i challenge somebody to a debate about religion [Archive]

reptilian_storm

08-11-2004, 10:05 AM

I'm gonna start this with my old story of why most religions are fiction.

Any religion where there is a particular "god" is fiction in my opinion.

Here's my reason.

If someone came forward with fact that there was no truth in any religion what do you think would happen? Mass chaos would happen.

Religion was made up to give people hope and answers to life which no one can answer.

Religion is also one of the most effective ways to make people behave. If you do good you go to heaven, bad and you go to hell.

Someone clever person wrote the bible out as a book for people to follow "rules of life" along with a story that some invisable force controls everything that happens.

Each and every religion involving a god is the same, look at muslims in the Quaran it says somthing like "if you kill for the good of allah you will go to heaven and have 13 virgins and live life in paradise"...why the hell you think islam is one of the most violent and blood thirsty religions there is? They all want to live in paradise.

Hell, if i belived so strongly that i would go paradise and fuck all the virgins i wanted i would be out there killing the americans as well. But i'm not that brain washed.

Can you seriously belive the earth was made in 7 days thinking theroreticly?
Do you really think there is a massive guy watching over us?
It's like me making something up like my PC is the god of all over PC's it controls the world. That's just as belivable as this so called god.

Before christianty the main religion in the UK at least was Paganism, one of the few religions that makes any sense. All they did was make things they could actually see and helped them live into gods. Sun, moon..etc. Now that makes perfect sence. The only thing i don't agree with in that religion is the thought of an afterlife. Yet agian another false peice of information. But i suppose they didn't have to follow any rules to get to their "afterlife".

Buddism, another good religion, shows you how to lead a loving and peaceful life. But still too many rules and regulations to make people behave for the good of a happy culture and comunity.

All in all, i belive religion was make up to answer questions that no man could answer. Also to keep people on the right track and behaving for the good of their country.

Thats all fine and dandy but now we live in an age where most people don't belive fire is a magical power and comets are not the god's coming to punish us.

We know how to behave, i behave i don't have a religion.
I don't care about the answers to life because there are non so i don't need a religion.

What would you do if for some mad reason aliens came to earth and said, "hi, do you like this planet?...good because we built it, don't belive me?..ZAPPPPPP" and there's another planet built right next to ours and they told us the god of all things was Zulbax.

Would he be the god of all gods or just another made up thing becuase even aliens can't explain everything?

One sure thing is all religions wars would end and it would screw with a lot of peoples heads. Thats all relgion does...builds up false hopes.

Dasani

08-11-2004, 10:08 AM

Its kinda hard to have a religous debate since you must use the Bible for reference and if you dont believe the Bible you dont really have anything.

Also MGselwonk, I hope that you have a little desire to know about it and maybe a chance that you might change your mind otherwise it will be pointless.

But I think this might be interesting if its approached the right way. Good luck.

In reply to reptilian's post, I think this world and the human nature is too complex to just kinda live and then die. I have grown up in church and I dont think I could go any other way.

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 10:23 AM

Get droogsteve to set up an official debate.

PsiRedEye22

08-11-2004, 10:27 AM

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

Atheism isn't just, "I hate religion", it simply states a disbelief in a higher power. You can't go "Atheist versus religion", because there are PLENTY of Christian atheists, whom don't believe in God, but who pray and go to church for a sense of community. That is called non-realism.

Study up before you make ridiculous debates, please.

MGselwonK

08-11-2004, 10:27 AM

i think i PMed him but no reply as of yet

MGselwonK

08-11-2004, 10:30 AM

look in the dictionary under "agnostic"

ok, thanks buddy

droogsteve

08-11-2004, 10:39 AM

Religion is a matter of faith, it cannot be proven or disproven with facts and therefore does not lend itself to rational debate. We tried a debate about this a while ago and it quickly degenerated into idiocy. If you want to post comments here, fine. But I'm not setting up a debate thread on this topic.

puppyroach

08-11-2004, 10:45 AM

Each and every religion involving a god is the same, look at muslims in the Quaran it says somthing like "if you kill for the good of allah you will go to heaven and have 13 virgins and live life in paradise"...why the hell you think islam is one of the most violent and blood thirsty religions there is? They all want to live in paradise.

Hell, if i belived so strongly that i would go paradise and fuck all the virgins i wanted i would be out there killing the americans as well. But i'm not that brain washed.

Hmmm, I have alot of muslim friends, and I would appreciate you not generalizing that much. Fact is, if you look at armed conflicts in the world (the major ones) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904550.html, you can see that although muslims are involved in alot of countries, christianity or jews(colombia, israel, USA, Russia and some others) are involved in and equal amount. and how come the largest military expenditures belong to non-muslim countries? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html.

Well I believe I can give some enlightenment: in most of the countries in the world today, religion works as a base of construcing laws and ethics in a society. Most of the western world has tried to get rid of the bad things in it´s religion (child and women abuse, slaves and such), the middle-east and sothern Asia has a bit to go, although there are influences working towards theses goals in those countries.

But every now and then the religions, and the way people look at how a society, crash between countries, and we get a conflict. But I believe the religions are often just a coverup for the real reason, which involve land ownership, assets (oil and water) or a deep wish to regain former glory for a country.

The western parts of the world, has gained alot from using countries in the middle-east, africa, asia and south America to further expand their own assets and wealth, therefore creating anger in the affected countries on these continents. Some of the countries then use some higher purpose in order to oppose the western world, often in the form of religion. But you must remember that it isn´t the population in these countries using their religion to oppose the west, but some extrimists that are only a small percentage of the hole population.

I do however believe religion is in alot of ways a good thing. It brings hope and comfort to many people, and in most cases, don´t cause wars. I also believe it was for it´s time, what science is today, a way of explaining your environment and feeling security in your own time, and why should we toss that away just because we have a different explanation for the world than they had a thousand years ago?

And please don´t blame religion for the wars, blame the pople using religion for conducting war. the would use any excuse to go to a conflict, remember that.

PsiRedEye22

08-11-2004, 10:54 AM

look in the dictionary under "agnostic"

ok, thanks buddy

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

You = NOT agnostic. kthx buddy.

MGselwonK

08-11-2004, 11:14 AM

lets keep it very simple and use the terms everybody else uses, it makes things easier, which i hope you can agree on

atheist=person who does not believe in god
agnostic=person who is unsure about the existence of god

ok since there isnt going to be a debate for religion ill post my thoughts on it here, i will post most of my examples based on christianity since that is what most of us encounter in our day to day lives

-There's no need for a god. Earlier people used god to explain things, which makes sense, now there is nothing that cannot be at least theoretically explained except "how did quantum fluctuation start" and thats the same as asking "who made god" so its a useless and inarguable point

-There is more than one version of the translated bible. The bible is supposed to be the word of god, because there is more than one version its logical(at least to me...) to assume there were translation errors in at least all but one of the different versions of the bible. So if the word of god isnt exact, it isnt the word of god anymore, its just an imperfect translation by man

-The bible contains contradictions, this shouldnt happen in any text truly written by a superior being. Two examples of these contradictions are Gen 32:30/Exodus 33:20 and Matthew 1:16/Luke 3:23 these two sets of verses contradict each other

-Many of the early church leaders sought to gain power as a reason to convert people, and not spiritual reasons, this isnt a good case against any religion, but when a person tries to gain power with a religious agenda often they will change the religion to make more people follow it, another example of how the word of god has been changed

-The bible says we have free will, it also says that god knows the past, present, and future in its entirety. If god knows everything we are going to do, do we really have a choice doing it? Atheists i talk to seem to think that omniscience cancels out free will, christians say i am just being silly. You decide for yourself. Here is an example to clarify what im saying, Youre at a fork in the road, you have the power to turn left or to turn right, god knows 100% that youre going to turn left, is it possible for you to turn right?

-The majority(although not all) religious people were raised to be religious, many people change religions at some point in their life, but its more likely for a person to change religions than for an atheist to become religious. Since people are raised to accept god at an early age, people are more willing to believe in him later in life. Imagine if a child grew up thinking santa claus was real, never saw his parents planting the presents, and nobody ever gave him reason to doubt santa claus wasnt real, this is a stupid example but im just using it to clarify

sorry for making you read that if you did

PsiRedEye22

08-11-2004, 11:23 AM

MGselwonK

08-11-2004, 11:26 AM

i am going to edit my post to remove that part insulting you, this shouldnt turn into a flame thread, ill do my part you do your part

vchampionl70

08-11-2004, 11:27 AM

-There's no need for a god. Earlier people used god to explain things, which makes sense, now there is nothing that cannot be at least theoretically explained except "how did quantum fluctuation start" and thats the same as asking "who made god" so its a useless and inarguable point

Technically, the use of God is a 'theoretical' explanation which you have rejected. In saying that other theories are any more valid when they too have not been proven is ridiculous. I ask science for facts, and all they give me is theories.

-There is more than one version of the translated bible. The bible is supposed to be the word of god, because there is more than one version its logical(at least to me...) to assume there were translation errors in at least all but one of the different versions of the bible. So if the word of god isnt exact, it isnt the word of god anymore, its just an imperfect translation by man

Mistranslations will happen, but like stories, the overall meaning remains. Besides, to reject God purely because of corrupt individuals who might have changed the meaning is ridiculous. There has been a constant througout the Bible - God exists.

-The bible contains contradictions, this shouldnt happen in any text truly written by a superior being. Two examples of these contradictions are Gen 32:30/Exodus 33:20 and Matthew 1:16/Luke 3:23 these two sets of verses contradict each other

It's not written by God. It's written by man. For example, Matthew 1:16 .

-Many of the early church leaders sought to gain power as a reason to convert people, and not spiritual reasons, this isnt a good case against any religion, but when a person tries to gain power with a religious agenda often they will change the religion to make more people follow it, another example of how the word of god has been changed

Early popes that were corrupt changed church law far more often than they would attempt to rewrite the Bible. That was too daunting a task. However, hiring people to take 'select' excerpts from the Bible to back up the laws was different. Besides, most of the change that was involved to attract more people and 'power' happened because of the protestant split from the church. This brought about a more pure and 'holy' church overall.

-The bible says we have free will, it also says that god knows the past, present, and future in its entirety. If god knows everything we are going to do, do we really have a choice doing it? Atheists i talk to seem to think that omniscience cancels out free will, christians say i am just being silly. You decide for yourself. Here is an example to clarify what im saying, Youre at a fork in the road, you have the power to turn left or to turn right, god knows 100% that youre going to turn left, is it possible for you to turn right?

Some sects of Christianity (Presbyterians?) believe in predestination, and do not believe in free will persay.

**Like the others have said, it all comes down to faith. There are many unexplained things that happen in the world. My only issue with atheists is why you put so much effort into denouncing religion? If you don't believe, why waste your time arguing, when you could be doing more productive existential-type things.

Chewy

08-11-2004, 12:26 PM

There is no point in arguing religion, however if your interested in educational information you may want to look into Zoroastrianism, it claims to be the oldest Religion, through this region the written languages began and mathematics play a key role.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm
http://www.avesta.org/avesta.html

Artanis

08-11-2004, 01:38 PM

i agree with vchampion, well said on your replies...

MGselwonk: you say that the bible contridicted itself in Gen 32:30/Exodus 33:20. you are wrong about that. you have taken this passage out of context. yes, in Gen 32:30 Jacob does say that he has seen God face to face and is still alive and it does say in Exo 33:20 that God said to Moses that He could not show His face to Moses because he (Moses) would die. But, if you had read the entire story of Jacob you would have noticed Gen 31:11-13 that God Himself did not come face to face with Jacob. it states that an angel God had spoken unto him in a dream. God was speaking with Jacob in a dream via an angel. so those two passages do not contridict themselves.

as for the genealogy of Christ which you also think is a contridiction is a little more difficult to disprove. there are many theories that try to explain the differences. one theory is that the genealogy in Luke could be that of Christ through Mary's anscestors. but alas these particular passages are very difficult to decifer. you should check out www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm if you are interested on this genealogy question.

vchampion said it best on the translation issues. yeah, there have been many translations but the only translation issues the translators would run into would be if translating a certain phrase from hebrew to latin. 'this certain' hebrew phrase didn't quite exist in the latin language so these scolars would have to do their best to come up with something sufficent. and this by no means changed the word of God. maybe how it is phrased or worded but definately not the intentions of the passages.

look, God is something that you just have to beleive in, it's all about faith. the Bible helps but you still need faith. some people just need hard facts and proof to believe somethings and i can't argue with that. i just find it funny that these same people don't have facts and proof that God does not exist.

puppyroach

08-11-2004, 01:46 PM

Well said, I think everyone in some sence have faith, either in their selves, or in some God, or maybe even science? If we in some way disprove god by facts, people will find something else to believe in. I believe in the human soul, and that isn´t far from God/Allah/World tree/whatever, is it?

I also believe the bible was written by people, inspired by something higher than themselves: that doesn´t necessarily constitute a god, but perhaps an idea, a vission of being able to create something bigger than yourself. I think Jesus was only a man, with a great vision, and he was ahead of his time.

Quit bashing people for having faith, because that is the one thing that combines us, faith in something.

drjay

08-11-2004, 09:43 PM

Personally I don't have a problem with people believing in the moral foundation of the bible. Its the people that honestly think "god" did everything said in the bible that erk me. I think some of you might not be getting the basis for his arguement. I think the second set of people I talked about is who he's trying to debate with. There really is no debate that what the bible says as far as morals go is in good standing. Nobody thinks killing is good, and sleeping with your neighbors wife is "ok" but thats not the debate. If you're one of the ones that honestly believes that a ship carrying 2 of every animal sailed its way through a gigantic flood, if you believe the red sea was parted, if you believe a bunch of people were fed by a small piece of bread, speak up cause I'll debate that too. :D

On a side note, someone in the "know" teach me something here. In the second comming of christ; how is that supposed to work? As I understand it everyone that doesn't believe in him will be killed off and sent to hell while the rest will go to heaven...am I off on something?

Artanis

08-12-2004, 05:36 AM

second coming of Christ:
drjay, you are somewhat off, let me clarify for you. the second coming of Christ (the actual visit that Christ will make to Earth) will be preceded by something called the Rapture. the Rapture is the day that God decides that all Christians will be saved from the Tribulation (which is the 7 year period in which mankind will virtually destroy itself, led by the antichrist. One day all Christians who believe will dissappear from the planet and 'meet Christ in the Heavens'. All those who don't beleieve in Christ will have to stay on Earth and live through the Tribulation. so the Rapture is the sparing of all true Christians so they won't have to live through all the death and destruction. now if you miss the Rapture you are not a true Christian but it doesn't mean you will definately die. you'll just have to try and survive virtual hell on earth. now if you missed the Rapture and then become a Christian in the meantime and happen to survive the Trib you will be rewarded when Christs makes his return which will be at the end of the Trib. Actually Chirst is the one who will actually stop all the fighting and destruction that the Trib will bring.

Now this is a terribly brief description of the final days, if you are interested let me know and I can refer a couple of books to you that go into amazing detail about what lays in store for us, books that will change your life.

by the way drjay, I am a believer in the Bible and that God did everything in it. I'd be happy to give you some knowledge :D haha...

Attak

08-12-2004, 06:33 AM

born2lose

08-12-2004, 06:46 AM

oh, so we're having this debate again? well if you want my views, check out the other thread.....otherwise i might get into a big ass debate with laker dude resulting in utter chaos...

Big D

08-12-2004, 07:06 AM

As far as atheism is concerned, I believe that it takes just as much faith to believe that there is no God than it takes to believe in one (or many). If you think about it...atheism could never be proven. To prove that there was no god, a person would have to know absolutely everything. That person's knowledge of existance would have to approach infinity. Only after you knew everything could you conclusively know that another god did not exist...however, in possesing infinite knowledge of the universe, you would thus become a god yourself, thus negating your theory.

I am not saying Atheism is impossible...I am saying that it takes faith to be an atheist, as it can not be proven.

If you do not have a religion, I would personally suggest taking an agnostic approach to religion. Agnostics believe that a god might or might not exist...they don't know. Agnostics simply accept the fact that we don't have enough information to know for sure that we are makint the correct decision...and therfore refrain from choosing a particular religion until they receive better information. I believed that there probably was a creator for a long time, but I didn't know who or what it was...

Agnostics can question the world they see around them, and find religion if they want to as they see fit. I was agnostic for some time...but at one point I made the decision to have faith in God and Jesus; but thats just me...I will not try to prove it to anyone. I have enough "proof" for myself...

I personally believe in God and Jesus, but I don't try to force other people to believe. I cannot prove it to anyone...I just say to people that you will find God and Jesus if you want to...

Big D

08-12-2004, 07:07 AM

Wow, that was quite a deep post for a site like this, don't you think?I don't think it was too deep...we encourage critical thinking here, even if I didn't really agree with the post...

vchampionl70

08-12-2004, 03:30 PM

[QUOTE=drjay]If you're one of the ones that honestly believes that a ship carrying 2 of every animal sailed its way through a gigantic flood, if you believe the red sea was parted, if you believe a bunch of people were fed by a small piece of bread, speak up cause I'll debate that too. :D[QUOTE]

There is an excavation set to go on, on Mt. Ararat (Spelling?) on a peak where the ark is believed to supposedly lie. While I would not be surprised if it /is not/ the ark, and evidence that could come about {possibly carbon dating} which can lead to it being the ark would certainly provide for an interesting turn of events in our lifetimes.

Lestatdelc

08-12-2004, 06:00 PM

I like some of the principles at the core of the Christian religious belief, (though those tend to transcend any and all major religious systems) such as treat others as you want to be treated.

But I am a bit bemused at the core mythos of the belief. So I think a review of the "Christian" mythos is in order. Let's review the chain of events:

1. God creates Adam and Eve knowing full well they would eat from the Tree of Knowledge and create the Original Sin. He could've done any number of things to prevent this from happening but didn't want to interfere with their freewill. Of course, God doesn't seem to mind interfering in the freewill of others like Pharoh, Noah, Mary, etc.

2. God gets upset at the work he created and slaughters all life except for Noah, his family, and 2 creatures from every species of life on the planet (never mind the impossibility of this feat, just chalk it up to divine suspension of the realities of animal biology and husbandry).

3. God is still upset about the Original Sin He allowed to happen and decides that the only solution an omnipotent god can come up with is to send Himself down to the planet as a human being (Jesus) and then sacrifice Himself to Himself.

4. Jesus is born into a relatively comfortable, middle class existence and is an instant celebrity receiving gifts from royalty who travel from the far corners of the earth. He leads an easy life. He never persoanlly knows hunger, homelessness, or disease. He never has to bury a spouse, child, parent, or sibling. He is worshipped by many as a God.

5. Jesus (who is also God) dies on the cross as a human sacrifice to appease a vengeful god (who is himself). He leaves behind a cannibalistic rite for His followers to engage in to remember this human sacrifice (of himself to himself). God (who is also Jesus) resurrects Himself after three days in Hell and ascends to Heaven to join Himself. He leaves the rest of humanity to 2000 years of wars caused by religious fanatics.

Any questions?

brainkandy87

08-12-2004, 06:23 PM

It's not written by God. It's written by man. For example, Matthew 1:16 .

Written by man, inspired by God.

But, like others in this thread said, you can't have a factual debate with religion. A god cannot be proven or disproven. It's a matter of faith, whether it's faith in believing in religion and God, or faith in believing there is no superior being.

drjay

08-12-2004, 07:01 PM

by the way drjay, I am a believer in the Bible and that God did everything in it. I'd be happy to give you some knowledge :D haha...

Thanks for clearing that up, now why aren't you logical?? :p

But seriously, why does rational thought go out the window when talking about religion? You SERIOUSLY think someone could possibly collect two of every animal and put them on a ship? Hell we're finding new species almost daily! I mean really, I enourage people to stick with the morals outlined in the bible but once you start believing junk like that it becomes pathetic. Science (and logic) has tossed that theory out the window long ago. Any ship large enough to carry two of every animal would have crushed under its own weight. They didn't have steel mills back then! That poses quite a large problem for anyone attempting to build something that large. Oh and maybe you can also explain what happened to all the plantlife, bugs, worms, and others that weren't collected up? I dunno, no matter how you look at it nothing adds up.

Here's my bet...You're going to come back with something that could be classified as "Shut up and believe."

drjay

08-12-2004, 07:02 PM

Bubba-E

08-12-2004, 07:09 PM

reptilian_storm

08-12-2004, 07:22 PM

The human body and everything around us is all perfect. We don't know why it's perfect nobody does, so people think it's "god's" doing just because they can't find another explantion. :rolleyes:

Lestatdelc

08-12-2004, 08:28 PM

i see you have not read the bible
Actually I have. So.... WRONG.

jesus is not god, but the SON of god
Most Christian denominations, at least since the late fourth century CE, generally recognize God as composed of a Trinity, which is in turn composed of a Father (Jehovah), Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. The Trinity includes three personalities within a single deity. Though certainly there are Christians and denominations who do no ascribe to god being composed of the holy trinity.

dumbass
Wow, that is some great "Christian" love. Thank you.

this is the glory of the united states
Actually this is the internet, though I would assume most here are in the United States. But I would tread lightly and not bet too heavily on this given your low batting average on accuracy so far in this post.

freedom of religion
Yep. You have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs you like as long as they do not violate the basic civil rights of others.

both sides seem extremly stupid at times
I assume you mean atheists and theists.. yes?

If so, I concur, no group of people holds a lock on stupidity or genius.

how perfect the human body, and other animals and creatures are, etc.
Perfection...?

The human body is far from perfect. It breaks down, falls apart, is not the most efficient by a multitude of criterion, but I like that mine functions relatively well compared to some others and I am told it is viewed as not being altogether unappealing by some.

;)
why didnt god stop adam and eve, why doesnt he just destroy satan right now, and so on
Got me, but then I don't ascribe to the existence of supernatural beings so it is all just a sometimes bemusing hypothetical exercise for me.

But if the god of the bible does exist, he is the most disgusting abusive psychopath in the universe. If he were a human being, in any correctly run universe he would rightly be held up for child abuse charges and promptly executed.

;)

bubbles

08-12-2004, 08:33 PM

jesus is not god, but the SON of god, dumbass
Why don't you beat him to death with your bible, Good Christian?
And I was raised to believe that Jesus and God are One, so would that make you a blaspheming heretic?

Kobe

08-12-2004, 11:55 PM

Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..."
Deuteronomy 27:22

So if this is true we are all cursed,becuase acording to the bible we all came from adam and eve makeing us all bothers and sisters.

Can some one explain this.

brainkandy87

08-13-2004, 12:33 AM

jesus is not god, but the SON of god, dumbass

Bubba, you really are pushing it for a banning. Peoples opinions different about the bible because no one can actually prove anything, except the actual ruins of cities mentioned in the bible. Just because you think one thing and he thinks another, doesn't make him a dumbass. In fact, you are the dumbass for posting what you did.

Keep the insult level to a minimum in CE, eh?

droogsteve

08-13-2004, 12:40 AM

Bubba, you really are pushing it for a banning. Peoples opinions different about the bible because no one can actually prove anything, except the actual ruins of cities mentioned in the bible. Just because you think one thing and he thinks another, doesn't make him a dumbass. In fact, you are the dumbass for posting what you did.

Keep the insult level to a minimum in CE, eh?

I warned Bubba in another thread this morning to cut the shit. Let's see if a 24 hour banning sends him the message.

Next one is permanent.

Artanis

08-13-2004, 03:01 AM

Thanks for clearing that up, now why aren't you logical?? :p

But seriously, why does rational thought go out the window when talking about religion? You SERIOUSLY think someone could possibly collect two of every animal and put them on a ship? Hell we're finding new species almost daily! I mean really, I enourage people to stick with the morals outlined in the bible but once you start believing junk like that it becomes pathetic. Science (and logic) has tossed that theory out the window long ago. Any ship large enough to carry two of every animal would have crushed under its own weight. They didn't have steel mills back then! That poses quite a large problem for anyone attempting to build something that large. Oh and maybe you can also explain what happened to all the plantlife, bugs, worms, and others that weren't collected up? I dunno, no matter how you look at it nothing adds up.

Here's my bet...You're going to come back with something that could be classified as "Shut up and believe."

obviously your biggest concern is the logic and common sense behind the story of Noah's Ark. let me just say i have no information or clues on how Noah accomplished this feat and i can't explain to you how he did it but i do know that it happened and i will try to give you some facts about it. first off, Noah's Ark has been officially discovered already. many people believe that this recent excavation that is set go on mt.ararat is the first step to finding the ark, not quite. :confused:

in 1960, Life magazine printed an article about the sighting of a huge boat-shaped object that rested on the mountains of ararat. a turkish army captain made the discovery while looking through aerial photos of his country. in 1977 a researcher/archaeologist nameed Ron Wyatt traveled to turkey and personally examined the "boat shaped object" shown in the Life magazine article. Ron Wyatt along with discovering this huge boat shaped object also found anchor stones that had 'byzantine' style crosses engraved in them giving clues that people after 300 A.D. had found and recognized these stones and the area to be of Noahs ark. in 1978 an earthquake shook the area of the 'boat shaped object' removing soil that had built up on its sides revealing large amounts of the object itself. this was a huge breakthrough for Ron and his team, they were now able to test and analyze this object further.

evenly spaced indentations could be seen all the way around the object, which "looked like decaying rib timbers" and what appeared to be "horizontal deck support timbers" were observed at consistent intervals. Ron measured the object finding it to be 515 feet long. whats interesting about the measurement is that 515 feet = 300 Royal Egyptian Cubits exactly. thats the exact measurement God gave to Noah, 300 cubits long. Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis would have been very familiar with this measurement. also the Great Pryamid in Egypt usued the same unit of measure.

radar scans were also taken of the area. i would explain the results of the scans but they are too advanced for me to sit here and try to explain them. but in 1986 Joe Rosetta, VP of Geophysical Survey Systems said after analyzing the info that this object was definately man made. in 1987 turkish officals made it offical that the site that Ron Wyatt discovered was indeed Noahs Ark.

there's too much info on this matter for me to list it all right here, just too much. but I think this is pretty good information for right now, but I want to give you a little more before i quit.

In 1985 a six-inch hole was drilled into the area of the object. by way of that hole, matrix material samples were taken from within a cavity. careful examination of the samples with the naked eye revealed fibers that appeared to be hair. in 1993 these fibers were evaluated by a fiber expert in one of the nations leading crime labs. under microscopic evaluation using both white and crossed polars light, the fibers revealed all of the features characteristic of mammal hair. :eek: further, the hair was determined to be that of an animal, as was clearly indicated by a unicellular medulla (center cell structure). 'color banding' was also noted. 'color banding' is the change in color of the hair from one end to the other; not uncommon to the mammal fur hair of the Felidae (cat) family. only a portion of the hair root remained, however, the fibrous appearance of the remaining root is indicative of the Felidae hair. :eek:

well i hope i didn't say anything that could be classified as "shut up and believe". ;) like i said before I don't know how Noah pulled it off, but he did have the help of God, and in my book thats pretty good. drjay, you seem to be a man of science, so can you tell me how the universe was created? no, you can't...but we know it happened. thats my point. :D

YEAH_RIGHT!

08-13-2004, 11:49 AM

vchampionl70

08-13-2004, 12:00 PM

I don't understand what's everyone's gripe with someone practicing religion? All it does is teach you morals and to value life. However, because some radical shitheads twist the word of religious text (which were written by other men btw, not God Himself), people believe that religion is the root of all this trouble. It's not. Science is. All science does is reduce everything that we have in this world to mere numbers and figures, and after every new door is opened and we learn something new there are just dozens of more question waiting on the other side. Well, that's my two cents.

I agree somewhat. Although it's undeniable that we are living much more comfortably that years ago, it's also a sad reality that society is degrading. There are many more wackos on the streets, and people choose not to think on behalf of the public or society as a whole but themselves: this is a scary thing. All in all, I think it's this new wave of apathy that will lead to new wars and conflicts; but as long as we have our television and computer it doesn' t really matter.

puppyroach

08-13-2004, 12:06 PM

I´ve never believed in science or religion or weapons causing war, they are just means for people to let their aggression out.

And why do people have a hard time lettin others believe what they want to? Even though I´m far from being christian or muslim or a buddhist, I find the stories quite magical and really cool. It just goes to show that people tried to explain the world as they saw it, and in the process created some amazing stories. Just look at the greek, roman and northern mythology. These and celtic mythology has created (among others) lord of the rings, one of the most amazing stories ever written.

Its sad when people focus on the negative aspect of these things (science, religion and stuff), when those things aren´t even responsible, and don´t think about the positives, that greatly outweigh any possible negatives. They bring hope to people, let them use their imagination,giving a face to their faith and so on (I kinda sounded like a preacher there...:))

Dasani

08-13-2004, 12:08 PM

Lestatdelc I assume you dont believe the Bible but seem to have some knowledge about it.

I am sure there are answer in the Bible for everything you wrote the 5 or so questions I will look later to see what I can find. But I mean with all the stories and such some people telling the same stories from different point of views how can you not think that it could be true. I mean the story of the death of Jesus told by different people you think someone would actually make that up. How about other passages relating to early ones yet written by different people there had to be something that brought these together, which was God.

I think there was definitely a great flood thats how I would explain how the continents are laid out I dont think that over time they just moved away from each other because there is much proof that at one time the world was a big island or whatever.

Also maybe an explanation on how the galaxy is laid out how come earth is perfect in the position of the sun and such and why the earth has life. Some say well earth was the only one the life was able form because of atmosphere and such but why is that? Seems to me that there had to something greater than planned it all out.

Also if the Bible was made up many many years ago How did they notice the difference in man and woman say with the extra rib. You think they just felt down there and they are like, hey lets put this in our "made up" book....I dont think so.

Kobe there is many things in the Bible that you could pick out randomly without knowing the before and after that might seem bad but I sure you it doesnt mean what you think. example in revelation 24:8 (i think that right) it pretty much states that all liars go to hell but this isnt true. You must look at the whole story.

last thing for now if things predicted in the Bible began to become true will this maybe cause you to change you mind?

(somethings might have not made since but I tried my best I am not that great at explaning myself. I am not the knowledgable about both sides of the story these are some opinions, thank you.)

next time you leave a gay comment on rep please leave you name you are only making a fool of yourself and dont worry I wont neg rep you back (you know who you are)

Kobe

08-13-2004, 12:37 PM

In the begening they had to use incest to populate the world.back then there were no birth defects becuase the gens were perfectly identical.

If they were perfectly identical back then how come they aren't like that now.

He allready knew thats there would be birth defects in the future so after a period of time he condoned it so there would be no birth defects.

Wouldn't that mean he made a mistake,or would that mean he just changed his mind.

brainkandy87

08-13-2004, 12:46 PM

Wouldn't that mean he made a mistake,or would that mean he just changed his mind.

Adam and Eve lost perfection. God put that law into effect after that and time had passed a several generations.

Chewy

08-13-2004, 01:01 PM

Adam and Eve lost perfection. God put that law into effect after that and time had passed a several generations.
..... and its been down hill ever since

brainkandy87

08-13-2004, 01:15 PM

..... and its been down hill ever since

Hah, no doubt. :p

Kobe

08-13-2004, 01:29 PM

The Bible was also wrote by a group of many different people in many
different languages over a very long period of time and it has been translated from onelanguage to another many times before it was finally translated to English.Therefore, along the way, man could have messed up during translations and made some errors.

avariel

08-13-2004, 01:37 PM

Correct. Using logic to debunk religion is kinda missing the point, anyway.

Science is by definition "the study of nature," and religion deals with the supernatural, or "beyond nature," there can't be any conflict in the debate.

Wouldn't that mean he made a mistake,or would that mean he just changed his mind.

That's stupid too, that's like saying I drove a chevy until I bought a ford, therefore buying the chevy was a mistake. Also for you to try to psychoanalyze God is really laffable, "Kobe"... also I don't think you know what the word "condoned" actually means, how old are you?

Charon

08-13-2004, 01:40 PM

i see you have not read the bible
jesus is not god, but the SON of god, dumbass (...)
Maybe you should read Luke 5.
Only God has the authority to forgive sins and Jesus made it quite clear to the Pharisees that Jesus has that authority. For those who believe the Bible, it is quite valid to refer to Jesus as God, by his own demonstration in Luke 5.

*hoping that a 24hr ban induces improved social etiquette*

Lestatdelc As usual, you post impressive and thought provoking posts.
A few orthodox religions espouse the communion as a "cannibalistic ritual" but most accept it as a symbolic request to do it sometimes in recognition of his sacrifice. And that to me is the largest difference between Christ's teachings and that of other religions.

All Jesus commanded his disciples to do was a) love God absolutely and b) love our neighbour as ourselves. Jesus was not even specific on how often we should celebrate communion. Timeless instructions, appropriate today as they were 2,00 years ago. Every other ritual is human instruction, not that of Jesus. Other religions demand some form of servitude to attain worthiness but with Christ's teachings salvation is attained by belief in him, not servitude.

I believe that to actually "prove" the existence of God in a scientific manner is as implausible as a goldfish proving nuclear fission. Until a nuclear explosion encroaches upon the goldfish's universe, he has no mechanism to ascertain whether nuclear fission actually exists.

reptilian_storm

08-13-2004, 02:15 PM

Science is by definition "the study of nature," and religion deals with the supernatural, or "beyond nature," there can't be any conflict in the debate.

That's stupid too, that's like saying I drove a chevy until I bought a ford, therefore buying the chevy was a mistake. Also for you to try to psychoanalyze God is really laffable, "Kobe"... also I don't think you know what the word "condoned" actually means, how old are you?

The other lifeforms thread should be merged with this one...

Science is by definition "the study of nature," and religion deals with the supernatural, or "beyond nature," there can't be any conflict in the debate.

I disagree, relgion fills in the things we don't/can't understand with fairy tales.

Religion Try's to carry on where science falls short. All it does is tell people it's a magical thing because no one has a better answer. :rolleyes:

If something can't be answer why try and answer it with another thing that cannot be proved? <"god"

Science and religion are as bad as each other....why don't both sides just put their hands up and say "fuck it, we really don't know...let's leave it blank" instead of making up stories to make people feel better.

Lestatdelc

08-13-2004, 07:35 PM

obviously your biggest concern is the logic and common sense behind the story of Noah's Ark.

Sorry.. the events described in the bible (as described in the bible) surrounding the flood and Noah is bunk.

Explain fresh water fish if it happened as depicte din the bible.

All the waters of the world co-mingling, and yet we have fresh-water fish.

Let me guess, fresh-water fish "evolved" from the salt-water" soecies... opps, there goes the creation myth...

and the claims of the Ark being discovered are not factual. There have been numerious claims that the ark had been discovere dand all have never been substantiated.

Whether insightful or misguided, the only archaeologist to have claimed to have possibly located the Ark's final resting place was Ron Wyatt. Since his death he has been heroized by many bible-believers; a plethora of sites coming into existence concerning him, many fabricating information about him and his discoveries.

An Italian archaeological group named NARKAS is the most recent of numerous groups claiming to have pinpointed the location of Noah's Ark close to the top of Mount Ararat, which straddles the border of Turkey and Armenia. Photographs of this alleged discovery are available on their website. The images are a layer of rock that is weathering differently on the upper seurface than the layers above and below it.

Lestatdelc

08-13-2004, 08:28 PM

Lestatdelc I assume you dont believe the Bible but seem to have some knowledge about it.

I don't believe many of the things the bible asserts, particularly the super-natural components. Some aspects may have historical validity, but so what?

I don't believe there was a plantation called Tara owned by Scarlet O'Hara even though we know the civil war occurred. So does the fact that Gone With the Wind talks about the Civil War, and a real place called Atlanta, does that mean Scarlet O'Hara was a real person...?

I am sure there are answer in the Bible for everything you wrote the 5 or so questions I will look later to see what I can find.

What I wrote was not questions. I asked if anyone had any questions about what I wrote.

But I mean with all the stories and such some people telling the same stories from different point of views how can you not think that it could be true.

What a nonsensical assertion. You will need to expand and clarify what you are trying to say here, cite some examples maybe, before it can make any sense at all.

I mean the story of the death of Jesus told by different people you think someone would actually make that up.

None of the accounts of Jesus were actually written by any of his contemporaries. For all we know the person of Jesus never even existed, though I am more than willing to accept that someone named Joshua bin Joseph (i.e. Jesus) was walking around Judea at the time of Augustus Caesar, and may have been crucified, etc.

So accounts written decades and even centuries after the fact by "believers" and whose accounts were reconciled at the The First Council of Nicaea, which took place during the reign of the emperor Constantine in 325 CE... which thereafter tell a similar tale is hardly compelling evidence of much of anything.

How about other passages relating to early ones yet written by different people there had to be something that brought these together, which was God.

Aaaaaahhhh, no. The something was The first Council of Nicaea which was the first church-wide attempt to resolve the great doctrinal controversies of the Church which arose in the fourth and fifth centuries.

I think there was definitely a great flood thats how I would explain how the continents are laid out

How does a flood move continents?

I dont think that over time they just moved away from each other because there is much proof that at one time the world was a big island or whatever.

Do you know how earthquakes occur? Form the movement of continental plates. We can physically measure them. ANd we know the direction and drift of them. You can think what you want, but your assertions are nonsensical and in defiance of demonstratively measurable phenomena. And the "great island" as you call it is named "Pangea" and was theorized and named by GEOLOGISTS based on the very continental drift (movement) you claim doesn't occur, and which a flood would do nothing to create.

Also maybe an explanation on how the galaxy is laid

What is an explanation of the astrophysics of galaxy formation and structure...?

Are you asserting that gravity is somehow proof god exists...?

That is a logical fallacy of astronomical proportions. (pun noted)

out how come earth is perfect in the position of the sun and such and why the earth has life.

Because life arose on earth does not mean that god must exist. This is a logical fallacy. But life arose on earth for the same reason why it didn't on Venus, or Pluto. Chance.

Some say well earth was the only one the life was able form because of atmosphere and such but why is that?

Again, a nonsensical logical fallacy. Because conditions allowed life to form on earth does not mean that god must exist. We know for a fact that organic compounds are easily formed by elements that are ubiquitous in the galaxy.

Your logical fallacy is akin to saying that because ice forms were it is cold, must be god. Because life forms were it can does not mean that god must therefore exist.

Seems to me that there had to something greater than planned it all out.

Why...?

Why do you feel that something had to "plan" it...?

How do you know that the galaxy and universe is not teaming with life in billions of planets in other solar systems where conditions allow it to.. does that mean that it "must be planned" despite the myriad of planets that undoubtedly don't support life...?

You are making a ridiculous leap of "logic" to assume that there must be a "plan" because we exist. OUr existence is proof of nothing more than our existence.

To say because of the vast complexity of the universe, there must be a "plan" by some supernatural being is nonsensical. Who "planned" god then...?

If you conclude that god was not planed and simply is... well save yourself a step and realize that the universe, the laws of physic, etc. all simply exist.

Also if the Bible was made up many many years ago How did they notice the difference in man and woman say with the extra rib.

ROFL.. yeah.. people prior to the writing of the bible would never be able to see a skeleton of a human being and notice the difference.

You think they just felt down there and they are like, hey lets put this in our "made up" book...

Yep. People make up all sorts of kooky shit. From talking snakes, to hobbits, to people called Capt. Kirk.

I dont think so.

Oooooo k.

Yep, everything man tells himself or writes down is fact. Gotcha. Nobody ever made shit up. So the billions of people who believed in Zeus, Apollo, Vulcan, and a whole raft of other gods, they didn't just make shit up?

Or are they right too and there are a myriad of "gods"...?

Lestatdelc

08-13-2004, 08:54 PM

Lestatdelc As usual, you post impressive and thought provoking posts.

Thank you.

A few orthodox religions espouse the communion as a "cannibalistic ritual" but most accept it as a symbolic request to do it sometimes in recognition of his sacrifice.

Of course one can re-interpret what Jesus is purported to have instructed his disciples to do to remember him as merely symbolic cannibalism, in fact what Jesus is purported to have said gives strongly suggests that it was meant to be symbolic of his sacrifice, and thus eating of his flesh "symbolically" and drinking his blood "symbolically". Though the mother church (Catholic Church) does espouse that transubstantiation is real.

I myself of course believe that transubstantiation is fiction, and empirical evidence will back me up on that.

But I have no problem that saying that leaving a cannibalistic cult (albeit a symbolic one) is accurate, though later splinter groups (denominations) do not even practice communion and have it as part of their doctrine or liturgy.

All Jesus commanded his disciples to do was a) love God absolutely and b) love our neighbour as ourselves.

He is purported to have commanded more than that but I agree those are the basic outline and "gist" of most everything Jesus is purported to have "commanded" his followers to do. Or to be more precise, laid out what is required to gain entrance into heaven, etc.

The funny thin is of course, that neither of those basic instructions originated from Jesus.

All religions and many which pre-date Jesus instruct people to embrace god(s), and the Socratic wisdom of "treat others as you would want to be treated" pre-date Jesus by several centuries and there are written accounts of that basic premise or philosophical advice dating back thousands of years prior to Jesus.

Every other ritual is human instruction, not that of Jesus.

Though communion was purported to be from Jesus own mouth, though the specific of how often, etc. were not.

Other religions demand some form of servitude to attain worthiness but with Christ's teachings salvation is attained by belief in him, not servitude.

Ahhhh not so fast. One can easily construe the socratic Golden Rule which Jesus echoed and made central to what he preached as being "servitude" to a comportment of behavior. Some branches of Buddhism for example requires merely contemplation and devotion to introspection to attain nirvana. So I am not so sure your assertion is 100% accurate.

Lestatdelc

08-13-2004, 08:58 PM

why don't both sides just put their hands up and say "fuck it, we really don't know...let's leave it blank" instead of making up stories to make people feel better.

Well, because science does things like allows us to grow food, build houses, know when to plant crops, understand the universe we exist in.

Don't know about you but I personally like knowing when the seasons are so farmers can plant crops by having a calendar that works, understanding electricity, knowing how to clear water from harmful diseases... things like that.

Dasani

08-13-2004, 10:08 PM

Well, because science does things like allows us to grow food, build houses, know when to plant crops, understand the universe we exist in.

Don't know about you but I personally like knowing when the seasons are so farmers can plant crops by having a calendar that works, understanding electricity, knowing how to clear water from harmful diseases... things like that.

Well you seem to have got me last time let me try again but this time I have a Bible.

I will start with a few scientific information:
First off the Bible talks alot about stars it states that the stars and sand on the beaches are close in number. There is an estimate of 10^21 stars. The number of grains of sand on the earth is estimated to be 10^25 and I am sure there are lots of stars we havent seen...would be interesting if they came to be the same.
(Gen 22:17)
"Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Thats alot of stars considering only 3,000 can be seen by the naked eye how did people know this? Also in the Bible it states that no star is the same..well all stars pretty much look the same with the naked eye but scientists have discovered that they now of them are alike.

In Job 28:25 it states that air has weight and I dont think its been too long ago that scientists discovered that air has weight.
"To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure"

In Leviticus 17:11 its states that blood is the main factor for life which was only discovered in 1916 that blood circulation was the key element for life yet the Bible stated it 3,000 years earlier.

The Bible also talks about the water cycle in Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
(also in Jeremiah 10:13)

and its interesting in Job 36:27-29 it says that rain starts in the clouds as vapor and form tiny droplets in the clouds
"For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?"

"He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it." Job 26:8...well this can only mean one thing that the clouds surprisingly hold large amounts of water.

The Bible also state the shape of the earth long belong they thought the earth was round
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:22

I think one thing about the Bible is that no one can prove that any of the prophecies are false maybe you can try?

Many things where prophecied in the Old Testament and came true in the New Testament. You say that there was a guy name Joshua bin Joseph (Jesus as you say) well the Old Testament predicted that some be around at that time with that name. A history source that proves this is the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found which shows many of these things were prophecied before.

With this said I think that if you believe the parts of the Bible that like these I think you should believe the spiritual parts.

Alot of this information was taken from a book called "Know Why You Believe" by Paul Little. I suggest you check this book out, I think it provides some interesting information even if you dont believe the Bible and you dont want to.

For the person that said the Bible has been changed through out time and translations...well learn hebrew then read some of the older ones.

Edit one more thing if you want mention of dinosaurs check out midway through Job 40 and Job 41. just a paraphrase but its says behold the behemoth, the strentgh he has in his loins, the power of his muscles in his stomach, his tail sways like a cedar his bones strong as iron kinda sounds like a dinosaur huh?

reptilian_storm

08-13-2004, 10:46 PM

droogsteve

08-13-2004, 11:38 PM

Well you seem to have got me last time let me try again but this time I have a Bible.

I will start with a few scientific information:
First off the Bible talks alot about stars it states that the stars and sand on the beaches are close in number. There is an estimate of 10^21 stars. The number of grains of sand on the earth is estimated to be 10^25 and I am sure there are lots of stars we havent seen...would be interesting if they came to be the same.
(Gen 22:17)
"Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Thats alot of stars considering only 3,000 can be seen by the naked eye how did people know this? Also in the Bible it states that no star is the same..well all stars pretty much look the same with the naked eye but scientists have discovered that they now of them are alike.

OMG, I cannot believe that you're treating the flowery hyperbole of biblical language as something remotely scientific. That passage was clearly meant to indicate great numbers using reference points the people at the time could understand and is not to be taken literally. How can I be so sure? Because Abraham didn't have 10^25 descendants, now did he? I'm sorry, you can't pick and choose which parts to take literally.

In Leviticus 17:11 its states that blood is the main factor for life which was only discovered in 1916 that blood circulation was the key element for life yet the Bible stated it 3,000 years earlier.

LOL!! The bible doesn't say a thing about circulation. Leviticus 17:11 says:

'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'

It says that the life of flesh is in the blood. Even animals instinctively know that they will die if they lose too much blood. Are you claiming we only discovered that in 1916? :confused:

The Bible also talks about the water cycle in Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
(also in Jeremiah 10:13)

and its interesting in Job 36:27-29 it says that rain starts in the clouds as vapor and form tiny droplets in the clouds
"For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?"

"He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it." Job 26:8...well this can only mean one thing that the clouds surprisingly hold large amounts of water.
No shit. Rain comes from clouds. Do you think that non believers at the time didn't understand that concept?

Edit one more thing if you want mention of dinosaurs check out midway through Job 40 and Job 41. just a paraphrase but its says behold the behemoth, the strentgh he has in his loins, the power of his muscles in his stomach, his tail sways like a cedar his bones strong as iron kinda sounds like a dinosaur huh?

Are you seriously suggesting that men and dinosaurs existed at the same time?

Dasani

08-14-2004, 01:42 AM

Well first off if you have no desire to learn or maybe give a little thought to something new then of course you are going to find fault in everything. Not everything in the Bible is going to be provided for you straight forward in the perfect answer. Like should I marry Sue or not. Also the Bible is not a science book though its accurate.

As for the stars I wasnt trying to point out how many descendants Abraham had I know that wasnt meant literally but I was trying to point out that if someone wrote the Bible 3,000 yrs ago how did they know that there was more stars than they could actually see? How did they know that the sand and stars could actually be close in number?

I made a typo about the date on the bllood it should have been 1616, http://www.zephyrus.co.uk/williamharvey.html

Never did I state anything about rain coming from clouds read again I said the water cycle (which i know involves rain)
So you are saying people 3,000 yrs ago knew that water evaporated into the clouds and was stored until it rained?

I am not suggesting that men and dinosaurs existed together I am not even suggested that dinosaurs existed. I am just proving that such a beast could be an explanation for dinosaur bones and such but in Job 40:15-24 it states

"It eats grass like an ox.
It moves his tail like a cedar.
Its bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
He is the first of the ways of God.
He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh."
Does this describe any animal living today?
There is others list in the Bible but i dont want to get into those unless you want me to.

I also notice you didnt say anything about the prophecies? Maybe because they are 100% true. There is so much stuff being uncovered by archeologists that have proving more and more that the Bible prophecies are true. Hittites where though to be a Biblical legend..until record and facts where discoverd in Turkey. Belshazzar as found in Daniel 5 wasnt thought to be because the last king record as babylon was Nabonidus but later records found that Belshazzar was Nabonidus son.

Has the Bible ever been proven wrong besides the fact that you cant see or touch God? I mean I even tried googling it and I couldnt find anything.
The main difference in other religions and Christianity is that it provides Biblical history.

You say why not disbelieve everythin until you have proof? I have been giving proof. All I can give is historical proof the rest is just having faith.

Someone earlier asked how could noahs ark could be possible well go to this link.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

puppyroach

08-14-2004, 04:00 AM

All that you have stated is quotes from the bible.

What was before the bible.?

Pagans, why did paganism become almost extinct? Because it didn't conform to the rules of the new trend of "christianty" which "supposedly answered all questions no one could answer.

Pagans belived in nature. There is no way you can fault that religion, it has NO flaws.

So why did christians try to outlaw it?

THE GREAT WITCH HUNT.

Anything that wasn't explained in the bible was sinful...LOL...What a load of fucking bullshit!

I'm sorry this thread is seriously starting to piss me off and i'm a quite member here..

The bible was MADE UP after other religions to explain the UNKNOWN and to keep law and order. (Behave you will go to heaven, if you don't you will go to hell)

Thats the oldest law in "the book" :rolleyes:

Why can't people accept that some questions have NO answers! Why try to fill these questions with other things that cannot be proved, either science or religion.

Why not just bisbelive in everything until you have proof?

Well, believing in nature is fine and all, albeit a bit limited, don´t you think? Mankind has always aspired to improve on them selves, their lifestyles and their surroundings. If you only follow the laws of nature, and never question your own existence and progress, then you personally wouldn´t sit by a computer right now, would you?

The thing you states "Why can't people accept that some questions have NO answers", well, we don´t really know which question that can´t be answered, do we? Back in the early middleages, there were alot of people that still thought the earth was flat, that we consisted of one of the four elements, not really small particles, let alone the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, quite unthinkable, right? :)

I don´t think christianity has the answers, or is even the "best" religion, and the crusades and such were seriously wrong. But you must look at what it gives people: hope, faith and trust. Don´t you have any believes? I think everyone has faith in somehing, whether it be the bible, the quaran, the nature?? :)

lcstinky

08-14-2004, 06:10 AM

The unknowable is just that: unknowable. I don't know if there's a god, or an afterlife, or whatever. The point is, neither do you. So stop pretending you do, and stop expecting other people to respect your bullshit.

On the other hand, I think it's wrong when people say that religion is responsible for so much death and oppression and other bad stuff. It's really fear and ignorance; religion is only a tool to legitimize those things.

If you need to have faith in something, try reason.

droogsteve

08-14-2004, 01:59 PM

Well first off if you have no desire to learn or maybe give a little thought to something new then of course you are going to find fault in everything. On the contrary, I have a great desire to learn. That's why I take issue with much of the bible. It ignores science and perpetuates ignorance.

Not everything in the Bible is going to be provided for you straight forward in the perfect answer.Of course not, that's the beauty of it. When something is proven wrong, bible supporters simply say that it was "misinterpreted".

For years people believed that the earth was the center of the universe, based on Genesis:

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
The earth is the center. The sun and all of the stars only exist to give light upon the earth. Of course Copernicus proved otherwise with De Revolutionibus. But he was rejected out of hand at the time because it went against Genesis. Galileo was imprisoned for the last part of his life for embracing Copernicus' theory. The church rejected it for centuries because it proved that man is simply part of nature and not superior to it, which contradicted the bible. When the evidence finally became so overwhelming that it COULDN'T be denied, biblical scholars got together and "reinterpreted" Genesis. "Wait a minute! Now that we look again, it DOESN'T say that the earth is the center!" Gimme a break.

As for the stars I wasnt trying to point out how many descendants Abraham had I know that wasnt meant literally
That's my point. Why wouldn't you take that literally? You seem to have no problem taking the rest literally. That's the problem, you pick and choose which parts to treat as fact and which parts to ignore.

but I was trying to point out that if someone wrote the Bible 3,000 yrs ago how did they know that there was more stars than they could actually see??

They didn't. As I've proved with Genesis, the stars existed to give light to the earth. How could stars that couldn't be seen provide light? They were talking about the vast number of VISIBLE stars.

How did they know that the sand and stars could actually be close in numberIt never says anything about numbers! It doesn't say that the two are close. They are just both examples of vast numbers!

I made a typo about the date on the bllood it should have been 1616
And?

Never did I state anything about rain coming from clouds read again I said the water cycle (which i know involves rain)
So you are saying people 3,000 yrs ago knew that water evaporated into the clouds and was stored until it rained?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The ancient Roman aquaduct system was built before 500bc with underground and covered aquaducts precisely designed to prevent evaporation of the precious water.

Both the Greek and Roman civilizations were highly advanced scientifically. Then as Christianity spread, man descended into the dark ages. Coincidence?

I am not suggesting that men and dinosaurs existed together I am not even suggested that dinosaurs existed. I am just proving that such a beast could be an explanation for dinosaur bones and such but in Job 40:15-24 it states

"It eats grass like an ox.
It moves his tail like a cedar.
Its bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
He is the first of the ways of God.
He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh."
Does this describe any animal living today?
There is others list in the Bible but i dont want to get into those unless you want me to.

Yes, I would appreciate that. And you have told me what you AREN'T suggesting. Now tell me your actual position regarding dinosaurs and other life before man, which contradicts Genesis.

I also notice you didnt say anything about the prophecies? Maybe because they are 100% true.Are they? Here's what five minutes of searching gave me. Deuteronomy:

7:14
Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

7:15
And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

None of the Israelites (or their cattle) will ever be infertile or sick. He'll send that stuff on their enemies. Gee, I wish I were Jewish, my cattle are always sick. :(

Thessalonians:
4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Paul says the rapture is coming in his lifetime. Maybe he got the idea from Jesus, who told his listeners in Mark 9 that the end of the world was coming in some of their lifetimes:

9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Zecharaih says that the Nile will dry up and Egypt will cease to exist. I must have missed the news that day.

0:11 And he shall pass through the sea with affliction, and shall smite the waves in the sea, and all the deeps of the river shall dry up: and the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away.

I have a few dozen more. If you want me to post them, let me know.

You say why not disbelieve everythin until you have proof? I have been giving proof. All I can give is historical proof the rest is just having faith.I have nothing against faith. Honestly, if it makes you happy and gives you a sense of peace, good for you. But don't pretend that it has ANY basis in science or fact, because it doesn't.

Viceroy

08-14-2004, 03:46 PM

I have nothing against faith. Honestly, if it makes you happy and gives you a sense of peace, good for you. But don't pretend that it has ANY basis in science or fact, because it doesn't.

Well said droog. I couldn't agree more.

Dasani

08-14-2004, 11:30 PM

First I want to say thanks to the people who send anonymous comments like "you're an ass", "fuckface faggot fuck" and all the blank ones

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.

It states that there are 2 great lights by day and night being the sun and the moon. It says and He made the stars, it never stated that the stars where only for the light.

Where does it state the stars where only made to give light? It only says that He made the stars. He made the sun and moon as lights to rule the day and night.

As you said earlier the sand and stars were given to represent large numbers. Who knows maybe our population will excede the number of stars, we dont know that. We cannot begin to understand God nor can we understand his plans.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The ancient Roman aquaduct system was built before 500bc with underground and covered aquaducts precisely designed to prevent evaporation of the precious water.

The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. But the water cycle was fully mentioned in the Bible around 1600 B.C.

Eccl.1:6-7 The wind blows to the south, and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.

Job 26:8 He binds up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them.

The aquaduct were built to get water to the different parts of the city. Dont you think any could notice that there was less water at the end then what they they started with. Then look there is water on the sides and when it gets hot seems like the water it coming up how about we place it under where there is no heat. But do we know where the water goes without being in the clouds how can they tell that water is in the clouds maybe by assumption hey somethings in the air maybe water goes their and then rains. But they had no way of knowing yet funny Bible seems to turn out right?

If some people made up the Bible a long time ago and they included things that refer to science and they might not have had a vast knowledge of science we have now, dont you think some funny things might have come up?
but none have.

Both the Greek and Roman civilizations were highly advanced scientifically. Then as Christianity spread, man descended into the dark ages. Coincidence?

Or maybe the fall of Rome and no strong influence?

As for dinosaurs I believe their were dinosaurs but not like they are told in Jurassice park and other stories. There is three animals that are mentioned in the Bible that dont match any on earth today: tanniyn, behemoth, and Leviathan. Tanniyn is a general name often translated into dinosaur, serpent sea monster, great creature, and reptile. Behemoth meets the description of brachiosaurus. I have already talked about it. As the the Leviathan there is a good bit of information you can read about it in Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. Here are a few things taken from Job 41

His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal

His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.

On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.

If you read this you clearly see that this describes a dragon. Its odd that many fairytells contain dragons and many other things from different cultures in history. Maybe because this is based on some truth. Before you say something cant breathe fire, A bombardier beetle from Central America has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas. Also scientists have found tiny passages in many skulls and fossils that were found could these be passages for the gass used to breathe fire?

None of the Israelites (or their cattle) will ever be infertile or sick. He'll send that stuff on their enemies. Gee, I wish I were Jewish, my cattle are always sick. :(

This was one of the speeches that Moses gave before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, see this was the reward if the Israelites obeyed God, but there was also punishment if they didnt obey God. Well the Israelites didnt obey God if you read in 2 Kings. This caused the Israelites to lose the land that God has given them and so they didnt receive this reward.

Thessalonians:
Paul says the rapture is coming in his lifetime. Maybe he got the idea from Jesus, who told his listeners in Mark 9 that the end of the world was coming in some of their lifetimes:

You probably say that you can interpret this in a different way but as I see it when he refers to "we" he refers to people in general I mean we can be used in different ways when someone says one day we will be able to travel galaxies or whatever I wouldnt think they would mean that it will happen in his lifetime but he is refering to the human race. So by we he is talking about the human race which is us now and will be people in the future. When Jesus says "there will be some of them that stand here" He is talking about here as in people that are on earth which doesnt mean the people at that time.

Zecharaih says that the Nile will dry up and Egypt will cease to exist. I must have missed the news that day.

He doesnt mean that the Nile will dry up but the Euphrates, this can be refered to in Revelation 16:12 which just has happened yet.

16:12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up, so that the way would be prepared for the kings from the east.

By saying all the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away. Well that means that the governing body and rules will be gone. This will happen when the antichrist's rule of Egypt comes to an end.

Gen. 49:10
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Please post some more.

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 11:54 PM

next time you leave a gay comment

So Kobe said something non-heteroseuxal in nature or are you using "gay" as a short hand pejorative for "lame, ignrant, etc."...?

If it is the later, please refrain from doing so in the future.

Dasani

08-15-2004, 12:18 AM

I never said it was Kobe and I dont know who it was but if you look up gay in the dictionary one of the meanings is dissolute; licentious.

I looked up dissolute and got:
1 Lacking moral restraint; indulging in sensual pleasures or vices

and for licentious i got:
1 Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint, especially in sexual conduct.
2 Having no regard for accepted rules or standards

The comments seemed to me to be fit for "gay" as I think of gay as someone not have many morals or someone acting immature.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 05:10 AM

Well you seem to have got me last time let me try again but this time I have a Bible.

I will start with a few scientific information:
First off the Bible talks alot about stars it states that the stars and sand on the beaches are close in number.
Citation please.

According to Jeremiah 33:22 it says, "As the host of heaven can not be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured" yet in Genesis 15:5, & 22:17 it says the number of "our seed" which god is claimed to "bless" will be as the "stars of the heaven and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore"... so it is not even internally consistent unless you read the number of humans will be infinite like the number of stars.

I am not sure where you get your statistics about the number of grains of sand estimated to exist on earth but according to fact-index (http://www.fact-index.com/o/or/orders_of_magnitude__numbers_.html) they estimate it to be 2 x 10^15 (twice 10 to the 15th power).. about 2 quadrillion or 2 thousand million million... which is NOWHERE NEAR the number of stars estimated to exist in the observable universe which is estimated to be 7 x 10^22 (7 x 10 to the 22nd power).. about 70 sextillion, or 70 thousand million million million.

Those numbers are not even remotely close, and we already estimate vastly more stars than grains of sand on the earth (which contradicts your assertion), and the bible says there is no limit to either number.

But more to the point, these passages in the bible are literary metaphors, which have nothing to do with astrophysical nor geologic proofs and are not meant to be read as literal, concrete numbers.

In Job 28:25 it states that air has weight and I dont think its been too long ago that scientists discovered that air has weight.
Well your thinking is in error. Democritus Of Abdera (460 - 370 BC) expanded the atomic theory of Leucippus, that everything was made up of atoms which had weight. In fact his coining of the word atoms is the very origin of the word atmosphere.

In Leviticus 17:11 its states that blood is the main factor for life which was only discovered in 1916 that blood circulation was the key element for life yet the Bible stated it 3,000 years earlier.
ROFL you are not serious are you...?

You seem to imagine people in ancient cultures to be dolts and not know that without blood in a body you die?

Wow, I am sure that required divine revelation and not real world observation to suss out.

The Bible also talks about the water cycle in Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth
Yeah, ancient cultures had no way of watching water evaporate and rain fall.

Please.. you are getting beyond silly and I am going to stop here.

I don't mean this to offend, but you are misusing the bible by trying to concoct "proofs" that it contains astounding prescient knowledge that we are only now able to work out.

The bible contains some great wisdom, beautiful allegory, instructive parable, entertaining fiction, helpful snippets of historical insight and admonishments for codes of conduct that are rightly termed in the modern era as barbaric. If it brings comfort to you or others, helps you or others live a better lives, great I am all for it. Furthermore I think it is critical in a free society that you have the right your beliefs. You are of course free to believe it "proves" the things you suggest if you want. That said, I would suggest you not try and make the bible something it is not, a textbook on science and/or empirical truths because it is far from being up to the task as it is not even internal consistent, open to astoundingly opposite interpretation and purports things that are simply beyond feasible with the laws of physics, biology and a whole host of different sciences.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 05:25 AM

Someone earlier asked how could noahs ark could be possible well go to this link.
Bunk.

The deluge and the ark as described in the bible simply could not have occurred as told. If all the waters of the world commingled, it would have killed off every species of fresh-water fish. That alone blows a fatal hole in the story as told.

There are so many others, from the amount of food stocks it would take to feed the staggering number of species. Many of which would require eating hordes of other species and the shear volume of space to house the food alone is beyond any shipwright capabilities NOW, let alone prior to the PRE-bronze-age technology available to Noah.

It, like Lot's wife being turned to salt, the sun being commanded to stop its course in the sky (i.e. the earth to stop rotating), the parting to the red sea, etc. etc. are simply fantastical allegory and creative story telling. Get from them what you well, but scientific facts and empirical truths you will not in such stories.

I am not trying to dissuade you or anyone else form your beliefs, as I said in my previous post, if you or others get things out of it which help you in life, or make people behave less like assholes to one another, etc. etc. great. But the stories such as the ones I mention above as told, are simply not feasible, and are metaphorical allegories.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 05:31 AM

Well, believing in nature is fine and all, albeit a bit limited, don´t you think?

How so.

Nature is the physical universe which includes mankind.

Mankind has always aspired to improve on them selves, their lifestyles and their surroundings.

You seem to advocate the notion (bizarre notion n my view) that mankind is somehow separate from the natural world, and the human psyche is somehow not a part of our nature.

If you only follow the laws of nature, and never question your own existence and progress, then you personally wouldn´t sit by a computer right now, would you?

Anything and everything that man does is contained by the laws of nature. Unless you think that computers and human activity is supernatural.

Do you consider a beaver building a damn and shelter to be not following the laws of nature?

Or is it when man builds things with material components somehow that is fundamentally different (supernatural)...?

drjay

08-15-2004, 05:39 AM

[QUOTE]obviously your biggest concern is the logic and common sense behind the story of Noah's Ark. let me just say i have no information or clues on how Noah accomplished this feat and i can't explain to you how he did it but i do know that it happened and i will try to give you some facts about it.

No, my concern is with the logic behind 99% of the "facts" in the bible. The arc is just convenient.

first off, Noah's Ark has been officially discovered already.
No it hasen't, its still very much controversial.

in 1977 a researcher/archaeologist nameed Ron Wyatt traveled to turkey and personally examined the "boat shaped object" shown in the Life magazine article. Ron Wyatt along with discovering this huge boat shaped object also found anchor stones that had 'byzantine' style crosses engraved in them giving clues that people after 300 A.D. had found and recognized these stones and the area to be of Noahs ark.

Yeaaah, Ron Wyatt was actually a nurse anesthetist and had no formal training in archaeology. To his benefit he DID practice it as a 'hobby' on his vacation time and some weekends. He claimed to have a lot of evidence but only a handful of things were ever presented to the public. One of which is a picture of "rib timbers" but no samples were ever taken to prove it. As a matter a fact most scientists that saw the picture say there's nothing to indicate its not a natural formation.

in 1978 an earthquake shook the area of the 'boat shaped object' removing soil that had built up on its sides revealing large amounts of the object itself. this was a huge breakthrough for Ron and his team, they were now able to test and analyze this object further.

read above..

evenly spaced indentations could be seen all the way around the object, which "looked like decaying rib timbers" and what appeared to be "horizontal deck support timbers" were observed at consistent intervals.

Again...

Ron measured the object finding it to be 515 feet long. whats interesting about the measurement is that 515 feet = 300 Royal Egyptian Cubits exactly. thats the exact measurement God gave to Noah, 300 cubits long. Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis would have been very familiar with this measurement. also the Great Pryamid in Egypt usued the same unit of measure.

Genesis 6:14-18, God said to Noah: "So make yourself an ark of cypress; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it. The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top.

radar scans were also taken of the area. i would explain the results of the scans but they are too advanced for me to sit here and try to explain them. but in 1986 Joe Rosetta, VP of Geophysical Survey Systems said after analyzing the info that this object was definately man made.

Are you able to find ANY information on one Joe Rosetta?? Who you're actually referring to is Tom Fenner, based on the position and years you stated he would be the man. Too bad in 1996 he had this to say about Wyatt:

"It has come to my attention that a Mr. Ron Wyatt from Tennessee has been making misleading statements regarding my role and beliefs in the so-called Ark of Noah at Uzen Gili while trying to raise money for his so-called research …

In 1987 I returned to Turkey and did a methodical and complete ground penetrating radar study of the entire site. The first order of business was to duplicate Wyatt's results to support his conclusions. An inordinate amount of time (1.5 out of 3 days of intensive work) was spent trying to duplicate Wyatt's findings. We were unable to do so. "

in 1987 turkish officals made it offical that the site that Ron Wyatt discovered was indeed Noahs Ark.

You're referring to the Turkish Commission who had been rumored to have said that, which is not true.

In 1985 a six-inch hole was drilled into the area of the object. by way of that hole, matrix material samples were taken from within a cavity. careful examination of the samples with the naked eye revealed fibers that appeared to be hair. in 1993 these fibers were evaluated by a fiber expert in one of the nations leading crime labs. under microscopic evaluation using both white and crossed polars light, the fibers revealed all of the features characteristic of mammal hair. :eek: further, the hair was determined to be that of an animal, as was clearly indicated by a unicellular medulla (center cell structure). 'color banding' was also noted. 'color banding' is the change in color of the hair from one end to the other; not uncommon to the mammal fur hair of the Felidae (cat) family. only a portion of the hair root remained, however, the fibrous appearance of the remaining root is indicative of the Felidae hair. :eek:

I'll get back to you on this, but if its anything like your last bits of information I don't think I should bother.

well i hope i didn't say anything that could be classified as "shut up and believe". ;)

No, I'm more tempted to say "Shut up and do your homework."

like i said before I don't know how Noah pulled it off, but he did have the help of God

Aparently he needed more than that.

Your turn :D

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 05:47 AM

On the other hand, I think it's wrong when people say that religion is responsible for so much death and oppression and other bad stuff.
Why?

It is not even a matter of speculation or debate, but part of the historical record of the human condition. (of course I would caveat that by saying history is not 100% perfect and exacting).

It's really fear and ignorance; religion is only a tool to legitimize those things.
Agreed to a point. But religion can also be an instigator of those fears and drive social and cultural opinions, and activities.

I agree that fear is a prime motivator in most vertebrate species (mankind of course among them). If you believe in a god and heaven and hell.. and you think what you are doing or what others do imperil access to one, and leading to another, etc. etc. then it can be an instigator for unspeakable cruelty and violence.

That said, given the tenets common to most major religions, it also tends to push the ethos that we should not harm each other, work together and help one another (thereby helping ourselves in the larger "scheme of things", etc.) and has been the motivation fro some of the most noble movements in our history as well.

So in that respect I agree that it is, like most physical tools. either a weapon or a boon to people and society, depending on how you use it. A perfect example is our own civil war. The most adamant and outspoken proponents within the abolition movement were people of faith, and some of the most reactionary and hostile people who resisted the end of slavery saw it as a religious and moral imperative condoned by the bible for white superiority and racial purity and preservation.

But what I personally find so troubling is the astounding arrogance of most religious people and dogma that holds their views to be "the truth" and that they are the sole arbitrator of morals, ethics and social "goodness". This leads to people who sincerely believe they alone have their ticket to heaven find anything that does not square with their personal dogmatic belief is deemed a threat, and leads to the very types of abuses that stain much of the history of the church(es) and literal human history with legions of slaughtered and abused people(s).

I have found that for some, if you rattle their beliefs you threaten their ticket to heaven (or conversely their get out of hell free card) and that drives into the psychology of fear.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 05:54 AM

The comments seemed to me to be fit for "gay" as I think of gay as someone not have many morals or someone acting immature.

And that is precisely why your comment is offensive and I have asked you not to use it as a pejorative.

Just as using the term Jew as a pejorative is offensive even though there a numerous uses of that term which are not at all offensive.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 06:17 AM

The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius.

This is true in the sense that Marcus Vitruvius was a Roman engineer, but the rest is bunk.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio was a Roman writer, architect and engineer, active in the 1st century BC. He was the author of De Architectura, known today as The Ten Books of Architecture, a treatise in Latin on architecture, and perhaps the first work about this discipline.

Mainly known for his writings, Vitruvius was himself an architect; Frontinus says he was in charge of the aqueducts of Rome. He is often colloquially referred to as the first architect.

Among notable concepts contained in De Architectura (probably written between 27 and 23 BC), Vitruvius declares that quality depends on the social relevance of the artist's work, not on the form or workmanship of the work itself. Perhaps the most famous declaration from De Architectura is one still bandied in architectural circles: "Well building hath three conditions: firmness, commodity, and delight." This quote is taken from Sir Henry Wotton's translation of 1624, and there is some debate about whether it is a direct translation or a paraphrase of Vitruvius' meaning. Nonetheless, it is most often attributed to Vitruvius, rather than to Wotton.

Vitruvius studied human proportions (third book) and his canones were later encoded in a very famous drawing by Leonardo da Vinci (Homo Vitruvianus). The 16th century architect Palladio considered him his master and guide, and made some drawings based on Vitruvius' work before conceiving his own architectural precepts.

Though De architectura had been known throughout the middle ages, the work was popularized in 16th century through Wotton's translation. Inigo Jones, English architect, was perhaps the first, together with Frenchman Salomon De Caus, to re-evaluate and implement those disciplines that Vitruvius considered a necessary element of architecture: arts and sciences based upon number and proportion.

Among his sources Vitruvius cites Ctesibius of Alexandria and Archimedes for their inventions, Aristossenes (Aristotle's apprentice) for music, Agatarch for theatre, and Terentius Varro for architecture.

So... Marcus Vitruvius was interested in "water" only in so far as building aqueducts, not a study of meteorology. You are quoting the same non-accurate "bible is true" factoid sources. I think the original author of this oft quoted factoid somehow typed "water organ" instead of "water origin" and passed this little nugget of bunk on to be recycled, (like rainwater) again and again on the internet.

Furthermore, from Xenophanes of Colophon 6th