Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by LastOneStanding, Jul 18, 2012.
Whatever helps them cope, just so long as they don't try to impose it on me.
It's not just the afterlife thing though, it's all the other tribal control shit that goes with it.
Just so long as they don't try to impose it on me.
What's so special about you?
I am what I am.
I think some are worse than others.
Sometimes they try to impose their "laws" on me without trying to impose the all of their delusions on me.
And yet, they're wrong, and you are, too. We each leave behind an echo, people who remember us, people whose lives we have touched, for good or for ill, and that can sometimes travel through the generations. The effects of who we are lasts far longer than we do, but there's nothing supernatural about that. For example, I'm one of millions of descendants of Eleanor of Aquitaine, by virtue of being descended from her great-grandson, Edward I "Longshanks". I and my distant and not so distant relatives are a direct result of who she was. Then again, if you have any European ancestry, you have noble blood in you. It's just a matter of finding it. Nothing special at all.
Yet in the grand scheme of things we are a near invisible blip on the timescale of the earth, we don't even show on the universe timescale, it's amazing just how conceited humans are.
Go on then.
Give it a go.
What's your answer?
I don't agree at all.
How about the chronological order in which things were created?
Biblical version of order in which things created:
1. The heaven and the earth (without form, void, formless and empty) (Gen 1.1, 1.2)
2. Light and darkness, day and night (Gen 1.3 - 1.5).
3. Land. (Gen. 1.6, 1.7)
4. Fruit and veg. (Gen 1.11, 1.12)
5. Lights in the sky: sun, moon, stars (Gen 1.14 - 1.18)
6. Living creatures in the sea; also birds (1.20, 1.21)
7. Living creatures on the land; livestock, scurrying animals, wild animals (Gen 1.24)
8. Humans. (Gen 1.26)
Actual order in which things created:
1. Universe. Stars etc.
3. Life on Earth. Amoebas and that kind of thing.
5. Dinosaurs and whatnot.
So the problem - for the deluded fundamentalists - is that the Biblical version just doesn't fit the observed facts.
Fruit and veg on the earth created before the stars in the sky?
That means the the Earth existed - according to the biblical version (i.e. the nonsense version) before the rest of the universe - it's just tripe.
Works fine as a bronze-age cosmology in which the stars are little pretty lights in the sky, which is a dome over the earth. Doesn't work at all now we know that stars are distant suns.
You have to ignore the observable evidence in order to believe in this stuff literally.
Of course, believing in it metaphorically - or as a useful parable - is not nearly so bone-headed.
C, I can see that you've decided to become offended now. This is a defence mechanism. It's easier to say "oooooooooowww you horrid horrid people I don't want to hear any more!" than to face the facts.
It's also a lot easier to say "I have reasons and evidence but I won't say tell you what they are because you're nasty and horrid!", then to actually say what they are and have them shot down.
Please note, dear Anon, that the apple of sin came from the tree of knowledge; i.e., God wanted man to de as dumb as (or as carefree as?) a cow.
The mythical apple was
'knowledge of good and evil'
(minority translation: 'intelligence')
A bovine showing one of its tastiest parts. Mmmm, tongue. Now I want some Mexican food.
True, but we have the potential to be more. No other species in Earth's history has explored other planets. Manned colonies, even to the point that our descendants could outlive this solar system, are not out of the question.
Humanity is the bomb.
View attachment 1273_internet_tough_guys_for_teh_lulz_jpeg-s750x60
Trouble is humans are like snails, we leave a trail of shit behind us wherever we go. If we go to mars it will only be to see what we can rob from it because the cupboard has been cleaned out at home.
On your Mars, robbing your cupboards!
View attachment mars_curiosity_2_r640x453.jpg?c9f6f7c2167372918b42
1) I'm actually not offended. Truly. Just rather bored at hearing the same old objections by people who don't seem that bothered in hearing the answers. It's rather a waste of my time. If someone tells you "I think your beliefs are stupid, now tell me about them", it isn't worth answering. That's not butthurt, it's common sense.
2) Like most 'contradictions' the order of creation in Genesis is easily answered by actually looking at the text. You think I didn't read Gen 1-2 and not ask why some bits were in different orders? I did, I asked that question, then looked to see if there was an answer. If there wasn't an answer I would have written the Bible off as nonsense and moved on.
Now although so many will sneer and snap when words like "context" or "translation" are brought up by any Christian in explaining their beliefs, here's my answer:
When reading English, it is easy to tell when a passage in poetry or when it is prose, like looking at a rhyming structure, acrostic form or syllabic verse. Translate any passage from one language to another and it's genre and form will not be obvious to someone who doesn't know the original language. Rhyme will be lost, syllabic counts will change and acrostics will change.Likewise, many idioms do not translate directly from one language to another.
Look at the original Hebrew of Genesis 1 and it is abundantly clear by its form that it is poetry. It is written as poetry and it is intended to be understood as poetry. This chapter is NOT a scientific textbook nor is it intended to be. There may be some debate about the following chapters, whether they are literal or allegorical, there are many believers on both sides of the discussion here and I'll let people make their own mind up.
Let me reiterate that this isn't the knee-jerk reaction of a blind faith believer saying I don't understand so it must be a translation or context thing. Neither is it a pick and choose thing where I accept the bits I like and write off the bits I don't as poetry. Like studying any language, genre can be discerned from its literary form. I looked at the original Hebrew and responded to what was there.
Before I log off, I had to respond to this point^
There is a commonly held myth amongst atheists that each Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation etc. Those highly rational and logical people who demand intellectual rigour from others singularly fail to actually check their facts. It really confounds me that those atheists who accuse me of accepting doctrine without thinking or checking it myself, these people do the same thing where they find a 'fact' that they want to believe and spread it and quote it when it is utterly wrong.
All of the common English Bibles in use today went back to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts to translate afresh. They are not translations of each other. A simple reading of the preface to any modern translation or a little google-fu will clear that one up.
And yet, you have not one answer for any objection. You have excuses and equivocations. I would be happy to see an actual response to a contradiction. You have yet to give one. If the father of John the Baptist were martyred to protect him, why was the only account of said martyrdom in a book written in the 2nd Century CE instead of closer to the time it happened? Why does the whole Christ story bear such a striking resemblance to Greek and Roman mythology, as well as others from the region?
Well, I'm glad about that. One reason why I'm being so persistant here is that I know and like you, C, and I'm genuinely astonished that you profess yourself to be a Christian Fundamentalist. You've never struck me as a total fucktard before.
Re the same old objections:
I've been having this debate, on the internet, for the past 20 years (on and off). Other people have been having the same debate for a lot longer, and I've read some of what they've written. I'm aware of the arguments and counter-arguments on both sides.
It's statistically unlikely that you're a genius who's come up with something new and different. If you have something new, you haven't mentioned it yet.
For fairness, if you want to know in advance what I'm likely to argue, consult some of the standard summaries such as the talk.origins FAQ
or "15 answers to creationist nonsense":
If you really have some 'evidence' or 'research' that the Bible is literally true, then I suggest you get on with it and tell us what you think it is.
By saying that you have some reasons but you won't say what they are, you're just prick-teasing.
Hooray! You're not a fundamentalist after all!
(Why did you say you were one?)
A fundamentalist believes that everything in the Bible is literally true - not poetry, not metaphor, not allegory, but literally stone-cold says-exactly-what-it-means-and-means-exactly-what-it-says literally true. A fundamentalist would say that Genesis is a better substitute for a scientific textbook.
So do you believe that any of the Bible is literally true? If so, please indicate:
- which parts?
- how do you know?
- why is it you that gets to do the deciding?
- why don't other cultures' myths get equal status?
No there isn't. Straw man argument.
I prefer sources such as the original Hebrew, with parallel translations:
Steven Fishman was Jesus' real dad. So there.
I'm confused, which is the true deity: J. R. Bob Dobbs or Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Bob Dobbs of course, you heretic you.
My point in a nutshell. That is my view of it too.
I am not saying that Christfags should give up what they believe, but I am saying that Christfags need to realize that the Bible isn't the "Science Trump Card". That when the book was written, Science hadn't made grounds and concepts like millions, billions, trillions, etc. were as foreign as the world itself.
Basically: Scientific concepts we have now back then would be akin to trying to teach advanced Calculus to a Kindergartner.
So yes: The Earth is billions of years old, not 6,000 or 5,000 years old. Everything you mentioned for scientific fact is correct. Bottom line: The bible was meant for parable or metaphoric instructions on how to live (ie: Don't kill or steal, don't be a dick, fuck around on your wife/guy, etc.) and is subject to human misinterpretation.
We are in agreement, except that I would add:
It's subject not only to the possible misinterpretation of the readers, but also the mistakes of the writes (who were, after all, only human).
'writes' should say 'writers'
The bible is a religious handbook, nothing more. It's purpose is to control the members of the religion and to ensure the longevity of the religion. If you chose to read it as fact then that's your choice. Overwhelming evidence shows that it is not fact. Unfortunately humans are still driven by prehistoric tribal urges, to belong to a tribe, to cast out and deride other tribes. Religion is merely an extension of this tribal behaviour, a cleverly constructed one which has been modified throughout the centuries to ensure its own survival.
I have little respect for religion due to the misery and death this tribal behaviour has reaped upon the human race. Humans will only evolve if the tribal/religion part is lost. If we persist in belief systems and dividing ourselveslves by race or country then wars and hatred will continue endlessly. We all need to come together and work as one, but this will not happen for centuries yet, if at all. If we survive.
We're clearly misunderstanding each other. I believe I have answered some of your objections.
Let me clarify - one objection was How did John the Baptist survive when Herod killed the children. I think the answer I gave, being that John was somewhere miles and miles away from where it happened was a pretty clear response. Do you disagree with this? Children were killed in Bethlehem, John wasn't in Bethlehem.
(And note that, even if John had been in Bethlehem, there still would not be a definite contradiction. Matthew's gospel tells us that Herod gave the order for children to be killed, and then tells us what Joseph and Mary did. It deosn't tell us the fate of each and every child in the area.A contradiction is where two things cannot both be true. Like I said before, you can argue improbability but not impossibility.)
And your comment about John the Baptist's father being martyred - That isn't in the Bible. Maybe it's true, maybe someone made it up, I don't know. It isn't in the Bible so I have no idea. Why bring it up?
Deagol found Isildur's lost Ring of Power, but he was murdered and the Ring stolen from him by Smeagol, now known as Gollum.
We don't know or care who Smeagol's father was. What was important was that HE DIED FOR OUR SINS.
The Protoevangelium of James is not in YOUR bible. Still, it was recognized as a Gospel at one point, and it is still popular and read to this day. It still doesn't resolve the fact that only one Canon gospel mentioned Zacharias' martyrdom and couldn't bother to tell the story, and this was supported by a later discredited work. John the Baptist and his parents weren't just "each and every child" or "each and every person." They were critically important characters in the work of fiction you call a Bible. That would be like a book about the Game of Thrones without mentioning the Lannisters. You never mentioned how Christ could have been born two separate instances 10 or more years apart, yet both be true. Yes, Quirinius was alive when Herod was alive, but he wasn't in any way relevant to Iudaea until long after Herod's death, and anything written around that time in that region would not have mentioned someone whose existence they had no reason to know about. He was kinda busy prosecuting a war around the time of Herod's death, and that doesn't leave much time for administrative duties in a completely different part of the Roman Empire. You never mentioned how the same Gospel could show Christ's divinity and absolutely oppose that assertion while both remaining true. You never mentioned how a star could stay stationary for months on end, an impossibility, and yet only be seen by those for whom the message was meant, an absurdity. When a contradiction is spotted, you make excuses. Excuses are not evidence.
Thankyou, you're very kind.
I think I may have labelled myself a little unclearly. I use "fundamentalist" in the sense that I believe that there is fundamental objective truth and that the Bible is true. It sometimes expresses truth using poetry (so I'm not a literal fundie). In the same way as if I say "It's raining cats and dogs", I am expressing an immutable truth that it is raining heavily, but using poetic language to make my point.
*I just googled the definition of Christian fundamentalist and see that I don't quite fit the description. Sorry, my bad. Thanks for clarifying that for me. That'll probably explain some of the negative responses I've had.*
True, and a fair point.
I would answer by saying firstly, I've debated with some atheists who give atheism a bad name and there are plenty of people out there who claim to be Christian but spout real moonbat nonsense (like the original topic for this thread).
Secondly, (and this is the best insight I can give without typing for hours) sometimes we have to change our thinking. For example, imagine a boy who picks up a book on algebra, flicks through it and finds a page that says x=2. then skimming on a bit he finds a reference that says x=3. He laughs at the apparent contradiction. He tells his friends, he sneers at mathematicians and the more he counts to 2 and 3 and shows that they are definitely different, the more confident he becomes in justifying his derision of algebra. He dismisses the whole topic of algebra as nonsense and every mathematician as a drooling idiot.
By missing the point of what algebra is about, the boy has a supposed cast iron case against it. I think it is the same with the Bible and God. If we simply look at the Bible to find out stuff about God, trying to delineate rules and conditions and characteristics or whatever, then we miss the point. God is all about relationship. Knowing facts about a person is far cry from what it means to get to know them personally. When we come to the Bible with our own agenda, our own idea of what we want to know and what we aren't interested in then we'll never get too far. In coming to the Bible prayerfully, ready to hear what God wants to tell me, then that bears much greater fruit.
I LOVE Smeagol. So much want a plushie or action figure of that cute SOB from the movie.
BTW: He didn't "Accidentally" fall into the lava. He jumped because he got sick of Sam and Froto playing "I dropped the ring. Pick it up!". His poor eyes saw more horrors than anybody could ever fathom!
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!