Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What make atheism extreme? There is no evidence for any god existence so why should we believe? For me atheism is just common sense.
Perhaps. But I've never seen anybody articulate what this "Truth" is supposed to be without being completely incorrect (e.g. claiming that one can see modern scientific theories described in Genesis).And, this is a question to the Young Earth Creationists: Why can it not be that Earth was created billions of years ago, and we were given an allegory for its Creation in the Bible? An allegory can contain as much truth as a literal translation - it's just a Truth that's a little more complex, a little more beautiful.
Perhaps. But I've never seen anybody articulate what this "Truth" is supposed to be without being completely incorrect (e.g. claiming that one can see modern scientific theories described in Genesis).
Of course I have. I've just never seen a decent explanation as to what the supposed allegory of the first chapter of Genesis actually is.Come now... you're heard of allegory.
The nasty thing, however, is that we see Adam and Eve being punished for obtaining knowledge. That, to me, is one of the ugliest "lessons" that Christianity has to offer: ignorance is to be glorified, while knowledge is to be avoided at all costs. We even see this theme again and again throughout the Bible, from the destruction of the tower of Babel, to the claim in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."The account in Genesis is not historically accurate - but one sees how humans developed from primates and began to understand how their actions had an effect on others. It just took a few million years of evolution to get from innocent ignorance to learned knowledge, rather than just a few seconds of eating a fruit. The Bible contains the Truth that humans learned about "sin" - about negative consequences - but it gives a more artful allegory than the scientific account.
Of course I have. I've just never seen a decent explanation as to what the supposed allegory of the first chapter of Genesis actually is.
The nasty thing, however, is that we see Adam and Eve being punished for obtaining knowledge. That, to me, is one of the ugliest "lessons" that Christianity has to offer: ignorance is to be glorified, while knowledge is to be avoided at all costs. We even see this theme again and again throughout the Bible, from the destruction of the tower of Babel, to the claim in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."
Perhaps. I'd have to see the stories you're referencing. But it seems, to me, that most of the knowledge praised in the Bible is not actually knowledge, but rather simple belief that is not based upon evidence. In particular, Jesus seems fond of performing miracles because of peoples' faith, as well as waxing poetic as to how faith is a force that moves mountains. And since faith is belief not based upon evidence, a definition reinforced many times in the Bible, it makes no sense to me at all to claim that the Bible is pro-knowledge....and yet those who did seek knowledge were praised, like Luke, Matthew, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Deborah...
Well, perhaps. It is peripherally related, and I think that the Bible's stance on knowledge is quite central to the fact that the creation vs. evolution debate exists at all. However, yes, these sorts of discussions are typically vastly far off-topic, and so only rarely come up in the C&E forum. Here we usually like to simply discuss the evidence surrounding evolution, and usually there's a mix of theists and atheists arguing against a select few creationists.But none of this is about creation or evolution. And I guess maybe that's why there aren't a lot of middle-of-the roaders in C&E!
Perhaps. I'd have to see the stories you're referencing. But it seems, to me, that most of the knowledge praised in the Bible is not actually knowledge, but rather simple belief that is not based upon evidence. In particular, Jesus seems fond of performing miracles because of peoples' faith, as well as waxing poetic as to how faith is a force that moves mountains. And since faith is belief not based upon evidence, a definition reinforced many times in the Bible, it makes no sense to me at all to claim that the Bible is pro-knowledge.
Of course, not that I find this at all surprising, given that the Bible is so obviously incorrect about many of its claims, as it both disagrees with itself and with observable reality, such that if people who believed in the Bible were too encouraged to seek knowledge they would more likely turn away from the text.
Well, perhaps. It is peripherally related, and I think that the Bible's stance on knowledge is quite central to the fact that the creation vs. evolution debate exists at all. However, yes, these sorts of discussions are typically vastly far off-topic, and so only rarely come up in the C&E forum. Here we usually like to simply discuss the evidence surrounding evolution, and usually there's a mix of theists and atheists arguing against a select few creationists.
About that "embedded" theory: Even if someone creates a chair made out of wood and material cut/made in the early 1800's, and styles the chair exactly like it should look for an Empire Style chair, it's still just a modern reproduction. Yes, even though it's made out old wood, old cloth, old padding, it's just a reproduction.
Why would God make a reproduction Earth? An imitation Earth?
Ignoring evidence to the contrary of what you believe is just blind at best, ignorant at worse.
Your pastor is wrong. The first evidence of written language appears aroind 3000 BCE.
The intervening years gave plenty of time for human language and writing to develop to the level where a book like the bible could be written.
There are still plenty of texts around with the same sort of sophistication that predate the writing of the bible.
Can you quote for me the specific passages where the internet an other things you claim appear in the bible? NOT interpretations, I mean the actual words of the passage. It's easy, in modern times, to claim prophetic interpretations from ancient works to current events.
But you can't misinterpret Genesis? With evidence one can go back and examine the evidence again. Tell me, what recourse to you have once you've committed yourself to a mistaken interpretation of scripture?The only evidence I ignore is the evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
Evidence can be interpreted the wrong way.
Luckily, your opinion is pretty much worthless. There was no global flood.IMO, all writings outside of the Ark prior to the Flood were destroyed. Only the writings that Noah took aboard the Ark would have survived (until entropy did its thing on them).
Nonsense.As I have said before, God, Himself wrote the first message in pictogram, when He arranged the stars in the sky to convey the plan of salvation - (Psalm 19:1-7).
Nope.(Ever wonder why the sun went dark for three hours on the day of the Crucifixion?)
How would you like to pay out on that guarantee?I guarantee you --- they don't predate Genesis 1-3.
Willful ignorance is offensive, no matter how much you don't wish it to be.No, thanks --- I alread have - many times; and the way you're coming across, I have a feeling it would be a waste of my time.
(No offense, but I'm on a limited schedule right now.)
Hold on to that thought.The only evidence I ignore is the evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
And now AVET will demonstrate how do do just that with Psalm 19....Evidence can be interpreted the wrong way.
As I have said before, God, Himself wrote the first message in pictogram, when He arranged the stars in the sky to convey the plan of salvation - (Psalm 19:1-7).
1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Hi Chalnoth,The nasty thing, however, is that we see Adam and Eve being punished for obtaining knowledge. That, to me, is one of the ugliest "lessons" that Christianity has to offer: ignorance is to be glorified, while knowledge is to be avoided at all costs.
Except the command they were disobeying was that they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So it amounts to the same thing.Hi Chalnoth,
This is incorrect. They were not punished for obtaining knowledge, they were punished for disobeying God, and contaminating His creation with sin. Saying they were punished for obtaining knowledge is completely misrepresenting the Bible's opening chapters.
Digit
No I don't believe it does, I'm afraid we cannot equate it like that. Think of it like this, if I say to a child do not eat my candy bar, as there is a house full of food, and they do eat it, I will punish them for disobeying me - my directive, not for experiencing the sugary joy of my candy bar - the result.Except the command they were disobeying was that they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So it amounts to the same thing.
This is incorrect. They were not punished for obtaining knowledge, they were punished for disobeying God, and contaminating His creation with sin. Saying they were punished for obtaining knowledge is completely misrepresenting the Bible's opening chapters.
Ok. And?It is well to remember that the serpent didn’t lie.
KJV Genesis 3:4-5 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
KJV Genesis 3:22-23 "And the LORD God said,Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
The serpent told the truth.
But you can't misinterpret Genesis? With evidence one can go back and examine the evidence again. Tell me, what recourse to you have once you've committed yourself to a mistaken interpretation of scripture?
Luckily, your opinion is pretty much worthless. There was no global flood.
Nonsense.
Nope.
How would you like to pay out on that guarantee?
Willful ignorance is offensive, no matter how much you don't wish it to be.
Bit since it is not Gen 1 (which clearly must be taken as literal history, with its rib-woman, talking snake, Tree of Life and flaming sword) I guess it is OK ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?