202 replies to this topic

[Matthias]

you only "know" that homosexuality is wrong because you think that biblical literalism is the correct (and only) way to interpret the scriptures. a gay man may very well "not know" that homosexuality is wrong because he doesn't "know" that mosaic cosmogonies are "correct."

the dynamic you're describing here is cripplingly simplistic and ignores the complexity of interpretive analysis and its epistemological effects. it also happens to be the reason establishment christianity is dying.

Jesus said if the people would have believed Moses, they would have believed Him, because Moses wrote about Him. That was a clear indication that the things Moses wrote about, meaning the first five books attributed to Moses, literally happened. Now those who are saying it shouldn't be interpreted literally, are the same ones who have a hard time understanding why Jesus came. That is the reason why the establishment of Christianity is dying. Of course, for over a thousand years the teachings of Christ have been muddled by man's traditions. It's only in this day where His teachings are getting back to where it was in the time He taught them. That is why literalism have come back strong during the mid 20th century.

[PhillyB]

Jesus said if the people would have believed Moses, they would have believed Him, because Moses wrote about Him. That was a clear indication that the things Moses wrote about, meaning the first five books attributed to Moses, literally happened. Now those who are saying it shouldn't be interpreted literally, are the same ones who have a hard time understanding why Jesus came. That is the reason why the establishment of Christianity is dying. Of course, for over a thousand years the teachings of Christ have been muddled by man's traditions. It's only in this day where His teachings are getting back to where it was in the time He taught them. That is why literalism have come back strong during the mid 20th century.

so wait are you arguing for full biblical literalism and the return of ruling legalities determined by mosaic cosmogonies? and if so, how do you intend to factor man's interpretation of what literal means?

[PhillyB]

ps you ignored all my actual questions and i'm 90% sure you don't know what mosaic cosmogony is

[Matthias]

so wait are you arguing for full biblical literalism and the return of ruling legalities determined by mosaic cosmogonies? and if so, how do you intend to factor man's interpretation of what literal means?

This comes down to the Biblical version of Occam's Razor. If God is true and the Bible is His account, it's much more simple to take Genesis at face value. Saying all of it is nothing but poetry or anything else, kills all credit the Bible has to say on anything.

What do you mean when you say a return to the legalities of the mosaic cosmogonies? (And no I don't know what that phrase "mosaic cosmogonies" mean) Also, I've answered your questions.

[Porn Shop Clerk]

so how are you on the internet without hands and eyes?

So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell. Matthew 5:29

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body go into hell." Matthew 5:30

You're just another hypocrite that picks and chooses what passages to follow. The same way you probably eat pork, shellfish, and other unclean foods.

[mav1234]

This comes down to the Biblical version of Occam's Razor. If God is true and the Bible is His account, it's much more simple to take Genesis at face value. Saying all of it is nothing but poetry or anything else, kills all credit the Bible has to say on anything.

oh?

and here I thought people derived important life lessons and meaning from literature all the time...

something doesn't need to be the literal word of God to have interesting and insightful lessons on the human condition, imo.

[Matthias]

so how are you on the internet without hands and eyes?





You're just another hypocrite that picks and chooses what passages to follow. The same way you probably eat pork, shellfish, and other unclean foods.

Let me ask you a question. Peter is pretty much famous for denying he knew Jesus three times. Few people even know that the account says he cussed the people out as he was denying Jesus. (Either that, or he swore in God's name he never knew Jesus) My question is, why didn't Jesus tell Peter to cut out his tounge? Surely Peter's tounge caused him to sin.

oh?

and here I thought people derived important life lessons and meaning from literature all the time...

something doesn't need to be the literal word of God to have interesting and insightful lessons on the human condition, imo.

When we read in our school books about the American Revolution against Britian, do we take that as allegory? A story showing us how one can obtain freedom? No, even though there are lessons that could be derived from it, it was an actual event. It's recorded as such. It's the same with Genesis, it's an account of the beginning of time. It's written as such.

Yet besides all that, if Genesis didn't happen, then you can throw everything out. (You still going to have something literal about it. That if it is allegory or poetry, you can literally throw the Bible out) Realize that if God is behind the Bible, He is demanding something from us. He wants us to know something. Something that can't be obtained on our own. You think allegorical stories and poetry are going to get His point accross? People all over the world have written poetry and fictional stories, and I'm living pretty good without having read any of them. The Bible would not matter just as much to my life as those stories I've never read, if all the Bible is just allegory.

No, the Bible contains our history if it's true. It explains why I can't see God, and scientifically speaking there are many things we can't see. It explains why the world is so messed up, even though a God who have no evil in Him created it. Christians who only see Genesis as allegory, have a hard time explaining why Jesus came, and His role. They have a hard time explaining why God can be angry at anything going on in this world.

[Stannis]

When we read in our school books about the American Revolution against Britian, do we take that as allegory? A story showing us how one can obtain freedom? No, even though there are lessons that could be derived from it, it was an actual event. It's recorded as such. It's the same with Genesis, it's an account of the beginning of time. It's written as such.

Those are VERY different. There is NO evidence that the garden of eden or the order of creation (actually, evidence to the contrary exists...) are accurate. We don't take the American Revolution as allegory because there is evidence that it happened. It's recorded as it happened based on the evidence. The account in Genesis IS an account of the beginning of time. Unfortunately for you and your argument, it's demonstrably false. It's like saying potato is an answer for what 2 + 2 equals. It's AN answer, it's just the wrong one.

I don't see what you're trying to get at here, if you're not saying that Genesis and American history are equal in terms of support of the events included in each (and if so, you are deluded).

Yet besides all that, if Genesis didn't happen, then you can throw everything out. (You still going to have something literal about it. That if it is allegory or poetry, you can literally throw the Bible out) Realize that if God is behind the Bible, He is demanding something from us. He wants us to know something. Something that can't be obtained on our own. You think allegorical stories and poetry are going to get His point accross? People all over the world have written poetry and fictional stories, and I'm living pretty good without having read any of them. The Bible would not matter just as much to my life as those stories I've never read, if all the Bible is just allegory.

Exactly. I'll even do you one better. If the VERY FIRST LINE in the bible isn't taken on faith and believed, the bible can be thrown out. Since it makes a claim and there is no support for that claim ("In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth...). If the Christian god is behind the bible...then why the hell were books taken out during the enormous editing that took place in the early years of Christianity? Wouldn't your god say, "hey, this is my word, don't alter it"?

There is precisely 0 evidence that the things in the bible are anything but allegory. Actually, there is evidence that it IS allegory (talking snakes, 600 year old man building a boat by himself, all the animals, including predators, getting onto this boat willingly and not eating each other for over a month, a virgin giving birth, which is literally impossible, etc.)

No, the Bible contains our history if it's true. It explains why I can't see God, and scientifically speaking there are many things we can't see. It explains why the world is so messed up, even though a God who have no evil in Him created it. Christians who only see Genesis as allegory, have a hard time explaining why Jesus came, and His role. They have a hard time explaining why God can be angry at anything going on in this world.

You're right, IF it's true, the bible contains early history. Unfortunately, it's not true. It's just not. At the very least, there is no reason to say it is. You can believe it, but it doesn't make it so. And you're right, there are many things the human eye cannot see. However, ALL things that are KNOWN to exist CAN manifest or be manifested. Air manifests in a balloon. We can't physically see air, but we can see the effects and KNOW what is going into the balloon that causes it to blow up (air). Your assertion that your god has no evil is defeated by your own holy book. In the bible, god says that he creates good AND evil. You cannot create evil unless you are capable of evil. Therefore, your god has evil in him.


What it all comes down to is this: you have to provide SOME shred of evidence. Prove your god exists, then we can talk about whether or not that god influenced the Christian bible.

[Matthias]

Those are VERY different. There is NO evidence that the garden of eden or the order of creation (actually, evidence to the contrary exists...) are accurate. We don't take the American Revolution as allegory because there is evidence that it happened. It's recorded as it happened based on the evidence. The account in Genesis IS an account of the beginning of time. Unfortunately for you and your argument, it's demonstrably false. It's like saying potato is an answer for what 2 + 2 equals. It's AN answer, it's just the wrong one.

I don't see what you're trying to get at here, if you're not saying that Genesis and American history are equal in terms of support of the events included in each (and if so, you are deluded).

I used the American Revolution as an example of something that is meant to be taken as literal history. Even if there was no evidence of the war, it was still written in a way that is meant to be taken as "it happened".

Exactly. I'll even do you one better. If the VERY FIRST LINE in the bible isn't taken on faith and believed, the bible can be thrown out. Since it makes a claim and there is no support for that claim ("In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth...). If the Christian god is behind the bible...then why the hell were books taken out during the enormous editing that took place in the early years of Christianity? Wouldn't your god say, "hey, this is my word, don't alter it"?

Wait a minute, for the longest all you had was a bunch of writings from the prophets and others, and overall it was known as the Scriptures. What became known as the Bible is simply a collection of many of those Scriptures. God can maintain His word by preservation and by addition. Of course, no one will add to the canonical Bible, but God can still inspire people to write on His truth.

There is precisely 0 evidence that the things in the bible are anything but allegory. Actually, there is evidence that it IS allegory (talking snakes, 600 year old man building a boat by himself, all the animals, including predators, getting onto this boat willingly and not eating each other for over a month, a virgin giving birth, which is literally impossible, etc.)

Talking snakes and a 600 year old man doesn't make the account allegory. By the way, we know there are bird species that can speak words they hear (even remember phrases and mimic head motions with those phrases). Yet all in all, Genesis was written as a historical account. That is the bottom line. If it is true or not is a different story. Even if it's not true, it's still not written as an allegory.

You're right, IF it's true, the bible contains early history. Unfortunately, it's not true. It's just not. At the very least, there is no reason to say it is. You can believe it, but it doesn't make it so. And you're right, there are many things the human eye cannot see. However, ALL things that are KNOWN to exist CAN manifest or be manifested. Air manifests in a balloon. We can't physically see air, but we can see the effects and KNOW what is going into the balloon that causes it to blow up (air). Your assertion that your god has no evil is defeated by your own holy book. In the bible, god says that he creates good AND evil. You cannot create evil unless you are capable of evil. Therefore, your god has evil in him.

If God exists, He's an actual person. We aren't talking about air, which have a constant affect that can be tested, which we know of. If we are to test God's existence, we must test His account. Hear me when I say, Genesis has never truly been tested. No true hypothesis have ever come about concerning Genesis, and the reason for that is because our scientific knowledge wasn't good enough to test it out. Yet there are things now coming to light, which will allow us to fully test out Genesis. So that is in the work, I do have falsifiability concerning the Genesis account. I do have things that I want to specifically test out, predictions.

[Matthias]

Your assertion that your god has no evil is defeated by your own holy book. In the bible, god says that he creates good AND evil. You cannot create evil unless you are capable of evil. Therefore, your god has evil in him.

No where in the Bible does it say God created evil. It does say He create calamity. There's a difference. Remember the flood judgment? That was pretty disastrous wouldn't you say. Yet, God didn't create the evil men He judged with the flood. The judgements of Egypt for not letting the people of Israel go was severe. So that is what the verse you are referring to is saying. God creates calamity for those who are evil.

[Stannis]

I used the American Revolution as an example of something that is meant to be taken as literal history. Even if there was no evidence of the war, it was still written in a way that is meant to be taken as "it happened".

It's not that it's MEANT to be taken that way. It's what it is. It's "hey, this is what happened over the last few hundred years". If somebody doesn't take it as literal fact (you know...people like Holocaust deniers) then they are simply stupid. Sure, as a religion, everything in the bible is supposed to be "it happened". I for one support the idea of religious people taking their holy text literally. But do it all the way, don't cherry pick (please, come stone my heathen ass to death). All that aside, it doesn't matter HOW it's written. What matters is validity.

Wait a minute, for the longest all you had was a bunch of writings from the prophets and others, and overall it was known as the Scriptures. What became known as the Bible is simply a collection of many of those Scriptures. God can maintain His word by preservation and by addition. Of course, no one will add to the canonical Bible, but God can still inspire people to write on His truth.

I understand how the bible was compiled. I am saying that books were removed and added. Sure, god can add books. But a perfect, all-knowing being doesn't change his mind. So, what the hell is up with you believing a book that had things taken out of it, if the bible is the 100% truth and inspired word of god?

Talking snakes and a 600 year old man doesn't make the account allegory. By the way, we know there are bird species that can speak words they hear (even remember phrases and mimic head motions with those phrases). Yet all in all, Genesis was written as a historical account. That is the bottom line. If it is true or not is a different story. Even if it's not true, it's still not written as an allegory.

I understand that those alone don't make it an allegory; however, if I told a completely objective person about those things and said "would you believe this book to be factual or allegorical?", they would most likely say allegorical, and I have no problem claiming that. Birds mimicking =/= snakes talking. That's like saying humans drive cars, so clearly it is believable that squirrels can as well. Genesis is written to be TAKEN as a historical account. Unfortunately, the SECOND it goes into the order of creation of the things on earth, it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Science disagrees with the bible there. Sorry. Those are the facts, and facts help us differentiate truth from fairy tales. Sure, it not being true doesn't necessarily make the entire bible allegorical, but it does make it all a work of fiction. That is also fact.

If God exists, He's an actual person. We aren't talking about air, which have a constant affect that can be tested which we know of. If we are to test God's existence, we must test His account. Hear me when I say, Genesis have never truly been tested. No true hypothesis have ever come about concerning Genesis, and the reason for that is because our scientific knowledge wasn't good enough to test it out. Yet there are things now coming to light, which will allow us to fully test out Genesis. So that is in the work, I do have falsifiability concerning the Genesis account. I do have things that I want to specifically test out, predictions.

My point was that anything that effects reality (god) must exist in reality. If this god exists and effects earth in various ways, there would be a way of finding evidence. It has been 2000 years since this myth first started. Not a shred of evidence. Plenty of claims, no evidence. There is evidence that Cesar existed. No evidence that a god does. We have writings signed by Plato. No writings signed by Jesus. I don't even know what you mean by "test his account". You mean the bible? Again, look at Genesis. Now, go open a science book and read about the order of events in creating our galaxy and planet earth as we know it. It literally slaps Genesis in the face. Genesis is flat out wrong. There is no hypothesis because you can't test things when you have NOTHING to work with.

Until such time that evidence exists for a god or the validity of the bible, why believe in either as truth? That is the height of ignorance.

[Stannis]

No where in the Bible does it say God created evil. It does say He create calamity. There's a difference. Remember the flood judgment? That was pretty disastrous wouldn't you say. Yet, God didn't create the evil men He judged with the flood. The judgements of Egypt for not letting the people of Israel go was severe. So that is what the verse you are referring to is saying. God creates calamity for those who are evil.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7, KJV

The flood murdered every innocent person as well...for the "crimes" of a few (or even most). So, all the innocent, including babies, were killed. Yeah, that's not pure evil. Judgement of Egypt for not letting the people of Israel go? You mean AFTER god hardened Pharaoh's heart? Yeah, that's reasonable. Create a situation for a person, and then punish that person for the thing you created.


It's like telling your child "go steal from that store" and when they do it, you beat the poo out of them.

[Matthias]

It's not that it's MEANT to be taken that way. It's what it is. It's "hey, this is what happened over the last few hundred years". If somebody doesn't take it as literal fact (you know...people like Holocaust deniers) then they are simply stupid. Sure, as a religion, everything in the bible is supposed to be "it happened". I for one support the idea of religious people taking their holy text literally. But do it all the way, don't cherry pick (please, come stone my heathen ass to death). All that aside, it doesn't matter HOW it's written. What matters is validity.

Yeah, and you probably see where I'm coming from with this. Yet to your mention of cherry picking, how many people were stone to death in the Bible, before the Ten Commandments came? In fact, before man fell, where in the book of Genesis was Adam's slave? Where did man rule over the woman before man fell? How many died before man fell? So if you ask me why I don't do all those things, it's because Jesus came to restore us to how God originally created us. There is no commandment of stoning heathens in the beginning.

I understand how the bible was compiled. I am saying that books were removed and added. Sure, god can add books. But a perfect, all-knowing being doesn't change his mind. So, what the hell is up with you believing a book that had things taken out of it, if the bible is the 100% truth and inspired word of god?

Adding doesn't mean altering. How many new facts can we find out about this universe, that would change the universe as a whole? God's love is much more vast than this universe. You can find out something new everyday for the rest of eternity, and that new fact doesn't change the meaning of God's love. The whole Bible has one central theme, and it's about Jesus.

I understand that those alone don't make it an allegory; however, if I told a completely objective person about those things and said "would you believe this book to be factual or allegorical?", they would most likely say allegorical, and I have no problem claiming that. Birds mimicking =/= snakes talking. That's like saying humans drive cars, so clearly it is believable that squirrels can as well. Genesis is written to be TAKEN as a historical account. Unfortunately, the SECOND it goes into the order of creation of the things on earth, it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Science disagrees with the bible there. Sorry. Those are the facts, and facts help us differentiate truth from fairy tales. Sure, it not being true doesn't necessarily make the entire bible allegorical, but it does make it all a work of fiction. That is also fact.

It's too early to say science disagrees with Genesis. I've mentioned in this topic already that Genesis is talking on the very beginning of time. Science is based on our observation of today. Things that were once observable, are no longer observable. So if Genesis mentions many things that are no longer observable, at face value science will reject many things that are written in it. Look at Big Bang theory. We don't have physical evidence for cosmic inflation, but we believe it happened. There are a few things surrounding Big Bang theory, that we have no evidence for. We don't even know the universe began as a single point, that suddenly expanded. We only say it happened from our observation of the universe expanding. That because we see it expanding, all we got to do is run that tape in reverse, and essentially everything collapses into a single point of energy. Yet my question is, how do we know the tape rolls back that far?

This is the limit of science, and why it doesn't prove Genesis didn't happen. Not yet. (as I said I have falsefiability concerning the Genesis account)

Until such time that evidence exists for a god or the validity of the bible, why believe in either as truth? That is the height of ignorance.

That's an excellent question. It would be ignorance to just believe something without evidence. This have been pretty much most of the history of mankind when it comes to all the religions in the world. That's how superstition got started. However, I have reason to believe the Bible is true.

Firstly, you can see from the very beginning, the Bible has Jesus written all over it. All these different authors over many years, somehow maintained the central theme of Jesus redeeming mankind. Not just a man, but God Himself coming down to restore man. Also when you hear the Bible is inspired by God, it's actually the original language that is inspired by God. You can vividly see within the Hebrew and Greek words, the central theme of Christ. All of this was maintained by different men over a thousand+ year period of writings.

Secondly, Israel's existence. How they came back into their land after almost 2,000 years of exile. Say what you want about how they came back in, yet we know for certain God played a role in their preservation if only by the Bible itself. (American Christians helping Israel be established in 1948 or what have you) Not too mention when it comes to science and scientific study, Israel is one of the top nations in the world in that field. They rule in Nobel Peace prizes mostly because of their scientific achievement. I plan to go to Israel one day to do some scientific work there. Ultimately, when it comes to Israel, God said He would bring them back into the land, and they are back in the land. I'm sure many gods have promised their people things, and they have their writings just like the Bible is present. Yet those gods didn't follow through. The God of the Bible has followed through on His promise, or at least what is written happened just as it said.

Finally, we know Jesus existed. We know He preached a message. I haven't done research on this subject, but the difficulty of Jesus message continuing (considering He was no king or prophet, no one special in the eyes the world) on after His death, was extremely high. That if Jesus wasn't who He said He was, there's no way in the world His message would have spread pass Jerusalem much less foreign countries. Some would say once Constatine made Christianity an official religion, Christianity was bound to spread, ie. by force. Yet Christianity was spreading pretty good before that time. Judaism didn't spread, yet Christianity did? (Prior to Constatine) That is an evidence within itself that Jesus is who He is. I plan to do a study concerning the difficulty of the spread of Christianity, and how the message wouldn't have made it out of Jerusalem for no other reason than it being true.

[Matthias]

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7, KJV

The flood murdered every innocent person as well...for the "crimes" of a few (or even most). So, all the innocent, including babies, were killed. Yeah, that's not pure evil. Judgement of Egypt for not letting the people of Israel go? You mean AFTER god hardened Pharaoh's heart? Yeah, that's reasonable. Create a situation for a person, and then punish that person for the thing you created.


It's like telling your child "go steal from that store" and when they do it, you beat the poo out of them.

The Hebrew doesn't say "and create evil". It says calamity. There is a difference. Back during the days of Noah, everyone was evil. It was to the point where Noah was the only one who still trusted God. Literally. You mentioned babies during the time of the flood, yet if you remember, man's line was being tainted by fallen angels who manifested themselves and had relations with women. So many of these babies were half human. All in all, everyone was corrupt during that time, and no one was listening to God except Noah. Noah preached to them about the coming flood, as the NT lets us know that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. Yet no one believed Noah obviously. So the people didn't find God's grace, but His judgment. (His calamity)

No, God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart until Pharaoh essentially harden his own heart by not letting the people go. God told Moses that Pharaoh would not let the people go, and as a result, He would hardened Pharaoh's heart. This was done so the Pharaoh would see God's power, and it would humble him as a result.

[PhillyB]

occam's razor would dismiss literal interpretation of genesis, not support it. having to explain away virtual mountains of evidence that suggests the world is much older is much more complex a task than simply applying a literary framework to understanding of the genesis texts.