Topic awaiting preservation: God? (Page 2 of 3)

It's all good WS. Just wanted to make sure someone else didn't catch the crap for anything I said (and possibly deserved). I've read several threads where I forget who says what and end up jumping on someone who didn't deserve it. Besides, I still haven't quite figured out which side of this outcydr is on, haha. That one thing he said is still going right by me

As I'm sure the case was (if I remember correctly) in the God debate (see my first post in this thread for links), what is enough proof for one may not be for another, and therefore we could go around in circles 'till one of us dies and then can without a doubt go, "Woohoo, I was right" or, "Oh crap, I was wrong..." In either case, you better come back and tell the rest of us, haha

The 'argument' that I showed here is enough for me to not believe. Not because it by itself is sufficient, but because from it you can prove anything (actually everything). If it did stop after that 'argument,' then yes, I can definately see how the opposition could be quite strongly supported if favor of God. But since there are so many things in my head on this subject, from things I've seen, and the many, many 'discussions' in the past, I would never be able to post all of them here.


Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments - I especially 'love' his page on Exposing the Atheist. And the "This page was created by an Ex-Atheist" animation. WARNING: Only go to site if you don't mind completely illogical arguments and extreme... extremism.
It's good for a laugh if nothing else. Except when you realize that he's serious and there are others like him, it's not so funny.


Now, how to end this post... Maybe this:
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

lordy,Lord_
it shouldn't be that hard to figure out which side i'm on--outcydr--get it?
haha
life's like that
we can't prove where it came from or where it goes
but there it is
and that's that

That bit about Satan and Adam being siblings should be a clue. I may have a bit of an issue with that

Agnostic perhaps? haha

Yea, as for the sibling comment (which I missed the first 3-4 times I read this whole thread) even I would argue against. Well, actually I'd argue that neither even existed at all, but in the hypothetical situation that they did, there's a number of things to disagree with it.

[edit:

Bugs

quote:

---

God at one point desired to have relationship with other beings.

---

To desire something is to show an imperfection, a flaw. According to my way of thinking at least.

quote:

---

perfect - adj -

• 1. complete in all respects; without defect or omission; sound; flawless
• 2. in a condition of complete excellence, as in skill or quality; faultless; most excellent

---

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-28-2002).]

bugs--adam and satan were not the siblings
they were the fathers

insider--i dig your catchphrase
_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

edit--prying eyes often see the wrong thing


[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 09-28-2002).]

the catch phrase happens to be the chorus to the end of "third eye" the TOOL song #15 on aenima, so it isn't mine, i am just a massive TOOL fan

and as dg will tell u, i am a tool, which is very true

outcydr - That makes a bit more sense, it was just the way it was worded the first time, because that's the way I interpreted it too.

sidenote - Is it just me, or has Insider been rather well behaved lately? Granted, I've only been here for a short while, but there seems to be a significant difference in the inflection of his posts over the last few months. Could it be the pills are finally taking effect? Maybe someone just smacked him upside the head hard enough to make something go 'click.' Or maybe the pills are just getting to me now...

Well, it's been a year...and ramming your head against a wall for that long is bound to have effects...but yes, he does seem to be 'mellowing out'...let's hope this positive trend continues...

Maybe he's actually starting to mature...

On with the topic!

The thing that confuses me at the moment that one of Jesus' (or God, depending on how you see it) teachings was "Love thy neighbor". He was in Israel at the time. It is 2000 years since then, and we have still learned very little. Israel is a hellhole of bombings and shootings and who-knows-what. If God does exist, how can he allow this to happen?

S^abaal ud T'a johtizuc^ ult'a Fedaro.

Yep yep.

Lord_Fukutoku, I have a feeling that most of the Xians you have run into (or at least you have chosen to challenge) have been of the "fundamentalist" variety. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. So it shouldn't surprise you that I don't consider desiring relationship with someone else to be a flaw in God's character. I consider it to demonstrate the profound importance of relationship.

In fact, it only underscores why we humans have such a *huge* preoccupation with it as well. Almost everything we do comes out of a desire and search for satisfying relationships with each other and with our Creator. I can only tell you that this is one of those aspects of Xianity that falls into the "given" category for me. It's a core concept and I can't say too much more about it than that.

outcydr, maybe you can come right out (no pun intended) and tell us what you're saying because I'm still a bit fuzzy on your position.

Ramm, please read the answers to mogg's question and you will see the answer to your question. But I would also love to hear from you what you would think to be an appropriate action God could take if He decided to not allow all this mayhem to continue.

quote:

---

Well, it's been a year...and ramming your head against a wall for that long is bound to have effects...but yes, he does seem to be 'mellowing out'...let's hope this positive trend continues...

---

Don't jynx it please.....

After 2000 posts in 1 year, 2000/365=5.4 useless posts on average a day even though logicaly daily post count varies due to social life, well to make a long story short after 2000 posts I really want to start helping people more.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 09-30-2002).]

Bugs - Nope. Only one or two times I've got real deep with a fundamentalist. For the most part, the ones I talk to realize that if you were to take everything in the Bible literally, there are far too many places for contraversy or agrument. However, allowing for the Bible to be interpreted means that everyone has a different idea about heaven and hell and God and all that. Just look at all the different denominations of Christianity. I've been to a number of different churches, from good ole Southern Baptist, to Pentacostal, to Methodist, and several others. The variations are amazing. Granted, they have the same general idea for the most part, but there's still too much difference for it to make sense to me. No two people will ever have the same interpretation of any religion unless they are twins that have never left their backyard and never talked to or even met anyone except their parents. For me, looking at all the different denominations of a religion is the same as looking at all the different religions as a whole.
Kinda like what they talk about in the movie Dogma, with Jay and Silent Bob.


I think there was something else I was gonna say but I can't remember... Will try and add it later.

Well, I guess nobody can know anything about anything then? Come on, the text is all right there. There are mountains of works dedicated to learning what the authors meant when they wrote it and even who the authors were for that matter.

It is not as much a matter of interpretation as some people think, IMO. Sure there is plenty there to have differences about, but if you study this stuff a great many things become clear. As far as what certain denominations continue to teach, I challenge them just as I challenge anyone to dig deeper.

One of the reasons I wondered about whether you've dealt with the fundamentalist crowd is because of that page that had all the perfect vs. sinful verses. Like you said, many were pretty sad. I was quite curious to know which of those you thought even had a chance of being 'right on' after a bit of critical analysis.

BTW, since when do S. Baptists not qualify as fundamentalists?

quote:

---

the text is all right there. There are mountains of works dedicated to learning what the authors meant when they wrote it and even who the authors were for that matter.

---

The only objection I really have is that...regardless what the authors meant or who they were...it was still just people writing things....and correctly interpreting their meaning still doesn't mean squat about them being correct in the first place.

quote:

---

BTW, since when do S. Baptists not qualify as fundamentalists?

---

Not intending to be an ass
I never said they weren't. I said there were minimal times that I've discussed such things with fundamentalists. Then I said I have been to several different denominations churches. The two statements had no relation to each other... In case that was unclear...

As for The Skeptics Annotated Bible, I'll have to wait 'till I get home and have a Bible in hand to be able to read several of them into context, as I don't carry a Bible around with me at school (or anywhere else for that matter).

[edit: duh, forgot where I was looking... Just use the one on the site... However, it'll have to wait a bit cause I'm still "working" right now anyways...

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-30-2002).]

All righty, let's see here. Just skimming through Genesis I see a few things "wrong."

It seems God made light before he made the objects that produce light:
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Everything is a vegetarian?
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


Eat from everything?
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it


Fowl in heaven?
Genesis 1:20 ...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Well, we know where we can find birds, but is our atmosphere heaven?


Genesis 3:8 - 11
God cannot find Adam and Eve because they are hiding. Omnicient and omnipresent? Maybe not...


Eve the mother of all beings?
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. [Speaking of Melchisedec]


Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden...
God expels Adam and Eve from the garden before they get a chance to eat from the tree of life, for fear of them becoming gods as well.


Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Where'd she come from? The only people around are Adam, Eve, and Cain (Being as Abel was killed). Then he builds a city... (population: 3).


More fun with fanily:
Genesis 4:18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah
Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

And because Methusael and Methuselah both begat Lamech, we are lead to believe that it's the same person.


What are these clean beasts, and why are there 7 of each on the ark?
Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.


Going to drown the fish, is He?
Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

quote:

---

Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of "every thing that creepeth upon the earth." Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species? How did Noah obtain and care for the hundreds of thousands of species of plants? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn't last long after if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don't tell me. A miracle happened. Millions of them.

---

How did the ark rest on Arafat after 7 months, when the mountains weren't visible for 10 months?
Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
Genesis 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Genesis 8:8-11 Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period.

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth...
Genesis 8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

Well, when was it?


Genesis 8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct.


Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
He just caused every "clean" animal in existence to go extinct by sacrificing one of each.

Yea, so back to work...

Yup, some good ol' contradictions there.

The book is filled with them.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Yup. Contradictions...covered all this in the Formal Debate (follow the little white links...hehe).

Personally, the 'God' thing makes no sense to me...esp.. considering the following -

Either we live in a natural world (i.e. reality, universe, whatever you want to call it), governed by natural laws (I'll get to this later), or we live in a 'created' one, with a 'Supreme Creator'.

So, if living in a natural reality (i.e. without a 'Supreme Creator'), then continual progress and evolution makes sense. Exploring our surroundings and overcoming limitations, dangers and boundries also makes sense. Our 'exploratory' perogative (which Mankind seems to have), that pushes us ever further, also makes sense. Increasing our understanding of the natural laws, and how to use them to our advantage, also makes sense.

However

In the case that it isn't natural (i.e. there is a 'Supreme Creator'), then none of the above makes sense...in fact, it is wrong to do just that. In the case of a 'Supreme Creator', then we shouldn't evolve, or move forward, at all. Why? Why should we move forward, when if we live according to the 'laws' laid down by this 'Supreme Creator', we will then go to 'Heaven' when we die? Then it makes no sense, no logical sense, to do anything other than what is laid out for us under these 'laws'. Why explore anything, develope anything, try to understand anything, when it makes no difference? Might as well stay in a 'stone age' state of being...it would be easier to obey the 'laws' laid out for us by the 'Supreme Creator'...just live, then die. Why have children? Why reproduce? Just end the 'cycle'...and allow Humans to go the way of the Dinosaurs...

Do you really think that that would make a difference to Reality? What if the Human race dies out? Tomorrow, let's say...do you really think that this Reality would then cease to exist? Do you really think that a 'Supreme Creator' made all this just for us? That assumes that Mankind is then the only intelligent creature (apart from God, the angels, Satan, and his 'fallen' angels) in the Universe...and that everything is then dependent on Mankinds existence.

However, I know that Mankind is not the only 'intelligent' species in the Universe...and this 'other intelligence' sure as hell isn't mentioned in the Bible, nor did it originate from Adam and Eve. So, either Adam and Eve are not of Human origin (the only way to 'interpret' that part of Genesis in this case...which really would then throw a wrench in the whole thing now, wouldn't it?), or the Bible is just a set of papers written by down-to-earth, stink-normal humans, with a lot of fantasy...

Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable in a natural universe...without a 'Supreme Creator'. There's just so much more to explore, to find out, to understand...a challenge, if you will. And meaning...reasons for existence. With a 'Supreme Creator'...it makes absolutely no sense to me to continue existing...why? What for? So that this 'Supreme Creator' can set forth with his 'Cosmic Play' against the 'Evil One', with us as his 'puppets'? Where the entire reality around us is only there as the 'background' for us to play our roles in?

That sounds ridiculous. Were I to put it in any other context, without the names, and references to the Bible, one would think me funny at best, and totally mad at worst. But 'pop' those names and references in there, and lo and behold! People believe it...

I look at the Angels as being inter-dimensional Aliens. And God is the ruler of some inter-galactic organization that we are not advanced enough to be apart of. Their is no God the creator, only God the ruler.

Webshaman - And about the human's all dying thing. Thats a good point, I mean you can also look at it backwards also. At one point there were only 10 humans, so therfore 10 souls. Now there are over 6 Billion humans, so over 6 billion souls? Where did all these souls come from, and where will they go when we are back to only 10 humans? That is the biggest problem I have with this soul thing. What will happen to all the souls of humans when all the humans die in a huge nucleaur war? And since the population keeps increasing, that must mean that earth is a birthing center for souls...

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-01-2002).]

WS - Very well put.

sidenote --
Gilbert - That reminded me of an essay I saw several years ago about a PChem final exam...

Is Hell Endothermic or Exothermic?

[edit: added link]

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 10-01-2002).]

Lordy, I could go over each point in Genesis (let me know if you would like that). But I think it might save more time and space if I just hit it from this angle. The reason I asked about fundamentalists was because you seem to be attacking the bible from that perspective.

If you think reading the bible literally is stupid, then why attack it by reading it literally? I don't think you should do that. It makes you look... well... you can do better. There are plenty of other killer arguments against it but the ones you cited really don't rank.

Look, what do you know about ancient Hebrew thought? How familiar are you with Babylonian creation stories? When the Hebrews talked about the heavens, what did they see in their minds compared to how you see it when you asked about fowls?

There are major differences between the cosmogony in Genesis and how we see it today. So I'm saying it is wrong to read Genesis with a 21st century Western mindset and expect it to make perfect sense. It can't be done. People who believe in the bible and people like you who think it fantasy read it that way and it makes me sad.

DL-44, I think we can agree that we need to understand what they were saying before anyone decides to believe their claims or not. We should apply the high levels of scientific investigation to all the works of antiquity we come across. We can't go wrong with an ever increasing body of knowledge on this stuff.

We've learned a lot from archaeology since the middle ages and it has only served to better our understanding of Genesis and other books of the bible. In fact, if Lord_Fukutoku wanted to dig deeper, he could find out all sorts of cool stuff about the questions he asked and how they just might not be as contradictory as they seem.

WS, I want to explore more what you said but I don't have time... bummer! I'll be back later.

I hold a similar theory as GN. In the alien aspect anyway. I haven't given to much though to the inter-dimensionality of these aliens, but I digress. I see these aliens calling their race, god. We're human, they're god. It would explain a lot of things. The near identical description of a landing module in... Isaac I think it is and the fact that no one could touch the arc of the covenant. Speaking to god(the race of aliens) through a radio that is remotely powered from space would generate huge amounts of energy. The arc would they slay anyone who touched it because of the residual charge that would remain on it. I just think it makes a lot of sense. We could be created AND be evolving(go figure that both could happen) in any case put forth by any belief. Just my two bits. Back to lurking.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Thank You Bugs for bringing us to the origin of this story.

What has been argued so far has been the Christian interpretation of a Jewish possible adaptation of a Babylonian creation myth. Of course there are discrepencies in the facts, LF and Insider. The story is allegorical not literal. It was written long ago by people with less knowledge trying to make sense of their world.

Being a reformed Jew I raised to look at the philosophical side of the old testament, and not to interpret it so literally.

The story is complex and beautiful IMO. It talks symbolicly about the price of knowledge and maturity. Look at childdren around the age 2 or 3. They have not a care in the world. No worries about the asking of unspoken questions or about any social mores. True innocence. As we mature we gain knowledge of societies rules and eventually our innocence is lost never to be regained.

It is fable about the price of knowledge and man's sundering from paradise. As man has gained knowledge he has moved further away from an idyllic lifestyle adding layers of complexity to his world and his relationships with other men. He gained understanding of how we are different from each other instead of finding solace in how we are the same. He also eventually learned that he could dominate other men. This is the true knowledge of good and evil and hardly paradise.

It also tells of how God gave man freedom of choice, and that his choices had prices. This is a lesson of personal responsibility. I dont think its such a bad thing for a religon to teach.

What gets me are religous fundamentalists who disregard what the bible has to teach in favor beating people over the head with its literality. I like the concept of faith in a higher power and a postive way of treating your fellow human beings. These are OK lessons to learn. I dont care where you get them from, and I have a funny feeling that neither does God.


-tiki, cell 478

Cool beans. And not only is it beautiful but I think this goes to the heart of why this book requires serious consideration and why so many say it's "inspired". When we move past the "fundie" squabbles we get into the real question about why the concepts found there are unrivaled in the time in which they were recorded.

Well (and well put, tikigod...and of course Bugs...my ever-loving sparring partner ), I have never said that the Bible is not full of wisdom...because it is. It is also a fascinating read...that I would recommend to anyone.

However (and you knew that was coming, didn't you?), that in no way, shape or form means that it is the word of a 'Supreme Creator'...and furthermore, the Scientific Method has 'overtaken', if you will, the forefront of exploring the unknown...in a much better way of doing it. The Religious System is...obsolete, in comparison (and yes, this is my opinion, of course).

BTW - Bugs, how do you see the 'extra-terrestrial' thing, and how do you 'weight it' in light of what is in the Bible? What 'changes' would you go through, if you knew that intelligent, extra-terrestial life was out there? I know we sort of did this awhile ago, but I'm really intrigued as to how you would 'weight' this evidence with that in the Bible...or find a way to 'tie it in' with that that is in Genesis.

Now, I'm not talking about Angels being E.T.s...I mean another intelligent race, but not from this planet... (but here, no offence to anyone who believes otherwise...it's all good).

As for 'fundamentalists'...well, they are a lot of fun...hehe...I think I just about drove synthetic into a fit...but hey, he's definetely entitled to his beliefs...I just like having 'fun' poking such people...and, as Bugs pointed out, the Bible is full of nice, fat, juicy bits to do that with...I think Noah is a great place to start...hehe...hoooboy! That musta been some Ark! And of course, there is always the Evolution question...hehehe...

Well on the basis of the flood we can all say without fear that we are direct decendants of Noah. Isn't that a nice little tidbit to have on your resume.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Bugs - Yes, I admit that post about Genesis was rather weak, and is generally reserved for fundies (as you mentioned) which their "debates" are few and far between (at least with me). However, certain aspects, discrepencies in the timing of certain things, and the like, fail to make sense regardless of whether you take a fundie approach or not. "Well, it was 7 months, but kinda 10 months." That's like saying "He's short, but kinda tall. With the black hair that's sorta blonde. Heavyset, but kinda skinny." It just doesn't work. But as I see you don't go for that style of argument in general, I'll move on to something else. (Can't find another way to word that last sentence, but I hope you can figure out the jist of it...)

If someone wants to believe something, then they will. Regardless. When it comes down to beliefs, you can't simply (and sometimes not so simply) prove them wrong; you have to make them want to believe something else.
Along the lines of, "When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours." - Stephan Roberts

So another way to go about this discussion is for you, as a Christian, to explain why you don't believe any of the other religions (even those similar to Christianity). Obviously you think any other religions must be wrong, at least in a few aspects, otherwise you wouldn't believe what you do. i.e. Prove Zeus doesn't exist. Or Norse gods, or Egyptian gods, Hindu, anything and everything you can think of.

Kind of a sidenote...
For those who actually thought the stories about the flood and Noah were original, please see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

And I also found one about several different "saviours being crusified," however, I can't find it at the moment. Will add it if I ever find it...

Well, I completely lost what I was talking about when I started looking for those links and ended up here: http://geocities.com/forbidden_area/interv.html

So I'll just end this with an interesting link, kinda humorous, whether you're Christian, Atheist, or whatever... Jesus in Japan?


And then of course, the taglines...

"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do." - Stephan Roberts

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 10-02-2002).]

Lord - Pretty good joke...

quote:

---

we can predict that all people and all souls go to hell on average

---

--More on Jesus-- http://www.jesus.com/merchandise/

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-02-2002).]

Just have to look at it from a mathematical standpoint.

There are 'x' religions that say if you don't believe in this religion, you go to hell (or the equivilent).
There are 'y' religions that you belong to.
There are 'z' religions total.

The odds that you happen to have an incorrect religion are at best: ((z-y)/z)
Two cases are present when you consider whether you are going to hell or not.
1. You belong to a religion that says all non-believers of this faith will go to hell (or the equivilent), in which your chances of going to hell are: ((x-y)/z) <- your best chance for survival.
2. You don't fall into case 1., in which your chances of going to hell are: ((z-x-1)/z)


Yea... Well, there are many possible flaws in this post. I just wanted to have a quick tangent is all.

Lord_Fukutoku,

But first let me say that I believe the crucial fact about the account of Noah in Genesis is *how* the Hebrews tell the story. It is their version of the Great Flood account that we find in so many other cultures. Personally, I think this is strong evidence of an ancient localized but massive flood that occurred somewhere in that area. The entire Noah story is told from the framework of morality and God's displeasure with man's wickedness. The Babylonian version describes the gods as bringing on the flood apparently for want of something better to do as "their hearts prompted them".

Ok, about those 7 or 10 months. Since the ark rested on the highest peak in the mountain range (Ararat) then I suppose it is possible to read that part as it hitting the bottom of the ark on the peak. So it rested there a while longer until the lower peaks became visible as the water level dropped.

Chapter 8:13,14 is harder to reconcile. I would have to look up the Hebrew words to get a better feel for those two verses but it could just be a discrepancy.

BTW, I read that link with the atheist, Mills. Much of the dialogue was pretty standard stuff but I think he totally screwed the pooch on that Luke 19:27 quote. Did you happen to read that part? Just curious.

Also, you make a very good point about pointing out why Xianity stands out from all the other religions to choose from. The very short answer I would offer for that is, grace. Xianity is uniquely based on it. All other major religions, to my knowledge, are works based.

WebShaman, yes, I think we did that a while back. It's a fascinating possibility all the same and I have an answer to it. It is my position that the possible existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life is *not* contrary to the Christian faith.

As far as I am concerned, any entity that has been created in God's image regardless of physical makeup is "human" enough for me to call a sibling. And since we are all brothers and sisters, we all need Christ. You would see me evangelizing aliens should there ever come a day! LOL!!!

Space is no different than just another large ocean. When Christ walked the Earth, people in the Middle East were unaware of those in the Americas (presumably). And so when Europeans got here what did they find? People. When we cross the galaxy, I cannot help but think that same thing may happen again.

WS, it should be pretty clear that I'm a bit liberal in my theology in that I don't read the Genesis accounts of creation literally. It has gotten me into a bit of trouble with some Xians but my goal is truth and not popularity. The more you study the Bible, the more it becomes clear a strictly literal reading cannot be correct without ignoring indisputable facts in the fields of archaeology and geology.

. . : slicePuzzle

Fascinating, Bugs. Nice read, your post. Just wondering, what if the 'aliens' have a much better, older 'religion'? Or have 'proved' that God doesn't exist? Or have proof of the existence of 'God'?

As for the flood, I think it may be when the 'land bridge' of Gibralter broke...and let in the Atlantic. That would, of course, instigate a massive flood into the whole 'middle-valley...or land?' area. I wonder what was there before? Maybe that's where the Hebrews originated? Well, hard to say...but the 'flood' from this happening must have been gigantic...surely something that would stay in memory, and Tales...like those from the region...

The flood might have also stemed from when Santorini erupted (more like exploded) destroying the Minoan culture. A lot of water in the Mediterranian was displaced and the ash cloud darkened the skies as far as China and the Americas (an unusually long storm in the eyes of the ancient Hebrews).

As for aliens and God. I agree with Bugs that it would not harm my religous beliefs because my beliefs are more philosophical than dogmatic. I like Bugs' metaphor of the oceean , it works. I always thought it was an arrogant presumption that the only intelligent lifeform God created was humans.

As for the aliens proving God doesn't exsist I have a "let's cross that bridge when come to it" attitude. If they have on older and better religon, I bet it will have the same components almost every other religon has(as I said above): faith in a supreme power and a structure for social relationships. This will be ok for some and get religous furor out of others leading crusades, jihads or whatever.

Hmm, is first contact such a good thing? We can't even get along with one another.

quote:

---

It is their version of the Great Flood account that we find in so many other cultures.

---

But what makes you think the Hebrew interpretation didn't come from some other culture from an earlier time? I would really like to see a timeline of the flood stories, mainly because I really don't know which ones came before the others. I'm sure that if you go back and do some serious research into each of the cultures, you would probably be able to follow a sort of pattern around an area, possibly around the world as the story developed. And it's not just the flood story, but Jesus being crucified as a "sacrafice" to pay for the sins of man 'evolved' from another prior culture. However, I still can't find the site that gave many of the different crucifixions from different groups of people, similar to that site with all the floods. The only big difference I remember is it had a vague timeline. But since I can't find that site, I won't try and argue that right now.

Now I'm kinda interested in how you interpret Luke 19:22-27. I just skimmed over most of it the first time I went through it, because, as you said, most of it is pretty standard.

quote:

---

All other major religions, to my knowledge, are works based.

---

Well, that gives me something to start looking for. I take it I would be incorrect to take from that quote that you wouldn't ever consider any minor religions? And this of course doesn't take into account any parts of the Bible that say it takes more than just faith to be "saved." Or are you of the group that is solely for the faith only will get you into heaven?

quote:

---

As for the flood, I think it may be when the 'land bridge' of Gibralter broke.

---

How about the other flood stories from other parts of the world? The flood idea isn't original to the Mid-East... Which is kinda what I was trying to get at in a previous post.
But the thing I still have trouble with is this: OK, we know that ancient peoples were apt to explain most (very possibly all) natural occurences as being directly related to a god, or gods. Very common things, such as: the seasons, rain, lightning, drought, and so on. Why should this flood be any different? Just because it hasn't happened since then? Well, who says it hasn't? There have been a great number of floods, even in recent years. Most of Europe was under water here recently, within a few months at least, right? Then the Mississippi River here in the states seems to flood every few years. Large parts of Texas looked like they were completely under water last year. If you go back and look at pictures of these, it's not hard to imagine how relatively unsophisticated people several thousand years ago would have seen this. Especially if they happened to have an unusually big flood.


All right, well I just got sidetracked talking to someone else, so I'll end this post here.

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693

Lord_Fukutoku, yes, I'm sure that the flood stories from other cultures are based on natural occurances...and since most early civilizations were situated on big rivers/coastlines, it only makes sense that flooding (which would occur more often than other natural disasters) occured often. And that really major flooding would, of course, find it's way into the 'god' thing...early religions did act as a way of preserving information...

But the flood mentioned in the Bible was of really apocalyptic purportions. Tiki brings up a very feasible reason, as is the Gibralter land-bridge (that we know broke...scientists are still squabbling over when it occured...). Of course, a meteorite impact in the red sea area on a big enough scale could do it, as well.

But you're right, when you say that many natural occurances were prescribed to 'divine' actions...that was also covered in the Formal Debate...(by me, if I remember correctly ).

Yes, I believe it was you who pointed that out

From what I've read on the flood story, I think it's possible the Babylonians and the Hebrews may have gotten it from the Sumerians. But I haven't really dug into this issue much, I just read that in one commentary I have.

. . : slicePuzzle

Hey Bugs...take a look at your post count, buddy...Party in Bugs cell!!!!

Whohooo! The big 3000 comin' on...!

Keep those posts coming, Bugs!

quote:

---

"...An actual Layer of Mud, evidently deposited by the
Flood, has been found in three separate places: Ur, which is 12
miles from the traditional site of the Garden of Eden; at Fara,
traditional home of Noah, 60 miles further up river; and at Kish,
a suburb of Babylon, 100 miles still further up river; and,
possibly, also a fourth place, Nineveh, 300 miles still further
up the river. At Ur, city of Abraham, the Joint Expedition of
the University Museum of Pennsylvania and the British Museum,
under the leadership of Dr. C. L. Woolley, found (in 1929) near
the bottom of the Ur mounds, underneath several strata of human
occupation, a great bed of solid water-laid clay 8 feet thick
without admixture of human relic, with yet the ruins of another
city buried beneath it. Dr. Woolley said that 8 feet of sediment
implied a very great depth and a long period of water, that it
could not have been put there by any ordinary overflow of the
rivers, but only by such vast inundation as the Biblical Flood.
The civilization underneath the flood layer was so different from
that above it that it indicated to Dr. Woolley 'a sudden and
terrific break in the continuity of history'" (see: Woolley's UR
OF THE CHALDEES).

---

...This is from this site... http://www.anomalous-images.com/text/CRIM004.TXT

This is quite more substantial than any flood in modern history.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-07-2002).]

So...gonna 'pop' some 'belief' bubbles here...for all those who literally believe in the Bible...

According to Genesis here, God created everything (including man) in '7' days...taken literally, that means 7 days...

OK, so what, I 'hear' some saying...so bear with me...

From the lineage 'tree' in the Bible, we can make the argument that man is then around 16,000 years old (give or take)...let's say a good, round 20,000 years...and as everything was created in those 7 days, so must the Universe also be as 'young'...or old.

But

The fact that light is a constant (strange that the sciences of astronomy and physics would be the ones to 'blow' this out of the water...) shows us that this is not possible. For there are both stars, and Galaxies that are more than 20,000+ light years from us. And therefore, if the universe is only 20,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see the light of these objects yet! The only other ways to explain that is -

That astronomy is wrong with the distances.

or

God created the light from these objects before (or at the same time as) the objects themselves.

Both explanations are stretching it....

So a literal take of the Bible is...wrong.

Have a nice day....



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-08-2002).]

You know, I have a problem with some sophomore/juniors in my school who tend to have the same literal translation.

One of them said and quote: '7 days then could me thousands of years now'.

But what gets me on that one is that, when the bible was allegedly written it was written in the day where we have established day. If it was meant to be thought of as thousands of years, then it would have specified so in the book.

The problem with people today is the won't compare christianity to other religions, or even realism. Christians automatically assume that their religion is the right one and that all people who oppose it, go to hell. What a comforting thought no? You wanna know how many times I have been told I am going to hell?

Well I'll tell you.

First of all, I willingly revealed the fact that I was atheist to the sophomores/juniors. After that, I was called a satanist, a racist, a nazi, and I was accused of hating my country . And everytime I walk in that class, they like to call me devil boy. Real fucking intelligent you know?

It isn't easy putting up with morons, I'll tell you. It certainly isn't. First of all I have to take shit from them everyday, and second of all my school won't DO shit because they too are ignorant fucks who go to church every sunday.

And guess what!? There's a christian club in my school! Wanna know what it's called? Jeasus Freaks! No joke!

People also think it's amusing to ask me if I am going to church on sunday, when they know the answer. Damned the rhetorical questions.

God? I hate him.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.