Contradictions in the Bible

[Simon666]

For those that claim the Bible is the word of God, I would like to ask myself? How many of you eat pork, and how many of you are circumcised (in the US this may be quite high though)? What's more, do you believe the value of women is less than men, as the Bible claims?

Christian can eat pork and do not have to be circumcised, although the latter is in the book of Genesis 17 : 10 (http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/408/eVerseID/408). These are pretended to be the words of God himself to Abraham. Yet the assembled apostles and elders of the New Testament church declared circumcision to be one of the physical requirements of the Old Testament that is not necessary for Christians in Acts 15 : 24,28 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/27467/eVerseID/27467/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg). The apostle Paul writes in Galatians 5 : 6 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29169/eVerseID/29169/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg), "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." What God is looking for is not whether one is circumcised or not but if one is living by faith and practicing His way of outgoing concern."

So here we have a problem. Does God not know what he want? Does God speak idle? Or is the book of Genesis which I claim historically and scientifically incorrect and one big fairy tale? This is a problem I would like to see creationists answer, because they love to refute evolutionists because of Genesis, yet many of them are probably not circumcised nor believe this is necessary for christians. I would also like to see the homophobes answer this because they condemn gays because of what they believe Leviticus 18 : 22 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show) says yet in this book God himself declares not to eat pork in Leviticus 11 : 7-8 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/3005/eVerseID/3005/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg), and I think most bible based homophobes have no problem eating pork.

[Vic]

how come nobody realizes that most people are reading a translated bible and that it actually contains many small, but impacting translatingmistakes?
you can´t take serious every word of a bible that has been translated a couple of times with always more errors in it.

some are even specualting, that the part, where it said, you should not lie next to a man like a woman was refearing to "you should not lie next to a teenager/children/young boy like next to a woman...

and so the few words totally change the path the religions based on the bible take.

[Simon666]

I knew, you can find some info on that here (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030227.html). It is a quite interesting aspect too.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Simon666
I knew, you can find some info on that here (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030227.html). It is a quite interesting aspect too.

Hmmm...the Bible is false, yet you claim to worship a biblical charactor.:rolleyes:

[Simon666]

You really believe I worship Satan? Man, you're even more fanatical than appeared from the abortion thread. :rolleyes:

[Animal]

Originally posted by Simon666
You really believe I worship Satan? Man, you're even more fanatical than appeared from the abortion thread. :rolleyes:

I was just taking you at your word.

[Simon666]

I hope so. You scared me one second there with that banner you posted. It's a joke.

[Cedars]

Simon, the question you ask does not have a short, pat answer.

That being said, if you've ever read the bible, you will notice that the New Testament differs from the Old Testament in that the Old Testament is harsher than the New Testament. The reason for this, I believe, is that God is showing us (in the Old Testament) how often He had helped us and how often we have failed Him through the laws He set out in order to be in His grace. It is not that God cannot make up His mind about what He wants, it is that man has been a slave to sin. God is goodness and love and truth. God created mankind to have freedom of will. Mankind is a sinner without God, hence God gave us His law. What you must realize is that when God sent us Jesus, everything changed.

God wants to save EVERY man, and He chose to join His Spirit to the flesh of man in order to save us. Jesus died on the cross so that ALL men can be saved and have eternal life and live in grace with God. Mankind dies because mankind sins, but we do have hope of salvation for eternal life with God. Before Jesus, in the time of the Old Testament, was the Old Covenant, and the old laws. Jesus is the New Covenant (His coming is alluded to many times in the Old Testament; so in a sense, God was cluing us in all along). In the New Testament, it becomes clear that many of the old Jewish customs and sacrifices were not necessary any more, BUT THE OLD LAW (the Ten Commandments) still stood. Eating pork and being circumcised fall under the category of Jewish customs that need not be followed.

An interesting point to make here is that you are interpreting scripture and have made assumptions based on what you believe scripture is saying. Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1500s because they rejected the Catholic Church's teaching magisterium and instead believed that each individual could interpret scripture for themself through guidance of the Holy Spirit. It does not seem to me to be working that way because then that would mean that all persons interpreting scripture would be getting the same idea--and we know they are not because the different Protestant denominations all have SOMETHING that varies in their beliefs, hence the different denominations. Whereas Protestants believe the Holy Spirit guides individuals in interpreting scripture, Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is not to say that the Holy Spirit cannot guide individuals. He does that too. But it seems pretty clear that if the Holy Spirit's job was to see that all individuals reading the bible would interpret it correctly, then all individuals would do so. But this is not the case (again, hence all the denominations). Catholics accept that the teaching magisterim of the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants do not. While members of the church can fail, the Holy Spirit cannot fail. Does this mean that Catholics are discouraged from reading the bible? ON THE CONTRARY! Catholics are encouraged to read the bible at an early age. I must confess I feel thankful for the teaching magisterim of the Catholic Church because I would be lost otherwise!

[Vic]

so basically you´re saying, that god helped specific people by telling them, to kill unbeliebers entire populatios and cut open their pregnant women, kill of all their children...etc
or that somone that was injured by a woman should ask his friend to kill him, ...etc

all those calls of god to kill and mutilate unbelievers were an act of help?

it actually says so in the bible.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Vic
so basically you´re saying, that god helped specific people by telling them, to kill unbeliebers entire populatios and cut open their pregnant women, kill of all their children...etc
or that somone that was injured by a woman should ask his friend to kill him, ...etc

all those calls of god to kill and mutilate unbelievers were an act of help?

it actually says so in the bible.
Who are you directing your comment to, Vic, and what was said to make you say such a thing?

[JD3]

Originally posted by Vic
so basically you´re saying, that god helped specific people by telling them, to kill unbeliebers entire populatios and cut open their pregnant women, kill of all their children...etc
or that somone that was injured by a woman should ask his friend to kill him, ...etc

all those calls of god to kill and mutilate unbelievers were an act of help?

it actually says so in the bible.

I am not sure how to take this?:confused: :confused:

The Catholic Church has been around longer than most. It was the first christian church to my knowledge. As one priest once told me, the church has been around long enough "to make all the major errors." There is some truth to that. But having made errors and been wrong doesn't disqualify anyone from believing something.

Some people take the Bible literally and that can be a problem because of inconsistencies that you have to make excuses for. It can be taken as a guide. This requires interpetation, and we all know some do that better than others.

I don't know if I have any answers for this inquirey, but I believe the new tesement, or new agreement, offers hope and preaches compassion. As long as people take that message with them, I have no problem. But when others use this same book to preach hate, they have misused the text as far as I am concerned -- no matter who does it.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

[The Man]

Originally posted by Simon666

............is the book of Genesis which I claim historically and scientifically incorrect and one big fairy tale? .

Fairy tale, you think? Actually there are 2 creation stories in Genesis. One in the first chapter and another in the 2nd chapter. What do we believe, what do we believe?

[gopman]

The second chapter contains the story of Cain and Able if I'm not mistaken. That's not a creation story, it's a lesson on free will. Read it again.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
That being said, if you've ever read the bible, you will notice that the New Testament differs from the Old Testament in that the Old Testament is harsher than the New Testament. The reason for this, I believe, is that God is showing us (in the Old Testament) how often He had helped us and how often we have failed Him through the laws He set out in order to be in His grace. It is not that God cannot make up His mind about what He wants, it is that man has been a slave to sin. God is goodness and love and truth. God created mankind to have freedom of will. Mankind is a sinner without God, hence God gave us His law. What you must realize is that when God sent us Jesus, everything changed.
Ofcourse it differs. The reason lies not in "God", as Vic already said the Old testament contains justifications for genocide and murder on different ethnic and religious groups, slavery, having multiple wives, and considers women as inferior creatures.

Do you believe this is because "God is showing us how often He had helped us and how often we have failed Him through the laws He set out in order to be in His grace"? That therefore He (why do you keep referring to god as a he, are you sexist?) commanded you to consider women second grade beings?

I'll tell you why there is a difference why the Old testament is different. That is because the Old Testament was mostly written by a bunch of Jews in exile in Babylonia, those that didn't want to integrate in Babylonian society but chose to preserve their cultural identity and longed for a return. They bundled a lot or all of what they knew of their primitive tribal traditions - which is why women are considered so low - as well as their history - a beautified version of it, the Jerusalem under king David as described in the Bible didn't exist according to archeologists - as well as their ancient tales and mythical beliefs about the creation of the world - which is a fairy tale like in all other religions.

[ranger]

The Man says "Actually there are 2 creation stories in Genesis. One in the first chapter and another in the 2nd chapter. What do we believe, what do we believe?"

Read it again. The 1st chapter deals in a broad look at creation. the 2nd chapter gets a little more specific.

I am told by a Gnostic the idea that Genesis has two seperate stories is a modern "revelation" of Gnosticism

[ranger]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Simon666
[B]Ofcourse it differs. The reason lies not in "God", as Vic already said the Old testament contains justifications for genocide and murder on different ethnic and religious groups, slavery, having multiple wives, and considers women as inferior creatures.

Other than the 10 commandments, what law did God offer in the old testement. A factual history of life on earth before Christ does not constitute a Godly or Christian "justification" of any of it.

[Strel]

"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies."

- G.B. Shaw


...or in a book!

- Strelnikov


The Bible is a fine piece of ancient literature and a fantastic compendium of history and folklore. That's all it is, and nothing more.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by ranger
Other than the 10 commandments, what law did God offer in the old testement. A factual history of life on earth before Christ does not constitute a Godly or Christian "justification" of any of it.
Calling the Bible factual is giving it too much credit. And God spoke on various occasions in the Bible other than the 10 commandments, which were the basic laws. Like not to eat meat, that was considered a religious law by jews as God himself commanded it, as I have already indicated.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Simon666
For those that claim the Bible is the word of God, I would like to ask myself? How many of you eat pork, and how many of you are circumcised (in the US this may be quite high though)? What's more, do you believe the value of women is less than men, as the Bible claims?

Christian can eat pork and do not have to be circumcised, although the latter is in the book of Genesis 17 : 10 (http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/408/eVerseID/408). These are pretended to be the words of God himself to Abraham. Yet the assembled apostles and elders of the New Testament church declared circumcision to be one of the physical requirements of the Old Testament that is not necessary for Christians in Acts 15 : 24,28 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/27467/eVerseID/27467/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg). The apostle Paul writes in Galatians 5 : 6 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29169/eVerseID/29169/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg), "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." What God is looking for is not whether one is circumcised or not but if one is living by faith and practicing His way of outgoing concern."

So here we have a problem. Does God not know what he want? Does God speak idle? Or is the book of Genesis which I claim historically and scientifically incorrect and one big fairy tale? This is a problem I would like to see creationists answer, because they love to refute evolutionists because of Genesis, yet many of them are probably not circumcised nor believe this is necessary for christians. I would also like to see the homophobes answer this because they condemn gays because of what they believe Leviticus 18 : 22 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show) says yet in this book God himself declares not to eat pork in Leviticus 11 : 7-8 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/3005/eVerseID/3005/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg), and I think most bible based homophobes have no problem eating pork. There you go again, making sense.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by ranger
The Man says "Actually there are 2 creation stories in Genesis. One in the first chapter and another in the 2nd chapter. What do we believe, what do we believe?"

Read it again. The 1st chapter deals in a broad look at creation. the 2nd chapter gets a little more specific.

I am told by a Gnostic the idea that Genesis has two seperate stories is a modern "revelation" of Gnosticism Sorry, you're out on this one. Most "SCHOLARLY" preachers and professors of religion agree there are 2 creation stories in Genesis. Also, check out the Abingdon Bible Commentary which is considered THE authority on biblical teachings. The commentary was written by many biblical theologians who are professors in their own right and have studied the scriptures all of their lives. I did say scholarly didn't I? Yes I did. I didn't include fundamentalist preachers in this list nor tv god hucksters.

Oh, you stated the differences in the two stories is specifics. Read it again and you will find that the 2nd creation story gives a difference sequence of events. Guess your Gnostic friend wants to take credit for stealing the truth!

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Vic
how come nobody realizes that most people are reading a translated bible and that it actually contains many small, but impacting translatingmistakes?
you can´t take serious every word of a bible that has been translated a couple of times with always more errors in it.

some are even specualting, that the part, where it said, you should not lie next to a man like a woman was refearing to "you should not lie next to a teenager/children/young boy like next to a woman...

and so the few words totally change the path the religions based on the bible take. Vic, my man. Tell this to a bible-thumping fundamentalist who literally believes every single word, period, etc. in the bible. Many bibles have the "words" of Christ in RED. It's as though they believe someone was standing there with a tape recorder or taking notes as he spoke. It's impossible to reason with unreasonable people.

[Animal]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
check out the Abingdon Bible Commentary which is considered THE authority on biblical teachings.
By who? You?


The commentary was written by many biblical theologians who are professors in their own right and have studied the scriptures all of their lives. I did say scholarly didn't I? Yes I did.


Every study Bible, Bible commentary, Bible concordenance, and Lexicon that I own was detailed, written and translated be Biblical scholars from around the globe. None of them claim that Genesis 1-2 are speaking of a seperate creation. But I guess if you look hard enough, you can find anything you want to push your agenda.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Animal
By who? You?

Every study Bible, Bible commentary, Bible concordenance, and Lexicon that I own was detailed, written and translated be Biblical scholars from around the globe. None of them claim that Genesis 1-2 are speaking of a seperate creation. But I guess if you look hard enough, you can find anything you want to push your agenda. Man, you need to get a grip. This is NOT an agenda. No one is out here trying to push politics. I am talking about a text used in approved universities, i.e. Yale, Harvard, Duke, to name a few and literally hundreds of smaller schools in the Mennonite, Brethern, Methodist, Presbyterian religions.

If I remember, you couldn't define apologetics or certainly couldn't be a student of it. Bet the same thing is true with escatology.

I think it would be to your advantage to read a bit more before you jump in with people who have already talked the talk and walked the walk.

Do something about your abrasive attitude. You are not representing your faith very well. :)

[ranger]

I remain steadfast. It does not take a group of modern scholarly preachers or theologians to understand there is only one story of creation. Would they be the same ones that Simon666 uses?

[america]

Originally posted by ranger
I remain steadfast. It does not take a group of modern scholarly preachers or theologians to understand there is only one story of creation. Would they be the same ones that Simon666 uses?

God gave Jews 613 commandments. He did this to keep them busy, he knew how they like to twist, debate, argue over finite detalis, in fact how right he was, they are still debating them, more than they bother following them.

God returned as Jesus, a flesh and blood human to show them, yes it is obtainable to be good.
He said to circumcise your hearts, if someone is circumcising their penis's then what does that say?
Americans have been told to circumcise penis's because it is cleaner, again I find it highly suspicious that Americans have slowly been convinced anything from Jewish law is good and anything from the N.T. is bad.

Jesus deliberately did not chose scholars to spread his message, there is a message in that.
There seems to be a 'new' crusade to promote the bible as history or fiction,
guess why?
as 'they' work hard to make harsh hate crime laws and limit speech in disquise of hate speech,
while at the same time make the bible a historical or fiction
guess what intersection the two roads will meet?
the bible if fiction can then be thrown into the hate speech pile.
If history then we can rid the bible of the N.T.
how? because once it is labeled as history then it is subject to debate and CORRECTION
then they will tackle the idea that ruth was not truly Jewish which would make Jesus incorrect as the messiah.

I know how they operate, once you get their number it is not too difficult to see the grim future.

Throw a little scholarly worship in there in order to say if anyone debates their conclusion they are just ignorant nose picking preachers.
can you believe there are actually people who HATE christianity and go study it in order to stamp their 'doctorate of christianity' title on their conclusions? that has to be a terrible hate to devote one's life to the destruction of Jesus's memory.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by ranger
I remain steadfast. It does not take a group of modern scholarly preachers or theologians to understand there is only one story of creation. Would they be the same ones that Simon666 uses? That's one of the great things in this country. You can be as steadfast in your beliefs as you want to be, true or false, right or wrong. After all, I certainly know more about historical facts than anyone who has studied them all their lives.

And, if religious scholars add to the body of knowledge written in the bible, it has to be WRONG and must be an effort to sabatoge or discredit the bible. :lol: Afterall, that's why they study religion all of their lives. . . . . .to debunk the truth. WOW, have I been stupid a long time. Besides, brainwashing is certainly a part of fundamental religion. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up

[ranger]

DRMIZER, All you need do is read the 2 chapters. Think for yourself. Chapter one puts a time line on creation. Chapter two makes no attempt on a time line. It explains some of the specifics of creation.

Chapter 2 starts, with "So the heavens and the earth were finished and all the furnitue of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
3 And he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

It is obvious that chapter 2 is a continuation of chapter one. How could any thinking individual belileve it to be the start of a second different version of creation.

I do not need some scholar to tell me what "is" means or how literation works.

Who is being brainwashed here. The one who believes the ignorant scholar or the one that becomes a scholar and reads and decides for themselves?

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by ranger
DRMIZER, All you need do is read the 2 chapters. Think for yourself. Chapter one puts a time line on creation. Chapter two makes no attempt on a time line. It explains some of the specifics of creation.

Chapter 2 starts, with "So the heavens and the earth were finished and all the furnitue of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
3 And he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

It is obvious that chapter 2 is a continuation of chapter one. How could any thinking individual belileve it to be the start of a second different version of creation.

I do not need some scholar to tell me what "is" means or how literation works.

Who is being brainwashed here. The one who believes the ignorant scholar or the one that becomes a scholar and reads and decides for themselves? I'm not sure how you can confuse brainwashing and education.

I have read Genesis many times. The book was written, pardon the word, by "scholars" of the time who were unsure of the world's development. They could not agree on specifics and it was decided to use both creation stories.

And, now I'm sure you do not need a scholar to tell you what "is" means or how literation works.

[ranger]

Please, Explain to us how a chapter that begins with the 7th day of 7 days of creation is different from rather than a continuation of the previous chapter which presents the first 6 days of creation.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by ranger
Please, Explain to us how a chapter that begins with the 7th day of 7 days of creation is different from rather than a continuation of the previous chapter which presents the first 6 days of creation. You know, I would and could (think I just did-2 opinions of the scholars who wrote it), but what's the use? I'm sure your "education" is far above my "brainwashing", as you put it so I see no need to continue this thread with you. :sleep:

[ranger]

I agree. You offer no proof of what you say. You claim to have the superior education. As with so many you will not offer your own opinion or how you reasoned that opinion.

I may not be your kind of scholar but I have been studying religions for over 30 years. My opinion on this issue is mainstream among biblical scholars. Yours is from the fringe.

Believe as you wish, have a Holy Sunday

[america]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
You know, I would and could (think I just did-2 opinions of the scholars who wrote it), but what's the use? I'm sure your "education" is far above my "brainwashing", as you put it so I see no need to continue this thread with you. :sleep:
The N.T. was not written by scholars at the time, just to correct you in your sleep.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by america
The N.T. was not written by scholars at the time, just to correct you in your sleep. I didn't say it was. I said the Genesis story of creation was.

[cpwill]

which one, though? there are two, each from different traditions. (one from judah, and one from israel)

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by cpwill
which one, though? there are two, each from different traditions. (one from judah, and one from israel) I really don't mean any disrespect here but, who cares? :confused:

[america]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
I didn't say it was. I said the Genesis story of creation was.

maybe you were thinking it, but in your post you said
bible,,,,,,,,,,biblical scholars added.........

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by america
maybe you were thinking it, but in your post you said
bible,,,,,,,,,,biblical scholars added......... Well, I stand corrected. :(

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
Ofcourse it differs. The reason lies not in "God", as Vic already said the Old testament contains justifications for genocide and murder on different ethnic and religious groups, slavery, having multiple wives, and considers women as inferior creatures.

Do you believe this is because "God is showing us how often He had helped us and how often we have failed Him through the laws He set out in order to be in His grace"? That therefore He (why do you keep referring to god as a he, are you sexist?) commanded you to consider women second grade beings?

I'll tell you why there is a difference why the Old testament is different. That is because the Old Testament was mostly written by a bunch of Jews in exile in Babylonia, those that didn't want to integrate in Babylonian society but chose to preserve their cultural identity and longed for a return. They bundled a lot or all of what they knew of their primitive tribal traditions - which is why women are considered so low - as well as their history - a beautified version of it, the Jerusalem under king David as described in the Bible didn't exist according to archeologists - as well as their ancient tales and mythical beliefs about the creation of the world - which is a fairy tale like in all other religions.
It sounds to me as if you’re making a sweeping statement that because you do not see God punishing, you believe that God does not judge. The Ten Commandments are a perfect example of God’s law. Man will ultimately be judged according to how he has lived his lifetime. God judges man; man cannot judge God. God is an omnipotent, omnisicient being—He is all-knowing. His morality and judgment of morality is perfect. By God’s joining His Holy Spirit to human flesh (Jesus), He not only gave salvation to mankind but He gave us a perfect example of how we should live our lives. The Old Testament is God’s understanding of the hard heart of man; but He sent us salvation in Jesus so that our hearts would not be hard any more if we would just accept His sacrificial gift to us. (By the way, I refer to God as a “He” because Jesus refers to Him as “our Father.”)

God created mankind and chose the Jews to be the first initiated into His Kingdom. The Jews are God’s children, and God has extended his family to include the Gentiles. You are correct that the Jews did not always show gratitude for this privilege; but God is forgiving and merciful (that is not to say that there will be no punishment, whether on earth or after death—everyone will be judged according to his works). Rather than resenting the Jews, we should be grateful that in the O.T. we have seen God’s example of forgiveness and mercy, because we know that that mercy and forgiveness will extend to us as well, provided we truly seek it.

With regard to science and religion, the Catholic Church takes this position (from www.catholic.com):

‘The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

’As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.’

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
It sounds to me as if you’re making a sweeping statement that because you do not see God punishing, you believe that God does not judge. The Ten Commandments are a perfect example of God’s law. Man will ultimately be judged according to how he has lived his lifetime. God judges man; man cannot judge God. God is an omnipotent, omnisicient being—He is all-knowing. His morality and judgment of morality is perfect. By God’s joining His Holy Spirit to human flesh (Jesus), He not only gave salvation to mankind but He gave us a perfect example of how we should live our lives. The Old Testament is God’s understanding of the hard heart of man; but He sent us salvation in Jesus so that our hearts would not be hard any more if we would just accept His sacrificial gift to us. (By the way, I refer to God as a “He” because Jesus refers to Him as “our Father.”)
That's junk, we can judge God from what he says in the Old Testament and he is a genocidal misogenic bastard. That "God’s understanding of the hard heart of man" crap you use is an excuse that some parts should not be taken literal but some others should be taken literal, preferably those which you would like to read. My guess is you probably like to read Genesis (are you a creationist?) and the Ten Commandments, but think God should not be taken literally when he says not to eat pork or to be circumcised.

This is pretty hypocryt from a man who says it is not up to man to judge God but upon God to judge man, whilst chosing to believe or disbelieve what God says judging on whether you like to read it or not.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
That's junk, we can judge God from what he says in the Old Testament and he is a genocidal misogenic bastard. That "God’s understanding of the hard heart of man" crap you use is an excuse that some parts should not be taken literal but some others should be taken literal, preferably those which you would like to read. My guess is you probably like to read Genesis (are you a creationist?) and the Ten Commandments, but think God should not be taken literally when he says not to eat pork or to be circumcised.

This is pretty hypocryt from a man who says it is not up to man to judge God but upon God to judge man, whilst chosing to believe or disbelieve what God says judging on whether you like to read it or not.
Hmmm.... I'm not sure how to answer you. You sound awfully pissed with someone whom you seem to think is a nonexistent being! Quite honesly, Simon, if you refuse to believe in God, then anything I might say will more than likely sound like crap to you. You are on a site that discusses religion, and it seems to me you're a pretty logical fellow and not wont to heckling but are truly trying to understand. Why do you feel compelled to understand the Bible if you truly have already rejected the existence of God? Something inside you has not let go of God or you would not try to understand. I could tell you its the Holy Spirit trying to convince you, but then you would just tell me it is crap.

[Simon666]

I tend to sound awfully pissed when people start downplaying and condoning all the violent, nonsensical and sexist parts God says in the OT while claiming all the other parts like the Ten Commandments and consorts need to be interpreted literally. It is either all consistent and true or all inconsistent and untrue, and I say it is the latter which is quite clear as the Bible contradicts itself in many occasions and is often completely unscientific.

[Tharkun]

Originally posted by Simon666
That's junk, we can judge God from what he says in the Old Testament and he is a genocidal misogenic bastard. That "God’s understanding of the hard heart of man" crap you use is an excuse that some parts should not be taken literal but some others should be taken literal, preferably those which you would like to read. My guess is you probably like to read Genesis (are you a creationist?) and the Ten Commandments, but think God should not be taken literally when he says not to eat pork or to be circumcised.

This is pretty hypocryt from a man who says it is not up to man to judge God but upon God to judge man, whilst chosing to believe or disbelieve what God says judging on whether you like to read it or not. Being as I am circumcised and do not much care for pork, it is not a really big issue for me. But sense it seems to trouble you, Acts 15:20 commutes the dietary and sexual laws for gentile believers to, abstention from fornication and the eating of blood and strangled meat.

[FreeMason]

I just have one simple thing to say, when the US Constitution is revised, the former is not gotten rid of.

Now it is easy to see that the prohibition was repealed because it is the very next amendment.

But in the bible, it's the same way, everything's recorded, nothing was left out.

But because it's 2000 pages long, it is quite a bit harder to find those apeals...the bible shows the change of a culture from 2000BC to 300 AD

And for that is quite remarkable...if you can't realize that what is written in Genesis was believed 2000 years before what was written in Revelations, then maybe you shouldn't be reading?

Over that time, let's say for sake of argument that God changed his mind, but since Humans have been recording him near verbatum, the alteration is lost in the length and disorder of the product.

Now, I dont' believe the bible is the word of God, God is nothing speaking nor visual, it's just infinity and everything this universe is and the creation//reason behind it all.

Something we're apart of.

But trying to disprove God by saying the bible is a bit contradictory is stupid.

The Constitution is contradictory if you were to turn it into a story format rather than a (THIS IS WHAT IT IS) format.

And furthermore, no religion on earth probably has it "right" and science sure doesn't have it right, that doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by FreeMason
But in the bible, it's the same way, everything's recorded, nothing was left out.
Well have I got news for you, I even got this at my catholic school at age 17 or so : check out what the apocryphal gospels are (http://www.saginaw.org/bible4.htm). That's basic knowledge to me. :rolleyes:

[Captain America]

T.G.A.O.T.U.

So mote it be.;)

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Captain America
T.G.A.O.T.U.

So mote it be.;)
:confused:

Somone please translate? :confused:

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
I tend to sound awfully pissed when people start downplaying and condoning all the violent, nonsensical and sexist parts God says in the OT while claiming all the other parts like the Ten Commandments and consorts need to be interpreted literally. It is either all consistent and true or all inconsistent and untrue, and I say it is the latter which is quite clear as the Bible contradicts itself in many occasions and is often completely unscientific.
I am not trying to downplay the O.T.--God's wrath is just that: God's wrath. What I am trying to tell you, perhaps not all that successfully, is that, yes, God gets angry but that his anger is slow and his wrath is just. A parent gets angry when a child is disobedient and may even punish that child for disobedience depending on their own justice and mercy. God is our Father and our ultimate judge and He metes out a just punishment according to His justice and mercy.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
Well have I got news for you, I even got this at my catholic school at age 17 or so : check out what the apocryphal gospels are (http://www.saginaw.org/bible4.htm). That's basic knowledge to me. :rolleyes:
Simon, there was SO much information out there from the early writings to all the oral teachings of the apostles that have been handed down. Not ALL of the information could be contained in one book! It takes many years of diligent study to even be informed, let alone an "expert" on the subject! There is so much to teach, the Catholic schools and the Church can only teach so much at a time! We may think we know a lot now--but there is much, much, much more to learn! Just because all of this is not in the Bible does not mean that all these essays and writings have all been discounted and lost. You'd be surprised at the accumulation of knowledge of the Catholic Church over time--both heretic and otherwise! Check out www.catholic.com and you will even see references to some of the writings mentioned.

[america]

Originally posted by Simon666
:confused:

Somone please translate? :confused:

stand back simon I think they put a spell on you or maybe it is gangsta witchcraft

[america]

Originally posted by Simon666
I tend to sound awfully pissed when people start downplaying and condoning all the violent, nonsensical and sexist parts God says in the OT while claiming all the other parts like the Ten Commandments and consorts need to be interpreted literally. It is either all consistent and true or all inconsistent and untrue, and I say it is the latter which is quite clear as the Bible contradicts itself in many occasions and is often completely unscientific.

amen brother simon! another either all or none, like me, that is usually my line "pick a side, any side"

except I picked the it is all true side.:)

[Captain America]

Sorry Simon, it took a while for me to get back to the keyboard.

T.G.A.O.T.U. is what Free Masons refer to "The Great Architect of the Universe." A reference to diety without defining that diety by name, or religion. A generic term.

That way, the brothers of different religions can meet in harmony without one religion being held over another. More often than not, when religion is a topic of discussion, tempers flare because of the absurdity of it all. Religion and politics are not discussed in Masonic lodges. Again, the two topics that bring the most discord amongst men. Masons are big on brotherly love, charity and getting along nicely in general.

"So mote it be" signals the end of a "prayer" or an "invoking of diety." Much like the word "amen" might mean in a church.

It was an inside comment. But the intended recipient did not pick up. (Which tells me a lot;) )

[Simon666]

Originally posted by america
except I picked the it is all true side.:)
So you think the world was created in six days and evolution is rubbish I guess? I tried scientific arguments for evolution once on Pravda but as you may or may not know, discussing with fanatics is like converting Osama Bin Laden to being a jew : it ain't going to happen.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
I am not trying to downplay the O.T.--God's wrath is just that: God's wrath. What I am trying to tell you, perhaps not all that successfully, is that, yes, God gets angry but that his anger is slow and his wrath is just. A parent gets angry when a child is disobedient and may even punish that child for disobedience depending on their own justice and mercy. God is our Father and our ultimate judge and He metes out a just punishment according to His justice and mercy.
Do you believe in evolution and the earth is flat (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)? I guess yes, except ofcourse when you chose to believe only the parts you want to believe like all the others do when confronted with something that conflicts with their views, or will you shut your mind and say it is all not true - despite that it is literally there - or refuse to discuss it?

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
Do you believe in evolution and the earth is flat (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)? I guess yes, except ofcourse when you chose to believe only the parts you want to believe like all the others do when confronted with something that conflicts with their views, or will you shut your mind and say it is all not true - despite that it is literally there - or refuse to discuss it?
The truth of the matter is, Simon, that there was a time when I really doubted God's existence and really questioned my Catholic beliefs, especially since I also have some Protestant relatives who were influencing me, not to mention some atheists. I tried a diplomatic approach to my search, which is to say that for a time I neither believed nor disbelieved, for I felt my mind would be more open either way, rather than blindly accepting or denying. So my answer to you is, MOST DEFINITELY I was always willing to discuss anything because I really wanted to KNOW. I did not want fairy tales; I wanted the honest truth. My mind is most definitely open to truth, even if it shatters any preconceived notions I have.
My question to you is, Is your mind really as open as you think it is? Because any thinking person would realize that the existence of God is, AT THE LEAST, logical. Try DISPROVING the existence of God! Or Simon666 seems to be fond of playing Devil's Advocate: Why don't you actually research the flip side of the coin, with the intent of honestly trying to PROVE God's existence -- what do you have to lose? If you're truly as open-minded as you think you are, you might find your OWN self changing a few ideas of your own!

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Cedars
Why don't you actually research the flip side of the coin, with the intent of honestly trying to PROVE God's existence -- what do you have to lose? If you're truly as open-minded as you think you are, you might find your OWN self changing a few ideas of your own! You can't disprove a negative.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Tharkun
Being as I am circumcised and do not much care for pork, it is not a really big issue for me. But sense it seems to trouble you, Acts 15:20 commutes the dietary and sexual laws for gentile believers to, abstention from fornication and the eating of blood and strangled meat. If you look closer into history, the reason for condeming the eating of pork was because it would go bad quickly (by demons) and it was therefore "forbidden" to eat by the elders of the church. It has relatively nothing to do with religion or "orders" from God.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
If you look closer into history, the reason for condeming the eating of pork was because it would go bad quickly (by demons) and it was therefore "forbidden" to eat by the elders of the church. It has relatively nothing to do with religion or "orders" from God. .i.e. cloven hooves, etc.

Believe it or not, a great deal of what was written in the bible as God's law, or rules, had more to do with the safety of the people and society. However, since people generally do not care to listen to others, God will get their attention through priests, etc.

[FreeMason]

Actually "So Mote it Be" is directly translated from older english simply as "so it be done"...and doesn't necessarily have a "prayer" connotation :)

Amen translates the same but as Latin is a dead langugae...no one knows that when someone asks you to do something you can reply "Amen"...other than that so common phrase now..."Amen to that" lol...which makes a little bit of no sense.

Anyways Captain America...learn to have fun with the internet ;)

When people ask "What's that?" about masonry, thou shalt sayeth, "Thine doom!" j/k :) lol

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
My question to you is, Is your mind really as open as you think it is? Because any thinking person would realize that the existence of God is, AT THE LEAST, logical. Try DISPROVING the existence of God! Or Simon666 seems to be fond of playing Devil's Advocate: Why don't you actually research the flip side of the coin, with the intent of honestly trying to PROVE God's existence -- what do you have to lose? If you're truly as open-minded as you think you are, you might find your OWN self changing a few ideas of your own!
You can't prove something or some God does not exist. Neither has it been proven that God exists. What you can prove and already has been thoroughly proved is that the God as described in the Old Testament does not exist as many of the things said to have taken place in the Old testament such as the story of creation have been utterly and completely discredited by science. The existence of God isn't logical at all, give me a logic for God if you think otherwise.

[gopman]

Simon, Simon, Simon. If there were a scientific explanation, then it wouldn't be God. Unless you were there, and you can say that it didn't happen, then you can't disprove it. Descartes provides an attempt at logic for God, but it's weak at best. God can't be proved or disproved, so belief in him is based on faith. Can you give me a logic for not believing in God? Because you don't think that the things in the Bible happened? That doesn't work.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
Simon, Simon, Simon. If there were a scientific explanation, then it wouldn't be God. Unless you were there, and you can say that it didn't happen, then you can't disprove it. Descartes provides an attempt at logic for God, but it's weak at best. God can't be proved or disproved, so belief in him is based on faith. Can you give me a logic for not believing in God? Because you don't think that the things in the Bible happened? That doesn't work.
Because it is proven some things in the Bible didn't and can't happen. That proves that God doesn't exist as described in those parts of the Bible.

[Simon666]

More contradictions: (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html)

Should we kill?

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

vs.

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

Should we tell lies?

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

vs.

I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

Should we steal?

Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs.
Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

Shall we keep the sabbath?
Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
vs.
Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."
Shall we make graven images?
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."
vs.
Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"


============================================
============================================

There is even more bible fun at the site.

[gopman]

"Because it is proven some things in the Bible didn't and can't happen"

That's equivalent to saying "God doesn't exist because he doesn't exist." There is no way for science to disprove that God exists, so there is no way for science to disprove that those things didn't occur- unless you were there and saw that it didn't happen.

As for the "contradictions" you have noted here, most of them are misinterpretations. You also have on some occasions confused the citing of historical fact with the law of God. Many of your misinterpretations are caused when you take the quotes out of the context of their books.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
"Because it is proven some things in the Bible didn't and can't happen"

That's equivalent to saying "God doesn't exist because he doesn't exist." There is no way for science to disprove that God exists, so there is no way for science to disprove that those things didn't occur- unless you were there and saw that it didn't happen.

As for the "contradictions" you have noted here, most of them are misinterpretations. You also have on some occasions confused the citing of historical fact with the law of God. Many of your misinterpretations are caused when you take the quotes out of the context of their books.
Ah, selective quoting, the favorite tool of rightwingers and those losing an argument. I did not say with that it is proven that God doesn't exist, I do say it is proven that God as described in those parts of the Old Testament doesn't exist because those parts are proven unscientific or simply historically wrong.

And it seems you're using "misinterpretation" as a euphemism for contradiction. Silly wordgames. Some things are taken out of their context but even when left remain contradictory.

[gopman]

"those parts are proven unscientific "

Obviously they're unscientific. That's why it's God. That's what I've been saying all along. It's impossible to say that those things are disproved by science because there's the possibility that there's a God who can do whatever he wants and that he did it.

As for misinterpretations, I'll point out two for example. The Bible say's not to kill in Exodus, but in Ecclesiastes it tells us there's a time for war. There is obviously a distinction here, and that has been recognized by Popes in the past. No Pope would tell you that fighting Hitler was wrong. The second one I'll point out is the theft of the cow. It was meant to figuratively represent the fact that everyone who serves the lord must sacrifice. You have misinterpreted (not contradicted) this to be an order by Jesus to go steal a cow. I'd hate to think that you are too single minded to account for the existence of figurative language.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
Obviously they're unscientific. That's why it's God. That's what I've been saying all along. It's impossible to say that those things are disproved by science because there's the possibility that there's a God who can do whatever he wants and that he did it.
A bit curious that God used to split water and stop the earth from revolving in ancient times but not now eh? Has God taken a vacation? :D And it is very much disproved if history proves otherwise, you seem to lack the concept of "proof".
Originally posted by gopman
As for misinterpretations, I'll point out two for example. The Bible say's not to kill in Exodus, but in Ecclesiastes it tells us there's a time for war. There is obviously a distinction here, and that has been recognized by Popes in the past. No Pope would tell you that fighting Hitler was wrong. The second one I'll point out is the theft of the cow. It was meant to figuratively represent the fact that everyone who serves the lord must sacrifice. You have misinterpreted (not contradicted) this to be an order by Jesus to go steal a cow. I'd hate to think that you are too single minded to account for the existence of figurative language.
How about "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image"? :rolleyes:

[cpwill]

there are problems with interpretations, simon, the "thou shalt not kill", for example, is actually alot closer to "thou shalt not murder" the bible was told to make a point, it is not told to provide a detailed and accurate complete history of events; that is not it's purpose. furthermore, you appear to be confusing the Bible with Christianity, a dangerous combination.


but the argument that "there is no God" circular and self defeating because you are arguing a negative.

think about it: if i argue that you once posted that bush was a liar all i have to do is go find a post where you said bush lied and presto, i have my proof. if i want to argue, however, that you have never said that saddam was a bad guy, then i would have to have detailed knowledge of every post you've ever made in order to prove my point.

so, to say there is God requires one only to find a situation where they can see God; aha-there is God, he exists.

to say that there is no god requires one to have knowledge of every facet of existance, and no that within that existance no God exists.

except.... to have knowledge of every facet of existance, by definition, makes you god.

so, the statement "there is no god" eventually means "I am God"

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
But the argument that "there is no God" circular and self defeating because you are arguing a negative.

think about it: if i argue that you once posted that bush was a liar all i have to do is go find a post where you said bush lied and presto, i have my proof. if i want to argue, however, that you have never said that saddam was a bad guy, then i would have to have detailed knowledge of every post you've ever made in order to prove my point.
That's why I merely said that God as described in those parts of the Bible that are known to be unscientific and/or historically incorrect does not exist. I did not claim it is proven as a whole that God does not exist.

To give a simple example : if I have a Holy Book in which it says my god Zrburbluxulrbrublor has split the Canal to allow his people the Belgians to escape from the vicious French to the promised land Scotland, but first dwelled 40 years through the vast wilderness of England, I can prove God as decribed in that part doesn't exist according to science and history. Because his people were never held slave in France, because the Canal splitting in two is scientifically impossible, and because you have to be pretty stupid to dwell 40 years in England before finding Scotland.

[Strel]

Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest belief.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Strelnikov
Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest belief.
True, but I prefer atheism.

[Strel]

Atheism is indeed a choice, since the proof of the non-existence of God isn't logically possible.

But least it is a reasonable choice...though not necessarily the only one! In the gaps between what is known about the Universe, we all just have to fill in with what we believe, even if the filler is Doubt, or Nothing.

What irks me is the people who want to pave over what we do know with mythology and irrational belief.

(Didn't we already have this discussion on Pravda?)

[gopman]

"Has God taken a vacation? "

No, we made a new covenant with God, and things changed.

"the vicious French"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You're a funny guy, Simon.

"those parts of the Bible that are known to be unscientific and/or historically incorrect does not exist"

It's impossible for you to ever prove that, and that concept has been described several times. You can't say definitively that there isn't a God, and therefore you can't say that God didn't use his omnipotence to do whatever he wants.

[gopman]

"Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest belief"

I don't think you can say that, because if there is a God, then if everyone believes different things about him, they can't all be correct.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
It's impossible for you to ever prove that, and that concept has been described several times. You can't say definitively that there isn't a God, and therefore you can't say that God didn't use his omnipotence to do whatever he wants.
Repeat: God as described in those parts of the Bible does not exist. That's different from God not existing at all. It implies whatever is attributed to God as in those parts is invalid and thus if there is a God, it is one differing.

[gopman]

"It implies whatever is attributed to God as in those parts is invalid"

Why do you assume that God has to operate within the boundaries of science? That would be contrary to the definition of God. You can't say that God didn't do something because it is scientifically impossible.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
Why do you assume that God has to operate within the boundaries of science? That would be contrary to the definition of God. You can't say that God didn't do something because it is scientifically impossible.
Let's just say if in that part of the Bible it says that the stars in the sky can fall down on earth, it is incorrect, and even if God operated outside the boundaries of science, it would still be incorrect. Let alone the parts that are historicall incorrect, no amount of God operating outside the boundaries of science will help there.

[gopman]

Sure it will. You can't say that God couldn't shrink stars and make them gravitationally attracted to Earth. Being omnipotent, by definition he can do whatever he wants. Science can't disprove God, and therefore any of his actions-period.

[davidcasey2]

Many intellectual conservatives have adopted a theory of "Theistic Evolution". The creation account given in Genesis does not have to be read literally; according to Hebrew custom, the beginning chapter of Genesis was written in a poetic style, and not as an event history. Utilizing this approach to the scripture, the Bible does NOT contradict science. Furthermore, evolution without an intelligent creator, I believe, is mathematically inconceivable. The odds are just too slim - I mean, we're talking billions to one, even if you can get past the second law of thermodynamics.

[Essendon]

Originally posted by gopman
Can you give me a logic for not believing in God?

It's insane.

[Chiasmus]

The creation account given in Genesis does not have to be read literally

This is actually a view taken by many liberal Christians, myself included. The Creation story, to myself and others, is a metaphorical take on the birth of life. It is not to be taken at face value (i.e. 7 days, etc.) but rather to be taken as a metaphor for what really happened.

Furthermore, evolution without an intelligent creator, I believe, is mathematically inconceivable. The odds are just too slim - I mean, we're talking billions to one, even if you can get past the second law of thermodynamics.

There is a whole school of thought around an idea similar to this: it's called Intelligent Design. That is, the entire universe is geared towards life. The evidence can be seen all over; water is most dense just before it freezes, for example. The earth is a just the right distance from the sun. Gravity is a perfectly tuned force; any stronger and life would not exist, and vice versa.

Before any of you discredit religion, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He has a lot to say on all of these issues you've brought up.

[cpwill]

david; as i remember, the odds are 1 to 1 followed by 4 pages of zero.


Lewis is a genuis, as i recall he has been called the apostle to the skeptics

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
Sure it will. You can't say that God couldn't shrink stars and make them gravitationally attracted to Earth. Being omnipotent, by definition he can do whatever he wants. Science can't disprove God, and therefore any of his actions-period.
Proof is scientific, God operating beyond any possible known physics is not. That is belief. Science can disprove God. Belief can ignore science. And you dodged the hostorical inaccuracy part.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Chiasmus
There is a whole school of thought around an idea similar to this: it's called Intelligent Design. That is, the entire universe is geared towards life. The evidence can be seen all over; water is most dense just before it freezes, for example. The earth is a just the right distance from the sun. Gravity is a perfectly tuned force; any stronger and life would not exist, and vice versa.
That is ridiculous. The whole second law of thermodynamics has already been proven to be used by creationist in an invalid fashion. And it has already been proven that you don't need an "intelligent creator" for evolution.

You're whole method is reasoning is distorted: life can only develop on a planet and in a universe where the laws of physics are favorable towards life. You are reversing this simple logic and claim because there is life, this means the laws of physics and our planet is just right and therefore there must be a God of some sort.

Let's say you would change the laws of physics in the universe and you have several planets at several distances of the star they orbit around and the earth would be at an incorrect distance for life and the gravity force on earth would be different. Then there would be by statistics and the shear number of stars and planets in the galaxy very likely be another planet where intelligent life could form. No need for a God nowhere.

[DRMIZER]

Answer me this. . . .

If there is similar life as ours on other planets, perhaps in distant solar systems, wonder if they have a God, Devil and creation story similar to ours?

[davidcasey2]

Originally posted by Simon666
And it has already been proven that you don't need an "intelligent creator" for evolution.


Your argument is entirely false. For one thing, anyone remotely grounded in the sciences realizes that science cannot "Prove" anything, but rather attempts to prove everything. Even the idea of gravity, considered law for centuries, in the light of modern physics completely falls apart. Also, evolutionists have no idea where the initial matter came from. Sure, maybe we evolved from a soupy mixture of amino acids, but the odds are still billions to one without some outside force, and NO evolutionist can even theorize where that initial soupy mixture of amino acids came from, because that would exceed the bounds of scientific reason.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Simon666
Science can disprove God. Belief can ignore science.

science can never disprove God because science is the study of God's creation.

or: see earlier argument on those who declare "there is no God"


originally posted by drmizer
If there is similar life as ours on other planets, perhaps in distant solar systems, wonder if they have a God, Devil and creation story similar to ours?

all humans on this planet having been born intensely aware of a spiritual side, i'd say yes; they probably would have reached out to God, and God to them.

[gopman]

"And you dodged the hostorical inaccuracy part."

If science can't disprove it, then how on Earth could history?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
science can never disprove God because science is the study of God's creation.
Circular logic.
Originally posted by cpwill
all humans on this planet having been born intensely aware of a spiritual side, i'd say yes; they probably would have reached out to God, and God to them.
Make that all humans except one at least : me.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
Your argument is entirely false. For one thing, anyone remotely grounded in the sciences realizes that science cannot "Prove" anything, but rather attempts to prove everything.
Your statements are false. There is something referred to as "the scientific method" which refers to repeatable experimentation achieving the same results. Science can come to conclusions based on this method of experimentation.

The scientific method requires neutural experiementation whereby the results are accurate results, not expectations of the ones carrying through with the experiement.

So, I'm unsure where your statement comes from.

[Cornelius]

How is it that God is all loving, yet is willing to send his children to a torturous hell for eternally?

[gopman]

He gives us the choice- we send ourselves to hell.

[Cornelius]

gopman- I have not been given a choice. God hasn't spoken to me. I'm aware what the Bible states, but this book was written by man.

[dritalin]

And now for the argument to beat all arguments. The very thing that encircles all other arguments, that witch all things eventually stem back to.

Let he who has understanding and wisdom. The sciences, and acedamia of the world. Stregnth in theology. A truly open mind. Let him who has these things give ear and listen.

For the Holy Gospel is in the world, the Gospel is the world, and everything therein. All things testify of Christ. Of his Holy divinity.

Let me take you all back, beyond the creation of this world, past the creation of this universe.

Before time was there was God, the Father. In him was all the power of the creation and through his holy Divinity would we all come to pass. For God went out and took of the intelligences that were and gave them organization, that they became spirits with thought and reason, and life.

Among these spirits stood all who are, who have been, and will be upon this Earth. Yet there are some who were present then, who never will be here on this Earth.

Looking forward millions of years past our creation as spirits to a great counsel. There in Heaven we stood, yes even all of us. We counseled one with another and it was decided that we should take of the matter and build with it a place. A place that we might go and recieve physical bodies and be tried and tested that according to our works it would be done unto us.

The plan that was established was a plan of salvation. Even The Plan of Salvation. It included several crucial pillars.

The first of these pillars was that man, being directly created by God would have to fall into transgression. This is where the fall of Adam comes into play, Adam fell that men might be, men are that they might have joy. It was required that Adam fall, or mankind would never have been. See the fall of adam gave men two important abilities. The ability to discern good from evil. And the abillity to procreate. Unfortunatly this fall required another thing, of absolute importance.

All men under the fall are subject to sin, even little children who have not the ability to sin. Therefore it becomes necessary that there should be an Atonement. This is where Jesus Christ comes in, the Great Jehova, the Creator of all mankind. The only begotten son of the Living God. Christ was chosen before the Earth was created to atone for our sins. Now all men are saved through this atonement.

[dritalin]

Next I will explain the plan mentioned above for the salvation of men.

Following the course a spirit would take through this plan we start with the creation of the spirits. Followed by the counsel in Heaven. In that counsel there was a contention. There were two camps. Those that followed Christ and those who followed Lucifer, the son of the morning.

When the plan was presented before man there was a dissenting voice that offered an alternative. See, in Christs plan men are accountable for their own transgressions (excluding those of Adam). Therefore man will be judged according to his own acts. An inherant result of this is that some spirits would not return to live in the presence of God. What was this plan?

The plan of Lucifer, or as he is now known Perdition, Satan. The plan he presented was that man never be givin the knowledge of good and evil. That way we could not sin. The drawback to this plan was that as we could not sin, we could not feel pain, joy, happiness, sorrow, or any of these things. We would be empty souls, having neither joy, nor sorrow. Nevertheless, many found this plan enticing.

The plan put forth by the adversary was so inviting in fact that one-third of the host of Heaven joined under his banner. There began to be a great contention. A war, as it were, of words. This would soon end.

God, when he saw that the argument came to a standstill and there were no longer fence sitters, or changing of sides God came forth. He spoke his will, that the plan Christ had was in direct accordance to the will of the father. That day one-third of all the host of Heaven was cast down. To where they were cast brings us our next step in the Plan of Salvation.

Satans and his followers were cast down to Earth, without recieving bodies. There being spiritual beings to decieve and temp the children of men. Thereby Satan became the father of all lies.

Next, the fall of Adam and we all began to come to the Earth to be tried and tested. To see how we might do. There was one hitch. We couldn't remember anything that had transpired previous to our birth, for we had passed through a vale. The vale of forgetfullness. This of course was to see how we would hold up, relying on faith. Here on Earth three things are guarenteed. Birth, sin, and death. Death brings us to the next stage.

In death we become seperated from our bodies. The spirit leaves the body, and the body goes to the grave. The spirit then dwells in one of two places to await the resurection. The Spirit Prison, or the Spirit Paradise. Here in the afterlife the great work of redemtion continues. There is much preaching, and teaching of the Gospel to those who died having not recieved it. Once the time is through on Earth and the resurection is brought to bear all men will proceed on to one of three Kingdoms.

The lowest of these kingdomes is known as the Telestial Kingdom. This is where the transgressors of thought and action will dwell. Those who sinned knowingly, those who heard the Gospel, but recieved it not, murderers, rapest, and the like. They will have to drink of the bitter cup and suffer eternity there. Nevertheless God will remember that even these spirits once chose to follow Christ, and it is said that if we were to be shown the glory of even this, the lowest kingdom, we would kill ourselves to get there. Even still there are higher places.

The Terrestrial Kingdom, or middle of the three, is where those will live who are just men, or men who followed according to what they knew was right, having been deceived. This is where those will dwell who were good men, but never accepted or entered into the everlasting covenent. Finally there is one above them all.

The Celestial Kingdom is where God dwells, and all his children who have accepted and entered into the sacred covenent with him. Those who kept that covenent, and proved themselves worthy of living Eternal lives in the Kingom of the Father.

When the judgment is complete Satan, or Perdition will be cast out into a void known as Outer Darkness. And with him will be cast all the sons of perdition, his followers.

This is the great plan that the Father has for us. All things testify of it's truthfulness, and all things are encompassed about.

Having read that I have now prepared you for my comments wich are on topic to this thread.

Whether in the name of science, or religion, or any other cause you would choose I issue this promise, this experiment for the truly open minded.

I know that the things I have spoken to you are true. I testify of this with every conviction in my heart. I say this, and swear it to you, but you don't have to take my word for it.

God has promised to all the children of men that they may know these things are true. The sciptures tell us that if any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men libraly and abradeth nothing.

This is not wavering assurance. It is a promis, that if you will ponder in your hearts, and ask with a sincere heart, and real intent these things will be shown unto you. It is not that you will feel pretty sure, or mostly sure, but that you will know. If you cannot believe this, or cannot comprehend who could be shown such things. Test it, call it science. Prove me wrong.

I do not ask for an argument. I say that there is a God, and he lives. He, through his machless power created this world. Using, not defying the powers of science. Above all comprehension of men.

Now, do not reply in ignorance, or without openness.

"Ask only questions, give only answers"

[cpwill]

He lives!
He lives!
Christ Jesus lives today.
He walks with me, and he talks with me
along life's narrow way!
He lives!
He lives!
Salvation to impaaart...
You ask me how i know He lives,
He lives,
within,
my heart.

[Simon666]

By Satan, this thread has been hijacked for prayer and for giving views on the difference in agenda between my master and Christ instead of discussing contradictions in the Bible.

[cpwill]

cts

[DRMIZER]

dritalin

"I do not ask for an argument. I say that there is a God, and he lives. He, through his machless power created this world. Using, not defying the powers of science. Above all comprehension of men.

Now, do not reply in ignorance, or without openness."

"Ask only questions, give only answers"



Is it not possible to believe in God without acceptance of the devil, the fall of man?

Can one not believe in God based on "reason" without belief in the fairytales in the bible?

Does one have to believe the creation story to believe in God?

My answer to these questions. . . . . . .I think not!

[dritalin]

Is it not possible to believe in God without acceptance of the devil, the fall of man?

The devil is an intrical part of the whole bit, but who cares if you believe in him. A beliefe in God or the devil (or the lack thereof)doesn't make a heart bad.

Can one not believe in God based on "reason" without belief in the fairytales in the bible?

Who cares about the Bible. It's true that the Bible is the word of God (as far as it is preserved and translated correctly). You'll be judged less harsh if you love your nieghbor and hate the Bible, then if you love the Bible and hate your neighbore. If you get my logic.

As far as fair tales a little explanation. The Old Testiment was written with Eastern thinking. As apposed to Western. Oriental, Oxidental. In Oriental thinking was describes what is going on poeticly. Oxidental does it more mathematicly. For instance. We say that the sun rises, in Eastern thinking they would say the sun is awaking from it's bed of rest. So yes, a lot of the Bible might be what we would consider a "fairy tale." Don't read Oriental writing literaly, try to understand what they mean by what they say.

Does one have to believe the creation story to believe in God?

Not Believing in the creation story doesn't make a man bad. believing in it does however add to him.

[jnewbyjr]

Originally posted by Simon666
I tend to sound awfully pissed when people start downplaying and condoning all the violent, nonsensical and sexist parts God says in the OT while claiming all the other parts like the Ten Commandments and consorts need to be interpreted literally. It is either all consistent and true or all inconsistent and untrue, and I say it is the latter which is quite clear as the Bible contradicts itself in many occasions and is often completely unscientific.

I really believe it can be explained. First, I don't believe the Bible is 100% correct - while written by Prophets, the translations of these writings in the Bible where done by a consensus of religious scholars all looking out for their own interest. Was there some special interest during that grand meeting - absolutely!

Secondly, the old and new testiment are completely different animals directed to completely different audiences under a completely new set of rules. It teaches that when Christ came, he brought or introduced a much higher law going forward. In other words, the bar was raised. That isn't a contridiction, it's a change for the better by increasing the demand to be a follower.

Thirdly, Your making the assumption that the Bible is the only word of God. If only using the Bible, some things can be quite confusing at times. Many Christians believe there is more than the Bible. One point I'm surprised you haven't picked up on is that all through the Bible, prophets received additional instructions from God - why would it stop in modern times, does he like us less? Just a thought!

Having said that, on the other hand, that doesn't mean that the Bible can't be used as a valuable tool to pattern your life.

I believe God is very consistent, even in the Bible despite the way it was translated and pieced together.

I'll be anxious to hear your take, while I know you don't believe - you do seem to have at least a basic understanding of what is on the Bible.

[Simon666]

That is one way of explaining it, but it seems then that God is changing his mind to me. They are often also not additional instructions, but often contradictory with the first : like eye for an eye in the OT and turn the other cheek in the NT. For the rest, there haven't been any great prophets ever since Jezus except Mohammed, and I would hate to think he's right of all people.

[jnewbyjr]

Originally posted by Simon666
That is one way of explaining it, but it seems then that God is changing his mind to me. They are often also not additional instructions, but often contradictory with the first : like eye for an eye in the OT and turn the other cheek in the NT. For the rest, there haven't been any great prophets ever since Jezus except Mohammed, and I would hate to think he's right of all people.

That is actually a great example of a higher law. It certainly takes much more self control to turn the other cheek so to speak than it does to operate under the eye-for-an-eye scenerio. But in the defense of the Bible, I also think he is addressing two different groups of people when they were said.

The eye-for-an-eye scenerio is geared towards the law of the land and what those that transgress or criminals should expect when they break the law. The turn the other cheek advice was given by Christ to his followers to help them exercise greater control over oneself. Be more mild mannered and don't always look to strike back at every instance.

While the Bible speaks of the great falling away after Christ asscended into Heaven, it also speaks of a great restoration in the latter-days before his return. Many Christians believe that there has been a restoration that is guided by modern day prophets and that they instruct today.

But I will say that isn't what many would call mainstream Christianty. I believe much of mainstream Christianity has been distorted and many have been mislead by some of the things you have point out in previous posts.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
You can't disprove a negative.
Researching God is like researching love. Some believe in love; some don't. Usually the people who believe in love are those who actually experienced it on some level. The people who do not believe in love have not experienced it.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
You can't prove something or some God does not exist. Neither has it been proven that God exists. What you can prove and already has been thoroughly proved is that the God as described in the Old Testament does not exist as many of the things said to have taken place in the Old testament such as the story of creation have been utterly and completely discredited by science. The existence of God isn't logical at all, give me a logic for God if you think otherwise.
Yes, I have read some of these so-called "findings" which are really not findings at all. There are also scientists whose belief in God have been strengthened by science. You should read all views, instead of merely the ones you agree with and so accept as fact.

As I mentioned earlier, researching God is like researching love. Some believe in love; some don't. Usually the people who believe in love are those who actually experienced it. The people who do not believe in love have not experienced it. God is a Holy Spirit, and He is also love.

[jnewbyjr]

Originally posted by Cedars
Researching God is like researching love. Some believe in love; some don't. Usually the people who believe in love are those who actually experienced it on some level. The people who do not believe in love have not experienced it.

Not quite the case, while that may be true in your example above, nonetheless - love does exists as experienced by the one has loved or is loved. Just because someone isn't able to love to chooses not to - doesn't mean it isn't real.

[uglybastard]

To most Christains, contradictions in the Bible don't mean much since we don't take the Bible as the 'Word of God'.

Most of us feel that the Bible was written by many men over a period of time.

How many books are there on Jesus? Four?

Why would there be multiple books on Jesus if the Bible were written with devine knowlege. We even know the names of many of the authors of these books.

The many books of the Bible were scattered at one time. Early Christians formed a committee to create the Bible. There were arguments over which books to include. Some books didn't make it.

I wish Revelations would've stayed out of the Bible.

Revelations has caused much grief in the world. The Greeks left it out and we should've too.

[jnewbyjr]

I think Revelations is a great book, very difficult to comprehend and I don't pretend to know all the meanings and so forth in the book; nonetheless, a great book.

It says in the scriptures, that to fully understand the meanings and magnitude of the scriptures, one must be fully in tune with their God. Often times the prophets and Christ himself taught in parables so that those that are spriritually in tune will understand and those less in tune may not be able to comprehend and/or understand. How true that is.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
Yes, I have read some of these so-called "findings" which are really not findings at all. There are also scientists whose belief in God have been strengthened by science. You should read all views, instead of merely the ones you agree with and so accept as fact.

As I mentioned earlier, researching God is like researching love. Some believe in love; some don't. Usually the people who believe in love are those who actually experienced it. The people who do not believe in love have not experienced it. God is a Holy Spirit, and He is also love.
They are findings, they are just not findings by a select group of nutcases who prefer to ignore science or invent their own fringe science to keep their dreams intact. I have also been confronted already frequently by so called "creation science" which is basicly just junk that is easily discredited.

[jnewbyjr]

Originally posted by Simon666
They are findings, they are just not findings by a select group of nutcases who prefer to ignore science or invent their own fringe science to keep their dreams intact. I have also been confronted already frequently by so called "creation science" which is basicly just junk that is easily discredited.

I think there are many scientific findings on both sides of the fence backed by many qualified scientist. I also think both sides of the fence have some fallacies in their arguements. But I also don't think science will ultimately prove or disprove the Bible or any scripture. I do agree that people tend to side with any arguement that supports their belief system and that will never change.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I think there are many scientific findings on both sides of the fence backed by many qualified scientist. I also think both sides of the fence have some fallacies in their arguements. But I also don't think science will ultimately prove or disprove the Bible or any scripture. I do agree that people tend to side with any arguement that supports their belief system and that will never change.
I seriously doubt the many qualified scientists on the opposite side, but you're correct in saying that people tend to side with any arguement that supports their belief system and that will never change. It is possible, but rare.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
They are findings, they are just not findings by a select group of nutcases who prefer to ignore science or invent their own fringe science to keep their dreams intact. I have also been confronted already frequently by so called "creation science" which is basicly just junk that is easily discredited.
Simon, I understand that you think I also choose to believe what I want to believe; and as with all people, that is true to a certain extent. However, I am not afraid of science disproving the existence of God. I am confident that it cannot. I am also convinced that right now your ears and mind are closed to God. Therefore, you cannot learn anything that proves your own convictions wrong. You might say the same thing to me, only in reverse; and again, this is true to a certain extent; but logically, there is no "proof" that the scientists, as you say, have disproved the O.T. or the N.T. These are very lengthy books, and not all contained therein is believed to be actually historical by the Catholic Church anyway as some are allegorical, symbolic, or otherwise. What is BELIEVED to be historical has never been disproven. In fact, we find actual proof that some of these people and places mentioned in the Bible did actually exist. I know you do not accept this as proof of God Himself, but then you wouldn't.

[Cedars]

As a matter of fact, Simon, many early historians looked to the Bible in order to search for past clues of ancient history.

[Cedars]

Out of curiosity, does anybody actually know how we get these nice little monikers, such as "Political Junkie"? I'm guessing by the number of posts or something?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
Simon, I understand that you think I also choose to believe what I want to believe; and as with all people, that is true to a certain extent. However, I am not afraid of science disproving the existence of God. I am confident that it cannot. I am also convinced that right now your ears and mind are closed to God. Therefore, you cannot learn anything that proves your own convictions wrong. You might say the same thing to me, only in reverse; and again, this is true to a certain extent; but logically, there is no "proof" that the scientists, as you say, have disproved the O.T. or the N.T. These are very lengthy books, and not all contained therein is believed to be actually historical by the Catholic Church anyway as some are allegorical, symbolic, or otherwise. What is BELIEVED to be historical has never been disproven. In fact, we find actual proof that some of these people and places mentioned in the Bible did actually exist. I know you do not accept this as proof of God Himself, but then you wouldn't.
As I have already said, science cannot disprove God, and you are indeed not afraid of such science even if it would exist simply because you would refuse to believe it, let alone look at it. There is scientific proof against some parts in the Bible in both OT and NT, though not all of it has been disproven as you falsely claim I have said. And what is believed to be historical? Please clarify so I know what you're talking about. Concerning custom user titles, such as "Satan's Little Helper", you only get them after a number of posts. I think it is high, 600 or 800. So you have a lot of "work" to do. :D

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
As I have already said, science cannot disprove God, and you are indeed not afraid of such science even if it would exist simply because you would refuse to believe it, let alone look at it. There is scientific proof against some parts in the Bible in both OT and NT, though not all of it has been disproven as you falsely claim I have said. And what is believed to be historical? Please clarify so I know what you're talking about. Concerning custom user titles, such as "Satan's Little Helper", you only get them after a number of posts. I think it is high, 600 or 800. So you have a lot of "work" to do. :D
Start with these:
--Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria
--Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt.
--The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey.
--Walls of Jericho—discovery in 1930s by John Garstang
--In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah
--In 1990, Harvard researchers unearthed a silver-plated bronze calf figurine reminiscent of the huge golden calf mentioned in the book of Exodus.
--In 1993, archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at Tel Dan. The words carved into a chunk of basalt refer to the "House of David" and the "King of Israel." And the Bible's version of Israelite history after the reign of David's son, Solomon, is believed to be based on historical fact because it is corroborated by independent account of Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions
--It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded in the palace walls! Even more, fragments of a stela (a poetic eulogy) memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
--Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablet was found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son
--The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea. Evidence at the site seems consistent with the biblical account: "Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens." The destruction debris was about 3 feet thick and buildings were burned from fires that started on the rooftops. Geologist Frederick Clapp theorizes that that pressure from an earthquake could have spewed out sulfur-laden bitumen (similar to asphalt) known to be in the area through the fault line upon which the cities rest. The dense smoke reported by Abraham is consistent with a fire from such material, which could have ignited by a spark or ground fire
-- The New Testament mentions specific individuals, places, and various official titles of local authorities, confirmed by recent archeology. Luke sites exact titles of officials. (Titles varied from city to city so they are easily checked for accuracy.) Lysanias the Tetrarch in Abilene (Luke 3:1)—verified by inscription dated 14-29 A.D. Erastus, city treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23)—verified by pavement inscription. Gallio—proconsul of Achaia (Greece) in A.D. 51 (Acts 18:12). Politarchs ("city ruler") in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). Chief Man of the Island on Malta (Acts 28:7). Stone Pavement at Pilate's headquarters (John 19:13)—discovered recently. Pool at Bethesda— discovered in 1888. Many examples of silver shrines to Artemis found (Acts 19:28). Inscription confirms the title of the city as "Temple Warden of Artemis". Account of Paul's sea voyage in Acts is "one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship."
-- Census of Luke 1. Census began under Augustus approximately every 14 years: 23-22 B.C., 9-8 B.C., 6 A.D. There is evidence of enrollment in 11-8 B.C. in Egyptian papyri.
o Problem: Historian Josephus puts Quirinius as governor in Syria at 6 A.D. Solution: Recent inscription confirms that Quirinius served as governor in 7 B. C. (in extraordinary, military capacity).
o Problem: Herod's kingdom was not part of the Roman Empire at the time, so there would not have been a census. Solution: it was a client kingdom. Augustus treated Herod as subject (Josephus). Parallel—a census took place in the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor under Tiberius.
o Enrollment in hometown? Confirmed by edict of Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, in 104 A.D. "...it is necessary for all who are for any cause whatsoever way from their administrative divisions to return home to comply with the customary ordinance of enrollment."
-- Diggers recently uncovered an ossuary (repository for bones) with the inscription "Joseph Son of Caiaphas." This marked the first archaeological evidence that the high priest Caiaphas was a real person. According to the gospels, Caiaphas presided at the Sanhedrin's trial of Jesus.
-- Josephus. Born to priestly family in A.D. 37. Commanded Jewish troops in Galilee during rebellion. Surrendered, and earned favor of Emperor Vespasian. Wrote 20 books of Antiquities of the Jews. Refers to John the Baptist (killed by Herod) and to James, the brother of Jesus (condemned to death by stoning by the Sanhedrin)

[Simon666]

I'll get back tomorrow as it is a bit much and it is late here (23.25 PM). I will note already that there are indeed found back artefacts proving the Bible has historical grounds, but that doesn't make history as in the Bible correct. Simple example of which are the Jericho walls, but more on that tomorrow. I also note you're apparently not a catholic as you believe Jesus had a brother. I'm wondering: which faith do you belong to exactly?

[eyesandears]

Jonathan Edward in the XVIII century and before him the Great Baruch ( Benedict or Bento ) Spinoza , the great philosopher who was excomunicated from his synaguoge in the Liberal Flanders , were men who possesed a great insight over the meaning of religion structure , the great cultural power over society .

They understood and acknowledged , their contradiction of their text ,their contradictory interpretation but they understood their relevance and intrisic attachment for it by human nature.


How to balance the expression of what they consider failure without insulting the masses at large?

Spinoza has a common with other great mind , even those who did not dwelt in such subject but who focus instead in politics etc the conclusion that they arrive too. Such conclusion is that even
many consider in principle that all human have the same right , in real life not all humans are able regardless of their education or intellect to avoid to
fall in the realm of passions , and emerge unbruised .
When I mean passion , my use of the term is to give meaning to strong emotions( not limited to sex) There is not totally objectivity , we are not Vulcans but there are some who learn to come a little more closer to it than others.


Without passion we lose our humanity and with such passion unrein sometimes we lose our humanity.

It is consider to pro caste and pro
class to acknowledge such facts because of the different social system with class systems that we know from history which have existed in different cultures on Earth . I am not advocating for us to embrace such in a social political structure . However I acknowledge how many could feel repel and guilty to consider the historical fact , no all have the ability , contribute to well the well being of society and to
open our arms to their ideas and actions bring more harm than good . This comment is not base in race , or ethnicity or even class.

Just a reminder that sometimes the meaning of the concept of equality has many interpretation . And such outcome brings great mistakes and missconception. Remember The Termidor. The Cambodia " Holocaust " etc more recent and the list goes on.

Polarization about the religion issue sometimes bring consequences which put a lot strains in our already very strained society structure
and dangerous for the well being of the Republica. IT serves the purpose of the extremist of both side of the aisle which will sacrify the center . I pray not to lose all the hardwon victories for REason and Enlightment .

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
I also note you're apparently not a catholic as you believe Jesus had a brother. I'm wondering: which faith do you belong to exactly?
I do not believe Mary had any son but Jesus. Joseph could have had other children (which would make any son of his a "brother" of Jesus). Also, Aramaic (which is what I believe the original scripture was written in and what Jesus spoke) does not have a word for "cousin." Many times male cousins and relatives were referred to as brethren. In any event, I did not write the entire post but cut and pasted some of it because I didn't feel like typing it all.

[Cornelius]

If Adam and Eve had only two sons Cain and Able, where did their wives come from?

[Captain America]

Good question. It has been asked many times before. I certainly do not know but I can tell you the answer I got when I asked.

Back during that era, women, were pretty much considered property much like livestock. Noting a woman to anything significant made as much sense to them as noting Bessie the cow. Warped, I know, but logical. I suppose, if that was the case, Eve was only mentioned to signify the necessity for reproduction and to perpetuate the idea that women are inferior. (Remember, Eve was the bad guy in the garden of Eden.)

It was entered and sanctified into the "Holy Bible" this way by the roman church (Latter Day Roman Catholic.)

To this day, they still place women in a subordinate role.

Food for thought.

[foxroaddaddy]

I'll just to point out some actual Scripture that might help answer some of the questions recently raised.

Adam and Eve had more children than Cain and Abel:
Genesis 5:4 - Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.

Jesus had brothers and sisters:
Matthew 13:55,56 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?

Quoted from the New American Standard Bible.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Cornelius
If Adam and Eve had only two sons Cain and Able, where did their wives come from? I'm not convinced the book of Genesis is a literal depiction of the creation, thus the faults in facts.

[jnewbyjr]

Originally posted by Cornelius
If Adam and Eve had only two sons Cain and Able, where did their wives come from?

I believe Adam and Eve had many children, Cain and Abel were the two that made history so to speak.

The treatment of women on this earth has been a far cry from what I believe our God would have condoned. I believe that Adam and Eve both will have eternal glories for their act of being the father and mother of all mankind.

Did Eve stumble in the garden , Yes - but then again maybe that was the part of the master plan. Man was sent here to gain a body and practice his/her free agency and hopefully return again to their God having proven they can follow Christ.

In order for man/woman to have t