Slashdot Mirror

You're citing the King James Version, so "threescore" is probably there because it was the popular way to say 60 in England around AD 1600. The numerological meaning would be tied to the original language - Greek?

This is a nifty site with different translations. Here it's claimed that some versions give the number as 616!

So... good luck :)

It doesn't even endore it, in fact, it is advertised as a work of fiction, entertainment, not the divine word by which to live your life, as the Bible is.

The average GTA player spends more time playing GTA than the average Bible reader reads the Bible. It's hard not to be influenced by what you do regularly.

Look at all those that cite it as reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Never judge an ideology by its extremists. I'm not gay, I'm not qualified to make a judgment, and the One who is qualified is quite capable of acting on His own.

You may be right that those who are so easily influenced by the parts of the Bible that they like are no better than those who are easily influenced by GTA. But the solution is not to ban the Bible, just as you wouldn't want GTA banned. People who read the Bible ought to read all of it and understand it. Especially the parts about Jesus and forgiveness and redemption and that sort of stuff. And the parts about Pharisees and hypocrites and overfollowing the law.

Or how about the jurors receantly that cited the eye for an eye part

A) Have you ever heard of Hammurabi? B) Have you or the jurors ever heard of "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you," along with an explicit refutation of "eye for an eye" (Matthew 5:38-48)? Finding "eye for an eye" is a sign, in my opinion, that the jury had decided already and then was looking to the Bible for "support". Thank goodness they declared that a mistrial...but the Bible wasn't the root problem, the crazy jurors were.

when deciding to sentence a rapist to death

Rapists (especially premeditators, serial rapists, etc.) are evil, evil, people who have no value for human dignity. I'm not sure if the death penalty is quite warranted (here or anywhere), but the crime is certainly deserving of harsh punishment...and he needs to be out of contact with potential victims.

Why then, isn't there the same objection to the bible?

Because characters in GTA use the women. Characters in the Bible either punish her with appropriate judicial authority* or, better, forgive her if she repents (John 8:1-11). (Forgiving is what we ought to do, btw. And it's the answer to your question as to why we oughtn't explicitly follow the OT.)

*The OT's orders to kill and stone and so forth are equivalent to our modern legal system's death penalty, life in prison, etc. If at all the system was implemented vigilante instead of through the proper authorities, it worked because everyone followed the same written moral code -- so it's the same effect as having laws. Vigilante justice stops working when people follow their own personal moral codes.

It doesn't even endore it, in fact, it is advertised as a work of fiction, entertainment, not the divine word by which to live your life, as the Bible is.

The average GTA player spends more time playing GTA than the average Bible reader reads the Bible. It's hard not to be influenced by what you do regularly.

Look at all those that cite it as reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Never judge an ideology by its extremists. I'm not gay, I'm not qualified to make a judgment, and the One who is qualified is quite capable of acting on His own.

You may be right that those who are so easily influenced by the parts of the Bible that they like are no better than those who are easily influenced by GTA. But the solution is not to ban the Bible, just as you wouldn't want GTA banned. People who read the Bible ought to read all of it and understand it. Especially the parts about Jesus and forgiveness and redemption and that sort of stuff. And the parts about Pharisees and hypocrites and overfollowing the law.

Or how about the jurors receantly that cited the eye for an eye part

A) Have you ever heard of Hammurabi? B) Have you or the jurors ever heard of "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you," along with an explicit refutation of "eye for an eye" (Matthew 5:38-48)? Finding "eye for an eye" is a sign, in my opinion, that the jury had decided already and then was looking to the Bible for "support". Thank goodness they declared that a mistrial...but the Bible wasn't the root problem, the crazy jurors were.

when deciding to sentence a rapist to death

Rapists (especially premeditators, serial rapists, etc.) are evil, evil, people who have no value for human dignity. I'm not sure if the death penalty is quite warranted (here or anywhere), but the crime is certainly deserving of harsh punishment...and he needs to be out of contact with potential victims.

Why then, isn't there the same objection to the bible?

Because characters in GTA use the women. Characters in the Bible either punish her with appropriate judicial authority* or, better, forgive her if she repents (John 8:1-11). (Forgiving is what we ought to do, btw. And it's the answer to your question as to why we oughtn't explicitly follow the OT.)

*The OT's orders to kill and stone and so forth are equivalent to our modern legal system's death penalty, life in prison, etc. If at all the system was implemented vigilante instead of through the proper authorities, it worked because everyone followed the same written moral code -- so it's the same effect as having laws. Vigilante justice stops working when people follow their own personal moral codes.

If you actually go read Mark 15:2 and John 18:37 in the New International Version, which was not first published until the late 1970's, you'll find out that the previous poster is misinformed.

If you actually go read Mark 15:2 and John 18:37 in the New International Version, which was not first published until the late 1970's, you'll find out that the previous poster is misinformed.

The basic creationist belief (as outlined in the Bible) states that "And God said, let there be light...and the morning and the night were the first day." In other words, the "light" (the Sun) was created before all else.

According to http://www.biblegateway.com/ creation goes as follows (new international translation, but this is consistent with every translation I've seen):

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

The above says that both heavens and earth were created before light, so why do you claim that the Sun was created first ? Is this passage different in whatever version of the Bible Mormons use ?

Is that what Jesus was supposed to have said?

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven times."

What it comes down to for me is that I don't know for sure. I wasn't there. None of us where. I do have an educated (I believe) guess as to what I feel was probable though. To me, this kind of questioning and thinking can be powerfuly religious if not merely an interesting exercise in sociology.

Why didn't he just say 'eternal' -- there wasn't a word for it?

I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I've put a significant amount of time into studying the Bible.

Actually, I thought this line might be trying to provoke a reaction:

You think with it being the #1 best selling book of al time they would have, but I guess not.

However, looking back it might have just been a lack of coffee (same reason that I used king james instead of king james VERSION. And still got modded as insightful somehow. Only on Slashdot!). I am sorry if you felt offended, I read too much into it and figured you were poking the left-leaning Slashdot crowd with a stick.

I would think the problem with searching religious works like the Holy Bible would be such:

1. Any religious work has a ton of different versions. http://www.biblegateway.com/ lists 19 or so English versions of the Holy Bible. Which one wins?

2. Any religious work is bound to be referenced by a lot of other works. People tend to discuss religions, so will talk about that religions holy books. So that could mean that a book that talks about the Holy Bible (so has the word Bible in it a ton of times) might show up higher in search rankings.* For example, if I search for "Oliver Twist", "Treasure Island", or "Romeo and Julet" those words show up in the books as well as in the title, so they might get higher rankings then books talking about them.

*Actually, according to http://www.bible.com/, the word bible does not actually show up in the bible itself, and the word holy shows up 617 times in 549 verses. So it's quite possible other works talking about the Holy Bible would show up higher! Just for a reference LORD shows up 8,009 times in 6,781 verses. (But searching google books for Lord doesn't get you the bible either.)

Anyway, I think this thing is still beta. Hopefully they'll add something like "Book Title:Holy Bible" to help sort through the results. And I would really love to be able to see more then just 3 or so books at a time. Maybe when it is out of beta...

Genesis 12:1-3,7-8, 13:14-18, 15:7,18-21, 17:8, 35:10-12, Exodus 3:8, 6:4,8, Numbers 33:50-53,55-56, 34:1-12, Deuteronomy 1:8, 11:21,24,31, 17:14-15, 26:1-9, 30:3-7, 34:4, Joshua 21:43, 2 Chronicles 20:7, Psalms 105:9-12, 122:6, Isaiah 11:11-12, 40:1-2, 62:6-7, Jeremiah 25:5, 31:8-11, Ezekiel 37:11-14, Joel 3:18-21, Amos 9:14-15, Luke 1:54-55, Acts 7:5, Romans 4:13,16, 9:1-5, 11:17-28, Galatians 3:16-17

I believe a wise man said this thousands of years ago.

Matthew 18 nor Matthew 18 nor Acts 10.

Romans 1 doesn't specifically mention homosexuals, and indeed you could argue that gays just are that way from the start, so they can't "give in to the sinful desires of their hearts".

Thank you, please try again.

Matthew 18 nor Matthew 18 nor Acts 10.

Romans 1 doesn't specifically mention homosexuals, and indeed you could argue that gays just are that way from the start, so they can't "give in to the sinful desires of their hearts".

Thank you, please try again.

Matthew 18 nor Matthew 18 nor Acts 10.

Romans 1 doesn't specifically mention homosexuals, and indeed you could argue that gays just are that way from the start, so they can't "give in to the sinful desires of their hearts".

Thank you, please try again.

Matthew 18 nor Matthew 18 nor Acts 10.

Romans 1 doesn't specifically mention homosexuals, and indeed you could argue that gays just are that way from the start, so they can't "give in to the sinful desires of their hearts".

Thank you, please try again.

You're missing out :)

Go here bible gateway and search for "stoned" or "stoning". Enjoy.

If we spend all of our time looking over our shoulders, nothing gets done, the enemy has won and we might as well not even try.

So I become a martyr to some random cause? Even the Bible says some evil must come, but I hope one of the DMCA framers is reading this, so they can also read the followup to it, or this concise description of the RIAA's activities.

If we spend all of our time looking over our shoulders, nothing gets done, the enemy has won and we might as well not even try.

So I become a martyr to some random cause? Even the Bible says some evil must come, but I hope one of the DMCA framers is reading this, so they can also read the followup to it, or this concise description of the RIAA's activities.

A marriage is between man and women.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (more references here)

I checked it out and these are real quotes from the Bible. See BibleGateway.com if you want to see for yourself. Seriously, I had no idea that homosexuality is really described in the Bible. I was sure that it was just a stupid superstition of people who never bothered to actually read the Bible, like the ones who are against Evolutionism or Geocentricism, etc. Interesting read, true eye opener. Thanks a lot.

From the article:
Because an ID is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, Gun Owners of America said the bill amounts to a "bureaucratic back door to implementation of a national ID card." The group warned that it would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions."

I expect this is precisely the plan. It has to start somewhere, and a driver's license is a pretty innocent place to start. Eventually, per Revelation 13:16-17, you will not be able to "buy or sell" without this ID, but that time is not yet.

That's not actually the point I'm discussing. I'm not suggesting (and I don't believe Mr. Kempler was either) that homosexuals themselves were evil, bad, criminals or anything else. But I do believe that homosexual behaviour is harmful in and of itself. (To the person themselves as well as to the rest of society). This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it. Some use "love" to mean acceptance without criticism or accountability. This is not love. Would a parent be showing love to their child if they'd didn't correct their self-destructive or wrong behaviour? What sort of friend is it that "loves" without holding their friend accountable for wrong actions? Love does not mean that I tell someone how wonderful they are just the way they are. You may not see this as possible, but I know that it is. I do it every day. Sometimes it's harder than other times. With homosexuals I find it quite easy. With Islamist terrorist I find it a lot harder.

Quoting the beatitudes is fine, but I it's a little dishonest to suggest that that represents all of Christ's teaching. The story of Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery gives us a much better understanding of how would have addressed our situation with homosexuals. Both adultery & homosexual activity are considered to be similar sexual sins and both were punishable by death in Jesus' culture. He shows compassion and forgives her sin but at the same time he also tells her to "sin no more". At no point does Jesus say that she's alright just the way she is. He approaches her as he approaches all of us, (as we are) and then tells us to change our ways. I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones. This is what I demand the right to say and what you're talking about punishing me for.

Comparing political speech to religious speech is not an apples to oranges scenarios. Both are part of the fundamental freedoms protected by the charter. Your statement that "such people ought not work in the public sector" is disturbing. You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life. This is very very wrong. (Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented). You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic. (Wilberforce was the driving force behind the abolition of the international slave trade in the 18th Century and he was explicity motivated by his Evangelical Christian beliefs and he used Christian morality to argue his case in parliament).

You are right that I ignored your "replace 'homosexual' with 'black'" question. I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle. Both Kempler and I are critical of the actions of homosexuals, not the people themselves. An appropriate comparison would be a white person saying the same things (in a public forum) that Bill Cosby did when he caused that controversy a while back by criticising the actions of the black community in the US.

But what if someone said something about the people rather than about lifestyles? (I will say again that this is NOT was Kempler said, nor is what I'm Saying with regards to homosexuals). Perhaps a teacher wrote a public letter suggesting that "

That's not actually the point I'm discussing. I'm not suggesting (and I don't believe Mr. Kempler was either) that homosexuals themselves were evil, bad, criminals or anything else. But I do believe that homosexual behaviour is harmful in and of itself. (To the person themselves as well as to the rest of society). This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it. Some use "love" to mean acceptance without criticism or accountability. This is not love. Would a parent be showing love to their child if they'd didn't correct their self-destructive or wrong behaviour? What sort of friend is it that "loves" without holding their friend accountable for wrong actions? Love does not mean that I tell someone how wonderful they are just the way they are. You may not see this as possible, but I know that it is. I do it every day. Sometimes it's harder than other times. With homosexuals I find it quite easy. With Islamist terrorist I find it a lot harder.

Quoting the beatitudes is fine, but I it's a little dishonest to suggest that that represents all of Christ's teaching. The story of Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery gives us a much better understanding of how would have addressed our situation with homosexuals. Both adultery & homosexual activity are considered to be similar sexual sins and both were punishable by death in Jesus' culture. He shows compassion and forgives her sin but at the same time he also tells her to "sin no more". At no point does Jesus say that she's alright just the way she is. He approaches her as he approaches all of us, (as we are) and then tells us to change our ways. I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones. This is what I demand the right to say and what you're talking about punishing me for.

Comparing political speech to religious speech is not an apples to oranges scenarios. Both are part of the fundamental freedoms protected by the charter. Your statement that "such people ought not work in the public sector" is disturbing. You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life. This is very very wrong. (Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented). You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic. (Wilberforce was the driving force behind the abolition of the international slave trade in the 18th Century and he was explicity motivated by his Evangelical Christian beliefs and he used Christian morality to argue his case in parliament).

You are right that I ignored your "replace 'homosexual' with 'black'" question. I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle. Both Kempler and I are critical of the actions of homosexuals, not the people themselves. An appropriate comparison would be a white person saying the same things (in a public forum) that Bill Cosby did when he caused that controversy a while back by criticising the actions of the black community in the US.

But what if someone said something about the people rather than about lifestyles? (I will say again that this is NOT was Kempler said, nor is what I'm Saying with regards to homosexuals). Perhaps a teacher wrote a public letter suggesting that "

Here are his instructions to Abram, who was renamed Abraham: "Look attentively, I pray thee, towards the heavens, and count the stars, if thou art able to count them". (-;

On a more serious note, yes, the rise of the Religious Right presents a steadily increasing problem. Did you know that "religious nuts" are responsible for the separation-of-church-and-state provisions in both the US and Australian Constitutions? A chap by the name of Alonzo T Jones dunnit. The Powers That Were wanted to enact blue laws, so Mr Jones and crew first directed them to a literal reading of Exodus 20, and then when the politicians switched to walling off Saturdays instead of Sundays, convinced them to - if there is such a word - deshrine religious holidays in the law: make sure that none were enforced, all were permitted.

From your tone, you would like to outlaw what you see as religion, which would in reality be outlawing every religion but one: Atheism. Let's put this another way: you would make Atheism the State Religion as the Religious Right would make a concensus "Christianity" the State Religion.

Not only is Atheism a social disaster (France tried it, along with China and the USSR, North Korea and numerous others; go read the dismal record if you want to get depressed), but it's actually being done by stealth all across Western society as we type, using the exact same Constitutional provision intended to prevent it. The Religious Right is both a reaction to this and an excuse for it. If they get their way, we'll be living in a Puritan state, re-living the Dark Ages. If they don't, we'll be reliving Lenin's purges. The end of both their actions or yours will be a disaster, either way.

What we really need is to properly enforce the Constitution. To do this, simply formally recognise Atheism as a religion and enforce the existing no-religious-preferences rules rigorously. That would both starve the Religious Right of fuel by removing an excuse to react, and begin to remove the existing shackles from science. Scientists today are forced to ensure that their work fits within Materialist (Atheist) dogma, or face systematic attack from powerful religious forces. Without that handicap, they'd be free to explore a lot more options.

Here are his instructions to Abram, who was renamed Abraham: "Look attentively, I pray thee, towards the heavens, and count the stars, if thou art able to count them". (-;

On a more serious note, yes, the rise of the Religious Right presents a steadily increasing problem. Did you know that "religious nuts" are responsible for the separation-of-church-and-state provisions in both the US and Australian Constitutions? A chap by the name of Alonzo T Jones dunnit. The Powers That Were wanted to enact blue laws, so Mr Jones and crew first directed them to a literal reading of Exodus 20, and then when the politicians switched to walling off Saturdays instead of Sundays, convinced them to - if there is such a word - deshrine religious holidays in the law: make sure that none were enforced, all were permitted.

From your tone, you would like to outlaw what you see as religion, which would in reality be outlawing every religion but one: Atheism. Let's put this another way: you would make Atheism the State Religion as the Religious Right would make a concensus "Christianity" the State Religion.

Not only is Atheism a social disaster (France tried it, along with China and the USSR, North Korea and numerous others; go read the dismal record if you want to get depressed), but it's actually being done by stealth all across Western society as we type, using the exact same Constitutional provision intended to prevent it. The Religious Right is both a reaction to this and an excuse for it. If they get their way, we'll be living in a Puritan state, re-living the Dark Ages. If they don't, we'll be reliving Lenin's purges. The end of both their actions or yours will be a disaster, either way.

What we really need is to properly enforce the Constitution. To do this, simply formally recognise Atheism as a religion and enforce the existing no-religious-preferences rules rigorously. That would both starve the Religious Right of fuel by removing an excuse to react, and begin to remove the existing shackles from science. Scientists today are forced to ensure that their work fits within Materialist (Atheist) dogma, or face systematic attack from powerful religious forces. Without that handicap, they'd be free to explore a lot more options.

Matthew 22:4 (New King James Version)
Again, he sent out other servants, saying, "Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."

How long will we survive now that our iniquity (Gn XV:16) is filling up so quickly?

No he wasn't, see the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30 in the Christian Bible)

Even if you aren't Christian, you may still agree that it accurately represents what he said, and thus he is not a Communist.

If a god is willing to let millions of Christians suffer and die, then he doesn't love them.

No Christian believes that their God is not willing to let his people suffer and die. After all, we are talking about a deity who sent his only begotten son to the cross, and most of his immediate disciples suffered extremely violent deaths because of their beliefs.

The Christian perspective is that the tragedies of this physical world, no matter how great or small, are as nothing compared to the stakes that are in play on the spiritual level. I am taking it a little out of context, but 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 says "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

If the soul really is eternal, and the fate of a soul is binary (not sure if I believe that, but most do), then suffering and dying in this finite world is a small price to pay. I say this not to minimize the horror of human suffering and death, but to maximize the significance of the eternal part of the equation--the part that we cannot see and know close to nothing about, much less how events in this world directly correlate to a net gain or loss in the next. It may--no, should--be impossible for us to actually feel in our gut that the devastation of the past week is anything but a horrific mistake that any responsible deity would have stopped at nothing to avoid. But I wonder if, should the Christians turn out to be right, we will look back in twenty million years and see that all the joys and sorrows of human history, much less a single event, were as significant as a single atom in the universe.

(If that argument doesn't float your boat, I have some other alternative ways of looking at it.)

I think the real question you should be asking me is, "Why did God create evil, sin, and the potential for infinite suffering in the afterlife?" Now that is one that flies way over my head!

If hundreds of thousands of people dying needless deaths in the space of a couple of hours isn't the right time to question the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful god, when the hell is the right time?

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't be asking questions. I'm just acknowledging that making my side of this argument forces me to cast a relatively uncompassionate light on events which I would much rather treat with reverence and sympathy.

And when I said "However, I don't like any tragedy being used as an argument against the existence of God" I didn't mean to accuse you or anyone else of somehow cynically taking advantage of the situation--it definitely came out that way, and I apologize for misspeaking. What I should have said was, "Even though this was very tragic, I feel compelled to argue for the existence of God."

I 100% agree. I've found that Christians as individuals in general tend to be far too confident in their efforts to interpret the Bible.

But as for me, even if I believed in god, I wouldn't waste a moment of my life trying to second-guess him, so I'd end of living exactly the same way I do now.

I can see that point of view. For me, as a Christian, I believe that while the Bible may not give us all the answers we're looking for--or if parts of it are not even true, if taken literally--it will get me where I want to go, both in this life and the next (if there is one). This is not to say that there are not other reasons to believe in the Bible other than a blind and unquestioning faith, but rather, just because it's impossible to understand fully doesn't mean it's not useful to understand in part. (Whoa, sorry about all the negatives in that sentence.)

Oh, and the problem with the 'lesser of two evils' earthquake hypothesis is that there's no reason why the tectonic stress couldn't also have been let out through hundreds of itty-bitty tremors over a period of years. That it was instead 'saved up' for centuries and released via one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history suggests either apathy, malevolence, or nonexistence.

What if a 9.0 magnitude earthquake was itty-bitty compared to the unprecedented 18.0 magnitude (the Richter scale is exponential, isn't it?) earthquake that would have struck central India in 2014 had this one not occurred? What if the next would-be Hitler was killed in that earthquake? What if at the pearly gates, anyone who was killed in a natural disaster automatically gets into heaven?

We could go on and on in circles forever. The problem is that with as little information and perspective as we have, I am free to concoct whatever hypothetical situations I want to--since you are the one trying to prove the existence/non-existence of God with this argument. Again, I am not saying "look at this earthquake, isn't God so darn loving!?!?" I'm just saying you won't get there from here, by that road.

I actually think a more interesting theory is that God is (self-)constrained not to interfere. He lets the laws of physics play out, he lets humans commit heinous crimes... but all the time, he's keeping score. He steps in the minimum amount necessary to set up the rules, but after that he mostly observes. (See Parable of the Weeds.) In fact, if you look at Biblical history, you see that most of the time there are no miracles being performed, despite the need of God's followers--they are bunched up in clusters around certain turning points (Moses, Elijah, Jesus, the Apostles). Anyway, I think it's interesting, who knows if there's any truth to it.

Just in case you don't already have a favorite site:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/

Ok...tell me this then...if the Bible is 100% true, why would there be such inconsistancies? It's not like the actual scripture isn't there to check out. So if you say the Bible is 100% true, then that means all of the stuff that contradicts the other stuff is true. But what do you believe? Do you believe that God is a peaceful god, or is God a vengeful and spiteful god. You can't have it both ways...

Even without the Bible, I can refute Christianity. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, etc...and God is loving and peaceful...then why is there so much bad in the world? Is it the Devil? Why would God allow the Devil to exist if he causes so many problems? He doesn't have to kill the Devil, just lock him away and don't let him contact us. If God chooses who will be born, and if they will be born blind, deaf, lame, etc...why would he place such painful existances on people? Wouldn't he want everyone to have the best chance to live a good life? If God only made the Earth 10,000 years ago, why is there so much evidence to the contrary? Why are there dinosaur bones everywhere? Why are there so many bones of creatures that look part-human, part-ape? Why do we find evidence of homo-erectus, homo-habilis, australopithecus, etc? And speaking of homo...why are there so many homosexual people? And before you say what I know you'll say it is *NOT* a choice. Homosexuals have been talked about as far back as history records and further. And it is not a purely human thing either. There have been several studies into animal homosexuality. I even think there was something on penguin homosexuality either on here or FARK.com recently. If homosexuals are not a part of God's plan, then why are they here?

So...tell me...if the God that wrote the Bible is real, and the Bible is 100% true...why is there so much evidence around that is contradictory to much of what has been attributed to him? Either God is flawed, or the Bible is flawed. Which is it?

Ok...tell me this then...if the Bible is 100% true, why would there be such inconsistancies? It's not like the actual scripture isn't there to check out. So if you say the Bible is 100% true, then that means all of the stuff that contradicts the other stuff is true. But what do you believe? Do you believe that God is a peaceful god, or is God a vengeful and spiteful god. You can't have it both ways...

Even without the Bible, I can refute Christianity. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, etc...and God is loving and peaceful...then why is there so much bad in the world? Is it the Devil? Why would God allow the Devil to exist if he causes so many problems? He doesn't have to kill the Devil, just lock him away and don't let him contact us. If God chooses who will be born, and if they will be born blind, deaf, lame, etc...why would he place such painful existances on people? Wouldn't he want everyone to have the best chance to live a good life? If God only made the Earth 10,000 years ago, why is there so much evidence to the contrary? Why are there dinosaur bones everywhere? Why are there so many bones of creatures that look part-human, part-ape? Why do we find evidence of homo-erectus, homo-habilis, australopithecus, etc? And speaking of homo...why are there so many homosexual people? And before you say what I know you'll say it is *NOT* a choice. Homosexuals have been talked about as far back as history records and further. And it is not a purely human thing either. There have been several studies into animal homosexuality. I even think there was something on penguin homosexuality either on here or FARK.com recently. If homosexuals are not a part of God's plan, then why are they here?

So...tell me...if the God that wrote the Bible is real, and the Bible is 100% true...why is there so much evidence around that is contradictory to much of what has been attributed to him? Either God is flawed, or the Bible is flawed. Which is it?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Footnotes: a. Genesis 1:2 Or possibly became

Check out this and compare all the translations available. They even have Greek!

Until God put a 120 year cap on the life of a human. link

Just after the flood, the life span of people began to drastically decrease with the last person to live longer than 120 years being Jacob(Israel). Moses lived to be 120.

I used to think the bible was dubious, until I studied it.

Until God put a 120 year cap on the life of a human. link

Just after the flood, the life span of people began to drastically decrease with the last person to live longer than 120 years being Jacob(Israel). Moses lived to be 120.

I used to think the bible was dubious, until I studied it.

Christians typically believe that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law given in the Old Testament, and we are no longer bound by those. However, the standard set by Christ is far higher than the standards of righteousness that can be attained by following the letter of the laws seen in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament law was to help the Jews live a life that is more acceptable to a Holy God. In addition, the sacrificial system described in Leviticus (and other places) was established to make up for the imperfections and unholiness of the Jewish people. "Without blood there can be no remission of sin."

Jesus set a higher standard and became the blood sacrifice for the covering or forgiveness of sin for those who follow Him.

As an example, Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Whereas the law followed by the jews would allow a man to lust after a woman, as long as he didn't act on that lust, the standard set by Christ is that even the ideas of lusting constitute sin.

WRT the prohibition on homosexual acts, it is found clearly taught in both the old and new testaments.

While we are not bound by the requirements of the law, Christ said that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves!

As I said, this frequently means a far higher standard than would have been mandated under the Levitical law.

This is particularly challenging because God is perfect, and to have relationship with a perfect, holy God I would have to be perfect.

This is a problem because I am imperfect, and therefore deserving of eternal separation from God.

Thankfully, I don't have to be perfect. The Bible says "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

Because of Christ's perfect life, and his choosing to sacrifice His life, it's not by my good works or compliance with the law that helps me to be found acceptable by God. It's my faith in Christ's sacrifice for me that allows me to have relationship with God.

I hope that this helps!

Regards,
Anomaly

Christians typically believe that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law given in the Old Testament, and we are no longer bound by those. However, the standard set by Christ is far higher than the standards of righteousness that can be attained by following the letter of the laws seen in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament law was to help the Jews live a life that is more acceptable to a Holy God. In addition, the sacrificial system described in Leviticus (and other places) was established to make up for the imperfections and unholiness of the Jewish people. "Without blood there can be no remission of sin."

Jesus set a higher standard and became the blood sacrifice for the covering or forgiveness of sin for those who follow Him.

As an example, Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Whereas the law followed by the jews would allow a man to lust after a woman, as long as he didn't act on that lust, the standard set by Christ is that even the ideas of lusting constitute sin.

WRT the prohibition on homosexual acts, it is found clearly taught in both the old and new testaments.

While we are not bound by the requirements of the law, Christ said that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves!

As I said, this frequently means a far higher standard than would have been mandated under the Levitical law.

This is particularly challenging because God is perfect, and to have relationship with a perfect, holy God I would have to be perfect.

This is a problem because I am imperfect, and therefore deserving of eternal separation from God.

Thankfully, I don't have to be perfect. The Bible says "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

Because of Christ's perfect life, and his choosing to sacrifice His life, it's not by my good works or compliance with the law that helps me to be found acceptable by God. It's my faith in Christ's sacrifice for me that allows me to have relationship with God.

I hope that this helps!

Regards,
Anomaly

Christians typically believe that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law given in the Old Testament, and we are no longer bound by those. However, the standard set by Christ is far higher than the standards of righteousness that can be attained by following the letter of the laws seen in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament law was to help the Jews live a life that is more acceptable to a Holy God. In addition, the sacrificial system described in Leviticus (and other places) was established to make up for the imperfections and unholiness of the Jewish people. "Without blood there can be no remission of sin."

Jesus set a higher standard and became the blood sacrifice for the covering or forgiveness of sin for those who follow Him.

As an example, Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Whereas the law followed by the jews would allow a man to lust after a woman, as long as he didn't act on that lust, the standard set by Christ is that even the ideas of lusting constitute sin.

WRT the prohibition on homosexual acts, it is found clearly taught in both the old and new testaments.

While we are not bound by the requirements of the law, Christ said that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves!

As I said, this frequently means a far higher standard than would have been mandated under the Levitical law.

This is particularly challenging because God is perfect, and to have relationship with a perfect, holy God I would have to be perfect.

This is a problem because I am imperfect, and therefore deserving of eternal separation from God.

Thankfully, I don't have to be perfect. The Bible says "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

Because of Christ's perfect life, and his choosing to sacrifice His life, it's not by my good works or compliance with the law that helps me to be found acceptable by God. It's my faith in Christ's sacrifice for me that allows me to have relationship with God.

I hope that this helps!

Regards,
Anomaly

You're a sad case - the Bible says Noah's sons entered the ark with their wives:
I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark--you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

BTW, Adam's sons had their sisters as wives.

You must have picked the wrong creationist. Not all of us are hate-spewing, narrow-minded, rhetoric quoting hypocrites. It really is a shame that a significant percentage of the Christians in this country fall into the above classification.

That being said, the Bible is approximately 5000 years old, not 2000. I am also interested in your proof of revisions, and a reference for the alleged stoning of disobedient children. In all honesty, that is a new one for me, and I have been a Christian for almost 30 years. If you need a good online Bible for researching this, you can go here

As far as evolution goes, I have one really burning question. Given that it is theoretically possible that The Big Bang really happened and that everything in the universe has undergone successive iterations to end up where we are now, where did all the "stuff" come from so that The Big Bang could happen? Was it always just there, or did it come from somewhere (or something)else? Where is the ultimate origin?

I choose to believe in a Supreme Being that transcends time and space, who always was and always will be, who is all knowing and all powerful. I choose to put my faith in Him, as opposed to putting my faith in Naturalism. No one will ultimately prove or disprove evolution, so there has to be at least a small portion of faith involved in believing either side. You can either put your faith in God, or in evolution. I choose to believe in God, and to submit my life to him, instead of trying to be my own god (I've tried it, and it doesn't work). We all try to be our own gods, because that is human nature. We are inherently stubborn and refuse to submit to something that we cannot see. That is why man has been trying to disprove God, or declare him dead, for a very long time.

When you are tired of fighting him, you might actually come to the place where you Need Him I know that I do.

"And as for the genetics thing - I don't know if it is genetics or not, but people should have free will."

I forgot to address this one. You can do it using common sense. Assuming we somehow mutated a "gay" gene at some point. It would be naturally eliminated through natural selection. Unless you can say that it is a naturally occuring mutation (or disease if you will) that occurs numerous times.

People Do have free will. The bible actually talks about it. http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language =english&version=NIV&passage=Gal+5%3A13-15

Funny, I found it in the bible

I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."

I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.

I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.

• "firmament" in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?
• Genesis FAQ
• Online Bible search - many translations
• Online Bible dictionaries
• Online Bible commentaries
• Open source free Bible software - Linux, Windows; many translations, dictionaries, commentaries, etc.

Oops -- wrong link. Correct link is here.

What, you mean like the Bible?

Whee! Such hilarious, sophisticated humor :) And so original; nothing like it on /. or in pop culture ...

But seriously, have a read. You might rethink things:

The Bible (NIV)

I believe that the question you have raised is incorrect in its obvious assertion. Most Bible translations actually use the word "murder" instead of "kill". (You can visit BibleGateway and verify this yourself.) The often quoted passage you reference is from the King James Version, which is not the most accurate translation produced. In fact even the New King James Version has revised this passage.

(And before anyone jumps all over me about differences in translations, all reputable translations are conducted using the same early Greek manuscripts.)

If you read in Leviticus 35, God lays down some very strict laws and clearly defines murder verses killing...

16" 'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 17 Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies 21 or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. 22 " 'But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally 23 or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, 24 the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. (Leviticus 35:16-24)

One thing I find very interesting in the above passage is the idea of VICTIMS RIGHTS.

30 " 'Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 31 " 'Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death. (Leviticus 35:30-31)

In this passage, God sets forth how suspected murderers are to be judged. At least two reliable witnesses must support the allegation of murder.

As you can see, God does propose a strong response to people who willfully murder others. I am a Christian, and I fully believe that murderers DO deserve the death penalty. Murderers should NOT go free, or be subsidized by taxpayers. They should pay for their crime.

I believe that the question you have raised is incorrect in its obvious assertion. Most Bible translations actually use the word "murder" instead of "kill". (You can visit BibleGateway and verify this yourself.) The often quoted passage you reference is from the King James Version, which is not the most accurate translation produced. In fact even the New King James Version has revised this passage.

(And before anyone jumps all over me about differences in translations, all reputable translations are conducted using the same early Greek manuscripts.)

If you read in Leviticus 35, God lays down some very strict laws and clearly defines murder verses killing...

16" 'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 17 Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies 21 or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. 22 " 'But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally 23 or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, 24 the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. (Leviticus 35:16-24)

One thing I find very interesting in the above passage is the idea of VICTIMS RIGHTS.

30 " 'Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 31 " 'Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death. (Leviticus 35:30-31)

In this passage, God sets forth how suspected murderers are to be judged. At least two reliable witnesses must support the allegation of murder.

As you can see, God does propose a strong response to people who willfully murder others. I am a Christian, and I fully believe that murderers DO deserve the death penalty. Murderers should NOT go free, or be subsidized by taxpayers. They should pay for their crime.

That really reminds me, it's time for me to write that check.

-cmh

Hi Rok, This is never any easy question to answer because I'd like to be making $200,000 a year, but of course thats probably a little unreasonable. At this point, I'm just looking for full time work, so I'm fairly felxible in my salary expections. To put a number to it, I'd say maybe around $35,000. Matthew No, he's not "wishing" and he's not simply sitting back. In his mercy he's decided not to destory us all and he's made a way If you read the Bible, you can see he does indeed have a plan.