502 replies to this topic

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Well what about God? Why couldn't he provide food and remove all the fecal matter?

Well, if you ask that question, then you also have to ask the question, why didn't God save the animals himself? Besides, I think I remember God saying something along the lines of Noah having to provide the victuals himself, which as I've stated is impossible.

Yeah, but dont you think those animals would've been blocked off from the big freakin' flood outside?

But that would have made the statement that Noah took a sample of every animal, false.

...it's GOD. Let me spell it out for you. G O D GOD. He can do whatever he want because he is GOD, and to say that he isn't very intelligent is down right stupid.

But that example proves that he isn't very intelligent. An intelligent person would never have done it his way. It's backwards, it takes more effort than is necessary and the excuse of, "well, he's God, he can do anything" is the most pathetic explanation ever.

And that is what I'm trying to point out. The Bible cannot be 100% literal and Genesis and Noah's Ark certainly cannot be, because they disprove that God is intelligent.

[Nevermind]

That may be, but still, take into consideration that this is judgement made from a human style of thinking. You think like a human, act like a human, and take everything around you into account through a human filter. Different, or incomprehensible, does not mean stupid.

How does an animal comprehend people hunting for sport? We kill or catch our prey, but we don't eat it. We let it go, or we put it up for everyone to look at. If I was on an animal's level of thought process, I don't think I'd be able to understand that. And if I knew what considering something as stupid felt like (beyond the level of just confusion), then I would probably think that what the humans are doing with their prey...is stupid.

The day you can fathom the feeling of being everywhere/everywhen/everyhow, all at once; knowing all, seeing all, having unlimited power (like....REALLY unlimited), is the day you'll be able to think like a god, and then perhaps make a judgement as to what was done stupidly, and whatnot.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Yes, but given from the "evidence" provided in the Bible, God thinks no differently form us. He feels jealousy, love, rage and all the emotions that human beings do.

[Alakhriveion]

That may be, but still, take into consideration that this is judgement made from a human style of thinking. You think like a human, act like a human, and take everything around you into account through a human filter. Different, or incomprehensible, does not mean stupid.

How does an animal comprehend people hunting for sport? We kill or catch our prey, but we don't eat it. We let it go, or we put it up for everyone to look at. If I was on an animal's level of thought process, I don't think I'd be able to understand that. And if I knew what considering something as stupid felt like (beyond the level of just confusion), then I would probably think that what the humans are doing with their prey...is stupid.

...It IS.

The day you can fathom the feeling of being everywhere/everywhen/everyhow, all at once; knowing all, seeing all, having unlimited power (like....REALLY unlimited), is the day you'll be able to think like a god, and then perhaps make a judgement as to what was done stupidly, and whatnot.

OK, even the Bible doesn't say God is omniscient, unless he's just fucking with Adam and Abraham, and I seriously doubt an omnipotent God could be so easily and constantly disobeyed, especially because he uses what power he does have to bully whatever he can.

[Nevermind]

But to the people who hunt, and their peers....it's not.



And the idea was of limitless power. Although His power does tend to have a limit in that it cannot negate itself (no I didn't get that from Dogma). He made people in His own image and gave them free will, but He cannot go against that free will He has given them. Either that or, He just decided not to. I mean, hey, who am I to judge...

[Alakhriveion]

[quote name='Lazurukeel' post='233131' date='Jun 20 2006, 10:19 AM']But to the people who hunt, and their peers....it's not.Yeah, but they're wrong, because it is. Not a matter of opinion. Being wasteful for the sake of cruelty? Stupid.[/quote]And the idea was of limitless power. Although His power does tend to have a limit in that it cannot negate itself (no I didn't get that from Dogma). He made people in His own image and gave them free will, but He cannot go against that free will He has given them. Either that or, He just decided not to. I mean, hey, who am I to judge...
[/quote]
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, OR the only god.

[Fyxe]

How does an animal comprehend people hunting for sport? We kill or catch our prey, but we don't eat it. We let it go, or we put it up for everyone to look at. If I was on an animal's level of thought process, I don't think I'd be able to understand that. And if I knew what considering something as stupid felt like (beyond the level of just confusion), then I would probably think that what the humans are doing with their prey...is stupid.

I just wanna point out, in passing... That a lot of humans don't understand this either and think it's stupid. Personally I put it on the level of a mental disorder, even. Killing things for fun is not particularly healthy behavior, if you ask me.

But, off topic. On the topic, I'd just like to point out that this has gone somewhat astray from a 'scientific debate' as the topic was intended... But then, arguing about Christainity using science doesn't exactly make much sense.

I do generally agree with Alak, to an extent. The Bible is still a historical document though, just a very biased and not overly useful one. Definitely a historical document, if you understand that most of the stories in it are just that... Stories. Allagories. Metaphors.

[TheAvengerLever]

There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, OR the only god

You have GOT to be kidding me...

OK, even the Bible doesn't say God is omniscient

Yeah, it does.

and I seriously doubt an omnipotent God could be so easily and constantly disobeyed, especially because he uses what power he does have to bully whatever he can.

He doesn't bully anyone. He punishes those who go against his will.

Yes, but given from the "evidence" provided in the Bible, God thinks no differently form us. He feels jealousy, love, rage and all the emotions that human beings do.

God made us in his image. He doesn't think like us. We think like him.

Well, if you ask that question, then you also have to ask the question, why didn't God save the animals himself? Besides, I think I remember God saying something along the lines of Noah having to provide the victuals himself, which as I've stated is impossible.

God is constantly putting his creation to the test, and I believe this was a test to see if Noah was righteous enough to follow God's orders, also to see how well he depended on God. Noah could've just as easily prayed to God and God would've provided for everything.

But that would have made the statement that Noah took a sample of every animal, false.

Everyone has their theories. Noah could've been instructed to save every animal that couldn't save itself. Who knows?

But that example proves that he isn't very intelligent. An intelligent person would never have done it his way. It's backwards, it takes more effort than is necessary and the excuse of, "well, he's God, he can do anything" is the most pathetic explanation ever.

And that is what I'm trying to point out. The Bible cannot be 100% literal and Genesis and Noah's Ark certainly cannot be, because they disprove that God is intelligent.

No human can comprehend God. He is intelligent. More intelligent than us in that he knows the secrets of the universe. And you obviously do not. No one does. To say that God isn't intelligent is quite stupid. You think like a human, you sin like a human. But God is perfect in every way.

[Alakhriveion]

You have GOT to be kidding me...

Nope. Never says it. God says he's the BEST god, and Israel isn't allowed to worship any others, but nothing beyond that. Could Nebuchadnezzar destroy the temple of a truely omnipotent God? That produced a pleasing odor unto him, nobody else.

Yeah, it does.

Adam and Eve hide from him. He has to ask Abraham where he is. God is either somehow limited or absolutely insane.

He doesn't bully anyone. He punishes those who go against his will.

The difference? Demanding sacrifice and demanding lunch money with the threat of ass-whooping or fire from the sky aren't terribly different.

God made us in his image. He doesn't think like us. We think like him.

That also doesn't speak highly of him. His self-portrait watches the fucking Real World: Key West?

God is constantly putting his creation to the test, and I believe this was a test to see if Noah was righteous enough to follow God's orders, also to see how well he depended on God.

Nitpick: Noah didn't have to be rightous to try and save his own ass.

Everyone has their theories. Noah could've been instructed to save every animal that couldn't save itself. Who knows?

That's... basically all of them. In fact, that's more of them than we've been considering up until now. You want his to put Blue Whales in the goddamn ark?

[TheAvengerLever]

Nope. Never says it. God says he's the BEST god, and Israel isn't allowed to worship any others, but nothing beyond that.

...It says it everywhere...what Bible have you been reading!?

Could Nebuchadnezzar destroy the temple of a truely omnipotent God? That produced a pleasing odor unto him, nobody else.

No seriously, what Bible have you been reading? God warned everyone that'd he'd do it if they didn't stop being really bad sinners.

Adam and Eve hide from him. He has to ask Abraham where he is. God is either somehow limited or absolutely insane.

Wow, you think he didn't know? He knew. It's like when your mother asks you whose cigarettes are up in your room and cornering you with your problem.

The difference? Demanding sacrifice and demanding lunch money with the threat of ass-whooping or fire from the sky aren't terribly different.

Yeah it is. You just twisted the words and the meaning a little bit.

That also doesn't speak highly of him. His self-portrait watches the fucking Real World: Key West?

*sigh* we did it to ourselves. We make him look all the better.

Nitpick: Noah didn't have to be rightous to try and save his own ass.

Yeah he did. Otherwise God wouldn't of told him of the flood.

That's... basically all of them. In fact, that's more of them than we've been considering up until now. You want his to put Blue Whales in the goddamn ark?

Blue Whales can swim.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 20 June 2006 - 04:57 PM.

[Korhend]

Which is why, until now, we haven't been considering them. Just salt-water fish.

[spunky-monkey]

There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, OR the only god.

Dude, what Bible are you reading or referring to exactly? If you were specific I could quote something directly from one of the gospels, but this stuff is mentioned EVERYWHERE. Within Christianity and the Islamic concept of the one almighty God is that 'he' has no limits to 'his' power and 'he' can do pretty much anything 'he' wants to do.

God is constantly putting his creation to the test, and I believe this was a test to see if Noah was righteous enough to follow God's orders, also to see how well he depended on God. Noah could've just as easily prayed to God and God would've provided for everything.

God had to save Noah and the others. Go figure.

Adam and Eve hide from him. He has to ask Abraham where he is. God is either somehow limited or absolutely insane.

God chooses what 'he' wants to see. 'He' only came to Adam and Eve at night, not during the day. If God looked at all the sin, death and destruction in 'his' Universe for too long I imagine 'he' would go insane.

[Alakhriveion]

...It says it everywhere...what Bible have you been reading!?

Old Testament. I don't know the New Testament well enough to speak for that.

No seriously, what Bible have you been reading? God warned everyone that'd he'd do it if they didn't stop being really bad sinners.

No, in fact, he got quite angry over the loss of the Ark of the Covenant, which indicates it wasn't his idea.

Wow, you think he didn't know? He knew. It's like when your mother asks you whose cigarettes are up in your room and cornering you with your problem.

Really? Why does he do it even when he isn't, in your interperetation, being a sarcastic ass?

Yeah it is. You just twisted the words and the meaning a little bit.

What did I twist? God frequently involkes the ethically questionable doctrine of "because I'm bigger than you." Like the Noah issue we've been talking about: He was dissatisfied with his Sims, so instead of solving their problems he ordered them to the swimming pool and deleted the ladders, then started over. He made Miriam a leper for questioning him. He threw Adam and Eve out Eden for one sin.

*sigh* we did it to ourselves. We make him look all the better.

Not so much considering he's responsible for us.

Yeah he did. Otherwise God wouldn't of told him of the flood.

No, I mean "You're going to die so load your family in to a boat" isn't much of a test. If God showed up in Connecticut for some reason and told ME that, I'd do it. Also, Noah was a drunk and a pervert, and in obeying God he let everyone except him, his sons, and their wives die.

EDIT: He also didn't take responsibility for his sins.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 20 June 2006 - 07:12 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Old Testament. I don't know the New Testament well enough to speak for that.

You don't know the Old Testament either...

"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8).

"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24).

"There is none beside me. I am the LORD and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:6).

"There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22).

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).

"I will not give my glory unto another" (Isaiah 48:11; see also Isaiah 42:8).

"O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth" (Isaiah 37:16).

No, in fact, he got quite angry over the loss of the Ark of the Covenant, which indicates it wasn't his idea.

The Ark was destroyed WITH the Temple.

Really? Why does he do it even when he isn't, in your interperetation, being a sarcastic ass?

God isn't a sarcastic ass...wtf?

What did I twist? God frequently involkes the ethically questionable doctrine of "because I'm bigger than you." Like the Noah issue we've been talking about: He was dissatisfied with his Sims, so instead of solving their problems he ordered them to the swimming pool and deleted the ladders, then started over. He made Miriam a leper for questioning him. He threw Adam and Eve out Eden for one sin.

What can I say? We disobeyed him. Let me explain. He's God. In Noah's day people were sinning like crazy, knew it was wrong, but didn't repent. What they were doing was evil. Oh, and read the Bible. God saw that Noah was a righteous man.

Not so much considering he's responsible for us.

We have free will. But we are still under his protection.

No, I mean "You're going to die so load your family in to a boat" isn't much of a test. If God showed up in Connecticut for some reason and told ME that, I'd do it. Also, Noah was a drunk and a pervert, and in obeying God he let everyone except him, his sons, and their wives die.

So Noah was a drunk and a pervert? He's human. Besides, he built an altar to God and God made the covenant with him. God chooses the odd people as his voice...Moses I believe, was the one with the stutter. And he had to go against the Egyptians to get his people to the Promised Land.

He also didn't take responsibility for his sins.

Altar...

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 20 June 2006 - 07:51 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

No human can comprehend God. He is intelligent. More intelligent than us in that he knows the secrets of the universe. And you obviously do not. No one does. To say that God isn't intelligent is quite stupid. You think like a human, you sin like a human. But God is perfect in every way.

You first state that no human can comprehend God, then you state that he is more intelligent than us. It is an assertion without proof. You are pushing your ideal of God onto Him. He may be nothing like you've stated, yet you chastise me for making my assertions of God?

The Ark was destroyed WITH the Temple.

Who says?

http://en.wikipedia....Fate_of_the_Ark

[Nevermind]

He threw Adam and Eve out Eden for one sin.

Okay this is probably just me, but to me Eden = Heaven. Heaven = Purity. They became impure, He threw them out. HOWEVER, He made the lands produce food for them to eat, and they were now able to use animals as a food source...or something like that. So basically, they couldn't stay because they were no longer pure, but He DID make sure they were taken care of, and provided them with necessary means to take care of themselves.

Not so much considering he's responsible for us.

Free Will. No he's not. We are responsible for our own actions. I'm not really believing that you consider that to be a valid argument, as I would assume that someone like you would not really be the type to do something wrong, then push the blame onto someone else...

Hey, I could be wrong, though...

[Wolf O'Donnell]

And that's another thing.

God clearly stated in quite a lot of the translations of the Bible that they would die the same day they ate of the fruit. Yet they didn't die.

[Nevermind]

He said they would die, meaning they were now mortal. I've yet to read a translation in which it says they would die the same day as they ate the fruit.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

He said they would die, meaning they were now mortal. I've yet to read a translation in which it says they would die the same day as they ate the fruit.

http://www.biblegate...n=31;9;50;8;45;

New International Version (NIV)

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

I suspect this is the version you read and it is the version that sits in my bookshelf. However, here are the following versions in which God clearly states they will die in the same day.

King James Version (KJV)

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan

Note that many people, consider the King James Version to be the most faithful to the original text. I don't know why that is, considering many scholars are very critical of its faithfulness.

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”


New King James Version (NKJV)

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
NKJV at Thomas Nelson Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Not surprising, seeing as this is merely a new version of KJV.

American Standard Version (ASV)

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


American Standard Version (ASV)

Copyright © 1901 Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible

Amplified Bible (AMP)

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Amplified Bible (AMP)

Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation

And let us quote from the most literal translation of them all...

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

The NASB is considered the most literal translation. It states that God clearly stated they would die the same day they ate of the fruit. So, if you take that part literally, either God was lying out of his backside or... Well, I can't think up of an alternative.

This goes on to prove that the logical inconsistencies within some parts of the Bible, must mean that they cannot be taken literally and were never meant to be taken literally. If they were, they wouldn't have such logical contradictions in them.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 21 June 2006 - 07:35 AM.

[Nevermind]

Mmm, yeah, that "in the day" actually comes from ye olde english...so...if I were to say...

"...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (KJV)

That would actually translate to:

"When (in the day) you eat (that thou eatest) from that tree (thereof), you will die (thou shalt surely die)." (Modern day english)


So, for starters, it does not clearly say the same day, and secondly, it's a problem in translation from one language, to another language, to an update of the latter language. It doesn't literally mean "the very instant you eat that fruit, kersplat". You can believe me on that, or not, but it's true.

[TheAvengerLever]

You are pushing your ideal of God onto Him.

....omg. No I'm not. I'm going by the Bible.

Who says? http://en.wikipedia....Fate_of_the_Ark

Thank you!

[SteveT]

Mmm, yeah, that "in the day" actually comes from ye olde english

Actually, in Old English, it would have been. "in Þissum dæge"

And you better be prouncing "ye" as "the"...


Now, when I wasn't busy taking a class in Old English, I took one called "Interpreting Biblical Literature," and the saying was "Take Scripture in its natural sense, unless the natural sense is nonsense...in which case, you must seek some other sense."

So if a literal reading of a certain passage of the Bible leads to a contradiction, then that passage should not be read literally. However, if a literal reading is logically sound, then that shoudl be the default interpretation.

But SteveT! If you pick and choose like that, you're undermining the entire Bible! Not at all. For instance, it is generally agreed that Jesus' parables are works of fiction. [fizzle]

Edited by SteveT, 21 June 2006 - 04:51 PM.

[Nevermind]

Yeah, I am.

And I'm talking about....archaic...not Welsh....which, yes I know is "original" english...

[SOAP]

Okay this is probably just me, but to me Eden = Heaven. Heaven = Purity. They became impure, He threw them out. HOWEVER, He made the lands produce food for them to eat, and they were now able to use animals as a food source...or something like that. So basically, they couldn't stay because they were no longer pure, but He DID make sure they were taken care of, and provided them with necessary means to take care of themselves.
Free Will. No he's not. We are responsible for our own actions. I'm not really believing that you consider that to be a valid argument, as I would assume that someone like you would not really be the type to do something wrong, then push the blame onto someone else...

Hey, I could be wrong, though...

I always interpretting that as they would become mortal that day. That is, they they started the biological process of dying that day. They could die. But not directly from the fruit. Only that they were more susceptable to death now.

And Laz, I thought Eden was Iraq?

[Nevermind]

Iran.

[Goose]

Is that why George W wants to blow it all up?

But seriously. Its all open to interpretation.

[Nevermind]

Well.....Eden WAS given a distinct location...

[TheAvengerLever]

I always thought that God took Eden up to Heaven with him, but that's just a theory and I can't support that.

[spunky-monkey]

Eden, if it was on Earth, was most likely destroyed after the Flood. If Eden itself is actually a Paradise and not a place then it doesn't exist on Earth at all. I can't remember where, but someone mentioned that it was in the 'third heaven' but the accuracy of that is somewhat debatable.

At any rate who cares? Eden is now obsolete and empty since the fall of man.

[SteveT]

And I'm talking about....archaic...not Welsh....which, yes I know is "original" english...

Well, then you're extra misinformed.

The true history of English goes something like this:

After the Romans withdrew from Britannium, the Anglos and the Saxons (both Germanic tribes) invaded, bringing with them the Anglo-Saxon language (Angleish, if you will...which became called English). This language is called either Anglo-Saxon or Old English.

Then the French ruined everything, in the form of the Norman Conquest of 1066. This produced Middle English, which was just English highly polluted with French influence. Eventually, the English people reached a breaking point, and the French influences were partially rejected.

The result was a Modern English (circa 1400), which, in its earlier forms, still contained ye olde pronoun declensions and more thorough verb conjugations than we have now.

____

And the Bible's stance on Eden is that it was forever blocked from human entry by angels with lightsabers.