|   Any naysayers here that are religious ? | Tom Bombadil
Jun 26, 2002 2:27 PM | | That would be REALLY confusing...but do post your opinions... |
| Trying to get the faith thing goin? (NT) | one50
Jun 26, 2002 6:29 PM | | |
| got my cables circumsized and now | hifitommy
Jul 4, 2002 11:27 AM | | they sound much CLEANER!
.....regards......tr |
| BWAHAHAHA...HAHAH HAHAH..hee..heee.hee nm | Tom Bombadil
Jul 5, 2002 11:39 AM | | |
| Hey- Why did they... | Warren Warren
Jun 26, 2002 6:33 PM | | ...leave you out of the "Lord of the Rings" movie? |
| B'cos... | Tom Bombadil
Jun 27, 2002 1:42 PM | | they even left me out of the book(S)...mostly... |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | mtrycrafts
Jun 26, 2002 10:08 PM | | No, it would not be confusing. Many scientista are religious, regardless of their stand on the scientific principles. So are the scientists who are priest, the Vatican's scientists do follow the principle of science, you know, or did you?
Oh, they do accept the big bang theory and evolution. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | Spiky
Jun 27, 2002 7:12 AM | | If they accept evolution, they do not agree with the Bible. That would make them pretty poor Christians. Although you only mentioned the Vatican, since the Catholics haven't touched a Bible in several hundred years, maybe you could be a scientist and a Catholic.
But I'd guess you wouldn't be very good at either. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | pctower
Jun 27, 2002 8:44 AM | | b If they accept evolution, they do not agree with the Bible.
What you mean is they do not agree with the Bible as you read it. Many, myself included, read it as a history of man's attempt to understand his place in the universe and a source of inspired principles to help in our stay here on earth (which may be the only stay we will ever have). I view much of the Bible as mythology; and, as Joseph Campbell demonstrated, mythology can convey incredible insight and wisdom, without having to be read literally.
The material that appears in the Bible is as much a result of political decisions as it is of absolute spiritual truths.
Some believe that science alone can provide the knowledge to which man can achieve. Other's believe that man is capable of knowing more than science can teach, or at the very least that man's faith does not necessarily have to be inconsistent with the teachings of science.
I have never understood how those who view the Bible as absolute, literal truth, expect all others to make this same arbitrary decision as to the source of truth and wisdom. Moreover, I have never understood how anyone who has studied biblical history, the cult, mythology and tradition that was the source of, and gave rise to much of what is in the Bible, can conclude that it was the pure and absolute statement of a supreme being.
In no way am I challenging the existence of a God, nor do I wish to try and prove the existence of a God. I am merely voicing my belief that one does not have to accept the Bible literally, or even at all, to have spititual beliefs and faith. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | Spiky
Jun 28, 2002 7:12 AM | | IF you believe in the Bible, that is, accept it as truth, was my point. If you feel as many do, that it is just a good book, like you stated above, then you are outside of the scope of my previous comment. Islam and Mormon religions have this as an official viewpoint.
The Bible leaves no doubt as to its requirements. So anyone claiming to believe solidly in both the Bible and today's skeptical scientists needs to examine their beliefs carefully. You can't "worship" 2 opposing viewpoints. Simply makes you hypocritical and pointless, kinda like many comments about "claims" found in this forum. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | pctower
Jun 28, 2002 10:38 AM | | I agree that if someone believes in the literal truth of the Bible, he cannot possibly square that belief with a belief in what we know based on science.
Candidly, putting science aside, I still can't understand how someone could believe in the literal truth of the Bible as it is full of gross, internal contradictions. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:54 AM | | Besides, we do not have the original writing to know what was written, if anything.
And, you do make an interesting point about all the contradictions. That should blow the fuse, unless one wants to unquestioningly believe, in which case they disregard them. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:51 AM | | b You can't "worship" 2 opposing viewpoints
I guess you are in deep trouble, not accepting science. After all, most of what you have is brought to you by it. I guess you don't use it. But, wait, you have an audio system, created by science.
And, how do you know that what you read was in fact what was written by those claimed authors? After all, there is not an original copy to compare, right? So, what you are reading, in facts may be total fabrication, wishfull thinking by the fabricator. Think about it.
Please show me the original writings. What you have today is a fabricated recreation of a speculated concept. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | Spiky
Jul 1, 2002 11:00 AM | | I won't even bother getting into the bible with you, mtry. What's the point? This board is about stereos and whatnot, not religion.
You don't believe in a god, fine. Don't attack me because I do. The only ones I've attacked in this thread are Catholics. If you have a problem with that, um, too bad!
The bible does not contradict itself, however. If anyone is bored enough with the Great Cable Debate to discuss this, go for it. I can explain examples if you'd like to give them.
b I guess you are in deep trouble, not accepting science. After all, most of what you have is brought to you by it. I guess you don't use it. But, wait, you have an audio system, created by science.
This is a pretty poor comment, which shows (once again) a lack of actually trying to understand what I'm saying. Give up the one-liners if you want to take a serious part in discussions, mtry. Science is reactionary. We humans call our attempts to understand what is (and has been for millenia) going on around us "science". I have no problem with
b science,
but some of our
b scientists'
theories are wrong. I don't see how you can disagree with that, but I'm sure you will. In contrast, the bible discusses a creator, who made our physical universe and created the laws which you hold so dear. I'm speaking of electricity, gravity, etc. Again, if you don't believe in the bible, fine. But now it's YOU who are trying to prove a null. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | mtrycrafts
Jul 2, 2002 8:40 PM | | b Don't attack me because I do.
Is that what happened? Really? Don't care what you believe in in private.
b The bible does not contradict itself,
It doesn't? While I am not a bible scholar, I have listened to knowledgeable ones who say otherwise.
b I have no problem with science, but some of our scientists' theories are wrong.
So you say. All you have to do is publish your different findings. Of course lack of evidence will not do.
b In contrast, the bible discusses a creator, who made our physical universe and created the laws which you hold so dear.
Ah, so you believe without evidence of that creator. And, who said a creator has to exist? Of course no one created that creator, right? A supernatural being only in mans mind does it exist.
b Again, if you don't believe in the bible, fine.
Believe? Is that what it takes? No evidence?
b But now it's YOU who are trying to prove a null.
Nope, nothing to prove. You have that burden, still. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | Spiky
Jul 3, 2002 7:25 AM | | Hi. Been typing again, I see. Are you really incapable of conversation? Let me guess, divorced, right? ALL your comments like this are attacks. Welcome to civilization. I don't know what you call your comments, but this is what SOCIETY calls crap like this.
b It doesn't [contradict itself]? While I am not a bible scholar, I have listened to knowledgeable ones who say otherwise.
Let's see actual bible scholar comments. Otherwise, shut up about that which you do not know. And don't hand me any scientists "knowledge" of the bible, perhaps you've heard the term bias before? Please, list something. I'll explain it better for you.
b So you say. All you have to do is publish your different findings. Of course lack of evidence will not do.
i Theory. Definition: A possible explanation of xxxx. Not yet fully proven.
Many theories have been proven wrong. Flat earth. 10 lb object is affected more by gravity than 10 oz object. Etc. It is pretty easy to set up a mathematical proof that some percentage of currently unproven theories will be proved false in the future. I only said some, I'm not going to presume to even offer a theory of what the percentage might be.
b Ah, so you believe without evidence of that creator. And, who said a creator has to exist? Of course no one created that creator, right? A supernatural being only in mans mind does it exist......Nope, nothing to prove. You have that burden, still.
The universe exists. I call that evidence. You have the burden of proof that it wasn't created by intelligence. Considering the incredible amount of design incorporated in the universe, our solar system, a single atom, I would think a scientist might just see intelligence behind that. I am typing on a computer. The computer is about 1/100 (maybe even less) as complicated as ONE of my body's cells. My computer required many minds to invent it. So where did our cells come from originally?
b Believe? Is that what it takes? No evidence?
I was talking about you. What evidence would you like that the bible is incredibly accurate? A scripture written around 7-800 years before Christ that points out the earth is a ball? When exactly did scientists come up with this fact? (hint: it was AFTER Christ) How about names and details of kings that the secular world claimed never existed? Gee, when they dug up stones with those names in the 20th century, the "higher critics" of the bible were surprisingly silent. I'm surprised they didn't try to murder the archaeologists.
What do you like, I got more. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | mtrycrafts
Jul 4, 2002 11:26 PM | | b Otherwise, shut up about that which you do not know.
You should try it first before you really embarrass yourself.
b Please, list something. I'll explain it better for you.
Explain? No, you need to prove it which you have a hard time doing.LOL.
b Many theories have been proven wrong.
Yes, self correcting science. Your speculations have not been demonstrated right, nor can it correct itself, LOL. Too bad.
b You have the burden of proof that it wasn't created by intelligence.
There you go, demanding proof of a negative. No difference than to prove a no difference in cables, LOL. YOu have the burden to prove that it was created by intelligence, LOL. Your speculations are not evidence, and much smarter men than you have tried and failed, LOL.
b Considering the incredible amount of design incorporated in the universe,
Design? LOL. Some design, colliding universes, exploding stars. Too much, LOL.
b I would think a scientist might just see intelligence behind that.
Of course, that is all the hope you have for a designer, LOL.
b What evidence would you like that the bible is incredibly accurate?
Anything you have, real evidence, not speculated ones.
b What do you like, I got more.
Naw, you have fables. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | Spiky
Jul 9, 2002 7:47 AM | | > Please, list something. I'll explain it better for you.
> Explain? No, you need to prove it which you have a hard time doing.LOL
Well? I'm impressed you know how to spell bible. Ever seen one? What exactly would you like me to prove? You do actually have to say SOMETHING, mtry. Oh, I forgot, you don't know how to converse. Try something that isn't a website and isn't a one-liner trying to make others (me, in this case) look stupid. It's commonly refered to as a "paragraph".
> Otherwise, shut up about that which you do not know.
> You should try it first before you really embarrass yourself.
Um, so you are now the bible expert and I'm not? Ask a question, give an example, throw out some opinion from your 'educated' friends or else just post somewhere else. |
| Excellent:) | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:45 AM | | Recognition of a good post when I see one :)
I knew you know something:) |
| Well, well. | Pat D
Jul 3, 2002 8:40 AM | | I am not a great fan of Joseph Campbell, but other than that, I agree in great part.
b The material that appears in the Bible is as much a result of political decisions as it is of absolute spiritual truths.
There were obviously political considerations in different viewpoints expressed in the Bible, not the least in creation theology. |
| Anti-Caholic prejudice? | Pat D
Jul 3, 2002 8:31 AM | | b If they accept evolution, they do not agree with the Bible.
Sorry. You simply don't know what you are talking about. The Bible says nothing for or against evolution, any more than it says anything for or against atomic energy, the theory of relativiy in physics, quantum physics, DNA or any number of modern discoveries. Any such areas of knowledge were not understood in the ancient world.
Positively, Genesis 1.1-2.4a reflects the images and concepts used of the ancient Middle East, and in many ways can be regarded as a reaction against them, presenting a quite different theology. However, their basic picture of the heavens, earth (land), and seas is much the same as found in other peoples of the ancient Middle East. They betray no knowledge of prehistory.
Much good information on what there is on creation can be obtained by reading standard reference works such as The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible and John L. McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible, as well as other things he has written. Bernhard W. Anderson, a Protestant scholar, has written extensively on creation themes in the Bible. They provide extensive references, of course, and you can look them all up.
BWT, the history of the notion of creation is a special interest of mine.
b Although you only mentioned the Vatican, since the Catholics haven't touched a Bible in several hundred years, maybe you could be a scientist and a Catholic.
This is totally uncalled for. There are many eminent Catholic biblical scholars and many Catholics do read their Bibles. But, of course, biblical scholarship has become quite ecumenical in past decades so that many Protestant and Jewish scholars can join in the same sorts of studies. Many knowledgeable Catholics have achieved eminence in science, including evolutionary biology. |
| Anti-Caholic prejudice? | Spiky
Jul 15, 2002 7:09 AM | | b The Bible says nothing for or against evolution, any more than it says anything for or against atomic energy, the theory of relativiy in physics, quantum physics, DNA or any number of modern discoveries.
2 things. 1) The Bible says God created heavens, earth (and set it in motion), vegetation, fish, animals and finally man. Tell me how this isn't in stark contrast to evolutionary theory. Notice how it somewhat follows the same order that the fossil record has shown us, but says there is a creator. Really doesn't leave room for "accidents". 2) The Bible mentions DNA, although not using those terms. Psalm 139:16.
Ok, a third. How exactly is a book finished almost 2000 years ago supposed to comment on a theory proposed in the last 100 years? (relativity)
And some questions. What is the purpose of the Bible? Scientific discovery? The Bible is a textbook for human life, and a historical record of the Israelites. Most important, it highlights God's purpose for his creation. Otherwise, what is the point of it? I feel that the fact that any comments it does make on natural issues are 100% correct is interesting, do you not? The fact that it doesn't touch on many issues that we call "science" doesn't mean it is wrong, just that it is about something else. |
| Anti-Caholic prejudice? | Pat D
Jul 15, 2002 4:54 PM | | b earth (and set it in motion),
Oh for God's sake! What does the word "earth" mean in the Bible? Give me a break!
Oh! And you might look up the word translated as "firmament" in the KJV.
b somewhat follows the same order that the fossil record has shown us
Sorry, but this is not true, not even 'somewhat.' Go find Asimov's book "In the Beginning." Again, I strongly suggest you look at the historical context of the first creation story in Genesis. To be for or against evolution wasn't a matter of concern at the time. You will note that it is quite different from the following story, too. And what about the other creation stories in the Bible?
b I feel that the fact that any comments it does make on natural issues are 100% correct is interesting, do you not?
LOL.You really haven't looked up on this have you? Flat earth, solid sky, awful lot of water, earth resting on foundations, etc.? Oh, ever read Job 38?
As for creation, you will have to tell me how the concept of creation contradicts evolution and vice versa. To put it simply, why could not God have created an evolving universe? If you think saying that God created the universe and that evolution is a fact involves a contradiction, you will have to show it to me. Do you place God's activity on the same level as natural activity? Do you think God's activity competes with natural activities? Even process theologians don't think that.
What do you do with creation? How is it relevant for your life?
b The Bible mentions DNA, although not using those terms. Psalm 139:16.
ROTFLOL. To put it kindly, I think the text refers to God's omnisicience.
b The Bible is a textbook for human life, and a historical record of the Israelites.
Oh dear! A textbook. Just what we need. I really think you need to learn more about the Bible: historical contexts, literary forms, alternate viewpoints, even conflicting viewpoints. It is really much more meaningful when you actually try to find out what it means rather than impose some dogmatic scheme on it. |
| More.... | Spiky
Jul 18, 2002 5:08 AM | | b Oh for God's sake! What does the word "earth" mean in the Bible? Give me a break!
About 4 different things, depending on the scripture. Our planet, the ground of our planet separate from the seas/oceans, people under various rulers, one or two other similar meanings, I can't remember every instance of its use offhand.
b Oh! And you might look up the word translated as "firmament" in the KJV.
Nothing in the KJV is translated, rather it's penned by KJ's people to say what benefits him. Hardly a useful VERSION of the Bible. Firmament, despite the "firm" in it, means expanse or space. Is this what you refer to as "solid sky" later in your post? Quote from a dictionary:
> firmament: from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew _raki'a_. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered _raki'a_ by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The _raki'a_ supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.
> Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Is it your opinion that "support" must mean something solid? More a poetic vs literal problem than anything. Some bibles translate this expanse, a little easier for most to understand. (certainly easier for me)
b Flat earth, solid sky, awful lot of water, earth resting on foundations, etc.? Oh, ever read Job 38?
That's actually my favorite chapter. "Where did you happen to be..." Great lines, God lets his guard down for a minute and tells it like it is, LOL. But...you've never read poetry before? Do you suppose God really meant there are doors (vs 8) between land and ocean? This is one of the hardest parts of the Bible, defining which is literal, which is poetic, which is symbolic. BIG area for debate. I'm sure if we got further into this, we'd argue about this kind of thing for years. One more thing, what do you mean by "awful lot of water"?
b ROTFLOL. To put it kindly, I think the text refers to God's omnisicience.
Well, duh. But have you bothered to look past that? What do you think of this verse in the context of abortion? Make it useful, don't just study it clinically and then move on.
b As for creation, you will have to tell me how the concept of creation contradicts evolution and vice versa. To put it simply, why could not God have created an evolving universe? If you think saying that God created the universe and that evolution is a fact involves a contradiction, you will have to show it to me.
This doesn't even make sense. If life on this planet started by a creator, it did not start by accident. If fish eventually turned into an amphibians, into reptiles, etc., than how could a god have created all these? Where is the difficulty in finding a difference between these two concepts? You are the only person with whom I've ever discussed this who thinks evolution and creation are not contradictory possiblities. As for God creating evolution, that's a different possiblity, but not what the Bible says. I've only been discussing what the Bible SAYS and MEANS, not what it could say or could mean. So that's really a new topic in this discussion.
b What do you do with creation? How is it relevant for your life?
Huh? I don't DO anything with creation, it is the Bible's explanation of where life on this planet comes from. I don't understand why you asked that. OT: the people who an |
| More....2 | Spiky
Jul 18, 2002 5:09 AM | | b What do you do with creation? How is it relevant for your life?
Huh? I don't DO anything with creation, it is the Bible's explanation of where life on this planet comes from. I don't understand why you asked that. OT: the people who annoy me the most are the "creationists", who think it took God six 24 hour days to create everything. Ludicrous, goes back to the debate on symbolic vs literal.
b Oh dear! A textbook. Just what we need. I really think you need to learn more about the Bible: historical contexts, literary forms, alternate viewpoints, even conflicting viewpoints. It is really much more meaningful when you actually try to find out what it means rather than impose some dogmatic scheme on it.
Totally lost me, here. What do you know of my Bible knowledge? The half-dozen comments I've made here? I guess that would be pretty miniscule if that was it. Let's see, most bibles are around 6-10000 pages (I forget how many verses), depending on font and references. If I wrote down just one thing on each verse I'd probably finish some time before the end of the year, if I didn't bother to eat, sleep or work.
If you don't like this as a "textbook" for how to live your life, then maybe you can borrow some self help books from some sappy female. Whatever turns your crank. Frankly, there are over billions of people (let's just include those that can think critically: maybe over the age of 5? what do you like?) on the planet and about 99.9% of them have a LOT of improvements they could make in how they live there lives. (putting myself in the 99.9%, just in case you're about to jump on that) "Literary forms", are you suggesting we use it to teach a class about various types of literature? Possible, I guess, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. "Alternate viewpoints" to what? You make it sound like that new show where a crime is shown from half a dozen different people. I'll refute any contradictions you claim are in the Bible. Most of them are simply different events in different time periods. Dogma?? You are defending the Catholic Church by claiming
b I am
dogmatic? Now that's funny. Let's see, what was added to Bible "understanding" in the 4th century (when the Catholic church was born)? Hellfire, trinity, immortal soul, etc. Gotta keep those formerly Greek gods happy with the new religion, eh?
This is just getting stupid. This is why I don't bother discussing things at AR, everything gets out of hand and you skeptic/EE/naysayer types just start spouting anything that you think will make others look less intelligent than you. (whether you believe it or not) Do you really need such an ego boost? Well, then, go for it. My ego can handle this and more. My sister does the same thing. I stand back and critique her form rather than let it bother me. If you want a Biblical debate, fine. But get over yourself with the LOL's, etc. |
| Alternate viewpoints | Pat D
Jul 18, 2002 8:40 AM | | Well, if Job does not represent an alternate viewpoint in the Bible, nothing does. Job's comforters offer basically a traditional view that his suffering must be his own fault, a view found elsewhere (i.e., Ps. 1). Jesus opposed the same view in Lk. 13:1-5.
Contradictions? Who killed Goliath?
How many midwives were there in Exodus to care for all those mothers?
b Let's see, what was added to Bible "understanding" in the 4th century (when the Catholic church was born)? Hellfire, trinity, immortal soul, etc. Gotta keep those formerly Greek gods happy with the new religion, eh?
I have no idea which alternate historical view you are defending, so I'm not going to try to deal with it.
b Huh? I don't DO anything with creation, it is the Bible's explanation of where life on this planet comes from. I don't understand why you asked that. OT: the people who annoy me the most are the "creationists", who think it took God six 24 hour days to create everything. Ludicrous, goes back to the debate on symbolic vs literal.
Well, yes, young earth creationists have wierd views.
If creation in the Bible is an explanation, which is open to question, it certainly is not a scientific explanation.
Nevertheless, I find it interesting that you can do nothing with your concept of creation. That being the case, it seems to be of minimal religious significance, nothing much to do with your life. You really ought to look up the various creation texts in the Bible--try McKenzie or The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Creation and Cosmogony, for starters). Too many texts for me to list for you here. |
| Alternate viewpoints | Spiky
Jul 19, 2002 9:12 AM | | Don't have much time today, I'll have to get back to this next week.
But, why don't you tell me what you DO with creation issues. Preach? Answer questions at audio boards? Meditate on your ancestral heritage? To me, this concept is little more than anecdotal, something to know, that's about it. I suppose if I was a scientist or historian, I'd use creation or evolution to make a vocation in studying the past or fossils, etc., but I'm neither. This is probably yet another issue of semantics. (from which half the arguments on this board stem) |
| Alternate viewpoints | Pat D
Jul 20, 2002 8:25 AM | | Well, for one thing, we say grace at meals. For another, I ask the Lord to "create a clean heart within me," as per Ps. 51. We also recognize that "the earth is the Lord's," (Ps. 24) and that we are responsible to take care of it. It seems to me to be absolutely fundamental.
As I said, your notion of creation seems to be religiously irrelevant. Why is this? |
| Alternate viewpoints | Spiky
Jul 24, 2002 7:33 AM | | Ah. I have been refering to creation, the act of creating. Which God finished long ago. At least according to the Bible. You have been refering to spirituality, which includes creation as a belief. Semantics, common problem on the net.
I don't spend much time dwelling on 'the act of creation' since I already know what the Bible says and it never changes. It was an historical event. You are discussing additional issues under the moniker 'creation', which issues also come up in my life, I assure you.
I'm afraid I'm a poor example of a religious zealot, even though I believe in the truth of the Bible. I'm way too skeptical and cynical to be a good zealot. |
| Alternate viewpoints | Pat D
Aug 2, 2002 3:49 PM | | No, I am sorry, you have very little inkling of what the Bible says about creation, one of the reasons being that you impose a distinction between literal meaning and poetic meaning which the biblical writers did not possess. Ps. 51 actually uses the word "bara", which always has God for a subject. If you think creation is a historical event, then you disagree with the author of Ps. 104.
I have suggested some standard reference works to you, but you have evidently neglected to read them. They should be available in the public library systems. At least look up the different references to creation.
I have noted in the literature some difficulty in deciding what a creation text is. There are five major creation stories in the Bible. There are also creation words, images, and doctrines. All told, they add up to a fair number of texts. Why don't you start looking them up? |
| Alternate viewpoints | Spiky
Jul 24, 2002 8:13 AM | | b Well, if Job does not represent an alternate viewpoint in the Bible, nothing does. Job's comforters offer basically a traditional view that his suffering must be his own fault, a view found elsewhere (i.e., Ps. 1). Jesus opposed the same view in Lk. 13:1-5.
Um, those 'friends' were sent directly by the Devil. The scripture says that directly, not even implied like most references to Satan. Hardly a real Bible viewpoint. Jewish "tradition" was pretty well hammered by the Bible, was it not? Jesus, prohpets before him, etc. all constantly battled against the religious leaders who forced the people into believing non-Bible traditions. Job and Jesus agree in this situation. Ps 1 doesn't really indict anyone, does it? There is a difference between sinners and repentant sinners. Job was repentant, just too self-indulging, which God called him on. Back to my fav chapter. Then Job repented. I really don't see contradictions, just layered situations. One person can be all these (sinner, righteous to a point, repentant, non-repentant) at different times, but that's God's choice/judgement.
Also, sin is now inherent in all of us, thanks Adam and Eve. So sin is not completely our fault. The point is, if you are unrepentant to God, THEN it becomes your fault and you will be accountable. Paul even goes so far to say that once you've heard Bible teaching, you are bloodguilty if you do not act on that to help both yourself and others repent. So ignorance may be an excuse that God will accept (His choice, not mine), but only if it is true ignorance. Other scripture says that small children (obviously ignorant of such matters yet) would get their parents' judgement. Now THAT'S a tough one, somewhat contradictory to other verses, but not totally.
b Goliath
I think I've heard this before, but I can't remember offhand the location of the opposing viewpoint of David killing him.
b Midwives
I'd have to check some more translations to see the problem. But I will say that people take these historical records too literally. To hear some critics talk, no events happened other than those listed in the Bible, then they call this ludicrous (even though it's their insinuation) and deem the Bible incorrect. The amount of info omitted from historical records of the Israelites and people before them would fill just a few volumes. If it mentions 2 midwives by name and then suggests there are more than 2, maybe they just didn't feel like listing hundreds or thousands of names. There were well over a million people who left Egypt a couple years later, I imagine more than 2 would be necessary for helping that many women. |
| Alternate viewpoints | Spiky
Jul 24, 2002 8:17 AM | | b So ignorance may be an excuse that God will accept (His choice, not mine), but only if it is true ignorance.
Just want to add...
The Bible also talks about a resurrection, then a time of testing where there will be NO ignorance. So this may be an excuse at one time, but eventually God will call everyone to account and judge them. (actually He's designated Jesus to do this work, another topic)
Also, ignorance may not help some who are too evil in God's eyes, don't know personally, I'm not Him. |
| Satan not "the Devil" in Job | Pat D
Aug 2, 2002 4:16 PM | | It is much too early, whenever it was written. Aside from the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, you might want to look at Elaine Pagel's interesting book on The Origin of Satan.
In Job, Satan is a kind of adversary, who states the opposite case.
The Hebrews had no concept of original sin as developed by the Church. You will no doubt find it surprising how little the Hebrew Scriptures make of the Fall story in Gen. 3. BWT, how man Fall stories are there in Genesis?
Goliath: Look up 2 Sam. 21:19. The Chronicler apparently later decided to fix up the contradiction by making it the brother of Goliath in 1 Chr. 20:5.
Midwives in Exodus. See 1:15ff. This is one reason we don't think the Exodus could have involved very many people. Another is that given the biblical numbers, it would have been the Egyptians who would have been shaking in their boots. How would Egypt have fed all of them? |
| 1897???? | Pat D
Jul 18, 2002 8:21 AM | | Well, the scholars know a lot more about the ancient Middle East now than they did in 1897, and that includes the meanings of words.
b As for God creating evolution, that's a different possiblity, but not what the Bible says.
Since you admit that, then you cannot consistently maintain that creation and evolution are contradictory. I am sorry this is a new viewpoint for you but it is quite common. You might look up Ian C. Barbour's "Issues in Science and Religion," Harper Torchbooks, 1971 (1966), especially chapters 12-13, for starters.
With your concept of creation, I can easily see why it has little relevance to your life.
As for "earth," I am afraid Easton's is all wet on some of the meanings. The Hebrew authors did not know we live on a planet. Let's try John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan, 1965:
"Earth in the Bible designates withr a particular part of the earth ("land") in a geographical sense, or the earth as the place of human habitation (Is. 45:18). The earth in a cosmic sense was conceived as a disk which rested either upon the waters of the abyss (Ps. 24:2) or upon pillars (Ps. 104:5)."
If you look under heaven, he will tell you it was conceived of as either a hemispherical dome covering the earth or a flat beaten metal plate (so the KJV was accurate here, though I agree it is out of date). I certainly can appreciate Job 38 as poetry, but the fact is, it is also a sort of compendium of Hebrew cosmological images.
Abortion is another issue, and the Bible really says little about it. I oppose abortion on demand on other grounds, basically a classification issue. |
| 1897???? | Spiky
Jul 24, 2002 7:52 AM | | b Abortion is another issue, and the Bible really says little about it.
Which is why you have to extrapolate scripture to cover it. Plenty of scripture on murder, this one is Psalm points out that God feels an embryo is a life. So murder is an appropriate word even immediately after conception.
b The Hebrew authors did not know we live on a planet.
They were not the authors. I agree they had little understanding of matters like this. They certainly did not understand why God forbade the Israelites to eat pork or to wash their hands so thoroughly. But God knew why. Now we do today.
b As for "earth," I am afraid Easton's is all wet on some of the meanings.
Those were my meanings.
On firmament: I only got that dictionary from an online search for something to quote. Recent dictionaries all call it "expanse" as well. Some refer to the 'apparent surface of the imaginary sphere of stars'. Still doesn't include solidity in the def. If you believe in the flood, you can easily come to realize the facts before the flood. There was no rain, there was less water on the earth since the sky was overloaded with water. So there was a physical indication of a sky, much more than the blue we see today. Seems strange, but that's what the Bible says. Now, I suppose this could be simplified so the people of the time could understand it, but I still believe it to be true since the Bible is true in my mind. Note that God 'created' the rainbow to vow never to flood the earth again. Gen 9:12-16. Could easily have been that the phenomenon was already existent in physical law, but the heavy cloud cover precluded any actual ocurrence. Again, Bible seems pretty accurate on scientific points, even if Moses and those who told the story down through the years didn't understand it like we do today.
b The earth in a cosmic sense was conceived as a disk which rested either upon the waters of the abyss (Ps. 24:2) or upon pillars (Ps. 104:5)."
These are all songs. Songs do not use literal terms, very doubtful the embryo comment I mentioned was understood to be literal, hence the reason I extrapolate to a DNA reference. They still don't today. I don't feel that pillars mentioned as holding up the sky in a song mean that the Bible author (God) thought there were physical pillars.
Literal vs poetry vs symbolic. And a lot of it comes down to this: remember who the actual author is. Just because men penned it, doesn't mean it doesn't have God's stamp (and His understanding). And those men may not have fully understood what they wrote. John, Ezekiel, etc. certainly didn't fully understand the prophecies they wrote down, but they still wrote them. |
| 1897???? | Pat D
Aug 3, 2002 12:02 PM | | Oh dear! The silly cloud cover stuff. Where is this in the text? I have seen it in the notes of the Schofield Bible, but that's hardly an authority.
Kindly look up on the word used in Gen. 1:6-8, variously translated as vault, dome, firmament. It means a strip of beaten metal. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible will do fine. Check Firmament and Heaven, for example. How anyone gets expanse out of this in any sense which implies its not solid is a mystery. How does a non-solid alleged 'expanse' separate the lower and upper waters? BWT, check out Job 37:18. Is that solid enough for you? As you can see, it makes no difference whether the text is poetry or not, the conception is consistent. |
| The texts... | Tom Bombadil
Jun 27, 2002 2:08 PM | | the very foundations of most religions are so questionable in their origins/authenticity. More evidence of man's work in them than any original word of God (if any existed at all).
Didn't realise there were scientists that are priests as also Vatican's scientists on this board - or maybe there arent...but it is information...no matter.
Looking at the critiquing on this board, I fail to see which Religion's fundamentals will withstand the same level of examination. |
| The texts... | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:56 AM | | b , I fail to see which Religion's fundamentals will withstand the same level of examination.
:)
b The texts...
I'd like to see the original, not fakes. |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | Pat D
Jun 27, 2002 4:03 AM | | Yes. Been a practicing and active Catholic all my life.
b That would be REALLY confusing.
Why do you ask? What thought process lies behind your confusion? |
| re: Any naysayers here that are religious ? | pctower
Jun 27, 2002 5:58 AM | | I think your question is silly, if not outright offensive.
What's your point? |
| Silly ? | Tom Bombadil
Jun 27, 2002 2:16 PM | | REF:your text above "spititual beliefs and faith" EXACTLY...would indeed confuse me to see a Naysayer running on BELIEFS and FAITH - the unquestionable, unverifiable and all that...while being able to cross-examine claims to audible differences here... |
| Silly ? | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:58 AM | | b ...would indeed confuse me to see a Naysayer running on BELIEFS and FAITH - the unquestionable, unverifiable and all that...while being able to cross-examine claims to audible differences here...
Oh, but many in science do this already without a problem. Didn't Einstein make a reference to God? |
| So...some yeasayers could be... | Tom Bombadil
Jun 28, 2002 12:00 PM | | such who WANT to believe...they would perhaps like to put their cables on a Pedestal or some Spires for good effect and kneel down and believe !!
Dont really know how much dumbed-down-mainstream-religion Einstein liked to follow. |
| Einstein | Warren Warren
Jul 2, 2002 1:53 PM | | It is fairly common knowledge that Einstein was Jewish, and if he had remained in Germany instead of emmigrating to the US, more likely than not he would have been put to death in a Nazi concentration camp due to his faith. He was in fact a very religious man, and spent the rest of his days after the Manhatten project regretting what he had helped create and praying for forgiveness. As far as "dumbed-down-mainstream-religion", I think that religion in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I (unlike Mtry) don't need to see the original texts to believe in something either. Most of the texts of the various Judeo-Christian faiths (Catholicism and Mormon included), seem overall to promote values of charity, fidelity, family, and sacrifice of self for the betterment of others. Even the Q'uran (Koran) expouses many of these beliefs. The one value that I personally feel has been omitted, or at best, under-stressed in most of these texts, is that of tolerance. Almost every religion believes that IT is the correct one, and everyone else must be wrong (Islam being the most extreme example of this). However, if you take the time to read the texts, while the stories and anecdotes may be confusing, conflicting, or out of date, the moral lessons remain pertinent today.
As for reconciling science with religion, i.e. creationism vs. evolution, many faiths handle this quite well. Frequently you see reference to the 7 days of creation and immediatley afterword the point (some say "disclaimer") of what is a day to G-d? Also, if man was separated from beasts to have mastery over them, does this really conflict with the Darwinian version of evolution? After all, we are the most formidable predators on the planet. With this awesome power, we should accept the awesome responsibility that goes with it and turn towards the sagacity of our ancestors who, much like the founding fathers of the US Constitution, got it right in writing, and leave it up to us to do the interpretation. Whether we abandon a divine being in search of pure science, or can somehow integrate both into our lives is a personal choice, and unfortunately, it seems like many people now are making the wrong one. Religion can be a great and motivating force, if you take the time and learn about it, study the texts, and question the meanings. No one, not some Mullah, Rabbi, Preist, or Televangelist can tell you how to believe. You need to do it for yourself. Just remember that although there have been many atrocities commited in the name of some deity or another, there have been many more great works of charity, architecture, art, and MUSIC done in those same names. And after all, isn't that what it's all about?
WW |
| Einstein | mtrycrafts
Jul 2, 2002 8:46 PM | | b I (unlike Mtry) don't need to see the original texts to believe in something either.
Was there one? Or just created by some authors and recreated and translated differently by others.
b seem overall to promote values of charity, fidelity, family, and sacrifice of self for the betterment of others.
Why would one need to be religious to have these?
b Almost every religion believes that IT is the correct one,
Of course. How else could they have followers? Why folloe one over the other if you don't believe in one being the only one correct? |
| Tolerance | Warren Warren
Jul 3, 2002 1:38 PM | | Well, you could look at this from several viewpoints. However, as for following the New Testament, you would have to say that the Catholic church was the first to organize it's faith around Jesus, and for many centuries, Christianity WAS the Catholic church, and vice-versa. Then along came Martin Luther, and later, Henry VIII, and subsequently several others. All of these divisions of "Christianity" believe in the same G-d and the same Jesus. So, for Christians there is only one (or 3) correct diety, yet many Christian sects say that Catholics, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, or Warren's Church of The Sisters of the Sacrificed Immaculate Virginity are all going to hell, even though the diety is the same one. While it may be true that I am going to hell (I already have a parking space reserved with my name), I don't understand how the basic tenent of charity does not get applied to fellows of the same faith, just different political viewpoints. And while it is not necessary to be religious to have values such as those I mentioned in my previous post, it is certainly a place to learn. Just like you don't have to go to school to learn a foreign language, many people learn through classroom instruction combined with practice, rather than just getting thrown into the midst of a foreign culture and learning to sink or swim. So, take it for what it is worth, but I certainly don't envy the man (or his family) who has no faith in anything. |
| Is audiophillia a religion? (nt) | entrope
Jun 27, 2002 6:51 AM | | |
| What does religion have to do with wire??? | Bobby Blacklight
Jun 27, 2002 9:37 AM | | Just because you have "faith" does not make it a contradiction to have the opinion that cables do not make a difference. Two completely unrelated topics. |
| What does religion have to do with wire??? | Tom Bombadil
Jun 27, 2002 2:24 PM | | FAITH and BELIEF <==> same thing ?
I think so.
Beyond a point cables do not make a difference...
Point is that there is examination/testing/verification/discussion...all of which does not happen with BELIEFS. |
| What does religion have to do with wire??? | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:59 AM | | b What does religion have to do with wire???"
Everything when it comes to audible differences :) |
| Is this try for the "Non-sequitar of the Year" award? nt | sam9
Jun 27, 2002 9:54 AM | | nt |
| You mean about their wires? | A
Jun 27, 2002 12:18 PM | | Many 'audiophiles' have religious views about their equipment and wires, and consequently do not wish to subject those views to scientific analysis. Yes, it would be odd for a wire 'naysayer' to be religious about their wires, but more standard religious beliefs are another matter, and such a person may or may not be religious. |
| Schizophrenic ? | Tom Bombadil
Jun 27, 2002 2:20 PM | | Dual lives ?
Anyway yes, you have worded my question much better.
I was wondering whether they live their lives with consistent scientific curiosity. |
| First straight answer. | CHRIS8
Jun 27, 2002 4:30 PM | | I am a naysayer.
I am religous. Specifically: Christian.
-Chris |
| Where is this quality these days... | Tom Bombadil
Jun 28, 2002 10:34 AM | | I certainly dont want to change your opinions...that is not the purpose...
Oops too late...
The very act of observing affects the experiment so there it is...
Anyway with intent to affect you opinions as minimally as possible ... how so ?
Do you examine the religion with as much enthusiasm as the naysaying ? |
| Where is this quality these days... | CHRIS8
Jun 28, 2002 6:29 PM | | "Do you examine the religion with as much enthusiasm as the naysaying ?"
I have. Actually, their is a problem with that as you can imagine. I have doubted my religion in the past as a result of this.
-Chris |
| You have my respect for your honesty and openess (nt) | StevenSurprenant
Jun 28, 2002 10:47 PM | | |
| Where is this quality these days... | mtrycrafts
Jun 29, 2002 7:27 PM | | b The very act of observing affects the experiment so there it is...
I think you are confusing observing sub atomic events with others.
b Do you examine the religion
Fath is not examinable by science. |
| Not necessarily sub-atomic events... | Tom Bombadil
Jul 1, 2002 12:47 PM | | Even people's opinions change with the very interaction with people with other opinions or simply questions asked...
Faith ? There are degrees to faith...it is another axiomatic system. If does not make sense ENOUGH people will not bother with it...however different people have different levels of ENOUGH. |
| Not necessarily sub-atomic events... | mtrycrafts
Jul 1, 2002 8:39 PM | | b Even people's opinions change with the very interaction with people
Oh, a non measureable event, just a different opinion. What was intended by the original person of that statemnt was the actual measuring would alter the parameters. |
| measurable certainly...but affected ... | Tom Bombadil
Jul 2, 2002 7:29 AM | | Opinions are certainly measurable ... we would not vote in a democracy otherwise...Changing opinions are measurable too.
I think what the original person said is kinda similar.
Although the said person was probably talking about sub-atomic events ...
These sub-atomic events are not INDIVIDUALLY measurable either - correct me with examples if this way off the mark.
Opinions affected by interaction with other peoples opinions is a measurable thing indeed. |
| measurable certainly...but affected ... | mtrycrafts
Jul 2, 2002 8:50 PM | | Well, the observing of sub atomic particles, uncertainty principle, causes one not to take simutaneous predictions accurately, really, location and speed, one or the other, not both. So, that is what is effected by observation. Some may want to apply it to other measured events but.. |
| Yes. | caldera
Jun 29, 2002 9:54 AM | | Methodist. Have had too many....certain happenings.....in my life to NOT believe in God. Don't go to church very much though.
While God cannot be tested for, wires CAN be.
<b>__/C\__</b>
The REAL thing: http://soonersports.ocsn.com/sports/m-wrestl/okla-m-wrestl-body.html |
| Yes. | pctower
Jun 29, 2002 11:55 AM | | b While God cannot be tested for, wires CAN be.
Excellent observation. People will often practice tollerance towards others' regligious beliefs because everyone knows they can't be tested and are really based on faith, and faith can be a result of a multitude of factors.
Cables, on the other hand, can be tested. Unfortunately, virtually no valid, reliable double blind testings has ever been done on cables. Accordingly, people remain skeptical or form beliefs for many different reasons. Yet, the naysayers claim the intellectual high ground and obscure the fact that the proper testing has never been done.
In short, while cables can be tested, they never really have been subjected to sufficient valid DBTs to provide valid scientific data in favor of either side. I suggest that unless and until such testing occurs, each side practice tollerance towards the beliefs of the other. |
| Yes. | Pat D
Jul 19, 2002 11:07 AM | | b Excellent observation. People will often practice tollerance towards others' regligious beliefs because everyone knows they can't be tested and are really based on faith, and faith can be a result of a multitude of factors.
As well, there are those who will regard their faith as absolute and allege those who do not accept it refuse to accept the truth. Justg admitting religious views as faith does not necessarily result in tolerance.
b Cables, on the other hand, can be tested. Unfortunately, virtually no valid, reliable double blind testings has ever been done on cables. Accordingly, people remain skeptical or form beliefs for many different reasons. Yet, the naysayers claim the intellectual high ground and obscure the fact that the proper testing has never been done.
Yes, the audibility of differences between various things can be tested. I presume your conclusions on the reliability of such DBTs as have been done is based on Leventhal's concerns about Typoe II errors. You seem to forget that Tom Nousaine pointed out the highly arbitrary nature of Leventhal's assumptions about the percentage of times a person can hear a difference. This renders his judgments about the reliability of the DBTs as a highly subjective assumption.
b In short, while cables can be tested, they never really have been subjected to sufficient valid DBTs to provide valid scientific data in favor of either side. I suggest that unless and until such testing occurs, each side practice tollerance towards the beliefs of the other.
Here you mention two sides, but without adequately delineating what each would hold, or whether there are in fact two sides. Again, as I have said before, there are adequate reasons to be sceptical of claims made about being able to hear small differences. I would like to know what interconnect, for example, would fall above these curves (or anywhere near them):
http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm
One could render such claims of audible differences plausible by 1) providing measurements showing differences which should be audible, or 2) by providing the results of controlled DBTs. |
| What do you get when you mix... | Warren Warren
Jul 3, 2002 1:40 PM | | ... an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
A man who stays up all night wondering if there really is a dog. |
| |
