PDA

View Full Version : Name 10 things the Bible doesn't mention


IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:35 PM
1.Dinosaurs - Good or Bad? :lol:

2.Is God only capable of doing good? If so, wouldn't that make him incapable of something (bad), thus contradicting his omnipotence?

3.If God is infallible, why in Genesis 6 did God choose to destroy his creation, a creation by a creator that was incapable of making mistake.

4.Incest and incestuous marriage - weren't Adam and Eve brother and sister?

5.Homophobia and other hidden hatreds

6.Hermaphrodites

7.The morality or immorality of society's gender conditioning

8.White man's burden

9.Separation of Church and State - should the government function outside the bounds of religion? Is it even possible? (The Bible does mention government's like Caesar's)

10.When is the exact first moment of life? (the same question both sides of the abortion debate seek to answer)

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 12:24 AM
1- The usual answer is that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because there is no need to.

2- Assuming there is an omnipotent God, He would be capable of doing something bad, but His good nature means He wouldn't do it. Just because you're not doing something doesn't mean you're not capable of doing it.

3- He chose to destroy His creation because He wasn't happy with it. It isn't a God mistake because His creature have free will, and are to blame.

I'll stop there. Check out a Christian apologetics website, they have an answer for everything (or rather, they think they have an answer for everything).

The Bible is not an encyclopedia, by the way. ;)

joyforall
Oct 20th, 2007, 12:38 AM
4. adam and eve weren't brother and sister... the bible never said that.. as for incest, i was told that God permits incest happens, but after someone's rape her sister (i forgot the verse, it's in old testament.), God forbids incest to be happening..

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 01:32 AM
4. adam and eve weren't brother and sister... the bible never said that.. as for incest, i was told that God permits incest happens, but after someone's rape her sister (i forgot the verse, it's in old testament.), God forbids incest to be happening..
If God created Adam and Eve, then they were siblings and God was the father (and mother).

Sally Struthers
Oct 20th, 2007, 01:34 AM
wasn't eve like technically sort of a clone of Adam minus a Y chromosome? :lol:

drake3781
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:19 AM
If God created Adam and Eve, then they were siblings and God was the father (and mother).

I really don't think in that story Adam and Eve are intended to brother and sister.

I can't tell if you are serious or being a smartass.

Willam
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:26 AM
1. This is an stupid thread

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:31 AM
The thing I don't understand is how Christians who believe in evolution explain Adam and Eve. It's clear given evolution that there was never 2 humans, so...? They can dismiss Genesis as a myth, but if Genesis is a myth, then the root of Christianity is a lie. I mean, take away the original sin and the Fall, and Christianity makes no sense.

Fingon
Oct 20th, 2007, 02:54 AM
2- Assuming there is an omnipotent God, He would be capable of doing something bad, but His good nature means He wouldn't do it. Just because you're not doing something doesn't mean you're not capable of doing it.



that doesn't make sense, if he is omnipotent, then he defines good and bad, nobody sets rules for him, he sets rules for everyone, therefore, he can't do anything bad.

If he is omnipotent, why would he care anyway?

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:02 AM
If God is naturally good, then why do Christians worship him for doing what he naturally does? Better yet, if he can only do good, why worship him for doing the only thing he can do?

Another one, if Jesus could cure a blind man, why not just cure blindness?

mckyle.
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:05 AM
It's so sad that Christians actually believe in the Bible. I actually wonder if they don't even believe most of that bullshit, and if they just use it as their reason to hate gays.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:07 AM
that doesn't make sense, if he is omnipotent, then he defines good and bad, nobody sets rules for him, he sets rules for everyone, therefore, he can't do anything bad.

If he is omnipotent, why would he care anyway?

What doesn't make sense? It's precisely because he sets rules that he can't do anything bad, it's not because he doesn't have the power to.

Omnipotent is being able to do what is logically possible. Once God sets rule, logically he has to follow them. It's not a limitation of his omnipotence. If God plays Scrabble and follow the rules, he won't be able to place a word where he wants to, even if he has the power to.

GoDominique
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:13 AM
1. TV.
2. WTAWorld.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:26 AM
If God is naturally good, then why do Christians worship him for doing what he naturally does? Better yet, if he can only do good, why worship him for doing the only thing he can do?

Another one, if Jesus could cure a blind man, why not just cure blindness?

Why doesn't God cure aids, cancer, leukemia, blindness? Why doesn't he send food to African kids? Why didn't he do anything to stop Hitler, Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami, 9-11?

I can think of a very simple answer to all those questions.

Fingon
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:33 AM
What doesn't make sense? It's precisely because he sets rules that he can't do anything bad, it's not because he doesn't have the power to.

Omnipotent is being able to do what is logically possible. Once God sets rule, logically he has to follow them. It's not a limitation of his omnipotence. If God plays Scrabble and follow the rules, he won't be able to place a word where he wants to, even if he has the power to.

Omnipotent is being able to do anything, not just what is logically possible, an omnipotent being defines what is logically possible. He won't follow rules. He defines good and bad, by definition everything he does is good, because he is the escense of good.

the omnipotent label is one of the greatest contradictions in religion, it really puts it in deep waters and they always try to avoid the issue because they can't make sense of what they say assuming God is omnipotent.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:35 AM
What doesn't make sense? It's precisely because he sets rules that he can't do anything bad, it's not because he doesn't have the power to.
Then he's limited to only doing good, therefore incapable of doing bad. If he is incapable of anything, then he can't be omnipotent. Omnipotence is not a quality that can hibernate like bears. It's something that is a constant. It is everywhere all the time. Also, if he is incapable of doing bad, then it would reason that he is incapable of creating a world where evil or bad are possible. Of course, it doesn't make sense for good to exist without knowing evil. Evil gives good meaning and vise-versa. Also, In Genesis, the Bible says God set the rules in the beginning, yet he destroyed his creation. Whether it was the creation that was bad or God was so disgusted with his creation that he had no choice but to destroy it, he showed that, despite being in control of everything, he had to do bad and could do bad (destroyed them) in order to correct his mistake. His mistake undermines the claim that God is infallible.

HippityHop
Oct 20th, 2007, 03:51 AM
I really don't think in that story Adam and Eve are intended to brother and sister.

I can't tell if you are serious or being a smartass.

You know the answer to this. Were he serious, he would have taken on the Koran. But that would never do.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 04:26 AM
Omnipotent is being able to do anything, not just what is logically possible.

That's certainly not how most Christian theologians define omnipotence. God can't create a triangle with 4 sides; he can't create a mountain so big he can't lift it. Theologians know this since like forever.

The Christian God is said to have maximal power given his other attributes. For example, God is said to be eternal; obviously he can't commit suicide. Those are limitations based on logic, not on God inability to commit suicide.

God also has to follow logic. With our current math axioms, God can't make 2 + 2 equal 5.

JustineTime
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:36 AM
1.Dinosaurs - Good or Bad? :lol:

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I've often thought this might refer to dinosaurs, not necessarily giant men, as most people seem to infer.

2.Is God only capable of doing good? If so, wouldn't that make him incapable of something (bad), thus contradicting his omnipotence?

Ezra 8:22 ...The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him; but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him.

Judge for yourself. "Good" is a rather subjective term, don't you think? Depending upon which side of Ezra's equation one happens to fall, it could go either way, n'est-ce pas? :shrug:

3.If God is infallible, why in Genesis 6 did God choose to destroy his creation, a creation by a creator that was incapable of making mistake.

He changed His mind:

Gen 6:5-6 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

To some God changing His mind might seem to imply that He had erred in His creation of man, but that don't necessarily make it so. God also said He was going to destroy the sinful Israelites when He was with Moses on Mount Sinai, but Moses, in a very intercessory :hehehe: manner, talked Him out of it. Doesn't mean either course of action was necessarily the wrong one to take, does it? Any more than God changing His mind about creating man meant that He was wrong to do so in the first place. :shrug:

4.Incest and incestuous marriage - weren't Adam and Eve brother and sister?

See Lot's daughters. And incest is prohibited in Leviticus.

5.Homophobia and other hidden hatreds

Homophobia is a recently created PC term used to marginalize people like myself who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle from a spiritual point of view, but who couldn't actually care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. By definition, homophobia is a fear, not a hatred. I don't hate homosexuals, that's just typical leftist anti-Christian propaganda. But leftists DO hate Christians, at least those who are sincere. ;)

6.Hermaphrodites

:help: :rolleyes:

7.The morality or immorality of society's gender conditioning

Men and women ARE different. If you can't see that, you're REALLY blind. :tape:

8.White man's burden

You're kidding, right?

9.Separation of Church and State - should the government function outside the bounds of religion? Is it even possible? (The Bible does mention government's like Caesar's)

God's pretty apolitical. As Jesus said:

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Those last couple of verses I threw in gratis. ;) :)

10.When is the exact first moment of life? (the same question both sides of the abortion debate seek to answer)

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

I have to say I have :hehehe:...some preconceived ideas about this. :hehehe: ;)

Donny
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:58 AM
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I've often thought this might refer to dinosaurs, not necessarily giant men, as most people seem to infer.



Ezra 8:22 ...The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him; but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him.

Judge for yourself. "Good" is a rather subjective term, don't you think? Depending upon which side of Ezra's equation one happens to fall, it could go either way, n'est-ce pas? :shrug:



He changed His mind:

Gen 6:5-6 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

To some God changing His mind might seem to imply that He had erred in His creation of man, but that don't necessarily make it so. God also said He was going to destroy the sinful Israelites when He was with Moses on Mount Sinai, but Moses, in a very intercessory :hehehe: manner, talked Him out of it. Doesn't mean either course of action was necessarily the wrong one to take, does it? Any more than God changing His mind about creating man meant that He was wrong to do so in the first place. :shrug:



See Lot's daughters. And incest is prohibited in Leviticus.



Homophobia is a recently created PC term used to marginalize people like myself who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle from a spiritual point of view, but who couldn't actually care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. By definition, homophobia is a fear, not a hatred. I don't hate homosexuals, that's just typical leftist anti-Christian propaganda. But leftists DO hate Christians, at least those who are sincere. ;)



:help: :rolleyes:



Men and women ARE different. If you can't see that, you're REALLY blind. :tape:



You're kidding, right?



God's pretty apolitical. As Jesus said:

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Those last couple of verses I threw in gratis. ;) :)



Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

I have to say I have :hehehe:...some preconceived ideas about this. :hehehe: ;)

You seem to be a pretty religious guy. Which is funny to me, because Jesus, to me, sounds more like a communist than anything else. But hey, different strokes.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 08:12 AM
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

First off, thanks for taking me seriously. I really appreciate that, and I think it's great that you have really thought out your belief system so well. The Bible does say to study in order to show yourself approved and you've definitely done that, it appears.

That quote is a good one. I still wonder why dinosaurs would be relegated to a mere sentence when it's clear that God put those "giants" there before humans on purpose. Ironically, that quote comes from a perspective that has not created those giants ("There were..."), but has instead seen them. The reason I say that is because the author goes into great detail when it comes to the creation of Adam and even Eve, despite their apparent inadequacies for obeying God :rolleyes: That brings to mind another question (rhetorical): Who wrote Genesis? God? Who was around to take a first-hand record of such things back in the beginning other than God, especially in terms of confirming accuracy? I'm too idealistic on that matter, but it still irks me a bit.

Judge for yourself. "Good" is a rather subjective term, don't you think? Depending upon which side of Ezra's equation one happens to fall, it could go either way, n'est-ce pas? :shrug:
God goes on the record there to say that he is capable of evil. Ironic that wrath would be listed under the deadly sins. What a double standard :lol: Yes, it does depend on the purpose, but even if God just used "evil" as a means to an end when he originally destroyed his creation, he still committed evil. To create something, then kill it for exploring its capacity is evil IMO.


To some God changing His mind might seem to imply that He had erred in His creation of man, but that don't necessarily make it so. God also said He was going to destroy the sinful Israelites when He was with Moses on Mount Sinai, but Moses, in a very intercessory :hehehe: manner, talked Him out of it. Doesn't mean either course of action was necessarily the wrong one to take, does it? Any more than God changing His mind about creating man meant that He was wrong to do so in the first place. :shrug:
If God could see it all from the beginning... If he knew what was good for his creation... if he were truly omnipotent, he would have never had to have dealt with a terrible creation. For whatever reason he had at the time, he changed his mind on himself, undermining logical links to omnipotence.


See Lot's daughters. And incest is prohibited in Leviticus.
Ok. Thanks, but about Adam and Eve, wouldn't they be brother and sister? I grew up in a Christian church with songs about "Father Abraham" having many sons and many sons having him. It just seems like there might not have been many options back then :lol:


Homophobia is a recently created PC term used to marginalize people like myself who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle from a spiritual point of view, but who couldn't actually care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. By definition, homophobia is a fear, not a hatred. I don't hate homosexuals, that's just typical leftist anti-Christian propaganda. But leftists DO hate Christians, at least those who are sincere. ;)
First of all, since when did homosexuality become a lifestyle? Are you living a heterosexual lifestyle? Even if you just believe that gays are sinners and that means being gay is a lifestyle, does that mean an overeater lives an overeater lifestyle, that a man and a woman that have an affair have an affair lifestyle, or that a person that swears lives a swearing lifestyle? :shrug:

Secondly, if homosexuality really is a lifestyle as you say, then why do you first talk about not caring what people do in the privacy of their own homes then turn around and say you have a fear of that homosexual lifestyle that apparently takes place in the privacy of homes. That's kinda contradictory.

Lastly, slice it any way you want, but the fact is that the church (one of the strongest opponents of homosexual rights) at large has not taken a clear stance against homophobia and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It sends out a message loud and clear to homosexuals that the churches are not interested in protecting them from discrimination and hatred. The church tends to preach the message "love the sinner, hate the sin", but that message gets distorted by its disdain for homosexuals that don't choose to convert and follow their Christian view of the right "lifestyle". If that isn't hatred for homosexuality, I don't know what is and it's downright hypocritical for Christians to talk about being Christ-like and carrying on like that. On the issue, it's like John F. Kennedy said, "If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem." What message has the church sent out to say "We are not condoning bullying of gays in schools?", "We welcome families with children of gay parents?"


[re: hermaphroditism]
:help: :rolleyes:
I was being serious. Hermaphrodites really do exist. Yeah, they are rare, but they are out there and people use religion and all sorts of moral and "ethical" codes to undermine their point-of-view.


[re: is gender conditioning moral/ethical?]
Men and women ARE different. If you can't see that, you're REALLY blind. :tape:
Of course, but I was talking about strict gender codes that have the potential to hinder development and acceptance of those that just do not fit so neatly into society's expectations.


[re: white man's burden]
You're kidding, right?
No. Again, I was being serious on all of these. I was just thinking of things the Bible does not discuss. That's definitely one of the perspectives the Bible does not have. It does not tell you about the religious wars that took place in the name of Christianity and correcting those that were fundamentally "wrong". Look at the native Americans, for example. Who gave white immigrants the rights to come over here and force the natives to not only move off their land, but to also convert to Christianity? It just baffles me. Of course, that's not necessarily the Bible's fault, but it has incited the good and the bad.


God's pretty apolitical.
God may be apolitical, but he is definitely a dictator. It's again ironic that that style of rule been so present throughout history.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 08:16 AM
Then he's limited to only doing good, therefore incapable of doing bad. If he is incapable of anything, then he can't be omnipotent. Omnipotence is not a quality that can hibernate like bears. It's something that is a constant. It is everywhere all the time. Also, if he is incapable of doing bad, then it would reason that he is incapable of creating a world where evil or bad are possible. Of course, it doesn't make sense for good to exist without knowing evil. Evil gives good meaning and vise-versa. Also, In Genesis, the Bible says God set the rules in the beginning, yet he destroyed his creation. Whether it was the creation that was bad or God was so disgusted with his creation that he had no choice but to destroy it, he showed that, despite being in control of everything, he had to do bad and could do bad (destroyed them) in order to correct his mistake. His mistake undermines the claim that God is infallible.

See what I said earlier about omnipotence.

Then I'm a bit confused by what you're saying.

God is not in control of everything. A central idea of Christianity is human free will. The Christian God doesn't control humans. If the creation turns bad, it is not a mistake on's God part. As for his decision to destroy his creation, from his point of view, it can't be a bad thing if he's always doing the right thing. ;)

If you want to argue against Christianity, there are much better arguments. Try: the hideness of God since 2000 years, the problem of natural disasters, the problem of diversity of religions (the Christian God doesn't do anything to show Islam is a lie? dang!), the fact that God never seem to answer prayers of African kids, the incompatibility between science and the Old Testament, the incoherent idea of the Trinity, the silliness of some miracles (Jesus born of a virgin? hahaha), the weird idea of an immaterial, divine being - how can such an entity with so much power exists in the nothingness without any reason?, etc.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:06 AM
See what I said earlier about omnipotence.

Then I'm a bit confused by what you're saying.

God is not in control of everything. A central idea of Christianity is human free will. The Christian God doesn't control humans. If the creation turns bad, it is not a mistake on's God part. As for his decision to destroy his creation, from his point of view, it can't be a bad thing if he's always doing the right thing. ;)

Thanks for the suggestions :) I agree with you that human choice is a tenant of Christianity, yet the Bible's reference to the Lamb's Book of Life, Rev. 21:27 seems to undermine the claim to any uncertainty about the fate of each person. I say that because it is believed that God has already written in the book a record of those that are fit to enter Heaven and those that are not. If God knows that before the first breaths a child takes, then that child is not truly in control of their destiny. It is difficult to argue then that they also truly have human free will. It starts to resemble pawns in a pointless chess game for God's amusement or whatever the purpose.

If God is believed to be omnipotent, then it is God's fault if his creation turns out bad since he would have always known that it would turn out that way.

That last part you said about God only doing good since he is always doing what is right stuck with me. It pinpoints one of the problems I have with converting to Christianity. You are asked to trade in your perception of morality (assuming "you" even have one) for the ideology of a dictator that could just as easily resume his destruction of humanity in the name of what is "right".

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Omnipotent is being able to do what is logically possible. Once God sets rule, logically he has to follow them. It's not a limitation of his omnipotence. If God plays Scrabble and follow the rules, he won't be able to place a word where he wants to, even if he has the power to.
Omnipotence is not a logical matter. It is strictly reserved as a supernatural capability, since humans are incapable of being everywhere and knowing everything at once. Furthermore, God's powers are not subject to the boundaries of human logic. Also, since God is the author of his own rules, he can also break his rules without having any external system of checks to make him own up to whatever previous rules existed. He is not held to any standard.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:25 AM
Thanks for the suggestions :) I agree with you that human choice is a tenant of Christianity, yet the Bible's reference to the Lamb's Book of Life, Rev. 21:27 seems to undermine the claim to any uncertainty about the fate of each person. I say that because it is believed that God has already written in the book a record of those that are fit to enter Heaven and those that are not. If God knows that before the first breaths a child takes, then that child is not truly in control of their destiny. It is difficult to argue then that they also truly have human free will. It starts to resemble pawns in a pointless chess game for God's amusement or whatever the purpose.

If God is believed to be omnipotent, then it is God's fault if his creation turns out bad since he would have always known that it would turn out that way.

That last part you said about God only doing good since he is always doing what is right stuck with me. It pinpoints one of the problems I have with converting to Christianity. You are asked to trade in your perception of morality (assuming "you" even have one) for the ideology of a dictator that could just as easily resume his destruction of humanity in the name of what is "right".

Christians don't agree on divine foreknowledge, it depends how you interpret the Bible. Some think God doesn't know the future because it's open. Some think God not only knows the future of our universe, but he knows the future of every possible universe (molinism).

As for foreknowledge and free will, it's one of the most discussed topic. Some think both are compatible; God knows in advance your choices, even if you will freely choose them, as conter-intuitive as it seems. The topic is complex because it involves a lot of philosophy.

As for the last part, if God is the author of morality, then yes he's a dictator who can do whatever he wants, including annihilating the universe.

Why do you want to convert to Christianity, do you feel pressure to do so because most people around you are?

Pasta-Na
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:28 AM
i still remember one of my old classmates tore my bible up :mad:

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:34 AM
Why do you want to convert to Christianity, do you feel pressure to do so because most people around you are?
I don't want to convert to Christianity. I am just studying religion freely. I grew up with peer pressure to be Christian pushed on me as do most unsuspecting kids. What bothered me most about the process was that the Bible itself took to fear tactics. To be specific, I always think back to the scripture where it says that no man knows the hour that God will return for his chosen people. Of course, everything is a matter of interpretation, but growing up that scared me out of ever considering any other source as being true, lest I be left out when God returned. The Bible had become a source of peer pressure. If I dare dismiss God by even taking my commitment away from him, I would risk that at his return I would be damned to places with such striking and vivid phrases like "lake of fire" and "pit of hell". Those really do frighten young children. Good thing I'm free of that bondage now. I'm still open minded to being Christian, but after that experience, I know it's naturally less likely for me to be attracted to Christianity, because the experience was so emotionally exhausting.

Pasta-Na
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:38 AM
so God is female or male?

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:41 AM
so God is female or male?
Good question :lol: God made Adam in "his" image, so I'm guessing God is a "male" or masculine character ;)

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:44 AM
Omnipotence is not a logical matter. It is strictly reserved as a supernatural capability, since humans are incapable of being everywhere and knowing everything at once. Also, since God is the author of his own rules, he can also break his rules without having any external system of checks to make him own up to whatever previous rules existed. He is not held to any standard.

It is a logical matter in the sense that once he submits himself to a set of rules, he has to follow them! And to be able to do anything, you need a set of rules you have to follow. Math and science starts with rules we take as true and have to follow (axioms). Whatever God will do, there is going to be logical limitations set by the axioms he uses.

For example, if you ask God to play BlackJack, he won't be able to win every round. Because rules are make such a way it is impossible to win every round (like when the House has 21).

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:54 AM
I don't want to convert to Christianity. I am just studying religion freely. I grew up with peer pressure to be Christian pushed on me as do most unsuspecting kids. What bothered me most about the process was that the Bible itself took to fear tactics. To be specific, I always think back to the scripture where it says that no man knows the hour that God will return for his chosen people. Of course, everything is a matter of interpretation, but growing up that scared me out of ever considering any other source as being true, lest I be left out when God returned. The Bible had become a source of peer pressure. If I dare dismiss God by even taking my commitment away from him, I would risk that at his return I would be damned to places with such striking and vivid phrases like "lake of fire" and "pit of hell". Those really do frighten young children. Good thing I'm free of that bondage now. I'm still open minded to being Christian, but after that experience, I know it's naturally less likely for me to be attracted to Christianity, because the experience was so emotionally exhausting.

Ok. If you're looking for Christian books to make up your mind, 2 of the most important books of the last century are "The Existence of God" by Richard Swinburne and "Warranted Christian belief" by Alvin Plantinga. If you're not convinced by them, no one will convince you (except God himself! ;) ).

As for "anti-Christian" book, I think the best one is "Atheism: the case against God". The author talks a lot about we talked, like omnipotence. There are also a lot of recent atheist books (by Sam Harris, Richard dawkins and others) that might help you make up your mind.

winone23
Oct 20th, 2007, 12:11 PM
It's so sad that Christians actually believe in the Bible. I actually wonder if they don't even believe most of that bullshit, and if they just use it as their reason to hate gays.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I believe in the Bible and I don't hate gays!!! After reading your post I wonder why the Bible doesn't mention why he made people dumb.

Hachiko
Oct 20th, 2007, 12:21 PM
The Bible indicates that the universe is only about 6000 years old. Science has since proven it's 13.7 billion. That's not a small inaccuracy, that's a major flaw. Not only that, but there are also dozens and dozens of contradictions within the Bible itself. Just a quick search on Google and you'll find them soon enough.

I wouldn't say I'm an anti-christ but to me Christianity is a religion in which events are claimed to have occured although which can never be proven.

JustineTime
Oct 20th, 2007, 04:20 PM
The Bible indicates that the universe is only about 6000 years old.

This is a common fallacy. The calendar of Ussher traces recorded biblical history back aprroximately 6000 years, but God, being eternal is not limited to a time framework as we understand it. For instance, since Adam and Eve were eternal before they ate the forbidden fruit, there is actually no telling how many decades, centuries or even eons transpired while they were living in obedience to God in the Garden of Eden. That being said, I actually don't think it was very long, because obedience to God just doesn't seem to be in our "nature". ;) :shrug: :o

Second, the Bible mentions "days" in terms of creation, but also states that a day is with God as a 1000 years and 1000 years as one day. So who knows how much time actually passed between the earth being without form and void until the seventh "day" when God rested from the work which he had made?

Science has since proven it's 13.7 billion. That's not a small inaccuracy, that's a major flaw.

Science hasn't proven jack crap about the age of the earth, at least not to my satisfaction.

You say 13.7 billion years. I don't know what your source is on that, but this website http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/858867134.Es.r.html says that "Geologists now think the Earth is about four and a half billion years old." Based on what? Radiometric dating of rocks. O-o-o-o-kay. So who's right?

"How Old is the Earth? Recent Consideration
So, how old is the Earth? In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back. During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by many leading scholars. Furthermore, uniformitarianism has been disputed by such geologic features as poly-strata fossils and the lack of erosion between strata. Moreover, evolution is a theory in crisis with the discovery of DNA and its complex language convention, plus the absence of transitional fossils. "

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-old-is-the-earth.htm

Now I believe that website is a Christian-based one, so they're full of crap by default, right? :hehehe:

I'm not going to pretend to know about geology, but it seems to me that as so-called technology keeps "advancing", theories about the age of the earth keep changing. So again, who's right? Maybe none of them. :tape: Maybe God only knows... :hehehe:

I wouldn't say I'm an anti-christ but to me Christianity is a religion in which events are claimed to have occured although which can never be proven.

There are a lot of things people believe which can never be "proven". Do you believe in evolution? If so, why? That has certainly never been proven, and more holes are being punched in this...theory:tape: all the time. Maybe your belief system requires more faith than mine. :shrug:

JustineTime
Oct 20th, 2007, 04:33 PM
A wise man told me don't argue wit fools
cus people from a distance can't tell who is who

Prov. 29:9If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.

;)

miffedmax
Oct 20th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Based just on the title, I was going to include FC Dallas,catalytic converters, Flonase and Dementieva's ass on my list, but really only two of those are religious.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:07 PM
Ok. If you're looking for Christian books to make up your mind, 2 of the most important books of the last century are "The Existence of God" by Richard Swinburne and "Warranted Christian belief" by Alvin Plantinga. If you're not convinced by them, no one will convince you (except God himself! ;) ).

As for "anti-Christian" book, I think the best one is "Atheism: the case against God". The author talks a lot about we talked, like omnipotence. There are also a lot of recent atheist books (by Sam Harris, Richard dawkins and others) that might help you make up your mind.
Thanks again :) I might check out those pro-Christianity books sometime. A few years ago, I bought the Atheist book you mentioned. It was interesting, but felt a bit academic for me. I'm currently reading god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens. It came out a few months ago. It's a wonderful book, for believers and non-believers alike and it is much more personal, less academic than many of the other texts out there. I don't agree with 100% of what he says, but it's still more interesting and thought provoking than the norm for me, at least. Here's an interview Lou Dobbs of CNN did with Chris god is Not Great interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_l3Utr670)

JustineTime
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:12 PM
Thanks again :) I might check out those pro-Christianity books sometime. A few years ago, I bought the Atheist book you mentioned. It was interesting, but felt a bit academic for me. I'm currently reading god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens. It came out a few months ago. It's a wonderful book, for believers and non-believers alike and it is much more personal, less academic than many of the other texts out there. Here's an interview Lou Dobbs of CNN did with Chris god is Not Great interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_l3Utr670)

What a ...errr...ummm...coinkydink...:unsure:; I'm reading a Christopher Hitchins book also: Why Orwell Matters.

:)

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Here are a few interesting quotes from the book:
Religion comes from the period of human history where nobody...had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species...

The level of intensity fluctuates according to time and place, but it can be stated as a truth that religion does not, and in the long run cannot, be content with its own marvelous claims and sublime assurances. It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths. It may speak about the bliss of the next world, but it wants power in this one. (p.17)

Religion...claims the right to officiate at the end of life, just as it hopes to monopolize children at life's beginning. There can be no doubt that the cult of death and the insistence upon portents of the end proceed from a surreptitious desire to see it happen and to put an end to the anxiety and doubt that always threatens the hold of faith. (p.60)

JustineTime
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Religion comes from the period of human history where nobody...had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species...

:scratch:

Something tells me he never read the book of Job. :unsure:

Direwolf
Oct 20th, 2007, 06:55 PM
The Bible didnt mention most of the thing that
we are having right now...

like Shaving Cream...
tires
computers
ketchup
and other new things
being discovered everyday.

THIS IS A VERY STUPID thread and just a temptation
to use other humans to argue for God
and to attract
more people to look into
the Bible holes.

If you dont believe into the Bible, then why
dont you read it.
and lets see how it will affect you.

Im a very Godly person,
but i dont read the bible.
and it doesnt make it a sin.

it would be better if some of the readers just trash what was written
and being believed by other religions

HippityHop
Oct 20th, 2007, 08:01 PM
I don't want to convert to Christianity. I am just studying religion freely. I grew up with peer pressure to be Christian pushed on me as do most unsuspecting kids. What bothered me most about the process was that the Bible itself took to fear tactics. To be specific, I always think back to the scripture where it says that no man knows the hour that God will return for his chosen people. Of course, everything is a matter of interpretation, but growing up that scared me out of ever considering any other source as being true, lest I be left out when God returned. The Bible had become a source of peer pressure. If I dare dismiss God by even taking my commitment away from him, I would risk that at his return I would be damned to places with such striking and vivid phrases like "lake of fire" and "pit of hell". Those really do frighten young children. Good thing I'm free of that bondage now. I'm still open minded to being Christian, but after that experience, I know it's naturally less likely for me to be attracted to Christianity, because the experience was so emotionally exhausting.

Then why don't you convert to Islam?
After a few years as a Muslim, decide that you don't like it and convert to something else. See what that gets ya.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 20th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Then why don't you convert to Islam?
After a few years as a Muslim, decide that you don't like it and convert to something else. See what that gets ya.
It is possible to not have a want to do something, yet to be open minded about it being a possibility. I don't want to convert to Christianity right now because I don't have the conviction to do it based on what has been presented to me so far and what I have encountered. I'm just researching religion and the possibility of adopting no religious view. I'm not necessarily looking for a religion to convert to, I'm just studying them. I'll make a personal decision about it (whether I will be religious or not and to what extent) once I feel well educated enough on the topic.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 20th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Now I believe that website is a Christian-based one, so they're full of crap by default, right? :hehehe:

It doesn't matter if a website is Christian or not, as long as the scientific theories presented are based on observations and evidence. Yes the age of the universe keeps changing, but the evidences are overwhelming that the earth is billions of years old. There is no serious evidence the earth is young.

There are a lot of things people believe which can never be "proven". Do you believe in evolution? If so, why? That has certainly never been proven, and more holes are being punched in this...theory:tape: all the time. Maybe your belief system requires more faith than mine. :shrug:

Nice try in trying to equate religious belief with scientific belief, but it doesn't work. The difference is that, given the nature of science, we expect any scientific theory to change at any moment, because science changes all the time with new evidence and experiment. So it doesn't require any faith, because we know any theory has flaws anyway. :shrug: Science is just a useful tool, not something you base your existence on, like a religious belief.

Hachiko
Oct 21st, 2007, 01:20 AM
This is a common fallacy. The calendar of Ussher traces recorded biblical history back aprroximately 6000 years, but God, being eternal is not limited to a time framework as we understand it. For instance, since Adam and Eve were eternal before they ate the forbidden fruit, there is actually no telling how many decades, centuries or even eons transpired while they were living in obedience to God in the Garden of Eden. That being said, I actually don't think it was very long, because obedience to God just doesn't seem to be in our "nature". ;) :shrug: :o

Second, the Bible mentions "days" in terms of creation, but also states that a day is with God as a 1000 years and 1000 years as one day. So who knows how much time actually passed between the earth being without form and void until the seventh "day" when God rested from the work which he had made?

Science hasn't proven jack crap about the age of the earth, at least not to my satisfaction.

You say 13.7 billion years. I don't know what your source is on that, but this website http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/858867134.Es.r.html says that "Geologists now think the Earth is about four and a half billion years old." Based on what? Radiometric dating of rocks. O-o-o-o-kay. So who's right?

"How Old is the Earth? Recent Consideration
So, how old is the Earth? In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back. During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by many leading scholars. Furthermore, uniformitarianism has been disputed by such geologic features as poly-strata fossils and the lack of erosion between strata. Moreover, evolution is a theory in crisis with the discovery of DNA and its complex language convention, plus the absence of transitional fossils. "

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-old-is-the-earth.htm

Now I believe that website is a Christian-based one, so they're full of crap by default, right? :hehehe:

I'm not going to pretend to know about geology, but it seems to me that as so-called technology keeps "advancing", theories about the age of the earth keep changing. So again, who's right? Maybe none of them. :tape: Maybe God only knows... :hehehe:



There are a lot of things people believe which can never be "proven". Do you believe in evolution? If so, why? That has certainly never been proven, and more holes are being punched in this...theory:tape: all the time. Maybe your belief system requires more faith than mine. :shrug:

Strange isn't it, you would think it were the translaters job to translate the years accurately. And if in Hebrew 6000 years was something different then you'd think that, perhaps at the very least something would've been noted. The same goes with the age of many individual characters in the Bible, some of which as I'm sure you are aware, quite phenomenonly seem to live past 500.

13.7 is a universally accepted age of the universe by most scientists. Scientists believe the Earth was not formed immediately after the Big Bang, it's only around 4-5 billion. I'm afraid I don't see what's so flawed with estimating the age of the Earth based on evidence of the very Earth itself.

Our Earth is constantly changing anyway, its crust is in a constant state of re-creation and modification, so it's not possible for scientists to discover the earliest rocks let alone trace them. However the eldest of which can be traced back to 3.5 billion and various ones have been discovered across the entire globe. I too am fairly unfamiliar with radiometric dating, however it seems a valid measurement of age:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage01.html

"radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth’s magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes."

"Today, rocks are dated by measuring the degree of decay of certain radioisotopes contained in the rock (absolute dating); the older the rock, the more its isotopes have decayed. Because radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate unaltered by temperature or pressure, the isotopes in a rock act as an internal clock, measuring the time since the rock was formed."

You also say there is no evidence of evolution and yet there is plenty of indications out there. Fossilisation, Natural Selection, the Molecular Record etc., etc.

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html

"A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling."

But as has already been pointed out, scientific and religious belief are too distinct to link - each are totally different approaches of study. I believe science is what can be tested, observed, experimented with and finally theorised, and that evidence is real to me. To be honest, I just have trouble believing in a collection of scriptures written by a bunch of old men thousands of years ago, who wrote of talking donkeys, sorcerers, a flat Earth, magic spells, giants, dragons and unicorns. I appologise if this is offensive, it's just my view.

meyerpl
Oct 21st, 2007, 01:48 AM
Why doesn't God cure aids, cancer, leukemia, blindness? Why doesn't he send food to African kids? Why didn't he do anything to stop Hitler, Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami, 9-11?

Good questions, especially when you consider that God took the time to cure Reggie White's knee when the Packers were in the playoffs.:shrug:

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 21st, 2007, 02:49 AM
I recall reading a Christian book, the person asked God to cure his daughter migraine. And apparently he did!

So let's see here: God does nothing to stop the tsunami that killed thousand and thousand of people in a horrible manner, but he cured the migraine of some random girl?

The idea of God answering prayers is silly, when you see what God doesn't do.

JustineTime
Oct 21st, 2007, 03:57 AM
Nice try in trying to equate religious belief with scientific belief, but it doesn't work. The difference is that, given the nature of science, we expect any scientific theory to change at any moment, because science changes all the time with new evidence and experiment. So it doesn't require any faith, because we know any theory has flaws anyway. :shrug: Science is just a useful tool, not something you base your existence on, like a religious belief.

That is absolutely 100% incorrect. In fact, I would argue that science has in fact become the catechism of the newest religion: [secular] humanism.:shrug: And don't say that's not a religion, because that ship has sailed. ;)

miffedmax
Oct 21st, 2007, 05:19 AM
Good questions, especially when you consider that God took the time to cure Reggie White's knee when the Packers were in the playoffs.:shrug:

Well, it's pretty obvious God hates the Vikings.

Man I hope they beat Dallas.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 21st, 2007, 05:30 AM
I don't deny there is a modern tendency to take what science says as gospel. Some atheists or secular humanists can be dogmatic too.

But by definition, science is falsifiable (it's one of the criteria for a theory to be scientific). That means any theory can change and be proven wrong with new information. Any honest scientist will tell you that.

I believe in the theory of evolution, but I don't need any faith. I just take it for what it is: the best current scientific theory to explain the diversity of species. If I wake up tomorrow and the theory is proven to be false, it will make no difference to my life. That would just mean there is a better theory that has not been discovered yet. Though that I fail to see how evolution could be proven completely wrong; microevolution can be observed.

You need a lot of faith to believe in religion, because some facts or events absolutely need to be true. If Jesus never died on the cross, or worst, never existed, Christianity fall apart, and so is your worldview. Unlike what some Christians constantly suggest, secular humanism doesn't fall apart if the theory of evolution (or any scientific theory) is proven false. There were atheists before darwin.

Anyway, secular humanists value science a lot, that doesn't mean they automatically have a dogmatic view of scientific theories.

Melly Flew Us
Oct 21st, 2007, 07:39 PM
dunno about 10:

1. X-chromosome inactivation (how did adam come first if the y chromosome is good for almost nowt?)
2. intersex (oblique gender/sex issue)
3. 16s RNA (even though the bible doesn't debate evolution)
4. homology between male/female e.g. prostate/paraurethral glands (see 2)
5. temperature controlled sex specification of crocodiles (see 1)

HippityHop
Oct 21st, 2007, 08:29 PM
It is possible to not have a want to do something, yet to be open minded about it being a possibility. I don't want to convert to Christianity right now because I don't have the conviction to do it based on what has been presented to me so far and what I have encountered. I'm just researching religion and the possibility of adopting no religious view. I'm not necessarily looking for a religion to convert to, I'm just studying them. I'll make a personal decision about it (whether I will be religious or not and to what extent) once I feel well educated enough on the topic.

This might make sense if you were honestly inquiring about at least the three primary monotheistic religions.
This thread is really designed to be a screed against Christianity.
I don't mind that but be honest about it. The proof is that you have not asked a single question about Islam and what they believe nor have you ridiculed it. Neither has anyone else in this thread. I wonder why.
Scared maybe?

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 21st, 2007, 08:54 PM
This might make sense if you were honestly inquiring about at least the three primary monotheistic religions.
This thread is really designed to be a screed against Christianity.
I don't mind that but be honest about it. The proof is that you have not asked a single question about Islam and what they believe nor have you ridiculed it. Neither has anyone else in this thread. I wonder why.
Scared maybe?
I have inquired about other religions, but my education about religion (as you'll find with most others in America) has been saturated with Christianity. I've grown up with it. All the peer pressure I've dealt with has been on that front. I have lately inquired about other religions. That's part of the reason the book I'm reading is not centered on Christianity, but rather religion in general. Of course, I always look for opposing viewpoints. Post 9/11, the world has been evaluating Islam. All religions have their pros and cons, but I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to evaluate one specifically. Most people are familiar with the Bible for one reason or another, so it seemed most reasonable to center my questions here around that, as well as my own background. Like I said in the first post in this thread, I am not a Bible scholar, so I am open to correction. The thing many Christians try to do is convince people that the Bible still applies today and that it can fit modern day applications. I am just testing that claim.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 21st, 2007, 10:00 PM
I can't speak for other people but, I'm not interested in Islam because I've never seen a philosopher defending the Islamic faith convincingly. Same for other religions. To me, Christianity is the only religion that has a solid theological and philosophical case, even if I don't believe in it.

*JR*
Oct 21st, 2007, 10:12 PM
This might make sense if you were honestly inquiring about at least the three primary monotheistic religions.
This thread is really designed to be a screed against Christianity.
I don't mind that but be honest about it. The proof is that you have not asked a single question about Islam and what they believe nor have you ridiculed it. Neither has anyone else in this thread. I wonder why.
Scared maybe?
There've been many threads on this board dissing Islam on things like burqua's, their reaction to the Danish cartoons, what's taught in madrassa's, etc.

HippityHop
Oct 21st, 2007, 10:18 PM
There've been many threads on this board dissing Islam on things like burqua's, their reaction to the Danish cartoons, what's taught in madrassa's, etc.

Please read what I typed.

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 23rd, 2007, 10:28 PM
6.Hermaphrodites

7.The morality or immorality of society's gender conditioning
I just watched a few videos on youtube that relate to these issues.

Intersex Surgery (from PBS Nova) Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eTHuzcm8KKs

Intersex Surgery Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V96Ul_SLrRM

Intersex people protest intersex surgery on infants
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9PUyyGI8r4w