Summer means no religion or politics?

[Nacho]

"I don't accept your faith if you don't accept mine!" - how stupid is that! If you really believe that accepting one anothers faith is right you should just live by that - even if others don't accept yours.

Why should I accept your faith if you have prooved to be untolerant enough for not accepting mine?

And please... Don't tell me that what I say is stupid... You seem to believe that a couple of all the animals in earth fit in a crappy prehistoric boat... 

[Dualnames]

Hope something like this happens anytime now..

This opinion has nothing to do with this whole topic

[Nacho]

Oh, the usual "Please stop this thread which had 500 replies because, whereas it seems to be interesting and/or funny to the community, I don't really like it" post!

I was missing it!

[Dualnames]

I know. Someone had to do it.

I'm a Christian, and well yes, I do believe in God, but I can really see what's fact and fiction. Noe's story is on the fiction side, and it's a story that shows that God is heartwarming and nice only to those who believe in Him. Fact is I've been an atheist for a while, and well, without having the need to believe that we are alone, I believe in God. Not to be saved from eternal hell, not for anything that most people believe in Him for.

I just have my faith in Him. Simple and straighforward.

[Nacho]

I have Faith in the flying spaghetti monster... Simple and straighforward too... I wish believers in "God" were as respectfull with my Faith as they ask me to be with theirs.

[Misj']

Misj':
So you're saying you don't argue against the kooks because you don't know or understand the concepts of creationism/biblical literalism/prayer healing?

No...I already answered this question:

Ps.

(And btw, you keep addressing the secular arguments here. Why don't you try to rip into the believers' posts for a change?)

- I thought about that (actually had a post about that a while back, but decided to remove that part; because if there's anything I learned from warfare then it's: never start a battle on two fronts) - I actually wanted to switch sides today and start questioning certain of their theological ideas...but I didn't want to hijack the thread (yet).

It is my firm belief that you can't discuss a subject properly if you can't equally well defend and attack the matter. But I never said that I can't both defend and attack literalism/creationism...the discussion - however - started on the subject rationalism, and I entered because of the misconceptions of science that were used as facts to proof the points of a certain side (incidentally, your side). Since I don't start a battle on two fronts, this is the side that I stayed on.

And how on earth would you go about defending the literalist's side "by reason and logic"? The bible does make many unambiguous statements, and more than once, two of them are mutually exclusive, i.e. they simply can't both be true.

As I said earlier, according to a Jewish way to study scripture, every verse in the bible has 70-something possible explanations. If that is true (and considering that they have a lot more experience with it than you, I'd more likely trust them than you), then your statement that many are unabiguous (and thus impossible to interpret in multiple ways) is by definition wrong.

Ps. maybe another reason why I was siding against 'you' is because your side attacks the other side much in the same way (static) creationists attacked evolutionists (and dynamic creationists) 150 years ago. That's not progress, that's 'not learning from the past'. What's next? - The reinstatement of the inquisition?

Pps. The fact that in this post I wrote again two things that I also wrote yesterday isn't a good sign to me, because it's a sign of stagnation (which is the enemy of dynamics and thus of both logic and rationality). So I really think I should take this as a sign to get out (at least until something happens that indicates to me that dynamics is still present here).

Ppps. Gentlemen, it's been my pleasure...


real, actual, studied scientists say: "nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!"

[Dualnames]

I have Faith in the flying spaghetti monster... Simple and straighforward too... I wish believers in "God" were as respectfull with my Faith as they ask me to be with theirs.

I'm respectful to your Faith even if I'm not sharing the same opinions.

[Intense Degree]

In the very first chapter of the bible, God creates all the animals, then man and woman (at the same time, it seems).
In the next chapter, he creates man, then a woman out of his rib, then all the animals.
So in what order did it actually happen? And why did at least one account get the order wrong?

The second chapter does not say that man was created before animals. I presume you are referring to 2:19 which is where God brought all the animals etc. that he HAD (past tense there you may notice) created to man to name them.

Then in v21  God makes woman, which on any reading cannot be before he made man or the animals.

So I suppose my questions to you would be If you are going to read the bible can I suggest you do it a little bit more carefully? I mean if you decide for yourself what it must say without reading it properly and then try to take it apart it will no doubt be quite easy but, possibly, not very scientific  .

We're talking about the inspired word of god here, describing how the universe came into existence, right?

Well not really actually. You will note that the creation of the world is essentially covered in chapter 1 (and a little bit in chapter 2). That makes it pretty clear to me that this book is not intended as some kind of scientific manual for how the universe came into existence. Should you read the rest of the Bible you will note that it concentrates mostly on the relationship between God and Man and is largely not concerned with scientific process, fashion, food, the arts or many other areas which make up the world/universe as we know it.

[Nacho]

In some other episode says that Eve was created with an Adam's rib. So, which is this other woman who was created in the same moment as Adam some episodes ago? Bible students came with a funny conclussion: It was Lilith, a "defective" creation who voluntarilly left paradise and became a devil which provoques abortions. Again, we have some "believers" principles, here:

-"God" is perfect... Abortions must be something caused by devil (Ha!)
-God can make defective creations, but he is still perfect. (Mmmm???)
And
-The worst things "God" did in Genesis were female. Lilith was a devil, and Eve forced Adam to eat the Forbidden Fruit. (We all know religion is a bit mysoginist, eh?).

[Intense Degree]

Or another way of looking at it is that this "episode" does say that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib and there is no mention at all of Lilith or any other woman.

As I said, it depends on whether you want to read it yourself or rely on what you know it must say not having read it properly.

On a side note Eve was not worse then Adam, both were tempted, succumbed and tried to blame someone else.

[Nacho]

Read my post again, I said that they were "the Bible students" who came to Lilith's conclussion, not the Genesis.

About your "both were tempted", meaning somehow that my statement that it was Eve who convinced Adam was uncorrect; Well...

Presently, Adam came upon Eve. "Eve what are you doing by the forbidden tree?" Fearful of her sin and what God would do to her, Eve said, "Adam try this wonderful fruit! It has filled my eyes with knowledge and my soul with understanding. Trust me, and eat of this fruit!" Eve could not stand to face the Lord alone and felt that if both of them erred the Lord would grant mercy on them. I appeared and added my own smooth cajolery. Together we convinced Adam even faster than Eve had fell prey to me. I understood how human’s ideals were weakened by advice from a loved one, and how a human easily conformed to the majority. Adam ate of the fruit and his eyes changed, as his soul was charred with sin. He recognized his nakedness and fashioned clothes of palm leaves as Eve had done (In his innocence he had not noticed her clothes before).

If that is not Eve convincing Adam to sin, then what it is? Do you need her to aim him with a Glock gun or what?

[Intense Degree]

...Yes and my comments were also aimed at the "Bible students".

Where did I say that Eve did not "convince" Adam to sin?

What I said was:

1. They were both tempted (Eve by the Snake and Adam by Eve)
2. They both succumbed to the temptation
3. They both tried to blame someone else (Adam tried to blame Eve and Eve tried to blame the snake.

I repeat; Eve was not worse than Adam. However, in the same way, Eve did not force Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, merely tempted him with it.

[guitar_hero]

Khris, no offense, but if you can't show some respect I'll simply ignore you.

You're asking about the order things came into existance. Be aware that what you're reading in Gen. is no scientific article. Also notice that the Hebrew thinking is hugely different from our Greek thinking. That's why you can't simply apply your logic to the text. What I will give you are some thoughts of mine, you'll find more suggestions in theological literature.

The main focus in Gen. 1 is on describing Gods act of creation. The text is structured by the mentioning of specific days. There's an obvious logic to that order, what we have here is creation, not contingency.
Gen. 2  has another focus. Whith the creation of Adam the text moves to Eden. There's not even a single word about the world outside. On the first look, except the making of Adam in the beginning the order remains the same as in Gen. 1. You might find the suggestion that maybe in this detail Gen. 2 is more accurate than Gen. 1. But take a closer look to find there's no mentioning of light, fish... There's generally missing a whole lot of the things of Gen. 1 in here. I don't think Gen. 2 want's to give any "order" because important to Gen. 2 is mainly the relationship between God and man/ man and woman.
So if you focus on what might seem to be a logic contradiction you'll miss the point. I think both texts are talking about the same thing but from a different point of view and with emphasis on different things. Both say that everything was created intentionally by God. Both say that man and woman complement each other and belong together. Both see the relationship God and man share...

Can you provide evidence that there's more to reality than matter and energy? Or is this just your belief?

Khris, do you have some experience in the scientific field? What you're demanding is not possible by definition.

Such phenomenon as mysterious healing exists in many cultures all over the earth. Just because we don't have scientific proof of it (and this something we can never have) that doesn't mean it's not real.

Is there another form of proof -as opposed to scientific proof- to back up this extraordinary claim? Or do we again have to take this on faith?

There's no scientific explanation for the extraordinary. E.g. a friend of mine was about having a tumor removed. When she got to surgery the docs couldn't find any tumor. All of a sudden it was gone - noone could give her a medical explanation. The interpretation of such an event totally depends on your worldview. Maybe the diagnosis was wrong in the first place or maybe under certain conditions we don't know yet tumors dissolve in an instance or maybe they didn't check right and the tumor is still in her body. Or you can say it was God. You even can think both is right.

And if I told you that I believe in an invisible naked midget who's living on my balcony, would you treat that belief with the same respect you demand for yours? And why not?

Because you don't believe that. So there's no reason for taking you seriously on that. But why would you think your actual believe wouldn't be treated with respect? I really don't get your problem here.

Regardless of what I offered you as proof that I love person X, you could always dismiss it as not convincing.
If, on the other hand, you were to, say, pray to your god for hitting a tree with lightning and it happened, three times in a row, I'd readily accept it as proof and convert on the spot.

No, no, no! It always had to be coincidence, a trick, whatever... Science at least does not allow you the explanation "God".

[guitar_hero]

Guitar hero: what is the essence of the bible? And EDIT:- christian faith- while your at it, please.

Apart from some side stories it goes something like this:
God creates man - man turns against God - divison between God and man (=sin, death) - God wants to be with man - 10 commandments show: man keeps turning against God -  God sends son - Jesus Christ: death, resurrection > sin and death are overcome - all it needs now is faith in Christ - if man wants to be with God his turning away is forgiven - man still is not how he should be but if he's receiving forgiveness for that he can be with God anyway-  judgement day (yet to come):  finally no division anymore for those who are justified, eternal divison for others.

Or even shorter: Man is totally lost - Christ saves man. That's what the Bible's about.

[Akatosh]

Nice summary, but you left out some steps. Allow me to elaborate a bit.

God doesn't give man the ability of rational thought ("no sense of right or wrong" = inability to tell whether you should or shouldn't do something) -
God makes up totally arbitrary rule about what man mustn't do -
God allows man to be talked into breaking said totally arbitrary rule -
God scolds man for not performing the physically impossible act of resisting -
God condemns man to a life of toil and struggle, followed by an eternity of torture -
God takes a little pity and tells man that maybe they can avoid the eternity of tortue if they follow a more complicated set of rules, some of which aren't less arbitrary than the original one -
God goes "alright, fine" and, in a convulted and misunderstandable way, lets people know that they can drop the less arbitrary rules, and that as long as they keep up the deific noncompetition clause, they may avoid the eternal torture part -
Judgment day (yet to happen): Those who were good at doublethink get to live in mindless bliss, those with rational thought are tortured for eternity. The Daily Deity gives YHWH two out of five stars, saying that "while the constant raking over burning coals isn't much fun, at least we got rid of the religious wingnuts".

[Intense Degree]

I suppose this thread is well past the impersonal now but it is fascinating to see the different perspectives of the different beliefs.

God doesn't give man the ability of rational thought ("no sense of right or wrong" = inability to tell whether you should or shouldn't do something) -

No, God commands man not to eat from one of the many trees in the garden, offering a chance to disobey him and therefore free will.

God makes up totally arbitrary rule about what man mustn't do

In a way I suppose it was arbitrary as I doubt the fruit was "magical" in some way itself. But (as above) it gave free will.

God allows man to be talked into breaking said totally arbitrary rule

Free will again.

God scolds man for not performing the physically impossible act of resisting

In a garden full of many trees it is physically impossible to not eat from one of them? I couldn't agree with that myself.

God condemns man to a life of toil and struggle, followed by an eternity of torture

As previously warned, eat of this tree and you will surely die. You can choose your own path but it won't end pretty.

God takes a little pity and tells man that maybe they can avoid the eternity of tortue if they follow a more complicated set of rules, some of which aren't less arbitrary than the original one -
God goes "alright, fine" and, in a convulted and misunderstandable way, lets people know that they can drop the less arbitrary rules, and that as long as they keep up the deific noncompetition clause, they may avoid the eternal torture part

God, who has given man everything, life, food, health etc. and gives rules for their own good (...or you will surely die) is rejected by man. This happens constantly again and again & worse and worse but even still God provides a way for men to be rescued from the consequences of their own sin (=rejection of God's rule over them).

Judgment day (yet to happen): Those who were good at doublethink get to live in mindless bliss, those with rational thought are tortured for eternity. The Daily Deity gives YHWH two out of five stars, saying that "while the constant raking over burning coals isn't much fun, at least we got rid of the religious wingnuts".

Those whom God saved are saved and those who contnually rejected him to the end are not.

[Akatosh]

Dude. Eating from the tree was explained to have the consequences of being able to tell right from wrong. Before that act, Eve and Adam were living in total ignorance, to the point of not being able to tell they were naked. If you can't tell right from wrong (and it was directly stated that they couldn't), how the fuck can you be held accountable for your actions? That's like expecting a toddler to solve the world financial crisis, only you punish it for eternity if it fails.

[Ultra Magnus]

rules for their own good (...or you will surely die)

I was staying out of this, but that sounds suspiciously like a protection racket to me.
"These rules are for your own good, because if you follow them I won't kill you."

[Intense Degree]

Actually it was the serpent who said that as a way of tempting Eve. (Genesis 3:4-5 if you're interested and Gen 2:16-17 for what God said about it).

Later on it does say that their eyes were opened to the fact they were naked (paraphrase) but this is to do with hostility between man and God and between man and (wo)man and not that they were previously unable to tell right from wrong. On the contrary, they had been specifically told that it was a wrong thing to do and clearly understood this as when the serpent tempted Eve ("eat...") she said "we're not allowed" (paraphrase!).

[Jim Reed]

You can discover theese things without reading a word in the bible: that God exists, God created man, there is heaven, if you don't make peace with God you can't go to heaven, Jesus Christ was the son of God, Jesus was sent to the world by God, making peace with Jesus is like making peace with God, and probably a few things I forgot to mention.

So what am I missing here? If I can't read, I don't have a chance to go to heaven and be with God there?
Is that what you meant?

Man... He is everywhere, so don't owe anyone, don't fight with anyone, help as much as you can etc., and you pretty much bought the ticket for heaven after death.

It's quite simple if you believe that God exist.