Memammal

It is figurative, and you obviously do not know enough about the bible to realize that not everything is meant to be taken literally, just look at Revelations, and half of what Jesus Christ said was figurative.

So we can ignore the revelations in Revelations, phew that is a relief. Perhaps someone should tell the Jehovah witnesses? Re what Jesus said, were you referring to the parables or are there anything else that one should know about? It will be a lot easier to know what parts are figurative and what literal, don't you think? It would save us a lot of time and effort in having to discuss or debate mundane things such as a 6-day creation 6,000 years ago, talking snakes, an ark full of two of each species surviving a world-wide flood, the origin of languages, mass killing of Egypt's first-born, mass killing of the Canaanites, killing 1000 men with a donkey's jawbone, surviving three days in the belly of a fish, flying and singing angels, virgin mothers, the walking dead and all that jazz.

 

I'm applying this to the US GOP-controlled Congress in my mind, and I see them all wielding shovels, not brooms. This may seem admirable, but isn't it also possible it could make things far, far worse?

Fair comment. I was wondering whether the incidents at the GOP Convention could be a backlash by a portion of the Republicans realising they may be heading in a similar direction (towards turmoil) than Britain and to try everything possible to get out of a sinking ship..?

It is noteworthy that he has been given the job of Foreign secretary.

He also caused serious damage to England's foreign relationships, especially his negative criticism of Pres Obama's backing of the pro-EU stance.

^ True, but the "you created the mess, you fix it" - attitude is, in a way, admirable.

I would like to highlight this discussion as an example of what was referred to by the OP (as Phi for All already alluded to in his post #148):

Also, why couldn't Adam and eve be the first humans? Your gunna throw in evolution, but if there was a God, and he did make them, does evolution say that's not possible? No where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. Doesn't say its not there. Doesn't say it is.

Oh gosh. You really need to read more. Biblical Adam & Eve walked this earth around 6,000 years ago. At that time humanity was spread over the entire world already, each group with its own (albeit primitive) languages, cultures and superstitions. The Neolithic revolution has taken place approx. 6,000 years prior to Biblical Adam & Eve, in fact the wheel might have already been used when Adam & Eve arrived on the scene. Genetically our species can be traced back to around 200,000 ago, a dating which is also supported by the oldest remains of homo sapiens. The Genesis creation story is a very far cry from evolutionary biology. So no, it simply does not add up.

6000 years... Where the heck did you pull that number out. Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible.

I think it is vitally important for you to understand this matter. My number of approx. 6,000 years is based on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar who meticulously calculated the date of Adam & Eve's arrival to be 4004 BCE. And there were others who made very similar calculations: Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC). ​If you do some further research you will find many references to these dates. There are some sources that support a slightly older Adam & Eve, up to 10,000 years. That still does not resolve the vast difference with the scientifically determined age of our species. So either you accept that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or you accept that the Biblical genealogy/chronology is wrong...and the consequences thereof.

And the earlier history is where the calendar failed. The "unbroken male lineage" is actually broken and could stretch a massive span of time. If you read my post you would know that this is why 6000 years isn't correct.

You are not going to sidestep yourself out of this one with such a reply; it is simply not good enough. You need to be much more specific in explaining why you consider all the various calculations based on the Biblical genealogy/chronology to be wrong and how you propose for the "massive span of time" to be resolved by the alleged broken male lineage? Do you then also propose that Adam & Eve a) happened to be an isolated case of two of a new species from an earlier H. sapiens lineage and b) that they and their sons (who presumably mated with some of the other H. sapiens hominids to produce the next lineage) all came from Africa?

I already explained why the biblical calculations can't be done. Just because its easily dismissed doesn't mean I have to make it complicated.

I am sorry, but you can't get out by virtue of such a lame excuse. You need to show me how you resolve the ENORMOUS difference between the scientifically verified age of our species and the time that Adam, Eve and their sons walked this earth according to the Bible. If you want to refute my (substantiated) claim that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, you need to prove me wrong and not conjure up some vague explanation. I am convinced that your alleged broken male lineage will not solve this puzzle. It may buy you a few thousand years at most, but that ain't gonna do it. Prove me wrong or admit that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first. Your ongoing refusal to explain the discrepancy will imply the latter.

In what way can I prove anything to you? And why, can it only buy me a few thousand years?

So Raider5678 challenged me regarding my claim that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans. I asked him numerous times to explain his counter argument, but he has been (deliberately) circumventing it. He is either oblivious to the extent of the missing time span that is in question here, and/or he is just plain ignorant, and/or he pretends to be ignorant as he has since realised that he got himself in a bit of a bother. He seemingly wants to avoid the truth, or the implications of this significant discrepancy..?

I already explained why the biblical calculations can't be done. Just because its easily dismissed doesn't mean I have to make it complicated.

I am sorry, but you can't get out by virtue of such a lame excuse. You need to show me how you resolve the ENORMOUS difference between the scientifically verified age of our species and the time that Adam, Eve and their sons walked this earth according to the Bible. If you want to refute my (substantiated) claim that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, you need to prove me wrong and not conjure up some vague explanation. I am convinced that your alleged broken male lineage will not solve this puzzle. It may buy you a few thousand years at most, but that ain't gonna do it. Prove me wrong or admit that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first. Your ongoing refusal to explain the discrepancy will imply the latter.

Yes, he wouldn't do it modern time, but not because it would be really bad in his standards, but because at that time it was war, now its no longer a war, its trying to convert people.

Huh?

^ First - From the way you described it, it seemed like your name is either in that book or not...which is reminiscent of wishful thinking (or holding thumbs)?

Second - That was not what I was doing; I was questioning your (perception of) God.

When his time comes the book of revelations will start. After that,a new heaven and a new earth will be created, and all peoples who's name was recorded in the book of life get to go to heaven.

And for me mammals sake, I hope one day his name will sit in the book of life, so that he avoids the suffering that will ensue.

Seriously dude, you believe all of that...and we all have to hold thumbs that our names are written in the book of life..? [Facepalm]

If you have read Matthew, you would find that it is very clearly against putting people to death, because things have changed since the earlier history.

Whereas I agree that there was a shift away from the emphasis on the old laws, the problem that I had with your original post related to this part: "you should (not?) put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go." It came across as implying a general abolishment of the death penalty. Furthermore, i.m.o. any notion that the NT was less "barbaric" than the OT is negated by all its apocalyptic prophecies and Paul's condemnation of the entire human race to eternal hell unless...

And the earlier history is where the calendar failed. The "unbroken male lineage" is actually broken and could stretch a massive span of time. If you read my post you would know that this is why 6000 years isn't correct.

You are not going to sidestep yourself out of this one with such a reply; it is simply not good enough. You need to be much more specific in explaining why you consider all the various calculations based on the Biblical genealogy/chronology to be wrong and how you propose for the "massive span of time" to be resolved by the alleged broken male lineage? Do you then also propose that Adam & Eve a) happened to be an isolated case of two of a new species from an earlier H. sapiens lineage and b) that they and their sons (who presumably mated with some of the other H. sapiens hominids to produce the next lineage) all came from Africa?

And genocide of entire towns, cities, and populations was very common during those times.

So an omniscient and omnipresent God felt that it was perfectly acceptable to order the genocide of the Canaanites for Israel to occupy their land at that point in history, but that would not be something that the same God would do in the present time as that would be really bad PR..? And that makes sense to you?

6000 years... Where the heck did you pull that number out. Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible.

I think it is vitally important for you to understand this matter. My number of approx. 6,000 years is based on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar who meticulously calculated the date of Adam & Eve's arrival to be 4004 BCE. And there were others who made very similar calculations: Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC). ​If you do some further research you will find many references to these dates. There are some sources that support a slightly older Adam & Eve, up to 10,000 years. That still does not resolve the vast difference with the scientifically determined age of our species. So either you accept that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or you accept that the Biblical genealogy/chronology is wrong...and the consequences thereof.

Also, quick question. Why are the native Americans even humans? After being separated for lon periods of time aren't species suppose to become 2 different species? This is an actual question BTW.

Do you really want to pursue this? I fail to see the relevance and you are treading on thin ice with this kind of reasoning.

but tell me where the bible encourages mass murder as memammal seems to think.

I am not sure if and where I insinuated this but seeing that you raised the subject, does the genocide of the Canaanites (men, women and children) ring a bell?

Actually that was aimed slightly more at memammal then you, my bad.

Please explain why you find my knowledge of the Bible annoying?

Your lack of knowledge of the bible is getting annoying, read about all the people God has saved. And if you had ever even once read the new testament, you would learn extremely quickly that you should put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go.

And talking about questionable knowledge of the Bible... Could you perhaps elaborate on the above?

I, the religious bigot would like to make a statement. I have been gone for 3 weeks and spent two of those n Brazil helping the poor starving people there. A christian mission trip, so I'm sure your going to point out all the wrongs in that.

You don't have to be a religious bigot to help starving people...and yes, I have a problem with missionary work as 9/10 times it boils down to an attempt to convert vulnerable people into a preferred religion.

And since its OBVIOUSLY christians running around in suicide vests. And flying headfirst into sky scrapers. You wouldnt possibly be profiling anybody there could you? Muslim christian Hindu. Your a religist. Or something like that. Like racist, but for religion. Your profiling all of us religious bigots on what you believe we are like.

No, I was not stereotyping all religious people as being religious bigots. Read my post again. At the same time, to say that the Christian religion is not guilty of similar acts is a lie. Over the years many evil deeds have been committed in the name of Christianity, even under the roof of the church...extremist Christian sects have been performing acts of mass murder...the USA and its allies under the leadership of GW Bush, a Christian bigot, have invaded Iraq under false pretences...just to name a few examples.

Also, why couldn't Adam and eve be the first humans? Your gunna throw in evolution, but if there was a God, and he did make them, does evolution say that's not possible? No where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. Doesn't say its not there. Doesn't say it is.

Oh gosh. You really need to read more. Biblical Adam & Eve walked this earth around 6,000 years ago. At that time humanity was spread over the entire world already, each group with its own (albeit primitive) languages, cultures and superstitions. The Neolithic revolution has taken place approx. 6,000 years prior to Biblical Adam & Eve, in fact the wheel might have already been used when Adam & Eve arrived on the scene. Genetically our species can be traced back to around 200,000 ago, a dating which is also supported by the oldest remains of homo sapiens. The Genesis creation story is a very far cry from evolutionary biology. So no, it simply does not add up.

As for downsides, isn't circumscision healthy?

Whether circumcision is healthy or not has nothing to do with the argument. One is not necessarily healthier than the other. In fact some primitive circumcision procedures are downright dangerous. Many young people die in developing countries as a result of traditional circumcision practices. The problem lies with the fact that it is an important religious tradition and as such expected to be performed on (unwilling) babies.

And while I have to agree that some religions are bad, I don't feel christianity is one of them.

Most Christians seem to feel that why. I am often astounded by how they consider themselves to be better people than all the rest. But then I suppose most religions feel that way about themselves.

The upside of some of these controversial appointments and something that first eluded me is the way that Mrs. May is in fact holding the very persons who were driving Brexit personally "accountable" by empowering them to now put their money where their big mouths were...and Boris is a case in point.

The sad thing about this and the other preceding incidents (apart from the loss of life, all the injuries and the grief and sadness of family and friends) lies not only in the fear that it instils but also in the hatred and bigotry that it fuels...not only in France but all over Europe, the UK and perhaps even so far as in the USA. Fear & hate tend to enhance ultra-nationalism, counter-extremism and xenophobia. These bring out the worst in people.

he now does seem to change his mind to suit his own agenda.

What if he starts changing his agenda to suit his mind? Oh I am getting confused again, that would be Trump...

No seriously, I think Ma'am May made a terrible boo-boo

...or "Go forth and multiply"

Rather not spread those genes too generously...

Fascinating. Meandering slightly off topic here, but it is reminiscent of so-called bio-entanglement...which has to do with a high degree of order among biological life forms.

"For no particular thing, not even the smallest, can have happened otherwise than in accordance with the common nature and its reason." - Chrysippus

“What comes, when it comes, will be what it is.” - Alberto Caeiro

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

"Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." - Carl Sagan

"But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair."

"It is very difficult to elucidate this cosmic religious feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it".

"In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."​

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein

Another missed type is the simple pantheistic God, which is just the universe really, not necessarily universally conscious and impersonal. Then there's multitudes of adaptions on that.

 

I'm asking as an ignostic because maybe someone can make the question make sense. To clarify, the pantheistic God I mention makes no sense to me as it is indistinguishable from the universe.

 

Either distinction is fine. There's a word in the dictionary "God". I'm looking for a better or cogent definition.

I suggest that you take the time and read these two articles:

God is Reality Personified, Not a Person

SEP: Pantheism

Consider the likelihood that the universe (as an existing, infinite "block universe"), evolution (natural selection being dependent on the interaction of genes and the environment) and the unfolding of each of our and other creatures' lives (our behaviour being determined by the interaction of our genes and our environments) could be deterministic, or quasi-deterministic (for reasons that are given in the before-mentioned brackets)...and then rethink the position of a pantheistic god.

I contend that the concept the NT is trying to convey is understandable, despite the confusion both time and translation have created, with or without the OT but it's much easier without.

Are you referring to Jesus and/or John The Baptist's Essene-based teachings, or Paul's doctrine? Also which interpretation of Jesus' teachings, i.e. according to which gospel? I am not convinced that it can be referred to as a single, unifying "concept"..? There are a number of different nuances, variations on the theme, hence the reason why there are so many Christian denominations.

I started listening to the above podcast, but it is just too long to listen to now. According to Jerry Coyne:

In the end, there is nothing "free" about compatibilist free will. It's a semantic game, in which choice becomes an illusion - something that isn't what it seems. Whether or not we can "choose" is a matter for science, not philosophy, and science tells us that we're complex marionettes dancing to the string of our genes and environments.

​(This Idea Must Die; Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress - Free Will)

His 2012 USA News Column regarding the matter of free will may be old news to some, but still worth a read. It attracted numerous counter-arguments though.

I was thinking about what valuable lessons there are in the Bible that will help us to be better people. The OT, as far as I can gather, is not a very good point of reference/example of how to be good. Do you really want people (or parents) to act like the God of the OT..? Jesus of the NT was different, but then he basically lived and preached the Essene gospel so nothing original about it. So what then? Paul's epistles to the newly formed congregations to calm their internal tension and conflict perhaps?

Just to add, fact is that the Bibble has a terrible record for teaching people how to be better. History reveals many horrible deeds that were committed and wars that were (and still are being) fought under the banner of that holy book.

Warning: Pseudo biblical exegesis alert.

I never said the bible is always literally true

Such a convenient excuse for all the biblical inaccuracies... Yet it is claimed to be the word of God..?

If you really want to study the Bible scientifically then start here

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-glance/The_Bible/101

I scrolled through the above website and at first glance it seems like pseudo theoscience could be a fitting description thereof. Not recommended reading i.m.o.

Roman Catholic doctrine: It teaches that revelation has one common source, God, and two distinct modes of transmission: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and that these are authentically interpreted by the Magisterium. Sacred Scripture consists of the 73 books of the Catholic Bible, consisting of 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament writings. Sacred Tradition consists of those teachings believed by the Church to have been handed down since the time of the Apostles. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are collectively known as the "deposit of faith" (depositum fidei).

The Catholic Church teaches that, immediately after death, the soul of each person will receive a particular judgement from God, based on their sins and their relationship to Christ.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God... the consequences for (human) nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".

In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Roman_Catholicism)

See if you can perhaps spot the inconsistencies of the above teachings if one assumes an allegorical Bible (Sacred Scripture?) and accepts evolution. Post #5 of this thread already explored the fallacy of the sinful- or evil nature of man, we can argue that morality is a naturally acquired trait, while evolution rules out the idea that Adam & Eve could have been the first humans. So if humans do not have a unique morality or sinful nature (opposed to other animals), then humans never were reliant on divine salvation, i.e. no need for Mary's supernatural virgin birth to Jesus (Christ), his crucifixion, nor his supernatural resurrection, or the need to have any special relationship with him...unless it is all entirely allegorical...in order to satisfy humanity's "instinctive" spiritual needs and to continue justifying the existence of the holy RCC (as a means for said salvation).

Well the Pope says that the bible is allegorical in much of what it says, the Pope says evolution is true and creationism is absurd...

Hats off to the Pope, but I am keen to find out exactly what is left for followers of the RC faith to cling onto if that is their contemporary approach?