Scratch

coolstuff wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

SmartIrishKid wrote:

I didn't want to join the discussion (which is quite off the original topic), but I must object to Mayhem.

A few of those are Hebrew figures of speech:
--The snake crawls on the ground.  A human would be literally "eating dust" if he were crawling like this, therefore this is simply personification.
--Pi wasn't invented until after the birth of Christ; even the ancient Greeks had to estimate before then.
--The "high mountain" refers to heaven, which is immaterial and outside of time, and therefore anyone standing in heaven can see all kingdoms, both past and present.

The law must be worded sufficiently for the people reading it to understand what they are reading.  This includes the use of figures-of-speech and phrases unique to each language.
.

All well and good, but how can somebody say "Oh, the high mountain thing is just allegorical" and then turn around and say "But the 7 days creation thing?  100% true, that's exactly how it happened."

How can one be explained as allegorical whilst the other is accepted.  Who gets to decide?  The dead sea scrolls didn't come with cliff notes stating which bits were supposed fact and which were just metaphor, simile and allegory.

It is more reasonable to assume that where physical evidence contradicts the bible, the physical evidence is correct and that that part of the bible was not meant literally.

Of course, reason and faith are, by definition, contrary...

The Bible isn't to be taken completely seriously. God did not create the Earth exactly how it was said - the story in the Bible represented that.

God did not directly talk to people, but what the bible does represents that.

Not true. I don't think this is the proper place to discuss religion.

Mayhem wrote:

Of course, those that can only promote their faith by attacking science by spreading false information I *do* have a problem with...

People tend to get aggressive when something opposes to their believings... It's not like they're really against science or anything. 

There is no definite proof either way, and neither of you are going to convince the other that hes wrong, so you might as well call it quits. 

I think the topic name should also be changed, because this isnt a definite truth, or a definite lie.

EDIT: Im joining the argument now, bored.

The reason that I am a christian is is just how many prophecies are constantly being fulfilled, like Israel invading Gaza ON THE SABBATH DAY! Jews are not supposed to work on that day, and as the Bible says  in the last days 'no one will know God.'

Seens as the Jews invaded it, couldnt that be deliberate to make the "prophecy" seem true?

Also there is stuff like Russia becoming more powerful with the ecenomic crisis, and revelation 16 also predicts that 'he [gog] will invade from the far north.' Of course, what he is going to invade is Israel. Someone might say 'What!? this is far fetched!' but think about it. Russia has already invaded southwards towards georgia, and if they overtake israel, it is a hotspot for three of the worlds most popular religions, judasim, christiany and islam.

They might invade, but they wont get far, because of the threat of nuclear weapons.
Also, I doubt Russia would even bother going for Israel, because its not got many good resources or economy. The only reason its kept going is because of it's religious significance.

Last edited by djm111 (2009-05-27 15:33:52)

demosthenes wrote:

Uncanny wrote:

Also there is stuff like Russia becoming more powerful with the ecenomic crisis, and revelation 16 also predicts that 'he [gog] will invade from the far north.' Of course, what he is going to invade is Israel. Someone might say 'What!? this is far fetched!' but think about it. Russia has already invaded southwards towards georgia, and if they overtake israel, it is a hotspot for three of the worlds most popular religions, judasim, christiany and islam.

This claim is untrue. There is no way Russia will risk invading Israel for several reasons.
The most important reason is, Israel and the U.S. are allies and there is non way Russia can risk MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) by entering a full out war with the U.S.

Russia is just an unstable country, is there really anything anybody can do about it? This seems like just one coincidence out of thousands of non-coincidences.

People get confused about the process of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

We know, through observation, prediction, controlled studies and long term records, that animals change incrementally over time.  We *know* this happens, its an indisputable fact, and its not up for debate by any except the most wilfully ignorant, those who deliberately ignore the evidence of their own eyes.  That's the *process* of evolution.

They *Theory* of Evolution is an attempt to explain *how* the process takes place.  It's the only debatable part of the issue.  Natural selection plays a part in it, likely a big part, but there are other mechanisms as well such as horizontal gene transfer, and even now we are not sure how the different mechanisms interact.

I have no problem with those who choose to ignore the evidence of their own eyes and claim there is no such thing as evolution.  However, when they start telling lies in order to try to convince other people to join them in their blissful ignorance, I feel the need to get involved and expose these lies.

MyRedNeptune wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

I have no problem with those who choose to ignore the evidence of their own eyes and claim there is no such thing as evolution.  However, when they start telling lies in order to try to convince other people to join them in their blissful ignorance, I feel the need to get involved and expose these lies.

I see.    Science does build upon a "suggestion-proof-disproof" structure. But do you think this kind of approach works with people who clearly believe evolution to be a lie? I doubt they have any reasonable proof of any kind (or if they have it's probably something religiously *supernatural*, i.e. something you can only believe in). And, although you still can prove wrong whatever they are lying about, most people who accept these lies do not accept them as scientific facts but as something relating to religion. They do not actually rely on material proof to be very sure it is the truth.

The people posting the lies are not my target audience.  My target audience is the undecided people who reading the lies might be persuaded by them without realising they are being deceived.

I'll never convince a biblical literalist - after all, if they are willing to ignore proven and respected experts in the fields of Anthropology, Archeology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Biology, Botany, Chemistry, Cosmology, Ecology, Embryology, Entymology, Etymology, Evoltuion, Genetics, Geology, Herpetology, Mathematics, Palaentology, Plate Tectonics, Radiometrics, Vulcanology and Zoology (all of which contain facts and/or theories contradicted by biblical literalists) then they are hardly going to listen to me.

But if I can make one person realise they are being lied to, and to take that into account before making their decision, then its worth posting.

Mayhem wrote:

SmartIrishKid wrote:

I didn't want to join the discussion (which is quite off the original topic), but I must object to Mayhem.

A few of those are Hebrew figures of speech:
--The snake crawls on the ground.  A human would be literally "eating dust" if he were crawling like this, therefore this is simply personification.
--Pi wasn't invented until after the birth of Christ; even the ancient Greeks had to estimate before then.
--The "high mountain" refers to heaven, which is immaterial and outside of time, and therefore anyone standing in heaven can see all kingdoms, both past and present.

The law must be worded sufficiently for the people reading it to understand what they are reading.  This includes the use of figures-of-speech and phrases unique to each language.
.

All well and good, but how can somebody say "Oh, the high mountain thing is just allegorical" and then turn around and say "But the 7 days creation thing?  100% true, that's exactly how it happened."

How can one be explained as allegorical whilst the other is accepted.  Who gets to decide?  The dead sea scrolls didn't come with cliff notes stating which bits were supposed fact and which were just metaphor, simile and allegory.

It is more reasonable to assume that where physical evidence contradicts the bible, the physical evidence is correct and that that part of the bible was not meant literally.

Of course, reason and faith are, by definition, contrary...

I'm back! 
          Although now I'm not posting for argumentative purposes, but to discuss this whole topic. I think one of the main problems with this disagreement is that there are SO many beliefs in Christianity. Not necessarily Catholics or Protestants groups, but what you take to be the truth. Even Christians don't have one big agreement on how life should work; churches and people tend to stick to their own little philosophy. For example, the book of Genesis. I know several people who believe that the "seven days" thing is metaphorical, and that evolution and Christianity can come hand and hand. I am a Christian too however, (and nothing is going to change my mind about it)  but I take the "seven days" chapter quite literally. As an answer to your previous post Mayhem, WE in our religions decide which part of the bible (or other holy book) is to be taken as the truth, and which verses we mark as figurative language. 
          As another user was discussing, we Christians did take the Torah and at it to our own book, because Christianity is just a fulfillment of Judaism's prophecies, though Jews have a different take on them. We believe that Christ was the messiah, who came to save us from eternal death.
          The evolution discussions on this topic are tricky, because as Mayhem pointed out, there is the theory of evolution and the process of evolution. I doubt both of them in general, but I have no doubt that small changes could have occurred with closely related species, such as wolves transforming into dogs. Yet when we're talking about tiny bacteria organisms changing into extremely intelligent humans, I will definitely put my foot down. Again, this all depends on your own beliefs, and I could rage on and on about how God made the world "old" and so on and so forth, but I would definitely be contradicted (if that isn't already going to happen to post ), plus I've decided that the best way to spread my beliefs is not through online heated arguments.     
          Feel free to comment (but not ARGUE) about my post!

shadow_7283 wrote:

As an answer to your previous post Mayhem, WE in our religions decide which part of the bible (or other holy book) is to be taken as the truth, and which verses we mark as figurative language.

But surely that removes all traces of authority from the book.  No longer are you following the word of god, you are following whichever bits you like the look of, and rejecting those bits you find inconvenient, (like giving away all your possessions, one of the conditions for entering heaven according to 2 different passages in the bible).

If I did the same with the law of the land "OK, I won't murder, but I fancy a bit of stealing" then I could not call myself a good citizen.  How then can you play pick-and-mix from the bible and call yourself a good christian?

shadow_7283 wrote:

The evolution discussions on this topic are tricky, because as Mayhem pointed out, there is the theory of evolution and the process of evolution. I doubt both of them in general, but I have no doubt that small changes could have occurred with closely related species, such as wolves transforming into dogs. Yet when we're talking about tiny bacteria organisms changing into extremely intelligent humans, I will definitely put my foot down.

You accept small changes but refuse to accept large changes?  Isn't that rather like saying "Oh, yes, I accept inches but there is no way that you can put enough inches together to make a mile."

Mayhem wrote:

shadow_7283 wrote:

As an answer to your previous post Mayhem, WE in our religions decide which part of the bible (or other holy book) is to be taken as the truth, and which verses we mark as figurative language.

But surely that removes all traces of authority from the book.  No longer are you following the word of God, you are following whichever bits you like the look of, and rejecting those bits you find inconvenient, (like giving away all your possessions, one of the conditions for entering heaven according to 2 different passages in the Bible).

In Luke 18:22, Jesus tells the rich ruler to sell all of his possessions and follow him. He tells him this not because he wants him to be poor, but so that he will put Jesus and God first. The ruler considered his physical possessions more important than Jesus, so by giving everything away, Jesus will become first in his life. The Bible, among other books, must be read in context.

Mayhem wrote:

How about Luke 14:33?

33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

Renounced all that you have yet?

Remember, this was written BEFORE Jesus died on the cross for all Christian's sins, so before that remarkable event, that was the case.

Actually, the sun is created on day 4.

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Although quite how there were days with no earth spinning around and no sun is rather tricky...

Of course, there is another order of creation given in Genesis 2

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

If Genesis is literally true, which of these is correct?  A bit of a quandary, that.

Even if there are two different authors, that still makes it a contradiction if one is saying something different to the other.

And how can it be a "clarification" when it actually contradicts the previous part? 

And Vis Luke 14:33, you havn't let go of the desire to stop posting to scratch yet.  Why is that?