<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm going to give up trying to be a untinsil in the lords hands here. I figure this is neither the time or the place to represent the big guy. and so I'm just going to stop trying to defend our father which is in heaven and just listen and see what you guys think <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's good to know that when you get tired of arguing, you can just say "Well, I'm right anyway." and give up. It's a pity atheists can't do that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Feb 16 2005, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Feb 16 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm going to give up trying to be a untinsil in the lords hands here. I figure this is neither the time or the place to represent the big guy. and so I'm just going to stop trying to defend our father which is in heaven and just listen and see what you guys think <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's good to know that when you get tired of arguing, you can just say "Well, I'm right anyway." and give up. It's a pity atheists can't do that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> this is a little off the subject, but if I was Atheist I woudln't pick some lame belief system like..."we grew from monkeys!" or something stupid like that. I'd pick something a little more interesting like... "we are descendents of the great mother ship that crashed on eath 10 trillion years ago... we must now rebuild our temples to signal the great mother ship to come return to us and take us back to the star planet of ipenojojo" or somethign like that.. ya know at least make it orginal
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 10:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 10:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd pick something a little more interesting like... "we are descendents of the great mother ship that crashed on eath 10 trillion years ago... we must now rebuild our temples to signal the great mother ship to come return to us and take us back to the star planet of ipenojojo" or somethign like that.. ya know at least make it orginal <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or "A huge man in the sky made us out of clay, along with all animals! Then we totally messed up by eating an apple that a snake told us to eat and now we have embarasment and labour pains. Jeez, we suck." That's pretty original.
see, your not ready to be converted at this time so nothing I could ever say right now would change that. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and at this moment in yours and mine life I have a feeling we can't change what the other thinks
<!--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-->this is a little off the subject, but if I was Atheist I woudln't pick some lame belief system like..."we grew from monkeys!" or something stupid like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, atheism isn't a belief system, and evolution isn't a specifically atheist belief, it's just science.
Second of all, when you are interested in the truth based on the evidence, you don't get to pick and choose what to believe based on what we think might be fun.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 10:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> see, your not ready to be converted at this time so nothing I could ever say right now would change that. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and at this moment in yours and mine life I have a feeling we can't change what the other thinks <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not even that. The countries we're posting from right now let you have Freedom of Religion? That's from the Magna Carta if you don't recall it. It means I don't need to be converted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Feb 16 2005, 10:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Feb 16 2005, 10:14 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-->this is a little off the subject, but if I was Atheist I woudln't pick some lame belief system like..."we grew from monkeys!" or something stupid like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, atheism isn't a belief system, and evolution isn't a specifically atheist belief, it's just science.
Second of all, when you are interested in the truth based on the evidence, you don't get to pick and choose what to believe based on what we think might be fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Evoltion is proven. yes we all know that things evolve thats nothing new (and by evolve we mean small things like beak size and neck length change over time. pretty much just your basic genetics) what is a bunch of crap is Common ancestory in which people believe all animals and man have dirived all from the same little ameaba or what have you
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 10:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 10:21 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--> Evoltion is proven. yes we all know that things evolve thats nothing new (and by evolve we mean small things like beak size and neck length change over time. pretty much just your basic genetics) what is a bunch of crap is Common ancestory in which people believe all animals and man have dirived all from the same little ameaba or what have you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Er, only if by "crap" you mean: a well established scientific fact.
Even without getting into the actual evidence, just some questions: Why are flowers actually modified leaves rather than their own special thing? Why do humans share so many genes with ameobas, including genes that don't actually do anything? Why do we even HAVE the same internal genetic system as something as different as an ameoba? Why are animal body plans so incredibly similar overal, right down to the genetic level where Hox genes control our segmentation in exactly the same way and same order as a worm? Why does the fossil record show a steady modifcation of forms? How come human beings ONLY start showing up at the very very end of the fossil record in the same places in the world as the ape ancestors we are said to have evolved from? How come fossilized dinosaur poop only has ancient animals in it: why isn't there a single flowering plant or modern animal in there if they all lived at the same time? How come you can take a human gene and put it in a pig and it will work just the same, producing the same proteins and performing the same functions? Why would an all powerful god have to constantly reuse the same designs and genetic code routines instead of being more creative?
what do you mean creative? have you ever watched an episode of "Nature" life on this planet is so diverse and so out of control... you need to get off NS where theres only 6 species and look around you.
and lets ask a few questions....Why aren't there any "mid-evolved" creates around today? if were all constantly evovling where is the half monkey/half man or the half anything half anything else? how come there's only a few " missing link" fossils when every creature in the world evovled ? how come out of all the animals only humans have evolved so much further then all the others?
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what do you mean creative? have you ever watched an episode of "Nature" life on this planet is so diverse and so out of control... you need to get off NS where theres only 6 species and look around you.
and lets ask a few questions....Why aren't there any "mid-evolved" creates around today? if were all constantly evovling where is the half monkey/half man or the half anything half anything else? how come there's only a few " missing link" fossils when every creature in the world evovled ? how come out of all the animals only humans have evolved so much further then all the others? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--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-->hat do you mean creative? have you ever watched an episode of "Nature" life on this planet is so diverse and so out of control... you need to get off NS where theres only 6 species and look around you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but despite the diversity of life, most of it is still remarkably similar: not just genetically, but in terms of the over bodyplan and organ plan and structure. It's nto a question of diverse from someone who's never been outside their house, but life is certainly a lot LESS diverse than one would expect if an all-powerful god could create each creature from scratch each with it's own special way of existing. Why no eyes on fingers? Why not a mouth where the anus is and vice versa? Why longitudinal symetry pretty much everywhere? Even starfish, which show radial symetry, actually start life as larva that are bilateraly symetrical like all other animal life, and their radical symetry is simply hox genes all over again.
<!--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-->and lets ask a few questions....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What, before answering any of mine? <!--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--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why aren't there any "mid-evolved" creates around today?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only someone unfamiliar with what evolution actually means could ask this question. EVERY single creature alive today is "mid-evolved" between past forms and potential future forms. It is only because the animals that are around today happen to be the particular ones we are most familiar with that we think of those around today as somehow being "endpoints," immutable final forms. In reality, all are transitional (though some if not many may die out before they change further, just as the majority of all species have gone extinct)
<!--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-->if were all constantly evovling where is the half monkey/half man or the half anything half anything else?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this is a bizarre question if you understand what evolutionary theory is saying. In some sense, a chimpanzee IS a "half man," although the chimpanzee/bonobo line diverged from the line that became human beings about 6 million years ago. Our more closely related species (the rest of the homo genus) died out. Or, rather more likely, were killed off... by us.
<!--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-->how come there's only a few " missing link" fossils when every creature in the world evovled ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what you mean. Which transitions are you talking about? And what do you mean anyway? We have fossils of most of the major tranisitions: that's how we know, after all, what evolved from what.
The major reason why people don't call any given fossil a "missing link" fossil is not because a given fossil doesn't display supposed "transitional" features, but rather because there are SO MANY different lines at any given time, most of which die off, that we are very hesitant to declare a given fossil to be on the line that actually survives. It's very hard to show that THIS particular elephant fossil, despite being very different from modern elephants as well as even more ancient elephants, is THE ancestor of modern elephants, as opposed to just a cousin.
Imagine if someone was looking for you at a family reunion. They hit upon someone who looks a bit like you, only much older. But can they assume that its your father? More likely, it's your uncle or your great uncle second removed, or your cousin, because your father has many brothers, but he himself is just one man, and you are just one person out of lots and lots of people at your reunion. That's what it's like with fossils: we get a sense of general direction of a related group of species, but it's hard to be sure that the particular fossil we happen to have is THE one that parented one of the very very few individuals that happened to survive and reproduce and hence father later animals.
<!--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-->how come out of all the animals only humans have evolved so much further then all the others?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every animal alive today has been through just as much evolution as all the rest. That we have features that WE prize to be "better" than others is merely our own chauvansim. Believe it or not, but from the perspective of evolution, the most successful lifeform on this planet always has been and still is: bacteria.
Still, you have to admit human beings evolved rather quickly. This isn't going to turn me into a Christian, but science needs to do a better job explaining it.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 11:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 11:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well you follow your dream and become a bacteria, and I'll go to heaven and not burn in hell... how bout that? everyone will be happy then <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow: what a comprehensive response Avenger! Complete non-sequitur nonsense! Wonderful.
<!--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-->Still, you have to admit human beings evolved rather quickly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quickly compared to what? There's no question that in geological times, once we hit upon the strategy of being socially smart, we took off as a species, with cultural imprinting jumpstarting our formerly more sluggish evolutionary direction towards bigger brains. But in the grand scheme of things, nature doesn't much care about our modest increase in population. A new strain of bacteria can reproduce into the trillions in weeks. Getting to a much more modest 6bn has taken us nearly 200,000 years. There are LOTS of ways to be successful in life, and having a big brain is just one of many... and honestly not anywhere near as successful as being small and reproducing really fast. Heck, rodents have us beat there.
<!--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-->This isn't going to turn me into a Christian, but science needs to do a better job explaining it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 09:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually he couldn't of. there cuz the earth had to be baptised. once by water and once by fire (the fire one hasn't happened yet) and so thats why there had to be a flood. plus the whole Flooding /cleansing feel was much more symbolic then a strange mysterous instant death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the earth doesn't need to be baptised at the cost of lives. God could find another way because, well, He's God. Why didn't He do the fire right after the flood? That way, it wouldn't be hanging over our heads.
What the hell does it matter to the dead people how they died? They're <i>dead</i>. They can't appreciate humour.
Besides which, did God forget to baptize Earth before He put life on it? "Aw, crap, I just realised the packet says to baptize product once with fire and once with water. Damn. Well, maybe it'll be okay if I do just the water one now..." <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 16 2005, 02:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 16 2005, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Feb 16 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 16 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 15 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 15 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wasn't saying that nessesarily. I was trying to force you (plural) to recognize that your statements of "all things are sourced from God" and "Evil is not sourced from God" were contradictory. You can have one or the other, but not both. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I was trying to hint that evil isn't a *thing* at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither is "good" a thing, yet you say that God is the source of that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately, you'd be incorrect in this assessment. Our God was defined as good because we asserted that existence is better than non-existence (i.e. non-existence necessarily has no value, and existence possibly has some value, therefore existence > nonexistence and therefore God, who is the only self-sufficient existence, is perfectly good), and that he was the source of all existence and hence the source of all that is "good." moral evil, however, is not something that exists as we exist. It is, rather, a statement on the relationship of certain intelligent choices to that of an external standard. If no such standard exists, then evil is illusory and your assertion that "God is a jerk" falls apart.
<!--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--> Or "A huge man in the sky made us out of clay, along with all animals! Then we totally messed up by eating an apple that a snake told us to eat and now we have embarasment and labour pains. Jeez, we suck." That's pretty original. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spacer, I think you'd be interested to know that virtually all ancient civilizations (African, Mesopotamian, Indian, Chinese) had myths that closely paralleled the Adam&Eve story. Heh.
Also, @Snidely - baptism is a sign/public proclamation of repentance and stuff. I don't claim to know the precise theological significance of it, but I am pretty sure that baptism is only for the fallen. (Which makes sense if you think about the point I made earlier, in that God said that the very ground on which Israel or whoever sinned would be defiled).
Skulkbait - there's a difference between believing the Bible to be inerrant and the Bible to be accurate. I am not a literalist, if that is what you mean. Parts of the OT are meant to be historical accounts and records (Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, etc), and some are obviously not (for example, Job is likely a parable - the author didn't live until hundreds to a thousand years after the real Job lived, and as such it is probably that the words that Job speaks are not word-for-word what the real Job spoke - although there is always the chance of divine revelation. However, it is important to note that in ancient times, it was not as important to report the exact words someone said as to convey the precise meaning of the speech).
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Feb 17 2005, 05:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 17 2005, 05:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, @Snidely - baptism is a sign/public proclamation of repentance and stuff. I don't claim to know the precise theological significance of it, but I am pretty sure that baptism is only for the fallen. (Which makes sense if you think about the point I made earlier, in that God said that the very ground on which Israel or whoever sinned would be defiled). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I always thought baptizm represented being born again into God's family, but I don't know for sure.
Still, even bearing in mind that it's a sign of washing away sin, I'm sure the meaning was lost on the dead people. Unhygenic, too, unless the bloated corpses of the dead had decomposed after the fourty days (I don't know how long it takes for all the flesh to go). If God had done it to test Noah (by building the ark, rounding up the animals and suffering the scorn of the sinners), he could have just told him to stay indoors for however long, click his fingers, and kill all the sin.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Feb 17 2005, 04:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Feb 17 2005, 04:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Besides which, did God forget to baptize Earth before He put life on it? "Aw, crap, I just realised the packet says to baptize product once with fire and once with water. Damn. Well, maybe it'll be okay if I do just the water one now..." <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You should have heard the Earth when it got circumcized! Whooooo that must have hurt!
<!--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.e. non-existence necessarily has no value, and existence possibly has some value, therefore existence > nonexistence and therefore God, who is the only self-sufficient existence, is perfectly good<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try saying that tens times fast... and it still wont make any sense! But at least it's FAST. Zooooooooooooom! Welcome to Theology 101.
<!--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-->and that he was the source of all existence and hence the source of all that is "good."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of what purpose was it to create volcanoes that would periodically explode and kill thousands of people indecriminately? If that's not bad, then nothing is. If CREATING such death traps is bad when humans do it, then god can't beg off that he's got a special "I'm the bossman!" VIP card. Morality MUST be universal (i.e. it applies to EVERYONE) or else its meaningless.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Feb 17 2005, 04:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 17 2005, 04:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 16 2005, 02:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 16 2005, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Feb 16 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 16 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 15 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 15 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wasn't saying that nessesarily. I was trying to force you (plural) to recognize that your statements of "all things are sourced from God" and "Evil is not sourced from God" were contradictory. You can have one or the other, but not both. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I was trying to hint that evil isn't a *thing* at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither is "good" a thing, yet you say that God is the source of that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately, you'd be incorrect in this assessment. Our God was defined as good because we asserted that existence is better than non-existence (i.e. non-existence necessarily has no value, and existence possibly has some value, therefore existence > nonexistence and therefore God, who is the only self-sufficient existence, is perfectly good), and that he was the source of all existence and hence the source of all that is "good." moral evil, however, is not something that exists as we exist. It is, rather, a statement on the relationship of certain intelligent choices to that of an external standard. If no such standard exists, then evil is illusory and your assertion that "God is a jerk" falls apart. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you define good that way, then I suppose you're right. But as I've been saying, if you assume that anything God does <i>must</i> be good simply because he is God, then the whole argument is moot. I contend that under any other definiton God is, in fact, an ****.
Also, there are many cases where I would say that non-existence is desired over existance. Take for instance anyone going to hell, now wouldn't it have been beter had they never existed at all? That way they wouldn't be suffering (something your "good" God is very fond of).
<!--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-->Spacer, I think you'd be interested to know that virtually all ancient civilizations (African, Mesopotamian, Indian, Chinese) had myths that closely paralleled the Adam&Eve story. Heh.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But the Japanese, and Egyptian, and Norse, ect religions all had very, very, very different creation myths (often unsuitable for children's ears).
<!--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-->Skulkbait - there's a difference between believing the Bible to be inerrant and the Bible to be accurate. I am not a literalist, if that is what you mean. Parts of the OT are meant to be historical accounts and records (Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, etc), and some are obviously not (for example, Job is likely a parable - the author didn't live until hundreds to a thousand years after the real Job lived, and as such it is probably that the words that Job speaks are not word-for-word what the real Job spoke - although there is always the chance of divine revelation. However, it is important to note that in ancient times, it was not as important to report the exact words someone said as to convey the precise meaning of the speech).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats not the part we were refering to. We were refering to the fact that some of you guys are crazy enough to believe that the great world wide flood actually happened and that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, just because its written in some silly story in the OT.
And just so we get things clear. I don´t follow any faith, this is just observation in one direction or another.
"If God is so good why do we have these deathtrap volcanos and floods and such?"
Good question. Let me see if I got this right. We used to live (that is to say Adam and Eve used to live) in Eden. And Eden was void of any such perrils. So far so good. Now, we have this wicked tree in Eden with some fruit that is forbidden. A popular argument is "why did God put that tree there in the first place? Thats just mean." Here is the kicker. God wanted us to be good and free of sin (such as stealing). It is however very easy to be good when it´s your only option. The tree, in this case, was put there to give any meaning to the gift of free will that God gave Adam and Eve. So if God created us in his image and wanted us to be good it makes sense that he should be good too. On the other hand, he is also supposed to be forgiving and this is where I get confused. We supposedly still carry the sins of Adam and Eve with us to this day. Not as forgiving as I would have hoped. Then again, humanity as a whole is not that nice all the time.
The point (back to deathtrap question): This is not the place where we were meant to spend our lifes. This is outside Eden. Once again, you wouldnt be happy about not having volcanos in your backyard if volcanos didnt exist.
Well. My 2 cents. Enjoy. This, as mentioned before, comming from a non-believer.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thanatos+Feb 17 2005, 06:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thanatos @ Feb 17 2005, 06:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Once again, you wouldnt be happy about not having volcanos in your backyard if volcanos didnt exist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You may not remember last night, but it was intense. Unfortunately, I gave you my scabies. Well, I hope you were happy beforehand, because it's gonna get worse before it gets better!
<!--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-->Once again, you wouldnt be happy about not having volcanos in your backyard if volcanos didnt exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd be perfectly happy without them, that's the problem. What's the point of them if you are all powerful and thus it is not necessary to have them? Why not let babies grow up and make free choices like everyone else instead of periodically boiling them in molten rock, some even in the womb, for no particular reason? No one is asking for Eden, but hows about not so much with the totally random violence of nature?
There is one more thing that has me confused about OT vs NT.
After the banishment hunmanity spend alot of time in perril. Then the Messiah shows up and tells everyone about the kingdom come and how we all shall be happy again. So we nail him to a cross just to be on the safe side. And he forgives us.
We nail the son of God to a makeshift cross and he forgives us!?!
But we take 2 bites from an apple and it´s 6000+ years of baby BBQ.
@Thanatos: Of course you won't get it, that is sadly the point of every single major religion ever created. If we were to understand it there would be no reason to have "faith". As it stands, since nothing can actually explain how god/goddess' work you simply have to take it on a matter of "faith". Which is where the so-called holymen come into play, they are supposed to be interpeting "gods" message, yet how could humans possible explain something that is deity.
You can't, after all a god is a god and they are supposed to be infinite in all ways and/or things. Hence why all the major religions are all confused and always fighting, it has been left to human interpetation, and thusly humans have failed miserably, in every aspect.
Religions should be used for basic moral guidelines, which I have been quite fond of saying for years, sadly no-one seems to realize the instant you think you are better then someone else of a different religion or non-religion that instantly throws you against everything you are supposed to be taught within that religion, (except for Satanist they <b> love </b> to make fun of all religions, especially christianity and more notably the roman catholic church).
@AvengerX: I really don't think you have enough life exeprience to be talking too much about what "god" wants. You really appear to live a fairly sheltered life, much like my little brother who is of the same age, although he doesn't agree with how you word things, he did grow up in a christian home is still there for all I know. I think in a few years, you will begin to question the world around you, and once you do you will not like the answers you find.
@Wheeee: If you believe any of the OT is an actual historical record you are very sadly disillusioned. There is exactly zero evidence for anything to have actually happened the way the bible describes it. The bible is a basic book of morals for the NT, ignore the OT, because every religion ever founded before the bible was written or occured has the same stories with minor changes, be it names, places, and or details of how events took place. Many of the older religions actually do a more realistic job of telling the story of creation, the flood, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thanatos+Feb 17 2005, 07:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thanatos @ Feb 17 2005, 07:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now you got me going, so I have to add this.
There is one more thing that has me confused about OT vs NT.
After the banishment hunmanity spend alot of time in perril. Then the Messiah shows up and tells everyone about the kingdom come and how we all shall be happy again. So we nail him to a cross just to be on the safe side. And he forgives us.
We nail the son of God to a makeshift cross and he forgives us!?!
But we take 2 bites from an apple and it´s 6000+ years of baby BBQ.
I just don´t get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good questions. Here is my 5 minute answer.
First of all, I assume that God is God - unchangeable from old to new testament. Then I look for similarities between Jesus and his forgiveness, and God.
The first place I look is Genesis - garden of Eden. Adam & Eve sin - and the first thing God does is curse humanity. The second thing God does is make a promise - he promises that he would overcome the devil.
The rest of the old testament talks about Gods association with people - pre-christ. God is always forgiving Israel - If you forsake other gods and turn back, I will be merciful. He provides a sacrificial system so that the payment for our sin can fall on the animals back.
To that end, Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice - completely satisfying the wrath of God. If Jesus hadn't died, we would still be stuck sacrificing goats and lambs. Jesus forgiving us / saving us is only possible <b>because</b> he died.
So here is the main distinction between Old and New Testament. In the old, God said "If you want to be saved, you have to belive and sacrifice animals to cover your sin. By the way, here are some laws to live by."
In the New Testament God says "Christ has made the sacrifice - All I need now is belief. By the way, keep living by those laws (except the sacrificial / ritual law - not needed because of Christ)"
@wotlanfear: You said that none of the OT can be considered "Historical record" - and while I admit that parts of Genesis sound fabelish at times, disregarding the whole OT as historically inacurate is a mistake. For instance, Chronicals was exactly that - a history of Israel about the time of the kings. Not to mention that without the OT, the NT is rather meaningless. The Old Testament answers questions like "why Christ had to die", and gives great insight towards the nature of God. The psalms describe God as a protector and forgiver, all the prophetic books show God is looking out for his people - always preserving a remnant of them. In other words - don't write off the whole OT - It is just as important as the NT - just farther removed from us in time, so it doesn't apply directly quite as well.
@Pepe: The OT, is not a historical record by any means. It embelishes entirely too much and with out any actual facts to back it up. Let alone the OT is meant to be a book of fables and legends, much like the Book of the Dead in the egyptian culture. I will admit the Book of the Dead is not nearly complete, but then again finding something written down on ancient paper is extremely hard especially when it predates almost all known written writing. Simply put the OT is merely a book of fables and basic moral codes to live by, although at the time there were a few "interesting" moral codes. Sacrificing goat, lambs, oxen, etc being the least "interestin" of them. Sorry Pepe, but you can't take the OT as being literally at all. Especially with the fact almost all of the tales in the OT have been borrowed from either Egyptian, Hinduism, Semarian legends <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I won't go into detail about the NT, because that is not on topic.
The OT was written by multiple people over multiple years. Even if you make the claim that part of the OT is not historically accurate (which I disagree with, but is not part of this argument) you would have a hard time saying that ALL of the OT is not accurate. Otherwise, you would have to make the argument that multiple authors were all intending to write alegorically.
I'll take the book of Chronicles agian - It hisorically records Solomons building of the temple - with an emphasis on being accurate - even down to the measurements of the building. To label this portion of the OT as fable is making a mistake... It was an actuall event that happened - and it was recorded as history.
The same goes with the book of Ezra and Nehemiah who record the return of Israel from captivity. They are not meant to be alegory - rather a history of the time they lived in.
So while I conceed that Genesis as a book contains many "unprovable" stories, and its historical accuracy is often questioned - reflecting that questioning on the rest of the OT as a blanket statement doesn't do it justice.
Also, I apologize if I am coming on too strong - I really am enjoying this topic <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
It's good to know that when you get tired of arguing, you can just say "Well, I'm right anyway." and give up. It's a pity atheists can't do that.
It's good to know that when you get tired of arguing, you can just say "Well, I'm right anyway." and give up. It's a pity atheists can't do that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is a little off the subject, but if I was Atheist I woudln't pick some lame belief system like..."we grew from monkeys!" or something stupid like that. I'd pick something a little more interesting like... "we are descendents of the great mother ship that crashed on eath 10 trillion years ago... we must now rebuild our temples to signal the great mother ship to come return to us and take us back to the star planet of ipenojojo" or somethign like that.. ya know at least make it orginal
Or "A huge man in the sky made us out of clay, along with all animals! Then we totally messed up by eating an apple that a snake told us to eat and now we have embarasment and labour pains. Jeez, we suck."
That's pretty original.
First of all, atheism isn't a belief system, and evolution isn't a specifically atheist belief, it's just science.
Second of all, when you are interested in the truth based on the evidence, you don't get to pick and choose what to believe based on what we think might be fun.
It's not even that. The countries we're posting from right now let you have Freedom of Religion? That's from the Magna Carta if you don't recall it. It means I don't need to be converted.
First of all, atheism isn't a belief system, and evolution isn't a specifically atheist belief, it's just science.
Second of all, when you are interested in the truth based on the evidence, you don't get to pick and choose what to believe based on what we think might be fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evoltion is proven. yes we all know that things evolve thats nothing new (and by evolve we mean small things like beak size and neck length change over time. pretty much just your basic genetics) what is a bunch of crap is Common ancestory in which people believe all animals and man have dirived all from the same little ameaba or what have you
Evoltion is proven. yes we all know that things evolve thats nothing new (and by evolve we mean small things like beak size and neck length change over time. pretty much just your basic genetics) what is a bunch of crap is Common ancestory in which people believe all animals and man have dirived all from the same little ameaba or what have you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, only if by "crap" you mean: a well established scientific fact.
Even without getting into the actual evidence, just some questions:
Why are flowers actually modified leaves rather than their own special thing? Why do humans share so many genes with ameobas, including genes that don't actually do anything? Why do we even HAVE the same internal genetic system as something as different as an ameoba? Why are animal body plans so incredibly similar overal, right down to the genetic level where Hox genes control our segmentation in exactly the same way and same order as a worm? Why does the fossil record show a steady modifcation of forms? How come human beings ONLY start showing up at the very very end of the fossil record in the same places in the world as the ape ancestors we are said to have evolved from? How come fossilized dinosaur poop only has ancient animals in it: why isn't there a single flowering plant or modern animal in there if they all lived at the same time? How come you can take a human gene and put it in a pig and it will work just the same, producing the same proteins and performing the same functions? Why would an all powerful god have to constantly reuse the same designs and genetic code routines instead of being more creative?
And so on.
and lets ask a few questions....Why aren't there any "mid-evolved" creates around today? if were all constantly evovling where is the half monkey/half man or the half anything half anything else? how come there's only a few " missing link" fossils when every creature in the world evovled ? how come out of all the animals only humans have evolved so much further then all the others?
Apos said it much better then I did. KUDOS!!!!
and lets ask a few questions....Why aren't there any "mid-evolved" creates around today? if were all constantly evovling where is the half monkey/half man or the half anything half anything else? how come there's only a few " missing link" fossils when every creature in the world evovled ? how come out of all the animals only humans have evolved so much further then all the others? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->hat do you mean creative? have you ever watched an episode of "Nature" life on this planet is so diverse and so out of control... you need to get off NS where theres only 6 species and look around you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but despite the diversity of life, most of it is still remarkably similar: not just genetically, but in terms of the over bodyplan and organ plan and structure. It's nto a question of diverse from someone who's never been outside their house, but life is certainly a lot LESS diverse than one would expect if an all-powerful god could create each creature from scratch each with it's own special way of existing. Why no eyes on fingers? Why not a mouth where the anus is and vice versa? Why longitudinal symetry pretty much everywhere? Even starfish, which show radial symetry, actually start life as larva that are bilateraly symetrical like all other animal life, and their radical symetry is simply hox genes all over again.
<!--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-->and lets ask a few questions....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What, before answering any of mine? <!--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--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why aren't there any "mid-evolved" creates around today?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only someone unfamiliar with what evolution actually means could ask this question. EVERY single creature alive today is "mid-evolved" between past forms and potential future forms. It is only because the animals that are around today happen to be the particular ones we are most familiar with that we think of those around today as somehow being "endpoints," immutable final forms. In reality, all are transitional (though some if not many may die out before they change further, just as the majority of all species have gone extinct)
<!--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-->if were all constantly evovling where is the half monkey/half man or the half anything half anything else?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this is a bizarre question if you understand what evolutionary theory is saying. In some sense, a chimpanzee IS a "half man," although the chimpanzee/bonobo line diverged from the line that became human beings about 6 million years ago. Our more closely related species (the rest of the homo genus) died out. Or, rather more likely, were killed off... by us.
<!--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-->how come there's only a few " missing link" fossils when every creature in the world evovled ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what you mean. Which transitions are you talking about? And what do you mean anyway? We have fossils of most of the major tranisitions: that's how we know, after all, what evolved from what.
The major reason why people don't call any given fossil a "missing link" fossil is not because a given fossil doesn't display supposed "transitional" features, but rather because there are SO MANY different lines at any given time, most of which die off, that we are very hesitant to declare a given fossil to be on the line that actually survives. It's very hard to show that THIS particular elephant fossil, despite being very different from modern elephants as well as even more ancient elephants, is THE ancestor of modern elephants, as opposed to just a cousin.
Imagine if someone was looking for you at a family reunion. They hit upon someone who looks a bit like you, only much older. But can they assume that its your father? More likely, it's your uncle or your great uncle second removed, or your cousin, because your father has many brothers, but he himself is just one man, and you are just one person out of lots and lots of people at your reunion. That's what it's like with fossils: we get a sense of general direction of a related group of species, but it's hard to be sure that the particular fossil we happen to have is THE one that parented one of the very very few individuals that happened to survive and reproduce and hence father later animals.
<!--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-->how come out of all the animals only humans have evolved so much further then all the others?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every animal alive today has been through just as much evolution as all the rest. That we have features that WE prize to be "better" than others is merely our own chauvansim. Believe it or not, but from the perspective of evolution, the most successful lifeform on this planet always has been and still is: bacteria.
Still, you have to admit human beings evolved rather quickly. This isn't going to turn me into a Christian, but science needs to do a better job explaining it.
Wow: what a comprehensive response Avenger! Complete non-sequitur nonsense! Wonderful.
<!--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-->Still, you have to admit human beings evolved rather quickly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quickly compared to what? There's no question that in geological times, once we hit upon the strategy of being socially smart, we took off as a species, with cultural imprinting jumpstarting our formerly more sluggish evolutionary direction towards bigger brains. But in the grand scheme of things, nature doesn't much care about our modest increase in population. A new strain of bacteria can reproduce into the trillions in weeks. Getting to a much more modest 6bn has taken us nearly 200,000 years. There are LOTS of ways to be successful in life, and having a big brain is just one of many... and honestly not anywhere near as successful as being small and reproducing really fast. Heck, rodents have us beat there.
<!--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-->This isn't going to turn me into a Christian, but science needs to do a better job explaining it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, luckily, that's what science does. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No, the earth doesn't need to be baptised at the cost of lives. God could find another way because, well, He's God. Why didn't He do the fire right after the flood? That way, it wouldn't be hanging over our heads.
What the hell does it matter to the dead people how they died? They're <i>dead</i>. They can't appreciate humour.
Besides which, did God forget to baptize Earth before He put life on it? "Aw, crap, I just realised the packet says to baptize product once with fire and once with water. Damn. Well, maybe it'll be okay if I do just the water one now..." <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I was trying to hint that evil isn't a *thing* at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither is "good" a thing, yet you say that God is the source of that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, you'd be incorrect in this assessment. Our God was defined as good because we asserted that existence is better than non-existence (i.e. non-existence necessarily has no value, and existence possibly has some value, therefore existence > nonexistence and therefore God, who is the only self-sufficient existence, is perfectly good), and that he was the source of all existence and hence the source of all that is "good." moral evil, however, is not something that exists as we exist. It is, rather, a statement on the relationship of certain intelligent choices to that of an external standard. If no such standard exists, then evil is illusory and your assertion that "God is a jerk" falls apart.
<!--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--> Or "A huge man in the sky made us out of clay, along with all animals! Then we totally messed up by eating an apple that a snake told us to eat and now we have embarasment and labour pains. Jeez, we suck."
That's pretty original.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spacer, I think you'd be interested to know that virtually all ancient civilizations (African, Mesopotamian, Indian, Chinese) had myths that closely paralleled the Adam&Eve story. Heh.
Also, @Snidely - baptism is a sign/public proclamation of repentance and stuff. I don't claim to know the precise theological significance of it, but I am pretty sure that baptism is only for the fallen. (Which makes sense if you think about the point I made earlier, in that God said that the very ground on which Israel or whoever sinned would be defiled).
Skulkbait - there's a difference between believing the Bible to be inerrant and the Bible to be accurate. I am not a literalist, if that is what you mean. Parts of the OT are meant to be historical accounts and records (Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, etc), and some are obviously not (for example, Job is likely a parable - the author didn't live until hundreds to a thousand years after the real Job lived, and as such it is probably that the words that Job speaks are not word-for-word what the real Job spoke - although there is always the chance of divine revelation. However, it is important to note that in ancient times, it was not as important to report the exact words someone said as to convey the precise meaning of the speech).
I always thought baptizm represented being born again into God's family, but I don't know for sure.
Still, even bearing in mind that it's a sign of washing away sin, I'm sure the meaning was lost on the dead people. Unhygenic, too, unless the bloated corpses of the dead had decomposed after the fourty days (I don't know how long it takes for all the flesh to go). If God had done it to test Noah (by building the ark, rounding up the animals and suffering the scorn of the sinners), he could have just told him to stay indoors for however long, click his fingers, and kill all the sin.
You should have heard the Earth when it got circumcized! Whooooo that must have hurt!
Try saying that tens times fast... and it still wont make any sense! But at least it's FAST. Zooooooooooooom! Welcome to Theology 101.
<!--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-->and that he was the source of all existence and hence the source of all that is "good."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of what purpose was it to create volcanoes that would periodically explode and kill thousands of people indecriminately? If that's not bad, then nothing is. If CREATING such death traps is bad when humans do it, then god can't beg off that he's got a special "I'm the bossman!" VIP card. Morality MUST be universal (i.e. it applies to EVERYONE) or else its meaningless.
And I was trying to hint that evil isn't a *thing* at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither is "good" a thing, yet you say that God is the source of that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, you'd be incorrect in this assessment. Our God was defined as good because we asserted that existence is better than non-existence (i.e. non-existence necessarily has no value, and existence possibly has some value, therefore existence > nonexistence and therefore God, who is the only self-sufficient existence, is perfectly good), and that he was the source of all existence and hence the source of all that is "good." moral evil, however, is not something that exists as we exist. It is, rather, a statement on the relationship of certain intelligent choices to that of an external standard. If no such standard exists, then evil is illusory and your assertion that "God is a jerk" falls apart. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you define good that way, then I suppose you're right. But as I've been saying, if you assume that anything God does <i>must</i> be good simply because he is God, then the whole argument is moot. I contend that under any other definiton God is, in fact, an ****.
Also, there are many cases where I would say that non-existence is desired over existance. Take for instance anyone going to hell, now wouldn't it have been beter had they never existed at all? That way they wouldn't be suffering (something your "good" God is very fond of).
<!--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-->Spacer, I think you'd be interested to know that virtually all ancient civilizations (African, Mesopotamian, Indian, Chinese) had myths that closely paralleled the Adam&Eve story. Heh.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the Japanese, and Egyptian, and Norse, ect religions all had very, very, very different creation myths (often unsuitable for children's ears).
<!--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-->Skulkbait - there's a difference between believing the Bible to be inerrant and the Bible to be accurate. I am not a literalist, if that is what you mean. Parts of the OT are meant to be historical accounts and records (Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, etc), and some are obviously not (for example, Job is likely a parable - the author didn't live until hundreds to a thousand years after the real Job lived, and as such it is probably that the words that Job speaks are not word-for-word what the real Job spoke - although there is always the chance of divine revelation. However, it is important to note that in ancient times, it was not as important to report the exact words someone said as to convey the precise meaning of the speech).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats not the part we were refering to. We were refering to the fact that some of you guys are crazy enough to believe that the great world wide flood actually happened and that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, just because its written in some silly story in the OT.
And I just had to add my two cents.
And just so we get things clear. I don´t follow any faith, this is just observation in one direction or another.
"If God is so good why do we have these deathtrap volcanos and floods and such?"
Good question. Let me see if I got this right. We used to live (that is to say Adam and Eve used to live) in Eden. And Eden was void of any such perrils. So far so good. Now, we have this wicked tree in Eden with some fruit that is forbidden. A popular argument is "why did God put that tree there in the first place? Thats just mean."
Here is the kicker. God wanted us to be good and free of sin (such as stealing). It is however very easy to be good when it´s your only option. The tree, in this case, was put there to give any meaning to the gift of free will that God gave Adam and Eve.
So if God created us in his image and wanted us to be good it makes sense that he should be good too. On the other hand, he is also supposed to be forgiving and this is where I get confused. We supposedly still carry the sins of Adam and Eve with us to this day. Not as forgiving as I would have hoped. Then again, humanity as a whole is not that nice all the time.
The point (back to deathtrap question):
This is not the place where we were meant to spend our lifes. This is outside Eden.
Once again, you wouldnt be happy about not having volcanos in your backyard if volcanos didnt exist.
Well. My 2 cents. Enjoy.
This, as mentioned before, comming from a non-believer.
You may not remember last night, but it was intense. Unfortunately, I gave you my scabies. Well, I hope you were happy beforehand, because it's gonna get worse before it gets better!
I'd be perfectly happy without them, that's the problem. What's the point of them if you are all powerful and thus it is not necessary to have them? Why not let babies grow up and make free choices like everyone else instead of periodically boiling them in molten rock, some even in the womb, for no particular reason? No one is asking for Eden, but hows about not so much with the totally random violence of nature?
There is one more thing that has me confused about OT vs NT.
After the banishment hunmanity spend alot of time in perril. Then the Messiah shows up and tells everyone about the kingdom come and how we all shall be happy again.
So we nail him to a cross just to be on the safe side. And he forgives us.
We nail the son of God to a makeshift cross and he forgives us!?!
But we take 2 bites from an apple and it´s 6000+ years of baby BBQ.
I just don´t get it.
You can't, after all a god is a god and they are supposed to be infinite in all ways and/or things. Hence why all the major religions are all confused and always fighting, it has been left to human interpetation, and thusly humans have failed miserably, in every aspect.
Religions should be used for basic moral guidelines, which I have been quite fond of saying for years, sadly no-one seems to realize the instant you think you are better then someone else of a different religion or non-religion that instantly throws you against everything you are supposed to be taught within that religion, (except for Satanist they <b> love </b> to make fun of all religions, especially christianity and more notably the roman catholic church).
@AvengerX: I really don't think you have enough life exeprience to be talking too much about what "god" wants. You really appear to live a fairly sheltered life, much like my little brother who is of the same age, although he doesn't agree with how you word things, he did grow up in a christian home is still there for all I know. I think in a few years, you will begin to question the world around you, and once you do you will not like the answers you find.
@Wheeee: If you believe any of the OT is an actual historical record you are very sadly disillusioned. There is exactly zero evidence for anything to have actually happened the way the bible describes it. The bible is a basic book of morals for the NT, ignore the OT, because every religion ever founded before the bible was written or occured has the same stories with minor changes, be it names, places, and or details of how events took place. Many of the older religions actually do a more realistic job of telling the story of creation, the flood, etc.
There is one more thing that has me confused about OT vs NT.
After the banishment hunmanity spend alot of time in perril. Then the Messiah shows up and tells everyone about the kingdom come and how we all shall be happy again.
So we nail him to a cross just to be on the safe side. And he forgives us.
We nail the son of God to a makeshift cross and he forgives us!?!
But we take 2 bites from an apple and it´s 6000+ years of baby BBQ.
I just don´t get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good questions. Here is my 5 minute answer.
First of all, I assume that God is God - unchangeable from old to new testament. Then I look for similarities between Jesus and his forgiveness, and God.
The first place I look is Genesis - garden of Eden. Adam & Eve sin - and the first thing God does is curse humanity. The second thing God does is make a promise - he promises that he would overcome the devil.
The rest of the old testament talks about Gods association with people - pre-christ. God is always forgiving Israel - If you forsake other gods and turn back, I will be merciful. He provides a sacrificial system so that the payment for our sin can fall on the animals back.
To that end, Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice - completely satisfying the wrath of God. If Jesus hadn't died, we would still be stuck sacrificing goats and lambs. Jesus forgiving us / saving us is only possible <b>because</b> he died.
So here is the main distinction between Old and New Testament. In the old, God said "If you want to be saved, you have to belive and sacrifice animals to cover your sin. By the way, here are some laws to live by."
In the New Testament God says "Christ has made the sacrifice - All I need now is belief. By the way, keep living by those laws (except the sacrificial / ritual law - not needed because of Christ)"
@wotlanfear: You said that none of the OT can be considered "Historical record" - and while I admit that parts of Genesis sound fabelish at times, disregarding the whole OT as historically inacurate is a mistake. For instance, Chronicals was exactly that - a history of Israel about the time of the kings. Not to mention that without the OT, the NT is rather meaningless. The Old Testament answers questions like "why Christ had to die", and gives great insight towards the nature of God. The psalms describe God as a protector and forgiver, all the prophetic books show God is looking out for his people - always preserving a remnant of them. In other words - don't write off the whole OT - It is just as important as the NT - just farther removed from us in time, so it doesn't apply directly quite as well.
I won't go into detail about the NT, because that is not on topic.
The OT was written by multiple people over multiple years. Even if you make the claim that part of the OT is not historically accurate (which I disagree with, but is not part of this argument) you would have a hard time saying that ALL of the OT is not accurate. Otherwise, you would have to make the argument that multiple authors were all intending to write alegorically.
I'll take the book of Chronicles agian - It hisorically records Solomons building of the temple - with an emphasis on being accurate - even down to the measurements of the building. To label this portion of the OT as fable is making a mistake... It was an actuall event that happened - and it was recorded as history.
The same goes with the book of Ezra and Nehemiah who record the return of Israel from captivity. They are not meant to be alegory - rather a history of the time they lived in.
So while I conceed that Genesis as a book contains many "unprovable" stories, and its historical accuracy is often questioned - reflecting that questioning on the rest of the OT as a blanket statement doesn't do it justice.
Also, I apologize if I am coming on too strong - I really am enjoying this topic <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->