|
Another biblical theory…
|
Posted By:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Apr 29, 2005
|
http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/4429774/detail.html
Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."
It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
|
Comments
|
Page 4 of 16 pages ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last › |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 06:04 AM
...Citizen, I didn't quite see if ETL answered this...but God says "Thou shall not tempt the Lord your God." As in...if you are hungry, why not just turn these rocks into bread? If you jump off this cliff, call a host of angels to catch you... |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 06:14 AM
...The whole point of faith (not religion, religion can be proven, b/c it is in existence only because of man, who created it to better help him understand, which is totally pointless, b/c if he was REALLY faithful he'd just have faith, and not have to have religion - and that is a super long run-on sentence) is to believe without seeing. Believe without understanding everything.
The whole point of faith, is to HAVE IT. Not to question or dissect it...And I have a ton of work to do today, so I might not get back in here for a while...I'm not ignoring you, just busy! |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 11:03 AM
Maegan,
I think the idea that the first chapter of Genesis is a condensed version and the other chapters were supposed to be specific is just another interpetation. It helps prove that not only is the Bible scientifically inacurate but it is also a very sloppy piece of work. It would have been just as easy to get the order of events right in the "condensed version". |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 05:16 PM
Maegan, I can understand how unshakable faith in God is good and all, being as he's infalliable, but how can you be sure that that which claims to be a manifestation of God or God's word is what it claims to be? Plenty of faiths in authority-written or otherwise-have led to horrible deeds.
Looks like I'm doing run-on sentences too. |
LadyPython
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 09:43 PM
just to break the phillisophical/religious debate:
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
Post edited b/c the "LALA" was skewing the page. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 07:00 AM
Captain, I think the condensed/drawn out has something to do with Hebrew story structure. (Haven't really looked into that, though b/c I didn't really think it was that big of an issue.) Someone also used the example that the first chapter is like the blurb on the inside of the jacket of a book. Long book...long blurb.
*-*
I can't explain it, Citizen. It's humanly impossible. Only God can explain himself. Although, he has left a pretty good biography to go on...to help understand along the way.
*-*
And honestly, much as I hate to say it...Satan has done a really great job of making people doubt. After all, he's here walking about earth (according to Job, he's going "here and there"), and he's got 1/3 of an uncountable number of angels with him. (Of course they aren't angelic now.) It's no wonder so many people are in disbelief. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 08:07 AM
Oh...and this *-* was just supposed to be like a page break, I didn't realize till later that it looked like a little face. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 08:53 AM
Wow, what a lot of stupid people!
Error of judgement #1: |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 08:58 AM
Error of fact #1: Evolution is not a theory.
Repeat after me, |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 09:00 AM
Error of fact #2: Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
ETL said, |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 09:29 AM
Error of faith #1: |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 10:37 AM
Well said David B. Of course it is futile to convert someone like ETL. We don't do because we enjoy it. (Well, we do enjoy it but that's not the reason.) We just resent having our intelligence insulted. So maybe people like ETL will be a little more careful about doing that in the future. |
midlandsea
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 10:49 AM
Faith, by definition, involves a belief in something which cannot be proven.
I was brought up in a religious household (my father was a minister) so have some idea of the Bible,its contents and its followers.
In my experience logic and reason are irrelevant, science and personal experience are mis-interpreted (explained), ignored or cherry-picked. That's how it is - religions, alternative medicines, old-wives tales etc. etc..
Israeli archeologists from Tel-Aviv University have proven by excavation of the tel at Jericho that, when the Israelites arrived, Jericho was an empty town whose first walls were not built until 200 years afterwards. Won't stop millions of people believing that God destroyed the walls when the Israelites blew their trumpets.
For a reasoned, logical approach to the eye I suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins again).
Interesting point is that in the human eye the light receptive cells are the "wrong way round". Each cell's feed to the brain is on the inside of the eye and has to cross the retina before the impulses can escape. Thats why we have a blind spot on the retina. By comparison octopuses (octopi?) have the connections to the cortex on the outside of their eyes.
If it is true that God was only practising when She made man - would it therefore follow that the octopus was a later, superior creation, after all, if not, why give human beings an inferior orb? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 12:07 PM
I don't think the Pope is infallible.
All humans are capable of error! Even the Pope. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 05:09 PM
I really can't stand the arguement "it just is." I'm reading The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan right now, and it is really driving home in me the superiority of scientific reasoning. It's really a good read, and I'd recommend it to any and everybody.
But I must warn you, Carl Sagan may be a God-hater. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 06:00 PM
First, an apology.
I *meant* to say, "Wow, what a lot of SILLY people!"
I don't think anyone here is stupid (no, not even ETL).
Second, thanks for the tolerence of your replies. And I quite agree with Maegan that all humans are fallible, even the apostles. When or where Jesus was born should not be important to a Christian; who and what he is should.
When sceptics think that some inconsistency is a 'dagger to the heart' of the bible they are making the same mistake that many creationists make when they argue the uselessness of 'half an eye' or 'half a wing', or claim that men can't have descended from apes 'because there are still apes', or that evolution 'breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics'. It's just setting up a particularly narrow and limited target to your own requirements and then laying waste to it; a 'straw man' argument.
And it's very silly! |
Eric The Lumberjack
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 01:05 AM
My apologies to anyone I may have offended. Usually when I write, I am rather hyper on mountain dew, so I don't really think about exactly what I am saying.
Darwin recanting: Heard it from my pastor when writing a paper for school. Researched it a little, probably not enough, but still a little. Things can easily get started like this and spread. I still don't know if this is true or not (though I do think it is), it just seems to come in handy sometimes.
Lost books and contradictions: I have researched this. A lot. More than anyone in their right mind probably should. There were never any lost books. Anything that is supposedly "lost" from the bible never was a part of it due to contradictions and errors within itself, or lies about simple things such as who wrote it. To date, after studying many of the books and references between books that are in question by skeptics extensively, I do not find any contradictions, nor can anyone that I know, including the higher ups at my church. If you would like me to research a specific contradiction that you may have found, my email address is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), I will be more than happy to provide a religious view on it. Though, I would appreciate specific verses, otherwise it creates more work for me and I don't really have that much time anymore (hence why it's taken me so long to put this post up).
Regarding judaism: Judaism has changed greatly since old testament times. I don't view that as a viable truth, simply because of the fact that it's prime doctrines were so radically changed after one person (Jesus) was crucified. Also, in my mind, a jewish atheist is a contradiction, but feel free to correct me if that's not the case. Also, I did state that ALMOST every faith contradicts the pluralist statement, not every one.
In regards to me being a "Bible Thumper": Not true. I view the Bible as truth, but I don't yell at people because I think they are wrong. If that's what it seemed like I was doing, that's not the case, but I do see how it could have been interpreted that way. I'm a fairly lax individual and I do have questions of my own at times, to which I research and find answers for. Does this make me a bible thumper? Not in my mind.
Again, I'm sorry if I ticked anyone off. I didn't mean to. Anyone that has been kind and decent in this discussion, a big thank you goes out to you. And also, a big thank you to anyone that even took the time to yell at me for being stupid. Even if I personally believe you are wrong about everything regarding the topic of discussion, you were right about one thing, I was being a pill, I shouldn't have, and I'm sorry.
I'd like to continue this discussion in a civilized manner, because I have been finding this rather fun, though if you all do not want to, that's perfectly fine. If anyone wants to discuss this with me in real time, then my AIM screenname is plungergoat, and I already gave you my email address, so feel free to contact me at any time.
~Eric the Lumberjack |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 07:35 PM
Eric, thanks for being so open minded, even though you don't necessarely(sp?) agree.
On being a Jewish atheist, I am a firm believer that Judiasm is both a religion and a culture. I don't eat pork, I go to services (every once in a while), I have visited Israel, and I make sure I celebrate as many holidays and traditions I can, provided they don't get in the way of every day life (can you say college football games on high holy days....I hate the University Sports Administration) However, I also don't believe in God.
I follow the traditions, not because I believe that that is what God wants me to do, but because I believe it is what all my ancestors would want me to do. I fast on Yom Kippur and think about my great grandparents, cousins, etc that were killed in the holocaust and not allowed to celebrate traditions they believed in so strongly. I have a seder on Passover and think about how lucky I am to live in a place with so many freedoms and have come from a good family and be able to recieve a higher education. I follow all the practices, though in the end I have no belief in God.
In fact, no one in my immediate family believes in God either. Neither do many of my Jewish friends. In fact, I heard the man to who is the head of the International Hillel organization speak while I was in Israel, he's atheist too.
To me, Judaism isn't so much my religion as it is my heritage and my culture. This is not an uncommon feeling, especially in America. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 04:50 PM
I'm another kind of "Jewish atheist," although I am not culturally Jewish. I'm simply an "-itz." |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 | 07:33 PM
80 |
|
Page 4 of 16 pages ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last › |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
