Oh. Well in that case, please, let me apologize in the AC's place, and of course for Slashdot's apparent misconduct. Slashdot, having seen your post, would almost certainly issue an apology, outlining their lack of consideration for your needs. I too agree wholeheartedly, sir, that this blatant overcompensation; this obviously unnecessary and monstrous waste of text should not have been put forth, indeed conceived at all. I would further suggest that Slashdot instead build Slashcolon and Slashparentheses, each to contain its own news type. Slashcolon for politics, and Slashparentheses for business of course.
In any case, I do sympathize for your finger, and its hardship; the barbaric level of scrolling it's been put through has proven quite stressful, I believe! Please accept my condolences and have a better day tomorrow.
That was... hypocritical to the point of unsightliness(that may or may not be a word). Are you suggesting that 1 in 2 works produced by a stoned human being are considered above average artistic or creative quality?
Wait, wait, hold up - you're saying you watched your friends consume marijuana, and that watching them actually improved your view on the drug? That observing it dispelled any negative thoughts on the subject? I'm asking an honest question, not trying to be sarcastic mate.
Don't even bother replying to stiffs like this guy. Your life is rough and busy enough I'm sure, and getting into a long and hard argument with a pr*** isn't worth it.
And with all that critical thinking, you've never once wondered "why can I think critically?". Or maybe you did, and forgot the question when you stopped meeting with the church. I can't tell, and won't try. I'm curious now, if only to know how it happened. What's your story sir?
At this point in this particular discussion, pointing to the argument I've just pointed away from and saying "this is not yet settled" very nearly deserves a crude expression of exasperation, such as a facepalm.
Given that your god doesn't seem inclined to give evidence of his existence aside from specious claims from his followers, I doubt I will be hearing from him.
Then if you want to prove once and for all that He does not exist, follow Him.
Then you are again making unscientific, unfounded and illogical claims.
Experience > decide. I am, after all, making totally illogical claims. Find if I'm wrong.
I will admit ignorance the subject. Has the been a study that conclusively showed one species evolving into a new species?
No, it is utterly irrational to first assume that the book you are investigating is infallible.
My entire argument is irrational. I'm telling you that a book conveys the secrets of the universe, a book that is hotly contested by the devil, who wishes it had never appeared, but did because God gave men the words to write so that He could save us all from a spiritual death. If you keep thinking irrationally and rationally, you'll miss the entire thing, so listen, experience, and then decide. God will give Life simply because you want it, and believe He can give it, and He is "rich to all who call upon Him; For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(Romans 10:12-13)
That, of course, is the crux of this argument. Allah, Elune, Zeus and any number of other characters demonstrated amazing powers. In text, at least.
You deduced that crux with your mind and critical thinking skills. How are you able to do that? The monkeys who are called our family members remain unable.
I am aware of the theology behind the "bride of Christ." That doesn't make it any more likely than Mormon theology, to pick one example.
It's not a question of "likely". It's not "likely" that God made men. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets. In the same way, it's not likely that God wants a corporate bride, of the church. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets.
Your infinite wisdom does not seem to agree with God's infinite wisdom then, and I have no place in the discussion. I'll give you two some space to talk it out.
We have ample evidence for the nature of life going back to single celled organisms. There is no evidence of a time when life was anything like what is claimed as the "unfallen" creation.
Nor do we have evidence the it is currently fallen. Or that there is a difference between the two. Or that either really exist. In fact, do I exist? Am I really typing these words? What are words? Mockery aside, I think the point here is simple. You won't have evidence. Even if fallen and unfallen states left physical evidence behind for you to examine, it is long since gone. The question is pointless, because the answer won't be found.
I am referring to the rib idea. There is no empirical evidence for it, and it directly contradicts the facts of human descent.
When you prove evolution solidly, or find Adam's body, which I don't think is really possible either, you can say that without being hypocritical at the same time. For now, it's not a subject you and I can discuss to any end.
As I have noted, it doesn't agree with itself, let alone what we know of the physical history of the universe. That makes your claim problematic at best.
If you read a Bible, and it explicitly states one thing, and then states the contrary, one of two things has occurred. The first being you misread, mistook, or misunderstood a passage. That's the most common "disagreement" in the Bible. Another reason the recovery version is my favorite, because it has footnotes to explain concisely. Two, you're holding a poorly translated Bible, where the translator(s) inserted a different, but similar text in place of the original, because it made no sense to them. That's not uncommon either. A third just occurred to me, that you aren't reading the Bible.
Are you not aware of the long standing monotheistic attacks upon sexual literature?
I'll give on that. You win.
It's simply not a mark of divine intervention that any particular piece of literature survived that long, especially something as widespread and copied as the Bible in its various forms.
Perfectly true as well. An interesting note, nothing more.
Well, you got the gist of it then. It doesn't sound like you really understood it though - ask anything, I'll explain as best I can.
Why does God even allow an evil being like Satan in the first place? Where is the counter to Satan in these other civilizations and times?
The same reason He hasn't replaced us with a whole new batch of humans. Lucifer, as he was first called, was once His prize pupil, a beautiful being, and God's second. His favorite creation by far. He loved Lucifer. Regardless, he will be punished.
But then you reverse yourself, and say the Bible is everywhere, and ask what's the problem. You're looking at modern times and completely ignoring all of human history.
You're right. I took none of it into account. And it certainly doesn't seem fair, does it? But then, I don't define fair.
A different variation of the same God. Islam is an offshoot of Christianity which is an offshoot of Judaism. Regarding whether "Jesus is God", even the Christians can't agree on that point.
A variation of the same is not the same. It is a variation. Thus, different. As for the divide among Christians, there is an inconvenient fellow who takes the blame with a grin. Trust me, I wish I never had reason to mention him myself. But alas. He seems to have humans by the nose. Including you, and when I'm not praying or praising, me. Alright, last issue addressed here.
Which again highlights the problem with the Bible. You say the message is easily muddled but essentially there, but then you rely on it's authority in rather specific interpretations of it.
You make a keen observation there. You're perfectly right, I do. I use a Bible called the recovery version, for the reason that those who translated it decided that regardless of whether they understood the sentence they translated, they wouldn't alter the wording. There are a few exceptions, and those are marked out by footnotes, which tell you what the original word is, and thus you have the original text of the Bible, as close as it can be in English. Honestly, I might learn Hebrew or Greek just so I can read the original manuscripts in their original forms. With that said, I don't think many updated translations hold enough errors, or big enough errors, to warp the original word spoken.
The morality of the Bible is repulsive. Women and children are treated little better than chattle. Blind obedience is exalted(Abraham and Isaac). Genocide is a commandment from God. Ritual vicarious atonement is practiced as blood sacrifices, which the Christians later claim as a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice. The New Testament would seem better if it didn't add in the concept of Hell, reinforced the earlier misogyny and make claims which can be empirically proven false about the efficacy of Christian prayer.
Now there's something to be going on. It took me about an hour to puzzle over the best answer to your presentation of the Bible's recording of God's various misdeeds. Once I had formed it(with additional help from, of all places, your signature), I realized I didn't even need to ask you to give examples. Go figure. The reason is this. If I answer, "No; it is moral because it is God", you say "Your God is revels in genocide and bloody rituals". If I say, "Yes; you're right, it is immoral", you say "Your God is immoral". And so forth. We argue over what is or isn't immoral, for what reasons, and likely it would take a long time. And maybe, though not likely, I, or any other Christian in this exact same position, wins the argument! But even if they win the argument, they lose. The opponent of the Christian loses as well. Someone else claims the victory here. Maybe instead, the atheist wins(I'm not sure what your standing is, but atheism is most likely, but it doesn't matter regardless of your stance). But the atheist, at the same time, loses, as does the Christian. Because regardless of the argument's result, both argue-ers are telling one another what is good, and what is evil. They have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they use it to argue. The source is not from the Tree of Life.
So here is the answer. Whether or not we are right when we say "this is good[moral]" or "this is bad[immoral]", we are wrong[read: dead(spiritually)]. We are wrong because we have the wrong source. To use a car-related analogy, winning a drag race means nothing if you and I are on the wrong track. The result of the argument is meaningless, because no matter the result, the winner is yours, my, and God's enemy. I will not tell you the Bible is moral, or God is moral. I will not pretend to be able to define lines between good and bad, right and wrong, because what one American says is acceptable, a man in Tehran shuns from sight. God defines the lines. You and I don't need to worry about that. Our goal should not be Good or Bad, because neither one is Life. Life is in Christ. That is my answer.
Doesn't match the evidence. That's why it's a silly notion.
You're mentioning a specific evidence it seems, but I'm either too tired or not paying enough attention, because I don't know what exactly you're citing.
Congratulations. You proven that, given a steel hull, Noah could have built an ark which could float. Oh, and is still far too small to contain even a decent fraction of the land creatures of the Earth, even ignoring the food problem. Oh, and which supposedly floated around on a worldwide flood which mysteriously left no worldwide evidence behind. Truly, an awe inspiring feat.
Truly.
Isn't it obvious? He's asking why God couldn't give a straight account of creation,
Hey, that's my line! The Bible is the straight account(a.k.a. "dope").
I also notice that we have religious writings from other cultures of that age. We even have pornography from way back then. God must be protecting all of that, too.
While I'm sure the Bible's survival is not a unique case, it certainly has faced quite a bit of opposition(none of which, I'm sure, porn was forced to withstand. Ancient or otherwise), and yet still exists. An interesting note, but yes, nothing more.
No sir. Unless you would accept someone else's writings on the Bible cross examined with personal experience, no. As of yet, I've found very little besides the Bible and actual experience can report on the human spirit.
While I'm not sure why you bothered voicing the science of a situation that defies any kind of modern logic, the second paragraph of yours is more interesting.
The passage is mostly used to 'justify' that women are 'inferior' to men.
Yes. And more. The scene is also typifying Christ's relation with the church(called in Revelation "the bride of Christ"). As an entity which also came from Christ's side(while Jesus was on the cross, a Roman soldier put a spear in His side, and "out came blood and water"), the two relations are very similar, and seemingly not by accident.
Yet if you look around the world and at history, everybody else came up with different religions, with no record of a Jesus figure.
Of course. I can't remember if I said this, but man is three parts("made in the image of God", remember that from Genesis?). Body, soul, spirit, in that order, outermost to innermost[1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.](the soul is also three part - mind, emotion, will). With the third part, your spirit, dead though(thanks to the introduction of sin), that's one third of you inactive. And it wants to be active(not just on it's own, but with nudging from the Lord as well). But, as with almost every Hollywood movie, this story too has a "bad guy". Satan, who has done just about everything he can to twist and corrupt God's creations and plans, plays the biggest hand there. Distract, distract, distract, and hopefully the church will never fully mature. That's his apparent direction.
You think God is powerful enough to create universes, people from dust and ribs of other people, but can't manage to get the same message across in different languages and time periods?
Hasn't He? I know Bibles are in well over a hundred languages, and pretty well dispersed. Again, I think I'm missing something in your question.
Funny how civilizations all around the planet managed to survive before coming into contact with the Bible. Also funny how many wars people have over which flavor of God is the true one. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all essentially believe in the same God, yet they fight amongst each other and themselves.
Especially amusing when you say that, knowing Muslims and the Jewish people say Jesus is not God. They, essentially, believe in a different God altogether. On top of that, there's always someone lying... But I addressed that in my first answer.
You'd think a just God that wanted to get his message across would deliver the message unambiguously and equally for all people, especially if he's going to punish them for getting it wrong.
Do they not have access to Bibles? Some don't, for sure, but I think quite a few do(and more every day, with a bit of effort and prayer). It's just that they reject it. Okay, I think that's enough parentheses.
Somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 would be the time period, but of their source, the Bible isn't explicit. The points in Job and Genesis don't seem to lay much importance in it, (probably because it has nothing to do with God or His intentions) so they barely even mention the existence of creatures on earth at the time. I think there's one verse in Job 9(49?) that notes it, while telling of the past before humans. But, unfortunately, your question goes largely unanswered. I'm sure an archaeological dig will point to their origins, one day.
The "created the universe" bit was meant to portray the infinite ability for creation. He seems to have demonstrated it well, no? In text, even if you don't believe it actually occurred.
The reason, however, is a somewhat more complicated matter. Or rather, it just takes a bit of explaining if you haven't read much of the Bible. To condense the story, I'll tell you that God is a bachelor, and is looking to fix that. The church, which has been snapped into hundreds of pieces by the same person who sabotaged humans in the first place, is to be His eventual bride. I think if you wanted any detail on the story, you'd want to read Revelation. Not much of it will make sense unless you read the four gospels at least, but verses like Rev:21:2( And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband) will help tell the story.
Another interesting take. Well, you took my words and the literal meaning, so it's mostly my fault for phrasing it so, I suppose. Yes, He actually could interact with it(us). And then we'd die. Which was not His wish. So, He "couldn't", for the sense that it wouldn't accomplish His intentions.
Another thing the non-Christian population at large(and, alarmingly, some Christians as well) understand badly is the "failed creation" you mentioned. It wasn't fallen from the beginning. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, talked with them, generally spent a lot of time with them, before they met the serpent(Satan). Who caused them to fall. So they weren't created broken, if that pairing of words makes any sense. Your next question will be "If He knew they'd fall, why'd He let them/created them in the first place?", yes?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. Well in that case, please, let me apologize in the AC's place, and of course for Slashdot's apparent misconduct. Slashdot, having seen your post, would almost certainly issue an apology, outlining their lack of consideration for your needs. I too agree wholeheartedly, sir, that this blatant overcompensation; this obviously unnecessary and monstrous waste of text should not have been put forth, indeed conceived at all. I would further suggest that Slashdot instead build Slashcolon and Slashparentheses, each to contain its own news type. Slashcolon for politics, and Slashparentheses for business of course.
In any case, I do sympathize for your finger, and its hardship; the barbaric level of scrolling it's been put through has proven quite stressful, I believe! Please accept my condolences and have a better day tomorrow.
That was... hypocritical to the point of unsightliness(that may or may not be a word). Are you suggesting that 1 in 2 works produced by a stoned human being are considered above average artistic or creative quality?
Wait, wait, hold up - you're saying you watched your friends consume marijuana, and that watching them actually improved your view on the drug? That observing it dispelled any negative thoughts on the subject? I'm asking an honest question, not trying to be sarcastic mate.
Please read here.
Don't even bother replying to stiffs like this guy. Your life is rough and busy enough I'm sure, and getting into a long and hard argument with a pr*** isn't worth it.
Crap, you beat me to it. Wasn't there a guy around here with a sig about that?
Rule 34 sir.
And with all that critical thinking, you've never once wondered "why can I think critically?". Or maybe you did, and forgot the question when you stopped meeting with the church. I can't tell, and won't try. I'm curious now, if only to know how it happened. What's your story sir?
At this point in this particular discussion, pointing to the argument I've just pointed away from and saying "this is not yet settled" very nearly deserves a crude expression of exasperation, such as a facepalm.
Then if you want to prove once and for all that He does not exist, follow Him.
Experience > decide. I am, after all, making totally illogical claims. Find if I'm wrong.
I will admit ignorance the subject. Has the been a study that conclusively showed one species evolving into a new species?
My entire argument is irrational. I'm telling you that a book conveys the secrets of the universe, a book that is hotly contested by the devil, who wishes it had never appeared, but did because God gave men the words to write so that He could save us all from a spiritual death. If you keep thinking irrationally and rationally, you'll miss the entire thing, so listen, experience, and then decide. God will give Life simply because you want it, and believe He can give it, and He is "rich to all who call upon Him; For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(Romans 10:12-13)
You deduced that crux with your mind and critical thinking skills. How are you able to do that? The monkeys who are called our family members remain unable.
It's not a question of "likely". It's not "likely" that God made men. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets. In the same way, it's not likely that God wants a corporate bride, of the church. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets.
Your infinite wisdom does not seem to agree with God's infinite wisdom then, and I have no place in the discussion. I'll give you two some space to talk it out.
Nor do we have evidence the it is currently fallen. Or that there is a difference between the two. Or that either really exist. In fact, do I exist? Am I really typing these words? What are words?
Mockery aside, I think the point here is simple. You won't have evidence. Even if fallen and unfallen states left physical evidence behind for you to examine, it is long since gone. The question is pointless, because the answer won't be found.
When you prove evolution solidly, or find Adam's body, which I don't think is really possible either, you can say that without being hypocritical at the same time. For now, it's not a subject you and I can discuss to any end.
If you read a Bible, and it explicitly states one thing, and then states the contrary, one of two things has occurred. The first being you misread, mistook, or misunderstood a passage. That's the most common "disagreement" in the Bible. Another reason the recovery version is my favorite, because it has footnotes to explain concisely. Two, you're holding a poorly translated Bible, where the translator(s) inserted a different, but similar text in place of the original, because it made no sense to them. That's not uncommon either. A third just occurred to me, that you aren't reading the Bible.
I'll give on that. You win.
Perfectly true as well. An interesting note, nothing more.
Well, you got the gist of it then. It doesn't sound like you really understood it though - ask anything, I'll explain as best I can.
The same reason He hasn't replaced us with a whole new batch of humans. Lucifer, as he was first called, was once His prize pupil, a beautiful being, and God's second. His favorite creation by far. He loved Lucifer. Regardless, he will be punished.
You're right. I took none of it into account. And it certainly doesn't seem fair, does it? But then, I don't define fair.
A variation of the same is not the same. It is a variation. Thus, different. As for the divide among Christians, there is an inconvenient fellow who takes the blame with a grin. Trust me, I wish I never had reason to mention him myself. But alas. He seems to have humans by the nose. Including you, and when I'm not praying or praising, me. Alright, last issue addressed here.
You make a keen observation there. You're perfectly right, I do. I use a Bible called the recovery version, for the reason that those who translated it decided that regardless of whether they understood the sentence they translated, they wouldn't alter the wording. There are a few exceptions, and those are marked out by footnotes, which tell you what the original word is, and thus you have the original text of the Bible, as close as it can be in English. Honestly, I might learn Hebrew or Greek just so I can read the original manuscripts in their original forms. With that said, I don't think many updated translations hold enough errors, or big enough errors, to warp the original word spoken.
Please read here, I think it covers my reply here too.
Now there's something to be going on. It took me about an hour to puzzle over the best answer to your presentation of the Bible's recording of God's various misdeeds. Once I had formed it(with additional help from, of all places, your signature), I realized I didn't even need to ask you to give examples. Go figure. The reason is this. If I answer, "No; it is moral because it is God", you say "Your God is revels in genocide and bloody rituals". If I say, "Yes; you're right, it is immoral", you say "Your God is immoral". And so forth. We argue over what is or isn't immoral, for what reasons, and likely it would take a long time. And maybe, though not likely, I, or any other Christian in this exact same position, wins the argument! But even if they win the argument, they lose. The opponent of the Christian loses as well. Someone else claims the victory here.
Maybe instead, the atheist wins(I'm not sure what your standing is, but atheism is most likely, but it doesn't matter regardless of your stance). But the atheist, at the same time, loses, as does the Christian. Because regardless of the argument's result, both argue-ers are telling one another what is good, and what is evil. They have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they use it to argue. The source is not from the Tree of Life.
So here is the answer. Whether or not we are right when we say "this is good[moral]" or "this is bad[immoral]", we are wrong[read: dead(spiritually)]. We are wrong because we have the wrong source. To use a car-related analogy, winning a drag race means nothing if you and I are on the wrong track. The result of the argument is meaningless, because no matter the result, the winner is yours, my, and God's enemy. I will not tell you the Bible is moral, or God is moral. I will not pretend to be able to define lines between good and bad, right and wrong, because what one American says is acceptable, a man in Tehran shuns from sight. God defines the lines. You and I don't need to worry about that. Our goal should not be Good or Bad, because neither one is Life. Life is in Christ. That is my answer.
Touche. Back to my books it seems.
You're mentioning a specific evidence it seems, but I'm either too tired or not paying enough attention, because I don't know what exactly you're citing.
Truly.
Hey, that's my line! The Bible is the straight account(a.k.a. "dope").
While I'm sure the Bible's survival is not a unique case, it certainly has faced quite a bit of opposition(none of which, I'm sure, porn was forced to withstand. Ancient or otherwise), and yet still exists. An interesting note, but yes, nothing more.
No sir. Unless you would accept someone else's writings on the Bible cross examined with personal experience, no. As of yet, I've found very little besides the Bible and actual experience can report on the human spirit.
Yes. And more. The scene is also typifying Christ's relation with the church(called in Revelation "the bride of Christ"). As an entity which also came from Christ's side(while Jesus was on the cross, a Roman soldier put a spear in His side, and "out came blood and water"), the two relations are very similar, and seemingly not by accident.
Of course. I can't remember if I said this, but man is three parts("made in the image of God", remember that from Genesis?). Body, soul, spirit, in that order, outermost to innermost[1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.](the soul is also three part - mind, emotion, will). With the third part, your spirit, dead though(thanks to the introduction of sin), that's one third of you inactive. And it wants to be active(not just on it's own, but with nudging from the Lord as well). But, as with almost every Hollywood movie, this story too has a "bad guy". Satan, who has done just about everything he can to twist and corrupt God's creations and plans, plays the biggest hand there. Distract, distract, distract, and hopefully the church will never fully mature. That's his apparent direction.
Hasn't He? I know Bibles are in well over a hundred languages, and pretty well dispersed. Again, I think I'm missing something in your question.
Especially amusing when you say that, knowing Muslims and the Jewish people say Jesus is not God. They, essentially, believe in a different God altogether. On top of that, there's always someone lying... But I addressed that in my first answer.
Do they not have access to Bibles? Some don't, for sure, but I think quite a few do(and more every day, with a bit of effort and prayer). It's just that they reject it. Okay, I think that's enough parentheses.
I was tempted to make you Google it.
Somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 would be the time period, but of their source, the Bible isn't explicit. The points in Job and Genesis don't seem to lay much importance in it, (probably because it has nothing to do with God or His intentions) so they barely even mention the existence of creatures on earth at the time. I think there's one verse in Job 9(49?) that notes it, while telling of the past before humans. But, unfortunately, your question goes largely unanswered. I'm sure an archaeological dig will point to their origins, one day.
The "created the universe" bit was meant to portray the infinite ability for creation. He seems to have demonstrated it well, no? In text, even if you don't believe it actually occurred.
The reason, however, is a somewhat more complicated matter. Or rather, it just takes a bit of explaining if you haven't read much of the Bible. To condense the story, I'll tell you that God is a bachelor, and is looking to fix that. The church, which has been snapped into hundreds of pieces by the same person who sabotaged humans in the first place, is to be His eventual bride. I think if you wanted any detail on the story, you'd want to read Revelation. Not much of it will make sense unless you read the four gospels at least, but verses like Rev:21:2( And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband) will help tell the story.
Another interesting take. Well, you took my words and the literal meaning, so it's mostly my fault for phrasing it so, I suppose. Yes, He actually could interact with it(us). And then we'd die. Which was not His wish. So, He "couldn't", for the sense that it wouldn't accomplish His intentions.
Another thing the non-Christian population at large(and, alarmingly, some Christians as well) understand badly is the "failed creation" you mentioned. It wasn't fallen from the beginning. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, talked with them, generally spent a lot of time with them, before they met the serpent(Satan). Who caused them to fall. So they weren't created broken, if that pairing of words makes any sense. Your next question will be "If He knew they'd fall, why'd He let them/created them in the first place?", yes?