NationStates Jolt Archive

Yet another "lets say how shit literal Christians are" thread.

Sorry LG the seven days belief only refers to the Earth and not to the universe, so I doubt that they would be crying over a star.Yet another Christian with a persecution complex.

I find it funny you think this is a "let's bash Christians" thread when the OP is himself a Christian.

now, now... In Blouman's defence, he did say literal Christians. ;)

just like how I thanked LG for only mentioning "Young Earth Creationists" in his op.

Yet another Christian with a persecution complex.

I find it funny you think this is a "let's bash Christians" thread when the OP is himself a Christian.

What makes you think I have a persecution complex? And no I am not a literal Christian

And to say that because you are Christian you are incapable of bashing Christians is laughable.

now, now... In Blouman's defence, he did say literal Christians. ;)

just like how I thanked LG for only mentioning "Young Earth Creationists" in his op.

Hm, I may have misread. I understood it as being grouped as "lets say how [shit literal] Christians are," complaining that people always say that all Christians take it all literally.

1 1 In the beginning God created the universe, 2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging earth was engulfed in total darkness and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

So depending on how you translate this verse you could say that God began forming the Earth as we know it straight away or that he first created the universe (minus the stars) and then began to create the Earth

what version of the bible are you referencing.

21st KJV
NKJV (New King James Version)
NIV (New International Version)
NASB (New American Standard Bible)
and the ESV (English Standard Version)
all state Genesis 1:1
1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Hm, I may have misread. I understood it as being grouped as "lets say how [shit literal] Christians are," complaining that people always say that all Christians take it all literally.

yeah, it would've helped if he captialized the 'L' also. I had to read it a couple of times myself. :p

yeah, it would've helped if he captialized the 'L' also. I had to read it a couple of times myself. :p

It also didn't help that he almost always does complain how everybody's always picking on the poor defenseless Christians in any thread where somebody makes any sort of anti-Christian remark at all. ;)

what version of the bible are you referencing.

21st KJV
NKJV (New King James Version)
NIV (New International Version)
NASB (New American Standard Bible)
and the ESV (English Standard Version)
all state Genesis 1:1

Actually I heard that bit you quoted before, but still I think it could depend on how you translate it. I obviously have none of those because mine doesn't quote Genesis 1:1 as that at all.

Are not all those just derivations of the King James Version?

And yes, maybe I should have used L for better clarity.

It also didn't help that he almost always does complain how everybody's always picking on the poor defenseless Christians in any thread where somebody makes any sort of anti-Christian remark at all. ;)

You are boring me PC, and you may also notice that I complain "defend" many people when they have been misrepresented by other posters. How dare people complain about other people who have stated half truths about them.

Actually I heard that bit you quoted before, but still I think it could depend on how you translate it. I obviously have none of those because mine doesn't quote Genesis 1:1 as that at all.

Are not all those just derivations of the King James Version?

And yes, maybe I should have used L for better clarity.

nope. not all.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
Apart from the terrible frame-of-reference problems of the earth being still, "movement of the sun" and "movement of the moon" cause seasons, days, months, years. If this wred "god created the sun and moon, and the sun and moon caused ..." it would pass.
Literally wrong.
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
The sun is a light. The moon is not.
Literally wrong.
He also made the stars.
The sun is a star, and God must know that.
Literally wrong.
17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Without light there would be no darkness?
Kinda trivial, but fair enough I guess.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Yet the days were not "marked" before that, so this would be the first "day" in any real sense.
Arguably wrong.

The sun is a light. The moon is not.
Literally wrong.

I suggest you go outside next time the moon is full there is quite of lot of natural light. Granted the light from the moon is just a reflection of the suns light but they didn't know that back then did they?

nope. not all.

Oh OK, well as I say I have none of those

Yet the days were not "marked" before that, so this would be the first "day" in any real sense.
Arguably wrong.
In keeping to a "Literal Argument"...

3And God said,(C) "Let there be light," and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

the Fourth day was creation of Morning and Evening.

So he installed the dimmer switch three days after setting up the lights... can you imagine the first three days? *blink* aarrrgh, my eyes! it's day... *BLINK* WTF! bumps into the furniture. ;)

then there is this.
16And God(K) made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. in a literal sense. a Reflection is the "lesser light" because it's not using it's own source. when people rely on light reflecting of another surface (the old way of sending sunlight down into ruins using mirrors) they would call it light reguardless. :p

In keeping to a "Literal Argument"...

Yes, it is mentioned earlier. I should have wred it before posting:

Gen. 1 iii And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
iv. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
v. And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Day and night, without sun or moon.

How does that make sense? One has to suspect that either this passage is badly mangled, or it was adopted on faith from some previous text.

How the hell could someone not notice that the sun being up makes the earth light? Not the other way around. That reeks of "we don't question that."

the Fourth day was creation of Morning and Evening.

Nope. See above.

So he installed the dimmer switch three days after setting up the lights... can you imagine the first three days? *blink* aarrrgh, my eyes! it's day... *BLINK* WTF! bumps into the furniture. ;)

Lol!
You do have to laugh really. I try to respect people's beliefs, but the amount of science that has to be denied to make all this literally true just breaks my will to respect anyone who'd claim that.

then there is this.
in a literal sense. a Reflection is the "lesser light" because it's not using it's own source. when people rely on light reflecting of another surface (the old way of sending sunlight down into ruins using mirrors) they would call it light reguardless. :p

Shall we go to the Greek ? I'm curious now ...

NH, jog my memory. Wasn't there a discussion in another thread earlier today about Blade Runner? I could've sworn there was, but I can't remember the thread now, and I can't find it with a search for "blade runner".

Satan is changing the results so as to cause us to stray from G-d.

NH, jog my memory. Wasn't there a discussion in another thread earlier today about Blade Runner? I could've sworn there was, but I can't remember the thread now, and I can't find it with a search for "blade runner".

I'm not encouraging you to read that thread. I flamed someone rather grievously. You're on your own. :cool:

EDIT: Get your teeth into this instead:

Gen. 1. vii. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

That gives the universe the density of water, right? Even allowing that the firmament is very very strong, what about gravitational collapse ? Can a hollow black hole exist ?

I suggest you go outside next time the moon is full there is quite of lot of natural light. Granted the light from the moon is just a reflection of the suns light but they didn't know that back then did they?

One assumes God wasn't an imbecile and did know what he created.
However, if you wish to argue the position that God did not dictate Genesis... why do so many take it literally ? Written down by flawed humans, containing several clearly identifiable flaws... not exactly the most reliable source of information.

The Alma Mater is always good on these subjects.

How goes this?
Gen 1. viii And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
To a non-literalist, is that the definition of Heaven? The firmament?

What interests me is that we can't demonstrate that the firmament does not exist. It might just be very very far away.

Hm, I may have misread. I understood it as being grouped as "lets say how [shit literal] Christians are," complaining that people always say that all Christians take it all literally.

Afaik LG calls himself a Christian ;)

The Alma Mater is always good on these subjects.

No I am not. I am too impatient and agressive - which closes other peoples minds.
I just can't manage to have suffcient respect for some ideas to do otherwise :(

But I console myself with that fact that humanity, the pinnacle of creation, living on the planet circling the oldest star in the universe, is located in the spiral arm of an insignificant galaxy - far from the center.

That gives the universe the density of water, right? Even allowing that the firmament is very very strong, what about gravitational collapse ? Can a hollow black hole exist ?
Yes, by fiat apparently: "and it was so..."

Afaik LG calls himself a Christian ;)

Insofar as I believe that Jesus Christ's life was a guiding example of how to live one's life in a way as to achieve a worthwhile afterlife. I'm prepared to say with certainty that I believe that. I'm not prepared to say anything else with certainty.

A sympathetic reading might have it as "Heaven is the entire known universe, apart from Earth. It has Sun Moon and Stars in it." and the distinction between Heaven and Earth (which were One before God for some reason divided them) is akin to the difference between Sea and Earth. The Earth (in the sense of Gen 1. x) is what is left when the Sea (Heaven) is for some ineffable reason "gathered together unto one place" (Gen 1. ix).

I have some respect for the method of description.

I don't find it very plausible ... but maybe that's the point. The rest of Genesis makes it pretty clear how much trouble one will get into doubting God's version of events. Perhaps the point is to ram something unbelievable down one's throat, breaking one's will to doubt from the very first page.

I saw you can conduct an experiment at home from this article.

People at home can simulate how this shockwave works, Filippenko said.

Take a basketball and a tennis ball, get about five feet above the ground and rest the tennis ball on top of the basketball. Drop them together and the tennis ball will soar on the bounce. The basketball is the collapsing core and the tennis ball is the shockwave that was seen by astronomers, he said.

Well that sounded a bit boring to me so I got into my car and tried it a different way - I think you'll agree that the results are pretty astounding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHyn4Um4NIo&NR=1.

Afaik LG calls himself a Christian ;)

Yes, I did note that as something that made it that much more amusing when I said the whole thing about the persecution complex and the OP being a Christian and whatnot. :p

I was simply saying that I thought the poster I quoted was complaining (without good cause) that people always say all Christians are Literalists.

Insofar as I believe that Jesus Christ's life was a guiding example of how to live one's life in a way as to achieve a worthwhile afterlife.

First question: why?

I mean, why Jesus in particular, as opposed to Mother Teresa or Ozzy Osbourne ?
The evidence of how Jesus lived his life is ... rather scanty. It seems to have been written by his fans.

I'm prepared to say with certainty that I believe that. I'm not prepared to say anything else with certainty.

Anything else WRT the content of the Bible? WRT to the existence of God? Or WRT to all of your knowledge?

Don't be shy. Shyness ill-becomes the man who wears only mud. :)

One assumes God wasn't an imbecile and did know what he created.
However, if you wish to argue the position that God did not dictate Genesis... why do so many take it literally ? Written down by flawed humans, containing several clearly identifiable flaws... not exactly the most reliable source of information.

I don't know why so many people take the first creation story so literally, not even I believe that God created the Earth as we know it in seven days. The second part which is the bit I think you are referring to, Nobel Hobos put it better than I.

I was simply saying that I thought the poster I quoted was complaining (without good cause) that people always say all Christians are Literalists.

Which I hope you realise isn't what I was saying at all, and I acknowledge that my post wasn't as clear as it could have been.

Which I hope you realise isn't what I was saying at all, and I acknowledge that my post wasn't as clear as it could have been.

Yeah. Thought. Not think. :)

the behemoth is mentioned in the Bible!

Oh, you mean that Final Fantasy VI enemy that you can kill with Vanish (on him) and X-Zone? :D

Side note:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080514.gif

I mean, why Jesus in particular, as opposed to Mother Teresa or Ozzy Osbourne ?
The evidence of how Jesus lived his life is ... rather scanty. It seems to have been written by his fans.


Mother Teresa wasn't a very good person really.

I've got nothing for Ozzy. I should start a church.

Mother Teresa wasn't a very good person really

But neither was Jesus, according to the Bible. Some of his morals are questionable at best, and while his grand sacrifice for the good of all humanity is duly noted lots of other people have sacrificed themselves for far less, in more horrible ways and without knowing they would get resurrected and get a seat at Gods right hand side.

Note that I am not saying Jesus was a bad man - just that he was not that special.

Mother Teresa wasn't a very good person really.

You realize that your very certainty in saying that, the options of each of us to dispute it, present new evidence or investigate her case ... sets her apart from Jesus Christ ?

That's just my point. Thanks for your support.

I've got nothing for Ozzy. I should start a church.

Just buy an LP. Carry it around for two thousand years, without the sleeve, letting anyone who likes or doesn't like the music change it with a nail, cigarette lighter or wav editor.

Then we'll talk about the meaning of his music.

But neither was Jesus, according to the Bible.

Over to you now. I need sleep.

But neither was Jesus, according to the Bible. Some of his morals are questionable at best, and while his grand sacrifice for the good of all humanity is duly noted lots of other people have sacrificed themselves for far less, in more horrible ways and without knowing they would get resurrected and get a seat at Gods right hand side.

Note that I am not saying Jesus was a bad man - just that he was not that special.

I wouldn't call him special either. Actually, I'd call him an outright fiction, but that's another debate for another thread.

First question: why?

I mean, why Jesus in particular, as opposed to Mother Teresa or Ozzy Osbourne ?
The evidence of how Jesus lived his life is ... rather scanty. It seems to have been written by his fans. Because Mother Teresa and Ozzy Osbourne never told people what to do to guarantee a snazzy afterlife.



Anything else WRT the content of the Bible? WRT to the existence of God? Or WRT to all of your knowledge?

Don't be shy. Shyness ill-becomes the man who wears only mud. :)

Good Point. Okay...

I believe that God is the mind that birthed this Universe. Similar to how scientists currently theorize self-assembling nanomachines, I believe that down in the sub-particle structure of the subatomic particles that compose all matter is a set of self-assembly instructions. A fractal geometry that would make the formations of organic compounds from four basic atoms(Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) merely a matter of time. More to the point, the very nature of this structure guaranteed that more complex arrangements were also inevitable eventually beginning life. I believe that the evolution of life on Earth and probably hundreds of millions of other worlds into a sentient form capable of pondering it's origins and it's future was an inevitable product of the original sub-particle assembly instructions in all matter(God is Everywhere). On Earth, that sentient form is us. Whether we're the end product or a transitory form is an interesting question.

I believe that Jesus Christ understood the Meaning of Life. I think He got the 'why' right: Our life is an attempt to prepare our minds to birth new universes. I suspect He wasn't the first and I highly doubt that people who don't believe or who have never even heard of Jesus Christ could never accomplish it on their own. They can. I think Jesus was the first to come up with a 'I can do it! So can you!' seminar. :)

As for the New Testament, well, that's the work of His fan club. There's truth in it. His 'I can do it! So can you!' seminar and the model His life provides survives in the Bible. It's just embedded in the detrius of lesser minds waiting to be sifted from the rubbish. Especially Paul. His crap gets everywhere and must be carefully washed off. It's foul stuff. *nod*

So.... that's Goofballian christianity. Are you curled into a quivering ball yet? :cool:

Well well, seems this thread has been going on for a while since I left, o well I still feel like going on where I left of :P
So they don't care about us?
No, they don't, why would they? You think you know better anyway, and that's it's just all "opinion", not provable, not even science etc etc etc all based on your "opinion". They don't hold such an attitude in high regard.

Bolding everything dosen't win an argument. I still haven't seen a thing.
You know what would áctually help? Reading a thing or two! Yes, indeed, damn man just start with Wikipedia, find some scientific journals, hell basic highschool textbooks!

*reads, ponders.*
How do they know it's the same ship? Perhaps Carbon dating dosen't work on anything past say, 10,000 years? Maybe it's all wrong?
This strongly suggests you have barely read the article, because if you did you would know that the half-life from for example carbon 14 is 5730 (this is an edit, thanks for correcting CthulhuFhtagn, you were faster then me ;)) me years. Go pick up a highschool text book.
Here, something more about carbon dating: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

I've looked for it. I still can't find it. All I've found is a bunch of maybe's.
Do you know how science works?
*searchs for hard evidence. Fails to find it.* Have you questioned your seemingly unwavering faith in Macroevolution and carbon dating? I can't seem to find any hard evidence in this thread.
Máybe it would help if you would actually look around, visit a natural museum or something, talk with paleontologists, people like that. Can you even grasp this has nothing to do with "faith"? We've shown you evidence, the fact that a non-static fossil record has been recorded means 1 simple thing: life has changed in it's history.

But, before this can get ánywhere, a simple thing has to be clarified:
What's your education on these fields of science (dating techniques, thus physics) and science in general?


@Lunatic Goofballs:
What you say remind me of a couple of things:
Interdimensional aliens
2001: A Space Oddesy
And the following question: Who the hell says there is an universal "why" anyway? It looks to me that what you're saying, bassicly means that this universe is a boot-camp for supreme beings. And about that creation stuff, you dó realise that absolutly 0.00 points in that direction, and nor doesn't it matter that you might beleive it? Really, it's either true or not true, regardless of what you beleive. Why beleive it then?
Also this:
Because Mother Teresa and Ozzy Osbourne never told people what to do to guarantee a snazzy afterlife.
Who says he's right? Take for example the muslims, they say that Jesus and Mozes were profets as well, but that they misinterpreted the "word of God" and that only Mohammed knows the true meaning of the "word of God", so again: why Jesus, and not Mohammed? Or ány other "Messias" for that matter?

This strongly suggests you have barely read the article, because if you did you would know that the half-life from for example carbon 14 is 75.000 years. Go pick up a highschool text book.
Here, something more about carbon dating: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. Since radiometric dating isn't particularly accurate beyond a bit over 10 half-lives, that means that C-14 dating is good up to about 60,000 years. Fortunately, we have many more methods of dating at our disposal, such as K-Ar and U-Pb.

Just because people don't do things right and make mistakes does not make people bad. Mother Teresa completely practised unconditional love and selflessness, putting the importance of other peoples lives wall above her own, trying to prevent suffering for her whole life! This is almost universally in every culture almost the definition of good. The only reason there is this modern trend to completely dismiss her is based on the fact that she didn't know enough on medicine and thus made a few mistakes here and there which may have caused further rather than less suffering, but you shouldn't ever focus on unintended circumstances when judging whether someone is good or not. The other main reason she is being dismissed is whining about her being a catholic (oh know she doesn't like condoms, how dare she not completely discredit the philosophy she has been raised with her whole life!).

The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. Since radiometric dating isn't particularly accurate beyond a bit over 10 half-lives, that means that C-14 dating is good up to about 60,000 years. Fortunately, we have many more methods of dating at our disposal, such as K-Ar and U-Pb.
Woops! My mistake, thanks for correcting, I missread my textbook ágain ;)
(Using Biology International, Seventh, Edition by Campbell & Reece, in case you're interested ;))
Just wanted to correct it, but you were faster then me.

Yes, it is mentioned earlier. I should have wred it before posting:well I'm mentioning it to say I am not a literalist, but just arguing their point of view.

Day and night, without sun or moon.what is the very basic definition of Day and Night? you can have a moonless night and an overcast day... so perhaps the very basic definition is the light from the sky. :p

How does that make sense? One has to suspect that either this passage is badly mangled, or it was adopted on faith from some previous text.

How the hell could someone not notice that the sun being up makes the earth light? Not the other way around. That reeks of "we don't question that."

Nope. See above.

Lol!
You do have to laugh really. I try to respect people's beliefs, but the amount of science that has to be denied to make all this literally true just breaks my will to respect anyone who'd claim that.
OoC: well, we are talking about Bible Literalists :p

Shall we go to the Greek ? I'm curious now ...
... me too. but I'm at work right now... so let me know what you find.

what is the very basic definition of Day and Night? you can have a moonless night and an overcast day... so perhaps the very basic definition is the light from the sky. :p
Here's Wikipedia:
On Earth, daytime is roughly the period on any given point of the planet's surface during which it experiences natural illumination from indirect or (especially) direct sunlight.

Wich would count for other planets as well, thus "day" is 1 of the states a planet is in. 1 Side of the planet is in the "night" state, facing away from it's sun, and the other side is in the "day" state, facing towards the sun.
I think that would cover it, wouldn't it?

Good Point. Okay...

I believe that God is the mind that birthed this Universe. Similar to how scientists currently theorize self-assembling nanomachines, I believe that down in the sub-particle structure of the subatomic particles that compose all matter is a set of self-assembly instructions. A fractal geometry that would make the formations of organic compounds from four basic atoms(Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) merely a matter of time. More to the point, the very nature of this structure guaranteed that more complex arrangements were also inevitable eventually beginning life. I believe that the evolution of life on Earth and probably hundreds of millions of other worlds into a sentient form capable of pondering it's origins and it's future was an inevitable product of the original sub-particle assembly instructions in all matter(God is Everywhere). On Earth, that sentient form is us. Whether we're the end product or a transitory form is an interesting question.

I believe that Jesus Christ understood the Meaning of Life. I think He got the 'why' right: Our life is an attempt to prepare our minds to birth new universes. I suspect He wasn't the first and I highly doubt that people who don't believe or who have never even heard of Jesus Christ could never accomplish it on their own. They can. I think Jesus was the first to come up with a 'I can do it! So can you!' seminar. :)

As for the New Testament, well, that's the work of His fan club. There's truth in it. His 'I can do it! So can you!' seminar and the model His life provides survives in the Bible. It's just embedded in the detrius of lesser minds waiting to be sifted from the rubbish. Especially Paul. His crap gets everywhere and must be carefully washed off. It's foul stuff. *nod*

So.... that's Goofballian christianity. Are you curled into a quivering ball yet? :cool:

Y'know, it's kinda funny. If I did not already know you self-identified as a Christian, I never would have even made any connection between those beliefs and Christianity. I mean, plenty of atheists believe that Jesus was a revolutionary moral thinker. If I would have just heard those beliefs, I would have described them as vaguely deist or even pantheist.

Here's Wikipedia:
On Earth, daytime is roughly the period on any given point of the planet's surface during which it experiences natural illumination from indirect or (especially) direct sunlight.

Wich would count for other planets as well, thus "day" is 1 of the states a planet is in. 1 Side of the planet is in the "night" state, facing away from it's sun, and the other side is in the "day" state, facing towards the sun.
I think that would cover it, wouldn't it?

wait, I gotta get back to literalist thinking :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

ok... woah.. feeling woozy there...

"But... but... it says in the bible that day and night were created when light and dark were seperated."

...


I gotta lie down now...

*thud*

:D

Creationist argument:

It can't be proved 150%, therefore it's not true.

Or:

I don't accept it as true. Until you convince me (which is never), then it isn't true.

Or:

I don't understand the methods involved carbon-dating, uranium dating, or what not. Therefore, it is not true. My reasons? There's no evidence. Now, I don't know what exactly radiocarbon dating is, but I'm pretty sure there's no evidence for it. Because I don't understand it. Like, seriously, what the heck is a half life? And what do scientists mean radioactive decay follows an "exponential decay" differential equation? I mean, it's not like you can calculate theoretical values of decay using mathematics and then compare it to experimental results or anything...

You've (partially) Convinced me. I believe that the theory of evolution, while proven, is not the way we started. You've changed me beliefs, if ever so slightly. Mean people... YOU'RE JUST LIKE THE MEN IN THE WHITE COATS! *Cries*

Ah well. But yeah, you've convinced me that macroevolution is real. I'm still a YEC though.:D

I don't find any faults, just lack of merits. And I'd like to see the link for the OBSERVED evolution. Fossils don't count.

Fossils most certainly do count. Fossils are not the only evidence for common descent however: the evidence in the genetic record is overwhelming. Take the second human chromosome for example, which is formed from two ape chromosomes joined together; or the Vitamin C pseudo-gene which is defunct in all apes or the constant presence of nested-hierarchies in genetics. Evolution not only explains, but predicts all these findings. Creationism doesn't predict shit*.



*Interestingly enough, Creationism really doesn't predict shit: if all the fossils were laid down by a global flood then we shouldn't expect to find preserved faeces (coprolite) in the fossil record. Since we frequently do, it seems perfectly justified to say that Creationists "don't know shit". :p

*Interestingly enough, Creationism really doesn't predict shit: if all the fossils were laid down by a global flood then we shouldn't expect to find preserved faeces (coprolite) in the fossil record. Since we frequently do, it seems perfectly justified to say that Creationists "don't know shit". :p

Creationism and Noah's Flood are two separate things altogether. Does no good to your argument to just lump things together like that.

Creationism and Noah's Flood are two separate things altogether. Does no good to your argument to just lump things together like that.

How many Creationist organisations believe in a Young Earth but deny the Flood?

How many Creationist organisations believe in a Young Earth but deny the Flood?

That's not the point. The distinction between two things is not determined by whether the two things have the same population of supporters. Creationism is one thing and Noah's Flood is another. You made an erronous relationship between the two things in question. Refusing to separate the two is an unscientific attitude that damages your argument.

That's not the point. The distinction between two things is not determined by whether the two things have the same population of supporters. Creationism is one thing and Noah's Flood is another. You made an erronous relationship between the two things in question. Refusing to separate the two is an unscientific attitude that damages your argument.

The Noachian Flood is inexorably intertwined with Young Earth Creationism, which is what we are talking about.

The Noachian Flood is inexorably intertwined with Young Earth Creationism, which is what we are talking about.

They are not. They may in the minds of some people, but as concepts they stand alone perfectly fine. It is logically possible to believe in YEC but not the Flood and vice versa.

That's not the point. The distinction between two things is not determined by whether the two things have the same population of supporters. Creationism is one thing and Noah's Flood is another. You made an erronous relationship between the two things in question. Refusing to separate the two is an unscientific attitude that damages your argument.

Oh please, the Flood is a key part of the Creationist worldview: it's the only way they can handwave away the existence of fossils and the validity of isotope dating.

*Inside the car are 46 other clowns. They look hungry*

"You are inside a clown car with 46 clowns. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue."

Oh please, the Flood is a key part of the Creationist worldview: it's the only way they can handwave away the existence of fossils and the validity of isotope dating.

Ah...now this is different. You clarify the causal link much better this time. But you still need to pinpoint that it is YEC that will have this conundrum, not C in general.

I'm just here to make sure the debate goes on properly. You may carry on. :P

They are not. They may in the minds of some people, but as concepts they stand alone perfectly fine. It is logically possible to believe in YEC but not the Flood and vice versa.

It's not logically possible to believe in YEC without the Flood or vice-versa. (It's also not logically possible to believe in both of them, but that's another argument.) The core definition of YEC requires the existence of the Noachian Flood, because it is based on an entirely literal reading of Genesis.

It's not logically possible to believe in YEC without the Flood or vice-versa. (It's also not logically possible to believe in both of them, but that's another argument.) The core definition of YEC requires the existence of the Noachian Flood, because it is based on an entirely literal reading of Genesis.

No...you can take a literal reading of Genesis 1 but not of Genesis 6 - and vice versa.

Ah...now this is different. You clarify the causal link much better this time. But you still need to pinpoint that it is YEC that will have this conundrum, not C in general.

I'm just here to make sure the debate goes on properly. You may carry on. :P

I spent most of my post detailing the genetic problems with special creation. Old Earth Creationism is a relatively obscure subset of YEC, and most people understand that a young earth and global flood are implied by 'Creationism'.

I spent most of my post detailing the genetic problems with special creation. Old Earth Creationism is a relatively obscure subset of YEC, and most people who aren't being deliberately obtuse understand that a young earth an global flood are implied by 'Creationism'.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. :(

Lol. Seriously. I wasn't. I honestly didn't understand your link between having to believe in C and also NF.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. :(

Lol. Seriously. I wasn't. I honestly didn't understand your link between having to believe in C and also NF.

In that case I apologise. I reconsidered my words and edited my post before you replied, but apparently not before you'd clicked 'quote'.

You've (partially) Convinced me. I believe that the theory of evolution, while proven, is not the way we started. You've changed me beliefs, if ever so slightly. Mean people... YOU'RE JUST LIKE THE MEN IN THE WHITE COATS! *Cries*

Ah well. But yeah, you've convinced me that macroevolution is real. I'm still a YEC though.:D

Sooooooo, no progress whatsoever then?

Beleiving in YEC and also macroevolution is pretty much funtionally equivalent to just beleiving in YEC as speciaition taked rather a long time. So we just have to convince you of the various daating techniques now?

Sooooooo, no progress whatsoever then?

Beleiving in YEC and also macroevolution is pretty much funtionally equivalent to just beleiving in YEC as speciaition taked rather a long time. So we just have to convince you of the various daating techniques now?
Some progress, probably all you're getting out of me :p. i believe evoloution CAN work, and has, but it wasn't the way we were created. And there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that you're going to convince me that the sheer randomness of the various dating formulas are accurate.

Some progress, probably all you're getting out of me :p. i believe evoloution CAN work, and has, but it wasn't the way we were created. And there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that you're going to convince me that the sheer randomness of the various dating formulas are accurate.

For clarity, when you say "we," do you mean Homo sapiens, the Earth, life, or something else altogether?

What is it about the dating methods that you find "random," and what reason do you have to doubt their accuracy?

For clarity, when you say "we," do you mean Homo sapiens, the Earth, life, or something else altogether?

What is it about the dating methods that you find "random," and what reason do you have to doubt their accuracy?
The first three. The Earth, Humans, and life. I find that they're guesses, that have no proof.

The first three. The Earth, Humans, and life. I find that they're guesses, that have no proof.

Science doesn't deal with proof, as has been explained to you many times.

The first three. The Earth, Humans, and life. I find that they're guesses, that have no proof.

On what basis are they "just guesses?" What aspects of the theory behind radiometric dating do you dispute? What about geological strata? And if they're wild guesses, why do different methods just happen to agree with each other when used on the same sample?

The first three. The Earth, Humans, and life. I find that they're guesses, that have no proof.

Okay, well, the Earth and life unquestionably weren't created by evolution, since evolution is a process affecting living things. However, I'm not sure how you can believe that humankind as we know it didn't come into existence through evolution. You are genetically different from your parents, who are genetically different form their parents, who are genetically different from THEIR parents, and so on and so on. That's evolution, right there. There's no guesswork involved.

On what basis are they "just guesses?" What aspects of the theory behind radiometric dating do you dispute? What about geological strata? And if they're wild guesses, why do different methods just happen to agree with each other when used on the same sample?

Huge conspiracy to lead people away from god by devil worshipping scientists.

Huge conspiracy to lead people away from god by devil worshipping scientists.

Yes.... I agree... also Christianity, its a huge conspiracy to lead people away from Odin.

Yes.... I agree... also Christianity, its a huge conspiracy to lead people away from Odin.

Yes. Loki is tricking us so that Odin will have fewer warriors at Ragnorak. *nods*

Yes. Loki is tricking us so that Odin will have fewer warriors at Ragnorak. *nods*

This is a very serious issue... something must be done! But those damn scientist are always siding with Loki!!!...same goes for the goverment!

This is a very serious issue... something must be done! But those damn scientist are always siding with Loki!!!...same goes for the goverment!

Holy shit! you're right! Man, tonight was an eye opener.

Y'know, it's kinda funny. If I did not already know you self-identified as a Christian, I never would have even made any connection between those beliefs and Christianity. I mean, plenty of atheists believe that Jesus was a revolutionary moral thinker. If I would have just heard those beliefs, I would have described them as vaguely deist or even pantheist.

Well, like I said, I categorize myself as a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ's life is the guidebook to eternal happiness. But that's about where the similarity ends.

Some progress, probably all you're getting out of me :p. i believe evoloution CAN work, and has, but it wasn't the way we were created. And there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that you're going to convince me that the sheer randomness of the various dating formulas are accurate.
Wait what huh??? So you've been shown certain facts, but you still ignóre those facts and keep clinging on your beleif?? Huh?? Really, this doesn't make sense, you've accepted "macroevolution", but you're still a YEC...that's not even póssible. The main evidence for "macroevolution" directly falsifies YEC. Why, I don't understand, it boggles my mind.
The first three. The Earth, Humans, and life. I find that they're guesses, that have no proof.
*sigh* I'll ask you again, like others, what aspects of those dating methodes do you regard as flawd? Wich physical laws do you think are flawd, wich experiments do you think are not reliable and on what grounds? Damn man, you're simply thrówing away 1 of the most valuable tools from all kinds of science who deal with old stuff, because you "think" it is???
Do you even knów what the following things are:
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)

To be honest, I doubt it, but yet you simply sweep them all from the table, claiming there random and inaccurate. How can you even DO that? It really boggles my mind, it seems the educational system has failed agáin, big time.

And I'll ask you again: what is your training on these fields of science and science in general? Wich knowledge and what sources made you make the conclusions your stating right here.

...Much like thunder is just angels bowling in the sky; supernovas is just God sneezing out a booger.

Can't wait to hear that one in Sunday school.

Wait what huh??? So you've been shown certain facts, but you still ignóre those facts and keep clinging on your beleif?? Huh??

Lay off will you? CM wred some of the material on carbon dating and grants some value in it -- expecting the whole belief system which underlies their denial of facts (dating methods) to come crashing down in consequence, just isn't realistic. Give CM some time to think it through, huh?

Well, like I said, I categorize myself as a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ's life is the guidebook to eternal happiness. But that's about where the similarity ends.

It was a whole day ago, but your long reply to my question conspicuously omitted any link between God and Jesus.

It seems to be strongly implied that either (a) Jesus found God and mistook him for Dad, (b) God really did father Jesus, or (c) Jesus wasn't talking about a personified God at all, that was just the misinterpretation of his message. Which of those, or something else, is your belief?

How is Jesus in a privileged position to say what will or won't lead to a good afterlife ?

Isn't it possible that someone else (or even millions of them) could have a more correct model of "God-approved" behaviour ? ... and that this model might specifically exclude going around influencing the beliefs of others on purpose, whether for their own good or not.

Every time a star explodes I eat a live pie. Who am I?

It was a whole day ago, but your long reply to my question conspicuously omitted any link between God and Jesus.

It seems to be strongly implied that either (a) Jesus found God and mistook him for Dad, (b) God really did father Jesus, or (c) Jesus wasn't talking about a personified God at all, that was just the misinterpretation of his message. Which of those, or something else, is your belief?
Yep. The omission was intentional and the relationship was something that even Jesus Himself seemed to downplay in the story. Personally, the concept of 'Son of God' is a title that could be applied to any of us. SO whether Jesus was a man, an aspect of the Trinity or an android sent from the future isn't as important to answer as; Was the message of Jesus' life a message from God? I believe so. I believe that the mind of God(the origin of the Universe) is still alive and aware. My competitive nature makes me wonder how we rate compared to other intelligent civilizations that came and went. I suspect we'd be a complete disappointment if it weren't for the tacos. *nod*

How is Jesus in a privileged position to say what will or won't lead to a good afterlife ?
How did He know? Why did He feel it was important to try to spread the word to others? *shrug* He was meant to know. What I wonder is whether He was born knowing, if it came by sudden epiphany, or if He developed it slowly over time while eating pop tarts and plotting newer and more elaborate contraptions for dropping manure onto people like I developed my faith?

Isn't it possible that someone else (or even millions of them) could have a more correct model of "God-approved" behaviour ? ... and that this model might specifically exclude going around influencing the beliefs of others on purpose, whether for their own good or not.

Yep. But then we wouldn't have heard about him, would we?

... your long reply to my question conspicuously omitted any link between God and Jesus.


Yep. The omission was intentional and the relationship was something that even Jesus Himself seemed to downplay in the story. Personally, the concept of 'Son of God' is a title that could be applied to any of us. SO whether Jesus was a man, an aspect of the Trinity or an android sent from the future isn't as important to answer as; Was the message of Jesus' life a message from God?

I can't get away from the idea that there has to be a better way to send a message.
Androids from the future? My head hurts!

I believe so. I believe that the mind of God(the origin of the Universe) is still alive and aware. My competitive nature makes me wonder how we rate compared to other intelligent civilizations that came and went. I suspect we'd be a complete disappointment if it weren't for the tacos. *nod*

We must have a crusade across the Universe to decide whether the soft taco or the crunchy taco is the true grail! Let's get on with building starships, before we accidentally nuke our home planet and all those lovely fresh floppy tacos get crisped!

My own concept of a possible god also involves god not being dead yet. It seems entirely irrelevant whether he/she/it existed before. If that makes any sense :confused:


How is Jesus in a privileged position to say what will or won't lead to a good afterlife ?

How did He know?
Yeah, that's what I meant. The next paragraph is much vaguer, addresses the second question of whether spreading the word is a good thing to do or not.[...]
He was meant to know. What I wonder is whether He was born knowing, if it came by sudden epiphany, or if He developed it slowly over time while eating pop tarts and plotting newer and more elaborate contraptions for dropping manure onto people like I developed my faith?

It occurs to me that the world would get noticeably better is a Gospel of Jesus was found. At least, we could have a magnificent flamefest trying to translate it. ;)

If such a Gospel of Jesus does not exist, it might be necessary to invent it.

*cackles evilly*

Seriously, I see no law which would prevent us someday building a history-viewer (it's not really a 'time-machine' -- not subject to causality loops). We should be able to listen to the younger Jesus muttering to himself, perhaps we could even read his mind.

Isn't it possible that someone else (or even millions of them) could have a more correct model of "God-approved" behaviour ? ... and that this model might specifically exclude going around influencing the beliefs of others on purpose, whether for their own good or not.

Yep. But then we wouldn't have heard about him, would we?

No. One might recognize such a person as they go about their life, though, and respect the "persuasion not to persuade." I think that might feel pretty much like love.

*gets kind of misty-eyed*

:) ...except I'm a complete atheist, each of my posts have simply been me amusing myself by writing from the other side, sorry if you thought I was being serious.
I did because I have seen those arguments put forth. No harm no foul though.
*makes note Barring is not a fundie*
:D

I have to pack for a trip to New York tomorrow morning, and I still believe in God, and I still believe he created the universe and everything in it, and I believe the Bible to be what it says it is.

Play on, kiddies.

So you do believe the bible to be the inerrant word of god?

Lay off will you? CM wred some of the material on carbon dating and grants some value in it -- expecting the whole belief system which underlies their denial of facts (dating methods) to come crashing down in consequence, just isn't realistic. Give CM some time to think it through, huh?
Meeh I'm impatient with people, the reason I'll never ever be a teacher. But it still boggles my mind hów people can be like that, it really puzzles me.
How did He know? Why did He feel it was important to try to spread the word to others? *shrug* He was meant to know. What I wonder is whether He was born knowing, if it came by sudden epiphany, or if He developed it slowly over time while eating pop tarts and plotting newer and more elaborate contraptions for dropping manure onto people like I developed my faith?
Why Jesus is right, and why aren't other prophets right? The thing that again puzzles me, is that people who says those things are locked in psychiatric institutions nowadays, but apperantly 2000 years ago normal people worshipped those "special" people.

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

coool. (what i found odd, was first time i tried to load the page, it said "operation aborted", i thought "oh no not another abortion thread!)
ah yes, creationists are kind of doomed, i thought they died out years ago with the dinosaurs right?

so how long until our sun explodes and does scary stuff?
{apologies for butting into the thread but i couldn't help myself}

so how long until our sun explodes and does scary stuff?
A loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

Patrick Moore said so.

A loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

Patrick Moore said so.

but why?

but why?
Patrick Moore said so.

In actuality, I believe Sol has millions (billions?) of years left until it expends all of its energy.

Well, if the Creationists are already weeping over exploding stars then you'd need to have a heart of stone to kick them while they're down.

*kicks*

Scientists discover yet another transitional fossil (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/sc_nm/fossil_frog_dc)

Yes, I know that all fossils are transitional, but this one combines features of frogs and salamanders, making it tricky for Creationists to explain away. The absurd claim that "there are no transitional fossils" becomes more embarressing by the day.

Patrick Moore said so.

In actuality, I believe Sol has millions (billions?) of years left until it expends all of its energy.

can't we just take out a loan with God? say let the Sun burn for a bit longer in exchange for losing Jupiter to a passing blackhole?

I bet there's a way to make the deal, but first i'll need a really cheesy TV show and a group of apprentices who want to make the ultimate dime with God.

This whole argument is foolish.

Yes, Young Earth Creationism is stupid. Most people with half a brain can recognize that.

However, the entire religion debate is stupid. It reminds me of the old Nintendo vs Sega debates. Why can't both be good? Each has their own qualities that make them awesome, so pick the right one for you.

But, as that is hopelessly benign, and thusly boring, I now offer up the following.

Please note that, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to all creator deity figures as "God".

God is omnipotent. He sees the future, the past, and the present, of all space and time. This means that the future is set, otherwise He could not know what the outcome will be. God is also responsible for the creation of all life, including humans. Ergo, He created all humans with the express knowledge of each individuals' life, and ultimately their fate. He created us with the knowledge which of us would go to heaven and which would go to hell. How, then, can we be judged based on our actions, when our actions are ultimately out of our control? If God exists, and He is as powerful as His prophets claim he is, then humans are simply cogs in his universal machine with no more will over what they do than a raindrop has over where it falls.

Take that to the bank and cash it.

God is omnipotent. He sees the future, the past, and the present, of all space and time. This means that the future is set, otherwise He could not know what the outcome will be. God is also responsible for the creation of all life, including humans. Ergo, He created all humans with the express knowledge of each individuals' life, and ultimately their fate. He created us with the knowledge which of us would go to heaven and which would go to hell. How, then, can we be judged based on our actions, when our actions are ultimately out of our control? If God exists, and He is as powerful as His prophets claim he is, then humans are simply cogs in his universal machine with no more will over what they do than a raindrop has over where it falls.

Ah, but created everything, including time. He does not necessesarily SEE the future, only in the concept of time WE have. I think that it's all already happened, we've already made our choices in His eyes, but becasue of our Linear concept of time, we often view things like this. God exists in all time, and all places. He is omnipotent, and exists everywhere, and in all time.

This whole argument is foolish.
Yes, Young Earth Creationism is stupid. Most people with half a brain can recognize that.
However, the entire religion debate is stupid. It reminds me of the old Nintendo vs Sega debates. Why can't both be good? Each has their own qualities that make them awesome, so pick the right one for you.
But, as that is hopelessly benign, and thusly boring, I now offer up the following.
Please note that, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to all creator deity figures as "God".
God is omnipotent. He sees the future, the past, and the present, of all space and time. This means that the future is set, otherwise He could not know what the outcome will be. God is also responsible for the creation of all life, including humans. Ergo, He created all humans with the express knowledge of each individuals' life, and ultimately their fate. He created us with the knowledge which of us would go to heaven and which would go to hell. How, then, can we be judged based on our actions, when our actions are ultimately out of our control? If God exists, and He is as powerful as His prophets claim he is, then humans are simply cogs in his universal machine with no more will over what they do than a raindrop has over where it falls.

Take that to the bank and cash it.
Why does a God exist?
Would the universe be different if God wasn't here?
Why would God create the universe if he knows what's going to happen in it?
Why would he create heaven and hell?
are you saying all human actions are out of our control?
I know i am in control of which keys i tap as i write this message, i know i can choose between drinking whatever is in my fridge or from the tap, i know i could if i wanted to make a phonecall. so i think to an extent humans have some sort of freewill, or ability to choose.
oh and how do we know if there is only one future or a billion?
If there is one future then why can't God make anymore if he is omnipotent, if there is a billion future's then in some of them humans have freewill and are not predetermined.

Ah, but created everything, including time. He does not necessesarily SEE the future, only in the concept of time WE have. I think that it's all already happened, we've already made our choices in His eyes, but becasue of our Linear concept of time, we often view things like this. God exists in all time, and all places. He is omnipotent, and exists everywhere, and in all time.

Did you just warp the laws of physics to support your argument?

O_O

Why does a God exist?
Would the universe be different if God wasn't here?
Why would God create the universe if he knows what's going to happen in it?
Why would he create heaven and hell?
are you saying all human actions are out of our control?
I know i am in control of which keys i tap as i write this message, i know i can choose between drinking whatever is in my fridge or from the tap, i know i could if i wanted to make a phonecall. so i think to an extent humans have some sort of freewill, or ability to choose.
oh and how do we know if there is only one future or a billion?
If there is one future then why can't God make anymore if he is omnipotent, if there is a billion future's then in some of them humans have freewill and are not predetermined.

My point is this. If God knows what is going to happen, then the universe is predetermined and we have no free will. If the universe is mutable and we have true control over our own actions, then God is not truly omnipotent. Essentially, you have not only pulled into question the very nature of the creator, but likened God to a kid with an ant farm.

My point is this. If God knows what is going to happen, then the universe is predetermined and we have no free will.
Only according to our very limited understanding of space-time.

Once we get to a universal scale of space-time, our conceptions of 'past', 'present' and 'future' become more and more meaningless, while talk of 'knowing the future' gets into all sorts of problems.

At the end of the day, none of this will matter. The nonbelievers have an extremely remote chance of putting a chink in the armor of the believers, and those with belief have an equally remote chance of instilling faith into those who simply do not believe that which you have to say. As for me, I am simply passing the time sitting at the office with nothing to do, getting paid to sit on my ass.

But let me ask you this, both sides of the argument. How does the way someone else views the world affect you? If your belief is true, then shouldn't you simply take solace in that fact? The truth, as they say, will come out. In the end, isn't the message of all sides the same? Do good, help out your fellow humans, and don't kill anyone. What does it matter the means in which the message is conveyed? Simply that the message reaches its target. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists; they all share fairly equal presence amongst the echelons of society considered "moral". And that, good people, is the ultimate goal. To be moral, regardless on whether morality is the construct of society or the divine rules put in place by a creator.

And frankly, we should be focusing our efforts against Scientology. Those people scare the shit out of me.

Did you just warp the laws of physics to support your argument?

O_O
O don't be alarmned nor suprised, according to those people, God is not bound by those laws. Really, it's so easy isn't it? Just say the being is interdimensional and all problems are solved, even though it makes 0 sense.
Ah, but created everything, including time. He does not necessesarily SEE the future, only in the concept of time WE have. I think that it's all already happened, we've already made our choices in His eyes, but becasue of our Linear concept of time, we often view things like this. God exists in all time, and all places. He is omnipotent, and exists everywhere, and in all time.
Time is ALWAYSE linear, time is marked by nothing more then happenings. Things happen, if nothing happens, literally, there is no time. And emm, did he create himself as well then? That's.... odd, not even close to logic.

1 Thing keeps amazing me when I ask for arguments from people, they say that there "must" (says who?) be a "First Cause" wich is God in this case. But that argument is a logical dead horse, afterall why would the universe need a First Cause, and why would God not need a First Cause? And why would that First Cause not need a First Cause, and on and on and on and on.

Did you just warp the laws of physics to support your argument?

O_O
God made the laws of physics, he dosen't have to follow them ;).
Time is ALWAYSE linear, time is marked by nothing more then happenings. Things happen, if nothing happens, literally, there is no time. And emm, did he create himself as well then? That's.... odd, not even close to logic.

1 Thing keeps amazing me when I ask for arguments from people, they say that there "must" (says who?) be a "First Cause" wich is God in this case. But that argument is a logical dead horse, afterall why would the universe need a First Cause, and why would God not need a First Cause? And why would that First Cause not need a First Cause, and on and on and on and on.
Time is only linear to us. At least that's my unscientific theory :p.
So tell me, what was the first cause that led to the big bang? What led to that?

Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists; they all share fairly equal presence amongst the echelons of society considered "moral". And that, good people, is the ultimate goal. To be moral, regardless on whether morality is the construct of society or the divine rules put in place by a creator.
Some people think all people suck, and we're to n00b to find a proper moral system for ourselfs and that we need a supreme being for it. Thus, some people think that we can ónly be moral if we obey the command of some kind of supreme being whom we don't know dick about, hell who knows what God does on other places. A funny scenario. Ok, we find out that the God a literal Abrahamic God exists, but then suddenly we álso find out that he's secretly an interdimensional dictator who has enslaved and destroyed dozens of races on countless of planets in all kinds of dimensions, including our own! With this I raise the question: why would a supreme being be "morally superiour", or whatever that would mean, and who says there is 1 universal moral system anyway?

But let me ask you this, both sides of the argument. How does the way someone else views the world affect you? If your belief is true, then shouldn't you simply take solace in that fact? The truth, as they say, will come out. In the end, isn't the message of all sides the same? Do good, help out your fellow humans, and don't kill anyone. What does it matter the means in which the message is conveyed? Simply that the message reaches its target. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists; they all share fairly equal presence amongst the echelons of society considered "moral". And that, good people, is the ultimate goal. To be moral, regardless on whether morality is the construct of society or the divine rules put in place by a creator.

Denial of evolution is directly responsible for the death of at least one person. In addition, to deny evolution means denying all the advancements that have come about from it, which is a lot. It also means denying the scientific method, which would require us to scrap every single technological achievement in the last two hundred years.

Long story short, YEC is incredibly dangerous.

not a YEC, but found this curious.
Denial of evolution is directly responsible for the death of at least one person. really? who and how?

God made the laws of physics, he dosen't have to follow them ;).
Says who?

Time is only linear to us. At least that's my unscientific theory :p.
So tell me, what was the first cause that led to the big bang? What led to that?
No no, that IS time, that's actually what "time" is. And what caused the Big Bang? No one knows, just speculation. Besides, that's not an "unscientific theory", that's just what you imaginated e.a made up.

not a YEC, but found this curious.
really? who and how?

Baby Fae. There was actually a paper on it, but I can't find a pdf of it. Here (http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2007/07/baby-fae-the-unlearned-lesson-of-evolution/) is a transcription of the paper, though.

Baby Fae. There was actually a paper on it, but I can't find a pdf of it. Here (http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2007/07/baby-fae-the-unlearned-lesson-of-evolution/) is a transcription of the paper, though.

ah, but the disbelief of Evolution did NOT directly cause Baby Fae's death.

why?

because the Doctor didn't believe his OWN previous trials.
During the seven years preceding the Baby Fae baboon transplant, he performed some 160 cross-species transplants, mostly on sheep and goats, none of whom survived more than 6 months.

the word of collegues
Although warned by a colleague at a medical conference that his research was too incomplete to risk using human subjects,3 Bailey went ahead.
...
Baby Fae was not the first human to receive a primate xenograft. In a review of xenografts,4 the Council of Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association noted a rapid rejection of all baboon transplants to humans.
...


and the fact that it does look like he lied.
Baby Fae’s consent form read, “Temporizing operation to extend the lives of babies like yours by a few months have generally been unsuccessful. We believe heart transplantation may offer hope of life for your baby. Laboratory research at Loma Linda University over the past seven years, including over 150 heart transplants in newborn animals, suggest that long term survival with appropriate growth and development may be possible following heart transplantation during the first week of life.”

all of which speaks of Dr (and I use the title loosely) Baily was more concerned about his own findings and to damnation what others thought, than his lack of belief in Evolution.

so Bailey was stupid, possibly egotistical to the point of Egomania and it looks like all that was more directly cause of Baby Fae's death than his belief in Evolution.

Edit: this is NOT to say that Evolution didn't happen nor that it's wrong to believe in evolution. just that Stupidity is everywhere and not bound by certain beliefs.

Says who?


If he's omnipotent, he's all-powerful. Power over everything. That includes the laws of physics.
No no, that IS time, that's actually what "time" is.
You really need to try to accept that IF there is a God who is omnipotent (Which I believe) he obviously has power over everything. In order to be Omnipotent, he'd have to be (Essentially) everywhere at all times which I, again, believe he is.
And what caused the Big Bang? No one knows, just speculation.
So that's no better nor any worse then my belief in God. You don't even know if the big bang really happened. Neither do you know what caused it. So how is it so much better then belief in a God whom we don't know how He got here? Exactly, it isn't. All just a leap of faith.
Besides, that's not an "unscientific theory", that's just what you imaginated e.a made up.
And somebody just "Imaginated" or made up the big bang theory. So there.

So that's no better nor any worse then my belief in God. You don't even know if the big bang really happened. Neither do you know what caused it. So how is it so much better then belief in a God whom we don't know how He got here? Exactly, it isn't. All just a leap of faith.

Theory A has abundant evidence behind it and is a logical conclusion of observed facts.
Theory B is based on an old book that contains several factual errors and a lot of fantastic, untestable claims of supernatural happenings.


Are A and B really equals ? Even if A is proven to be completely wrong - which is quite possible - B would still be without any real support. Millions of theories deserve more consideration.

However, you are still free to believe B over A. Just do not pretend they are equals.

So God is deceptive. He lies to us. But the Bible... well, there's no lies in that, because it's the word of God and God doesn't li.... er... uh-oh.

:fluffle:

So God is deceptive. He lies to us. But the Bible... well, there's no lies in that, because it's the word of God and God doesn't li.... er... uh-oh.

nah, he just hides the truth. Like how your father says that Santa Claus will know if you're naughty or nice when in truth he is Santa and thus would know if you're naughty or nice. :p

Theory A has abundant evidence behind it.

Like what? Where's the evidence? Do you have a time machine now?
Theory B is based on an old book that contains several factual errors and a lot of fantastic, untestable claims of supernatural happenings.

Granted.
Are A and B really equals ?
I see the many fantastic happenings in the bible (Some of which were put in for political purposes) as no less likely then a few billion years ago a pin exploded and then we evoloved from random particles bumping together.

If he's omnipotent, he's all-powerful. Power over everything. That includes the laws of physics.
Impossible, because of this paradox/question: can he make a stone he can't lift? Wichever the answer is, it annihilates "all-powerfull". Also, that would bring up other interesting questions, especially with the "all-loving" part. Take for example little kids in Kenia or any other uber-poor African nation. Craploads of kids die before the age of 5, complete innocent beings who have nothing to do with all the shit in the world die before they even realise what the world is. Still, it keeps happening, and happening, and happening. If that "God" of yours would be all-powerfull ánd all-loving, why wouldn't he stop it? A reaction I've often heared, is that we cannot understand God's ways, or that God has a "plan" wich we cannot understand. That also conflicts with the all-powerfull attribute. Afterall, if he would be all-powerfull, then he also has the ability to explain his ways, plans and morals to us. Or he can, but he won't, and that's where the all-loving attribute gets questioned. Afterall, we see unimaginable horrors, are being told that we should not worry because it's all part of the plan, but we're simply refused an explanation of that plan. I would sevérly question the moral authority from a being like that.

PS: Remember, please, that you and me are lucky. Lucky that we're not born in 1 of those refugee camps in 1 of those hellholes, where we would be left to die from starvation before we can even walk. We are lucky.
You really need to try to accept that IF there is a God who is omnipotent (Which I believe) he obviously has power over everything. In order to be Omnipotent, he'd have to be (Essentially) everywhere at all times which I, again, believe he is.
The power over himself as well? And again, I don't give a f*ck what you beleive, I care about reality, not what happens in your (excuse et moi, but silly little) mind.
So that's no better nor any worse then my belief in God. You don't even know if the big bang really happened. Neither do you know what caused it. So how is it so much better then belief in a God whom we don't know how He got here? Exactly, it isn't. All just a leap of faith.
No, it's not. You see, we have theorised the Big Bang, and are advancing with that day by day. It has nothing to do with faith, or a leap of faith, absolutly 0.00 nothing nada zip zero, it's about evidence and support. That's what science is all about.

And somebody just "Imaginated" or made up the big bang theory. So there.
You fail, because you don't know how science works. The base of the Big Bang theory is the same as any other theory: an emperical observation (or multiple).
Please go back to high school.
Like what? Where's the evidence? Do you have a time machine now?
Go to school.
I see the many fantastic happenings in the bible (Some of which were put in for political purposes) as no less likely then a few billion years ago a pin exploded and then we evoloved from random particles bumping together.
Go to school. You don't know dick about science, yet you have your opinion ready. I find that very strange.

Like what? Where's the evidence? Do you have a time machine now?

No, we have physics and astronomy.
And yes, in a way we do. Study those fields and you will find out what I mean ;)

Impossible, because of this paradox/question: can he make a stone he can't lift? Wichever the answer is, it annihilates "all-powerfull".

The answer is no. It's not because He physically can't do it, but because the process goes on forever. If we presume God is omnipotent, it simply means that the process to create a rock that He cannot lift will go on forever. He creates a rock, He lifts it; He creates a heavier rock, He lifts it; He creates an even heavier rock, He lifts it; He creates...He lifts...He creates...He lifts...

It's like answering the question: can you divide 100 by 3 completely ? The answer is no, not because it is indivisible, but because the answer goes on forever.

Also, that would bring up other interesting questions, especially with the "all-loving" part. Take for example little kids in Kenia or any other uber-poor African nation. Craploads of kids die before the age of 5, complete innocent beings who have nothing to do with all the shit in the world die before they even realise what the world is. Still, it keeps happening, and happening, and happening. If that "God" of yours would be all-powerfull ánd all-loving, why wouldn't he stop it? A reaction I've often heared, is that we cannot understand God's ways, or that God has a "plan" wich we cannot understand. That also conflicts with the all-powerfull attribute. Afterall, if he would be all-powerfull, then he also has the ability to explain his ways, plans and morals to us. Or he can, but he won't, and that's where the all-loving attribute gets questioned. Afterall, we see unimaginable horrors, are being told that we should not worry because it's all part of the plan, but we're simply refused an explanation of that plan. I would sevérly question the moral authority from a being like that.
It depends on your definition and time frame for 'love'. For humans the life on Earth is short, some shorter than others. Hence for us love only happens in the period in which we are alive. But who says the love of God starts at birth and ends at death?


PS: Remember, please, that you and me are lucky. Lucky that we're not born in 1 of those refugee camps in 1 of those hellholes, where we would be left to die from starvation before we can even walk. We are lucky.

I think we are blessed instead of lucky. And we should use this blessing to bless others - help the African children as you mention and lift them out of war and poverty.



No, it's not. You see, we have theorised the Big Bang, and are advancing with that day by day. It has nothing to do with faith, or a leap of faith, absolutly 0.00 nothing nada zip zero, it's about evidence and support. That's what science is all about.
Do you know who first suggested the Big Bang Theory?


You fail, because you don't know how science works. The base of the Big Bang theory is the same as any other theory: an emperical observation (or multiple).
Please go back to high school.

The Big Bang Theory is only partly based on empirical observation. All theories are only partly based on empirical observation.



Go to school. You don't know dick about science, yet you have your opinion ready. I find that very strange. What can we say? It's a free world.

Impossible, because of this paradox/question: can he make a stone he can't lift? Wichever the answer is, it annihilates "all-powerfull". Also, that would bring up other interesting questions, especially with the "all-loving" part. Take for example little kids in Kenia or any other uber-poor African nation. Craploads of kids die before the age of 5, complete innocent beings who have nothing to do with all the shit in the world die before they even realise what the world is. Still, it keeps happening, and happening, and happening. If that "God" of yours would be all-powerfull ánd all-loving, why wouldn't he stop it?


:rolleyes: So I take it you don't like it that they're getting to heaven without having to suffer through the horrible nation that they live in? The war, the starvation, the disease, I'd prefer to get to heaven early then suffer through THAT. No, I'm not advocating killing these children, but what at first sight seems a curse, it could be a blessing.
A reaction I've often heared, is that we cannot understand God's ways, or that God has a "plan" wich we cannot understand. That also conflicts with the all-powerfull attribute. Afterall, if he would be all-powerfull, then he also has the ability to explain his ways, plans and morals to us.
He has the ability, but he dosen't. We merely can't understand it on our own. It's that simple.
Or he can, but he won't, and that's where the all-loving attribute gets questioned.
How so? How does not flooding our tiny human brains with his complete master plan not make him a loving God? Ever hear of the forbidden fruit effect?
Afterall, we see unimaginable horrors, are being told that we should not worry because it's all part of the plan, but we're simply refused an explanation of that plan. I would sevérly question the moral authority from a being like that.

Not necessarily. We humans have caused this pain and suffering. Just because some humans are causing pain and other unimaginable horrors does not mean you get to blame it on God to remove all blame from the ones who actually did it.
PS: Remember, please, that you and me are lucky. Lucky that we're not born in 1 of those refugee camps in 1 of those hellholes, where we would be left to die from starvation before we can even walk. We are lucky.

No, we're only lucky in the eyes of the world. If heaven is, well, heaven, I'd rather die at the age of three and get to heaven, then live to ninety in the USA and have to wait with (the human concept of time) to get to heaven.
The power over himself as well? And again, I don't give a f*ck what you beleive, I care about reality, not what happens in your (excuse et moi, but silly little) mind.

I don't care what you BELIEVE is reality. All you do is continously yell at me for believing in something, and then claim that your BELIEF in the big bang is not a belief.
No, it's not. You see, we have theorised the Big Bang, and are advancing with that day by day. It has nothing to do with faith, or a leap of faith, absolutly 0.00 nothing nada zip zero, it's about evidence and support. That's what science is all about.


Of which it has none. Any day it could be disproven, just like that *Snaps finger*. It has no supporting evidence, it's all got ot do with a leap of faith, which you continusly deny.
You fail, because you don't know how science works. The base of the Big Bang theory is the same as any other theory: an emperical observation (or multiple).
Please go back to high school.
Originally posted by Wikipedia
Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation

Have you observed the big bang? Experimented with it? If so, how? And please, don't take cheap shots like that.
No, we have physics and astronomy.
And yes, in a way we do. Study those fields and you will find out what I mean

Will do. *Goes to library to find books on said subjects*
Go to school. You don't know dick about science, yet you have your opinion ready. I find that very strange.
Once again Great Dawn, you've turned to insults. I'm currently considering ignoring, and getting my butt kicked by other debaters rather then sit here and argue the same things over and over again with you.

The answer is no. It's not because He physically can't do it, but because the process goes on forever. If we presume God is omnipotent, it simply means that the process to create a rock that He cannot lift will go on forever. He creates a rock, He lifts it; He creates a heavier rock, He lifts it; He creates an even heavier rock, He lifts it; He creates...He lifts...He creates...He lifts. The process goes on forever.

It's like answering the question: can you divide 100 by 3 completely ? The answer is no, not because it is indivisible, but because the answer goes on forever.
If he creates and lifts, that means he can lift the rock, meaning he did not create a rock wich he cannot lift. He simply created a rock he cán lift. Because what you say, is simply making liftable rocks forever, meaning he still did not create an unliftable rock meaning the question still stands: can you, or can you not?

It depends on your definition and time frame for 'love'. For humans the life on Earth is short, some shorter than others. Hence for us love only happens in the period in which we are alive. But who says the love of God starts at birth and ends at death?
God deals with people, God does not deal with other God's. I'm not reacting the same against my neighbor as I'm reacting against my cat and the other way around.

I think we are blessed instead of lucky. And we should use this blessing to bless others - help the African children as you mention and lift them out of war and poverty.
Means they are not blessed, and we have to help them because they're not blessed. Also, WE have caused there shit for a large part. Yes, indeed. We have f*cked up those country's in colonial times. We are not blessed, we got fat and rich over the backs of many other nations. You sir, are still lucky, lucky you are not born in that country, those children who die before the age of 5 or sometimes 2 are unlucky they were born there and not here.

Do you know who first suggested the Big Bang Theory?
Yea, so? In science, it's not about the people, it's about the evidence.

[quote]The Big Bang Theory is only partly based on empirical observation. All theories are only partly based on empirical observation.
What I ment is, that's where it all starts. The process of science begins with emperical observations, it's the source of wich theories spring up. Ofcourse, a lot of parts of the theory as we're looking at it today are not sprung up from an emperical observation, but are theorised.

What can we say? It's a free world.
Ofcourse it is, I just find it ignorant from him to say such things.
So I take it you don't like it that they're getting to heaven without having to suffer through the horrible nation that they live in? The war, the starvation, the disease, I'd prefer to get to heaven early then suffer through THAT. No, I'm not advocating killing these children, but what at first sight seems a curse, it could be a blessing.
Lots of people in the West apperantly can get into heaven without having to go through that, they apperantly have to.
He has the ability, but he dosen't. We merely can't understand it on our own. It's that simple.
That makes me question his supreme morality, because why wouldn't he? He knows we can't on our own, that's why I ask him in person, yet no answer at all, not even a "No".
How so? How does not flooding our tiny human brains with his complete master plan not make him a loving God? Ever hear of the forbidden fruit effect?
Because the "It's all just part of the plan" thing is an excuse for things to happen. Now I'm willing to accept that, if I actually know that plan, but I can't wich makes me wonder "Is there something to hide?". I'm cool with a plan in general, but I'm not cool with it being used as an excuse for everything because 0 is known about it.
Not necessarily. We humans have caused this pain and suffering. Just because some humans are causing pain and other unimaginable horrors does not mean you get to blame it on God to remove all blame from the ones who actually did it.
We have caused, often indirectly, that suffering. Those little children did not cause there own suffering, they're innocent. The cause is getting rich and fat, the victims only suffer more. That's not justice, that's why I question his apperant moral authority.
No, we're only lucky in the eyes of the world. If heaven is, well, heaven, I'd rather die at the age of three and get to heaven, then live to ninety in the USA and have to wait with (the human concept of time) to get to heaven.
That's a whole lot of difference. Afterall, you die at 3 but starve to death, you die at 90 in the USA but live comfortable (and over-consume, etc etc etc), raised kids and maybe grandkids, contributed to your society, then die. You have gotten oppertunity's to make something from your life, those little children were denied those oppertunities.
I don't care what you BELIEVE is reality. All you do is continously yell at me for believing in something, and then claim that your BELIEF in the big bang is not a belief.
With reality I mean the things that exist outside our minds: the earth, the universe, you and me. Those things, it does not matter if you beleive if the earth core was made out of strawberry jello: it either IS made out of strawberry jello, or it is NOT made out of strawbarry jello. Know what I mean?Of which it has none. Any day it could be disproven, just like that *Snaps finger*. It has no supporting evidence, it's all got ot do with a leap of faith, which you continusly deny.
Says who? You say there is none, but how well did you study the science behind the Big Bang theory hmm? What's your level of knowledge about this subject?
Have you observed the big bang? Experimented with it? If so, how? And please, don't take cheap shots like that.
Please study the subject (in other words: go to school), and try again.
Once again Great Dawn, you've turned to insults. I'm currently considering ignoring, and getting my butt kicked by other debaters rather then sit here and argue the same things over and over again with you.
O I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to insult you, I'm just making an observation here: you really don't know anything about these subjects, ok I've used some words I rather shouldn've used and excuse for that then, but what I mean still stands, that you really don't know anything about the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. That's it, nothing more, if you find that insulting I wonder why. The only thing I really oppose, is that you keep making such clear statements about those subjects, even though you don't know anything about it. I find that strange.

If he creates and lifts, that means he can lift the rock, meaning he did not create a rock wich he cannot lift. He simply created a rock he cán lift. Because what you say, is simply making liftable rocks forever, meaning he still did not create an unliftable rock meaning the question still stands: can you, or can you not?
The answer is 'no' then. God will never be able to create a rock that He cannot lift, because He is always greater than something He creates.

I see the point you are trying to make. If God cannot make a rock He cannot lift then He's not omnipotent, is He? Indeed, if we take a simple logical view.

But what of a practical one? If God is the Creator of absolutely everything and nothing He creates can overpower Him, isn't He still omnipotent?


God deals with people, God does not deal with other God's. I'm not reacting the same against my neighbor as I'm reacting against my cat and the other way around. Huh?


Means they are not blessed, and we have to help them because they're not blessed. Also, WE have caused there shit for a large part. Yes, indeed. We have f*cked up those country's in colonial times. We are not blessed, we got fat and rich over the backs of many other nations. You sir, are still lucky, lucky you are not born in that country, those children who die before the age of 5 or sometimes 2 are unlucky they were born there and not here.
No. They can also be blessed through us.



Do you know who first suggested the Big Bang Theory?
Yea, so? In science, it's not about the people, it's about the evidence.
In the Christian faith, it's not about the evidence. It's about the people.


What I ment is, that's where it all starts. The process of science begins with emperical observations, it's the source of wich theories spring up. Ofcourse, a lot of parts of the theory as we're looking at it today are not sprung up from an emperical observation, but are theorised.
Faith can also start from observations, just not empirical ones.

But what of a practical one? If God is the Creator of absolutely everything and nothing He creates can overpower Him, isn't He still omnipotent?

God cannot be the creator of absolutely everything, because then God would be his own creator. And if there is anything God cannot do then God is not omnipotent. Simple as that. No faffing about with infinities or logical views as opposed to practical ones. That's just what the word means.

God cannot be the creator of absolutely everything, because then God would be his own creator. And if there is anything God cannot do then God is not omnipotent. Simple as that. No faffing about with infinities or logical views as opposed to practical ones. That's just what the word means.

Eh? What if God created Himself? Oooh...interesting idea.

Then God is omnipotent with certain reservations. What else seems to be the problem?

... so from Literallist and Young Earth Creationists... we are now talking about General Christianity/Religion.

gotta love how the conversations drift here in NSG! :p

Eh? What if God created Himself? Oooh...interesting idea.
Except it makes no sense at all.

Then God is omnipotent with certain reservations. What else seems to be the problem?

That 'omnipotent with certain reservations' is like 'solid water at stp'. If it's at stp water cannot be solid. If there are reservations then God is not omnipotent.

Except it makes no sense at all.

Sigh...I guess it doesn't...



That 'omnipotent with certain reservations' is like 'solid water at stp'. If it's at stp water cannot be solid. If there are reservations then God is not omnipotent.
Oh dear. God has to concede a point to the English language for not having the proper adjective to describe Him. :D

... so from Literallist and Young Earth Creationists... we are now talking about General Christianity/Religion.

gotta love how the conversations drift here in NSG! :p

My bad, guys. My bad.

But what of a practical one? If God is the Creator of absolutely everything and nothing He creates can overpower Him, isn't He still omnipotent?

No, it is not omnipotent as there is something it cannot do even if it specifically tries.


No. They can also be blessed through us.

It seems it will be the only way they will be, as a "loving" god apparently doesn't care at all.


In the Christian faith, it's not about the evidence. It's about the people.

Yea. Ignore the bad and evil in the world, but if something even remotely good occurs it must have been god.


Faith can also start from observations, just not empirical ones.

And the faith from those observations have evolved to what we have today. Religion does change over time regardless how the extremist would have you think it has never changed even once. (I am looking at you Pope...)



Sorry if some of this is a bit harsh, but I am tired of the BS lines spout over and over again to try and excuse the actions of/lack of action of gods.

Except it makes no sense at all.

Well, it's only a modified time traveller's paradox....

It makes about as much sense as being your own father or mother would.

Though, omnipotence and omniscience are still completely ridiculous notions, especially in case of the Abrahamic god and scripture describing her.

That 'omnipotent with certain reservations' is like 'solid water at stp'. If it's at stp water cannot be solid. If there are reservations then God is not omnipotent.
STP? As in Standard pressure & temperature.

Wouldn't that be 0C and ~100 kPa? Which would mean that yes, water can be both solid and liquid at the same time. :p

No, it is not omnipotent as there is something it cannot do even if it specifically tries.

Right. So God loses to the English language.


It seems it will be the only way they will be, as a "loving" god apparently doesn't care at all.
No. God just chooses to act through His agents.



Yea. Ignore the bad and evil in the world, but if something even remotely good occurs it must have been god.
Dunno how you came up with this in response to my statement, but no, do not ignore the bad and evil in the world. Return to righteousness, fight for justice, and be compassionate.


And the faith from those observations have evolved to what we have today. Religion does change over time regardless how the extremist would have you think it has never changed even once. (I am looking at you Pope...)
Religion does change over time. So does science. Ever heard of paradigm shifts?

Sorry if some of this is a bit harsh, but I am tired of the BS lines spout over and over again to try and excuse the actions of/lack of action of gods.[/QUOTE]

Harsh? Not at all. We're all just trying to get by, no?

Right. So God loses to the English language.

Wouldn't be the first time, like Latin.

Wouldn't be the first time, like Latin.

Yar. So God loses to language. :rolleyes:

Yar. So God loses to language. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes, eh?
Perhaps you simply don't understand. That's okay, though.

Oh dear. God has to concede a point to the English language for not having the proper adjective to describe Him. :D
Or not being able to properly describe himself to the authors of the Bible. Unless they just made it up.
Well, it's only a modified time traveller's paradox....

It makes about as much sense as being your own father or mother would.
That is, none. It's impossible to be your own father or mother.

Though, omnipotence and omniscience are still completely ridiculous notions, especially in case of the Abrahamic god and scripture describing her.
Quite.


STP? As in Standard pressure & temperature.

Wouldn't that be 0C and ~100 kPa? Which would mean that yes, water can be both solid and liquid at the same time. :p

I thought it was room temperature....
Anyway, my point stands, even if I could have expressed it better.

Or not being able to properly describe himself to the authors of the Bible. Unless they just made it up.

Assuming that all of God can be explained by human language at all.

Or not being able to properly describe himself to the authors of the Bible. Unless they just made it up.
Exodus 34:14
http://bible.cc/exodus/34-14.htm

Close enough.

Assuming that all of God can be explained by human language at all.

To quote you, " : rolleyes : "
Enjoy.

Roll your eyes, eh?
Perhaps you simply don't understand. That's okay, though.

Nope. I don't.

Assuming that all of God can be explained by human language at all.
Assuming God exists at all. An assumption for which there is no more evidence than the insistence of of those who already treat this assumption as fact.
Exodus 34:14
http://bible.cc/exodus/34-14.htm

Close enough.

He couldn't have just written a nice simple manual for keeping him happy and carved it into the side of a mountain with lightning bolts or something?

Nope. I don't.Well, don't let that get in the way of a great argument.
Otherwise this place might turn a disappointment for a few of us.

That is, none. It's impossible to be your own father or mother.
Depends on whether time travel is possible ;)

Assuming God exists at all. An assumption for which there is no more evidence than the insistence of of those who already treat this assumption as fact. It's the engagement of the semantics dance that does all the work for them, you know.


He couldn't have just written a nice simple manual for keeping him happy and carved it into the side of a mountain with lightning bolts or something?
He wrote it into the coppery smell you get with a fresh evisceration, iirc.

Assuming God exists at all. An assumption for which there is no more evidence than the insistence of of those who already treat this assumption as fact.
It's not quite like that, but it is up to the individual to decide to believe or not.

Anyway, the point is, assuming the Biblical God exists, He cannot be explained fully in human language. So saying that He is not "omnipotent" according to what the word strictly means means nothing.

Yes. That's the point. Nothing else.

Depends on whether time travel is possible ;)Fry, you ignorant dope!
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6875/pic00821jn8.jpg

Right. So God loses to the English language.

And in the description that has been used to describe it for quite sometime.


No. God just chooses to act through His agents.

Where did the free will go? (that is a WHOLE 'nother argument...)



Dunno how you came up with this in response to my statement, but no, do not ignore the bad and evil in the world. Return to righteousness, fight for justice, and be compassionate.

It is a short romp that, if it high-jacks the thread...again...will briing us right back here again. So here it goes.

You were talking about not looking for evidence but at faith of men (or something...I am going from memory here) Men, even Christian men, can be cruel, evil vile, ect, but when they pop up it is "not real Christian" this "not a true follower" that but if a good guy happens to be Christian then by god he only did the good deed cause god was in his life....can also degrade into "god created evil" debate...



Religion does change over time. So does science. Ever heard of paradigm shifts?

Science MUST change with new reliable evidence. If it doesn't, it doesn't work. The big argument from religion (especially when a social norm is changing) is that religion CANNOT change it is god's word.


Harsh? Not at all. We're all just trying to get by, no?

Oh, I am watch what I say. I am trying not to go into troll/flame mode...If you catch me head that way do let me know.

Depends on whether time travel is possible ;)
Actually, on second thoughts, it is, just intensely unlikely. You'd have to impregnate your mother with the sperm that contains all the genetic information that doesn't come from her egg. The egg would also have to contain all the genetic information that your sperm doesn't.



Ugh, time travel gives me a headache.
He wrote it into the coppery smell you get with a fresh evisceration, iirc.
I knew I liked that smell for a reason.
It's not quite like that, but it is up to the individual to decide to believe or not.
It's exactly like that.

Anyway, the point is, assuming the Biblical God exists, He cannot be explained fully in human language. So saying that He is not "omnipotent" according to what the word strictly means means nothing.

Yes. That's the point. Nothing else.
It means that Bible literalists are wrong. A slight step up from nothing.

And in the description that has been used to describe it for quite sometime.
Exactly my point. *bows*

And in the description that has been used to describe it for quite sometime.

Every word has various meanings. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent)will do it better than me to explain.




Where did the free will go? (that is a WHOLE 'nother argument...)
It's still there. I meant His agents as Christians, those who by their own free will choose God as their Lord.





It is a short romp that, if it high-jacks the thread...again...will briing us right back here again. So here it goes.

You were talking about not looking for evidence but at faith of men (or something...I am going from memory here) Men, even Christian men, can be cruel, evil vile, ect, but when they pop up it is "not real Christian" this "not a true follower" that but if a good guy happens to be Christian then by god he only did the good deed cause god was in his life....can also degrade into "god created evil" debate...
I said the Christian faith is about people, not about evidence. What I mean is that the Christian faith does not purport to tangle with evidence about whether God exists scientifically, about Creationism etc., but about transforming people from the inside to equip them to be righteous and have compassion.

Christianity is defined by its principles, not by the people who call themselves Christians. Christians are seen to be Christian by the fruit they bear - and also on the motives of the fruit.




Science MUST change with new reliable evidence. If it doesn't, it doesn't work. The big argument from religion (especially when a social norm is changing) is that religion CANNOT change it is god's word.
Certain fundamental principles of the Christian faith indeed cannot be changed. But the personal and social application of those principles can.


Oh, I am watch what I say. I am trying not to go into troll/flame mode...If you catch me head that way do let me know.
It's still all in good spirits as far as I am concerned. :)

He couldn't have just written a nice simple manual for keeping him happy and carved it into the side of a mountain with lightning bolts or something?

he did, but some fool chipped em out of the mountainside and it done gotten smashed when he dropped em.

It means that Bible literalists are wrong. A slight step up from nothing.

I'd agree, depending on your definition of "Bible literalists".

Actually, on second thoughts, it is, just intensely unlikely. You'd have to impregnate your mother with the sperm that contains all the genetic information that doesn't come from her egg. The egg would also have to contain all the genetic information that your sperm doesn't.

Ugh, time travel gives me a headache.

You're right! I hadn't thought about the genetics of the situation...

There are several options:
- You are actually a clone of yourself a la Dolly (the sheep).
- Sheer chance of the gametes combining to create, well, an identical copy of you that is, well, you

Then there's the kinky option:
- You travel further back in time and have sex with your grandparent in order to have your mother (if man) or father (if woman) as offspring. Then, you'd have to move forward in time, and have a baby with your other parent who is also your child! (remember: You already exist so the desired results of this have already happened).

This way you would at the same time be your own grandparent, parent, child and grandchild!

Baby Fae. There was actually a paper on it, but I can't find a pdf of it. Here (http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2007/07/baby-fae-the-unlearned-lesson-of-evolution/) is a transcription of the paper, though.

Ick. What a fuckwit.

Still, I did notice this:
Dr. William Norwood at the Children’s Hospital in Boston has been repairing left hypoplastic hearts since 1979. The survival rate of the Norwood procedure is now as high as 75 percent

So actually, Dr. Bailey only killed 3/4 of a baby. ;)

Just a footnote to the omnipotent debate: we may use the word in its strictest defintion to describe God but what does the Bible say about "limits" to God's power?

"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" James 1:13

"...He cannot disown Himself." 2 Timothy 2:13

Not even the Bible says that God is "omnipotent" in the sense that He can do absolutely everything. So we'll just have to be more careful throwing around terms like that.

To me, just a linguistic problem more than anything.

It's still there. I meant His agents as Christians, those who by their own free will choose God as their Lord.The funny part here is the inability for Christians to recognize their own bullshit of assumption, when ignoring the issue that the JEWS are God's chosen people, and muslims themselves worship, get this, the same fucking god.

I said the Christian faith is about people, not about evidence. Oh owieowowouchouchieouch. Sig this?

The funny part here is the inability for Christians to recognize their own bullshit of assumption, when ignoring the issue that the JEWS are God's chosen people, and muslims themselves worship, get this, the same fucking god.

The thing about Jews being chosen is a very complicated matter. We could go very far with this.

And it is incorrect to assume that Muslims worship the same god as Jews and Christians do. The theological differences between Judeo-Christianity and Islam are too far apart.


Oh owieowowouchouchieouch. Sig this?
Ooh yes! I've never been sigged before! :p

he did, but some fool chipped em out of the mountainside and it done gotten smashed when he dropped em.
You know, i posted this in my msg board ...
1. Thou shalt worship no other god.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the years' end.
6. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers' milk.
Exodus 34:13-28

# You shall have no other gods before me.

# You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

# You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

# Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

# Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

# You shall not murder.

# You shall not commit adultery.

# You shall not steal.

# You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

# You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.
Hmmm ....
For fun ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

This way you would at the same time be your own grandparent, parent, child and grandchild!

Time travel is BS, and your scenario shows why.

In the present, there is a good reason why you have the genes you do. They came from your parents.

Now, define part of that set of genes as coming from you, and therefore (by the motherfucking time-travel thing) being in your parent or grandparent. The "good reason" disappears ... you have a consequence with no cause.

The existence of those genes becomes a fact in itself, a cause of itself. The entire rest of the universe could not exist, and this fact would need to remain, since it has no other cause which has just been taken away.

Does the universe cease to exist? Or your time-travelling "fact" cease to exist?

What existence does a gene have, with no matter to compose it, no physical laws and no passage of time? It might have some very abstract existence (as information perhaps) but that will be outside the universe.

I think that amounts to "impossible." Changing the past is impossible, it creates causality loops and a causality loop cannot co-exist with a universe of causality.

You're right! I hadn't thought about the genetics of the situation...

There are several options:
- You are actually a clone of yourself a la Dolly (the sheep).
- Sheer chance of the gametes combining to create, well, an identical copy of you that is, well, you

Then there's the kinky option:
- You travel further back in time and have sex with your grandparent in order to have your mother (if man) or father (if woman) as offspring. Then, you'd have to move forward in time, and have a baby with your other parent who is also your child! (remember: You already exist so the desired results of this have already happened).

This way you would at the same time be your own grandparent, parent, child and grandchild!

There's that story about a time traveller being both his own mother and father.

Just a footnote to the omnipotent debate: we may use the word in its strictest defintion to describe God but what does the Bible say about "limits" to God's power?Other than that part where God lost to iron chariots? There, in the bible, there?

"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" James 1:13Even when Moses asks God to repent from being evil to his own people?


"...He cannot disown Himself." 2 Timothy 2:13None else should have him. :p

Not even the Bible says that God is "omnipotent" in the sense that He can do absolutely everything. So we'll just have to be more careful throwing around terms like that.
To me, just a linguistic problem more than anything.And you have done good by making a distinction between what is obviously a common misconception and what the literature actually provides. *bows*

There's that story about a time traveller being both his own mother and father.

Being your own grandad is possible if Futurama says it's possible!!:D

God is a fact with no cause, and therefore cannot exist within a deterministic universe.

Firm up my rant about causality loops, and there's your disproof of the existence of God.

Being your own grandad is possible if Futurama says it's possible!!:D

That's one thing, but being your own mother and your own father? That is seriously weird.

That's one thing, but being your own mother and your own father? That is seriously weird.

Nonsense is the word you are looking for.

God is a fact with no cause, and therefore cannot exist within a deterministic universe.

Firm up my rant about causality loops, and there's your disproof of the existence of God.

common response to that is "god is not bound by the rules of this universe"...and with that foot note, any logical argument put forth is moot.


tis the ultimate copout

Other than that part where God lost to iron chariots? There, in the bible, there?
Let's see. The verse in contention is this:

"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." Judges 1:19

Does that mean God lost against the iron chariots? Let's look at some other times when God was up against chariots:

Exodus 14:28: "The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived."

Joshua 11:4-7: "They came out with all their troops and a large number of horses and chariots...All these kings joined forces ...to fight against Israel. The LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them, because by this time tomorrow I will hand all of them, slain, over to Israel. You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots." So Joshua and his whole army came against them suddenly at the Waters of Merom and attacked them, and the LORD gave them into the hand of Israel..."

1 Kings 20:13; 21: "Meanwhile a prophet came to Ahab king of Israel and announced, "This is what the LORD says: 'Do you see this vast army? I will give it into your hand today...' The king of Israel advanced and overpowered the horses and chariots and inflicted heavy losses on the Arameans."

Then why did the Judahites fail then? In fact, they lost even though God was with them. They lost heart and confidence, and as the later verses in Judges 1 show us, they even spared the lives of some Canaanites which would later destroy Israel.


Even when Moses asks God to repent from being evil to his own people?

Did Moses ask God to repent from being evil to His own people? What does Moses say?

Exodus 32:7-14: "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."
But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.'" Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."

Point to which part you think proves your point.


None else should have him. :p
No. I love Him.


And you have done good by making a distinction between what is obviously a common misconception and what the literature actually provides. *bows*
*returns bow*
Unfortunately many Christians go about their business and campaign for things without first consulting the Bible in a comprehensive manner.

Are you Asian/Oriental? You seem to like bowing a lot. :p

You know, i posted this in my msg board ...

Hmmm ....
For fun ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

notice that one is a Covanant and the other commandmants?
Exodus 34:10
10 Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you.

and you forgot the first one.

Verse 12
12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you.
which would make the Covenant in Stone 11

:p

Let's see. The verse in contention is this:

"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." Judges 1:19

Does that mean God lost against the iron chariots?Yes, it would mean that, independent of other circumstances where one might wish the conditions were different, like your other example. Those other examples clearly don't dismiss the circumstance in Judah.
Let's look at some other times when God was up against chariots:
But, let us not miss that the bible itself takes note of instances of failure on God's part, even if the score is lopsided (as it played out) :p

Did Moses ask God to repent from being evil to His own people? What does Moses say?
Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."

Point to which part you think proves your point. Or, bold.


No. I love Him. You love Jealous? That's gonna end in tears no matter how you slice it. :p


*returns bow*
Unfortunately many Christians go about their business and campaign for things without first consulting the Bible in a comprehensive manner.That's very very true.

Are you Asian/Oriental? You seem to like bowing a lot. :pNo, i just find it a mannerism that seems to have a lot to do with what i do in optional commerce irl.

Every word has various meanings. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent)will do it better than me to explain.

Admittedly I glance...but it seemed that it was an article about how religious people are trying to find new ways to apply the word in order to explain away the contradictions. the only definitions dictionary.com had listed did not have the ways that omnipotent were being applied.

om·nip·o·tent Audio Help /ɒmˈnɪpətənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
–noun
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.




It's still there. I meant His agents as Christians, those who by their own free will choose God as their Lord.

You said that he would bless them through his agents....doesn't sound like his agents have much of a choice.



I said the Christian faith is about people, not about evidence. What I mean is that the Christian faith does not purport to tangle with evidence about whether God exists scientifically, about Creationism etc., but about transforming people from the inside to equip them to be righteous and have compassion.

Christianity is defined by its principles, not by the people who call themselves Christians. Christians are seen to be Christian by the fruit they bear - and also on the motives of the fruit.

I misunderstood the direction you were coming from, but even still it sounds like you are describing exactly what I said.

"but about transforming people from the inside to equip them to be righteous and have compassion." why is god needed to do that? are there not non-Christians who are already? Atheists even?

"Christianity is defined by its principles, not by the people who call themselves Christians. Christians are seen to be Christian by the fruit they bear - and also on the motives of the fruit." bad guy isn't really a Christian, not a true follower, ect

It seems you may have come from a different direction, but my shot drew your attention ^_^


Certain fundamental principles of the Christian faith indeed cannot be changed. But the personal and social application of those principles can.

I cannot really think of one "fundamental principle" that was not hanging around before Christianity. But even then their wording has changed (eye for and eye, became do on to others as you would have them do unto you)


It's still all in good spirits as far as I am concerned. :):D


"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" James 1:13

How would you explain god sending an evil spirit onto Saul(?) to kill David who (depending on your view of the story) was dating his son Jonathon?


There's that story about a time traveller being both his own mother and father.

What the...how in...huh?

notice that one is a Covanant and the other commandmants?
Exodus 34:10


and you forgot the first one.

Verse 12

which would make the Covenant in Stone 11

:p
Perhaps. I tend not to take any of those "covenant" things seriously. Good point.
*bows*

I said the Christian faith is about people, not about evidence. What I mean is that the Christian faith does not purport to tangle with evidence about whether God exists scientifically, about Creationism etc., but about transforming people from the inside to equip them to be righteous and have compassion.

You can have whatever definition you like of righteousness, but do not dare to say that Christian faith is a pre-requisite to having compassion.

I need only point to one Atheist, or one Hindu, or one Pastafarian who demonstrates compassion to break that. I start with myself, an agnostic in the loose sense and certainly no Christian. I have compassion, not always perhaps, but I have it and I act on it.

Yes, it would mean that, independent of other circumstances where one might wish the conditions were different, like your other example. Those other examples clearly don't dismiss the circumstance in Judah.

Why Judah failed is another question, but from the other examples we can say for sure that Judah didn't fail because God was helpless before iron chariots. That is the only point I am trying to make.


But, let us not miss that the bible itself takes note of instances of failure on God's part, even if the score is lopsided (as it played out) :p

No. It only notes instances of failure on the part of even God's most faithful and able servants. We are all, after all, just humans.


Or, bold.
Ah...I posted the entire conversation there in hope for you to read it in context. First of all v.11 says this: "But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God." Moses wasn't rebuking God; he was pleading with Him.

It is curious that God is almost asking Moses's permission to kill off Israel (v.10). But you say: hey, isn't God the master? Why is He doing this? That's because the focus of this passage is not whether God wants to destroy Israel or not and whether Moses made God "repent". The focus of this passage is the intercession of Moses to God on behalf of Israel. God invites Moses to intercede on Israel's behalf. On a spiritual level it serves as a model for us: how later Jews and Christians can learn from Moses in intercession: how to think of the others even though you might stand to benefit (v.10 again), how to appeal to God etc.

Interpretation of the Bible is a tricky business, and you will be glad to hear me say that I think literal interpretations do not always get it right.


You love Jealous? That's gonna end in tears no matter how you slice it. :p
Oh yes. A certain level of righteous jealousy is very healthy in a relationship.


That's very very true.
Well that goes for people who want to criticise the Bible as well!!! You cannot criticise something you have not studied. Many criticisms of Christianity are based on simplistic, uncomprehensive understandings of the Bible.


No, i just find it a mannerism that seems to have a lot to do with what i do in optional commerce irl. I see.

Admittedly I glance...but it seemed that it was an article about how religious people are trying to find new ways to apply the word in order to explain away the contradictions. the only definitions dictionary.com had listed did not have the ways that omnipotent were being applied.

om·nip·o·tent Audio Help /ɒmˈnɪpətənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
–noun
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.


Aye. Here is the better Wiki link I found later:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

And look at defintion #2: "having very great or unlimited authority or power". So according to dictionary.com God doesn't have to be able to do absolutely everything to be "omnipotent". All He needs is to have "very great authority or power".




You said that he would bless them through his agents....doesn't sound like his agents have much of a choice.
Aye. I didn't mention the bit about His agents first choosing.



"but about transforming people from the inside to equip them to be righteous and have compassion." why is god needed to do that? are there not non-Christians who are already? Atheists even?
Yes, but the Christian belief in the origins of why this is needed and how this happens is uniquely Christian.


"Christianity is defined by its principles, not by the people who call themselves Christians. Christians are seen to be Christian by the fruit they bear - and also on the motives of the fruit." bad guy isn't really a Christian, not a true follower, ect
You can kind of say it's like that. But it's not a problem with Christianity; it's a problem with terminology.

If a self-professed Communist says that he believes in a free market, he isn't a Communist even though he says he is, and other Communists won't call the first guy a "good Communist".


I cannot really think of one "fundamental principle" that was not hanging around before Christianity. But even then their wording has changed (eye for and eye, became do on to others as you would have them do unto you)
A lot of Christian theology is an extension of old Jewish theology. And the mix of fundamental principles is uniquely "Christian".


How would you explain god sending an evil spirit onto Saul(?) to kill David who (depending on your view of the story) was dating his son Jonathon?

You mean this verse:
1 Samuel 16:14: "Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him."

Here is a quote from a Bible commentary by David Guzik at enduringword.com. I don't always agree with him but see if this explanation helps: "If God is all-good, why did He send a distressing spirit upon Saul? There are two senses in which God may send something. He may send something in the active sense, or He may send something in a passive sense. Actively, God never initiates or performs evil; He is the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17). Passively, God may withdraw the hand of His protection, and therefore allow evil to come, without being the source of the evil itself. This is indicated by what happened with Saul. First, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul. This meant Saul lost his spiritual “protection” and covering. So, Satan was more than ready to send a distressing spirit to fill the void in Saul. Why? Did God allow all this? Perhaps this was to judge Saul’s past wickedness and rebellion against the Holy Spirit’s guidance. This may be an example of God giving Saul over to his sin."

And at this time David has not met Jonathan yet. Believing that David and Jonathan shared a homosexual relationship is taking a very liberal interpretation of the Bible. We at least know David had interest in women - and a lot of them, and that Jonathan had a family. Nothing seems to overtly hint that they shared that kind of a relationship - unless you can point to a place in Scripture.

You can have whatever definition you like of righteousness, but do not dare to say that Christian faith is a pre-requisite to having compassion.

I need only point to one Atheist, or one Hindu, or one Pastafarian who demonstrates compassion to break that. I start with myself, an agnostic in the loose sense and certainly no Christian. I have compassion, not always perhaps, but I have it and I act on it.

Nope. I am merely saying that one of the things Christianity does is to equip people with compassion without judging whether compassion can be found outside Christianity. But if you ask there is no doubt that compassion can be found outside the Christian faith - or indeed any faith.

Why Judah failed is another questionWhy does the script itself require you to make that assumption then? It itself is an example of its own, one that substantiates my point, and i don't need to hammer to you what you yourself have already clarified, so please don't take it as such.

No. It only notes instances of failure on the part of even God's most faithful and able servants. We are all, after all, just humans. I think your issue of interpretation and logic has a huge point to be made here.
Some translations say it is, distinctly, a failure of God's, some say it's a failure of God's party/people with him.

American Standard Version
And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Bible in Basic English
And the Lord was with Judah; and he took the hill-country for his heritage; but he was unable to make the people of the valley go out, for they had war-carriages of iron.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the Lord was with Juda, and he possessed the hill country: but was not able to destroy the inhabitants of the valley, because they had many chariots armed with scythes.

Darby Bible Translation
And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.

English Revised Version
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

World English Bible
Yahweh was with Judah; and drove out [the inhabitants of] the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Young's Literal Translation
and Jehovah is with Judah, and he occupieth the hill-country, but not to dispossess the inhabitants of the valley, for they have chariots of iron.

Indeed, the majority don't lay blame on the people, but on God.
It could be taken to interpret an intent of historical revisionism on part of certain people.

Ah...I posted the entire conversation there in hope for you to read it in context. First of all v.11 says this: "But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God." Moses wasn't rebuking God; he was pleading with Him.I didn't say he "rebuked" him. I understand the context, it doesn't diminish the act and the circumstance.

Interpretation of the Bible is a tricky business, and you will be glad to hear me say that I think literal interpretations do not always get it right.Indeed, i've seen you think this out much better than people often do in this particular philosophical arena. Alas, this brings up something, though -is this a predisposition on your part?

Oh yes. A certain level of righteous jealousy is very healthy in a relationship.Sigworthy.

Well that goes for people who want to criticise the Bible as well!!! You cannot criticise something you have not studied.The flipside of that is something you mentioned above, where your own disposition of the material would preclude you from understanding a more subtle or even overt concept in the material itself, lending you to error and misrepresentation. Indeed, it takes some
Many criticisms of Christianity are based on simplistic, uncomprehensive understandings of the Bible.[/quote]That is also true, as they obviously are of the Quran and Bhaghavad-Gita.
All in all, though, if it involves your "immortal" "soul", you should probably be extremely scrutinizing over what does and does not fly about it. The nature of the material itself pretty much begs to be raked over with fine-teeth and needles.

Nope. I am merely saying that one of the things Christianity does is to equip people with compassion without judging whether compassion can be found outside Christianity. But if you ask there is no doubt that compassion can be found outside the Christian faith - or indeed any faith.

I took "equip" to mean that it provides what would otherwise be completely lacking. I was being a bit pedantic apparently.

Whether Christianity teaches a person compassion really depends on the person. So there isn't much point in arguing about that, it's going to come down to individuals.

My personal feeling is that humility is a virtue, and one which makes compassion easier. Believing in a God would certainly be expected to make a person more humble (even without the specific lessons of humility and compassion in their religion) but I can also see that some people only take what they want from it.

Why does the script itself require you to make that assumption then? It itself is an example of its own, one that substantiates my point, and i don't need to hammer to you what you yourself have already clarified, so please don't take it as such.

I think this point is dependent on the next one.


I think your issue of interpretation and logic has a huge point to be made here.
Some translations say it is, distinctly, a failure of God's, some say it's a failure of God's party/people with him. Indeed, the majority don't lay blame on the people, but on God.
It could be taken to interpret an intent of historical revisionism on part of certain people.

You thought "he" meant God? It means Judah!


I didn't say he "rebuked" him. I understand the context, it doesn't diminish the act and the circumstance.
Motive, setting, and character defines the act and the circumstance.


Indeed, i've seen you think this out much better than people often do in this particular philosophical arena. Alas, this brings up something, though -is this a predisposition on your part?

What will you have me do? We all have predispositions.

Sigworthy.

Then sig it, damn it! :p

The flipside of that is something you mentioned above, where your own disposition of the material would preclude you from understanding a more subtle or even overt concept in the material itself, lending you to error and misrepresentation. Indeed, it takes some
Where you stand depends on where you sit. The same criticism can be said for every person that take any point on any stance. We are only human, and can be only as objective as humanly possible.


That is also true, as they obviously are of the Quran and Bhaghavad-Gita.

Exactly. Hence all this unwarranted Islamophobia in the West.



All in all, though, if it involves your "immortal" "soul", you should probably be extremely scrutinizing over what does and does not fly about it. The nature of the material itself pretty much begs to be raked over with fine-teeth and needles.

Oh yes. Absolutely. Which is why I spent all this time and effort responding to your posts - it isn't just to explain to you; it's to explain to myself as well! I admit I took a leap of faith in Christianity when I became a Christian, not knowing all the answers to my questions. But as I grew in it, constantly being challenged both intellectually and emotionally, I became more firm in my faith. So I welcome challenges. If Christianity is as good as it says it is, then it stands. So far I'm satisfied.

I took "equip" to mean that it provides what would otherwise be completely lacking. I was being a bit pedantic apparently.
:fluffle:


Whether Christianity teaches a person compassion really depends on the person. So there isn't much point in arguing about that, it's going to come down to individuals.
A slight correction, if I may. Christianity does teach compassion. There is no doubt. It is whether a self-professed Christian becomes more compassionate that is dependent. And you're absolutely right: it's coming down to individuals and how they internalise their faith.


My personal feeling is that humility is a virtue, and one which makes compassion easier. Believing in a God would certainly be expected to make a person more humble (even without the specific lessons of humility and compassion in their religion) but I can also see that some people only take what they want from it.Humans will be humans.

Aye. Here is the better Wiki link I found later:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

And look at defintion #2: "having very great or unlimited authority or power". So according to dictionary.com God doesn't have to be able to do absolutely everything to be "omnipotent". All He needs is to have "very great authority or power".

Isn't semantics fun? ^_^




Aye. I didn't mention the bit about His agents first choosing.

But then the blessing is still the result of the agents and not god. (and I don't know about you, but using "agents" so much...it is starting to sound like a dan brown book....:cool:)



Yes, but the Christian belief in the origins of why this is needed and how this happens is uniquely Christian.

which has nothing to do with compassion in and of itself.


You can kind of say it's like that. But it's not a problem with Christianity; it's a problem with terminology.

If a self-professed Communist says that he believes in a free market, he isn't a Communist even though he says he is, and other Communists won't call the first guy a "good Communist".

But the bible is rather vague you can support or denounce just about anything. Fred Phelps is an example.


A lot of Christian theology is an extension of old Jewish theology. And the mix of fundamental principles is uniquely "Christian".

example please?

You mean this verse:
1 Samuel 16:14: "Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him."

Here is a quote from a Bible commentary by David Guzik at enduringword.com. I don't always agree with him but see if this explanation helps: "If God is all-good, why did He send a distressing spirit upon Saul? There are two senses in which God may send something. He may send something in the active sense, or He may send something in a passive sense. Actively, God never initiates or performs evil; He is the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17). Passively, God may withdraw the hand of His protection, and therefore allow evil to come, without being the source of the evil itself. This is indicated by what happened with Saul. First, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul. This meant Saul lost his spiritual “protection” and covering. So, Satan was more than ready to send a distressing spirit to fill the void in Saul. Why? Did God allow all this? Perhaps this was to judge Saul’s past wickedness and rebellion against the Holy Spirit’s guidance. This may be an example of God giving Saul over to his sin."

And at this time David has not met Jonathan yet. Believing that David and Jonathan shared a homosexual relationship is taking a very liberal interpretation of the Bible. We at least know David had interest in women - and a lot of them, and that Jonathan had a family. Nothing seems to overtly hint that they shared that kind of a relationship - unless you can point to a place in Scripture.

Depends on your translation and interpretation.

1 Samuel 16:14 (New American Standard Bible)
14(A)Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and (B)an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.

Looks like god sent it in that bible.

Not to mention talk about the devil being able to send evil spirits and being the source of evil pushes Christianity towards being polytheistic rather than monotheistic.

But you also have the argument that god is always the source of evil as he created everything. including the devil.


As for the homosexual relationship, as I said before it is interpretation.

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

under Romantic interpretation and Erotic interpretation

You thought "he" meant God? It means Judah!So "with" is kinda like "good intentions", then?

Motive, setting, and character defines the act and the circumstance.I suppose that does make it easier in a fictional setting as opposed to a historical one.

What will you have me do? We all have predispositions.The question would be with the extent of exclusivity in your predisposition, i guess.

Then sig it, damn it! :p I did that this morning, actually, and i fear the 8-line barrier has already been trimmed for me without my permission before and thusly will be again. :(

Where you stand depends on where you sit. The same criticism can be said for every person that take any point on any stance. We are only human, and can be only as objective as humanly possible. Indeed, for which again the strongest rigmarole should be observed in criticism, unless the circumstance warrants less being worth less.

Exactly. Hence all this unwarranted Islamophobia in the West.Yup. The PR issue once again rears its ugly, glittery head.

Oh yes. Absolutely. Which is why I spent all this time and effort responding to your posts - it isn't just to explain to you; it's to explain to myself as well! I admit I took a leap of faith in Christianity when I became a Christian, not knowing all the answers to my questions. But as I grew in it, constantly being challenged both intellectually and emotionally, I became more firm in my faith. So I welcome challenges. That's a good thing, for which i respect (and thusly posted the first post that way). *bows*

Isn't semantics fun? ^_^
I love it. I'm a very "wordy" person, as in I attach great importance to words.


But then the blessing is still the result of the agents and not god. (and I don't know about you, but using "agents" so much...it is starting to sound like a dan brown book....:cool:) It's more like a partnership between God and humans.





which has nothing to do with compassion in and of itself.
Nope. Compassion also exists outside the Christian faith.




But the bible is rather vague you can support or denounce just about anything. Fred Phelps is an example.
That is why a comprehensive understanding of the Bible is so important.




example please?
E.g. Christianity claims to be the end message the Jews have been waiting for, kind of an end of the Jewish story. So everything in the Jewish Torah applies equally to Christianity.

I say a mix of Christian fundamental principles because you are right: some fundamental principles of Christianity have already been expressed elsewhere (e.g. the idea of one man giving up his life to save all). But it had to be under the unique circumstances of Jesus's life and setting which Christianity grew from.



Depends on your translation and interpretation.

1 Samuel 16:14 (New American Standard Bible)
14(A)Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and (B)an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.

Looks like god sent it in that bible.
This quote is essentially the same quote I gave except "terrorised". Indeed, it is up to interpretation, but how broad is yours? Or are you just haranguing over this one verse.


Not to mention talk about the devil being able to send evil spirits and being the source of evil pushes Christianity towards being polytheistic rather than monotheistic.
Now that shows a real ignorance of Biblical teachings.


But you also have the argument that god is always the source of evil as he created everything. including the devil.
That is perhaps another.


As for the homosexual relationship, as I said before it is interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Johnathan
I know.

under Romantic interpretation and Erotic interpretationI see.

So "with" is kinda like "good intentions", then?
"With" is more like saying "Look, I'm here with you right now. All you have to do is to seek Me, put your faith in Me, and do as I say". It doesn't mean "I'm taking your control from you."


I suppose that does make it easier in a fictional setting as opposed to a historical one.

Motive, setting, and character define the act and the circumstance also in real life (e.g. criminal investigations and trials)


The question would be with the extent of exclusivity in your predisposition, i guess.
Yar.


I did that this morning, actually, and i fear the 8-line barrier has already been trimmed for me without my permission before and thusly will be again. :(
There's an 8-line barrier for sigs??


Indeed, for which again the strongest rigmarole should be observed in criticism, unless the circumstance warrants less being worth less.

Didn't understand that. Haha.

I love it. I'm a very "wordy" person, as in I attach great importance to words.

I got decent with words because of bad spelling. Can't spell something? find another way to say it.


It's more like a partnership between God and humans.

But it still the humans doing the work and god just getting credit.



That is why a comprehensive understanding of the Bible is so important.

But any view is wrong or any view is right. How many versions of Christianity are there now? and we almost had another because of a gay bishop...




E.g. Christianity claims to be the end message the Jews have been waiting for, kind of an end of the Jewish story. So everything in the Jewish Torah applies equally to Christianity.

The only fundamental principle you have is a plot point? I was hoping for something different. like the rules the Christianity use that have already existed before.

[/quote]I say a mix of Christian fundamental principles because you are right: some fundamental principles of Christianity have already been expressed elsewhere (e.g. the idea of one man giving up his life to save all). But it had to be under the unique circumstances of Jesus's life and setting which Christianity grew from.[/quote]

What had to be under those? The rules? why? Christianity happened to grow as large as it is because a Roman Emperor took a liking to it.


This quote is essentially the same quote I gave except "terrorised". Indeed, it is up to interpretation, but how broad is yours? Or are you just haranguing over this one verse.

They are different in that in your quote, god left and an evil spirit came. In mine, god left and sent the evil spirit. A rather large difference.


Now that shows a real ignorance of Biblical teachings.

Not really. It is more of a comment on the way people view the devil and its agents today. They place so much power in it that it might as well be another god.

Thought in the bible the strongest power it has is a silver tongue...

But it still the humans doing the work and god just getting credit.

No. Without God the humans can't do jack. When something is accomplished God wants us to take credit too.





But any view is wrong or any view is right. How many versions of Christianity are there now? and we almost had another because of a gay bishop...
That's the beauty of human thought. There are many versions of everything.






The only fundamental principle you have is a plot point? I was hoping for something different. like the rules the Christianity use that have already existed before.
Why don't you raise an example you have in mind?

What had to be under those? The rules? why? Christianity happened to grow as large as it is because a Roman Emperor took a liking to it.
Actually, Christianity had grown during fierce Roman persecution. Recognition came much later.





They are different in that in your quote, god left and an evil spirit came. In mine, god left and sent the evil spirit. A rather large difference.
Well, compare yourself.

The NASB you quoted: "Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him."

The NIV I quoted: "Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him."



Not really. It is more of a comment on the way people view the devil and its agents today. They place so much power in it that it might as well be another god.
So it was an unsubstantiated opinion comment - that shows ignorance of Biblical teachings.


Thought in the bible the strongest power it has is a silver tongue... Didn't get.

I see the many fantastic happenings in the bible (Some of which were put in for political purposes) as no less likely then a few billion years ago a pin exploded and then we evoloved from random particles bumping together.

Wait, wait. Unless I'm misreading, you're acknowledging that everything in the Bible is not literally true.

If so, then why do you support Young-Earth Creationism, given that the only argument put forward for the Earth being about 6000 years old is "that's how the dates add up if everything in the Bible is literally true"? :confused:

Like what? Where's the evidence? Do you have a time machine now?

Background microwave radiation and red doplar shift for one.

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

There's a perfectly natural, Godly explanation for all this: light travels more quickly in deep space.