Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Legion]

Who of us are omniscient?

Is that a fancy term for being able to smell everything?

[Guest end3]

If you're talking about certain principles of living as humans that they had right and we are now "coming to understand", well that may be true but in the sense that they were common understandings in a lot of places and our culture in its particular inherent dysfunctions lost sight of and through trial and error our ourselves coming back to. None of that proves that God itself dictated your religion all special and perfect, since things like "love your neighbor as yourself," as profound as that in fact is, predated Christianity, outside Jewish traditions, the entire world over. That we got all messed up, and maybe are relearning this does not mean "miracle" insight on the Christian part.

 

Get over yourself.

 

That's a first big step. Where is that in your scripture? If it were divine, where is that?

 

Regardless of the Chrisitian God being true or not, I personally think the mocking methodology for "correction" sucks. One would think in all of this abounding knowledge that simple sincere dialogue might find it's way into the mix. I guess that's not scientific enough for many to grasp as truth.

 

Matter of fact.....from the scientific POV, grace IS scientific......but many remain ignorant in that regard as well it appears.

[Legion]

I personally think the mocking methodology for "correction" sucks.

Little slice of Lion's Den anyone? Have it with a side-order of shut your damn trap End.

 

[the stranger]

end3, I appreciate your insight. I do want to say, however, I feel quite comfortable here and over all, feel I have been treated well, with some exceptions. I live in a trailer with often six or seven people at night, and nine to twelve in the day. Most of that number also uses this one computer. Thus one reason why I have limited time on the computer. All I am saying is that of the few here that do seem a bit on edge sometimes, I often get the same way. I guess we just chuckle it off and move on. I am sure, however, that your insight could be useful.

 

I am not concerned whether everybody believes what i believe or not, as it is in our own hearts and minds and life history that helps form our believes and I believe God will show Himself real to all who earnestly seek, but when, now that is the question. In the mean time, I will be learning much on this site myself.

 

I am just really so wiped out right now. I was going to start all my responses now, but I think I will have to wait until later tonight. There has been some great questions out there and I want to get to them all. I will not post anything new until I can get to all of the responses that have yet to be replied to.

 

Thanks for the questions, my friends. I will talk with ya all soon.

[Antlerman]

If you're talking about certain principles of living as humans that they had right and we are now "coming to understand", well that may be true but in the sense that they were common understandings in a lot of places and our culture in its particular inherent dysfunctions lost sight of and through trial and error our ourselves coming back to. None of that proves that God itself dictated your religion all special and perfect, since things like "love your neighbor as yourself," as profound as that in fact is, predated Christianity, outside Jewish traditions, the entire world over. That we got all messed up, and maybe are relearning this does not mean "miracle" insight on the Christian part.

 

Get over yourself.

 

That's a first big step. Where is that in your scripture? If it were divine, where is that?

 

Regardless of the Chrisitian God being true or not, I personally think the mocking methodology for "correction" sucks. One would think in all of this abounding knowledge that simple sincere dialogue might find it's way into the mix. I guess that's not scientific enough for many to grasp as truth.

 

Matter of fact.....from the scientific POV, grace IS scientific......but many remain ignorant in that regard as well it appears.

You know what the problem here is End? You are mistaking irony for mockery. I am not mocking him, nor do I ever mock people, like some bully. You know me better than that. Pointing out the absurdity of someone's argument through the use of irony, is a means of making a point. I never, ever call people stupid idiots, dolts, morons, or other such mocking and ridiculing scorn. That is not me.

 

Is there a place and time to make a point with irony? Yes. And I do so, without loosing site of the fact that there is another person. The fact that I choose to point out the absurdity of an argument this way with certain people shows that I actually believe they are capable of doing better in reasoning. It's a call to really look at what they're saying and not take themselves so damned seriously with their arguments.

 

I think you're just overly sensitive to being bullied around and in fact mocked by those like the former GH, whom you laid down for and took his abuse. This is a means of communication in a debate over each others points. It's pointing out the absurdity of the argument, not mocking them as a person. I know very well how to communicate points effectively, and sometimes this is a tactic in just that. It can be effective, so try not to be so sensitive for others and think you need to watch how I treat others. I'm not GH.

[DesertBob]

2. The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens.

I don't see anything in your long quote that is compelling, I'm afraid, but I really have to respond to this one as it is a particularly good illustration of grasping at straws.

 

The natural, un-forced explanation of "god stretching out the heavens" is that it is a poetic reference to the process of laying them out (likely on some sort of framework that the ancients no doubt assumed was there to hold it in place, given that such things as weightlessness were simply outside people's knowledge and experience at the time). To take the word "stretching" (or whatever "stretching" is translated from in the original Hebrew) and say it means "expanding" as in "expanding universe" is ... well, a stretch. Even the ability to conceptualize the universe in the way we do today simply wasn't possible when these texts were authored. To the ancients, the sky was a big dome with lights attached to it, kind of like in The Truman Show.

 

This sort of claim is disingenuous and is particularly damaging to the credibility of anyone arguing those points.

[Antlerman]

Did you know the sun is actually only 30 miles in diameter? (That's another discussion, but hey! I need to present that argument to the Stranger to show how it is no different than what the things he is hearing is! Flat Earth Science. Remind me if I don't present that in here for our rational consideration.

No way! How weird. How come? Why would they say that? Perhaps you should start a flat-earth discussion. (And I should start a evidence for evolution thread... unless we have one somewhere already. Do you know?)

OK, I had to collect this article from the Oct 1931 issue of Modern Mechanics and Inventions and put it together into a single PDF but I can't upload it here because it exceeds the 2mb limit for a single file. So sadly, I'm having to post them as individual files for each page. It's 9 pages long, but I'll post the first page of it as well as a straight image file to whet your appetite to read the individual PDF's. I specifically request that The Stranger download all of these and read carefully how science was used by this Christian leader to in fact prove the earth is not a globe but was flat, and that the sun was only 27 miles in diameter. He had the support of those using science on his side, and frankly it reads nearly the same as the AiG folks you cite. To you it seems absurd since today we clearly have overwhelming information to support the global nature of the earth. But bear in mind, they had no photos taken from orbit in 1931, just overwhelming evidence to confirm the spherical nature of the earth, the same as we have overwhelming evidence for Evolution, except we probably have even more.

 

First the background. In my genealogy for my family, I discovered that my great grandfather was part of a great religious experiment in a Christian Utopian city founded in 1901 called Zion, Illinois by a man named John Alexander Dowie. My great grandfather was part of the original settlement there of over 3000 people. It was actually a very successful Utopian experiment until there was a power play in 1906 where Wilber Glen Voliva overthrew the founder and stole away all the people from Dowie, which led to Dowie's failing health and death in 1907. Voliva was a Theocrat who ran the city with a righteous iron fist. Happy to say, my great grandpa left that fold for other options, but the point is that Voliva, using science to disprove the earth was a globe, offered $5000 dollars to anyone who could prove the earth was a globe! There are elaborate scientific details showing that the earth is a disk with a north pole and a surrounding ice shelf which people call the South Pole, the sun is only 27 miles in diameter, etc.

 

I see nothing different in what these "Creation Scientists" do than this, and in 70 years, they will look equally as foolish. Happy reading.

 

 

The PDFs (sorry I couldn't post them combined):

 

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_1.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_2.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_3.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_4.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_5.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_6.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_7.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_8.pdf

Voliva Flat Earth Oct 1931.pdf_9.pdf

 

P.S. For good measure, this is what life in Zion City looked like under Voliva's reign:

 

 

As only a couple small examples. I'm going to start an entire topic on this at some later point, BTW.

[Antlerman]

I'm going to add something I just read from the article from 1931 I just posted. Tell me if this doesn't describe the Creationists of today to a T!

 

On page 7 it reads,

"Much of the Zetetic "proofs" of the world's flatness consist of attacks on the spherical theory."

 

Wow!! It is exactly the same. Where is the actual research of Creationists? What new discoveries has their "science" brought, or done anywhere to benefit science and understanding? It's nowhere. All it is is exactly the same thing as in 1931 when they state, "Much of the Zetetic "proofs" of the world's flatness consist of attacks on the spherical theory."

 

It's not science at all. It's ideology on the attack with nothing positive to offer.

[Guest end3]

2. The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens.

I don't see anything in your long quote that is compelling, I'm afraid, but I really have to respond to this one as it is a particularly good illustration of grasping at straws.

 

The natural, un-forced explanation of "god stretching out the heavens" is that it is a poetic reference to the process of laying them out (likely on some sort of framework that the ancients no doubt assumed was there to hold it in place, given that such things as weightlessness were simply outside people's knowledge and experience at the time). To take the word "stretching" (or whatever "stretching" is translated from in the original Hebrew) and say it means "expanding" as in "expanding universe" is ... well, a stretch. Even the ability to conceptualize the universe in the way we do today simply wasn't possible when these texts were authored. To the ancients, the sky was a big dome with lights attached to it, kind of like in The Truman Show.

 

This sort of claim is disingenuous and is particularly damaging to the credibility of anyone arguing those points.

 

Printed from the Blue Letter Bible

Lexicon Results Strong's H5186 - natah נָטָה

Transliteration

natah

Pronunciation

nä·tä' (Key)

Part of Speech

verb

Root Word (Etymology)

A primitive root

TWOT Reference

1352

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to stretch out, extend, spread out, pitch, turn, pervert, incline, bend, bow

a) (Qal)

1) to stretch out, extend, stretch, offer

2) to spread out, pitch (tent)

3) to bend, turn, incline

a) to turn aside, incline, decline, bend down

to bend, bow

c) to hold out, extend (fig.)

(Niphal) to be stretched out

c) (Hiphil)

1) to stretch out

2) to spread out

3) to turn, incline, influence, bend down, hold out, extend, thrust aside, thrust away

 

????

I don't get it Bob....there just appears the Bible....with such attentiveness to details that we ask and even consider today, and we write it off as nonsense?

 

It just seems rather apparent that the dissonance is somewhat equal to those on the Christian side opting for,"well, the Bible doesn't specifically mention x or y regarding the now scientific knowledge we have".

 

Of course since their billiard ball got knocked out of it path on the way to the pocket....for some reason this means the pocket doesn't exist.

[DesertBob]

????

I don't get it Bob....there just appears the Bible....with such attentiveness to details that we ask and even consider today, and we write it off as nonsense?

 

It just seems rather apparent that the dissonance is somewhat equal to those on the Christian side opting for,"well, the Bible doesn't specifically mention x or y regarding the now scientific knowledge we have".

 

Of course since their billiard ball got knocked out of it path on the way to the pocket....for some reason this means the pocket doesn't exist.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

I am not dismissing the Bible as nonsense (in this case). I am dismissing the line of "reasoning" that equates a passing mention of god "stretching out the heavens" as "proof" that the Bible teaches an expanding universe as nonsense. No, actually, utter nonsense.

 

God "stretches out the heavens like a tent" (Ps. 104:2) says that god is powerful and does huge things in a vast universe, but it doesn't teach that the universe expands continuously or prove that the Bible assumes that such is the case. It took astronomers and physicists in modern times to even consider whether this is so, I suspect. I imagine that before that most people figured it was pretty static, seeing as that's how it appears to us night after night.

 

This is all grasping at straws, trying to make the scriptures say things it doesn't.

 

Now if the Bible said something like "Lo, my children, the Lord hath hung the stars of the heavens in a void so that they continually move away from one another" that would be another matter.

[Guest end3]

????

I don't get it Bob....there just appears the Bible....with such attentiveness to details that we ask and even consider today, and we write it off as nonsense?

 

It just seems rather apparent that the dissonance is somewhat equal to those on the Christian side opting for,"well, the Bible doesn't specifically mention x or y regarding the now scientific knowledge we have".

 

Of course since their billiard ball got knocked out of it path on the way to the pocket....for some reason this means the pocket doesn't exist.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

I am not dismissing the Bible as nonsense (in this case). I am dismissing the line of "reasoning" that equates a passing mention of god "stretching out the heavens" as "proof" that the Bible teaches an expanding universe as nonsense. No, actually, utter nonsense.

 

God "stretches out the heavens like a tent" (Ps. 104:2) says that god is powerful and does huge things in a vast universe, but it doesn't teach that the universe expands continuously or prove that the Bible assumes that such is the case. It took astronomers and physicists in modern times to even consider whether this is so, I suspect. I imagine that before that most people figured it was pretty static, seeing as that's how it appears to us night after night.

 

This is all grasping at straws, trying to make the scriptures say things it doesn't.

 

Now if the Bible said something like "Lo, my children, the Lord hath hung the stars of the heavens in a void so that they continually move away from one another" that would be another matter.

 

Why is it in there in those words if no one could fathom such?

 

The triple point of water = Trinity?

Epigentics = the sins of the fathers passed to their children?

Cellulostic water purification = Moses' stick in the water?

 

Anyone who makes these connections is full of utter nonsense?

 

Stretches out the universe like a tent? Do we KNOW if there is not something on the outside of our universe? It has an edge, doesn't it?....by scientific standards?....yet when viewing it from a different perspective, it might not look like a tent?

 

This is not dissonance?

[lunaticheathen]

I'm going to add something I just read from the article from 1931 I just posted. Tell me if this doesn't describe the Creationists of today to a T!

 

On page 7 it reads,

"Much of the Zetetic "proofs" of the world's flatness consist of attacks on the spherical theory."

 

Wow!! It is exactly the same. Where is the actual research of Creationists? What new discoveries has their "science" brought, or done anywhere to benefit science and understanding? It's nowhere. All it is is exactly the same thing as in 1931 when they state, "Much of the Zetetic "proofs" of the world's flatness consist of attacks on the spherical theory."

 

It's not science at all. It's ideology on the attack with nothing positive to offer.

 

Preach it Brother Antler!

 

Also, something occurred to me the other day. Calling someone an "evolutionist" is kind of like calling him/her a "gravitationalist."

 

....

 

Discuss.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Sorry, stranger. I wanted to respond earlier, but we were celebrating my wife's 40th birthday, and I don't think she would've been too happy if I'd neglected it to sit at the computer.

 

I'm not sure why I'm apologizing for it, though, since you're still avoiding a question I've asked you 3 or 4 times already. But I do have to admit that I can't blame you for being stumped over why god would punish serpents for something satan supposedly did, since it really makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Wouldn't it actually make more sense to stop reading satan into the garden story (after all, he's not mentioned anywhere in Genesis 3), since you're left with god being completely unreasonable in punishing serpents for something actually done by an incarnation of satan?

 

But anyway….

 

This next segment is pasting of a fraction of the site page.

 

====================================================================================================================

 

This first part is about science being told in the bible before man could ever comprehend it.

 

1. The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

 

First off, do you realize that Muslim apologists equally point to Koran passages as examples of "scientific accuracy" in the Koran before the details were known by science? And does that validate the Koran?

 

Second, how many creation myths don't have a "beginning" of sorts? Are all those other creation myths scientifically accurate because of having beginnings?

 

2. The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Einstein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago – the universe is expanding!

 

Your first reference there is Job 9:8, but let's look at the two verses right before it:

 

Job 9

[6] He shakes the

earth

from its place

and makes

its pillars

tremble.

[7] He speaks to the

sun

and it

does not shine;

he seals off the light of the stars.

 

Is the earth mounted on pillars? Does the sun cease to shine when we can't see it? Of course not! So much for the bible being "scientific," huh?

 

Oh, and before you come back with the typical response that this was metaphorical, allow me to point out that it's completely absurd to pick and choose what you want to be literal (motivated by the assumption that it fits with science) and what you want to be metaphorical (motivated by the realization that it's nonsensical to be taken literally). The exact same thing can be done with any text, and thus renders the bible no more special than any other book.

 

3. The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

 

The heavens, earth and light have always been easily observable. Do you really think that that proves anything?

 

4. The Earth Hangs in Space. "He hangs the earth upon nothing". Job 26:7 stated 1500BC. Until modern times, 'experts' believed ideas such as the earth sat on four elephants, who stood on a giant turtle, who swam in the ocean. Man could not imagine how the earth could hang in space on nothing. Yet this is what happens due to the gravitational attraction between the earth and the sun, giving the appearance that the earth hangs on nothing.

 

And from that same chapter:

 

Job 26

[11] The

pillars of the heavens

quake,

aghast at his rebuke.

 

So, the heavens are on pillars? So much for the bible being "scientific," huh?

 

Again, before you come back with the typical response that this was metaphorical, allow me to point out that it's completely absurd to pick and choose what you want to be literal (motivated by the assumption that it fits with science) and what you want to be metaphorical (motivated by the realization that it's nonsensical to be taken literally). The exact same thing can be done with any text, and thus renders the bible no more special than any other book.

 

5. Spherical Earth. "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" Isaiah 40:22. "... when He set a compass upon the face of the depth" Proverbs 8:27. Circle = Compass in Hebrew is "Khoog" = to describe a circle, or circuit, meaning the horizon which is circular. In 712 BC, when Isaiah wrote, people thought that the earth was flat, and that you could sail over the edge of it and fall of. Columbus and Magellan proved that the earth was circular by sailing around it in a circle from East to West and then returning to the point of departure.

 

You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. - 2500 years before man discovered it for himself! The Encyclopedia Americana said: "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe..." The concept of a spherical earth was NOT widely accepted until the Renaissance. Some early navigators even feared that they might sail off the edge of the flat earth.

 

Isaiah 40:22 is a favorite of creationists, because it refers to the earth as a "circle." However, the earth is NOT a circle, it's a sphere. Likewise, the "compass" mentioned in the first two references would also be a reference to making a circle rather than the correct shape of a sphere. (The final reference, Amos 9:6, makes no allusion at all to the shape of the earth, so I'm not sure why it's even mentioned here.)

 

Now, before you respond with the typical creationist claim that Hebrew didn't have a term for "sphere" and therefore "circle" was the best term they had, allow me to point out that Hebrew did have a word for "ball" ("duwr"), which was used here:

 

Isaiah 22

[18] He will roll you up tightly like a

ball

and throw you into a large country.

There you will die

and there the chariots you were so proud of

will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

 

Now, when referring to the earth's shape, if the biblical writers had intended to convey the idea of it being a "sphere," the word "ball" would have been a much better choice than "circle," would it not?

 

Besides, you also have to contend with this:

 

Revelation 7

[1] After this I saw four angels standing at the

four corners of the earth,

holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

 

So, now the earth has corners! How is that consistent with either a sphere or a circle? So much for the bible being "scientific," huh?

 

Once again, before you come back with the typical response that this was metaphorical, allow me to point out that it's completely absurd to pick and choose what you want to be literal (motivated by the assumption that it fits with science) and what you want to be metaphorical (motivated by the realization that it's nonsensical to be taken literally). The exact same thing can be done with any text, and thus renders the bible no more special than any other book.

 

6. Earth at any time is part day-time and part night. Job 38:13-14 conveys the idea of the earth rotating on its axis: "the earth...is turned as clay to the seal." When the moment of Christ's second coming to earth is discussed in Luke 17:31-36, Christ's return interrupts people sleeping at night on one part of the earth, and interrupts others in the daytime grinding at the mill or working in the field. How did Jesus Christ know that the earth at any point of time is half dark and half light? Because He is the all-knowing God. ".......in that day when the Son of Man is revealed. v30. In that day ....... he that is in the field ... v31. In that night there shall be two in one bed, one shall be taken, the other left v.34. Two women shall be grinding together, one shall be taken, and the other left v.35. Two men shall be in the field; one shall be taken, and the other left" v.36.

 

Let's look at the first reference there:

 

Job 38

[13] that it might take the earth by the edges

and shake the wicked out of it?

[14] The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;

its features stand out like those of a garment.

 

Come on, now, where in the world do you get the idea that this has anything to do with the earth rotating on its axis? The passage refers to shaking the wicked out of the earth and the forming of the earth. It really takes a huge stretch of the imagination to twist this into some sort of "scientific" proclamation of the earth's axis rotation, does it not?

 

The second reference from Luke is a bit dubious. It doesn't really clarify what is meant by separating day and night. I can see this passage being accepted as evidence by those who already believe, but it really doesn't prove anything about "scientific" knowledge.

 

7. The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity – the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit – just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!

 

The fact that the sun is not stationary is completely immaterial to this issue. Look at what the text actually says:

 

Psalm 19

[6] It rises at one end of the heavens

and makes its circuit to the other;

nothing is deprived of its warmth.

 

This is clearly talking about the sun moving across the sky from one horizon to the other horizon. Compare it with this passage:

 

Ecclesiastes 1

[5] The sun rises and the sun sets,

and hurries back to where it rises.

 

This conveys the kind of picture that is in mind in the preceding passage. The sun moves across the sky and then hurries back to where it rises again. This clearly does not present the picture claimed in the creationist text above about the sun's movement in the cosmos, now does it? So much for the bible being "scientific," huh?

 

8. Very Great Number of Stars. "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me”. Jeremiah 33:22 in 590 BC. "He (God) telleth the number of stars; he calleth them all by their names". Psalm 147:4. "Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies". Genesis 22:17. Ptolemy in 150 AD dogmatically said that 1056 stars existed. Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. I have seen estimates of 10x21 stars—which is a lot of stars. (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 10x25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?) The Bible also says that each star is unique.

 

Oh yeah, let's consider what the bible has to say about the stars:

 

Matthew 24

[29] "Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

 

Revelation 6

[13] and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.

 

Revelation 12

[4] Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born.

 

So, stars can "fall" to the earth? A "third" of them can be flung down here? Clearly, my friend, this does not present an understanding that stars are enormous fireballs in the cosmos, does it? This clearly falls right in line with the ancient view that stars were just dots out there hanging above the earth, does it not? And the Matthew reference is supposedly a quote from Jesus himself!

 

As such, how "scientific" is your bible after all? Not very, I must say!

 

Need I go on? I see no point in going through the rest of what you've posted on this matter. Suffice it to say that the creationists are really stretching things to try to make the bible sound "scientific" on these matters. A closer look shows that they're picking and choosing what to present to give a misrepresentation of the bible, which, simply put, is a dishonest approach.

 

Now, please answer my previous question: Why would your god be so unjust as to punish serpents for something satan did?

[DesertBob]

The triple point of water = Trinity?

Epigentics = the sins of the fathers passed to their children?

Cellulostic water purification = Moses' stick in the water?

 

Anyone who makes these connections is full of utter nonsense?

Er ... well ... in a word ... yes.

 

What does the triple point of water have to do with the trinity other than the number 3? Does the Bible also foretell the coming of the Three Stooges? By that reasoning, it would.

 

Can you toss a stick into a water fountain and bulk purify enough water to feed thousands of people? I thought the whole point of that story was that it was a miracle, not the invention of reverse osmosis.

 

As for epigenetics ... does the Bible teaching that I am to pay for some sin, that, say, my Grandfather committed 100 years ago equate to a treatise on gene expression alterations?

 

Come on, seriously. You're being silly.

[DesertBob]

Your first reference there is Job 9:8, but let's look at the two verses right before it:

 

Job 9

[6] He shakes the

earth

from its place

and makes

its pillars

tremble.

[7] He speaks to the

sun

and it

does not shine;

he seals off the light of the stars.

 

Is the earth mounted on pillars? Does the sun cease to shine when we can't see it? Of course not! So much for the bible being "scientific," huh?

 

Oh, and before you come back with the typical response that this was metaphorical, allow me to point out that it's completely absurd to pick and choose what you want to be literal (motivated by the assumption that it fits with science) and what you want to be metaphorical (motivated by the realization that it's nonsensical to be taken literally). The exact same thing can be done with any text, and thus renders the bible no more special than any other book.

You said it better than I did. Thanks.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Also, Stranger, do you believe that the bible is supposed to be our moral compass? If so, then how do you deal with the following?

 

"This is what the Lord Almighty says: "…Do not spare them;

put to death

men and women,

children and infants,

cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys'" (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

 

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and

rapes

her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.

He must marry the girl,

for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

 

"O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy

is he who repays you for what you have done to us -- he who

seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

" (Psalm 137:8-9)

 

"If a man

beats

his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but

he is not to be punished

if the slave gets up after a day or two, since

the slave is his property.

" (Exodus 21:20-21)

 

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them

you may buy slaves. You may also buy

some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become

your property.

" (Leviticus 25:44-45)

 

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates,

all the people shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

" (Deuteronomy 20:10-11)

 

"The Lord…

punishes the children for the sin of the fathers

to the third and fourth generation." (Numbers 14:18)

 

"A

bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD;

even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:2, KJV)

 

Please explain how things like this represent a high moral ground. (By the way, if you think of trying to write it off as "just the Old Testament," I double dare you to!)

[Guest Spinoza]

Because Jesus is God ..... but then everything is God. I just like that Jesus had the balls to say it.

[Darklady]

jesus is the made up from a large number of stories from a number of sources, He never existed, so I doubt he had any balls to speak off.

[the stranger]

Dear Cits, sorry I have not been able to reply earlier. I am not trying to avoid your questions, but often just do not have access to the computer or the time. I was going to deal with such questions in the other topic, but seeming how times keeps getting shorter and you have been waiting for such a lolng long time, let me try to address some of your questions here.

 

But I do have to admit that I can't blame you for being stumped over why god would punish serpents for something satan supposedly did, since it really makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Wouldn't it actually make more sense to stop reading satan into the garden story (after all, he's not mentioned anywhere in Genesis 3), since you're left with god being completely unreasonable in punishing serpents for something actually done by an incarnation of satan?

 

Let me start with question one. Remember when Adam and Eve sinned, it was far from just the snake that was cursed. Us, of course, along with the earth, animals of all kinds, forever now seeing decay and death, and animals now eating each other than just herbs. Was this fair?

 

First, whether we like it or not, we are all effected by the decisions of others. Fathers are effected by the choices of their sons, and mothers of their daughters, and neighbors by their neighbors. Sons by their fathers, strangers by other strangers, and employees by bosses. You get the point. It is endless. Every decision we make effects others lives, whether we like it or not, and there is no getting around that fact.

 

Now about the snake, we should take notice that just as the ground was created without a conscience, the animals were also. We humans were the only created after the image of God. Did the snake know he was cursed? Did the ground know it was cursed? It is just us humans that knows about the effects of the curse, not the other aspects of Gods creation. All created in regards to the earth was created for us humans. This cannot be denied when we look up on creation. So did the effects of sin change the nature of the snake? Yes. Did the snake understand that he was cursed, or even realize that he use to be able to stand straight? I hardly think so. So again, it is about the human race and our relationship with our Father.

 

It is also good to remember that the snake from that day onward would always remind us (among other things) the effects of sin. As well as the future of things to be regarding Satan.

 

Now about this story being of Satan. First, I know of no other animals that talked at the time. (thus just another reason why I believe, just like in all of the bible stories, there is allot more that we do not know than there is of what we know.)

 

Ezekiel 28:13 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

 

13 You were in Eden,

the garden of God;

every precious stone adorned you:

carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,

topaz, onyx and jasper,

lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.[a]

Your settings and mountings were made of gold;

on the day you were created they were prepared.

 

So first, was Satan or was he not in the garden?

 

2 Corinthians 11:3 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

 

Revelation 12:9 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

 

Now who leads the whole world astray and when did this happen, if not in the garden, as the bible states clearly? And why was he called the ancient serpent?

 

Genesis 49:17 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

 

17 Dan will be a snake by the roadside,

a viper along the path,

that bites the horse’s heels

so that its rider tumbles backward.

 

Just another reminder by the same author Moses.

 

Isaiah 27:1 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

Isaiah 27

Deliverance of Israel

1 In that day,

 

the LORD will punish with his sword—

his fierce, great and powerful sword—

Leviathan the gliding serpent,

Leviathan the coiling serpent;

he will slay the monster of the sea.

 

Through out much of the bible, the serpent is a name associated with Satan or peoples that generally follow suite with evil.

 

Now you can say that they are all different books and that they cannot be used together, but my friend, there is a reason why they are all put in the bible and are called the bible, and that reason is because they are all inspired by God, and they all go together, telling the same story. No other book in history can compete! We can go deeper with this issue later.

 

I hopefully will have time to get to a few more shortly

 

God bless

 

PS Nice to have you aboard end3, though it sounds as though you have been here a while. I have yet to check out your profile.

[the stranger]

I am going to try one more before I take my rest.

 

First off, do you realize that Muslim apologists equally point to Koran passages as examples of "scientific accuracy" in the Koran before the details were known by science? And does that validate the Koran?

 

Second, how many creation myths don't have a "beginning" of sorts? Are all those other creation myths scientifically accurate because of having beginnings?

 

An interesting comparison between the two religions can be found here -- My link

 

# The sources of the Koran - Muhammad was illiterate. He depended on oral information from Christians and especially from Jews. The corruption of oral transmission explains the inaccuracies of the stories. Historical errors include: Mary being the sister of Aaron(S. 3:31ff), Haman being Pharaoh's minister (S.28:38), and the conflation of Gideon and Saul (S. 2:250). There are contradictory attitudes toward non-Muslims. S. 2:189 says to fight against unbelievers and Suratut-Taubah says to make war on those who disagree, but S. 2:579 says there is no compulsion in religion and S. 24:45 says to dispute only kindly with Jews and Christians.

# If we strip away the commentary, the Koran is inexplicable. Muslim theologians explain the contradictions by trying to put ayat (verses) in a historical context and by appealing to the doctrine of abrogated and abrogating verses. Without the commentary the Koran is completely garbled and meaningless.

 

My link

 

Allot of info on this one, but some good stuff.

 

My real point? No other books can be compared with the bible or anywhere close to it's standards.

 

For your second question, can you show me some myths that do not have a beginning? My post was just relaying the account of the bible and of it's science already told clearly. Do you know of any other books with the history of the bible that can even come clo9se to touching these truths?

 

Your first reference there is Job 9:8, but let's look at the two verses right before it:

 

Job 9

[6] He shakes the earth from its place

and makes its pillars tremble.

[7] He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;

he seals off the light of the stars.

 

 

Is the earth mounted on pillars? Does the sun cease to shine when we can't see it? Of course not! So much for the bible being "scientific," huh?

 

Oh, and before you come back with the typical response that this was metaphorical, allow me to point out that it's completely absurd to pick and choose what you want to be literal (motivated by the assumption that it fits with science) and what you want to be metaphorical (motivated by the realization that it's nonsensical to be taken literally). The exact same thing can be done with any text, and thus renders the bible no more special than any other book.

 

Well, lets look at it this way. You see it incorrect because you are placing it with known science as we know it, and as we have seen the pictures of. Now place yourself describing the same science but with limitations on your visual concept, and only a partial grasp on the greatness of Gods creation. You have no telescope or satellite to understand what you are explaining, and so you can only do so by ways in which you can relate to others when describing these sorts of things.

 

The revelations of modern science can be found in the bible like no other book in history, but it has to be understood in the understanding of what one could describe or see at that time, with out all of the modern science and it's machinery.

 

The heavens, earth and light have always been easily observable. Do you really think that that proves anything?

 

visible? Yes. but understood or explained in a way that would later be proven? No.

 

I like your questions, Cits. I will get back with you ASAP on more of those. I see you got a few good ones.

 

 

 

PS end3, I see you have over 3,000 post here. I guess i will have a while to catch up with ya. LOL

[★ Citsonga ★]

Let me start with question one. Remember when Adam and Eve sinned, it was far from just the snake that was cursed. Us, of course, along with the earth, animals of all kinds, forever now seeing decay and death, and animals now eating each other than just herbs. Was this fair?

 

Of course not. It's never fair to curse someone for someone else's crime. How would you like to be cursed for what Hitler did? Would that not be completely stupid?

 

First, whether we like it or not, we are all effected by the decisions of others. Fathers are effected by the choices of their sons, and mothers of their daughters, and neighbors by their neighbors. Sons by their fathers, strangers by other strangers, and employees by bosses. You get the point. It is endless. Every decision we make effects others lives, whether we like it or not, and there is no getting around that fact.

 

What you're describing here are consequences, but the bible is talking about curses. Those are two different things, my friend.

 

Now about the snake, we should take notice that just as the ground was created without a conscience, the animals were also. We humans were the only created after the image of God. Did the snake know he was cursed? Did the ground know it was cursed? It is just us humans that knows about the effects of the curse, not the other aspects of Gods creation. All created in regards to the earth was created for us humans. This cannot be denied when we look up on creation. So did the effects of sin change the nature of the snake? Yes. Did the snake understand that he was cursed, or even realize that he use to be able to stand straight? I hardly think so. So again, it is about the human race and our relationship with our Father.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not the snake would have understood what happened, it would have still been cursing it for something it didn't do.

 

It is also good to remember that the snake from that day onward would always remind us (among other things) the effects of sin. As well as the future of things to be regarding Satan.

 

If you believe mythology, I suppose, but not those of us who don't.

 

Now about this story being of Satan. First, I know of no other animals that talked at the time. (thus just another reason why I believe, just like in all of the bible stories, there is allot more that we do not know than there is of what we know.)

 

Yet Genesis 3 says that serpent was more crafty than the other animals and spoke. The serpent.

 

Ezekiel 28:13 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

 

13 You were in Eden,

the garden of God;

every precious stone adorned you:

carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,

topaz, onyx and jasper,

lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.

Your settings and mountings were made of gold;

on the day you were created they were prepared.

 

So first, was Satan or was he not in the garden?

 

Look at the preceding verses:

 

Ezekiel 28

[11] The word of the LORD came to me:

[12] "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the

king of Tyre

and say to

him

: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

"'You were the seal of perfection,

full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

 

Ah, the text is talking about the King of Tyre! Once again, NO mention of satan! It's interesting how you christians are constantly taking things out of context.

 

2 Corinthians 11:3 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

 

I already pointed out in a previous post that this only says that the serpent was cunning and deceptive, it says nothing about it being satan. (But even if it did, it wouldn't change the fact that Genesis 3 says no such thing.)

 

Revelation 12:9 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

 

Now who leads the whole world astray and when did this happen, if not in the garden, as the bible states clearly? And why was he called the ancient serpent?

 

By this time many had come to regard the serpent in the garden as satan. That doesn't change the fact that Genesis 3 says no such thing.

 

Genesis 49:17 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

 

17 Dan will be a snake by the roadside,

a viper along the path,

that bites the horse’s heels

so that its rider tumbles backward.

 

Just another reminder by the same author Moses.

 

Stranger, Dan was a tribe of Israel! The text simply symbolizes Dan as a snake, it says nothing about satan. Man, you're really grasping at straws, aren't you?

 

 

I have to get to work, so the rest will have to wait until later. Suffice it to say that you're really, really trying hard to make something work that clearly doesn't.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Now you can say that they are all different books and that they cannot be used together, but my friend, there is a reason why they are all put in the bible and are called the bible, and that reason is because they are all inspired by God, and they all go together, telling the same story. No other book in history can compete! We can go deeper with this issue later.

 

I used to hold to the same assumption. The problem, though, is that it is just that: an assumption.

 

Christians assume that the bible is inspired by god, that it's perfect and consistent. In turn, they pick and choose what to take literally and what to take figuratively, based on that assumption. They pick and choose what parts they agree with and then reinterpret other parts to try to make them fit, based on the assumption. Then they claim that they've substantiated their assumption. Do you not see the circular reasoning here?

 

The fact is that the reason the books of the bible were put together is because they were chosen to be canonized by the Council of Nicea in the 300s! They didn't exactly come down from the big guy in the sky on a platter, ya know.

 

The bible is riddled with inconsistencies and problems, my friend. It is not the word of god.

 

Here's a challenge for you: Go through the NT, and every time you see a claim of fulfilled prophecy, look up the original OT text and read it in context to see what it was really about. (This is what made me realize that christianity is baloney.)

 

Gotta get back to work....

[Guest end3]

What does the triple point of water have to do with the trinity other than the number 3?

 

Jhn 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as [fn] the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

Jhn 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

 

Can you toss a stick into a water fountain and bulk purify enough water to feed thousands of people? I thought the whole point of that story was that it was a miracle, not the invention of reverse osmosis.

 

Do you not find it remotely interesting that we "purify" the air with trees, cellulose for water, and the Tree for souls?

 

As for epigenetics ... does the Bible teaching that I am to pay for some sin, that, say, my Grandfather committed 100 years ago equate to a treatise on gene expression alterations?

 

No, to my understanding, if you were adversely effected by some behavior, then your offspring's progeny might have genetic changes due to your behavior. .....that might last a few generations (like it mentions in the Bible).

 

Come on, seriously. You're being silly.

 

I would wager that scientific discoveries have been credited to the Bible.....not having researched it.

[DesertBob]

What does the triple point of water have to do with the trinity other than the number 3?

 

Jhn 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as [fn] the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

Jhn 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

That does not at all answer the question.

 

Yes, the scripture sometimes uses water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a member of the trinity. Water has a triple point. These are three facts that have only a tangential connection -- like saying that airplanes are sometimes called aircraft and I consider myself a craftsman, and airplanes carry men, and then concluding from this that I can fly.

Can you toss a stick into a water fountain and bulk purify enough water to feed thousands of people? I thought the whole point of that story was that it was a miracle, not the invention of reverse osmosis.

 

Do you not find it remotely interesting that we "purify" the air with trees, cellulose for water, and the Tree for souls?

It would interest me if I were, say, writing a poem about it, I guess, but again, a reported miracle in the desert 3,000 years ago involving a stick does not show that Moses used a cellulose filter to purify water or that the Bible demonstrates an awareness of water purification methods either equivalent to or even prototypical of a modern scientific understanding of same.

... to my understanding, if you were adversely effected by some behavior, then your offspring's progeny might have genetic changes due to your behavior. .....that might last a few generations (like it mentions in the Bible).

What the Bible is claiming is that God will punish sin, not just in the actual sinner, but in his descendants for up to seven generations. In context, it strongly suggests that this is active, directed punishment, but let us suppose it is just "natural consequences" and that epigenetics is at least in part the mechanism of those consequences. If it's an effective mechanism then we would expect to see that acts and lifestyles that are, according to scripture, morally reprehensible will reliably result in unpleasant epigenetic consequences (sickness, death) and that morally commendable acts and lifestyles reliably result in pleasant epigenetic consequences (health, longevity). My guess is that this is not the case. Note that coming up with a couple of examples that fit my criteria is not what I'm talking about, it would have to be pretty much the rule. Otherwise the supposition that epigenetics is the mechanism of God's wrath is not supportable.

I would wager that scientific discoveries have been credited to the Bible.....not having researched it.

I know of at least one scientific discovery, the inspiration for which involved a falling apple. Yet we do not develop theologies around apples or worship them.

[Guest end3]

That does not at all answer the question.

 

Goes to the Father, Son and HS can exist independently and also as One

 

It would interest me if I were, say, writing a poem about it, I guess, but again, a reported miracle in the desert 3,000 years ago involving a stick does not show that Moses used a cellulose filter to purify water or that the Bible demonstrates an awareness of water purification methods either equivalent to or even prototypical of a modern scientific understanding of same.

 

I just find it interesting that it was specifically a stick.

 

What the Bible is claiming is that God will punish sin, not just in the actual sinner, but in his descendants for up to seven generations. In context, it strongly suggests that this is active, directed punishment but let us suppose it is just "natural consequences" and that epigenetics is at least in part the mechanism of those consequences. If it's an effective mechanism then we would expect to see that acts and lifestyles that are, according to scripture, morally reprehensible will reliably result in unpleasant epigenetic consequences (sickness, death) and that morally commendable acts and lifestyles reliably result in pleasant epigenetic consequences (health, longevity). My guess is that this is not the case. Note that coming up with a couple of examples that fit my criteria is not what I'm talking about, it would have to be pretty much the rule. Otherwise the supposition that epigenetics is the mechanism of God's wrath is not supportable.

 

Can anyone truly understand the OT Law?

 

I know of at least one scientific discovery, the inspiration for which involved a falling apple. Yet we do not develop theologies around apples or worship them.

 

The aforementioned are unique to my reading. I took a quick look and there are more than just my observations. LOL....develop "theologies" around apples. Good one Mr. Bob.