PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Bible Inconsistencies
       The bible is not a good literal reference tool

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do people have children if they know that there is a chance that they’ll walk into a school and shoot and kill a bunch of people; or become corrupt in any fashion?
Are you implying that God leaves anything to chance?

Besides, the answer is simple: Because they NEED to fulfill the biological imperative that they must have children.

But "chance" and "need" are concepts that can't be applied to God. So i don't consider my question to be answered.


The fact is:  
Lucifer was “perfect” when he was created.  But the fact is that god gave every being the free will to have a mind of their own, and make decisions on their own.
Does God have free will? Can he become corrupted?

If Lucifer was corrupted by pride, why did God put pride in him in the first place?

You make it sound like God created something perfect but random, and entropy or chance can make them imperfect, proud, evil, or even dumb.

How many kids get to a point in their lives when they look at their parents and think, “u don’t know squat!” they end up developing this attitude that they r actually better than their creators
A lot. Because they were not intelligently designed. And they are, in fact, often times, better than their creators. Otherwise evolution wouldn't work, and we know it does. :P

and good parents will have to develop a plan to show not only that child that they r wrong, but also, they must create an environment that shows the parents’ wisdom to any other children.
Then God is not a good parent at all. The environment he supposedly created lead lots of smart people to the belief that He does not exist.

And burning in hell and die forever doesn't seem like a good learning environment either.

to say that just because u know right from wrong, u can’t choose wrong is just silly.  We ALL know right from wrong, and know the consequences of making wrong choices, and still make wrong choices all the time.
To say that is to belittle the "good", the "light", or the God within us, or whatever you want to call it. The virtue if you will.

If you play poker, and you know a lot about the game, chances are you'll win. If you know how to win, you won't play to lose. Otherwise you're NOT playing the game.

What i say is this: Human kind has not reached an agreement on what's the highest value.

Is it life? Truth? Freedom? Consciousness? Intelligence? Humanity? God?

Every individual believes he's doing the right thing. There's no real evil. Just ignorance. Evil does not exist.

The "evil" believes this: I'm more important than anything else. I'm the highest value. My whim is more valuable than anyone's life.

I imagine you and i agree on this: all materialist thinkers are wrong about what they believe. They think they believe that consciousness is material in nature. But it's not really possible for a consciousness to believe it's material in it's nature. It is also not possible for anyone to believe that they don't exist.

Likewise it's not possible for anyone to believe that what they're doing is wrong. If they really believed it, they wouldn't do it. Doesn't get any simpler.

They can say "I shouldn't be doing this... This is so bad...", but at the same time they believe (or feel, whatever) that their impulses are to be heeded, and not the moral or logical imperative.

In my personal case i've reached the conclusion that spiritual growth is the highest value. Every other value is below this. So, in order to achieve it, i will do whatever it takes, kill, rape and rob whatever or whomever is needed.

But, as you imagine, killing, raping and robbing does not help to achieve spiritual growth.

And if you see me doing any of this, or simply distracted from my goal in any way, i guess i'm not believing it firmly at that time.

I also believe death is not to be feared. But you'll see me watching both sides when crossing a street.

You said it was a silly thing to say that you can't know good and chose wrong. Take it back. For whether i'm right or wrong i've explained myself beyond "silly", have i not?

It's not like i'm offended or anything like that. It's just that i'd like to believe that my explanation was at least worthy of consideration.

if u take that skepticism and use it as an excuse for not trying to seek the truth; in other words…if u decide to simply be apathetic or complacent due to the fact that u r naturally skeptical, then I think god has the right to judge u upon your complacency
Suposedly God's plan was minute in all detail, and is taking place all the time. So anyone's skepticism, excuses, apathy and complacency was a part of His plan.

According to that system of belief, yes, He has a right to do whatever He pleases, but it's not really "judging".

Oh, and by the way, praying would be pointless.

It’s like god giving a man a spirit of wisdom, only to find that the man used the wisdom as a mechanism for destruction the man isn’t judged upon the fact that he was wise at heart, but upon the fact that he didn’t utilize the wisdom for good.
I refuse to believe that a "wise" man would do such things. I can't consider myself to be "wise" and yet i know better than that.

Your theoretical wise man is, with all due respect, an idiot.

I’m not really sure how to reply to this, honestly.
All I can suggest is to take your skepticism and actually put it up against the prophecies pointed out in scripture.  Then, take the same skepticism and put it up against something like “alice in wonderland”, as u mentioned.  Then, try to decide how much of your skepticism is backed into a corner.
As i pointed out the eventual accuracy of the prophecies wouldn't make me believe it's because God wrote or said it.

Actually, if i was to believe in gods, i'd guess that a prophecy is the work of a lesser one.

Well, the whole creating, raging, planning, asking for sacrifices, making prophecies and stuff seem to come from a lesser god or (more likely) an invented one.

I’m not sure what exactly u r referring to here.  Care to give some prime examples of some of your suggestions of “slavery, rape, pillaging, and killing”?
Ok, i found a nice combo (killing, rape and pillage)


(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT):

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.


Murder, rape, pillage and slavery:
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)


    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.



I think what ur getting at is the difference between the god of the old test. Vs. the god of the new.
If so – we can discuss that.
I treat them both as one (although He seems to get cooler and wiser as time goes on).

in my whole life, I have never come across a Christian who doesn’t believe that the earth was created, that adam and eve were literal beings, that the bible is historically accurate, and that we should believe as Christ believed.
Amazing! You seem to be sincere... But... Perhaps you just don't ask.

Where do you live? I live in Argentina, and i know very few christians who believe in Adam and Eve. Only very old and ignorant people (i'm not trying to sound offensive, but it's the truth), and Jehovah's witnesses.

I didn't imagine there could be any country or state where most christians believe that.

Perhaps you're cheating, and consider "christians" only those who believe those things! ¬_¬

We may agree on that point, but the popular definition of "christian" is "he who says he's christian".

They agree that the gap between humans and the rest of the hominids is huge.

If that's the case placing the tags should be a piece of cake. Instead we have this creationist classification of hominid fossils:



So you acknoledge that they don't know which one is human and which one is ape. You said:
neither do all of the evolutionists.  There r plenty of disagreements on both sides.
Well, of course. Why not? Humans are apes! Creationists are the ones that say they aren't! And they also say that the distinction is evident! Except it's not!

Or perhaps you mean they don't agree on some hominid being our ancestor or not? I don't really know if they discuss that. But i wouldn't get too surprised. Our cousins were very much like our ancestors. Too bad they died. We got lucky.

What's with the primitive tools, the cave paintings and other signs of primitive humans? Is that supposed to be prior to the flood, after the flood, placed by the Devil, or what?

Why is the arab language so similar to the hebrew? Do you believe the former is a deformation of the latter?

Again, thanks for your imput.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:30 PM on October 8, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what? no it doesn't.
as a matter of fact,  the bible called the earth round long before any scientific practice was in place to suggest it.
isaiah 40: 22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
i'm not even taking u seriously anymore.


Don't take me seriously, that doesn't change the fact that the bible describes a flat, unmoving earth.  Your quote clearly says circle not sphere and as we all know, a circle is flat.
From here:
FlatEarth

"The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was "without form and void (Genesis 1:2)." On the second day, a vault, the "firmament" of the King James version, was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed "in" (not "above") the vault.

The Vault of Heaven

The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word "firmament" appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning "beaten out." In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, "Can you beat out (raqa) the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?"

Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:

Job 9:8, "...who by himself spread out the heavens (shamayim)..."
Psalm 19:1, "The heavens (shamayim) tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven (raqiya) reveals his handiwork."
Psalm 102:25, "...the heavens (shamayim) were thy handiwork."
Isaiah 45:12, "I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens (shamayim) and caused all their host to shine..."
Isaiah 48:13, "...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky (shamayim)..."
If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God "sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth (chuwg), whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies (shamayim) like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in..." (Isaiah 40:22). Chuwg literally means "circle" or "encompassed." By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God "walks to and fro on the vault of heaven (chuwg)." In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: "Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens (shamayim) and looks down on all the stars, high as they are." "

So we see the authors of the bible simple stole older mythologies for the creation of the earth and clearly didn't have any modern insight.
The bible describes a flat earth suspended on water, covered by a great vault which held the sun, moon and much smaller stars.  

AS to the earth being fixed and unmoving...
from here:
ImovableEarth

"Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson told me there are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." "

So, once again, the bible is proven to be wrong.  The only one who's not being taken seriously is you, a religious fanatic who can't deal with reality.


(Edited by Demon38 10/9/2008 at 08:45 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:40 AM on October 9, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

on the "firmament"

this goes straight back to the former point that i made about the fallacy of translations.  this is actually a transliteration, rather - (even worse).  this unfortunate transliteration has paved the way for the exact criticism that is posted here..


the egyptian ruler, ptolemy philadelphus wanted, for inclusion in his world-famous library in alexandria, the creation of the septuagint - the hebrew to greek translation of the scriptures).  it is important to keep in mind that the translation process went through egypt for an egyptian pharoh who held fast to the egyptian view of cosmology and astronomy, thus the translators chose to render the hebrew word "raqia" via the Greek word "stereoma"-in order to suggest a firm, solid structure.  the hebrew went to greek; the greek went to latin; the latin went to english; and much of the english went to...crap.
the word "firmament" when added to the king james version, was derived from the latin "firmamentum", which, indeed, does indicate some sort of firm, strong, object.  but the original hebrew word "raqia" holds no such meaning.  the word literally means "expanse".  it implies a "stretching out".  the word, by itself, does not give any implication as to the actual substance.  when this word is used in hebrew text, a word is used along with it to imply the actual material involved.  in this case, the word is "heavens".  the bible equates “firmament” with the “heavens” (psalm 19:1), even using the compound “firmament of heaven” (genesis 1:14-15,17).  birds are said to fly in “the open firmament of heaven” (the atmospheric heavens, genesis 1:20).
so, like i have said time and time again...the problem isn't in the scripture itself, but rather spawned from the translation process.  any scholarly person will see an apparent "problem", and try to get to the bottom of it instead of reverting to complete doubt based only upon thoughtless criticism by others.

as for the "circle"...
"It is He who sitteth upon the circle [hebrew: chuwg] of the Earth” (Isaiah 40: 22).
chuwg: “circle, sphere, the arch or vault of the heavens; the circle of the earth, orbis terrarum”. all of these renderings share a common thought—that of roundness, not flatness.

(Edited by dijonaise 10/9/2008 at 11:46 AM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:42 AM on October 9, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If, as you say, the same word means "sphere" and "circle", then why use it as a proof of it meaning just one of them?

If the original word for "firmament" meant "expansion" or whatever, it still doesn't clarify what it means when it says there's water "above" it.

Just by saying "above" instead of "beyond", it conveys the notion that the Earth is flat, and the sky is up.

You still did not address the biblical fixed status of the Earth.  

The notion that the sky is a vault is hardwired in the human brain (a trait probably shared with other animals).

And our mental vault is flattened. This is obvious when explaining the illusion by which the Moon appears to be bigger when it's close to the horizon.

This is a graphic explanation:


Everything about the way we perceive the world speaks of evolution, and nothing speaks of intelligent design.

Our way to classify things is kind of a sublimation of a basic and primitive system of classification:
-Can be eaten.
-Can eat me.
-Can be fucked.

And later:
-Can give me shelter.
-Can be used as a tool.

And later:
-Can be used as a weapon.
-Can teach me something.

And so on.

Knowledge begun to be valuable. The individuals with a more open mind gained more valuable knowledge. And that's how we became what we are.



EDIT: In the picture we can read "True sky". I have no idea of what this means, but sounds creationist. xD


(Edited by wisp 10/9/2008 at 1:08 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:26 PM on October 9, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the word "firmament" when added to the king james version, was derived from the latin "firmamentum", which, indeed, does indicate some sort of firm, strong, object.  but the original hebrew word "raqia" holds no such meaning.  the word literally means "expanse".  it implies a "stretching out".

What was stretcfhed out???  The firmament was a great physical object that God "stretched out"!  And raqia does not mean expanse, From here:
FlatEarth

"The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:


Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”

Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.” "

So the bible is clearly comparing the vault of heaven to a great, beaten bowl.

as for the "circle"...
"It is He who sitteth upon the circle [hebrew: chuwg] of the Earth” (Isaiah 40: 22).
chuwg: “circle, sphere, the arch or vault of the heavens; the circle of the earth, orbis terrarum”. all of these renderings share a common thought—that of roundness, not flatness.


No, once again, look to the bible to see how it describes a flat earth, From here:
FlatEarth

"the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...” "

So we see, when viewed objectively, the only conclusionthat can be drawn is that the bible claims the earth is flat.  
And you didn't even bother to try and disprove the fact that the bible describes an unmoving earth.  Guess you've given up the claim that the bible is scientifically inerrant.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:47 PM on October 9, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens...”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens and caused all their host to shine...”
Soon enough creationist will say that the Bible speaks of an expanding universe before Hubble.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:17 PM on October 9, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:17 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Soon enough creationist will say that the Bible speaks of an expanding universe before Hubble.


I've debated Creationists who claim the Bible mentions the double helix of DNA and its four nucleotide bases.

I countered by showing that, just as "reasonably", the children's fable of "The Night Before Christmas" could be interpretted to be talking about abiogenesis.




 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:33 PM on October 9, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 1:06 PM on October 8, 2008 :

They don't know which one is human and which one is ape…

neither do all of the evolutionists.  There r plenty of disagreements on both sides.


But it makes sense to not be able to clearly pigeonhole each fossil in light of evolution.  As we go back in time, distinctions among clearly discernable modern groups become less pronounced because the lineages will continue to converge until they merge at their common ancestor.

But the Creationists claim evolution never happened, so such convergence should not be seen in the fossil record.  Further, they claim that each fossil hominid is EITHER CLEARLY APE OR CLEARLY HUMAN.  They fail, since they disagree with one another as to which are "clearly" ape and which are "clearly" human.


 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 6:05 PM on October 9, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dijonaise, why are you ignoring this post that shows inconsistencies in the Bible?

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 08:01 AM on October 5, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 2:21 PM on October 2, 2008 :
the bible has NOT ONE inconsistency.


A) Who exactly went to Jesus’ tomb first?

1 woman: Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)

2 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James and Joses (Matthew 28:1)

3 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James & Salome (Mark 16:1)

More than 3 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James & Joanna & others (Luke 24:9-10)



B) Was the stone at Jesus’ tomb already rolled away when they got there?

No, an angel rolled it away in front of them.  (Matthew 28:2-3)

Yes. (Mark 16:2-4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)



C) Was it men or angels that were seen at Jesus’ tomb, and how many and where were they?

1 angel, outside the tomb sitting on the rolled-away stone (Matthew 28:2-3, 5-7)

1 man, inside the tomb (Mark 16:5-7)

2 angels, inside the tomb (Luke 24:2-7; John 20:10-13)



D) Where did Mary and Joseph live before Jesus was born?

Nazareth. (Luke 2:1-5, 39)

Bethlehem. (Matthew 1:25-2:1; 2:19-23)



E) After Jesus was born, did the family head south to Egypt to hide from King Herod until his death, or north to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod?

South to Egypt to hide from Herod until his death. (Matthew 2:13-15, 19-23)

North to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod (Luke 2:21-24, 39)



F) On what day, relative to the Passover Meal, was Jesus crucified?

morning after the Passover Meal was eaten (3 synoptic gospels)

day before the Passover Meal was eaten (gospel of "John")



(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/9/2008 at 6:10 PM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 1:06 PM on October 8, 2008 :The bible tells us that “whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required”


The Bible also tells us:


Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.”
(Luke 14:25-26)



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 6:17 PM on October 9, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 2:33 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Quote from wisp at 1:17 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Soon enough creationist will say that the Bible speaks of an expanding universe before Hubble.


I've debated Creationists who claim the Bible mentions the double helix of DNA and its four nucleotide bases.


Get out of here!

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 3:17 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 1:06 PM on October 8, 2008 :The bible tells us that “whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required”


The Bible also tells us:


Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.”
(Luke 14:25-26)




Well, not many christians care much about what Jesus said.

He also said "let the dead bury their dead", and yet they insist in "christian burials".

He commanded not to oppose evil.

He said you shouldn't judge.

He said his teachings shouldn't be taught to asiatic people.

He said that no man should be called "father".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:56 AM on October 10, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 2:36 PM on October 8, 2008 :

Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew "raqiya`" (pronounced rä·kç'·ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground.[1] The word is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning "to spread out" by stamping, stretching, beating, or making broad.[2], e.g. the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat, or "to make a spreading (of clouds)". Thus, in the Bible, Elihu asks Job “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?” In the Vulgate, the word firmamentum is used, which in Classical Latin means a strengthening or support. For Jewish and Christian astronomers familiar with Greek astronomy, the firmament was the eighth sphere carrying the fixed stars and surrounding the seven spheres of the planets in the geocentric model.

The word is mentioned in the King James Bible, in the course of the creation story of (Genesis 1:6–8):

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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.



So there was water above the firmament?  That's where the water for the Flood came from!  Wow!  You learn something every day.

Sounds just like Ptolemic astronomy.

So you see, Demon38 got that description right out of the Bible.  The Heavens were a ridgid firmament that revolved 'around' the earth.  This also suggests that the earth was the center of the universe, a geocentric model.  Straight from the Bible.

So there are no inconsistencies in the Bible?





even without trying to look up the literal hebrew words, a person can read this and know EXACTLY
what it means by mere reason alone.  we must understand the context.
in this instance, u can take the hebrew and try to make it say whatever u want it to say, just as much as i
can.  the fact is, there is absolutely NOTHING there to make us believe anything more than what it says.
and ALL that is says is this:  there is water above, there is water below, and this thing called "firmament"
which divides the "waters", is where the birds fly, is where the stars are, is synonymous with "heavens",
"stretches out" to cover the earth.  
this, obviously, is talking about nothing more or less than the sky and everything man can see above.

the idiom, "waters above" is simply the result of the known fact that there were clouds, and water fell
from above the "firmament" or the sky.  we r plainly told that the birds fly IN the firmament, giving us
a clear example of how the word can be used to simply mean sky.


we r plainly told that "god called the firmament heaven" (shamayim:  literally meaning -  heaven, heavens, sky

a) visible heavens, sky 1) as abode of the stars 2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc)

this verse, alone, tells us that all that is meant by saying "firmament" is everything above, including OR excluding
the sky, space, the stars, the universe.  it is a vague and generalized term used to describe all of this.


psalms 150:1 uses the term firmament to describe the vastness or greatness, of god's power.

again, it is nothing more than a term that is vague in nature due to the vague concept of all that
was seen at the time


furthermore, it is not even the intent of god or the writer to try to explain the scientific implications.
the intent of this passage is simply to explain that god is creator of all that we see - above and below.
the "firmament" in its vastness, is the evidence of just how vast god's power is.

any other meaning of this word is merely speculative.


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:14 PM on October 10, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i just wanted to leave a brief note that i am not ignoring the several extensive posts left by u guys.  i am trying to take them one at a time, due to the fact that...well...i seem to be the only creationist in the conversation, and i have several posts directed at me.  (no, i'm not whining)  i'm just saying - i can only address so much at one time.  so, please be patient.

thanks
-d

(Edited by dijonaise 10/10/2008 at 3:19 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:18 PM on October 10, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you are trying to say that the Bible correctly describes the world and universe as we know it today, you are waging a losing battle.  The writers of the Bible held the prevailing notion of their times that the earth was flat, and that the earth was at the center of the universe.  The stars were fixed on a firmament a fixed distance in the sky/heavens.  

They did not have any notion of animals outside their small world in the Middle East.  This is proved in the story of Noah and the Ark.  There was no idea of the lands that lay beyond.  

They could not know.  So trying to prove the Bible to be something that it isn't is pointless.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:14 PM on October 10, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the idiom, "waters above" is simply the result of the known fact that there were clouds, and water fell
from above the "firmament" or the sky.
Man... Come on! How more can you force it???

The idiom "waters above" obviously refers to the "known fact" (to their little knowledge) that a huge blue extension of something must be water (specially when primitive people saw a watery horizon of a sea or lake).

Just as the Earth being "void" and "shapeless" in the begining obviously means it was flat and without features.

How can a spherical object be shapeless?

Well, a circle isn't shapeless either, but the primitive creators of that fable weren't very good at geometry.

I've been to high mountains, and been inside clouds with my feet on the ground.

If it took God 1/6 of the time of the creation to make such an easily bendable and pierceable sky, what does that say about Him?

furthermore, it is not even the intent of god or the writer to try to explain the scientific implications.
Well, their depiction is suspiciously human. It fits human primitive notions.

How much time did God spend on little Earth? Not much in itself, but a lot in comparison with the rest of the Universe.

He made the Earth, created animals, and humans, and then He farted the rest of the solar system and snapped the Universe...

Christianism is very arrogant. Which is logical for a very old religion of a warrior tribe (i guess they tried to humble themselves before a great god, but they made it human, concerned about humans, and being humans the center of his creation and later worries).

But it has some very cool features. They should make an entire new religion using only good stuff. And abandoning all claim about "facts".

the "firmament" in its vastness, is the evidence of just how vast god's power is.
And the fact that the Milky Way is not even mentioned is the evidence of the poor knowledge and little divine inspiration of the authors.

Besides, your "evidence" supports the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well.

any other meaning of this word is merely speculative.
Any other than that particular speculation which is pinpointed by creationists to fit their beliefs?

i just wanted to leave a brief note that i am not ignoring the several extensive posts left by u guys.
I appreciate that comment.

I'll wait patiently to see if you believe God has fangs, fur and a tail. Or if you believe humans never did, in spite of the evidence.

Perhaps we should recruit more creationist from forums around the web. But i bet dj is one of the best creationists to debate with.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:41 AM on October 11, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 08:40 AM on October 9, 2008 :

Don't take me seriously, that doesn't change the fact that the bible describes a flat, unmoving earth.  


AS to the earth being fixed and unmoving...


I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." "

So, once again, the bible is proven to be wrong.  The only one who's not being taken seriously is you, a religious fanatic who can't deal with reality.


(Edited by Demon38 10/9/2008 at 08:45 AM).



Chronicles 16:30 (King James Version)
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
It is strange that you have substituted “stable” with “fixed”.
The word Hebrew word used in this verse for “stable” is “kuwn” literally meaning: to be firmly established.
The  word used for “moved” is “mowt”  literally meaning:  tottered, shaken, fallen, overthrown

Going on a little more into the passage we read:

Vs. 33)Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.

Saying that because vs. 30 states that the world is stable and unmovable means that the bible teaches an non revolving earth is like saying that vs. 33 teaches that there are trees made of something other than wood.  It’s just not saying anything more than what it says; that the lord has made things which man cannot change.

ALL that is being said in ANY of the verses you decided to take completely out of context, is what is being so cynically stated in the book of job about the power of god:

Job 38:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
15And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
19Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
20That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
21Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
22Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
24By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
25Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
26To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
27To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
28Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
29Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
31Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
34Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
35Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?
36Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
37Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
38When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
39Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
40When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
41Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

This discourse continues all the way to job 40.


Psalm 96: 10 actually says:
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5 says:
5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Isaiah 45:18 says:
18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.


You say:  “So, once again, the bible is proven to be wrong.  The only one who's not being taken seriously is you, a religious fanatic who can't deal with reality.”

Wow…I mean…wow.  How can u say that u can’t take me seriously after posting such GARBAGE and calling it another fallacy of the bible???

the bible sums up what is meant by all of this by saying that god “fixed laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25).

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that all that is being said in the entire book is that the lord made the laws that govern the universe. These laws cannot be changed.  He ESTABLISHED them.  he made the earth and all of the other celestial bodies to be governed by forces that only he can dictate.



-d



 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:01 AM on October 13, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 5:33 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Quote from wisp at 1:17 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Soon enough creationist will say that the Bible speaks of an expanding universe before Hubble.


I've debated Creationists who claim the Bible mentions the double helix of DNA and its four nucleotide bases.

I countered by showing that, just as "reasonably", the children's fable of "The Night Before Christmas" could be interpretted to be talking about abiogenesis.







what can i say?  i actually somewhat agree with u guys on this.

many christians add meanings to things that just aren't there.

BUT...i digress, just as many christians submit things to portray justification, many non christians do the same in order to portray apparent fallacy.

my point is this:  we can't take the words and try to fashion a meaning that just either isn't there at all, or, perhaps, is there but isn't clear enough to be conclusive.

the bible isn't meant to be a scientific meter.  it is a spiritual meter.

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:10 AM on October 13, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 8:30 PM on October 8, 2008 :
Ok, i found a nice combo (killing, rape and pillage)

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT):

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.


Let me first say that I understand the common knee-jerk reaction to this passage.  How can it be that he ordered the killing of the young boys and some of the women?

I’ll first give the brief, succinct answer:  it is because he had ordered the destruction of the midianites COMPLETELY, and that order was not carried out.  The midianites were completely corrupt and wicked, and were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14).   The Israelites had been plagued before due to their lack of following god’s command, and moses wasn’t  going to let that happen again.  

Think of this:  MANY innocent lives were lost durning WWI and WWII as collateral damage.  Does the loss of those lives mean that we shouldn’t have stopped the evil that was happening?  I remember u mentioning the fact that there is no such thing as “evil”; that it is just mislead people.  But I disagree when I take a look at someone like hitler, who, by the way, was involved in a form of dark religion.     (this is all another topic though, which we’ll have to discuss at another time).

Numbers 25 gives the prequel to this scenario by telling how the midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4.

Concerning god’s judgment:  we don’t know why god chooses to destroy a nation.  In this case, we know that they were worshipping other gods and leading the Israelites astray.  We know that god gave them chances to repent as is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction).  

The passage states that “moses was wroth” and ordered the killing of the boys.  It doesn’t say that god was wroth and made that specific order at that time.  Could it be that god would have allowed the boys to live?  Perhaps.  We don’t really know though.  We do know that moses had, at times, let his own judgment and emotion get in the way.  This is evident in the fact that he was not permitted into the promised land.  I kind of think that while moses was led by god, he still had to occasionally use his own judgment.  Based upon the fact that god had ordered the entire nation to be destroyed, and that the mingling with the people of the nation led to corruption of the Israelites and a plague that could have destroyed them, moses made the decision in order to prevent this from further happening.  Now we get to the point where we can only speculate.  I don’t think this is a popular thought (because I’ve never heard it stated), but one thing that comes to my mind is the fact that the Israelites were mingling with the midianite women – then…suddenly a plague struck the Israelites.  MAAAYYBE…this “plague” was a result of sexual disease.  This could have been what prompted the killing of “every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”  On a side note:  the belief that the young women that were not killed were kept for the Israelite men to continually rape them is completely baseless.  Nothing is stated to suggest that these women were raped.  We can only speculate as to what happened to them.  As for the boys, (again – we can only speculate),  but one would assume that there were young men and their younger brothers – who had been taught by their corrupt fathers.  Perhaps moses saw that the future could bring forth inner corruption over time through them.  Or, even a rebellion down the road.  Though, I’ll admit, anything past the facts stated is merely speculation and trying to reason for god.

The fact is:  we don’t need to reason for god.  He can do that for himself; and he will.  God chose to destroy the midianites because of their wickedness and because they were continually corrupting the Israelites causing a plague to fall on Israel.  

-d


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:19 AM on October 13, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 04:41 AM on October 11, 2008 :
[color=teal]
the idiom, "waters above" is simply the result of the known fact that there were clouds, and water fell
from above the "firmament" or the sky.
Man... Come on! How more can you force it???


no more than u or anyone else can force any other meaning.


The idiom "waters above" obviously refers to the "known fact" (to their little knowledge) that a huge blue extension of something must be water (specially when primitive people saw a watery horizon of a sea or lake).


if u say so.  see what i mean?  we can TRY to make it say whatever we want.


Just as the Earth being "void" and "shapeless" in the begining obviously means it was flat and without features.


it does?


I've been to high mountains, and been inside clouds with my feet on the ground.

If it took God 1/6 of the time of the creation to make such an easily bendable and pierceable sky, what does that say about Him?


i don't know.  whatever YOU say it says i guess.


How much time did God spend on little Earth? Not much in itself, but a lot in comparison with the rest of the Universe.

He made the Earth, created animals, and humans, and then He farted the rest of the solar system and snapped the Universe...


nothing is said as to how long it took him to create the universe.  all that is said is "in the begining god created the heavens and the earth.  and the earth was without form and void." all that is said about the age of the universe is that "the heavens were of old."


Christianism is very arrogant. Which is logical for a very old religion of a warrior tribe (i guess they tried to humble themselves before a great god, but they made it human, concerned about humans, and being humans the center of his creation and later worries).


so, then, christ was arrogant when he cried, "forgive them, father, for they know not what they do." after being ridiculed, beaten to near death, and hung on a cross and mocked at?  i could speak all day long about the arrogance of non christians, but let's leave stray opinionated accusations behind, shall we?


But it has some very cool features. They should make an entire new religion using only good stuff. And abandoning all claim about "facts".


we r not to build our faith upon "cool features"; we r to build it upon what we believe to be universal truth and justice.


And the fact that the Milky Way is not even mentioned is the evidence of the poor knowledge and little divine inspiration of the authors.


so, because the milky way isn't mentioned, there is no divine inspiration?  that's like saying that because the bible doesn't tell us how gravity works it can't be trustworthy.

Besides, your "evidence" supports the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well.


haha

Any other than that particular speculation which is pinpointed by creationists to fit their beliefs?


or evolutionists to fit theirs.

I appreciate that comment.

I'll wait patiently to see if you believe God has fangs, fur and a tail. Or if you believe humans never did, in spite of the evidence.



just because scientists can manipulate genes, and it looks like we might have had these things is not proof.  there is no proof; only speculation, my friend.

Perhaps we should recruit more creationists .
from forums around the web. But i bet dj is one of the best creationists to debate with.


it'd certainly be nice if more creationists were involved, or at least gave more thought to what they believe rather than just taking a preacher's word for it.  but i must say that it's my opinion that this is done on both sides of the fence.  i mean, unless u r actually a professional holding a title within a specific scientific field, then don't u just have to take someone else's word for it?

thanks
-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 1:16 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 :
dijonaise, why are you ignoring this post that shows inconsistencies in the Bible?

(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/9/2008 at 6:10 PM).



sorry.
not ignoring...just haven't had time to read it thoroughly yet.  gettn to it though.

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:14 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me first say that I understand the common knee-jerk reaction to this passage.  How can it be that he ordered the killing of the young boys and some of the women?
Sorry to dissapoint you, but it doesn't surprise me at all. He's just a primitive god of a primitive people. It "evolved" to a god of love later on, to catch up with times.

I’ll first give the brief, succinct answer:  it is because he had ordered the destruction of the midianites COMPLETELY, and that order was not carried out.
Come again? Are you saying that the killing of boys and women was because he had ordered to kill them and they didn't?

They had to die. They didn't die, so they had to die.

The midianites were completely corrupt and wicked, and were destroyed because of their wickedness.
To me that makes no sense. If i had to imagine something corrupted and wicked, i guess i had to pick your God and His people. But i rather not do that.

The Israelites had been plagued before due to their lack of following god’s command, and moses wasn’t  going to let that happen again.
Do you believe that? Lots of people ignore your god's commands, and fare very well.

If any of the thousands of gods really helped their followers everybody would follow him.

Where i live some saint became very popular. San Expedito.

Hundreds of ignorant people ask him for things. The very few who get a positive answer post some silly personal ad, or hang one of those signs that cross a street between poles (sorry about my English). Many ignorant people see it, think "Hum... It worked for that person, it could work with me, i have nothing to lose!", and do the same.

I plan to make myself a T-Shirt with this text: "Fuck you, San Expedito! I asked you something very easy!!" It would be fun.

Well, my point was that if San Expedito (about whom i hope we agree) gets so popular, imagine someone who actually did something!!

Think of this:  MANY innocent lives were lost durning WWI and WWII as collateral damage.  Does the loss of those lives mean that we shouldn’t have stopped the evil that was happening?
Certainly. Christians are not supposed to oppose evil.

I remember u mentioning the fact that there is no such thing as “evil”; that it is just mislead people.  But I disagree when I take a look at someone like hitler
And i believe you give much credit to that stupid fuck.

who, by the way, was involved in a form of dark religion.
Sorry (really, sorry), but i think yours is as dark as it gets. Hum... Ok, perhaps voodoo and satanism are of a darker shade of dark.

The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4.
Yeap, add "xenophobia" to His naughty list.

Concerning god’s judgment:  we don’t know why god chooses to destroy a nation.
True. We just wait for a nation to fall and then guess that He did it, and invent some reason why He did it, or just leave it to His misterious ways.

In this case, we know that they were worshipping other gods and leading the Israelites astray.
You think they put their energies in worshiping gods they didn't believe in? Your god doesn't help His followers. Doesn't answer prayers (and if you say He does, then he doesn't have a plan). Just like any other god! How were they supposed to know they were wrong?

We know that god gave them chances to repent as is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction).
What if some other god (other than yours) give you the chance to repent?

Can you blame anyone for not believing in a particular god who, like all the rest, don't answer prayers, don't help his followers, doesn't appear to your senses, and has a sacred book telling stories that go against everything we learned from the time they were written?

The passage states that “moses was wroth” and ordered the killing of the boys.  It doesn’t say that god was wroth and made that specific order at that time.
Is that also true about my quote from Deuteronomy? It's somewhat confusing to me.

Could it be that god would have allowed the boys to live?  Perhaps.  We don’t really know though.
You said God had ordered the destruction of the midianites COMPLETELY. What do you mean?

We do know that moses had, at times, let his own judgment and emotion get in the way.
The same goes for God, Jesus, the saints and angels and the rest.

This is evident in the fact that he was not permitted into the promised land.
As for "evident" it seems quite evident to me that the promised land was supposed to be found in a short time. And that you can make any god promise anything, and if it fails you can think of a number of reasons.

Since God decided to accept you as part of His chosen people, is the promised land yours also?

Your STD theory makes sense. It could be.

Your theory about a loving god does not.

On a side note:  the belief that the young women that were not killed were kept for the Israelite men to continually rape them is completely baseless.
Completely? So they kept them "for themselves", but did not have sex with them? Or your point is that this adolescent girls did want to have sex with the ones that killed their families?

Nothing is stated to suggest that these women were raped.  We can only speculate as to what happened to them.
These women... Oh, boy... These little girls were raped once and again by Moses' soldiers. What else would they want them for? Labor? They would have kept the boys.

You have to believe the farfetched notion that adult females were more wicked than the adult males, and it was the opposite with the young.

The fact is:  we don’t need to reason for god.
Well, that's true. I don't.

He can do that for himself; and he will.  God chose to destroy the midianites because of their wickedness and because they were continually corrupting the Israelites causing a plague to fall on Israel.
Other people hurt the Israelites much more than poor Midianites.

God commanded their destruction because they were easy. And their women and children were the easiest.

The Israelites thought they were doing the right thing. If you believe in evil, then how can you say that they were not?

Your god doesn't offer any more proof of his existence than any of the other gods. And he allegedly presents a book filled with inconsistencies.

Can God get tired?

Does He know everything?

Does He know what is in our hearts?

Is He all powerful?

Does He lie?

Does He tempt men?

Does he approve of anger?

Does He consider women inferior to men? DO YOU?

There's no answer. Worse, there are always two clear answers.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:28 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:16 AM on October 13, 2008 :
Just as the Earth being "void" and "shapeless" in the begining obviously means it was flat and without features.
it does?
Well, how else can Earth be shapeless? Please, tell me!

I've been to high mountains, and been inside clouds with my feet on the ground.

If it took God 1/6 of the time of the creation to make such an easily bendable and pierceable sky, what does that say about Him?


i don't know.  whatever YOU say it says i guess.
Well, i say He's the invention of those people.

How much time did God spend on little Earth? Not much in itself, but a lot in comparison with the rest of the Universe.

He made the Earth, created animals, and humans, and then He farted the rest of the solar system and snapped the Universe...



nothing is said as to how long it took him to create the universe.  all that is said is "in the begining god created the heavens and the earth.  and the earth was without form and void." all that is said about the age of the universe is that "the heavens were of old."
Hum... Then you believe that Earth is young but the rest of the Universe could be billions of years old?

I thought that there was agreement between creationists on that point.


Christianism is very arrogant. Which is logical for a very old religion of a warrior tribe (i guess they tried to humble themselves before a great god, but they made it human, concerned about humans, and being humans the center of his creation and later worries).


so, then, christ was arrogant when he cried, "forgive them, father, for they know not what they do." after being ridiculed, beaten to near death, and hung on a cross and mocked at?  i could speak all day long about the arrogance of non christians, but let's leave stray opinionated accusations behind, shall we?
I didn't say christians were arrogant. I know many that are not. My granny was a christian. She was ignorant, and sweet, and humble. I loved her.

I didn't get your point about Jesus. But no, i don't believe he was arrogant. I think he was great. I'd love to know what he really said, and what he didn't. I would love to read his own gospel.


But it has some very cool features. They should make an entire new religion using only good stuff. And abandoning all claim about "facts".


we r not to build our faith upon "cool features"; we r to build it upon what we believe to be universal truth and justice.
Cool! You see!?


And the fact that the Milky Way is not even mentioned is the evidence of the poor knowledge and little divine inspiration of the authors.


so, because the milky way isn't mentioned, there is no divine inspiration?  that's like saying that because the bible doesn't tell us how gravity works it can't be trustworthy.
You got it.

But, anyway, i didn't say "no divine inspiration". I said "little divine inspiration".

To me, knowledge and intelligence is divine. And they had little of these.


Any other than that particular speculation which is pinpointed by creationists to fit their beliefs?


or evolutionists to fit theirs.
Man, the discovery of evolution was a hard blow on human pride. Nobody wanted it. Everyone resisted it. It seemed ugly, and it was counterintuitive. Our basic notions about the world had to change, the hard way.

We ended up accepting it because of the overwelming evidence.

Now we don't have to do anything for something to be in harmony with evolution. You just watch it happen. Like the influenza. You watch it evolve year after year.


I appreciate that comment.

I'll wait patiently to see if you believe God has fangs, fur and a tail. Or if you believe humans never did, in spite of the evidence.


just because scientists can manipulate genes, and it looks like we might have had these things is not proof.  there is no proof; only speculation, my friend.
I didn't say "proof". I said "evidence".

And it has nothing to do with their abbility to manipulate genes.

Primates tend to have fangs. You can see our canine teeth looks like an atrophied fang. you can also see the root of our canine teeth. It's huge.

As for fur, well, we're still pretty furry.

Why are we demi-furry? Why aren't we hairless?

And it doesn't just look "like we might have had these things". Every single one of us grows a tail during gestation, which is later reabsorpted.



Perhaps we should recruit more creationists.
from forums around the web. But i bet dj is one of the best creationists to debate with.


it'd certainly be nice if more creationists were involved, or at least gave more thought to what they believe rather than just taking a preacher's word for it.
Well, i agree, of course. I wonder if you should, though. Because critical thinking tends to lead people away from religions. And closer to damnation, if you believe in any religion.

but i must say that it's my opinion that this is done on both sides of the fence.  i mean, unless u r actually a professional holding a title within a specific scientific field, then don't u just have to take someone else's word for it?
Well, if it's pair reviewed is more trustworthy to me.

But even then, no. I don't tend to take someone's word for anything. Everything passes through the screen of my own judgement. It has to make sense before i believe it.

I'm not really talking about myself. I speak as an accidental representative of all of those who are not professionals holding a title within a specific scientific field.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:40 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Who exactly went to Jesus’ tomb first?

1 woman: Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)

2 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James and Joses (Matthew 28:1)

3 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James & Salome (Mark 16:1)




john 20 is a more brief explanation of the account in stating that “mary Magdalene went to the tomb” .  she did, in fact, go to the tomb.

Luke says “the women”

Mark says, “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”

Matthew says, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.”  

The fact that john leaves out mary the mother of james and Salome in no way makes void the fact that they went.
Likewise, the fact that mattew simply says, “the other mary” in no way makes void the fact about who was there.  I think that mary Magdalene was the object of interest, but in matthew and mark others are mentioned.


) Was the stone at Jesus’ tomb already rolled away when they got there?

No, an angel rolled it away in front of them.  (Matthew 28:2-3)

Yes. (Mark 16:2-4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)


ALL four gospels are in complete harmony about the status of the stone; it was rolled away BEFORE the women actually got to the tomb.  Again, the fact that one gospel is a little more descriptive than another on one particular item within the story does not falsify anything.  Matthew does NOT say that the women were standing at the tomb watching the angel roll the stone away; moreover, it isn’t even implied.


) Was it men or angels that were seen at Jesus’ tomb, and how many and where were they?

1 angel, outside the tomb sitting on the rolled-away stone (Matthew 28:2-3, 5-7)

1 man, inside the tomb (Mark 16:5-7)

2 angels, inside the tomb (Luke 24:2-7; John 20:10-13)



Matthew states, “for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”

Mark states, “And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.”  We are told in scripture many times that angels can take the appearance of men.  The angel in this case is said to be sitting on the right side as they entered.  Could it be that he was sitting on the right side of the stone?  Sure.  It doesn’t say that precisely, but the fact is that it doesn’t say where he was sitting at all – just sitting on the right.

Luke states, “two men stood by them in shining garments:”  the fact that two are mentioned in luke’s account (just like in the case of who was with mary) does not make matthew’s and mark’s accounts false.  And the greek idiom “stood by” (ephistçmi:  1) to place at, place upon, place over, to stand by, be present)  can simply be translated “were present”  
So, basically, this verse is still in harmony with the others stating the important features of the story:  mary went to the tomb, the stone was rolled away, she saw angels, they spoke.  


This detail is left out in john’s account.  The angels mentioned by john are speaking with mary AFTER she had left the tomb and came back.


D) Where did Mary and Joseph live before Jesus was born?

Nazareth. (Luke 2:1-5, 39)

Bethlehem. (Matthew 1:25-2:1; 2:19-23)



E) After Jesus was born, did the family head south to Egypt to hide from King Herod until his death, or north to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod?

South to Egypt to hide from Herod until his death. (Matthew 2:13-15, 19-23)

North to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod (Luke 2:21-24, 39)


simply put:  when all the gospel accounts are compiled, the chronology of events is fairly clear.
(the truncated version)- they lived in nazareth until the birth of jesus, when they moved to Bethlehem to avoid agustus’ decree.  After mary’s days of purification (40 days), they traveled back to Jerusalem to join in the festivities of presenting him to the lord.  It was during this time that herod had learned of jesus and was told of the child being born in Bethlehem.  While in Jerusalem, joseph was warned of herod and took his family to Egypt until the death of herod, when they came back to nazareth.  


F) On what day, relative to the Passover Meal, was Jesus crucified?

morning after the Passover Meal was eaten (3 synoptic gospels)

day before the Passover Meal was eaten (gospel of "John")


simply put again, (because I’m running out of time to make this post),  jesus was crucified at around 3pm(Mat 27:46) on Friday – the “preparation day”(Luke 23:54 / john 19:42).  He stayed in the “grave” during the seventh-day sabbath (Luke 23:56).  And early Sunday morning, he rose (luke 24:1).

The four gospels, again are consistent in these facts.


-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Will you comment on the creationist classification of hominid fossils i posted?

Do you maintain that it's silly to say that he who knows right from wrong can't chose wrong?

Because i honestly believe i gave a better-than-silly explanation (even if it turns out to be wrong)... Don't you agree?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:29 PM on October 14, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:29 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Will you comment on the creationist classification of hominid fossils i posted?

Do you maintain that it's silly to say that he who knows right from wrong can't chose wrong?

Because i honestly believe i gave a better-than-silly explanation (even if it turns out to be wrong)... Don't you agree?



I maintain my previous point on this, in that secular scientists aren’t in total agreement on the hominids either.  Take the toumai skull, for instance - secular scientists cannot decide what toumai is – an ape or a hominid.  And the fact that finding a supposed human ancestor fossil like this pretty much automatically brings celebrity status to the finder’s front door should bring about a general skepticism anyway.  It’s like bigfoot.  Remember those morons a few months ago putting the ape suit in the freezer and calling proof of bigfoot’s existence?  Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not comparing the scenarios, but I AM comparing the premise.  
With that said, it must be noted that most of the skulls are incomplete, and the ones that look complete were broken up and pieced together giving way to evolutionist predispositions upon construction.

Now, on to the specific point at hand:  
It must be noted that the fact that there are differing opinions among the creationists can greatly be attributed to nothing more than the fact that the owners of these skulls guard them with their lives.  Even many evolutionists don’t get to look at these first hand.  And it’s even worse for the creationists, of course.  In fact, cuzzo is the ONLY one whose had the rare opportunity, and that was only with a few of the skulls – so it’s no wonder that there differing opinions on the board.


Forgive me if I made it seem as though you’re “silly”.  I only meant that the premise behind what u were saying seemed a little silly to me (that a person can’t do wrong if they believe it’s wrong).  I understand what u’re saying, but I disagree.

Yup, I still say that just because a person knows that something is wrong isn’t gonna stop him from doing it.  For instance, a lot of people know without the slightest doubt that smoking is terribly harmful and sometimes fatal, yet they do it anyway.  It’s wrong to snort coke, but people do it.  It’s wrong to speed, people do it, and know they’re doing it.  A lot of people do a lot of things fully knowing the consequences.  
Your poker analogy is good, but I can actually use it to make my point as well.
Sure – u play poker to win.  But sometimes even the best poker player makes a mistake or sees the risk involved with a decision, but perhaps he’s already in the pot too much, or some “thing” inside him is telling him to go all-in even though, under other circumstances, he’d just fold.  He makes that decision anyway, then kicks himself for making it when he loses.  It’s the same thing with any decision we make; we may know deep down that a decision we’re about to make is wrong, but something inside tells us to go for it anyway fully knowing the consequences.
For someone to take this as far as u did – to the point of saying that “evil does not exist”; that it’s just “ignorance” is beyond me.  Look, I understand the baseline reasoning behind this statement, but even throwing religion aside, I think one can look back through the pages of history and see evil for what it is.  But – I won’t argue with u on this point; I see no end to it on either side.  I’ll just … respectfully disagree.

-d


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:10 AM on October 15, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:17 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 1:06 PM on October 8, 2008 :The bible tells us that “whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required”


The Bible also tells us:


Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.”
(Luke 14:25-26)






The bible is VERY clear on the matter of love.  husbands are instructed to love their wives as christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25); mothers to love their children (Titus 2:4); and for children to honor father and mother (Ephesians 6:2).  we are even taught to love our enemies and those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44).

This particular text seems harsh at first, but only when read by itself and taken out of context – as is done often.  But honestly, I don’t even get a bad impression when I read the verse by itself.  It’s quite obvious that all Christ is saying here is that we must love him even more than we love our own family – ESPECIALLY if they r the exact exuse we use in order to deny him.  Thus, we r told in matthew 18 that “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.  9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”  The issue is of letting something … anything that u love on earth lead u away from him.
When the entire chapter in luke is read, this verse is even of greater importance to a Christian life.  The issue presented by Christ in the story is of people making excuses in order to ignore him.  The people are invited, but come up with an excuse as to why they can’t come.  Christ makes a very bold statement in response to this neglect by explaining that we are to forsake all others – even those we most love – if they are causing us to turn away from the great heavenly supper.

-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:48 AM on October 15, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
It is strange that you have substituted “stable” with “fixed”.


Yet the passage clearly states
"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable"
What is meant by immovable?  Certainly not that the earth orbits the sun!  No, this passage clearly, CLEARLY, shows that the bible supports an immovable earth!

Wow…I mean…wow.  How can u say that u can’t take me seriously after posting such GARBAGE and calling it another fallacy of the bible???

GArbage?!?  you keep posting verses that support my claims and then just ignore the conclusions that have to be drawn from them!  Typical creationist, can't accept reality so you do your best to bend and twist it to make your silly superstitions sound less ridciculous!

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that all that is being said in the entire book is that the lord made the laws that govern the universe. These laws cannot be changed.  He ESTABLISHED them.  he made the earth and all of the other celestial bodies to be governed by forces that only he can dictate.

No, sorry, you're wrong.  By saying he has made th earth "immovable" the bible is saying exactly that!  Why doesn't the bible say that god extablished the earth in an orbit around the sun?  It doesn't say that because the people who wrote the bible didn't know that and there was no divine knowledge granted them from God.  When the bible talks about the "ends of the earth"  it can only mean anything if the writers believed the earth was flat, a sphere has no "ends".  

From here:
BiblicalFlat Earth

""take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)


How could the earth be held by its "edges"? A sphere has no edges. Would the Job author have spoken of "edges" of the earth if he had known the earth was a sphere?  Which makes more sense?  The author imagined grabbing and shaking by the edges a flat earth, or the author imagined grabbing the ball of the earth by "edges" which don't exist?  Before you answer, consider what else the same author had to say about how the earth is formed:

Stamp Out the Earth Like Clay under A Seal

Clay when stamped with a seal is not rounded into a ball, but flattened, like the clay seal (ca. 3300-3000 BCE) below found in Israel in 1994.1  In the verse below, readers will see that the Job author believes that the earth was stamped out in the manner of clay flattened with a seal:
"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

This is the same author who spoke of grabbing the earth by its "edges."  If the Job author had known the earth was round, would he have referred to edges which don't exist, and would he have compared it to clay seals, which are pressed flat?"

Again and again we see the bible using imagery of a flat earth.  ABsolutely no evidence that the anything in the old testament even hinted at a spherical earth orbitting the sun.  So go ahead, twist all the evidence anyway you want, no one is buying it.
The bible was written by primitive people who believed the earth was flat and unmoving.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:27 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I maintain my previous point on this, in that secular scientists aren’t in total agreement on the hominids either.

What aren't they in agreement about?  They certainly agree that man evovled from a more primitive ancestor.  It's a fact that man has evolved.

Take the toumai skull, for instance - secular scientists cannot decide what toumai is – an ape or a hominid.

Well, your getting mixed up, hominids are apes, so what are you saying?  Here's what we know about it:
Tourmai

"Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a fossil ape that lived approximately 7-6 million years ago. It is sometimes claimed as the oldest known ancestor of Homo (humans) post-dating the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. It was a species of Miocene ape, related to humans and the living African apes."

A Miocene ape related to humans and other apes....  What do non secular scientists say about it and why do they say it?  That we're not sure it's a direct ancestor of humans has no bearing on the fact it's evidence for evolution.  Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't know ever.

And the fact that finding a supposed human ancestor fossil like this pretty much automatically brings celebrity status to the finder’s front door should bring about a general skepticism anyway.

Not at all, as the peer review process would make who ever proved a find to be a hoax even more famous.  Your claim is ridiculous, it just shows you don't knowhow modern science works.

It’s like bigfoot.  Remember those morons a few months ago putting the ape suit in the freezer and calling proof of bigfoot’s existence?

NO it's not just like bigfoot, who proved those morons wrong?  Real scientists.  No real biologist went along with them to gain celebrity.  Seems this example disproves your point...

With that said, it must be noted that most of the skulls are incomplete, and the ones that look complete were broken up and pieced together giving way to evolutionist predispositions upon construction.

Once again, nonsense!  Are you claiming that real biologists would piece together evidence incorrectly???  Please give us an example from this century of scientists piecing together fossil remains 2 different ways based on evolution and some other theory???  Once again, you don't understand biology!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:46 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Will you comment on the creationist classification of hominid fossils i posted?
I maintain my previous point on this, in that secular scientists aren’t in total agreement on the hominids either.
As it's been pointed out before, their dissagreement has no relevance on the matter.

Scientists basically say that it's a puzzle (some areas are easier, and many pieces are missing, but still).

Creationists say there's no such puzzle.

Take the toumai skull, for instance - secular scientists cannot decide what toumai is – an ape or a hominid.
You mean if it's a hominid or not. Hominids are apes, like Demon38 points out.

As we're all primates, and mammals, and vertebrates, etc.

And the fact that finding a supposed human ancestor fossil like this pretty much automatically brings celebrity status to the finder’s front door should bring about a general skepticism anyway.
And it does! From other scientists! That's how science works!

It’s like bigfoot.  Remember those morons a few months ago putting the ape suit in the freezer and calling proof of bigfoot’s existence?
No, sorry. I live in Argentina.

it must be noted that most of the skulls are incomplete, and the ones that look complete were broken up and pieced together giving way to evolutionist predispositions upon construction.
Do you believe that there's a way to assemble fossils that would suit the creationist theory?

It must be noted that the fact that there are differing opinions among the creationists can greatly be attributed to nothing more than the fact that the owners of these skulls guard them with their lives.
Nothing more??

What is this?

Do you believe it was assembled to make it look like... Wait! What does this look like to you?


Do you maintain that it's silly to say that he who knows right from wrong can't chose wrong?

Because i honestly believe i gave a better-than-silly explanation (even if it turns out to be wrong)... Don't you agree?

Forgive me if I made it seem as though you’re “silly”.
Haha! Don't worry! I never thought you meant that. Besides i'm silly in many aspects.

I only meant that the premise behind what u were saying seemed a little silly to me (that a person can’t do wrong if they believe it’s wrong).  I understand what u’re saying, but I disagree.
It's not a premise. It's the conclusion.

Yup, I still say that just because a person knows that something is wrong isn’t gonna stop him from doing it.  For instance, a lot of people know without the slightest doubt that smoking is terribly harmful and sometimes fatal, yet they do it anyway.
Yes. I know that, of course. My point is that they either don't know health is more important than pleasure, or they're too weak to act according to their knowledge. Or perhaps you and i are wrong and pleasure is more important than health.

I eat too much, for instance. Could i eat less? I guess... But when i'm eating my body tells me it's ok to eat a lot, and it's hard for me not to believe my body, since I AM my body. Or you could say i'm weak, which is, to me, just another way to say the same thing.

A lot of people do a lot of things fully knowing the consequences.
Knowing the consequences is not the same as knowing it's wrong to do it.

Every person wants to be "happy" (or something equivalent) in his own way. People do things that, in turn, makes them unhappy, or sad. Hurting others makes them slaves to their psychological karmas. Hitler was a stupid fuck who didn't know better. His values were twisted, according to you or me.

But perhaps none of us got it right. Yet we do our best.

Your poker analogy is good
Thanks! My analogies tend to be farfetched. ^_^

Sure – u play poker to win.  But sometimes even the best poker player makes a mistake
So far, we agree.

or sees the risk involved with a decision, but perhaps he’s already in the pot too much, or some “thing” inside him is telling him to go all-in even though, under other circumstances, he’d just fold.
We agree EXACTLY.

He makes that decision anyway, then kicks himself for making it when he loses.
Yes, yes!! That's exactly what i say! People don't "want" a negative consequence. But "something" told the poker player that he would avoid them.

Something told the driver he could maneuver.

Something told the smoker that the odds of catching cancer were not worth the pain of quitting.

Something told Hitler that it was for the best (STUPID, STUPID FUCK!!!).

It’s the same thing with any decision we make; we may know deep down that a decision we’re about to make is wrong, but something inside tells us to go for it anyway fully knowing the consequences.
For someone to take this as far as u did – to the point of saying that “evil does not exist”; that it’s just “ignorance” is beyond me.
I understand. What if i add "weakness" to ignorance? To me weakness is a form of ignorance. I tend to unify or relate terms (to me Love is a form of Knowledge).

Look, I understand the baseline reasoning behind this statement, but even throwing religion aside, I think one can look back through the pages of history and see evil for what it is.  But – I won’t argue with u on this point; I see no end to it on either side.  I’ll just … respectfully disagree.
Could you please check this link? http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:03 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Who exactly went to Jesus’ tomb first?

1 woman: Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)

2 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James and Joses (Matthew 28:1)

3 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James & Salome (Mark 16:1)

More than 3 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James & Joanna & others (Luke 24:9-10)


john 20 is a more brief explanation of the account in stating that “mary Magdalene went to the tomb” .  she did, in fact, go to the tomb.


Yep, John mentions only 1 woman.  Just like I said.

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Luke says “the women”


No, Luke says

"It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them, who told this to the apostles." (Luke 24, 10)

Just as I said.  More than 3 women.

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Mark says, “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”


Yes, 3 women, as I said.

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Matthew says, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.”  


Yes, 2 women, as I said.

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
The fact that john leaves out mary the mother of james and Salome in no way makes void the fact that they went.


And the others, according to Luke.

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Likewise, the fact that mattew simply says, “the other mary” in no way makes void the fact about who was there.  I think that mary Magdalene was the object of interest, but in matthew and mark others are mentioned.


LOL!

Fact remains, what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS is inconsistent, and not just between 2 of the 4 gospels, but between all 4 of the gospels!  



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 03:11 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 :
Was the stone at Jesus’ tomb already rolled away when they got there?

No, an angel rolled it away in front of them.  (Matthew 28:2-3)

Yes. (Mark 16:2-4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)


ALL four gospels are in complete harmony about the status of the stone; it was rolled away BEFORE the women actually got to the tomb.

Again, the fact that one gospel is a little more descriptive than another on one particular item within the story does not falsify anything.  Matthew does NOT say that the women were standing at the tomb watching the angel roll the stone away; moreover, it isn’t even implied.


You've got that backwards.

Matthew does NOT say that the stone had been rolled away before they got there; moreoever, it isn't even implied.

1) Matthew says the women went to look at the tomb: went is past tense.  It then talks about the angel rolling the stone away.  There is no indication that the women had not yet made it to the tomb.  For example, Matthew doesn't say, "The women left to go look at the tomb.  Before they arrived, an angel ..."

2) The angle rolls the stone away, the guards "die", and the angel tells the women not to be afraid.  There is no indication in Matthew of any time elapasing between the  guards "becoming like dead men" and the angel telling the women not to be afraid.  For example, Matthew doesn't say, "the guards became like dead men.  Then later, when the women arrived at the tomb, the angel told them ...."

The literal text points to the stone being rolled away in front of the women, not at some earlier time before they arrived.



(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/16/2008 at 03:43 AM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 03:41 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 : Was it men or angels that were seen at Jesus’ tomb, and how many and where were they?

1 angel, outside the tomb sitting on the rolled-away stone (Matthew 28:2-3, 5-7)

1 man, inside the tomb (Mark 16:5-7)

2 angels, inside the tomb (Luke 24:2-7; John 20:10-13)



Matthew states, “for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”

Mark states, “And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.”  We are told in scripture many times that angels can take the appearance of men.  The angel in this case is said to be sitting on the right side as they entered.  Could it be that he was sitting on the right side of the stone?  Sure.  It doesn’t say that precisely, but the fact is that it doesn’t say where he was sitting at all – just sitting on the right.


You're stretching.  

It says, "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.  ...  "He is not here.  See the place where they laid him." ...  Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled the tomb."'

The most straightforward reading is that the women were inside the tomb when they saw the man sitting on the right, and the man was talking to them inside the tomb and pointing out to them where Jesus had been laid.  


Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Luke states, “two men stood by them in shining garments:”  the fact that two are mentioned in luke’s account (just like in the case of who was with mary) does not make matthew’s and mark’s accounts false.


I didn't claim these were direct contradictions, just that one was inconsistent with another.  You didn't ask for contradictions in which if one is true, the other must be false: just inconsistencies.

If 4 people were testifying in court, their testimonies would be considered inconsistent.

The fact remains that there are different number of men/angels in 2 of the gospels.  That's an inconsistency, even if it is not a direct contradiction.

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
And the greek idiom “stood by” (ephistçmi:  1) to place at, place upon, place over, to stand by, be present)  can simply be ranslated “were present”  So, basically, this verse is still in harmony with the others stating the important features of the story:  mary went to the tomb, the stone was rolled away, she saw angels, they spoke.  


What?  Here's what it actually says.

"They found the stong rolled away from the tomb, but WHEN THEY ENTERED, the did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.  While they were wondering about this, suddenly TWO MEN in clothes that gleamed like lightning STOOD BESIDE THEM. ...  "HE IS NOT HERE; HE HAS RISEN""

That clearly indicates that the women were INSIDE the tomb, and that the two men appeared BESIDE THEM.

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
This detail is left out in john’s account.  The angels mentioned by john are speaking with mary AFTER she had left the tomb and came back.


Yes, another inconsistency.  None of this AFTER STUFF is mentioned in any of the other 3 gospels' accounts.

And, John's account doesn't mention what the other 3 gospels do, about the 1 or 2, angels or men, inside or outside, the tomb when Mary (and whoever else!) got there originally.


If "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" were testifying in court, their testimonies would be considered inconsistent.

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 04:09 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 : D) Where did Mary and Joseph live before Jesus was born?

Nazareth. (Luke 2:1-5, 39)

Bethlehem. (Matthew 1:25-2:1; 2:19-23)



E) After Jesus was born, did the family head south to Egypt to hide from King Herod until his death, or north to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod?

South to Egypt to hide from Herod until his death. (Matthew 2:13-15, 19-23)

North to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod (Luke 2:21-24, 39)


simply put:  when all the gospel accounts are compiled, the chronology of events is fairly clear.

(the truncated version)- they lived in nazareth until the birth of jesus, when they moved to Bethlehem to avoid agustus’ decree.  
After mary’s days of purification (40 days), they traveled back to Jerusalem to join in the festivities of presenting him to the lord.  It was during this time that herod had learned of jesus and was told of the child being born in Bethlehem.  


And therefore later Herod ordered that all male children 2 and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity be slaughtered!  

Oh wait, that’s right, that VERY OUTSTANDING HISTORICAL EVENT THAT SURELY WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED ALL OVER THE PLACE – WERE IT REAL – only occurs in Matthew: not in Luke or any historical documents from the time.  Imagine that!

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
While in Jerusalem, joseph was warned of herod and took his family to Egypt until the death of herod, when they came back to nazareth.  


That doesn’t work.

Luke says that when they were in Jerusalem, …”When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they RETURNED TO GALILEE to their OWN TOWN of NAZARETH.”

Luke says they went straight from Jerusalem, NORTH to Nazareth: no mention of any escape SOUTH to Egypt: no mention of fearing King Herod: no mention of Herod killing all children 2 years old an younger: no mention of them remaining in Egypt until Herod died.


In addition, Matthew 2:19-23, contra Luke, clearly indicates that the family did NOT start off living in Nazareth, but rather only ended up in Nazareth after living in Egypt and coming back.  Nazareth is where they ended up, not where they started from.

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 04:35 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 :
F) On what day, relative to the Passover Meal, was Jesus crucified?

morning after the Passover Meal was eaten (3 synoptic gospels)

day before the Passover Meal was eaten (gospel of "John")


simply put again, (because I’m running out of time to make this post),  jesus was crucified at around 3pm(Mat 27:46) on Friday – the “preparation day”(Luke 23:54 / john 19:42).


No.

That is what John says, but Luke says Jesus was crucified the morning AFTER the Passover meal was eaten.  See Luke 22:7-14, where Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover meal.

Now, unless you are going to claim that Luke DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF, then only John says Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover.

PS:  Note that Luke says is that it was the day of preparation, but NOT that it was the day of preparation FOR THE PASSOVER.  If you read Mark 15:42 you will see it talking about Jesus being laid in the tomb, obviously after He was crucified, and it says, "It was the Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath)."  Well here too, it couldn't the day of preparation for the Passover, because Mark also had Jesus ALREADY EAT the Passover meal with His disciples.


Fact remains. The 3 synoptic gospels have Jesus being crucified the morning AFTER the Passover meal was eaten, but "John" has Jesus being crucified the day BEFORE the Passover meal is eaten.
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 04:51 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually the contradictions add historical veracity (in detriment of historical accuracy, of course). When several stories about a same subject are perfectly consistent, they are usually a complete lie.

Sadly christians cannot take any advantage from inconsistencies, because their faith is (or should be) that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So they go to any extent to prove it right and consistent.

So very tiresome... And not worth the effort...

Instead they could just say "John believed it happened like this, and Luke like that. Nevermind. What's the difference?"

Quote from ImaAtheistNow:
If "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" were testifying in court, their testimonies would be considered inconsistent.
Actually they wouldn't be admissible as witnesses since, according to their own stories, they were not there.

They could only testify about what they heard.

PS: I think i remember two stories about Judah's death. In one of them he threw the money before the priests, and hung himself. In the other he bought some land, and died a strange death when he went in.

Fortunately dijonaise doesn't tell me to shut up when i speak without knowing enough. ^_^



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:17 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 4:27 PM on October 15, 2008 :
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
It is strange that you have substituted “stable” with “fixed”.


Yet the passage clearly states
"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable"
What is meant by immovable?  Certainly not that the earth orbits the sun!  No, this passage clearly, CLEARLY, shows that the bible supports an immovable earth!

Wow…I mean…wow.  How can u say that u can’t take me seriously after posting such GARBAGE and calling it another fallacy of the bible???

GArbage?!?  you keep posting verses that support my claims and then just ignore the conclusions that have to be drawn from them!  Typical creationist, can't accept reality so you do your best to bend and twist it to make your silly superstitions sound less ridciculous!

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that all that is being said in the entire book is that the lord made the laws that govern the universe. These laws cannot be changed.  He ESTABLISHED them.  he made the earth and all of the other celestial bodies to be governed by forces that only he can dictate.

No, sorry, you're wrong.  By saying he has made th earth "immovable" the bible is saying exactly that!  Why doesn't the bible say that god extablished the earth in an orbit around the sun?  It doesn't say that because the people who wrote the bible didn't know that and there was no divine knowledge granted them from God.  When the bible talks about the "ends of the earth"  it can only mean anything if the writers believed the earth was flat, a sphere has no "ends".  

From here:
BiblicalFlat Earth

""take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)


How could the earth be held by its "edges"? A sphere has no edges. Would the Job author have spoken of "edges" of the earth if he had known the earth was a sphere?  Which makes more sense?  The author imagined grabbing and shaking by the edges a flat earth, or the author imagined grabbing the ball of the earth by "edges" which don't exist?  Before you answer, consider what else the same author had to say about how the earth is formed:

Stamp Out the Earth Like Clay under A Seal

Clay when stamped with a seal is not rounded into a ball, but flattened, like the clay seal (ca. 3300-3000 BCE) below found in Israel in 1994.1  In the verse below, readers will see that the Job author believes that the earth was stamped out in the manner of clay flattened with a seal:
"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

This is the same author who spoke of grabbing the earth by its "edges."  If the Job author had known the earth was round, would he have referred to edges which don't exist, and would he have compared it to clay seals, which are pressed flat?"

Again and again we see the bible using imagery of a flat earth.  ABsolutely no evidence that the anything in the old testament even hinted at a spherical earth orbitting the sun.  So go ahead, twist all the evidence anyway you want, no one is buying it.
The bible was written by primitive people who believed the earth was flat and unmoving.






AGAIN...the verse ACTUALLY says:  "30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
i really can't say more than i have already said to clear this up.  
to say that because it says that the world is stable and cannot be moved it is implying that we're being told that the earth is stationary, and not orbiting the sun is a reeeeaaal stretch and absolutely ridiculous; completely asinine!

again...the verse that elaborates on this for us is jerimiah 33:25 when god says that he "appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth"  simply meaning that he has set in place things that cannot be changed (PERIOD)

when did i ignore any of your conclusions?  i have addressed everything you've brought up, and thoroughly explained why your conclusions are baseless.

"Why doesn't the bible say that god extablished the earth in an orbit around the sun? "

why does it need to???  that's like asking: "why doesn't the bible tell us the details of how gravity works?"  or "why doesn't the bible tell me why my toaster is broken?!!!"

concerning the "flat earth"...

i find if funny that you've chosen to quote from a passage that is cynical toward those who try to put their knowledge above god.  within this same chapter, god asks, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

to completely throw out the context of this passage and use verse 13 as a base for saying that the bible tells us that the earth is flat is just beyond any use of common sense.  furthermore, by throwing out the ACTUAL meaning of this given in the joint verses, you've completely missed god's deliberate rhetoric toward ...well...YOU.

using verse 13 to say that the earth is flat is like using verse 4 to say that the earth has a cornerstone.  just...silly. it is COOOOMMMPLETELY OBVIOUS that this is a metaphoric statement.  NOWHERE in scripture are we told that the earth is flat!

all you're doing is taking every single, little thing that you can possibly find, take it completely out of context, and try to use it as ammo.  every time that i have stated something from scripture, i have left the context intact, and taken it for all that it ACTUALLY says.  then u come along and tell me that i'm "do[ing] [my] best to bend and twist it to make [my] silly superstitions sound less ridciculous!"

you're doing so much bending and twisting that i'd call u a professional contortionist!

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:57 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

when god says that he "appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth"  simply meaning that he has set in place things that cannot be changed (PERIOD)
What things??

I think you've said the laws of the universe, in some previous post. Then why does it say "the Earth"?

The shape of the Earth has changed. It's position also. So did the air, the sea level, the glaciars, the ozone layer... Animals have become extinct. Matter has been created and destroyed.

Why does the Bible say, in Joshua 10:

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
      "O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
      O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

13 So the sun stood still,
      and the moon stopped,
      till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
     as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
     The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.


Some time ago you would say that this was literal. And the Sun did, in fact, stand still.

But today you say it's metaphor (right?). Why does God use metaphor regarding exactly the things that were ignored back then?

You say "why does it need to???" to the question of why the bible doesn't say God established the earth in an orbit around the sun. It did need to, in the passages above, if it pretended to say something that made any sense when contrasted with reality.

I'll play creationist:

Relativity shows that any movement is relative to a coordinate system. In those passages the coordinate system was the Earth. God is infinite and doesn't have to take any coordinate system, but since He was talking to us, and wanted to be understood, He used the Earth.


Neat! I didn't have to say "metaphor"!! ^_^



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:03 PM on October 16, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It has to be taken as a metaphor, 2000 years ago those were the common beliefs people had about the world.  so CLEARLY god meant them metaphorically.

It seems even Creationists cannot handle such blatently obvious failings in their holy book. Or maybe they can, and just don't want us to know.  Either way it is a stupid way to "get around" the fact that a book written thousands of  years ago is NOT a valid source of evidence, it's simply an outdated explanation for the priviosly unexplainable.


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 6:05 PM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dijonaise, you still there???  Cat got your tongue?

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 04:51 AM on October 16, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 3:40 PM on October 14, 2008 :
Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 6:08 PM on October 9, 2008 :
F) On what day, relative to the Passover Meal, was Jesus crucified?

morning after the Passover Meal was eaten (3 synoptic gospels)

day before the Passover Meal was eaten (gospel of "John")


simply put again, (because I’m running out of time to make this post),  jesus was crucified at around 3pm(Mat 27:46) on Friday – the “preparation day”(Luke 23:54 / john 19:42).


No.

That is what John says, but Luke says Jesus was crucified the morning AFTER the Passover meal was eaten.  See Luke 22:7-14, where Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover meal.

Now, unless you are going to claim that Luke DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF, then only John says Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover.

PS:  Note that Luke says is that it was the day of preparation, but NOT that it was the day of preparation FOR THE PASSOVER.  If you read Mark 15:42 you will see it talking about Jesus being laid in the tomb, obviously after He was crucified, and it says, "It was the Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath)."  Well here too, it couldn't the day of preparation for the Passover, because Mark also had Jesus ALREADY EAT the Passover meal with His disciples.


Fact remains. The 3 synoptic gospels have Jesus being crucified the morning AFTER the Passover meal was eaten, but "John" has Jesus being crucified the day BEFORE the Passover meal is eaten.



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 12:12 AM on October 21, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


“Fact remains. The 3 synoptic gospels have Jesus being crucified the morning AFTER the Passover meal was eaten, but "John" has Jesus being crucified the day BEFORE the Passover meal is eaten.”


No, I’m sorry, but you’re confused.
All four gospels are clear that Christ ate the same meal with the disciples BEFORE being crucified.  John 13 speaks of this same meal (the same meal during which Christ identifies judas as being the betrayer, and claims that peter will deny him three times.  This same event is mentioned in all four gospels leading to jesus’ crucifixion.

It is also very important to note that this Friday preparation day (paraskeue:G3904) is mentioned in Mat 27:62, Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:14, 19:31 and 19:42. It is worth noting that “paraskeue” is ALWAYS used to define the day before the seventh-day Sabbath, but not a day preceding a non-seventh-day festival sabbath. The term ALWAYS means what we call Friday, in both scriptural and non-scriptural usage.

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:09 AM on October 22, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there's one more thought i'd like to add just to be more thorough on this.

when the gospels are held compiled into one complete story, we find that jesus was crucified on friday, and rose on sunday.  well...there arise some problems with this.  people immediately start doing the math and come up with the assuption that this is yet another inconsistency.  how could jesus be, as he said in matthew, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"?  if he died on friday, then that's only friday night and saturday night - only 2 nights.
since it's obvious that he died on friday and rose on suday, the problem isn't with the math, the problem is with what he meant when he said "in the heart of the earth."

Everyone assumes that means the tomb; but the bible explains this for us.  nowhere else in the bible is the idiom "heart of the earth" called the tomb.  for instance, in matthew when we say the lord’s prayer, ‘Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in Heaven’ – that’s how the King James renders it – does that mean Thy will be done in the tomb?  of course not.

so, in reviewing christ's statment regarding being like jonah in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights a parallel is made between that and 3 days and nights in the heart of the earth - or - in the clutches of the world and bearing the weight of sin.  

we know that christ rose on suday, so if we literally go back 3 days and nights...that leads us to thursday night - to the garden of gethsemane.  jesus had been under his father's protection up until that very night; every time the mob tried to get to him, he somehow slipped away.  But in the Garden of Gethsemane Thursday night when He said quite specifically, ‘Now is the hour of darkness…’ then the mob came.  They tied Him up, they beat Him, and He began suffering for the sins of the world.

in the same way that jonah was held captive in the darkness of the belly of the whale, christ was held captive by the darkness of the world.  jonah was tossed around and taken wherever the whale took him without any control.  in this same fashion, christ was tossed around and taken from place to place without control.  He went from Pilate to Herod and back to Pilate again.  He went from Caiaphas to Anna and back to Caiaphas and  – He was just drug all over the place and beaten and mocked at.   he was, at that time, suffering for the sins of the world.  

that was thursday night, friday, friday night, saturday, saturday night, and suday.  thre days and three nights in an utterly hopless environment.

when he prayed the third time, "not my will Thy will be done", and He said to His disciples "you can sleep on because now is the hour of darkness" – he made it very clear – this is the starting point.  The mob came.  He told peter "put away your sword; this is why I came into the world."  this was thursday night.  he was taking the penalty for our sins, which is punishment and death, not just death – punishment and death.  And He suffered and he died.  so that’s the crux of that misunderstanding.  It has nothing to do with the tomb.





 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:51 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 11:09 AM on October 22, 2008 :

“Fact remains. The 3 synoptic gospels have Jesus being crucified the morning AFTER the Passover meal was eaten, but "John" has Jesus being crucified the day BEFORE the Passover meal is eaten.”


All four gospels are clear that Christ ate the same meal with the disciples BEFORE being crucified.  John 13 speaks of this same meal (the same meal during which Christ identifies judas as being the betrayer, and claims that peter will deny him three times.  This same event is mentioned in all four gospels leading to jesus’ crucifixion.


No, you’re wrong.  You need to read your Bible some more.

1) Nowhere in John is that meal actually referred to as the PASSOVER FEAST.  John calls it "the evening meal".

2) And it couldn't be the Passover Feast, not in John, because in John, the morning that Jesus is handed over to Pilate, the Jews will not enter the building because they do not want to become unclean and therefore prevented from eating the ... eating the what?  Eating the Passover Feast!

Here, let me quote it to you.


Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governer.  By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanliness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
(John 18:28)


Bam!  You're refuted.

In John, the Passover had not yet been eaten.

And again in John ...


When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgel's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).  It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
(John 19:13-14)


BAM AGAIN!

In John, Jesus is crucified on the DAY OF PREPARATION for the Passover, BEFORE the Passover Feast is eaten.

Unless, of course, you want to claim that John directly contradicts himself!!



Squirm all you want, you won't get out of this direct contradiction in the gospels.



---
Edited to Add:  Here's a nice little touch.  Note the words LITTLE: this is not as strong as the other evidences above from passages.  (My guess is that you will try to attack this small piece of evidence instead of trying to tackle the big ones)

In John, Jesus is already eating the last supper - which is, oddly enough, NOT called the Passover Feast, but rather just "the evening meal" (John 13:2) - with His disciples when He shows that Judas will betray Him.  And here is what is said at the end of that ...


As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered him. "Whatever you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him.  Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.
(John 13:27)


Needed for the Feast?  Is that what they were eating?  Doesn't seem so.

They were already eating the evening meal, and in fact, no mention of any more eating is made after the part about Judas taking the bread from Jesus.   The eating was over. All anyone does from that point on is listen to Jesus give a long-winded speech about this and that, and then pray.  And "When he had finished praying, Jesus lft with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley" (John 18:1) and was then betrayed by Judas.  So it wouldn't make much sense for them to think that Judas was going to go get something for the Feast, if that is what they were already (done) eating.

Further, note that there in the passage about Judas possibly going to buy something for the Feast, John explicitly mentions FEAST, not evenining meal, which is what John called the meal the disciples were eating with Jesus.  Unlike the 3 synoptic gospels, at no point does John expicitly call the last supper with the disciples the Passover (or the Passover Feast, or the Feast).  So John does appear to be talking about a different meal: the Feast, which had not come yet.



(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/24/2008 at 03:53 AM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 03:15 AM on October 24, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 03:15 AM on October 24, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 11:09 AM on October 22, 2008 :

“Fact remains. The 3 synoptic gospels have Jesus being crucified the morning AFTER the Passover meal was eaten, but "John" has Jesus being crucified the day BEFORE the Passover meal is eaten.”


All four gospels are clear that Christ ate the same meal with the disciples BEFORE being crucified.  John 13 speaks of this same meal (the same meal during which Christ identifies judas as being the betrayer, and claims that peter will deny him three times.  This same event is mentioned in all four gospels leading to jesus’ crucifixion.


No, you’re wrong.  You need to read your Bible some more.

1) Nowhere in John is that meal actually referred to as the PASSOVER FEAST.  John calls it "the evening meal".

2) And it couldn't be the Passover Feast, not in John, because in John, the morning that Jesus is handed over to Pilate, the Jews will not enter the building because they do not want to become unclean and therefore prevented from eating the ... eating the what?  Eating the Passover Feast!

Here, let me quote it to you.


Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governer.  By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanliness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
(John 18:28)


Bam!  You're refuted.

In John, the Passover had not yet been eaten.

And again in John ...


When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgel's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).  It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
(John 19:13-14)


BAM AGAIN!

In John, Jesus is crucified on the DAY OF PREPARATION for the Passover, BEFORE the Passover Feast is eaten.

Unless, of course, you want to claim that John directly contradicts himself!!



Squirm all you want, you won't get out of this direct contradiction in the gospels.



---
Edited to Add:  Here's a nice little touch.  Note the words LITTLE: this is not as strong as the other evidences above from passages.  (My guess is that you will try to attack this small piece of evidence instead of trying to tackle the big ones)

In John, Jesus is already eating the last supper - which is, oddly enough, NOT called the Passover Feast, but rather just "the evening meal" (John 13:2) - with His disciples when He shows that Judas will betray Him.  And here is what is said at the end of that ...


As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered him. "Whatever you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him.  Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.
(John 13:27)


Needed for the Feast?  Is that what they were eating?  Doesn't seem so.

They were already eating the evening meal, and in fact, no mention of any more eating is made after the part about Judas taking the bread from Jesus.   The eating was over. All anyone does from that point on is listen to Jesus give a long-winded speech about this and that, and then pray.  And "When he had finished praying, Jesus lft with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley" (John 18:1) and was then betrayed by Judas.  So it wouldn't make much sense for them to think that Judas was going to go get something for the Feast, if that is what they were already (done) eating.

Further, note that there in the passage about Judas possibly going to buy something for the Feast, John explicitly mentions FEAST, not evenining meal, which is what John called the meal the disciples were eating with Jesus.  Unlike the 3 synoptic gospels, at no point does John expicitly call the last supper with the disciples the Passover (or the Passover Feast, or the Feast).  So John does appear to be talking about a different meal: the Feast, which had not come yet.



(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/24/2008 at 03:53 AM).



your outward glee in your mistaken "victory" is...less than amusing.  frankly, it makes obvious the fact that all you want to do is win an argument for the sake of feeling better about your choice to be an atheist.

perhaps i should have been more clear.

christ died DURING the passover - that is...the WEEK of the passover.  christ WAS the passover!  he could not have died any other time than right in the midst of the passover.  he WAS the great, final lamb to be slain.

it's important to note that passover lasts seven days - with passover fetivities throughout the week.  the first and last days are considered "high days" or holy days.  during this time, even now, just about anything referring to the great week of passover is called "passover x"  - i.e. passover treats, passover picnics, and, of course passover MEALS).  on the first day of the passover week, there is a meal called a "seder".

the passover MEAL acknowledged here is a seder.

this is the same meal mentioned in john - on the first day of unleavened bread - seder.
it is clear that it is at the beginning of the passover week due to the fact that the disciples had not even been prepared.  

it is during this seder supper that christ realizes his fate, and decides to institute a new kind of seder for us since HE will be the final passover sacrifice.  we now call this meal the lord's supper.

the jewish seder is held on the 14th day of the jewish month "nisan"

now, all we have to do is to try to figure out on what day of the week this nisan 14th seder held.
well, if we just go backwards a little bit we will find something that makes the point that christ died on friday even MORE evident - and in my opinion, absolutely factual.

Nisan 8th:
Jesus and all his disciples arrive from Jericho on the 8th of Nisan. They probably stayed at Lazarus' house in Bethany for the night after such a long journey. (Matt 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-19:28; John 12:1-2).

Nisan 9th:
This is the only day in the week that could have been the weekly Sabbath due to all the work being performed on the other days and all the nights Jesus returned to Bethany. nothing is mentioned about work or travel being done on this day. but all of the days surrounding it are filled with travel and work.  This is the ONLY day that could have been a Sabbath.

Nisan 10th:
Jesus spent the night in Bethany. Jesus goes from Bethany to Jerusalem for Triumphal entry (Matt 21:1; Mark 11:1; & Luke 19:28,29).

Nisan 11th:
Jesus went out of the city to Bethany for the night (Matt 21:17; Mark 11:11) Jesus goes back into the city [Jerusalem] early in the morning and curses the fig tree that is near Bethany (Matt 21:18,19; Mark 11:12).

Nisan 12th
Jesus spend the night in Bethany (Mark 11:19) . Mark indicates that the next morning on the way from Bethany to Jerusalem they saw the fig tree withered on the way back to the Temple (the tree was near Bethany). Mark and Matt differ on when they saw it withered but it is possible one of them didn't see it the night before in the dark. Jesus went into the Temple courts (Matt 21:23; Mark 11:20, 21). This is the day all the Pharisees, Sadducees and others tried to trap Jesus into saying things that they could arrest him with. All three gospel accounts are almost word for word on the events of this day. Jesus then gave the Olivet Discourse before leaving the city that afternoon while sitting on the Mount of Olives (Matt 21:23-26:1, Mark 11:20-13:37; Luke 20:1-Luke 21:5).

Nisan 13th
Around sunset they leave Jerusalem and head for Bethany where they will be eating dinner at Simon's (Matt 26:6; Matt 14:3, John 12:1-8). They obviously spend the night in Bethany. Next day (but same day according to Jewish time) the disciples ask where to prepare the Passover. Jesus tells them where it will be and they go to make preparations in Jerusalem.

Nisan 14th
Jesus and his disciples are now in Jerusalem eating their Passover Seder shortly after sunset as God had instructed in the Exodus and Leviticus passages on Passover. Jesus retires to the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives. He prays while his disciples sleep till dark (John 18:3). He is arrested (Matt. 26:20-50; Mark 14:17-46; Luke 22:14-54; John 13:1-18:12). He is tried all through the night and hung on the cross and dies about 3 PM in the afternoon. He is buried before sunset (still the same day) because of the High Holy Day coming on for Passover (Nisan 15) - a seventh-day Sabbath during the passover.


EVERYTHING in scripture points to the fact that christ ate a seder passover meal with the disciples on a thurday evening, was arrested on thursday night, crucified on fieday afternoon (specifically at 3pm), rested in the tomb on a seventh-day sabbath (saturday), and rose on sunday.  even going back mathmatically and systematically determining that exactly one week prior to the sabbath mentioned during the crucifixion was obviously a sabbath, we find a perfect chronology held by all four gospels.

"Bam!  You're refuted." - are you kidding me!?

your use of john 18 and 19 is confounding.
this preparation mentioned, as i THOROUGHLY explained is DURING the passover week leading up to a high holy sabbath(a seventh-day sabbath DURING the week of passover AFTER the first feast of unleavened bread had been eaten.

john is clear in that the meal mentioned is the seder meal on first day of the passover week.  this is also evident in the other gospels.

so...i have given u a VERY detaild description of the events surrounding the crucifixion. and with that said, i must say to u, using your own words:
you need to read your bible some more.

but then again, why would you?  you have obviously already departed from it.  now, all u do is briefly skim through it in order to justify you atheistic status.  u act like u r quite knowledgeable, but the fact is...all u care to do is read the skeptics annotated bible, and regurgitate it without truly giving it any thought.

again, there is no inconsistency between john and the other gospels.  they, as a matter of fact, lend to each other well.
-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:36 AM on October 24, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are no inconsistencies in the Gospels? I thought they gave us two different deaths for Judas (the hanging and the strange death when stepping into the land that he had bought with the money received when he betrayed Jesus). That's what i think i recall... Am i wrong?

PS: If you erase the quote in your last post it would be tidier. No need to quote the entire previous post.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:44 AM on October 26, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here you are Mr. Wisp.  "A partial account in a Gospel is not a faulty account.  For example Matthew 27:5 says Judas died by hanging himself.  Acts 1:18 says he burst open and his entrails gushed out.  These are partial accounts.  Taken together we can reconstruct a complete account.  Judas hanged himself, the rope later loossened, and he fell on the rocks below, causing his intestines to gush out."  (Quote taken from a book by Ron Rhodes)  Both accounts are right, and should be put together as with many other events and recordings in the Bible.  They are not inconsistent, they just give a different perspective, so that when put together you can gain a full account of Biblical events.

(Edited by dubie903 10/27/2008 at 7:28 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 7:26 PM on October 26, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting.

So he did not die from the hanging... Otherwise it wouldn't be "him" who burst open, but his body.

You have to agree with me that such partial accounts of the same event are weird.

Doesn't one of the accounts say that Judas threw the money, and the other one says that he bought land?

Perhaps i recall wrong. Or perhaps he did throw the money, but he picked it up later in another weird partial account.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:40 AM on October 27, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 08:40 AM on October 27, 2008 :

Doesn't one of the accounts say that Judas threw the money, and the other one says that he bought land?

Perhaps i recall wrong. Or perhaps he did throw the money, but he picked it up later in another weird partial account.



"Act 1:18  
Purchased a field with the reward of iniquity - Probably Judas did not purchase the field himself, but the money for which he sold his Lord was thus applied, see Mat_27:6-8. It is possible, however, that he might have designed to purchase a field or piece of ground with this reward of his iniquity, and might have been in treaty far it, though he did not close the bargain, as his bringing the money to the treasury proves: the priests, knowing his intentions, might have completed the purchase, and, as Judas was now dead, applied the field thus bought for the burial of strangers, i.e. Jews from foreign parts, or others who, visiting Jerusalem, had died there. Though this case is possible, yet the passage will bear a very consistent interpretation without the assistant of this conjecture; for, in ordinary conversation, we often attribute to a man what is the consequence of his own actions, though such consequence was never designed nor wished for by himself: thus we say of a man embarking in a hazardous enterprise, he is gone to seek his death; of one whose conduct has been ruinous to his reputation, he has disgraced himself; of another who has suffered much in consequence of his crimes, he has purchased repentance at a high price, etc., etc. All these, though undesigned, were consequences of certain acts, as the buying of the yield was the consequence of Judas’s treason."  (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible)  It is very likely that the priests whom Judas threw the money at, purchased the field that he had hanged himself in.  And so it was attributed to be the results of the work of Judas that purchased the field, making it the field that Judas bought, as explained in the commentary.



-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 7:49 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would the priest know his intentions regarding the purchase of a field? Was Judas so chatty?

Why would they care, if they had what they wanted, and Judas threw the money? Were they so noble? You mean they purchased the field for Judas? They thought he'd change his mind? That he would take the land, when he threw the money??

What do you mean that the money was thus applied? The same amount, or the same coins? What makes it the "same" money? That the priests wanted to give it to Judas?

I'm sorry, but it all sounds exceedingly far fetched. More partial accounts...

The guts coming out without mentioning the hanging is far fetched by itself...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:54 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
ThinkerIV

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question for you? Where do you think you came from and what is your purpose for living if you believe in evolution? Where will you go when you die?

[color=black]I am one of you. I am not trying to argue against you. I am just sincerely asking. We are all on the same level. We all come from the same source. And one thing for sure none of us made ourself. Think Seriously. I think a God made me. I know a God made me. I can guarentee that you will see him when you die, and you will go to heaven or hell based on your works. [color=red] I love studying science it is my favorite subject.


But the more i study science and think deeply the more i realize that we did not evolve. We have none physical aspects like personality and spirit. These things could not happen by physical evolution. They had to be created by a God who is an all powerful spirit. Do you believe in spirits? If so where do you think they came from?


-------
ThinkerIV
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:26 PM on January 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree.  People aren't the only animals that have personalities, or show special behavior such as empathy and emotion.

Studies show that chimps show empathy towards other chimps who have been hurt - either physically or emotionally.  Chimps exhibit emotion, and can even communicate with other chimps.  And of course they can learn sign language and can communicate with humans in a limited way.

I think it's rather arrogant for people to think that they're more special than other animals, that we have a 'spirit' which sets us apart from other animals.  I don't deny that people are intellectually more advanced than any other species on earth.  But I don't think we have a 'spirit' that exists after we die.

I can understand the emotional need that people have to want to believe that there is something after death - a spirit, a connection with a caring God, being able to rejoin loved ones that have already died, etc.  But I think this is all psychological and has no physical reality.

I think once we die, that's it.  The book is closed on that person's life.  That may seem harsh and cold, and I'll admit it's not as attractive as saying we'll go to heaven and be happy for all eternity.  But there is simply no proof that is what happens.  You might point to people that have near-death experiences and claim to have seen something that they identify as an after-life.  But again, there is no hard evidence that there is any reality to such perceptions.  Those experiences can have a psychological explanation to them - which is much more likely.

I think Life is a wondrous thing.  There's a lot we don't understand yet.  Just what is that spark called 'Life'?  And maybe you're right - maybe we all meet God in the end, and our 'spirit' goes someplace.  I just don't happen to believe that is the case.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:13 PM on January 6, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.