<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 24 2004, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 24 2004, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A nice open mind you've got there Nadagast.
Tell you what chief. Find one said inaccuracy, and I'll bow down in front of my computer and call you god almighty. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1 Kg.9:23 "These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty.." 2 Chr.8:10 "And these were the chief of king Solomon's officers, even two hundred and fifty."
Attack my source <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There's hundreds more, and while some can be shrugged off as miscommunication, or something relating to old culture; there is no way you can say that that the hundreds of inconsistencies in the bible (it even says that Pi = 3) are wrong or use terminology not used today. Especially since it's the book of God.
And please, don't worship me, or any other god. God doesn't exist.
Edit: The bible is not credible evidence for God. Is there any evidence for God?
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 24 2004, 07:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 24 2004, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's not logical to believe in God/religion. Period.
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yet somehow millions and millions of highly educated people, include endoctorated historians, and physicists, and a plethora of other scientific fields, covering every scientific field, exist as productive members of the scientific comunity just as prominently as every other religious affiliation, including athiesm. Many Christians don't argue with any aspect of science what so ever. Infact this whole God/Science mentality that Christains have been painted with is absolutly counter biblical, and is entirely a product of lazy people wanting to belive that the bible is a comprehensive textbook on how people should live every moment of thier life, thus preventing them from having to think about any issues. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Popular doesn't equal right/true. See someone else's post. People thought the world was flat (largely due to religion).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Granted the belive that scientifically unexplainable things can happen seems illogical, but realisticly, what do we know for sure about the nature of our world outside the physical? If nothing else it should be scientifically clear that there is alot of empty space out there that we can't prove or disprove is filled with anything, we really haven't even mapped the brain to any small extent. Combined with the fact that most people have, in thier lifetime, seen at least one thing that can be considered scientifically unexplainable, or probablistically impossible. These statements make more scientific sence then one might guess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please, personal opinions or experiences are worthless in a logical debate, especially since they come from such biased sources. Show me some real EVIDENCE that miracles happen. Show me something 'scientifically unexplainable' (not like the origin of the universe, we are not that far in terms of knowledge to know that yet). Lightning was 'scientifically unexplainable', and was 'God's wrath', but it's a perfectly scientifically explainable event. Noah's Ark? Impossible... Earth less than a million years old? Impossible.
One error on the scale of Noah's Ark or the Earth's age (according to religion) should be enough to prove that God doesn't exist or at least the God that we believe in does not exist. A 'perfect' God would not make such a colossal error.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 24 2004, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 24 2004, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> btw, science can't be "right." science is based on statistics, not probability. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is "right" by definition. If it's wrong, it takes steps to correct itself. Unlike SOMETHING I KNOW (psst, religion).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->let's not get this into a science vs. religion debate. it always turns out to be one, but why do people still not realize that you *cannot* pit science against religion? they are two fundamentally different things that answer fundamentally different questions, so don't try it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree, science is very against religion. Religion has many scientific flaws, which should disprove it (oh wait you need to have 'faith'!). PLEASE.
What evidence (other than the bible, not credible) do you have for believing in God or religion? Don't give me personal "God was with me" experiences either, they count for 0. Also, assuming there actually is a God, how do you know your religion is the correct one out of ~5000-10000 religions in the world? Don't say "it's more popular" or I'll laugh. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 24 2004, 06:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 24 2004, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact this whole God/Science mentality that Christains have been painted with is absolutly counter biblical, and is entirely a product of lazy people wanting to belive that the bible is a comprehensive textbook on how people should live every moment of thier life, thus preventing them from having to think about any issues.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd be interested in hearing more about this, because most of what I have heard from <i>Christians</i> is that this is not true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Granted the belive that scientifically unexplainable things can happen seems illogical, but realisticly, what do we know for sure about the nature of our world outside the physical? ... Combined with the fact that most people have, in thier lifetime, seen at least one thing that can be considered scientifically unexplainable, or probablistically impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The mistake most people make when they are talking about science is about what it is. Science is not a body of knowledge. Physics, chemistry, biology are all bodies of knowledge. Science is a <i>method of discovery</i>. Furthermore, it's a method with only one real boundary. Its data must be empirical. In other words, it must be observable. That said, the statement "most people ... have seen [something] considered scientifically unexplainable" sounds nonsensical.
I'm not making the case that any statement about "the scientifically unexplainable" (lets call it "supernatural") is nonsensical. I'm not even making the case that beliefs about the supernatural are illogical.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I challenge you to get make a textbook on science with no less then 50 authors, and the conditions in place that none of them is allowed to talk to eachother etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I think he made clear later, he wasn't directly attacking the scholarship of the biblical authors. He was making a case that a book with inaccuracies and inconsistancies is being called <i>the</i> book of God. Personally, I don't find that sort of attack persuasive, but beyond that, it seems quite potent.
This is turning into a God/science debate, which is silly, because they are not in the same spheres. God is a supernatural concept, and as I (hopefully) explained above, science has no concept of the supernatural. The same is sadly not true of Bible/science debates... I haven't decided whether I should or shouldn't post my own silly ideas about Christianity.
Hey if you guys don't want to debate what I'm talking about, that's fine. Just say so, I will shutup <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If you do, please answer:
Say a man came up to you with a book claiming it to be the word of God (some other God/religion). What makes you dismiss his claim and accept your views about Christianity? How are his views any less credible than Christianity (or any other religion)? Why would you not believe him and yet still believe your own religion?
Don't say "because my religion is more popular" or "because of Jesus!" please... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Until this topic gets back on course, I will respectfully bow out.
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 25 2004, 03:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 25 2004, 03:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 24 2004, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 24 2004, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> btw, science can't be "right." science is based on statistics, not probability. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is "right" by definition. If it's wrong, it takes steps to correct itself. Unlike SOMETHING I KNOW (psst, religion). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not sure where you have gotten the idéa that religion never corrects it self. There a new translations of the bible (the latest one in sweden from 2000) and do you know why? No it's not just to modernize the language though that is part of the reason no the main reason is because scientist are constantly researching the bible and finding out more about what the propper translations should be, new ways of analyzing the value of the differnt versions they have available all to make it more acurate. And guess what most christian feel about this... they like it because they want the truth as much as you do. As far as I know the bible never says that science is wrong. Many confuse the bible with the followers of the bible and think they are the same. The thruth is that it is never easy to go against "common knowledge". Einstein didn't have an easy time in university because he wouldn't acept the stale "knowledge" his teachers preached. The problem you are describing sounds like a problem with authority figures.
Just out of curiosity how many here have actually studied the bible at university or at the same level?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What evidence (other than the bible, not credible) do you have for believing in God or religion? Don't give me personal "God was with me" experiences either, they count for 0. Also, assuming there actually is a God, how do you know your religion is the correct one out of ~5000-10000 religions in the world? Don't say "it's more popular" or I'll laugh. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Got a question for you. What prof do you have that god doesn't exist? Seems strange question but do you got any? It's like saying that there isn't any green ravens. Untill you have found them all you can't say for certain that there isn't any. And as far as I know no sicentist have every found proof that god doesn't exist. Even the most knowledgable ateist have been forced to back on that question.
As for the question of who Jesus was I like the idéa of a strong carpenter Jesus <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Btw Swiftspear, I like you and your reasoning. Have you had any schooling in the subject?
Ps sorry no time for spellchecking, late for my train Ds
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Oct 25 2004, 02:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Oct 25 2004, 02:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 21 2004, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 21 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Oct 21 2004, 10:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Oct 21 2004, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Grendel, if you do not respect my beliefs, what's to stop you from trying to pass laws against them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sanity? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that's a lot to ask from someone who doesn't respect anyone's beliefs but their own, and who proclaims not to have any set of morality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (sorry to go off topic) As far as I know , little to none of the fundamentalist christians respect atheist beliefs , and thoses in power actually pass laws against them !
Remember the christian adage "love the people , hate the sin" ? Ever thought it could be used against christian beliefs as well ? That's exactly what Grendel meant. He has nothing against you , he just hates the christian ideas you're hosting in your brains. As do I. Look how much your beliefs distorted your thought processes already... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> um, that's pretty much why the quaker and puritan communities were pretty strict, y'know?
i never claimed that christians would make "good" political decisions, in fact i would expect us to make bad ones. I was merely pointing out that while he made himself out to be "better" than us, he would be no more fit to make executive or legislative decisions than us religious wackos, and likely less so.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not logical to believe in God/religion. Period.
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It amazes me that the people who claim to be the most "open-minded" are the quickest to close their minds at the presentation of the Gospel. No matter if it's an intelectual argument, or a simple discussion, or anything. Open-minded? Yes, I'm a minister, yes, I not only adhere to who Jesus is, but I take every opportunity to share it with others. No, I don't close out all other beliefs and believers as non-sense and idiocy. I am willing to discuss any belief and any argument about my faith with anyone. And if you can persuade me that your belief is more sound, than I'll gladly convert to whatever it is. Why am I willing to say sucha thing, because I doubt God? No. I believe my God to be able to overcome any obstacle, and every time I've investigated my fatih, <u>every, single, time</u>, He has come through and shown me even more than before He exists. Look at C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, people who investigated Christianity to prove it false. They ended up realizing there was no way to disprove it. People always ask me to read this book, or that view, and I do, but if you want to disprove Christianity, I challenge you to read <i>Mere Christianity</i> by C.S. Lewis, or <i>A Case For Christ</i> by Lee Strobel. Then come with your factual accusations.
Inasmuch as you would have the right to argue that I am faulted if I read nothing but Christian material that supports my beliefs, never challenging my faith, I say to you naysayers, you are faulted by never looking at the careful investigations done that "prove" Christianity.
However, in the end, the true thing that assures my personal relationship with the Creator of the universe <i>IS</i> the relationship with God. I can tell you how great it is, how God' touches my life and fills me with hope, joy, and a purpose. I can speak of all the miracles He's performed in my life, but until you experience it first hand, you'll never be able to fully comprehend.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Got a question for you. What prof do you have that god doesn't exist? Seems strange question but do you got any? It's like saying that there isn't any green ravens. Untill you have found them all you can't say for certain that there isn't any. And as far as I know no sicentist have every found proof that god doesn't exist. Even the most knowledgable ateist have been forced to back on that question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A most knowledgable atheist would quickly point out that the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" argument is a major logical fallacy known as <i>argumentum ad ignorantium</i> or argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance fallacy is committed when it's argued that a proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false.
In this case, it's coupled with the Burden of Proof problem. It's not sufficient to say, "Well, you can't disprove this." You're making the claim and it falls to you to support it. Should you offer up evidence of your claim, then it falls to the skeptics to disprove your claims and/or offer up counter-evidence of their own.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 25 2004, 03:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 25 2004, 03:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 24 2004, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 24 2004, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> btw, science can't be "right." science is based on statistics, not probability. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is "right" by definition. If it's wrong, it takes steps to correct itself. Unlike SOMETHING I KNOW (psst, religion).
I disagree, science is very against religion. Religion has many scientific flaws, which should disprove it (oh wait you need to have 'faith'!). PLEASE.
What evidence (other than the bible, not credible) do you have for believing in God or religion? Don't give me personal "God was with me" experiences either, they count for 0. Also, assuming there actually is a God, how do you know your religion is the correct one out of ~5000-10000 religions in the world? Don't say "it's more popular" or I'll laugh. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> um, what?
please, go back and correct yourself before you embarass yourself further. please re-acquaint yourself with the scientific method.
If science, by definition, were "right", then I suppose we would all be still believing in epicycles and a geocentric earth, believing that the atom is a slurry of positive and negative charges evenly distributed in a sphere filled completely with mass.
no, science is about approximating observations with mathematical relations. Call them theories, call them "laws." These laws may not exist as an underlying driving force in the universe, but statistically they fit the observed reality well so they are treated as if they do. Science depends on two things, mainly, one is observable consequences, and the other is human intuition (e.g. the presupposed hypotheses). The observations support or refute the intuition, and new observations and intuitions are brought in. Thus science is refined. Now, if science were always right, it wouldn't need to be refined, would it?
Btw, how can science be "right"? Science does not give the answer to moral dilemmas; science does not lead to wisdom; science does not lend itself particularly to generosity or miserliness, nor does it necessarily condemn things like murder or genocide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A most knowledgable atheist would quickly point out that the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" argument is a major logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium or argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance fallacy is committed when it's argued that a proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false.
In this case, it's coupled with the Burden of Proof problem. It's not sufficient to say, "Well, you can't disprove this." You're making the claim and it falls to you to support it. Should you offer up evidence of your claim, then it falls to the skeptics to disprove your claims and/or offer up counter-evidence of their own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but you can't? As my proof, I propose common sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-..tim..+Oct 25 2004, 08:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (..tim.. @ Oct 25 2004, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not logical to believe in God/religion. Period.
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It amazes me that the people who claim to be the most "open-minded" are the quickest to close their minds at the presentation of the Gospel. No matter if it's an intelectual argument, or a simple discussion, or anything. Open-minded? Yes, I'm a minister, yes, I not only adhere to who Jesus is, but I take every opportunity to share it with others. No, I don't close out all other beliefs and believers as non-sense and idiocy. I am willing to discuss any belief and any argument about my faith with anyone. And if you can persuade me that your belief is more sound, than I'll gladly convert to whatever it is. Why am I willing to say sucha thing, because I doubt God? No. I believe my God to be able to overcome any obstacle, and every time I've investigated my fatih, <u>every, single, time</u>, He has come through and shown me even more than before He exists. Look at C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, people who investigated Christianity to prove it false. They ended up realizing there was no way to disprove it. People always ask me to read this book, or that view, and I do, but if you want to disprove Christianity, I challenge you to read <i>Mere Christianity</i> by C.S. Lewis, or <i>A Case For Christ</i> by Lee Strobel. Then come with your factual accusations.
Inasmuch as you would have the right to argue that I am faulted if I read nothing but Christian material that supports my beliefs, never challenging my faith, I say to you naysayers, you are faulted by never looking at the careful investigations done that "prove" Christianity.
However, in the end, the true thing that assures my personal relationship with the Creator of the universe <i>IS</i> the relationship with God. I can tell you how great it is, how God' touches my life and fills me with hope, joy, and a purpose. I can speak of all the miracles He's performed in my life, but until you experience it first hand, you'll never be able to fully comprehend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have to go to class right now but I will say this: Don't call me closed minded...
I used to be a Christian until I rationally thought about religion. Guess where I am now? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wouldn't call my POV closed-minded, it's just I've heard the argument/case for religion, and decided it was bs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but you can't? As my proof, I propose common sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't what? Prove an unobservable diety doesn't exist? I don't need to. It's your job to prove that God exists and that Jesus was the son of God. I'm not the one making any claims here.
Common sense? What the hell kind of proof is that? You don't even define what common sense consists of, let alone justify why such a nebulous and intangible attribute, that is by no means universal amongst humans, is proof of a deity's existance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Btw, how can science be "right"? Science does not give the answer to moral dilemmas; science does not lead to wisdom; science does not lend itself particularly to generosity or miserliness, nor does it necessarily condemn things like murder or genocide.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is only "right" if you assign moral values to factual information. The scientific method isn't designed to solve moral dilemmas. It's designed to find out what is factually true, not what you should do with the information. Science tells us that fission exists and is possible with various elements. It doesn't tell us if it's a good idea to use fission to make a bomb or not.
<!--QuoteBegin-Okabore+Oct 25 2004, 07:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Okabore @ Oct 25 2004, 07:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Got a question for you. What prof do you have that god doesn't exist? Seems strange question but do you got any? It's like saying that there isn't any green ravens. Untill you have found them all you can't say for certain that there isn't any. And as far as I know no sicentist have every found proof that god doesn't exist. Even the most knowledgable ateist have been forced to back on that question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm, you're making the claim. The burden of proof lies upon you. I don't need to do anything. Are you born believing in God? No. Atheism is the default.
Show a shred of credible evidence that god exists, please?
1 Kings <9:22> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves. Instead, they were soldiers, <b>officials</b>, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units. <9:23> These were the officers in charge of Solomon's projects: 550 foremen for the people who did the work. <9:24> Pharaoh's daughter moved from the City of David to the palace that Solomon had built for her. Then he built the Millo.
2 Chronicles.
<8:9> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves for his projects. Instead, they were the soldiers, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units. <8:10> These were the officers in charge of King Solomon's projects: 250 foremen for the people who did the work. <8:11> Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter from the City of David to a palace he had built for her. He said, " My wife will not live in the palace of King David of Israel because these places where the LORD'S ark has come are holy. "
Note that the passage out of Kings includes civilan officials, in addition to the military leadership in charge of the projects. It's both possible and reasonable to assume that the civilians were given different roles than the military commanders, and would not have been counted among the foremen in 2nd Chronicles, resulting in the 300 person difference.
please, go back and correct yourself before you embarass yourself further. please re-acquaint yourself with the scientific method.
If science, by definition, were "right", then I suppose we would all be still believing in epicycles and a geocentric earth, believing that the atom is a slurry of positive and negative charges evenly distributed in a sphere filled completely with mass.
no, science is about approximating observations with mathematical relations. Call them theories, call them "laws." These laws may not exist as an underlying driving force in the universe, but statistically they fit the observed reality well so they are treated as if they do. Science depends on two things, mainly, one is observable consequences, and the other is human intuition (e.g. the presupposed hypotheses). The observations support or refute the intuition, and new observations and intuitions are brought in. Thus science is refined. Now, if science were always right, it wouldn't need to be refined, would it?
Btw, how can science be "right"? Science does not give the answer to moral dilemmas; science does not lead to wisdom; science does not lend itself particularly to generosity or miserliness, nor does it necessarily condemn things like murder or genocide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is right because of the definition of the Scientific method. Obviously it isn't 100% right every time, but as soon as someone points it out, science changes and they accept the new idea/theory. All the while continuing to throw out anything that is disproven. When I say 'science' I didn't mean the body of knowledge, I meant the method.
And then you start talking morals? Science isn't supposed to be about morals.... You know that if you're using the Bible as a compass for what's "right" then slavery is okay right? The bible says slavery is a-ok!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but you can't? As my proof, I propose common sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your proof that god, the creator of the universe, exists, is 'common sense'? I don't think that counts...
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 25 2004, 11:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 25 2004, 11:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1 Kings <9:22> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves. Instead, they were soldiers, <b>officials</b>, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units. <9:23> These were the officers in charge of Solomon's projects: 550 foremen for the people who did the work. <9:24> Pharaoh's daughter moved from the City of David to the palace that Solomon had built for her. Then he built the Millo.
2 Chronicles.
<8:9> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves for his projects. Instead, they were the soldiers, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units. <8:10> These were the officers in charge of King Solomon's projects: 250 foremen for the people who did the work. <8:11> Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter from the City of David to a palace he had built for her. He said, " My wife will not live in the palace of King David of Israel because these places where the LORD'S ark has come are holy. "
Note that the passage out of Kings includes civilan officials, in addition to the military leadership in charge of the projects. It's both possible and reasonable to assume that the civilians were given different roles than the military commanders, and would not have been counted among the foremen in 2nd Chronicles, resulting in the 300 person difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep like I said the bible is so unbelievably vague that it's easy to say "oh well it was probably this". But does that help the argument that it's the book of God? Do you think all hundreds (if not thousands) of errors in the bible can all be explained away? Honest question...
Joshua 7:1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's Great Grandson here.
Joshua 22:20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's son here.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night
The moon doesn't emit light... it reflects light from the sun. Besides, if the moon "rules the night" why does it spend half it's time moving through daytime sky?
"Son" In the ancient Hebrew means any male descendant. Hence Christ as the Son of Man, showing that he had human nature, (in addition to his divine,) descended from mankind.
You're obviously reading these off a list somewhere, why don't you just post that so we can get this list-based portion of the argument over with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night
The moon doesn't emit light... it reflects light from the sun. Besides, if the moon "rules the night" why does it spend half it's time moving through daytime sky?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe because these were written by Moses for former slaves, who could barely read, much less understand the phyisical behavior of celestial bodies?
Look, if you're going to look at the Bible and jump on the first thing that rubs you the wrong way, of course you're going to declare contradictions in it, just as someone who glances at Shroedinger's equation related to the particle-in-a-box and sees points of 0 probability in between probable locations of a particle is going to cry afoul. That doesn't mean quantum mechanics is bunk, it means we must look at it closer to see what is really happening. Such it is with the Bible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 25 2004, 02:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 25 2004, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 25 2004, 11:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 25 2004, 11:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1 Kings <9:22> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves. Instead, they were soldiers, <b>officials</b>, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units. <9:23> These were the officers in charge of Solomon's projects: 550 foremen for the people who did the work. <9:24> Pharaoh's daughter moved from the City of David to the palace that Solomon had built for her. Then he built the Millo.
2 Chronicles.
<8:9> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves for his projects. Instead, they were the soldiers, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units. <8:10> These were the officers in charge of King Solomon's projects: 250 foremen for the people who did the work. <8:11> Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter from the City of David to a palace he had built for her. He said, " My wife will not live in the palace of King David of Israel because these places where the LORD'S ark has come are holy. "
Note that the passage out of Kings includes civilan officials, in addition to the military leadership in charge of the projects. It's both possible and reasonable to assume that the civilians were given different roles than the military commanders, and would not have been counted among the foremen in 2nd Chronicles, resulting in the 300 person difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep like I said the bible is so unbelievably vague that it's easy to say "oh well it was probably this". But does that help the argument that it's the book of God? Do you think all hundreds (if not thousands) of errors in the bible can all be explained away? Honest question...
Joshua 7:1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's Great Grandson here.
Joshua 22:20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's son here.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night
The moon doesn't emit light... it reflects light from the sun. Besides, if the moon "rules the night" why does it spend half it's time moving through daytime sky? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ignorance is bliss
In the first case, grandchildren / lineage is often described as being "son" just as I am a "son" of Adam/Eve
In the second case, figurative language can hardly be described as "error".
God: "The moon is not really a light, but more of a cosmic mirror, reflecting the light given off by the sun, which is always lit, but you can't see it because of the rotation of the earth - which though it appears flat, is actually a sphere hurling through space!" Moses: "uhh, what is this "cosmic" you speak of?" God: "Just write down 'lesser light'".
isn't the bible supposed to be a book that has relevance forever? I mean, it shouldn't get outdated should it? It's the book of God <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I mean, the humanity that knows about space will be alive for far longer than the few thousands of years between when the bible was made and we didn't know much about space.
Like I said, you can sort of explain away (some of these explanations do not sit very well with me) the things cuz the bible is so damn vague.
Obviously I'm getting these from a list (which has at least 300 more <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), I'm not going to search the entire bible looking for contradictions.
Is the moon "ruling the night" another problem with vague language or bad translations? Or what?
Noah's Ark? Is that true? You can't possibly say that it is. As far as I can see, 1 contradiction means the entire thing is false. You can't reasonably say "oh well ignore that part, but the rest of it is good!" while saying "it's the book of God!"...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Noah's Ark? Is that true? You can't possibly say that it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They tried, really hard they did. IIRC Aegri tore them up and yet they still refused to believe it could possibly be wrong. you can look up the thread if you like, its a funny read. It was one of the threads that brought about addendem 1 to the forum rules, which by the way is being violated by this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 25 2004, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 25 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> isn't the bible supposed to be a book that has relevance forever? I mean, it shouldn't get outdated should it? It's the book of God <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A book of God. A book relating to God. A book that is concerned with God. A book ....
A book written by man and his limited knowledge. Not a book by God.
That said, I am very glad we live in a world where our current knowledge has adequately explained everything in existence. Because it is impossible that anything lies beyond our grasp of reality and our ability to measure it.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 25 2004, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 25 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Noah's Ark? Is that true? You can't possibly say that it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They tried, really hard they did. IIRC Aegri tore them up and yet they still refused to believe it could possibly be wrong. you can look up the thread if you like, its a funny read. It was one of the threads that brought about addendem 1 to the forum rules, which by the way is being violated by this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> haha... blind faith = winnar!
Gees you guys, Noa's ark is a jewish spin on a bablonian myth. Its like claiming that all the mythology surrounding kind Arthur is fact. The man existed, and there is most likely parallels to his life in the story, but it has been elaborated many times over to make it a better bedtime story for little jewish childern. Most of the pre Abraham literature is told in the myth/story genre and litirary style.
Aegeri owned many a thread back before addendum 1. It is not difficult to use the search. I won't link to any of those threads since they are no longer permissable discussion material... much like what this thread has become.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gees you guys, Noa's ark is a jewish spin on a bablonian myth. Its like claiming that all the mythology surrounding kind Arthur is fact. The man existed, and there is most likely parallels to his life in the story, but it has been elaborated many times over to make it a better bedtime story for little jewish childern. Most of the pre Abraham literature is told in the myth/story genre and litirary style.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If more religious people realised this then things would go alot smoother around here.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 25 2004, 09:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 25 2004, 09:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Aegeri owned many a thread back before addendum 1. It is not difficult to use the search. I won't link to any of those threads since they are no longer permissable discussion material... much like what this thread has become.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gees you guys, Noa's ark is a jewish spin on a bablonian myth. Its like claiming that all the mythology surrounding kind Arthur is fact. The man existed, and there is most likely parallels to his life in the story, but it has been elaborated many times over to make it a better bedtime story for little jewish childern. Most of the pre Abraham literature is told in the myth/story genre and litirary style.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If more religious people realised this then things would go alot smoother around here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is that no one reads literary style. Alot of christians claim that the whole thing is history, but it just isn't. On the other side alot of athiests claim the whole thing is myth, but much of the writing is clearly an attemt at accurate history. There is quite a gap in style and writing when the genre's change.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Oct 25 2004, 10:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Oct 25 2004, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just wished both extreme camps would concentrate solely on the goddamn message instead of the book's historical value. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The book has emmense historical value, it is the most in depth historical record of events pre rome, and is one of the backdrops on which all babalonian history can be defined.
Comments
A nice open mind you've got there Nadagast.
Tell you what chief. Find one said inaccuracy, and I'll bow down in front of my computer and call you god almighty. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1 Kg.9:23
"These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty.."
2 Chr.8:10
"And these were the chief of king Solomon's officers, even two hundred and fifty."
Attack my source <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There's hundreds more, and while some can be shrugged off as miscommunication, or something relating to old culture; there is no way you can say that that the hundreds of inconsistencies in the bible (it even says that Pi = 3) are wrong or use terminology not used today. Especially since it's the book of God.
And please, don't worship me, or any other god. God doesn't exist.
Edit: The bible is not credible evidence for God. Is there any evidence for God?
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet somehow millions and millions of highly educated people, include endoctorated historians, and physicists, and a plethora of other scientific fields, covering every scientific field, exist as productive members of the scientific comunity just as prominently as every other religious affiliation, including athiesm. Many Christians don't argue with any aspect of science what so ever. Infact this whole God/Science mentality that Christains have been painted with is absolutly counter biblical, and is entirely a product of lazy people wanting to belive that the bible is a comprehensive textbook on how people should live every moment of thier life, thus preventing them from having to think about any issues. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Popular doesn't equal right/true. See someone else's post. People thought the world was flat (largely due to religion).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Granted the belive that scientifically unexplainable things can happen seems illogical, but realisticly, what do we know for sure about the nature of our world outside the physical? If nothing else it should be scientifically clear that there is alot of empty space out there that we can't prove or disprove is filled with anything, we really haven't even mapped the brain to any small extent. Combined with the fact that most people have, in thier lifetime, seen at least one thing that can be considered scientifically unexplainable, or probablistically impossible. These statements make more scientific sence then one might guess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, personal opinions or experiences are worthless in a logical debate, especially since they come from such biased sources. Show me some real EVIDENCE that miracles happen. Show me something 'scientifically unexplainable' (not like the origin of the universe, we are not that far in terms of knowledge to know that yet). Lightning was 'scientifically unexplainable', and was 'God's wrath', but it's a perfectly scientifically explainable event. Noah's Ark? Impossible... Earth less than a million years old? Impossible.
One error on the scale of Noah's Ark or the Earth's age (according to religion) should be enough to prove that God doesn't exist or at least the God that we believe in does not exist. A 'perfect' God would not make such a colossal error.
Science is "right" by definition. If it's wrong, it takes steps to correct itself. Unlike SOMETHING I KNOW (psst, religion).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->let's not get this into a science vs. religion debate. it always turns out to be one, but why do people still not realize that you *cannot* pit science against religion? they are two fundamentally different things that answer fundamentally different questions, so don't try it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, science is very against religion. Religion has many scientific flaws, which should disprove it (oh wait you need to have 'faith'!). PLEASE.
What evidence (other than the bible, not credible) do you have for believing in God or religion? Don't give me personal "God was with me" experiences either, they count for 0. Also, assuming there actually is a God, how do you know your religion is the correct one out of ~5000-10000 religions in the world? Don't say "it's more popular" or I'll laugh. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd be interested in hearing more about this, because most of what I have heard from <i>Christians</i> is that this is not true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Granted the belive that scientifically unexplainable things can happen seems illogical, but realisticly, what do we know for sure about the nature of our world outside the physical? ... Combined with the fact that most people have, in thier lifetime, seen at least one thing that can be considered scientifically unexplainable, or probablistically impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The mistake most people make when they are talking about science is about what it is. Science is not a body of knowledge. Physics, chemistry, biology are all bodies of knowledge. Science is a <i>method of discovery</i>. Furthermore, it's a method with only one real boundary. Its data must be empirical. In other words, it must be observable. That said, the statement "most people ... have seen [something] considered scientifically unexplainable" sounds nonsensical.
I'm not making the case that any statement about "the scientifically unexplainable" (lets call it "supernatural") is nonsensical. I'm not even making the case that beliefs about the supernatural are illogical.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I challenge you to get make a textbook on science with no less then 50 authors, and the conditions in place that none of them is allowed to talk to eachother etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I think he made clear later, he wasn't directly attacking the scholarship of the biblical authors. He was making a case that a book with inaccuracies and inconsistancies is being called <i>the</i> book of God. Personally, I don't find that sort of attack persuasive, but beyond that, it seems quite potent.
This is turning into a God/science debate, which is silly, because they are not in the same spheres. God is a supernatural concept, and as I (hopefully) explained above, science has no concept of the supernatural. The same is sadly not true of Bible/science debates... I haven't decided whether I should or shouldn't post my own silly ideas about Christianity.
If you do, please answer:
Say a man came up to you with a book claiming it to be the word of God (some other God/religion). What makes you dismiss his claim and accept your views about Christianity? How are his views any less credible than Christianity (or any other religion)? Why would you not believe him and yet still believe your own religion?
Don't say "because my religion is more popular" or "because of Jesus!" please... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This topic is about "Who Was Jesus". Can we keep it to that?
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Science is "right" by definition. If it's wrong, it takes steps to correct itself. Unlike SOMETHING I KNOW (psst, religion).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure where you have gotten the idéa that religion never corrects it self. There a new translations of the bible (the latest one in sweden from 2000) and do you know why? No it's not just to modernize the language though that is part of the reason no the main reason is because scientist are constantly researching the bible and finding out more about what the propper translations should be, new ways of analyzing the value of the differnt versions they have available all to make it more acurate. And guess what most christian feel about this... they like it because they want the truth as much as you do.
As far as I know the bible never says that science is wrong. Many confuse the bible with the followers of the bible and think they are the same. The thruth is that it is never easy to go against "common knowledge". Einstein didn't have an easy time in university because he wouldn't acept the stale "knowledge" his teachers preached. The problem you are describing sounds like a problem with authority figures.
Just out of curiosity how many here have actually studied the bible at university or at the same level?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
What evidence (other than the bible, not credible) do you have for believing in God or religion? Don't give me personal "God was with me" experiences either, they count for 0. Also, assuming there actually is a God, how do you know your religion is the correct one out of ~5000-10000 religions in the world? Don't say "it's more popular" or I'll laugh. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Got a question for you. What prof do you have that god doesn't exist? Seems strange question but do you got any? It's like saying that there isn't any green ravens. Untill you have found them all you can't say for certain that there isn't any. And as far as I know no sicentist have every found proof that god doesn't exist. Even the most knowledgable ateist have been forced to back on that question.
As for the question of who Jesus was I like the idéa of a strong carpenter Jesus <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Btw Swiftspear, I like you and your reasoning. Have you had any schooling in the subject?
Ps sorry no time for spellchecking, late for my train Ds
Sanity? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's a lot to ask from someone who doesn't respect anyone's beliefs but their own, and who proclaims not to have any set of morality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(sorry to go off topic)
As far as I know , little to none of the fundamentalist christians respect atheist beliefs , and thoses in power actually pass laws against them !
Remember the christian adage "love the people , hate the sin" ? Ever thought it could be used against christian beliefs as well ? That's exactly what Grendel meant. He has nothing against you , he just hates the christian ideas you're hosting in your brains. As do I. Look how much your beliefs distorted your thought processes already... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
um, that's pretty much why the quaker and puritan communities were pretty strict, y'know?
i never claimed that christians would make "good" political decisions, in fact i would expect us to make bad ones. I was merely pointing out that while he made himself out to be "better" than us, he would be no more fit to make executive or legislative decisions than us religious wackos, and likely less so.
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It amazes me that the people who claim to be the most "open-minded" are the quickest to close their minds at the presentation of the Gospel. No matter if it's an intelectual argument, or a simple discussion, or anything. Open-minded? Yes, I'm a minister, yes, I not only adhere to who Jesus is, but I take every opportunity to share it with others. No, I don't close out all other beliefs and believers as non-sense and idiocy. I am willing to discuss any belief and any argument about my faith with anyone. And if you can persuade me that your belief is more sound, than I'll gladly convert to whatever it is. Why am I willing to say sucha thing, because I doubt God? No. I believe my God to be able to overcome any obstacle, and every time I've investigated my fatih, <u>every, single, time</u>, He has come through and shown me even more than before He exists. Look at C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, people who investigated Christianity to prove it false. They ended up realizing there was no way to disprove it. People always ask me to read this book, or that view, and I do, but if you want to disprove Christianity, I challenge you to read <i>Mere Christianity</i> by C.S. Lewis, or <i>A Case For Christ</i> by Lee Strobel. Then come with your factual accusations.
Inasmuch as you would have the right to argue that I am faulted if I read nothing but Christian material that supports my beliefs, never challenging my faith, I say to you naysayers, you are faulted by never looking at the careful investigations done that "prove" Christianity.
However, in the end, the true thing that assures my personal relationship with the Creator of the universe <i>IS</i> the relationship with God. I can tell you how great it is, how God' touches my life and fills me with hope, joy, and a purpose. I can speak of all the miracles He's performed in my life, but until you experience it first hand, you'll never be able to fully comprehend.
A most knowledgable atheist would quickly point out that the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" argument is a major logical fallacy known as <i>argumentum ad ignorantium</i> or argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance fallacy is committed when it's argued that a proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false.
In this case, it's coupled with the Burden of Proof problem. It's not sufficient to say, "Well, you can't disprove this." You're making the claim and it falls to you to support it. Should you offer up evidence of your claim, then it falls to the skeptics to disprove your claims and/or offer up counter-evidence of their own.
Science is "right" by definition. If it's wrong, it takes steps to correct itself. Unlike SOMETHING I KNOW (psst, religion).
I disagree, science is very against religion. Religion has many scientific flaws, which should disprove it (oh wait you need to have 'faith'!). PLEASE.
What evidence (other than the bible, not credible) do you have for believing in God or religion? Don't give me personal "God was with me" experiences either, they count for 0. Also, assuming there actually is a God, how do you know your religion is the correct one out of ~5000-10000 religions in the world? Don't say "it's more popular" or I'll laugh. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
um, what?
please, go back and correct yourself before you embarass yourself further. please re-acquaint yourself with the scientific method.
If science, by definition, were "right", then I suppose we would all be still believing in epicycles and a geocentric earth, believing that the atom is a slurry of positive and negative charges evenly distributed in a sphere filled completely with mass.
no, science is about approximating observations with mathematical relations. Call them theories, call them "laws." These laws may not exist as an underlying driving force in the universe, but statistically they fit the observed reality well so they are treated as if they do. Science depends on two things, mainly, one is observable consequences, and the other is human intuition (e.g. the presupposed hypotheses). The observations support or refute the intuition, and new observations and intuitions are brought in. Thus science is refined. Now, if science were always right, it wouldn't need to be refined, would it?
Btw, how can science be "right"? Science does not give the answer to moral dilemmas; science does not lead to wisdom; science does not lend itself particularly to generosity or miserliness, nor does it necessarily condemn things like murder or genocide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A most knowledgable atheist would quickly point out that the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" argument is a major logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium or argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance fallacy is committed when it's argued that a proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false.
In this case, it's coupled with the Burden of Proof problem. It's not sufficient to say, "Well, you can't disprove this." You're making the claim and it falls to you to support it. Should you offer up evidence of your claim, then it falls to the skeptics to disprove your claims and/or offer up counter-evidence of their own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but you can't? As my proof, I propose common sense.
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It amazes me that the people who claim to be the most "open-minded" are the quickest to close their minds at the presentation of the Gospel. No matter if it's an intelectual argument, or a simple discussion, or anything. Open-minded? Yes, I'm a minister, yes, I not only adhere to who Jesus is, but I take every opportunity to share it with others. No, I don't close out all other beliefs and believers as non-sense and idiocy. I am willing to discuss any belief and any argument about my faith with anyone. And if you can persuade me that your belief is more sound, than I'll gladly convert to whatever it is. Why am I willing to say sucha thing, because I doubt God? No. I believe my God to be able to overcome any obstacle, and every time I've investigated my fatih, <u>every, single, time</u>, He has come through and shown me even more than before He exists. Look at C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, people who investigated Christianity to prove it false. They ended up realizing there was no way to disprove it. People always ask me to read this book, or that view, and I do, but if you want to disprove Christianity, I challenge you to read <i>Mere Christianity</i> by C.S. Lewis, or <i>A Case For Christ</i> by Lee Strobel. Then come with your factual accusations.
Inasmuch as you would have the right to argue that I am faulted if I read nothing but Christian material that supports my beliefs, never challenging my faith, I say to you naysayers, you are faulted by never looking at the careful investigations done that "prove" Christianity.
However, in the end, the true thing that assures my personal relationship with the Creator of the universe <i>IS</i> the relationship with God. I can tell you how great it is, how God' touches my life and fills me with hope, joy, and a purpose. I can speak of all the miracles He's performed in my life, but until you experience it first hand, you'll never be able to fully comprehend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to go to class right now but I will say this:
Don't call me closed minded...
I used to be a Christian until I rationally thought about religion. Guess where I am now? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wouldn't call my POV closed-minded, it's just I've heard the argument/case for religion, and decided it was bs.
Can't what? Prove an unobservable diety doesn't exist? I don't need to. It's your job to prove that God exists and that Jesus was the son of God. I'm not the one making any claims here.
Common sense? What the hell kind of proof is that? You don't even define what common sense consists of, let alone justify why such a nebulous and intangible attribute, that is by no means universal amongst humans, is proof of a deity's existance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Btw, how can science be "right"? Science does not give the answer to moral dilemmas; science does not lead to wisdom; science does not lend itself particularly to generosity or miserliness, nor does it necessarily condemn things like murder or genocide.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is only "right" if you assign moral values to factual information. The scientific method isn't designed to solve moral dilemmas. It's designed to find out what is factually true, not what you should do with the information. Science tells us that fission exists and is possible with various elements. It doesn't tell us if it's a good idea to use fission to make a bomb or not.
Umm, you're making the claim. The burden of proof lies upon you. I don't need to do anything. Are you born believing in God? No. Atheism is the default.
Show a shred of credible evidence that god exists, please?
<9:22> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves. Instead, they were soldiers, <b>officials</b>, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units.
<9:23> These were the officers in charge of Solomon's projects: 550 foremen for the people who did the work.
<9:24> Pharaoh's daughter moved from the City of David to the palace that Solomon had built for her. Then he built the Millo.
2 Chronicles.
<8:9> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves for his projects. Instead, they were the soldiers, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units.
<8:10> These were the officers in charge of King Solomon's projects: 250 foremen for the people who did the work.
<8:11> Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter from the City of David to a palace he had built for her. He said, " My wife will not live in the palace of King David of Israel because these places where the LORD'S ark has come are holy. "
Note that the passage out of Kings includes civilan officials, in addition to the military leadership in charge of the projects. It's both possible and reasonable to assume that the civilians were given different roles than the military commanders, and would not have been counted among the foremen in 2nd Chronicles, resulting in the 300 person difference.
please, go back and correct yourself before you embarass yourself further. please re-acquaint yourself with the scientific method.
If science, by definition, were "right", then I suppose we would all be still believing in epicycles and a geocentric earth, believing that the atom is a slurry of positive and negative charges evenly distributed in a sphere filled completely with mass.
no, science is about approximating observations with mathematical relations. Call them theories, call them "laws." These laws may not exist as an underlying driving force in the universe, but statistically they fit the observed reality well so they are treated as if they do. Science depends on two things, mainly, one is observable consequences, and the other is human intuition (e.g. the presupposed hypotheses). The observations support or refute the intuition, and new observations and intuitions are brought in. Thus science is refined. Now, if science were always right, it wouldn't need to be refined, would it?
Btw, how can science be "right"? Science does not give the answer to moral dilemmas; science does not lead to wisdom; science does not lend itself particularly to generosity or miserliness, nor does it necessarily condemn things like murder or genocide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is right because of the definition of the Scientific method. Obviously it isn't 100% right every time, but as soon as someone points it out, science changes and they accept the new idea/theory. All the while continuing to throw out anything that is disproven. When I say 'science' I didn't mean the body of knowledge, I meant the method.
And then you start talking morals? Science isn't supposed to be about morals....
You know that if you're using the Bible as a compass for what's "right" then slavery is okay right? The bible says slavery is a-ok!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but you can't? As my proof, I propose common sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your proof that god, the creator of the universe, exists, is 'common sense'? I don't think that counts...
<9:22> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves. Instead, they were soldiers, <b>officials</b>, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units.
<9:23> These were the officers in charge of Solomon's projects: 550 foremen for the people who did the work.
<9:24> Pharaoh's daughter moved from the City of David to the palace that Solomon had built for her. Then he built the Millo.
2 Chronicles.
<8:9> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves for his projects. Instead, they were the soldiers, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units.
<8:10> These were the officers in charge of King Solomon's projects: 250 foremen for the people who did the work.
<8:11> Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter from the City of David to a palace he had built for her. He said, " My wife will not live in the palace of King David of Israel because these places where the LORD'S ark has come are holy. "
Note that the passage out of Kings includes civilan officials, in addition to the military leadership in charge of the projects. It's both possible and reasonable to assume that the civilians were given different roles than the military commanders, and would not have been counted among the foremen in 2nd Chronicles, resulting in the 300 person difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep like I said the bible is so unbelievably vague that it's easy to say "oh well it was probably this". But does that help the argument that it's the book of God?
Do you think all hundreds (if not thousands) of errors in the bible can all be explained away? Honest question...
Joshua 7:1
But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's Great Grandson here.
Joshua 22:20
Did not Achan the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's son here.
Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night
The moon doesn't emit light... it reflects light from the sun. Besides, if the moon "rules the night" why does it spend half it's time moving through daytime sky?
You're obviously reading these off a list somewhere, why don't you just post that so we can get this list-based portion of the argument over with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night
The moon doesn't emit light... it reflects light from the sun. Besides, if the moon "rules the night" why does it spend half it's time moving through daytime sky?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe because these were written by Moses for former slaves, who could barely read, much less understand the phyisical behavior of celestial bodies?
Look, if you're going to look at the Bible and jump on the first thing that rubs you the wrong way, of course you're going to declare contradictions in it, just as someone who glances at Shroedinger's equation related to the particle-in-a-box and sees points of 0 probability in between probable locations of a particle is going to cry afoul. That doesn't mean quantum mechanics is bunk, it means we must look at it closer to see what is really happening. Such it is with the Bible.
<9:22> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves. Instead, they were soldiers, <b>officials</b>, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units.
<9:23> These were the officers in charge of Solomon's projects: 550 foremen for the people who did the work.
<9:24> Pharaoh's daughter moved from the City of David to the palace that Solomon had built for her. Then he built the Millo.
2 Chronicles.
<8:9> But Solomon didn't make any of the Israelites slaves for his projects. Instead, they were the soldiers, officers, generals, and commanders of his chariot and cavalry units.
<8:10> These were the officers in charge of King Solomon's projects: 250 foremen for the people who did the work.
<8:11> Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter from the City of David to a palace he had built for her. He said, " My wife will not live in the palace of King David of Israel because these places where the LORD'S ark has come are holy. "
Note that the passage out of Kings includes civilan officials, in addition to the military leadership in charge of the projects. It's both possible and reasonable to assume that the civilians were given different roles than the military commanders, and would not have been counted among the foremen in 2nd Chronicles, resulting in the 300 person difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep like I said the bible is so unbelievably vague that it's easy to say "oh well it was probably this". But does that help the argument that it's the book of God?
Do you think all hundreds (if not thousands) of errors in the bible can all be explained away? Honest question...
Joshua 7:1
But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's Great Grandson here.
Joshua 22:20
Did not Achan the son of Zerah
Achan is Zerah's son here.
Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night
The moon doesn't emit light... it reflects light from the sun. Besides, if the moon "rules the night" why does it spend half it's time moving through daytime sky? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignorance is bliss
In the first case, grandchildren / lineage is often described as being "son" just as I am a "son" of Adam/Eve
In the second case, figurative language can hardly be described as "error".
God: "The moon is not really a light, but more of a cosmic mirror, reflecting the light given off by the sun, which is always lit, but you can't see it because of the rotation of the earth - which though it appears flat, is actually a sphere hurling through space!"
Moses: "uhh, what is this "cosmic" you speak of?"
God: "Just write down 'lesser light'".
I mean, the humanity that knows about space will be alive for far longer than the few thousands of years between when the bible was made and we didn't know much about space.
Like I said, you can sort of explain away (some of these explanations do not sit very well with me) the things cuz the bible is so damn vague.
Obviously I'm getting these from a list (which has at least 300 more <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), I'm not going to search the entire bible looking for contradictions.
Is the moon "ruling the night" another problem with vague language or bad translations? Or what?
Noah's Ark? Is that true? You can't possibly say that it is. As far as I can see, 1 contradiction means the entire thing is false. You can't reasonably say "oh well ignore that part, but the rest of it is good!" while saying "it's the book of God!"...
They tried, really hard they did. IIRC Aegri tore them up and yet they still refused to believe it could possibly be wrong. you can look up the thread if you like, its a funny read. It was one of the threads that brought about addendem 1 to the forum rules, which by the way is being violated by this thread.
A book of God. A book relating to God. A book that is concerned with God. A book ....
A book written by man and his limited knowledge. Not a book by God.
That said, I am very glad we live in a world where our current knowledge has adequately explained everything in existence. Because it is impossible that anything lies beyond our grasp of reality and our ability to measure it.
They tried, really hard they did. IIRC Aegri tore them up and yet they still refused to believe it could possibly be wrong. you can look up the thread if you like, its a funny read. It was one of the threads that brought about addendem 1 to the forum rules, which by the way is being violated by this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
haha... blind faith = winnar!
*edit* to your list of "contradictions" and also to this thread where Aegeri supposedly ripped us up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gees you guys, Noa's ark is a jewish spin on a bablonian myth. Its like claiming that all the mythology surrounding kind Arthur is fact. The man existed, and there is most likely parallels to his life in the story, but it has been elaborated many times over to make it a better bedtime story for little jewish childern. Most of the pre Abraham literature is told in the myth/story genre and litirary style.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If more religious people realised this then things would go alot smoother around here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gees you guys, Noa's ark is a jewish spin on a bablonian myth. Its like claiming that all the mythology surrounding kind Arthur is fact. The man existed, and there is most likely parallels to his life in the story, but it has been elaborated many times over to make it a better bedtime story for little jewish childern. Most of the pre Abraham literature is told in the myth/story genre and litirary style.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If more religious people realised this then things would go alot smoother around here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that no one reads literary style. Alot of christians claim that the whole thing is history, but it just isn't. On the other side alot of athiests claim the whole thing is myth, but much of the writing is clearly an attemt at accurate history. There is quite a gap in style and writing when the genre's change.
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The book has emmense historical value, it is the most in depth historical record of events pre rome, and is one of the backdrops on which all babalonian history can be defined.
It IS a history book after all.