 |
|
|
|
|
January 28th, 2014
10:37 AM ET
Noah's Ark discovery raises flood of questionsOpinion by Joel Baden, Special to CNN (CNN) - That faint humming sound you’ve heard recently is the scholarly world of the Bible and archaeology abuzz over the discovery of the oldest known Mesopotamian version of the famous Flood story. A British scholar has found that a 4,000-year-old cuneiform tablet from what is now Iraq contains a story similar to the biblical account of Noah’s Ark. The newly decoded cuneiform tells of a divinely sent flood and a sole survivor on an ark, who takes all the animals on board to preserve them. It even includes the famous phrase “two by two,” describing how the animals came onto the ark. But there is one apparently major difference: The ark in this version is round. We have known for well over a century that there are flood stories from the ancient Near East that long predate the biblical account (even the most conservative biblical scholars wouldn’t date any earlier than the ninth century B.C). What’s really intriguing scholars is the description of the ark itself. The Bible presents a standard boat shape - long and narrow. The length being six times the measure of the width, with three decks and an entrance on the side. The newly discovered Mesopotamian text describes a large round vessel, made of woven rope, and coated (like the biblical ark) in pitch to keep it waterproof. Archaeologists are planning to design a prototype of the ark, built to the specifications of this text, to see if it would actually float. Good luck to them in trying to estimate the weight of its cargo. So, why does this new discovery matter? It matters because it serves as a reminder that the story of the Flood wasn’t set in stone from its earliest version all the way through to its latest incarnation. The people who wrote down the Flood narrative, in any of its manifestations, weren’t reporting on a historical event for which they had to get their facts straight (like what shape the ark was). Everyone reshapes the Flood story, and the ark itself, according to the norms of their own time and place. In ancient Mesopotamia, a round vessel would have been perfectly reasonable - in fact, we know that this type of boat was in use, though perhaps not to such a gigantic scale, on the Mesopotamian rivers. The ancient Israelites, on the other hand, would naturally have pictured a boat like those they were familiar with: which is to say, the boats that navigated not the rivers of Mesopotamia but the Mediterranean Sea. This detail of engineering can and should stand for a larger array of themes and features in the flood stories. The Mesopotamian versions feature many gods; the biblical account, of course, only one. The Mesopotamian versions tell us that the Flood came because humans were too noisy for the gods; the biblical account says it was because violence had spread over the Earth. Neither version is right or wrong; they are, rather, both appropriate to the culture that produced them. Neither is history; both are theology. What, then, of the most striking parallel between this newly discovered text and Genesis: the phrase “two by two”? Here, it would seem, we have an identical conception of the animals entering the ark. But not so fast. Although most people, steeped in Sunday school tradition, will tell you without even thinking about it that “the animals, they came on, they came on by twosies twosies,” that’s not exactly what the Bible says. More accurately, it’s one thing that the Bible says - but a few verses later, Noah is instructed to bring not one pair of each species, but seven pairs of all the “clean” animals and the birds, and one pair of the “unclean” animals. (This is important because at the end of the story, Noah offers sacrifices - which, if he only brought one pair of each animal, would mean that, after saving them all from the Flood, he then proceeded to relegate some of those species to extinction immediately thereafter.) This isn’t news - already in the 17th century scholars recognized that there must be two versions of the Flood intertwined in the canonical Bible. There are plenty of significant differences between the two Flood stories in the Bible, which are easily spotted if you try to read the narrative as it stands. One version says the Flood lasted 40 days; the other says 150. One says the waters came from rain. Another says it came from the opening of primordial floodgates both above and below the Earth. One version says Noah sent out a dove, three times. The other says he sent out a raven, once. And yes: In one of those stories, the animals come on “two by two.” Does this mean that the author of that version was following the ancient Mesopotamian account that was just discovered? Certainly not. If the goal of the ark is the preservation of the animals, then having a male and female of each is just common sense. And, of course, it’s a quite reasonable space-saving measure. Likewise, the relative age of the Mesopotamian and biblical accounts tells us nothing about their relative authority. Even if we acknowledge, as we probably should, that the biblical authors learned the Flood story from their neighbors - after all, flooding isn’t, and never was, really a pressing concern in Israel - this doesn’t make the Bible any less authoritative. The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history. There is no doubt that the discovery of this new ancient Mesopotamian text is important. But from a biblical perspective, its importance resides mostly in the way it serves to remind us that the Flood story is a malleable one. There are multiple different Mesopotamian versions, and there are multiple different biblical versions. They share a basic outline, and some central themes. But they each relate the story in their own way. The power of the Flood story, for us the canonical biblical version, is in what it tells us about humanity’s relationship with God. But, as always, the devil is in the details. Joel S. Baden is the author of "The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero" and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden. soundoff (5,820 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next »
« Previous entryAngry birds! Pope's peace doves attacked
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
what is the earliest theory of uniformitarianism found?
can anyone find one that predates 2 Peter Ch 3 vs 4
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
therefore, did lyell and hutton really do anything besides borrow the theory from the prophecy of Peter?
Perhaps you've missed the other two places where I stated that scientists such as Lyell do the hard experimental work. It is nothing to make a statement that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation". There is no value in making the statement. The value comes from doing the work. And as I've also stated, it's not even a true statement. I mentioned the bombardment Earth experienced early in its history as a geological factor that doesn't exist today as a force in shaping the Earth's formation.
Why are you so obsessed with this uniformitarianism thing? Who cares? You're talking about a book of fiction that's thousands of pages long and this is the ONLY think you can find to argue in your favor?
Austin tends to care about the stupidest of things in order to enhance his next Squish Kitty story...give him time, he'll come back with some claim that circles back to this topic.
http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/uniformitarian.htm
@Austin,
"...all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
Isn't this often used to state that everything stays the same, i.e. evolution doesn't happen, uniformitarianism isn't true?
Lyell was arguing against "catastrophism", i.e. a global flood, as depicted in the Bible.
Uniformitarianism was formulated by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the Scottish geologist James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[1] The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events.[2] wikipedia
you see what i am saying? it WAS NOT FURMULATED BY THESE GUYS.
this is an example of satanic deception. This is absolute rejection of scripture.
this is evidence of evil .
No. It's evidence that you're crazy.
I think it was the dead cat prophecy that confirmed Austins mental instability.
mental stability?
there was a graphic dream of a dead cat.
the next day it was dead.
it was a spiritual revelation. from who ? good or bad spirit is irrelevant. it was spiritual.
Austin,
Yep. What a shame that you REFUSE a chance to PROVE anything.
Did the cat die in the same way as your dream? No?
Fuggedaboudit.
If I believed that you only ever had one dream about a cat dieing, I would give this some credibility.
I had a vivid dream when I was young that I woke up, put my clothes on and got on the school bus and half way to school I woke up and was still in bed. Then guess what happened! I put my clothes on and got on the school bus! I know, I know, you all think I'm clairvoyant now but I have my doubts. They stem from me also having dreams nearly every night about things that I've seen recently or things that have been on my mind so I rather doubt anything supernatural is occurring, though I guess anything is possible and I just might be Professor X...
No, this proved you're an idoit or a liar.
They used the clearly defined principles to explain geological happenings.
the formulated absolutely nothing. it had been formulated LONG BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.
none of you will even admit it. how sad and compulsive you all are in your commitment to holding truth under water. you all hold your foot on the head of truth and think you are changing something.
its the same thing as choosing to let Barabbus go and killing the innocent Christ. this manifestation should wake you up to reality. this is real.
Austin,
How much of the Bible do you BELIEVE and SUPPORT and how much is just PICK-AND-CHOOSE for you?
it is authoritative.
Austin,
Sorry you missed my question. Here it is:
How much of the Bible do you BELIEVE and SUPPORT and how much is just PICK-AND-CHOOSE for you?
it is
Observer
Austin,
Do you have a severe READING COMPREHENSION disability? Is English a second language? What is your PROBLEM?
How much of the Bible do you BELIEVE and SUPPORT and how much is just PICK-AND-CHOOSE for you?
@Austin
I did not say they formulated it. You are an idiot or a liar.
I said they applied it and clearly defined it.
It is Satanic deception that causes you to believe in unsupported, unreliable, irrational stories of the Bible. God exists, but he is hoping you see through this deception, embrace truth, and realize that you don't have to take the Bible at its every literal word to have a relationship with him. But Satan has a hold of you, and you just can't see it.
1 Corinthians 15:9-10, "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
But did he kill anyone?
Acts 8:1-5, "And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them."
Did those Bible verses actually make any relevant point? Do you see now that it is you who have been deceived by Satan and not us? You don't see it? That just shows you how strong he is.
@Austin,
"you see what i am saying? it WAS NOT FURMULATED BY THESE GUYS." – you
"Uniformitarianism was formulated by British naturalists in the late 18th century,..." – your wikipedia quote
correct, the quote is wrong. the quote credits the wrong people with formulating something that they did not formulate. it was all ready formulated.
for·mu·late
ˈfôrmyəˌlāt/
verb
past tense: formulated; past participle: formulated
1.
create or devise methodically (a strategy or a proposal).
they did not create or devise the theory at all , it was on paper permanently in 2 peter ch 3
@Austin,
Ah, I misunderstood your point. Thanks for clarifying.
Austin, reread the definition you gave us. Notice the word "methodicaly". What exactly is methodical about "things continue as they were from the beginning of creation"? It is so non specific to be useless.
Gilgamesh, but if Noah is Gilgamesh then Yahweh is,..
just another copy of a previously imagined god ...
Sam Yaza
Noah would equate to Utnapishtim...the hero who made the boat from the Epic of Gilgamesh. He's the one who was rewarded with immortality for obeying gods command.
Enlil
Jehova is Horus is Mythra is Ra is Thor, etc etc etc.
you are. who coined the theory of uniformitarianism?
This is as pointless as suggesting no one knew gravity existed before an apple fell on Newton's head.
The scientists applied the idea to the real world, they did not just state the obvious.
"Austin
ya well my 30 objective experiences with the fulfillment of my own spiritual revelations that came through dreams, are not conjecture."
Again, I will remind you that I have had hundreds of dreams about having sex with my wife, and they have all come true! Why doesn't that prove my beliefs are true?
"In Dreams"
A candy-colored clown they call the sandman
Tiptoes to my room every night
Just to sprinkle stardust and to whisper:
"Go to sleep, everything is alright"
I close my eyes
Then I drift away
Into the magic night
I softly say
A silent prayer
Like dreamers do
Then I fall asleep
To dream my dreams of you
In dreams...I walk with you
In dreams...I talk to you
In dreams...Your mine
All of the time
We're together
In dreams...In dreams
But just before the dawn
I awake and find you gone
I can't help it...I can't help it
If I cry
I remember
That you said goodbye
To end all these things
And I'll be happy in my dreams
Only in dreams
In beautiful dreams
Roy Orbison
Love it!
The Everley Brothers' "Dream, Dream, Dream" also fits.
"and that dedication goes out to . . . ". No need to mention names.
"I've never had a dream in my life
Because a dream is what you wanna do, but still haven't pursued
I knew what I wanted and did it till it was done
So I've been the dream that I wanted to be since day one!"
repet.itive behaviour with 2 likely conclusions . hey when you try to have a conversation with someone you discredit going in to the conversation, it really is not even a conversation. it's a manipulation.
none of you can assume that what i am telling you is false. you are all hopeful that manipulative deceit and rejection of truth will actually get you somewhere.
it only damages your own self. its simply bad behavior with immoral implications.
I don't assume that you are being false when you say you've had experiences. I do assume that the explanation lies in neurochemistry or psychology or some such field, and not in religion.
correct it is not in religion. truth is not religion. truth is god's.
the rejection of God leads you to say , that sovereign transmissions or revelations, come from neuro chemistry.
try the correct truth about psychic or promonition. That God knows the future. and that there are many spirits , from one father of all , that can release this information.
1 cor 12
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit
"That God knows the future. and that there are many spirits , from one father of all , that can release this information"
So your god knew it created a piece of junk when it created Adam, that Adam would fail, it would have to kill everything it created and start again, then creat itself a son to kill so it could get itself out of the mess it created. Yeah...that is one dumb god.
I don't have to assume what you're saying is false. We KNOW what you're saying is false. We KNOW that the bible is fiction.
jake, you are existing in the plane of evil. don't say no one warned you. you are on the attack for the sake of satanic evil and deception.
Austin,
Why is it beyond the MENTAL CAPACITY of so many believers to understand that atheists and agnostics don't believe in your devil either?
"none of you can assume that what i am telling you is false. you are all hopeful that manipulative deceit and rejection of truth will actually get you somewhere.
it only damages your own self. its simply bad behavior with immoral implications."
So the fact you reject other religions and their visions/prophecies, gods, means you have bad behavior and are immoral. LMAO!
no . Satan fell out of heaven, right after he was created by Christ.
he started false religion to deceive YOU. and he is a god of this world. satan is also supernatural.
Sorry, Austin, it is YOU who have been deceived by Satan. There's a lot of people worried about you. Satan is causing you to believe in unsupported, unreliable, irrational stories of the Bible. God exists, but he is hoping you see through this deception, embrace truth, and realize that you don't have to take the Bible at its every literal word to have a relationship with him. But Satan has a hold of you, and you just can't see it.
Yep. If you can assume that Satan inspired all the other religions to be distractions, surely you have to at least consider the notion that he might have inspired yours, while the true one could be any one of the other thousand or so belief systems (or none of them) out there. There's no way to no for sure that your choice is the right choice. My view that the bible is inspired by Satan as a trick, is just as valid as your view that it was inspired by Jehovah or Yahweh.
The Noah's Ark story may have been the first work of science fiction.
Fantasy
Horror too.
Science fiction is fantasy.
There's usually a bit of science in science fiction
But not all Fantasy is science fiction-
But where does Genesis fit ?
Tom, Tom, the Other One,
It's the total disregard for all the laws of science that should qualify it as science fiction.
Pornography?
But it can feel really good. That's a fantasy argument.
question for Christians please:
If god's design was to have jesus crucified to die for our sins then why do Christians speak so badly of judas when he helped it all to happen. Shouldn't you all be thanking him for getting it done? Shouldn't he be a hero in the bible?
Acts 2:22-24
"“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
The theological concept known as Concurrence refers to the coterminous actions of God and human beings. We are creatures with a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the causal power that we exert is only secondary. God’s sovereign providence stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills.
Judas was a wicked man, but God used his wickedness to accomplish His purpose in salvation.
thanks!
"He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills.".
Let's assume I have a choice to make between A and B. God's will is for me to choose A. My will is to choose B. If my will is secondary and I choose A, how does this not violate my will?
(Ignoring that free will may be an illusion anyway.)
The Biblical term "free will" is nothing like the secular definition. The secular world says that "free will" means that I have the freedom to choose whatever I want, either A or B. The Bible tells us that we have the freedom to choose whatever we want, A or B, but we only want A, so we will always choose A.
"...and you were dead in your transgressions and sins..."
Jonathan Edwards wrote a great book on this topic called "The Freedom of the Will."
Lawrence of Arabia,
Please list verses where the Bible says what you said.
The foundation of the compatibilistic concept of free will is the means by which “will” is defined. From a theological viewpoint, the definition of the will is viewed in light of the revealed, biblical truths of original sin and the spiritual depravity of man. These two truths render the definition of “will” in regard to fallen man as “captive to sin” (Acts 8:23), a “slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:16-17) and subject only to its “master,” which is sin (Romans 6:14). As such, although the will of man is “free” to do as it wishes, it wishes to act according to its nature, and since the nature of the fallen will is sinful, every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, cf. Genesis 8:21). He, being naturally rebellious to that which is spiritually good (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14), “is bent only on rebellion” (Proverbs 17:11). Essentially, man is “free” to do as he wishes, and he does just that, but man simply cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. What man “wills” to do is subject to and determined solely by his nature.
I have a choice to make between A and B. I want A more than I want B. I choose A. If A is God's will, I don't really have a choice at all, do I? If B is God's will, then I choose B despite the fact that I want A more than B. If you say that no, I would choose B becaus I want B more than A, then God is implanting the desire, and I again don't have any choice.
I am deciding between taking a job at Company A or at Company B. I decide on Company A. I don't make this decision because it is "against my nature" to take the job at Company B. I make this decision based on salary, benefits, position, location, people, etc. I repeat, if it was God's will that I take the job at Company A, then it wasn't my decision at all, there is no room for my own free will.
Lawrence of Arabia,
So the Bible doesn't actually spell out what you claim, but it is, like so much else, a matter of personal interpretation.
"every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually”
Nice black-and-white picture of the world. Pure fantasy. Have you ever heard of hardened criminals in prison attacking others for child molesting, etc. "Only evil continually"? Nonsense.
1 Corinthians 2:14
a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
"a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him"
Wow! There IS something in the Bible I agree with.
a matter of personal interpretation
---
LoA doesn't interpret the bible, he just reads it. If others disagree with him on the meaning of a passage, clearly they are interpreting and not simply reading. The bible interprets itself.
" He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills."
Of course you know, this wiil go wrong sometimes. Free will means we will not always follow god's path for us.
So this omnipotent, omniscient being who created a global flood to rid the world of wicked people actually used a wicked person to achieve what any self-respecting omnipotent, omniscient being could do with a snap of its fingers? Am I the only one that finds this ridiculous?
Also for years, christians blamed jews for Jesus's demise – yet it was supposedly god's plan and Jesus was only inconvenienced for a few days.
Ridiculous that God works through a means? I can't answer you WHY God chooses to work out His plan through the means of humanity, but He does.
An omnipotent, omniscient being could do anything. Therefore the methods claimed really make no sense; it's not as though there are no more Jews or that Christianity is the only religion. The Jesus thing didn't really achieve much especially for the convoluted method. There is still no objective evidence of a personal god.
LofA
Caught in yet another lie ..."And I'll say this one more time...I don't interpret the bible. I don't have the authority to do that. I simply read it. The bible interprets itself." So why all the editorial comment. My god you are so obtuse.
"So why all the editorial comment. My god you are so obtuse."
-----
If you do not believe in God, then why are you appealing to Him as a validation of what you are attempting to say?
And I list the editorial simply as a study not. I can list more scriptures that lay out the idea of concurrence if you wish...
The story of Joseph, Assyria, the rod of God's anger, and the crucifixion of Jesus are all good examples of concurrence, and I can lay them out in detail if you wish.
Heh, CQ could have been a poet and said "Oh my Zeus, you are so obtuse"!
LofA
I am neither a theist, atheist or agnostic but a deist, quit jumping to conclusions. My god may very well be just a scientific explanation to the creation of the universe and the many and various life forms that we will eventually discover in this or a parallel universe/dimension. BTW you keep recommending books that explain the original mythical bible, why are they needed if the bible interprets itself? If you stop reading that crap your head may get right with reality.
Charm,
Because God chooses to reveal Himself through various means. One of those means is through the preaching of the word by godly men. And Jonathan Edwards was a preacher whose books have guided me to deeper understandings of God's word.
LofA
Forgot to mention that Steven Hawking has just written a paper that some of his conclusions/theories on black holes are more than likely wrong, a scientist that can admit a mistake. Now having someone like you or a Christian apologist to actually admit that evidence shows their beliefs are even slightly incorrect would be akin to finding a whole new set of Dead Sea Scrolls. You can never admit you are wrong or the whole house of cards falls apart, which it is slowly doing anyway.
Charm,
I've been wrong PLENTY of times... That's what being a student of theology is all about – making mistakes and learning from them. It's the Word of God that is never failing.
LofA
Really you were wrong, where, when, never on this blog. You are the most arrogant pompous poster here, of course I could be wrong. Pope Francis..."Catholics should not be arrogant in insisting that they alone posses the truth." But with you LofA you claim there is only one truth and that is yours, have you not claimed that?
Charm,
I only preach the Bible. Therefore if something in this world stands in stark contrast to its teachings, the Bible is the measurement for right and wrong, therefore that which stands in opposition to the Bible stands in error, and it is the preacher's job to call that out for the purpose of repentance.
LofA
Are you one of the hustlers that earn your daily from the peddling of the myth? Authors, priests, ministers, mullahs, rabbis monks, parsons, TV fundies, etc, all making a killing, living the good life. Didn't you say you taught theology, do you get paid; that would explain a great deal?
Charm,
No, I am a layman, but as a saint, I am a priest of the Most High God – as are all of His saints.
Dear atheists,
Your secular religion does not impress me. Please stop.
asinine
Repeating it again does not make it true troll. Go get your mommy to change your diaper.
Dd is spot on
Oh and I was so hoping my atheism was going to impress you, I guess since that didn't work i'll stop not believing and pick your amazing deity with the capri pants and the hairy chest hanging from that giant stipper pole cross they have in most Churches...or not.
"Repeating it again does not make it true troll."
Then why do you repeat again and again that atheism is a religion? Ah, perhaps because it is you that is the troll. I hope by responding, I've given you a nice little morsel to eat.
Sungrazer... Just like every other religion, atheism is a FAITH based on a set of non-provable beliefs.
Just like every other religion, atheism claims to be the ONLY true teaching.
Just like many other religion (Christianity or Islam), atheism was and still is promoted to a political ideology in some countries where practicing other religions was considered a state crime.
I can continue but I'd like to let you explain what exactly makes atheism different from other religions?
Thinker, Atheism is not a religion – it is the lack of belief in deities. There is no objective evidence for the personal deities worshipped by religions.
Atheism is the lack of a belief. How can that be a religion? There is no object of worship, no pronouncements, no creeds, no sacred texts.
"Sungrazer... Just like every other religion, atheism is a FAITH based on a set of non-provable beliefs."
False. Atheists just don't believe in YOUR religion or others presented by humans. Ask an atheist what they DO believe and you'll get a variety of answers. It's not a religion. It's not a system. It's simply lacking in one belief. Saying atheism is a religion, is like saying not playing football is a sport. Atheists can follow a whole variety of belief systems, including Buddhism.
"Just like every other religion, atheism claims to be the ONLY true teaching."
Could you please quote me the doctrine you are referring to?
"I can continue but I'd like to let you explain what exactly makes atheism different from other religions?"
Because it's not a religion? There is no dogma, no doctrine, no worship service, they don't live their lives praising the big bang. It is simply one thing they do not believe. Like I said, ask an atheist what they DO believe, don't pigeon hole them based on what they don't. Do you believe in Zeus?
Dear L.
Your trolling impresses no one – religious or not.
*goes to find Toll-B-Gone*
L,
If you choose to participate here you are going to hear all sides of the issues. If you prefer not to, there are many Christian sites where you will not have to hear it.
@L
"Your secular religion does not impress me. Please stop."
Your lack of knowledge doesn't impress me. Please stop promoting ignorance.
Sorry it's not a religion and secularism is a good thing, it's not divisive....you should join us, it is truly enlightening.
Join your cult??? No thanks
Wow, you have never used a dictionary have you??? I guess they don't have those available in the trailer parks...such a pity, definitions of words are important.
Come on! You're so weak now. It'll make you strong. You can be like your imaginary gods.
So, refusing to believe in god is a cult, while going to a weekly prayer service saying the same prayers over and over again, while participating in rituals that invoke eating human flesh and drinking blood is perfectly A-OK. Gotcha.
Found a picture of L.
This is not a persuasive argument for the existence of your god.
Oh, and if you can't stand to see your beliefs questioned, feel free to leave. No one is forcing you to come on here. You know what they say about heat and the kitchen.
Pete, lyell and hutton get attention. but not peter for the theory of uniformitarianism. this is proof of selfish bias on the part of God rejectors.
This is proof of blatant selfish motives and thus the denial of biblical truth. and there is no way to argue out of the scientific community doing just that by honoring lyell and hutton with the theory of Uniformitarianism.
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3 disclosed the theory of uniformitarianism.
can you admit that?
@Austin,
No. Earth did not exist for ~9 billion years, as your quote suggests.
how old is the universe?
~13 billion
I can't remember if it's closer to 13 or 14? I thought most models show it to be around 13.8... I think? I think there's a model that shows it to be about one billion years younger, but most scientists tend to follow the others that show it is slightly older.
@Cpt. Obvious,
I think you are correct.
You just claimed to offer proof that we think the bible is a work of fiction. I agree, the bible is a work of fiction. What is your point?
uniformitarianism is the prediction of scoffers that scoff at Noah.
I'll ask again, what is your point? Remember, the bible is a work of fiction, so please leave anything pertaining to it out if you'd like to be taken seriously.
the point is the scientific community is a theif and deliberate liar in saying that lyell and hutton coined the uniformitarianism theory,
and this is manifestation of deviant character.
by the way, I have personal proof of God, and the Holy Spirit who communicates through the Word of God.
Revelation 19:13 ►
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
Scoffers...big deal...create an impossible story then predict that people will scoff...that does not make the story any more true, it just shows that they knew that it would draw fire since it is so impossible.
no it does not. it means that the scientific community refuses to give credit where it is due.
it reveals a black ball agenda. that even though Peter gave us the theory, the scientific community will prop up lyell and hutton instead.
Your "personal proof of god" is what psychologists call delusion. That's honestly not meant to be mean, it is just a factual statement.
there is almost nothing known historically about this "Peter"? It is obvious that the early church wanted to use his name on a lot of things.
give some verification for the writings of this "Peter" outside of the Bible. But no pressure. He's still well on his way in clenching today's first award for the Fundy Method of Inquiry & Verification!
Fundy Method of Inquiry & Verification!
the method is the baptism of the supernatural Holy Spirit. it is not the footnotes or "about the author" section in the book.
John 15:26-27 (New International Version)
Page Options
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email
John 15:26-27
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
Wow – Austin crushes the competition in record time! Congrats Austin on being today's first winner of the award for
the Fund Method of Inquiry & Verification! For those new to the Fundy Method of Inquiry & Verification, here is a graphic example:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIj4rLYo0c&w=640&h=360]
Come on Austin – did you see the Article posted to you about wa wa land ?
hold on, i am dizzy.
Austin: You're dizzy??? Really??? We could have told you that months and months ago when you started spreading your delusions on-line!
"biblical truth" ... now there's an oxymoron!
To be fair, there is a lot of true and wisdom in the bible.
sure. cheap shot on my part.
though there is so much untrue and unwise, that it could hardly be the word of an all powerful god.
"a collection of stories by ignorant bronze age desert dwelling goat herders" covers it nicely.
Peter was illiterate, so one of the many scare tactics of the early church was to write your Biblical "law" and then attach the name of an important character from your story as the author – Peter, for instance.
Peter re did the major theme in Jude. would that not mean that he was literate and that he studied and had it memorized?
really did Matthew Mark Luke and John walk with Jesus? what about Peter, wasn't he a disciple?
that is conjecture
2 Peter was written between 90 and 100 CE, long after Peter's death. Here is an interest note about 1 Peter:
The author claims to be the apostle Peter (1:1), but most scholars think it was forged. Illiterate (Acts 4.13), Aramaic-speaking, first century, Palestinian Jews didn't write letters in Greek
ya well my 30 objective experiences with the fulfillment of my own spiritual revelations that came through dreams, are not conjecture.
I have experienced the Holy Spirit, and ministry of angels. Angels are ministering spirits that look intently upon the revealing of spiritual reality and truth. They have never experienced salvation,and so there with you, you have angels watching you contemplate the truth.
Seek the Holy spirit.
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
you are just trying to get out of the point made about referencing lyell and hutton, when you just admitted that the book came in 90 AD.
how can you avoid the point i am trying to make. also, all of your opinions about the authorship are coming from people who are way outside having any relevence at all. who cares what some person says. you think that person is infalllible? why is that , because you also want to reject God's infallibility.
Again, the "Word" of God is another name for Jesus Christ. You are critiquing Jesus Christ Himself and His authority as God to put the bible in place.
So you don't understand the difference between dreams and reality, but you want to get into an intellectual debate? Hmm, no wonder you're getting pounded.
Austin,
If you had this mystical power, you'd prove it and make predictions for everyone to check.
But you WON'T. End of discussion.
Every now and then you read a story about a mother who drowns her kids in a bathtub because god told her too. Do you consider that evidence for the existence of your god? If not, why your experiences and not hers? If so, what kind of god does that make him?
"ya well my 30 objective experiences with the fulfillment of my own spiritual revelations that came through dreams, are not conjecture."
Again Austin 20% of people on this planet have dreams that come true religious or not, that is not proof of your god or your religion. You are also forgetting that in the past five years you should have had 1825 dreams if 30 of them come true that means it's about 0.01%, not very good proof either.
Austin, I did respond to your point about Lyell. You said it was an example of anti scientifc behavior. I asked for clarification.
"all of your opinions about the authorship are coming from people who are way outside having any relevence at all. who cares what some person says. you think that person is infalllible?"
They are called Biblical scholars. This is what they do. Many are theologians. And there is quite a lot of agreement on authorship, dates, and so forth, in so far as they can be determined.
2 Peter
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
bam. the theory of uniformitarianism.
what did lyell and hutton do?
"what did lyell and hutton do?"
Experiment work. Make predictions. Gather evidence. Present it for confirmation or disconfirmation. Things scientists do.
The statement "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" doesn't hold much value. And it's not even true.
Peter of the Bible?? Did he do experimental work? Publish papers? I haven't read this chapter you speak of, but I don't think I need to know that it is insufficient for any credit to be handed out, and I doubt it says what you say it does. Besides, modern geologists recognize that not all factors which shape the Earth today did so in the past, such as plate tectonics. Likewise, not everything that did so in the past does so today, such as extreme bombardment from asteroids and the like.
sungrazer, perfect example of anti scientific behaviour. don't trust your doubt. it just mislead you.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is a perfect example of anti scientifc behavior?
Biblical fallacies maybe but no such thing as Biblical truth.
Do the nurses know you're using their computer again?
Madtown: "LOL. The EXTREME arrogance is in someone thinking they actually "know" the will of the father."
Of course we know the will of Father. Jesus came to do Father's will. Nothing He did was of his own but what He saw Father doing.
Why did Jesus tell us when we pray we should ask that God's will be done here on earth as it is done in heaven?
We're ambassadors for Christ 2Cor 5:20. We only do what Jesus did, and say what He says.
(An American ambassador in another country cannot do his/her own thing, they must act on behalf of the nation they're
representing at all times).
We are the light of the world – men should see our good works and glorify our Father. We do this out of Son-ship because we love Father.
God is always with us. His Holy Spirit lives in us. We're in the Father, we're in the Son. Where ever we go Father goes.
This isn't arrogance. It's not us, but Christ who dwells in us.
Just do the word of God. In so doing we establish the Kingdom of God.
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
We were created to be light, love and life.
If you really believe that what you're saying is reasonable, I seriously advise you to seek mental help. I am absolutely serious. No sane person could think that was a rational post.
1 Corinthians 2:14.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Let me translate into english for you:
Look, I know it doesn't make sense, just believe it anyway and give god credit for explaining it.
Alias, no one is saved until the day of judgment. people backslide all the time, and the Holy Spirit is God, who faithfully redeems us and brings us in to repentance. you can not look to knowledge to say ye or ne.
you must seek the experience of salvation, and this is a real thing.
"So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh - for if you are living according to the flesh you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him that we may indeed be glorified with Him." (Romans 8:12-17).
i have experienced the Spirit, who bears witness within our spirit, that He is present.
Jake, if you seed the Holy Spirit, He becomes objective reality supernaturally.
seek
Uh huh...maybe you two could car pool to the looney bin?
Sorry but "supernatural" and "objective reality" are direct contradictions in terms. When you believe something, yes, it becomes reality IN YOUR HEAD, but that doesn't make it objectively true, nor does it mean you are being visited by some magical holy spirit.
Cleary it makes sense to those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
Since it makes no sense to you, either ask Father for the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truths and bring all things back into your memory, or you can unfortunately (I don't recommend) choose to walk on in darkness.
Please don't show your nakedness.
You realize how crazy you sound, right? Seriously, I hope you're locked up for your own good.
"Cleary it makes sense to those with ears to hear and eyes to see."
You forgot the end of the sentence. It should read "Cleary it makes sense to those with ears to hear and eyes to see, but no brain to think about it logically."
Usually when a person doesn't know a thing nor understands it... they should remain silent.
You can only speak of your reality... which I will not judge.
"There is no man alive who can define the operations of faith in a man's heart"
Words are important... that's why I choose not to use my words to curse a person. You should try doing the same.
In any event, I reject all your negative pronunciations.
Jesus' Beloved,
Only a fool cannot see the Emperor's fine golden-thread raiment!
Your Emperor is naked.
Would a real smart god send the raving, delusional likes of you and Austin to be its ambassadors?
Frayed Knot - you know what the Bible says about a fool.
You are a man... a created being. Do you think it's your place to take on the creator of the universe?
Ponder this... why wasn't Wisdom granted a habitation amongst men?
Anybody can say anything about invisible and undetectable beings. It's not like there's any proof that could contradict what you say. Santa Claus is an idiot who smells of elderberries. God is the most horrific terrorist azzhole to ever be conceived in the mind of men. What, is somebody going to give me proof to the contrary? Yeah, right.
Jesus' Beloved
"Frayed Knot – you know what the Bible says about a fool."
A quite old tactic, which sometimes even works – declaring that those who do not believe your story are 'fools'. Nobody wants to be considered 'dumb' for not seeing the Emperor's new clothes, or a 'bas.tard' for not seeing the Sultan's new turban, or a 'cuckold' for not being able to see the Miller's gold thumb.
Even Joseph Smith used it when he gathered his 'witnesses' to his golden plates. He told them that only those with 'true faith' would be able to 'see' them.
The ancient, primitive Hebrews who originated those Bible stories were quite adept at manipulative mind-games.
Jake
I liked the post from Jesus' Beloved and she used scripture in her reply which is biblical.
If you have not read the New Testament then words may seen dated. I have read some translations, such as the Message, which rephrase verses in modern terms but I like the old style better.
Jesus Beloved did a great job answering the question what is the will of God. Those who find it overly complicated can simply observe the model presented by Jesus himself. If we used Jesus as our model we could be assured we are in Gods will. Certainly that does not mean we are go into the nearest temple and turn tables over but we should respect prayer and Gods house of prayer. Knowing the will of God begins with prayer as this brings you close to God. The closer you are to God the closer you are to Gods will for your life.
If you cannot follow his simple model then listen to his words and you will see what it is God has for you. Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself". Notice the order; love God love neighbor. You cannot love God or anyone for that matter if you do not engage in a personal relationship with them. Guess what, that begins with prayer which is communication with God. Now, when God and you are communicating what you do and who you are begins to reflect Gods love for all creation. You will find yourself in the center of Gods will for your life.
Fred, thanks for your additional input.
Blessings.
"God and you are communicating what you do and who you are begins to reflect Gods love for all creation. You will find yourself in the center of Gods will for your life."
That's why earth is going into the toliet and the Christians are still just as greedy and selfish as everyone else. LOL!
Right...but we know for a fact that the bible is a work of fiction and it also seems pretty obvious that there is no god that resembles anything like that of the bible. At a minimum, we can agree there is no evidence of such a god. So, given those things, why are you trying to make a point using fictional books and far-fetched concepts?
Could you please use the reply function to put your responses in the appropriate thread and not start a new thread? It makes it easier to connect your response to the original conversation and keeps the context clear. Thanks.
Of course we know the will of Father. Jesus came to do Father's will
----
Oh, of course you know. You're so special, God decided to share his message with you, and others you think are worthy enough. Again....what about the people God created who've never heard the name Jesus? Why doesn't God tell them his will, so they also have a chance to know it? Could it be......because christianity is NOT the will of God, and if it was it would indeed be available to all of humanity? Yes, I believe that's it. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Madtown
"Oh, of course you know. You're so special"
=>Those who twisted the good minds of the people of Germany had the same misconception of the Jews. We are not special in the context of being greater than you somehow. This goes against everything Jesus ever said. Even Paul said all have sinned and fall short.
"God decided to share his message with you, and others you think are worthy enough."
=>it is not this way. Actually, it is impossible to reflect the love of God if we think in these terms. We are as filthy rags as the old expression goes. Somehow we have failed as our humility is important to God and should be evident to those we contact. It is through recognition of just how unworthy we are that God can begin a good work in us.
"Why doesn't God tell them his will, so they also have a chance to know it?"
=>Exactly what do you not understand about my prior posts that addresses why they were not given the opportunity?
"Could it be......because christianity is NOT the will of God, and if it was it would indeed be available to all of humanity?"
=>I think you do not understand Christianity or what the 8 basic characteristics of Christianity are.
fred
We are not special in the context of being greater than you somehow. "This goes against everything Jesus ever said."
--–
Not surprisingly, you completely miss the point. I only say "special", because you are aware of christianity. Other human beings are not aware of it. You believe the bible is the work of God, and that christianity is the only way to follow for humans to attain salvation. With these 2 things being true, either God can't get his message out to everyone, or he only gives it out selectively to people like you, meaning you're "special". I don't think this, I know you're not special. I'm just wondering how you could possibly think that God would demand his creations follow something, but give them no indication that thing exists?
"We are as filthy rags as the old expression goes."
---–
Too bad you feel this way about yourself, you shouldn't. I don't feel that way about myself. I won't subject myself to the self-loathing that religion wants me to feel, I see through it.
"Exactly what do you not understand about my prior posts that addresses why they were not given the opportunity?"
----–
Are you for real? Are you dense? You're denying that there are humans RIGHT NOW on the planet with no knowledge of Christ or christianity?!? Get your nose out or your bible and get into the real world.
"I think you do not understand Christianity"
----
I understand it's a creation of the human mind, and therefore very fallible.
Madtown
"either God can't get his message out to everyone, or he only gives it out selectively"
=>Correct, it is selective. Regardless of the method of delivery the message can only be received by those God chooses
"I'm just wondering how you could possibly think that God would demand his creations follow something, but give them no indication that thing exists?"
=>God never does that period. At a minimum if "that thing exists" you would have something gnawing at you regarding why you are here. After that it all goes to motive. If your motive is to reject then you look for any reason. Some even lean on science which flat out states scientific method cannot prove or disprove God putting them back to where they began their search.
"I won't subject myself to the self-loathing that religion wants me to feel, I see through it."
=>Even Martin Luther finally figured it out. We cannot meet the minimum standards of holiness on our own. God simply by his grace accepts us when we admit only in Christ can we approach such burning holiness.
"You're denying that there are humans RIGHT NOW on the planet with no knowledge of Christ or christianity?!?"
=>ok, perhaps you missed my posts. We are judged by what we were given. In some cases it is best when a person has never heard the gospel.
=>Jesus said "IAM the way" . Some may be confused about that. When Jesus took away the sins of the world it was not just the sins of select people it was the sins of the world. All sin all time, past, present and future. Sin has been forgiven thus death has no hold upon our soul.
Those who reject Christ will be judged upon what they were given, those who reject God will be judged based on what they were given and those who did not know are judged by every word that proceeds from their lips. Why, because it is what comes out of a man that defiles him (that is scripture for the essence of who you are eventually is clear by your actions as your soul touched the physical "natural" existence we observe and moved through it i.e. our life journey).
WHITE WASHED SEPULCHERS
here is another question. if it took humans about 10,000 years to invent the combustion engine, then why are there not ufo's flying in from other planets if the earth is billions of years old?
Austin, do you walk to school or take your lunch?
if the earth of billions of years old and the universe as such, then the statistics would be over whelming for the probability of such space ships.
how so? are you considering time and distance at all?
austin you forget one major cause for aliens not showing up....................................
who in their right mind would invite religious fruit cakes into space? i mean seriously i wouldn't want planet to planet jehovah witness' telling my kids about their planets evil gods. XD it would be tooo much work to ease my kids away from those nightmarish stories you folks like to sell.
and Austin, time not just in regard to how much time to travel, but in regard to differences in time with respect to development, evolutions of other possible life-containing planets elsewhere in the universe...
exactly billy, in contrast to 10,000 years, BILLIONS OF YEARS?
@Austin,
"if the earth of billions of years old and the universe as such, then the statistics would be over whelming for the probability of such space ships."
Don't be ridiculous. You can not know the "probability" of such ships if you don't even know if such ships are possible.
of course they are possible. if man started writing 10000 years ago appromiximately and we have come this far, then the chances for a bigger planet with additional resources and an older age are huge.
I am saying that since it has not arrived to us, then this gives us more reason to believe that we are a special creation. other wise there would be visitors and transportation to other planets, from the beginning of our time.
While I agree that chances of other intelligent life somewhere, sometime in this or other possible universes would seem to be high, time, space and lack of evidence prevent us from arriving at the simple conclusion you have. I suppose somewhere in the earth's history, maybe it was visited, maybe even multiple times with no lingering evidence. But it should also not be surprising if it wasn't. Here's another aspect. Think also of island groups in the ocean where very small ones are known, but never traveled to because they are too small and would server no purpose for those navigating around them. Now think about that in relation to planets in the universe that may or may not hold the interest of some other kind of intelligence.
@Austin,
"of course they are possible. if man started writing 10000 years ago appromiximately and we have come this far, then the chances for a bigger planet with additional resources and an older age are huge."
You are assuming a rate of advance that is not in evidence.
You can not know the probability of an invention until you know how it works in the first place, which you don't. This is similar to supposed "probabilities" that life began from non-life, abiogeneis, i.e. you can not know.
You can not know? do they exist? would they if the universe was a trillion years old? would they have not made it yet?
look at the hubble space telescope! look what we little humans see after 10,000 years.
You can not know? do they exist? would they if the universe was a trillion years old? would they have not made it yet?
look at the hubble space tele.scope! look what we little humans see after 10,000 years.
Is this where Austin starts to drool?
@Austin,
l"ook at the hubble space tele.scope! look what we little humans see after 10,000 years."
What's the phrase used by stock brokers? 'Past performance is no guarantee of future returns'
You are extrapolating beyond what you have reason to. I'm not saying that interstellar travel won't happen, but to state probabilities for its occurrence is unfounded.
This line of reasoning proves that Austin has faith in science.
Now, let's all take that out of context and say stupid things.
@Alias,
lol
i do both.
Sold your sole the company store Austin !
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo&w=640&h=360]
Get the most recent updates from the Origins Project by following us on Facebook /ASUOriginsProject and Twitter @asuORIGINS. Contact origins.project@asu.eduwith questions.
A combustin cannot feasibly be used to travel to another planet. At least, not if want to survive the trip.
LMFAO!
XD
Austin
First, you won't move in space with an internal combustion engine, and second, how do you know aliens haven't visited?
Your god could just be a visiting alien after all.
Austinnn. Did YOU PERSONALLY visited every square inch of the surface of this planet? If you did not ou will understand how come the aliens did not visit every planet in the Universe.
maybe and maybe not probably.
I don't think you grasp how big the universe is. It's beyond comprehension, and that is putting it mildly. And the energy requirements to do any serious space travel are tremendous. It would require extraordinary technology. This is assuming a civilization survives to overcome these obstacles. Plus, to encounter these civilizations, they would need to overlap with ours. If any buzzed the Earth 10 million years ago, humans wouldn't have been around to notice. And/or maybe humanity will die out before the next would-be encounter. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but at least you could increase your understanding first before making simplistic statements.
The universe is HUGE, and even our nearest star is just over 4 light years away, which means traveling at the speed of light it would take 4 years to reach. Now imagine a society that emerges on a system 100 or even 1000 light years away. Even if you COULD travel at the speed of light, what makes you think they'd try to travel for 100-1000 years to this lonely star system out here when there are literally 300 billion or so other stars? To travel from one end of our galaxy to another would take 450,000 years at the speed of light. People just simply don't realize the amount of empty space between stars. This is why even, when our galaxy "collides" with Andromeda, there will very likely be very little actual collisions. Saying that it's likely a an advanced culture from another star system would have found us by now is a bit silly when you think of it. And also if they did, why would they even stop by after seeing how utterly stupid most of the people are here in comparison.
@L
The bible has logical and factual errors.
You accept this book as accurate on blind faith. I reject this book because it is flawed.
Who is the fool?
Can you NAME ONE BOOK that has no flaws at all and is, therefore, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH?
If you can then we'll use this book as the new Bible.
Dr Seuss wrote some books that may not have had any errors, but I don't plan to use them to start a religion.
Or is your point that it is okay for your god to not be able to produce a book without errors?
My point is that EVERY book written by us humans contains some flaws (including the Bible, the Quran and other similar books). This, however, should be be the reason for global rejection of all books.
Read "Should NOT be the reason for global rejection of all books."
Not all books claim to be the perfect word of god.
It is silly to hold all books to te same standard.
Or did you mean that the bible is just another book written by people?
In that case we agree.
Alias... Again, My point is that EVERY book written by us humans contains some flaws (including the Bible, the Quran and other similar books). I'm ABSOLUTELY SURE that ALL books we humans use was written by humans. In my opinion, it is pretty silly to reduce the God to a machine running a program written in some 2000-years-old book.
Well at least you aren't claiming its god's word. That's the first step on your road to recovery.
a new journal, with no entries, is perfect.
what is up with all your claims about Satan's influence?
austin
YOU claim god inspired the bible. Looking at the history of the bible, it seems far more likely that it weas inspired by satan.
Isn't it just the trick that satan would pull?
If you look at it objectively, the "evil" that belief in the bible has unleashed on the world, makes it seem FAR more likely that the whole thing ( and other religions such as islam) are actually inspired by satan.
Not meaning it as insulting, it just makes much more sense.
Look at all of the flaws in the bible ( I know you think it is perfect but please.....)
Look at all the death and destruction caused by belief in the bible.
Would your god create a thing such as the bible that is so easily corrupted, cannot be interpretted the same way by any two people which is bound to cause a great deal of friction...
Look at it....I believe that if this satan exists, the bible is his work. Makes far more sense than any "perfect" being having anything to do with it.
You must admit...it is a possibility.
igaftr, you believe that Satan might exist?
austin
Might? maybe, but I see it differently.
Having studied the bible and MANY other literary works by men, you have two classic characters.
One is the perfect man, the living embodiment of all of the potential "good" a person can do, and satan the living embodiment of the potential "evil" one can do.
Taking each character as metaphors, one would then have to look at the reason for the bible to be written, which is simply writing down how these men thought everyone else should behave, thus trying to make everyone behave the way they said, which in itself is a self serving purpose, and therefore nefarious.
Considering that, EVERY action one takes can be either satan-like or christ-like depending on what that action is....helping a homeless man find a safe bed...Jesus-like...robbing a liquor store...satan-like.
Those who created the bible were more satan-like, so it makes more sense to me that satan exists as a metaphor within us all, as does Jesus...for aren't we all the son of god in that respect?
Considering all of the problems that belief in the bible has caused, its effects have been far more satan like.
I'm not just trying to get a negative reastion, but rather showing a more pragmatic and likely far more real take on this. The bible is a work of men, but each man has satan and jesus battling it out....do I do "good" or do I do "bad"
problems that the bible has caused?
what problem has the bible caused?
austin...what kind of damage has the bible caused? seriously??
The Crusades.
The spanish inquisition
Wars, murders, witch hunts ( when there were no witches)
Faster sread of diseases
Major friction between believers and everyone else, including other believers ( protestants vs. catholics for example)
Justification for centuries of slavery
Attempted genocides
Passing of laws in these United States, limiting the rights of non-believers.
Attempts to teach dogma as fatc has caused centuries of scientific breakthroughs.
If the church leaders had found out what Leonardo da Vinci was up to they would have had him killed ( for MANY different reason)
Belief in the bible gave license to the Catholic church to cover up the abuse of children, believing that "gods law" is above Mans Laws.
On and on and on...
It may make for a nice mental crutch for an individual, but as a whole christianity has been a blight on humanity.
correction
"Attempts to teach dogma as fatc has caused centuries of scientific breakthroughs."
should have been caused centuries of limiting scientific breakthroughs ( as with Leonardo, they would have killed him had he been found stealing and disecting bodies, even though the resulting doc.umentation is still being used today, and helped humanity in unfathomable ways)( ps...they also would have killed Leonardo if they had found out he was gay.)
it is not flawed. and that is why people have communication with the Holy Spirit.
Revelation 19:13 ►
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the" Word was God." 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
2 tm 3:16 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the servant of Goda may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
"it is not flawed."
Let's say that sometimes the objective reality differs from what is written in the Bible....
then there would be no experience of the Holy Spirit.
That is what people do not lack, the confirmation of the Spirit that bears the truth. and this has become objective. we know when the bible was written, and we can see the objective facts that many prophecies have been delivered. we can expect the rest soon.
Again, I for one have objective proof of spiritual revelation. I cant translate that in to objective experience for you. But you could seek the Holy Spirit.. People who have this confirmation, understand that you lack the experience.
We encourage you to approach the Holy Spirit on His terms.
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
@23: i would say physics would be the best place to start seeing mathmatically it is flawless. 🙂
@austin: so how exactly did judas die? i know of two versions within your " flawless holy book". not to mention god couldn't even keep track of how many humans he even created in the beginning of the book. XD
": i would say physics would be the best place to start seeing mathmatically it is flawless. "
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but i can assure you that physics (at least today) has an awful lot of "flaws". Incompatibility of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is just one example.
Is that why Dawkins said to Krausse that you have to "throw out common sense if you want to understand this." In speaking to Krausse about how the universe can create itself out of nothing – then he redefined what the word "nothing" means, so that "nothing" actually means "something." (I'm not making this up, these guys are supposed to be the top minds, but they're acting like kindergarteners...)
@23: math is perfect. one plus one will ALWAYS be two. that is flawless, math your new bible.
your welcome for me showing you the way to perfection. XD
LoA
"they are acting like kindergarteners"
I would think that if you have an IQ of 100 ( average), that you would have a hard time understanding one with an IQ of 70.
The same applies in the other direction...these guys have IQ's FAR above the average, so much of what they publish is BEYOND your compprehension...in effect YOU are the kindergartener trying to understand algebra.
Just because YOU cannot faothom what they say, does not mean they aren't making sense.
"Just because YOU cannot faothom what they say, does not mean they aren't making sense."
-----–
I was hoping that someone would respond this way. So, how come that response is permitted when coming from a non-theist, BUT when the tables are turned, and theists tell atheists that "the natural man does not understand the things of God, neither CAN he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" it is somehow not permitted???
I don't think that Krauss should use the word "nothing" or "nothingness" when referring to the closest thing to "nothingness" that we observe---the quantum foam that permeates all of space-–even where it seems that there is "nothing."
I'd like to talk with Krauss about his vocabulary usage because of the stupidity of Christians when they pretend he is saying something that he really isn't saying.
Anyone with an IQ over 100 should know what a poor measure of intelligence IQ is.
LOA: "(I'm not making this up, these guys are supposed to be the top minds, but they're acting like kindergarteners...)"
Not surprising it's a bunch of self-important individuals with egos to match.
All the respecter-of-persons will disagree, but it's the blind leading the blind and unfortunately they will fall into a ditch.
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
LoA
We know intelligence exist...have tools that can approximate levels.
Nothing indicates there are any gods, nor spirits, etc. so since they are not agreed upon things, using the metaphysical is invalid...not the same argument at all. Making an argument based on speculation does not work if the one you are debating does not accept your assertion that the metaphysical has influence in our world.
@Jesus' Beloved,
" Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
As do you, dear. As do you.
"then he redefined what the word "nothing" means, so that "nothing" actually means "something."
It was reality that redefined what we thought of as "nothing" or "empty space" when we found out that it was really something. We now know that nothing doesn't exist, there is no place where there is "nothing" as we had previously defined it.
Jesus Beloved must be forgetting that his god is as invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant as are unicorns. JB cannot provide ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that his god is any more visible, detectable, or relevant than leprechauns.
"Anyone with an IQ over 100 should know what a poor measure of intelligence IQ is."
A common argument brought up by those with low IQ. 😆
here is some prophecy.
zech 11
7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
udas, one of the twelve, had conspired with the chief priests to deliver Jesus to them and had received thirty pieces of silver for his perfidy (Matthew 26:3-5, 14-16). John’s gospel informs us that Judas was the disciple who carried the “money box” containing the common funds of Jesus’ disciples during His public ministry (12:6; see also 13:29). He was also a thief and stole from these funds. He was a greedy man who apparently thought he could profit monetarily from the hatred of the chief priests for Jesus.
Austin,
So what. The guys who wrote "Matthew" and "John" could well have read "Zechariah" (almost guaranteed that they did) and included that little ditty (and others) in their legend. Isn't that special!
Where is the verified backup for this 30 pieces of silver transaction EVER having really happened?
Galileo was put under house arrest by the church because he claimed the earth moved around the sun.
You can either accept what the bible says, or believe galiloe, but not both.
@igaftr
Hey why do you always insist that Satan caused the bible to be written? can we talk about that?
Still having dreams for that Austin ?
people will offer up the words psychic and promonition, but not allow the idea of sovereign status to God.
by the way, Satan goes back and forth from heaven, from talking to God, he comes here to oppress and test people .
Does he ride a Unicorn down to Earth?
Because of all of the evil deeds it has inspired throughout history. Not to mention it makes god look pretty bad also. I, however, think god wrote it and sends the people who take all of it as literal truth to hell for being stupid. It is a test from god, if you can't realize that the Noah's Ark story never happened then you are a moron and god doesn't want anything to do with you.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGggfvJPEiw&w=640&h=360]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_SwD7RveNE&w=640&h=360]
Madtown
The Sermon on the Mount contained some excellent advice and wisdom.
have u gotten a response from the pharisees when they r asked to give examples of that excellent advice and wisdom? no one has. none has the honesty to be vulnerable
CNN is getting good at writing headlines that will get people to read articles.
This discovery had nothing to do with Noah, or the jewish ark. It was a flood story from another region and religion.
I thought adding the word 'troll' into the internet story was good, but this really makes it!
Accuracy doesn't seem to be a big part of journalism on CNN.
On the plus side, with the video attached to the story we at least know what the poster known as lol?? (and many other names) looks like.
If you have the ability to love, to be compassionate and be kind to other people and animals, you have a soul. If you have a habit of hating, are apathetic
, cruel and heartless, you either sold your soul or a troll stole it.
I disagree. That's not a 'soul', that's your ability to show affection. If anyone can prove a soul exsits, we'd be at least one step closer to proving if a 'god' exsits. And nobody's proven either yet.
There's lots of people who have experienced unexplained paranormal activity. Metaphysics is a science. You can even get a degree in it. http://intermetu.com/courses/paranormal/
There are a lot of unexplained things in this world, all perfectly natural.
You can also get a degree in Puppetry from the University of Connecticut, but that doesn't make puppetry a science.
You can get a degree in theology as well. Nevertheless, theology is not a science.
In my book, science is a discipline that can be described mathematically.
Who bought your soul then rebelrose ?
Atheists claim that they never make absurd comments... Yeah right. Darwin awards usually go to people who are clumsy and clueless.
OR who did you sell it too ?
My soul. You can't have it. Get behind me Satan. 🙂
SURE I WILL REBELROSE; makes it easier to push you into the fire first. XD
rebelrose
you might find it (the red horned thingy) in the gray matter between your ears !
Jesus spoke of Noah and the flood. The flood depicted in the bible did not happen.
Jesus was:
a) A liar
b) Not Omniscient
c) a and b
jesus was not born, he was written.
There is enough evidence to support the idea that someone named jusus was put to death.
Now, if he was god and how many people named jesus were alive at the time are different questions ...
You weren't born. You're just a troll.
He is not a troll!
We trolls live under bridges and worship the gold we take from travelers.
Frankly we are getting a little tired of you house dwellers using our title – a title you did nothing to earn.
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Dyslexic doG = Troll. Sorry. 😦
Missing sarcasm and trying to look smart at the same time.
comic gold.
Jesus spoke very little of the flood. Can you post the verses that describe what he said?
But I thought the OT was written by Jesus through God? I've seen that stated here before.
You know that the gospel authors wrote of the alleged flood but you want me to look it up for you?
Go fish
"You have heard it said (Old Testament) but I say (New Testament)".
"Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27)
I think that is all He said.
The Gospel of John has no mention of the flood.
The bible talks about a global flood; jesus talks about a global flood. The flood didn't happen the way that the bible and jesus described. God fail; jesus fail.
Not at all a fail. Especially when Jesus was fond of using parables, which were stories that revealed a truth about human beings and their relationship with their Creator.
Megafail. You have no way to show that ANY particular story is or is not a "parable" or "not literal" or "literal." Many Christians would argue with you that Jesus was referencing a real, global flood. There's nothing in the bible to indicate it should be read in any different way. You just find that belief embarrassing so you prefer to use the excuse of "parable." But really, any excuse will do. For any contradiction or stupidity in the bible, you'll just pull the ripcord on one of your handy excuses you keep with you at all times. The bible's words don't matter, just your mechanism of believing them or not--depending on what YOU decide is worthy or not. But neither you nor the Christian who disagrees has any method of testing your interpretation to see which one of you is right. LOL!
QTrip,
"Jesus was fond of using parables.."
Then he was not very smart to have not specified that fact in his "speeches". An omniscient god would know was a mess this would cause (not to mention all of the mistranslations, misinterpretations, miscopying, etc. that would go on in the future).
Besides, some of those "parables" are nonsense:
- The Good Shepherd - shepherds keep sheep for profit and to eat.
- The Sower of Seed - an incompetent, stupid farmer to throw out seed so carelessly
- The Fishers of Men - a bait them, hook them (or net them), then kill them type of deal
There is a God but I'll act like atheists do and claim I don't have to back it up. People should believe me anyways! Right atheists?! Let's start acting like atheists do and just say we don't have to back up the existence of God with evidence. Atheists would stop trolling in a heart beat as they would see how stupid they really are.
asinine
"There is a God but I’ll act like atheists do and claim I don’t have to back it up".
I'm uncertIn what I am; I'm kind of teetering. Can you please back up you plainly stated claim? Thanks in advance.
It's a negative claim and as atheists overuse it, by their own standards, stating that gets me out of giving evidence. It's only using childish logic that atheists use!😊
I'm not asking about atheists. I'm asking you about your statement "There is a God but [...]"
Isn't that a positive claim? 😊
WRONG. I just slapped the negative onto it so I get out of giving evidence! It's fun acting like atheists do! I get out of giving evidence in debates! LOLOLOLOL
You seem to approach this subject in a very 'Kindergarten-like' manner.
This tireless old argument again? Take a logic 101 course. When referring to the existence of ANYTHING, one must first have proof it exists, before asserting this claim. If say that your claim is false, the burden of proof is on YOU to back it up, not for me to prove it doesn't. If I say I have an invisible dragon in my basement, it doesn't hold true until you can prove it wrong. The mathematical default for ANYTHING with no evidence is non existence. Therefor atheism wins by default because you can't offer any objective evidence whatsoever for a creator or god/deity.
"Let's start acting like atheists do and just say we don't have to back up the existence of God with evidence."
Christians do that all day every day on the CNN Belief Blog.
"We don't need no stinkin' evidence – see, it says so here in the book!"
I'm going to give you some friendly advice: Just stop right now. Your position is idiotic. The burden of proof is on the one who makes up the theory. In this case, the theory of god.
"No it means that I find the evidence presented so far to be lacking, and I don't currently believe in god. That has nothing to do with faith. If someone said "There is no god" then you could argue that that takes faith, but to say I don't believe in god just means I don't find the evidence presented by people who do believe in god to be all that convincing."
Exactly. But you are open to the idea that if evidence was presented, that you found convincing, you would believe there is a god. That's agnosticism.
Merriam-Webster defines it as: : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something.
To me, it's the intellectually superior choice. It's saying, "Look, there could be a god. I don't currently have any evidence to support it, but that evidence could be there."
Atheism, in contrast, is the strict statement, stated as a fact, "There is/are no god(s)."
"Yes the possibility is there..." (agnostic belief system) "...but you don't just go around believing in things because they might be true. In pretty much every area of life except religion we require proof that something actually exists before believing. So this case, for me at least, is just like god. I will believe in god and aliens when it is proven that they exist, but not before."
I agree. And if you haven't found the evidence that supports the idea of god(s), then by all means, continue to search (or don't). My point was simply, one cannot state (and be intellectually honest), as a fact, that god(s) do not exist. They can only state they have not personally encountered evidence that supports the existence of a deity.
Therefore, most atheists, are in fact, agnostics.
Yes, agnostic atheist because I don't currently believe in god. If you come up to me on the street and ask if I believe in god I would say no.
Actually there are varying types of atheists, but agnostics are technically atheists because they do not believe in god. They may not take a stance one way or another about a god or deity, or claim it as fact, but by default they do not believe in god, so they are agnostic atheists (and actually the majority of atheists, are agnostic atheists). You have the extreme ones that believe absolutely no god could ever or will ever exist, but they are a very small minority, way smaller than fundamentalist Christians.
Then I suppose my question becomes, what is the difference between an agnostic and an agnostic atheist?
"Agnostic atheist" sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Agnostic is defined as: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
Atheist is defined as: one who believes that there is no deity
"Do you believe in a god or gods?" only has really three answers.
1. Yes
2. Maybe.
3. No.
So I'm missing something somewhere. And please understand, my intention is not to come off as argumentative or challenging. I'm actually very interested.
No, that's not what atheists believe. They DO NOT believe in a god or deities. That doesn't mean they assert the claim that god absolutely does not exist. There's a big difference. 99% of atheists would believe if objective evidence were discovered that proved it. The proper term is agnostic atheist because they are not sure that god exists, but they do not believe at this point in time. If you ask an agnostic whether if they believe in god, they will say no, because they don't. They may not be sure whether god exists, but they do not say "yes I believe in god", therefor they are atheistic, because by default they do not believe until they see evidence.
Aesop, I guess where I am confused is here:
"99% of atheists would believe if objective evidence were discovered that proved it."
"If you ask an agnostic whether if they believe in god, they will say no, because they don't. They may not be sure whether god exists, but they do not say "yes I believe in god", therefor they are atheistic, because by default they do not believe until they see evidence."
Sum total is both sides do not currently believe in a deity because in their opinion, there is a lack of credible evidence. I don't understand the difference. Both of these statements seem to be saying the same thing, just re-worded. Can you elaborate?
I know it's a little confusing, because I used to be the same way. I used to consider myself straight up agnostic and thought atheists were extreme. My motto is "I'll believe it when I see it", and since we haven't seen proof of god yet, I do not believe it. Sure, I'm open to the possibility that a god might exist, however until the proof arises I don't believe it. That doesn't mean I think no god exists. I just lack the belief right now until I am convinced otherwise. So I'm both agnostic AND an atheist, by definition. I don't know the absolute answer at this point and nobody really does, but won't believe until there's good reason to believe. This group actually represents most atheists.
So, all those millions of people that pray to God to win the lottery are being ignored constantly?
Wow, God is a dick.
I hope that we all agree that the world where we live (commonly called the Universe) exist. This leaves us with two possibilities: either the Universe was CREATED by someone having the knowledge to do it or, alternatively, it came into existence all by itself from nothing.
It's up to each and every one of us to decide which of these two possibilities is more plausible.
There are actually an infinite number of possibilities, which makes guessing right impossible. That's why atheists don't bother to guess like religious people do. We just don't know and we're not afraid to admit it.
Also, in your first possibility, you forgot to include an explanation as to where the possible creater came from. From nowhere or another creator? And so on...
Why do people keep saying the universe came from nothing?
Except, of course, for te religious we think their book is correct.
Yeah I never understood this one side or the other, as if there are only 2 choices. Suggesting the universe came from nothing is absurd and science does not claim this. The energy was already there prior to big bang. Our known universe could be one of millions in a cycle of expanding and collapsing (or cooling) and could be caused by tons of other factors that we do not know at this point. It wasn't either god or nothing, but if it was god, then did he also come from nothing? I already know religious folk will said god was always there, but then why couldn't the universe (or groups of universes) be eternal? We simply don't know.
why is it not reasonable to think that there is not some degree of similarity
y?
please try to do better when quoting someone – here was the reply with correction:
who said there is? it is reasonable to think that some animals have morals for instance. why is it not reasonable to think that there is not some degree of similarity in all aspects of brain functions between man and some animals? where would be evidence that this is not so?
richard
unintended double negative – corrected: ".....that there is some degree...."