190 replies to this topic

[Fyxe]

The whole city.

Riiiight.

Besides that utterly preposterous tale based solely on homophobia, what about the women in the city? How nice of God to roast them too.

[Nevermind]

Maybe it was a city full of men who had children via raping means. Also, it probably wasn't THAT big a city. I dunno. I've never lived there.

[Fyxe]

I think Sodom and Gathingiemabob were both rather big and rather prosperous cities, historically.

And I really, *really* hope you're not taking the story literally. A whole city of children born by rape, and a whole population, young and old, wanting to rape some visitors? Yeeeeno.

[Nevermind]

Yeah that was me failing to create a valid excuse for the women and children. But how large is large back in these days?

[Fyxe]

Pretty officially large, from what I saw of that history program about it.

Also, apparently, it was destroyed by some natural disaster.

[Nevermind]

Some people also say it was alien spaceships. Seriously. Read "God is an Astronaut".

[Fyxe]

That sounds like a Scientology book t'me.

[Alardonin]

but if you put MORE faith in your family (again, fallible human beings) than God, well... that's your deal, it's not a good thing.

God isn't perfect either, when you put it like that, because going by that logic God itself is not everything. If going by that logic the bible itself is just as much fallible as any human being(I'm sorry for the offensive turn this might cause, its not my intention) since the source of many peoples beliefs were written by one.



People put to much of they're mind in greater then......... I personally have only read the Bible because of it historic meaning, but what i belive or not is not called here. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people think they have the answers more then other's based on what? On something they believe/hope can that in itself be an answer? Yes, can it be more validated then any other? No, unless of course to the individual.


I could put pages up on pages of boring philosophical crap right here, would it serve any porpuse to a possible answer? Just as much as anything else.

Edited by Alardonin, 14 December 2006 - 08:59 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Not to mention that God completely weasels out of his own promises.

"I shall not destroy Sodom if there is even ONE good man there."
"Yay!"
"Now Lot, get the hell out so I can blow this place to smithereens."
"....what?"

[TheAvengerLever]

Good arguement, MikePetersSucks....not.

People, if you're going to quote the Bible you might as well...just...quote...the...BIBLE. Your understanding of God's Word seems to stem from your negative and innacurate interpretation.

Not attacking everyone, just saying. If you're gonna do this do this right.

[Steel Samurai]

Aye to 'Venger. If you're going to use the Bible to either disprove or prove itself, then, if the passage isn't exorbitantly long, quote it directly. For example:

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Edited by Steel Samurai, 15 December 2006 - 08:13 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

God isn't perfect either, when you put it like that, because going by that logic God itself is not everything. If going by that logic the bible itself is just as much fallible as any human being(I'm sorry for the offensive turn this might cause, its not my intention) since the source of many peoples beliefs were written by one.

There is no real definition for the word 'perfect' and if God is sincere to himself then he is perfect, if we are sincere to ourselves but don't obey God we are evil, go figure. The problem is God has proven himself many times to be illogical and beyond our comprehension, I quote the famous saying "How can a God of Love send people to Hell?"

Not to mention that God completely weasels out of his own promises.

That is a consequence of existence: God is Sovereign. In this universe God can do whatever he likes, whenever he likes.

(Rom 9:15,16 NRSV) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

Edited by Ricky, 15 December 2006 - 06:34 AM.

[Fyxe]

This is somewhat of an off-topic point, but on the subject of God's fallibility/infallibility, if someone sympathises with Lucifer and the angel's rebellion against God, does that make them a Satanist?

Especially since there's some discrepancy over whether the angel that rebelled became Satan or not.

It's just odd, because Lucifer's reason for rebelling is because he thought that God was basically being a bit of a dictator, which isn't exactly a bad reason for a rebellion.

[Nevermind]

He rebelled because he didn't want to serve humankind.

[TheAvengerLever]

Satan rebelled because he tried to raise himself above the throne of God.

Isaiah 14:12-15:
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."

15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 15 December 2006 - 12:12 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

and he probably tried to overthrow God off his throne because he was doing assholish shit like punishing man-ape children who don't know any better if a snake talks to them, or destroying cities of gays, or drowning an entire planet for it's wickedness even though he's also drowning innocent children an animals, and putting his OWN SON on a stake to get brutally slaughtered for the sake of salvation when he could've gone with a less round-a-bout method like just saying "Ok, you got one more chance. Don't eat from THIS tree and I'll forgive you."

[Fyxe]

He rebelled because he didn't want to serve humankind.

I heard that he still wanted to serve God though, just not humankind. God ordered the angels to bow to humans, and they disagreed, and felt they should bow to nobody else before God.

In this version of it, Lucifer actually adored God more than any other angel.

Also, is Lucifer the same as Satan? Lucifer means light-bringer, a bringer of knowledge. From what I hear about Lucifer, it doesn't mesh with what we are told about Satan.

[Nevermind]

There's tons of different versions of Lucifer. One even suggests he still serves God as a quality-control officer, tempting mankind. He did adore God more than any other angel apparently, and it was also implied he may have been a seraph. Thus it was his pride that made him fall, cos every 2 out of 3 angels had no problem with it.

[Fyxe]

Well, if you sympathise with the character of Lucifer, does that make a person a 'Satanist'? I thought that'd be something else. Is there such a thing as a Luciferist?

Because depending on the version of the story, I can sympathise with Lucifer. He wasn't evil, just flawed. He was an enlightener, not a tempter.

Of course, in the tales that make him out to also be Satan, that implies an innate evil in him. But if he loved God, I can't see him becoming Satan.

Is Lucifer the Angel of Death, or is that something else entirely?

[Nevermind]

He was not really seen as evil, so much as misguiding. He has a vendetta against mankind, and resentment towards God. Azrael is the Angel of Death, but not fallen, and a Luciferist would be a "Kabbalist" =P

[TheAvengerLever]

and he probably tried to overthrow God off his throne because he was doing assholish shit like punishing man-ape children who don't know any better if a snake talks to them, or destroying cities of gays, or drowning an entire planet for it's wickedness even though he's also drowning innocent children an animals, and putting his OWN SON on a stake to get brutally slaughtered for the sake of salvation when he could've gone with a less round-a-bout method like just saying "Ok, you got one more chance. Don't eat from THIS tree and I'll forgive you."

No...he tried to be higher than God and that...just...didn't...work. God didn't drown any innocent children or animals. If there were innocent children they probably would've been brought on the ark with Noah, and all the animals were brought on the ark too. Now you're not thinking very logically and this is not an attack on your person. Obviously you need to reread the Bible because you're just not getting it.

I heard that he still wanted to serve God though, just not humankind. God ordered the angels to bow to humans, and they disagreed, and felt they should bow to nobody else before God.

In this version of it, Lucifer actually adored God more than any other angel.

Also, is Lucifer the same as Satan? Lucifer means light-bringer, a bringer of knowledge. From what I hear about Lucifer, it doesn't mesh with what we are told about Satan.

1. There's not really anything Biblical to back up that Satan still wanted to serve God and he probably didn't seeing as he wanted to rule everything.

2. Read Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-17, which describes that Satan (Lucifer) was the anointed cherub who was in the Garden (serpent...) and he was the most beautiful of all angels...but his beauty corrupts him and in Isaiah 14:12-15 he tries to bring himself up to the throne...Revelation 12:9 connects these three verses saying "the dragon, that old serpent, called the devil or Satan."

[Nevermind]

1. The Bible is not the only legitimate religious book available.

2. Even the Bible does not confirm - even though it does not deny - that Satan and Lucifer are the same being. The closest thing to "Lucifer" is "morning star", and even that does not give one much to base on. Although it is suggested by those who are not so naive that "Satan" is merely a title, or a label given to the Father of Lies - a title also associated with Be'elzebub who is completely different from the being Lucifer.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Satan rebelled because he tried to raise himself above the throne of God.

Isaiah 14:12-15:
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."

15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

No, no, no, no no! You have taken that quote out of context. It's like me saying, Paul was on drugs because he said "Once, I was stoned" (2 Corinthians 11:25).

That entire verse is a taunt against the King of Babylon. The original words used in place of "morning star, son of the dawn" is Helel bin Shahar. Helel is a Canaanite God, one that the King of Babylon would have been very familiar with. In Canaanite mythology, Helel tried to usurp the Throne of the King of the Gods, but was caught thrown down from Heaven as punishment.

It is not a reference to Satan, because it is a taunt against the King of Babylon and that King would have known next to nothing about the Israelite religion. The only thing that makes sense in that taunt is if you were to interpret that reference as being to a Canaanite god.

http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html

And what was this nonsense I heard about faith overruling science? If anything, faith hinders science. The Bible is not one-hundred percent scientifically accurate and cannot be taken one hundred percent literally. It's not even one hundred percent historically accurate. Take the story of Jericho for example. Archaeologists have found evidence that the city was walled, but they've also found out that the City wasn't walled when the Israelites came along, so Joshua couldn't have brought the walls down seeing as there weren't any.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 16 December 2006 - 08:29 AM.

[TheAvengerLever]

There is no one correct way to interpret it. To me, saying "How you have fallen from heaven" doesn't imply anything about the King of Babylon. And by the way, the whole "Once, I was stoned" thing was a bad example because you actually KNOW what he's talking about.

1. The Bible is not the only legitimate religious book available.

It's the only book that is God-inspired and the only one that identifies that it's God-inspired, so that's what I'm going to base all my info on.

[MikePetersSucks]

No...he tried to be higher than God and that...just...didn't...work. God didn't drown any innocent children or animals. If there were innocent children they probably would've been brought on the ark with Noah, and all the animals were brought on the ark too. Now you're not thinking very logically and this is not an attack on your person. Obviously you need to reread the Bible because you're just not getting it.

So you're telling me there wasn't a single kid or animal besides the ones Noah took with him? Yea. Right.

It's the only book that is God-inspired and the only one that identifies that it's God-inspired, so that's what I'm going to base all my info on.

Every religious book claims to be God-inspired, and every religious book has some sort of proof for that claim.

[Arturo]

Arturo, first of all i will say, you are very smart. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] smarter than me anyway...
So this is a sum up post for me i think... unless you totally refute my arguments to dust.

Thanks, but you are exaggerating.

Main disagreement:
Arturo: science =//= religion. They are totally different and therefore cannot contradict each other.

Ransom: I guess my main argument is that i still think that science and religion (or the "how" and "why" as Reflectionest put it) are still closely intertwined.
For example: say i write a historical novel about an apple orchard. Obviously this novel would have nothing to do with science. However, in the novel i write about apples falling downwards (as opposed to upwards) out of the trees according to the laws of gravity. Now even though this book is plainly not about how gravity works, this shows that something can be scientifically accurate without it being about science.

Yes, it can be scientifically accurate if the one who writes it knows it. Of course the men who wrote the Bible had some understanding of sciences, it's just that they were in their sciences, that's it.

It is meaningless to claim that scriptural authority applies only to "religious things", since the Christian Gospel is all about real things: the real history and salvation of man, the real destiny of man and the real universe around man. Remove its claim to authority in the realm of science and history, and you are actually removing it from any relevance to the real world. Which would then essentially mean that we have nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever, and should disregard it entirely.

I am going to answer to you with one of Pliate's quotes, surely one of the best quotes of the Bible. John 18:38:

What is truth?

That is, in your posts you are making a big assumption, a materialistic one: that the world we see and touch is the only real one, therefore if something is true, it must have happened in history. The Bible wouldn't be less or more true if we were sure that Jesus never existed as a historical character (something that clearly is not the case). Imagine the writers of the Gospels just had an inspiration from God and created the story of Jesus. Would it be less true? No it wouldn't because god would have inspired them, so it should be true.
Historically accurate=/=More true
I am thinking of an example, Catholicism related (sorry):
It comes from the Second Book of Maccabbeans that was in the Septuagint, therefore it was considered canonic by the Church, but since it was written in Greek and not in Hebrew, it wasn't included in the Hebrew Bible and therefore not in the Protestant one.
Well in the version of 2 Maccabbeans we have there is a moment when they have to made sacrifices so that the dead soldiers might be saved. Even though the Catholic Church recognize this is most likely a mistake of the writer (since this book is the summary of four different books), but that the canonical version is this, so one can pray for the deceased so that God might save them.

That makes no sense to me. So if i get told by Jesus that everything i say is true, then this automatically applies to all my spiritual ancestors (not blood relatives) for hundreds of generations?
(that is, assuming the Pope is the spiritual ancestor or heir of Peter)

Jesus made the Church to stay. So it is logical that whatever powers Peter had, would have to be continued by his successor, the Pope.

At this you are right. God doesnt give a damn about all the scientific things humans observe and calculate. However, he does give a damn about the world he created (which he said was "good") and all of the natural laws that he put in place.

And?

I don't understand your point... (sometimes I am just uninspired)

That is a really good example as to what you are trying to get across and it explains your beliefs pefectly. However, i disagree, i do not think God would allow innacuracies to go in his Holy Word inspired or not. You make it sound like he had no control over the situation.

Obviously, the control of god over the situation is small, since men have free will. That's why there are some horrible things in the Bible, like most of Deuteronmy or some things Paul says,. Those come from the bias of the author. You just can't say God considers women to be inferior or that it is a sin punishable with death that you have short hair.

So obviously these geologists (men who can be wrong) are right, and God inspired someone to write total bunk in his Bible.

But it isn't the geologists the ones who are right or wrong. It's not htrheir opinion what matters. It's the proofs. There are MANY proofs.

And the Genesis is esentially true, in my opinion. But it isn't scientifically valid.
It's a different kind of truth.

you see... this puzzles me. Isnt there an accont of a great flood in the Bible? a religious book?
Here is a few scientific articles from a website i found that support the view of a global flood:
the grand canyon and the flood
the great flood
the global flood

Sorry, I am not going to read them complte. I am just not in the right mood, you know.

From what I read, they are extremely biased, and make a fallacy (I don't remeber the exact name of this), because they use the flood, and using the flood, they try to prove the flood. Those arguments are invalid.

They are biased because they try to make the scientifical evidence compatible with the Bible. And that's something a theologist could do. But not a scientist.

clouds?
and by the way... what part of genesis is this?

Chapter 1 Verses 6 and 7:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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.

So, above the sky, according to the Bible, there is water. That0s why the Sky is blue, isn't it?

Why would he tell us something so useless? That has nothing to do with the Bible's scientific and historical accuracy. Jesus was obviously here to tell us about Salvation. But essentially, as i said before, throw out science, and you throw out salvation's relevance to us.

It's relevant, because in America some people lived, you know. I remeber the Church uesd this as an argument that there was not land...
And it is important for the salvation of the people that live in there.

You can find verses in the new testament that show that Jesus supported the truth of the old testament.

Truth=/=Historical accurate

It can be true from the thelogical point of view, but it can be false from the historical point of view. This is teh theory of teh Double Truth, one of my favouruites.

I dont believe the Bible because of church. But because of faith. And since you seem to believe the new testament is historically accurate, i dont see why you wouldnt believe the old testament as simple historical fact(see verses above).

The New Testament has many historical problems. We know very little about the Historical Jesus. Strangely enough, his miracles are ione of the few things we can be sure of (because they are mentioned by non-chritian writers), but that isn't really extraordinary, since there were like a kajillion Messiah in Palestine taht made miracles. Multiplying bread was like a hobby in Palestine of the 1st century

There are some things that are very much doubtable of the New Testament, especially the Infancy parts.

And the accuracy of the Old Testament is really doubtable... the only parts that we know are more or less historically accurate is the First Book of Maccabbeans, that, funny enough is apocryphal for your Church There might be a historical basis for most of the Old Testament, though many things seem to have been exaggerated. But things like Adam are clearlñy Myths. Another thing, I just remebered that the Flood legend could have orginated of a really big flood that happened in that area... but not in the whole world.

i admit my argument was somewhat flawed here. However in terms of your second comment, i think the writer's mostly relied on God's guidance and inspiration more than anything.
[

That's why they are canonic. But not historically accurate.

And the only thing i say to this is: God created science, therefore science is his. However using that verse was a bad example in this case, because currency, money and taxes are a completely Human fabrication that Jesus didnt want anything to do with.

Using your logic, God created sciences, therefore sciences are perfect, therefore God contradicts herself. Right.

This is not materialism. It is just using the Bible as a foundation of complete truth in ALL your beliefs. If you say the earth was created by the big bang, therefore the Bible is false, it is equally "Materialistic" whether it be a scientific theory or not.

It's equally materialistic. What isn't materialistic is my view, that something doesn't have to be scientifically or historically accurate to be true.

but what is the controversial forum for?

This is exactly the same as Storylien. With teh difference that here the definition of canon is even more loose

Sorry for the late response. i have been very busy

[TheAvengerLever]

So you're telling me there wasn't a single kid or animal besides the ones Noah took with him? Yea. Right.

No...either you completely read it wrong or you're purposefully just not choosing to recognize that I plainly said if there were any innocent children they were brought on the ark with Noah.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

There is no one correct way to interpret it. To me, saying "How you have fallen from heaven" doesn't imply anything about the King of Babylon.

No, but the bit before it, which states, "On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon," (Isaiah 14:3-4) kinda implies that the words in Isaiah 14:12-15 are about and deliberately directed at the King of Babylon. After all the taunt that starts at Isaiah 14:5 doesn't really end until Isaiah 14:24.

I suppose this is why Rastafarians call their Hell, Babylon, but it is really only because of a misunderstanding of what Isaiah 13 to Isaiah 14:24 is saying.

And by the way, the whole "Once, I was stoned" thing was a bad example because you actually KNOW what he's talking about.

No, it's quite apt, because if you had read the bit before it, you would have known that Isaiah 14:12-15 is part of a taunt against the King of Babylon.

It's the only book that is God-inspired and the only one that identifies that it's God-inspired, so that's what I'm going to base all my info on.

God-inspired and completely accurate are two different things, however. The Bible cannot be completely accurate, because it states that hares chew the cud (they don't) and that bats are birds (which they aren't), amongst a few other inaccuracies that defy reality.

[Alardonin]

There is no real definition for the word 'perfect' and if God is sincere to himself then he is perfect, if we are sincere to ourselves but don't obey God we are evil, go figure. The problem is God has proven himself many times to be illogical and beyond our comprehension, I quote the famous saying "How can a God of Love send people to Hell?"

There is, only not in every situation and that's exactly my point. Going through that perspective of what is perfect..... how can somebody actually prove to me that God is sincere to himself or that such is the ultimate definition of perfection. Like you yourself has stated, that God is beyond our comprehension then how can people use words of a fallible being as the ultimate truth? He is teling me that God is anything but fallible, based on the work of a fallible being when even this one like you so adequately put it, can't even grasp the true definition on the word perfect.



How can somebody tell me that God is just not a fallible being, when this person in itself does not know or cannot possibly understand what the hell he is talking about, concerning God itself. If you take into consideration that the word perfect cannot be defined, then how can the world fallible as a hole? How can you possibly definine as a hole, the word Error? How can people define what an error or the word false is, when they themselves cannot define the ultimate truth or the word truth as a hole?

[MikePetersSucks]

No...either you completely read it wrong or you're purposefully just not choosing to recognize that I plainly said if there were any innocent children they were brought on the ark with Noah.

I only remember reading that Noah took his family and two of every animal. Not every little kid in the entire world.