, such as Driver and Gray, have suggested that perhaps God did not intend to use literal imagery in these verses (1964, p. 366). However, as Henry Morris observed:

It is presumptuous merely to write all this off as mythological and impossible. To say that the leviathan could not have breathed fire is to say much more than we know about leviathans (or water dragons or sea serpents). Fire flies produce light, eels produce electricity, and bombardier beetles produce explosive chemical reactions. All of these involve complex chemical processes, and it does not seem at all impossible that an animal might be given the ability to breathe out certain gaseous fumes which, upon coming in contact with oxygen, would briefly ignite (1984, p. 359).

When leviathan “raiseth himself up, the mighty are afraid: By reason of consternation they are beside themselves.... He beholdeth everything that is high: He is king over all the sons of pride” (Job 41:25,34). True, crocodiles are frightening creatures. Yet they are no more frightening standing up than when sitting, because their legs are so short. How could it thus be said of the crocodile that “he beholdeth everything that is high”—when he himself is so close to the ground?

God also described leviathan as an animal that cannot be availed by swords, spears, or darts (41:26). In fact, leviathan “laugheth at the rushing of the javelin” (41:29) and “his underparts are (like) sharp potsherds” (41:30). In commenting on these verses, Thompson and Bromling wrote:

Although the hide that covers the crocodile’s back is extremely thick and difficult to penetrate, this is not true of his belly. The crocodile is most vulnerable to spears and javelins on his underside; hence, it could not be said of him that “his underparts are like sharp potsherds” (n.d., p. 7).

God’s descriptions of behemoth and leviathan are compatible in every way with the descriptions we have of dinosaurs and dinosaur-like, water-living reptiles that roamed the Earth, not millions of years ago as some have suggested, but only a few thousand years ago. Moses wrote: “For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is (Exodus 20:11, emp. added). Man, according to Christ, existed “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10.6; cf. Matthew 19:4). So did the dinosaurs.

There are three possible explanations as to the exact identity of the biblical creatures known as behemoth and leviathan: (1) they are unreal, mythological monsters; (2) they are real animals that exist somewhere in the world today; or (3) they are some kind of real, yet extinct creature. The biblical and scientific evidence makes it clear that the third choice is the only correct option. Yet, sadly, as Henry Morris has observed:

Modern Bible scholars, for the most part, have become so conditioned to think in terms of the long ages of evolutionary geology that it never occurs to them that mankind once lived in the same world with the great animals that are now found only as fossils (1988, p. 115).

I only took bits and peices, heres the full thing: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0101a.htm

1) It's entirely possible that a species from the 'dinosaur period' survived to that point. Ever heard of Nessie? Lungfish? Crocodiles? Sharks?

2) Did it ever occur to you that the description was BS? Have you seen some of the deranged pictures people have made of whales?

3) Ever consider that someone saw BONES, and made up the rest, as the greeks did when they saw mammoth bones (cyclops, giants, over-sized heroes) and protoceratops bones (griffons)?

4) Some people still believe that dragons exist, and ghosts, goblins, trolls, ogres, boogeymen, vampires, ghouls, werewolves, bunyips, selkies, and any other variety of monster you can think of. Does them making claims mean they know what the heck they're talking about?

5) When the Aztecs met the Conquestadors, they thought they were gods.

Hello. "Mythological" does not mean they did not exist. What it means is that there is a trope involved in the use of them as a story element. It means there is a metaphor associated with the use of the image in the story.

Ever consider that someone saw BONES, and made up the rest,

Hello. "Mythological" does not mean they did not exist. What it means is that there is a trope involved in the use of them as a story element. It means there is a metaphor associated with the use of the image in the story.

we are looking at something within the bible. Job is challenging God. God uses these two animals to show off his power and his control. we are looking at a text that is supposedly the word of God. therefore, those who believe in the bible make the claim that it is a true book. if you dont beleive the bible is true then you more than likely would not believe in creation. (which says dinosaurs were created alongside man)
read the rest of the article, i did not post it all. if job was a real man, he would not have been impressed with just Gods description of great creatures.

1) It's entirely possible that a species from the 'dinosaur period' survived to that point. Ever heard of Nessie? Lungfish? Crocodiles? Sharks?
None of them existed as their current species in the Mesozoic Era. Ever heard of the coelacanth? Now that is a living fossil. There aren't many of those left though, as it takes fairly static conditions to remain static as a species.

Hello. "Mythological" does not mean they did not exist. What it means is that there is a trope involved in the use of them as a story element. It means there is a metaphor associated with the use of the image in the story.
If something is mythological, it does not actually exist. This might just be arguing semantics, however.

Dr Farid Abou-Rahme and Dr Jonathan Sarfati are two who support my arguement. Want to keep going?

Oh no, Neo - I'm sure Wesley would be shaking in his boots at the 'heavyweights' you have already found...

I despair, I really do.

Sorry, Neo - this is just sad...

ALL the big guns in the theological arena side against you on this matter

i think your big guns need to reload ;)

behemoth and leviathan click here (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0101a.htm)

this site also mentions several 'big gun' scholars for our argument.

My life would go on either way; it is just a matter with no importance to me.

If something is mythological, it does not actually exist. This might just be arguing semantics, however.
Semantics, yes, and context.

They are capperbile of it but they dont (see lucifier). My understanding of the nature of heavenly beings (Abrev HB) is no better than any other human but from what I do know I can piece together the following

But if they do not sin, why do we?

Oh no, Neo - I'm sure Wesley would be shaking in his boots at the 'heavyweights' you have already found...

I despair, I really do.

Sorry, Neo - this is just sad...

Do you even know who those people are?

But if they do not sin, why do we?

Because we're not HB's. We are not the same. We have a more direct relationship to God (Or rather we will). Angels will envy us for that later (will find verse later)

i think your big guns need to reload ;)

behemoth and leviathan click here (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0101a.htm)

this site also mentions several 'big gun' scholars for our argument.

I've read that link - and other similar sites. If you think 'that' is in the same league as Wesley, or the Easton texts - then I despair for your faith and your education.

What they present is an argument to try to excuse the insupportable, by means of the ridiculous.

Anyone who asserts that Job is a literal text, has clearly not READ Job.

Unless you honestly believe that, for example, 'god' literally 'chased' Job 'like a lion'....

Do you even know who those people are?

Is that your way of admitting that the only support you can find is nameless amateurs?

Is that your way of admitting that the only support you can find is nameless amateurs?
In a word … yes

Hey man
:fluffle:

Anyone who asserts that Job is a literal text, has clearly not READ Job.

Ezekiel 14:14,20; James 5:11 the bible presents job as an actual person.

Unless you honestly believe that, for example, 'god' literally 'chased' Job 'like a lion'....

poetic language, which is a heavy part of the old testament. theres a difference between poetry and mythology

Ezekiel 14:14,20; James 5:11 the bible presents job as an actual person.



poetic language, which is a heavy part of the old testament. theres a difference between poetry and mythology
oh and which is "I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes
as one that found favour." ? :p

What they present is an argument to try to excuse the insupportable, by means of the ridiculous.

look at the evidence gathered. maybe you should reread it so it will sink in more. the claim that leviathan and behemoth is a crocadile and hippo shows complete disregard for the real evidence. so does the idea of them being mythical creatures.

oh and which is "I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes
as one that found favour." ? :p

Exactly - the bible is RICH with metaphor... especially books like Job.

Hey, UT!

:fluffle:

Exactly - the bible is RICH with metaphor... especially books like Job.

Hey, UT!

:fluffle:
Hey ... I personaly liked JOB

There was a sci fi take off of it by the same name ... I cant remember who wrote it

Anyways it is recomended by me ... cool book

also maybe you missed the other areas of the bible with leviathan. Psalm 104:26/ Isaiah 27:1

Hey ... I personaly liked JOB

There was a sci fi take off of it by the same name ... I cant remember who wrote it

Anyways it is recomended by me ... cool book

I liked Job, too.

One of the resons I favour the KJV so strongly, is the poetry of the text - and Job is lyrical ANYWAY.

The book you are thinking of is by Robert Heinlein... and yes, it was good.

I liked Job, too.

One of the resons I favour the KJV so strongly, is the poetry of the text - and Job is lyrical ANYWAY.

The book you are thinking of is by Robert Heinlein... and yes, it was good.
Thank you was bugging me and too lazy to head in to the library :D

I'm interested, and bored. Why don't you believe in a higher deity? Do not say "because I just don't", give me a logical explanation as to why you don't believe.

i dont know if this answer has been offered in 33 pages of posts, but i think this is the only point where believers and non-believers agree:

nobody is able to offer a rational solution to the question of god's existence. believing or not in god cannot be judged in terms o rational/irational. it is arational: it is a conclusion that has not been reached through a rational process. rationality functions based on its inputs. im not saying religion is irational, since no religion is self contradiciting. however, the axiom of god's existence cannot validate religion as truth, since a valid reasoning can lead to invalid conclusions if the premises were wrong.

people BELIEVE that god exist. also, people BELIEVE that god does not exist. noone KNOWS.

getting back to the question, i am GUESSING that does not exist. believers do not know that god exists, they believe he does. and they are also guessing.

also maybe you missed the other areas of the bible with leviathan. Psalm 104:26/ Isaiah 27:1

No, I didn't 'Miss' them.. I just consider them even more irrelevent and ridiculous than the Job reference.

First - quoting from Psalms is like me supporting the Hippo angle by quoting Eminem.

Secondly - Isaiah is another of those texts rich in metaphor.

But - if you choose to read every line as though it were 'true' and 'real'... rather than allowing for any metaphors... well, that's your problem.

It is you that has to twist your belief into little knots to try to wriggle your way around the inconsistency in the text.

So - perhaps you can explain First Samuel 26:20 for me? "Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth before the face of the LORD: for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains". See, if I read everything as utterly true and right.... kings "hunting fleas" makes a silly sort of image for the history of Israel...

Thank you was bugging me and too lazy to head in to the library :D

I'm quite a Heinlein fan, and Job is way up there on the list... just behind "Stranger in a Strange Land".

I'm quite a Heinlein fan, and Job is way up there on the list... just behind "Stranger in a Strange Land".
Another good book :fluffle:

Another good book :fluffle:

Yes - another good book from a stable of classics, to be honest.

So, did I get fluffled for Heinlein... or just for general all-round ruggedness and being a hotty? :)

:fluffle:

Yes - another good book from a stable of classics, to be honest.

So, did I get fluffled for Heinlein... or just for general all-round ruggedness and being a hotty? :)

:fluffle:
ummm yes :fluffle:

Time to add my two cents to this wonderful piece of flame bait...

My take on "God" is really from a culmination of stuff.

I do accept the fact that there's something "up there"...then again, I -was- raised in the western world, so I'm pretty biased. I feel that "God" doesn't have a form, and could really be a big floating purple phallus for all we know. That's why it makes me laugh to see people who claim to know this and thus about what god looks like. If there really was one omnipotent being, it could be anything it wanted. It could be a white guy with a beard, a great stag, a feathered lizard, or a blue guy with tons of arms. So I believe in something, but I don't believe in god. Does that make any sense?

Also, as far as other proof for "if god exsists, what about the bad things?"
Well that's simple to explain. There's two catagories for bad things. There's stuff that happens because it's YOUR fault (depression, poverty (talking about the poverty in America, of course), etcetra), and stuff that happens because of natural events. Like a giant Tsunami that crashes into a shore, or a huge earthquake. God's up there, and it's omnipotent. But what fun is it to hand-feed your creations the know-how of what's going on? That'd be pretty boring. It all ties in to what I believe is the -original- message of christianity, before the Romans got a hold of it and made it very much negative.

"Hey, it'd be awesome if you worship me. You'd be able to have a place in heaven, have parties all the time, get drunk and play videogames if you want. If not, hey, that's cool. I mean, really though, the party is totally in here. Really, just be excellent to eachother, ya know? Don't be an ass, be considerate, and be willing to admit to your own mistakes and faults."

...of course, that is alot different from the Old Testament (read: Torah (sp)). But that's because the old testament (sp?) is -really- for an ENTIRELY different religion. Well, not entirely, but I think you understand what I mean.

Now to add to the flamebait, in which everyone will ignore my perfectly followable arguments and pay attention to only the following:

"OMGOMGOMG! JESUS SUX0RZ! HE Ki113D MY D4DDY! GO TEAM SATAN! 666 RAWRRAWRRAWR!"

*takes a bow, chugging a glass of water*

But - if you choose to read every line as though it were 'true' and 'real'... rather than allowing for any metaphors... well, that's your problem.

Im well aware of the poetical nature of the OT. im currently in my second semester of hebrew and the poetry is some of the best ever written. (IMO)
Anyone can judge that poetry is used for expression sake. It also depends on context. Doing exegesis. I take the Bible seriously but that does not mean i turn poetic language into literal means. As in job, he is writing about his experience. i beleive the experience was 'literal' and in that it happened. his writing style is poetic, but that does not mean what he says is made up.

To get the ordinary reader of the Bible to think about the meaning of the text, attention to the literary context is of particular importance. there are some simple things that can be said about the place within a biblical book where we find a statement, and its relationship to other parts of the book and to the rest of the Bible. This literary context usually has connections with the immediate context, and with more remote parts of the book.

The distinction between poetry and prose is fundamental. Poetry is to be found not only in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon but elsewhere also, notably in the prophetic books.It goes without saying that the Psalms must be understood according to the canons of poetry, in which the point is often not to convey information or to argue grammatically and logically, but rather to express feelings of longing or anguish, adoration or revulsion through imagery, the juxtaposition of images and ideas, crescendos and climaxes of intensity. Jobs purpose is different.

Specific kinds of biblical material have been shaped for specific purposes and are best understood in terms of those uses. Literal doesn't mean that we reject symbolism. This is a misunderstanding among people in our day that throw stones at those who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is poetry to be taken literally? Certainly all biblical text has a point, or literal truth, but the words being used to describe the truth may not be meant to be taken literally. That is often the nature of poetry. This is acknowledged by our method of interpretation.

Antithetical parallelism, emblematic parallelism, chiastic parallelism, external parallelism ; there are many kinds. Job's first affirmation of death into an affirmation of life is minutely worked out in the language and imagery poetry. I take Job to be real, and i understand poetry.

Im well aware of the poetical nature of the OT. im currently in my second semester of hebrew and the poetry is some of the best ever written. (IMO)
Anyone can judge that poetry is used for expression sake. It also depends on context. Doing exegesis. I take the Bible seriously but that does not mean i turn poetic language into literal means. As in job, he is writing about his experience. i beleive the experience was 'literal' and in that it happened. his writing style is poetic, but that does not mean what he says is made up.

To get the ordinary reader of the Bible to think about the meaning of the text, attention to the literary context is of particular importance. there are some simple things that can be said about the place within a biblical book where we find a statement, and its relationship to other parts of the book and to the rest of the Bible. This literary context usually has connections with the immediate context, and with more remote parts of the book.

The distinction between poetry and prose is fundamental. Poetry is to be found not only in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon but elsewhere also, notably in the prophetic books.It goes without saying that the Psalms must be understood according to the canons of poetry, in which the point is often not to convey information or to argue grammatically and logically, but rather to express feelings of longing or anguish, adoration or revulsion through imagery, the juxtaposition of images and ideas, crescendos and climaxes of intensity. Jobs purpose is different.

Specific kinds of biblical material have been shaped for specific purposes and are best understood in terms of those uses. Literal doesn't mean that we reject symbolism. This is a misunderstanding among people in our day that throw stones at those who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is poetry to be taken literally? Certainly all biblical text has a point, or literal truth, but the words being used to describe the truth may not be meant to be taken literally. That is often the nature of poetry. This is acknowledged by our method of interpretation.

Antithetical parallelism, emblematic parallelism, chiastic parallelism, external parallelism ; there are many kinds. Job's first affirmation of death into an affirmation of life is minutely worked out in the language and imagery poetry. I take Job to be real, and i understand poetry.

Job IS poetry.

If you do not see that - if you can't see that the whole point of Job IS the feeling, not the words - then your grasp of poetry isn't the problem, it's your understanding of scripture that should concern you.

Specific kinds of biblical material have been shaped for specific purposes and are best understood in terms of those uses. Literal doesn't mean that we reject symbolism. This is a misunderstanding among people in our day that throw stones at those who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is poetry to be taken literally? Certainly all biblical text has a point, or literal truth, but the words being used to describe the truth may not be meant to be taken literally. That is often the nature of poetry. This is acknowledged by our method of interpretation.

Antithetical parallelism, emblematic parallelism, chiastic parallelism, external parallelism ; there are many kinds. Job's first affirmation of death into an affirmation of life is minutely worked out in the language and imagery poetry. I take Job to be real, and i understand poetry.
You are claiming a non-literal interpretation method as literal. There is nothing about the "literal" that allows for the trope you speak of. Literal literally means avoiding that stuff: avoiding metaphor, symbolism and "stylistic embellishment", all of which are present in poetry.

EDIT: To clarify, you clearly understand that the words are not to be taken literally. However, that's all that literal is; the words at face value. The "truth" behind them, or embedded in the idea they express, is not the literal word, and therefore acknowledging it is employing an interpretation to get at a non-literal meaning.

You are claiming a non-literal interpretation method as literal. There is nothing about the "literal" that allows for the trope you speak of. Literal literally means avoiding that stuff: avoiding metaphor, symbolism and "stylistic embellishment", all of which are present in poetry.

As I believe they say, in more technological circles than I usually circulate in....

"pwned" by Willamena. :)

As I believe they say, in more technological circles than I usually circulate in....

"pwned" by Willamena. :)
Gn'I, that was the absolute funniest way I've heard anybody say someone else got "pwned".
:D

you all sit there and say "i don't believe in god because there is no proof of a god." well of course there isn't. the point of a religion or believing in a god is all about faith. you just have faith that there IS something out there to believe in. its really no different than having faith that you WILL win a competition, even though there is no proof of it. its easy for someone to say "hey, i will win this competition." but its too terrifying for that same person to say "hey, there is a god out there."

it's all about faith. so yeah... if you look for physical proof of a higher power, you'll be searching your entire life and you'll probably never find it.

but that's only my opinion on god.

tim

Job IS poetry.

If you do not see that - if you can't see that the whole point of Job IS the feeling, not the words - then your grasp of poetry isn't the problem, it's your understanding of scripture that should concern you.

You are claiming a non-literal interpretation method as literal. There is nothing about the "literal" that allows for the trope you speak of. Literal literally means avoiding that stuff: avoiding metaphor, symbolism and "stylistic embellishment", all of which are present in poetry.

EDIT: To clarify, you clearly understand that the words are not to be taken literally. However, that's all that literal is; the words at face value. The "truth" behind them, or embedded in the idea they express, is not the literal word, and therefore acknowledging it is employing an interpretation to get at a non-literal meaning.

You guys must not understand what im saying. I DO know that Job is poetry. Unfortunately, the term literal has different meanings to different people. Specifically, widespread confusion exists over the meaning of the word literal (when used in connection with Bible interpretation), as well as the distinction between the words literal and true.

Many fail to discern the distinction between the words literal and true, which, in fact, are not equivalent. To say that a Bible passage is true is to say that it correctly describes reality. For example, Job moaned, "For the arrows of the Almighty are within me; My spirit drinks in their poison" (Job 6:4). He used figurative language to express his conviction that God was the author of his sufferings. His belief, however, was incorrect, since the cause of his sufferings was Satan.

These distinctions are critical for achieving an accurate interpretation
of Bible teaching. In Scripture (through human instrumentality), God employed a variety of literary genres, including poetry, narrative history, law, proverb, parable, riddle, epistle, apocalypse, genealogy, prophecy, biography, and more. All of these literary forms convey truth, though they do so in different ways in keeping with their own peculiar linguistic features. To ignore this variation and literalize every verse creates misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what the Bible actually teaches.

If something is told 'through' poetry it cannot automatically be thrown out as not true.

I do not believe in "a high diety", I believe in several. Do I still get a place in the rant-a-thon? :confused: