REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And you believe that? Why do you believe that ANYONE lived almost a thousand years when NO scientific evidence supports people living a thousand years?

This is really quite ridiculous - you act like this is all fact and just should be accepted as such.

Lol. Yeah, I can see why you'd find that funny .

(Gets serious again) There is actually some evidence concerning the massive age span. I posted it for you once before. It takes up about a whole post though, so I don't know if I want to submit it again. I'm not sure it is worth it.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It;s funy by the way - I had forgotten about that little part - that Adam, is said to have had seth - but then cain and Abel are left out of it.

BTW - Seth must have been a clone.

Why do you say that? Cain and Abel also aren't left out of it at all. They are just not mentioned by name. The scripture clearly says he had other sons and daughters. That would have included Cain, Abel, and their wives.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That's because you seem to try to fit science into the bible - so you seem to be able to slightly interpret the bible differently so you don't face the contradictions. It says right there that god created all the plant types at ONE TIME - not over a space of any period. But he said "let the earth burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant, and fruit trees with seeds inside the fruit, so that these seeds will produce the kinds of plants and fruits they came from." It doesn't have to be the third day. But he supposedly said this in one sentece. It would lead one to believe - if the bible were to be true - that all the plants sprang forth at one time.

Not any more then that all the different sea creatures that ever have existed came into existence at one time. Though you could believe that it's saying that . I really think it's talking about phases of creation. This particular phase can go on for X number of years.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - you do realize that the REAL judgment day is when god comes down the second time. I seriously doubt anyone on this board would accept anyone claiming to be god today.

I have known Jesus for four years now. I don't think I would make a mistake. Also, I'm not really very concerned about it at all. Jesus said about his second coming that it would be like a lightning bolt. "As a lightning bolt lights up the sky from the east to the west, so shall my coming be." It will be impossible to miss, impossible to mistake.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Yet you have no problem believing that someone in ancient times was god and you don't understand why others don't.

On the contrary. I fully understand you and others on this website not accepting Christ is God. It makes absolute sense to me.

Here is what Christianity means to me. Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP. Jesus Christ is KNOWABLE today. I capitalize in order to indicate the reality of what I'm talking about, that this is not Christian lingo but real experiences. Just as meeting you over Internet is a real experience, I can hear Jesus without hearing him with my physical ears or seeing him with my physical eyes. I have known him for four years, now. I have been a Christian for nineteen (since I was born). When he revealed himself to me, it was glorious. It changed a boy who was terrified that his religion was just belief and an empty shell into someone who knew the reality. I met Jesus. I didn't see him with his naked eyes at that first meeting (I hope to see Jesus with my naked eyes very soon), but I encountered him in such a way nevertheless that I was completely convinced, and still am. That was not the only experience of meeting Jesus. It happens frequently. Sometimes it happens more strongly and in a more special way then it does at other times.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What do you mean Cain wasn't Adam's firstborn? After him and eve were tossed out of eden - they had intercourse and begot cain - meaning "I have created" (Chapter 4). And the next child they had was Abel. Now you are saying that this first part is wrong and that cain and Abel were NOT the first born and that only the geaneology section is true.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to defend the indefensible.

Reading further in the chapter, I realized that you are right. Cain did come before Seth. Seth was born after Abel, which makes him in all probability the third son. The issue of marriage is still not a problem though. It said that Adam had daughters. It did not say when. Adam and Eve could very well have already had a daughter or two before Cain and Abel, or while Cain and Abel were growing up. The birth of female children was not likely to have been nearly so noteworthy, either. Some indication of this being the case might be detected in Eve's voice when she said upon giving birth to Cain, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man!" (NIV)

That Seth should lead in the geneaology is logical, of course. Abel was dead, and Cain was banished and cursed by God. Seth would be the next in line.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for your examples as to why Pilot would have treated jesus differently - you have no idea. Do you know how the the many prisoners before had come before pilot? This again is just you superimposing your belief on things that aren't stated.

Very well. Your point about Pilate's reactions can only be correct if Jesus was not the Son of God. If you assume that, then we aren't even talking about scripture anymore, so the whole point is useless. You have to pick and choose what scriptures to believe and what not to in order to make this attack make sense. Here you are pointing merely to an inconsistency between scripture and your beliefs, not to an inconsistency between scripture and scripture.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You know - my book on Churchill is larger than the entire Bible, as is Lord of the Rings.

So what?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Look at Masada. Archeologists have found evidence of the destruction, they found pieces of pottery with names on them that they feel show the the lottery that was used to determine who would kill who instead of surrendering. But archeologists - instead of finding a mass of skeletons - have only found 25. A far cry from the roughly 1000 who were supposed to have died there. This is an example of biblical exageration.

Unfortunately, this is one issue I don't know much about. I would like to know about this issue, but someone else will have to respond about it.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I love having the name Jersey DEVIL during talks like this.

It is fun . The name and the discussion .

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

The scripture clearly says he had other sons and daughters. That would have included Cain, Abel, and their wives.

so incest is morally right according to the bible?

i have never read this bible you keep talking about, but it all seems jolly interesting, as far as fantasy novels go, though i much prefer the silmarillion

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

so incest is morally right according to the bible?

i have never read this bible you keep talking about, but it all seems jolly interesting, as far as fantasy novels go, though i much prefer the silmarillion

Fine. Just remember that the author of the Silmarillion would have pointed you to the Bible... and its Author!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Fine. Just remember that the author of the Silmarillion would have pointed you to the Bible... and its Author!

maybe, but still fantasy

[inked]

LCoU,

Maybe you think it fantasy, but you might want to check out the archeological and historical verifications before assigning it that category. As well what the accurate beliefs are based on rather than your perception.

Just a challenge, of course!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

LCoU,

Maybe you think it fantasy, but you might want to check out the archeological and historical verifications before assigning it that category. As well what the accurate beliefs are based on rather than your perception.

Just a challenge, of course!

yes and as i said - Homer's Odyssey also has archeological and historical accuracies, the only thing that isn't proveable is the greek gods. So does that make the odyssey real? Do you worship the greek gods because the Oddysey has been shown to be historically accurate (even more so than they thought with the discovery of Troy, which no one thought existed before)?

Which category does the Oddyssey fall under now?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Reading further in the chapter, I realized that you are right. Cain did come before Seth. Seth was born after Abel, which makes him in all probability the third son. The issue of marriage is still not a problem though. It said that Adam had daughters. It did not say when. Adam and Eve could very well have already had a daughter or two before Cain and Abel, or while Cain and Abel were growing up. The birth of female children was not likely to have been nearly so noteworthy, either. Some indication of this being the case might be detected in Eve's voice when she said upon giving birth to Cain, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man!" (NIV)

That Seth should lead in the geneaology is logical, of course. Abel was dead, and Cain was banished and cursed by God. Seth would be the next in line.

You just made my point about resolving your conflicts so the bible does not come into question. This is a perfect example. At first you said the geneology was all the first born. Now that I have pointed out the inconsistency in this statement with the passage about the birth of Cain and Abel = you now indictae that "seth wasn't the first born - but it doesn't matter because cain and abel were dead".

Also - as LCoU asks - so the bible allows incest?

Very well. Your point about Pilate's reactions can only be correct if Jesus was not the Son of God. If you assume that, then we aren't even talking about scripture anymore, so the whole point is useless. You have to pick and choose what scriptures to believe and what not to in order to make this attack make sense. Here you are pointing merely to an inconsistency between scripture and your beliefs, not to an inconsistency between scripture and scripture.

No - this isn't useless. For Pilate to have treated Jesus differently - he would have HAD TO believe that jesus was god. So no - I don't have to pick and choose scripture to make the attack make sense. I just have to look at how Pilate would have viewed Jesus and what was going on around him. Pilate didn't believe Jesus was the son of god, so why should he have been awed by being in god's precense?

So what?

The issue is that the bible is very general. You want to say how well the bbile describes so many things, well it doesn't actually go into much depth with anything, not even the crucifiction is really detailed. You can basically make it fit anyway you want. Just as long as you justify when you take the literal interpretation or when you take the symbolic interpretation. But then that makes is completely meaningless.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Might it have just been that as peopel moved away from each other - languages evolved and changed? Which is actually what happened. English is a combination of languages and even old English you would need to translate - because language itself has evolved.

indeed. And in fact they are now approaching piecing together the original Indo European “first civilization language� if you will using complex computer software designed to follow predictive language evolution. Quite intriguing really.

Do you believe that Mary Magdalen was Jesus's wife and that they had a daughter named Sarah? Because there IS evidence of that too

I think the whole Mary Magdalen phenomenon is fascinating. She was clearly black listed for a reason in the early Christian church and tainted in the scriptures to minimize her influence and power. Clearly the fact that they attempted to meticulously destroy every copy of the Gospel of Mary shows something was going on there. In the one surviving copy found of that gospel it becomes clear that Mary was the primary disciple of jesus and the one most in tune with his ideas. But that Peter was very much in opposition to her. And that she never was a prostitute. But that was later laid on her to marginalize her influence and importance. And it worked for millennia. In fact wasn’t it just recently that the catholic church officially lifted the label of “repentant sinner� from her or something? And acknowledged that she had been done an injustice? Personally Id like to know who the real Mary Magdalen was and her true impact on early Christianity.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

so incest is morally right according to the bible?

The prohibition against incest didn't come about until much, much later. A logical assumption would be that it was put in place to protect people after the many, many years of accumulated genetic problems made it a dangerous thing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Clearly the fact that they attempted to meticulously destroy every copy of the Gospel of Mary shows something was going on there.

Pehaps it just shows that they thought there were errors in it.

In the one surviving copy found of that gospel it becomes clear that Mary was the primary disciple of jesus and the one most in tune with his ideas. But that Peter was very much in opposition to her.

And you believe this, and don't believe the Bible? Why should you believe this? I would imagine your reasons for not believing the Bible would also apply to this gospel.

And that she never was a prostitute. But that was later laid on her to marginalize her influence and importance. And it worked for millennia. In fact wasn’t it just recently that the catholic church officially lifted the label of “repentant sinner� from her or something? And acknowledged that she had been done an injustice? Personally Id like to know who the real Mary Magdalen was and her true impact on early Christianity.

So would I. I think many things that the RCC has done were wrong and based on insufficient evidence. Did they think she was a prostitute?

Looking straight at the source material of the 4 gospels in the Bible, I certainly NEVER see Jesus speaking to ANY woman with anything but respect. And I don't see Mary M. described as a prostitute.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The prohibition against incest didn't come about until much, much later. A logical assumption would be that it was put in place to protect people after the many, many years of accumulated genetic problems made it a dangerous thing.

So it wasnt' dangerous when the genetics were MUCH much closer with a VERY LIMITED genetic make-up. Actually there was NO deversity in the genetic make-up really - especially if you believe everyone is descended from Adam and Eve. Where would the diversity come from?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If we had changed the Bible's Psalms passage that said, "the Earth is stable on its foundations- it shall not be moved," in light of Galileo's evidence, we would have been proved wrong by the Theory of Relativity, according to which movement is defined by acceleration.

Personally, I think that passage was misunderstood. In the Psalms, the Psalmist says that he "shall not be moved", using the exact same word. However, no one thinks that the Psalmist never moved in his lifetime. It denotes a stability and a founding upon something solid, IMO. And I think the earth is certainly amazingly designed and fine-tuned and stable, altho winding down over time.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So it wasnt' dangerous when the genetics were MUCH much closer with a VERY LIMITED genetic make-up.

Neither one of us has genetic samples from Adam and Eve - rats! That would be very interesting. You feel they were "very limited", but I don't see any reason to assume they were, so I won't.

Here is my assumption: that God designed Adam and Eve with a great deal of genetic diversity. Personally, I believe that Adam and Eve were fully human, with human DNA, and were NOT one-celled prototypes, or even multi-celled prototypes, with a "very limited" genetic make-up. Why must one assume that their genetic make-up was "very limited"? I don't see any reason to assume this, so I don't.

Actually there was NO deversity in the genetic make-up really - especially if you believe everyone is descended from Adam and Eve.

Sorry, I don't understand how you arrive at your assumption (the first part of your sentence) nor your conclusion from that assumption (the second half of your sentence).

Where would the diversity come from?

Design
And a brilliant one, IMHO!
I imagine, for example, that Adam and Eve were medium brown-skinned people, because from two medium brown-skinned people, you can get everything from the whitest white to the darkest black and everything in between.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Pehaps it just shows that they thought there were errors in it.

And you believe this, and don't believe the Bible? Why should you believe this? I would imagine your reasons for not believing the Bible would also apply to this gospel.

Well believing that jesus was the son of god or that there is a god is very different from believing that someone was married to someone else. Wouldn't you think?

So would I. I think many things that the RCC has done were wrong and based on insufficient evidence. Did they think she was a prostitute?

I think ALL religions are based on insufficient evidence.

Looking straight at the source material of the 4 gospels in the Bible, I certainly NEVER see Jesus speaking to ANY woman with anything but respect. And I don't see Mary M. described as a prostitute.

It never said that he didn't speak to her with respect. However the gospels do not put Mary Magdalen in a good light either, and actually calls her "a woman of the streets - a prostitute" (luke 7:37) So how did the Roman Catholic Church twist this statement?

[inked]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

yes and as i said - Homer's Odyssey also has archeological and historical accuracies, the only thing that isn't proveable is the greek gods. So does that make the odyssey real? Do you worship the greek gods because the Oddysey has been shown to be historically accurate (even more so than they thought with the discovery of Troy, which no one thought existed before)?

Which category does the Oddyssey fall under now?

JD,

One of the interesting observations to be drawn from your comments is that the "scholarship" of literature and deconstruction have often argued in the past for the lack of evidence for historical materials in ancient ballads and poems of the epic variety. The absence of evidence is often adduced a prood of the absence of basis. What in point was an absence of data due to a failure to investigate or to be able to investigate was taken as some proof of lack of evidence. That has been undermined by archeological advances.
Certain fabled places have been discovered to have actual existence (eg, Troy).

These sort of complaints have a 150 year old history in biblical criticism. It is truly fascinating to read over the "assured results of higher criticism" as touted in the early 1900s - 1950's and find that those are routed by archeology.

In assessing the reliability of the literary reference as to historicity, the bulk of the evidence yields either a reliable source or an unreliable source (though some admixture of the two is possible, of course) in regard to the historical events accounted. That there was a Troy is now well established by archeology. So much for the location, eh! That in itself does not establish all the other matter contained.

In regard to the biblical archeology record we have multiple historical events accounted and verified. Does that mean the events not confirmed are reliable? Not necessarily. But it does tend one towards a sense of accuracy and reliabilty. EG, Luke's usages in ACTS of titles unknown to history until their uncovering on inscriptions was frequently in the early 1900's used as proof of the un-historicity of Luke's account. Now it is reversed. Luke's recording of these titles is proof of his accuracy. So, if Luke was accurate in the little things, one might reasonably believe he was accurate in the record he made of Jesus and the Apostles and Early Church. And one might assess their claims on the fact that Luke's accuracy rendered his reports reliable.

In comparing the claims made on behalf of the protagonists and antagonists, one would certainly assess the reliability of the text available, its transmission, and other pertinent factors BEFORE moving on to the issue of the specific claims made by individuals.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Neither one of us has genetic samples from Adam and Eve - rats! That would be very interesting. You feel they were "very limited", but I don't see any reason to assume they were, so I won't.

Here is my assumption: that God designed Adam and Eve with a great deal of genetic diversity. Personally, I believe that Adam and Eve were fully human, with human DNA, and were NOT one-celled prototypes, or even multi-celled prototypes, with a "very limited" genetic make-up. Why must one assume that their genetic make-up was "very limited"? I don't see any reason to assume this, so I don't.

We must assume that the diversity of off spring from adam and eve would be the same. Unless you throw in mysticism into the whole affair. i dnd't say they didn't have full human DNA. But if there are only TWO people on the planet and they have sex and have 30 children - those 30 children are basically going to have very similar genetic makeup. You seem have ERRONEOUSLY took what I said to mean that they didn't have full DNA But the DNA between me and my brothers and sister isn't much different and if I was to have to have off spring with them - because they were the only people on earth - again - the genetic deversity wouldn't occur. So where did all the genetic deversity happen if everyone is descended from 2 people?

Sorry, I don't understand how you arrive at your assumption (the first part of your sentence) nor your conclusion from that assumption (the second half of your sentence).

Easy - no one else was placed on the earth with Adam and Eve according to the bible. So - the only reason why you don't see how I could come up with my conclusion - I must assume - because you have to fit everyth9ing in with what the bible says and nt necessarily look at does it make any sense.

Design
And a brilliant one, IMHO!
I imagine, for example, that Adam and Eve were medium brown-skinned people, because from two medium brown-skinned people, you can get everything from the whitest white to the darkest black and everything in between.

All the offspring DNA is still basically the same. We're not merely talking about color. And you can't get everything from white to dark black from two medium brown people. because if that wasd the case - then you would have black chinese and japanese, etc - and you don't (unless of course they are the offspring of a black and asian couple). So please - look beyond the the narrow view you seem to have here and look at how much of what you state makes sense.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It never said that he didn't speak to her with respect. However the gospels do not put Mary Magdalen in a good light either, and actually calls her "a woman of the streets - a prostitute" (luke 7:37) So how did the Roman Catholic Church twist this statement?

Where in that section does it say "Mary Magdalen"?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

In assessing the reliability of the literary reference as to historicity, the bulk of the evidence yields either a reliable source or an unreliable source (though some admixture of the two is possible, of course) in regard to the historical events accounted. That there was a Troy is now well established by archeology. So much for the location, eh! That in itself does not establish all the other matter contained.

And the same holds true for the bibel Just because there are historical accuracies in the bible does not make it true. Doe snot make Genesis or Noah or anything like that true.

In regard to the biblical archeology record we have multiple historical events accounted and verified. Does that mean the events not confirmed are reliable? Not necessarily. But it does tend one towards a sense of accuracy and reliabilty. EG, Luke's usages in ACTS of titles unknown to history until their uncovering on inscriptions was frequently in the early 1900's used as proof of the un-historicity of Luke's account. Now it is reversed. Luke's recording of these titles is proof of his accuracy. So, if Luke was accurate in the little things, one might reasonably believe he was accurate in the record he made of Jesus and the Apostles and Early Church. And one might assess their claims on the fact that Luke's accuracy rendered his reports reliable.

Not necessarily at all. And we're not talking about an accurate record of Jesus's life or times and his friends. I can write about the historical events of today, go into detail of my firends, write about one of them doing mystical things. Does that mean because the first two items are historically confirmed - that the third one is most likely accurate? No it doesn't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Where in that section does it say "Mary Magdalen"?

Luke doesn't. However then you go to JOhn and there are several references to this account where it mentions Mary having done this. John 11 "Do you remember, Mary, who poured the costly perfume on Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair?" The agian in Luke 12 - there is this . "A banquet was prepared in Jesus' honor. Martha served, and Lazarus sat at the table with him. Then Mary took a jar of costly perfume made from essence of nard, and annointed Jesus' feet with it and wiped them with her hair."

It is felt that this Mary was the same who first went to Jesus and washed his feet with her tears.