Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 07:57:21 PM
I don't really understand how someone can be so in tune with the physical sciences AND believe that God created the world in 7 days. :-\
Are you sure the creation week he believes in is 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time? I believe the fictional God created the universe in 7 days...simply not 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time.
EDIT: Split from another thread - Tank
I didn't mean for it to become a point of debate...just that there is more than one way of looking at creation "week".
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 08:07:28 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 07:57:21 PM
I don't really understand how someone can be so in tune with the physical sciences AND believe that God created the world in 7 days. :-\
Are you sure the creation week he believes in is 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time? I believe the fictional God created the universe in 7 days...simply not 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time.
No, I'll admit I don't talk to him very often about stuff like that anymore, so I've never asked him if he actually believes in 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time. As you might expect, religion is a touchy topic between the two of us. Last time we had a conversation about anything even remotely close to religion (we were actually just talking about the holidays - we celebrate Solstice in our house instead of Xmas or Chanukah) his comments were "You are such a dope sometimes." and "Sucks to be you." So yeah, we don't talk about this stuff much any more. Not worth the conflict when neither one of us is likely to change our minds and we both leave feeling disrespected.
ETA: Sorry Tank, don't know if you want to move this one too since I was responding to the question about 7 consecutive days.
So you take the 7 god days interpretation? Like where a god day could be thousands of our days.
If we are going to go down this path, I have to ask - what do you mean by not seven consecutive 24 hour periods?
Like, do you believe that "days" does not refer to actual days (each "day" could last billions of years) or do you believe that they actually were real days, but spaced out billions/millions of years (assuming you believe that the world is billions of years old.)
Quote from: Whitney on January 13, 2012, 08:19:44 PM
So you take the 7 god days interpretation? Like where a god day could be thousands of our days.
Yes. I'm open to the fact that creation week may've not been literally A WEEK as we know it today. One point is that the "sun" wasn't created until day 4. Another is the apparent "agreement" in that the order of creation is much like order that one might assume things evolved.
At the same time, the actual "God involvement" may've been simply a few moments to speak the order...maybe even at different times.
I'm hardly here to say this is so and to give out proofs of this. I'm just not married to the "fact" of creation having taken 144 hours literally.
Didn't the Romans create the calender?
God days. That's a new one. Now we can control time! *space noises*
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 08:28:08 PMYes. I'm open to the fact that creation week may've not been literally A WEEK as we know it today. One point is that the "sun" wasn't created until day 4. Another is the apparent "agreement" in that the order of creation is much like order that one might assume things evolved.
With the vegetation coming in before the sun was created?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 13, 2012, 08:39:53 PM
Didn't the Romans create the calender?
Which calendar?
Quote from: SweetdeathGod days. That's a new one. Now we can control time! *space noises*
Yes, there is a concept that I believe
Whitney is alluding to from that piece of fiction. Do you know what it is?
Quote from: Davin on January 13, 2012, 10:00:48 PM
With the vegetation coming in before the sun was created?
Are you suggesting nothing grows in artificial light or apart from the "sun" light?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 10:10:53 PMQuote from: Davin on January 13, 2012, 10:00:48 PM
With the vegetation coming in before the sun was created?
Are you suggesting nothing grows in artificial light or apart from the "sun" light?
I'm suggesting that vegetation doesn't grow without light, yes. Before the fourth day, there was no light... unless it was unmentioned that god had already created light, but recreated light on the fourth day.
Quote from: Gen 1:14-19 NIVAnd God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Edit: My error, there was light, but no sun.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 10:10:53 PM
Are you suggesting nothing grows in artificial light or apart from the "sun" light?
So before the sun, god created UV lamps?
To start debating a "creation week" you're automatically giving creationism some credibility. It seems to me, all of the points brought up by creationists are about academic questions, like this one, that prove nothing, go nowhere.
I have to quote or rather paraphrase Hitchens, 'there is no debate with creationism, it's over, it was over in the middle of the 20th century.'
Creationism lost, the debate is over.
Quote from: Ateo on January 13, 2012, 10:25:14 PM
To start debating a "creation week" you're automatically giving creationism some credibility. It seems to me, all of the points brought up by creationists are about academic questions, like this one, that prove nothing, go nowhere.
I have to quote or rather paraphrase Hitchens, 'there is no debate with creationism, it's over, it was over in the middle of the 20th century.'
Creationism lost, the debate is over.
The creationists didn't read the memo ;D
Quote from: Ateo on January 13, 2012, 10:25:14 PM
Creationism lost, the debate is over.
Oh. Well then. I guess our chat is over.
Of Course it's not ............ this is a forum. I'm not trying to kill a topic, and I know you don't roll over Animated.
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 15, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
From your lips to the fundies ears.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 15, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
Please provide proof because if that's the case, then the bible traced jesus' lineage to a "metaphor". What better proof of Jesus not existing could there be?
Quote from: Genericguy on January 15, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 15, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
Please provide proof because if that's the case, then the bible traced jesus' lineage to a "metaphor". What better proof of Jesus not existing could there be?
This has nothing to do with Jesus' actual existence. The fact that some later biblical writers traced his lineage to Genesis (but not Genesis 1, to my knowledge) just shows their interpretation. Jesus' historical existence, IMO, is fairly well established by Paul and some of the gospel writings.
Is there a special decoder ring that tells us which bits are literal and which bits are metaphorical or do we simply take your word for it?
I think part of the problem for theists is that there is no one unifying idea about creation. Some believe it was six literal days (remember, the Bible says God rested on the 7th day). Others ascribe to the idea that in heaven a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, so God time might be different than our current man time. Some see what science has taught us and concede that perhaps creation took a very long time, but tell us there is still a miracle in that. Others say it had to be six literal days, and to say anything else takes away from the great miracle and God's power and God's word. Those are the ones that would tell you if you give in to the idea the world isn't several thousand years old, you are giving in to science, which is of the world, and therefore of the devil.
I'm talking of the Biblical creation simply because I don't know the creation stories in the other religions.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 15, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
This particular notion is not agreed upon by all christian or jewish scholars and theologians.
Sorry for the Wiki link, but it directs to a Hebrew scholar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emunoth_ve-Deoth#i_The_creation_of_the_world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emunoth_ve-Deoth#i_The_creation_of_the_world)
St. Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.toc.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.toc.html)
Then you have those of the literalist view:
http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/preface.pdf (http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/preface.pdf)
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/about-the-book/ (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/about-the-book/)
Those two by the same author.
And pretty much every evangelical, fundamentalist christian group in North america argues for a literal interpretation of not just Genesis, but the entire bible. Exceptions are some of the groups which have split off from the evangelical roots.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
Is there a special decoder ring that tells us which bits are literal and which bits are metaphorical or do we simply take your word for it?
I would really like know as well. How did you discover genesis 1 is metaphorical?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2012, 07:16:38 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on January 15, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 15, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
Please provide proof because if that's the case, then the bible traced jesus' lineage to a "metaphor". What better proof of Jesus not existing could there be?
This has nothing to do with Jesus' actual existence. The fact that some later biblical writers traced his lineage to Genesis (but not Genesis 1, to my knowledge) just shows their interpretation. Jesus' historical existence, IMO, is fairly well established by Paul and some of the gospel writings.
The same gospel writings, in which you acquired your evidence of jesus' existence, have traced his lineage to a fictional being... Adam.
The same gospel writings, in which you acquired your evidence of jesus' existence, have traced his lineage to a fictional being... Adam. [/quote]
The gospel that I rely upon mainly for historical purposes is Mark. I also rely on some of Paul's writings. Mark has no genealogy. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke conflict, so I assign relatively little historical weight to them. Also, Adam is not mentioned in the creation hymn of Genesis 1, where the 7 days are mentioned.
My decoder ring tells me that the best way to determine whether a passage is intended to be literal or metaphorical is to examine the genre of literature. Genesis 1 is written in hymnic, poetic style, increasing the odds that it was intended to be seen as metaphorical, not strictly literal.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2012, 10:46:53 PM
My decoder ring tells me that the best way to determine whether a passage is intended to be literal or metaphorical is to examine the genre of literature. Genesis 1 is written in hymnic, poetic style, increasing the odds that it was intended to be seen as metaphorical, not strictly literal.
Are there any repercussions if you are wrong?
If so, then you ought to resolve your assumptions. If not, then Genesis 1 is irrelevant.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2012, 10:46:53 PM
My decoder ring tells me that the best way to determine whether a passage is intended to be literal or metaphorical is to examine the genre of literature. Genesis 1 is written in hymnic, poetic style, increasing the odds that it was intended to be seen as metaphorical, not strictly literal.
You're providing an arbitrary analysis. Someone could contest that anything in the bible, written in that style, is the true word of god.
How did you come to the conclusion that poetic style of text equals metaphor?
My parents raised me to believe that the 7 days where God's days (Like 7,000 years or something like that).
That's why Noah lived to be like 900 or whatever, because God's days are longer or stuff things >_>
I wish I was raised by atheist parents -_-
Quote from: Genericguy on January 16, 2012, 09:24:23 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
Is there a special decoder ring that tells us which bits are literal and which bits are metaphorical or do we simply take your word for it?
I would really like know as well. How did you discover genesis 1 is metaphorical?
Because that's the only way it makes sense? Of course, that could apply to most of the bible, including the parts considered historical.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2012, 10:46:53 PM
The same gospel writings, in which you acquired your evidence of jesus' existence, have traced his lineage to a fictional being... Adam.
The gospel that I rely upon mainly for historical purposes is Mark. I also rely on some of Paul's writings. Mark has no genealogy. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke conflict, so I assign relatively little historical weight to them. Also, Adam is not mentioned in the creation hymn of Genesis 1, where the 7 days are mentioned.
My decoder ring tells me that the best way to determine whether a passage is intended to be literal or metaphorical is to examine the genre of literature. Genesis 1 is written in hymnic, poetic style, increasing the odds that it was intended to be seen as metaphorical, not strictly literal.
[/quote]
Then again Mark is the one that doesn't mention the virgin birth, which seems rather important to the divinity of Jesus.
Quote from: superfes on January 16, 2012, 11:42:53 PM
My parents raised me to believe that the 7 days where God's days (Like 7,000 years or something like that).
That's why Noah lived to be like 900 or whatever, because God's days are longer or stuff things >_>
I wish I was raised by atheist parents -_-
Ugh, my dad said that same thing about Noah. And Adam lived to 2,000.
We all wish our parents were atheists. Well, my mom was fine, but my dad is pretty religious.
Quote from: superfes on January 16, 2012, 11:42:53 PM
My parents raised me to believe that the 7 days where God's days (Like 7,000 years or something like that).
That's why Noah lived to be like 900 or whatever, because God's days are longer or stuff things >_>
I wish I was raised by atheist parents -_-
Yep, have heard this kind of thing my whole life. Usually from people who have heard it from someone, who heard it from someone....on down the line. Problem is that it has no solid basis in the bible, and is pretty much used to try and bring reconciliation between christians and new scientific evidence for an old Earth and universe.
First time I ever heard it was from a girlfriend back in high school who was trying to justify her religious beliefs with things we were learning about geology then.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 08:07:28 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 07:57:21 PM
I don't really understand how someone can be so in tune with the physical sciences AND believe that God created the world in 7 days. :-\
Are you sure the creation week he believes in is 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time? I believe the fictional God created the universe in 7 days...simply not 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time.
EDIT: Split from another thread - Tank
"and there was evening, and morning"......
the bible is referring to literal 24 hour days.
problem is a "day" is something WE created based on subjective reasoning. without the sun rising and setting, there is no day, and there is no morning or evening.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 15, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
if this is the case, then nothing in the bible can be trusted. thats the problem i have with people trying to make bible verses something they aren't. if the bible is not presented as "fact", (aside from prophetic visions of course), then it cannot be accepted as a reliable source of information. you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.
Ugh, why do people take this poorly written book so seriously?
I found Homer's Odyssesy less confusing back in 8th grade.
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 04:45:41 AM
you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.
I don't know, the host of problems only comes up when it is taken literally. If it were agreed that it was one big metaphor, a collection of myths and allegories, it would still have value for many people. Myths and works of fiction often do, even when we know they aren't real. Growing up, stories about King Arthur, Robin Hood and Zorro has a lot of meaning for me, and I think some influence on my thinking and character.
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 04:45:41 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 15, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information. It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe. The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas. No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.
if this is the case, then nothing in the bible can be trusted. thats the problem i have with people trying to make bible verses something they aren't. if the bible is not presented as "fact", (aside from prophetic visions of course), then it cannot be accepted as a reliable source of information. you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.
yepimonfire, Exactly .... you take it literally for what it says or it means whatever you want and has no value.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 08:01:18 AM
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 04:45:41 AM
you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.
I don't know, the host of problems only comes up when it is taken literally. If it were agreed that it was one big metaphor, a collection of myths and allegories, it would still have value for many people. Myths and works of fiction often do, even when we know they aren't real. Growing up, stories about King Arthur, Robin Hood and Zorro has a lot of meaning for me, and I think some influence on my thinking and character.
you're missing my point :P
you can't build a very solid religion if you take the whole bible as a big book of metaphors. christians all too often will take everything in the bible as fact, and the things that don't match up scientifically or logically automatically become non-literal, or metaphorical. i know, i used to be the one who did that. if you cant take the book literally, then it makes it hard to really figure out what you beleive in and it also makes the rest of the book questionable.
if the seven days of creation and the story of adam and eve is metaphorical or mythical, then maybe hell is a metaphor, perhaps a state of mind, maybe heaven is too. maybe jesus only returns in the "hearts" of those that beleive.
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 03:53:10 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2012, 08:01:18 AM
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 04:45:41 AM
you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.
you're missing my point :P
you can't build a very solid religion if you take the whole bible as a big book of metaphors. christians all too often will take everything in the bible as fact, and the things that don't match up scientifically or logically automatically become non-literal, or metaphorical. i know, i used to be the one who did that. if you cant take the book literally, then it makes it hard to really figure out what you beleive in and it also makes the rest of the book questionable.
if the seven days of creation and the story of adam and eve is metaphorical or mythical, then maybe hell is a metaphor, perhaps a state of mind, maybe heaven is too. maybe jesus only returns in the "hearts" of those that beleive.
If you don't mind, I'll use that whole reply as part of my response to "Why I'm an Atheist". I would make one change to your last sentence ... "jesus only returns in the "hearts" of those that [have faith]"
I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 06:22:09 PM
I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?
C'mon Heisenberg. Everybody likes a lazy Sunday.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 06:22:09 PM
I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?
Excellent question. There is an excellent answer. Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction. So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 06:28:48 PM
C'mon Heisenberg. Everybody likes a lazy Sunday.
Sunday?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 06:22:09 PM
I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?
Excellent question. There is an excellent answer. Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction. So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.
How about you just tell us what you think? Seems a lot more condusive to conversation than this kind of cryptic "there is a really good answer, but I'm not going to tell you."
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 06:22:09 PM
I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?
Excellent question. There is an excellent answer. Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction. So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.
How about you just tell us what you think? Seems a lot more condusive to conversation than this kind of cryptic "there is a really good answer, but I'm not going to tell you."
Quote from: Ateo on January 13, 2012, 10:25:14 PM
To start debating a "creation week" you're automatically giving creationism some credibility. It seems to me, all of the points brought up by creationists are about academic questions, like this one, that prove nothing, go nowhere.
I have to quote or rather paraphrase Hitchens, 'there is no debate with creationism, it's over, it was over in the middle of the 20th century.'
Creationism lost, the debate is over.
Who really wants the answer?
Okay, or not. *shrugs* I just don't see that there is much to debate then.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 06:42:54 PM
Excellent question. There is an excellent answer. Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction. So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.
Every passage from the bible that I have ever read that didn't deal strictly with obvious issues of morality (like gems such as 'dont kill people' and 'honor your parents') I have found ridiculous. So no, I'm not going to read it. If you made a point about evolution that I disagreed with I wouldn't tell you to go read Origin of Species, I would tell you what I disagreed with. We are trying to have a discussion here, so if you want to back up your point I'll be waiting.
Lazy Sunday? Hehe, maybe god pulled a ham string?
Well, i'm not sure why you have been so vague lately, Animated dirt. o_o
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 18, 2012, 07:59:29 PM
Lazy Sunday? Hehe, maybe god pulled a ham string?
;D
That's funny, actually. I like it. I'm now picturing an entire sequence of events leading up to god pulling a hammy: going for a layup, 100 million meter dash without warming up properly, the possibilities are endless.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 18, 2012, 07:59:29 PM
Lazy Sunday? Hehe, maybe god pulled a ham string?
Well, i'm not sure why you have been so vague lately, Animated dirt. o_o
Vague here. I'm not interested in this thread for reasons
Ateo pointed out. Are you wanting more of my opinions/beliefs on the matter out of curiosity or to simply make fun of now or later? The fact is, the knowledge that *you seem to seek is all there for the taking...but
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 18, 2012, 03:38:54 AM
I think we're supposed to be doing our own reseach, in order to avoid being classed as intellectually lazy atheists. Frankly, I'll accept the label because I really don't care enough -- all the "evidence" I've read to this point has struck me as weak and circular, and I've got other books calling my name.
This. When christians tell atheists to read the bible, I'm wondering why I would possibly waste my time. Every passage I've read seems like pretentious bullshit, and that's enough for me to go on. Besides, there are way too many fascinating books out there waiting to be read to waste one's time reading 2000 year old drivel.
From this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9148.msg147352#msg147352).
...it's all just pretentious bullshit.
Quote from: McQ on January 18, 2012, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 18, 2012, 07:59:29 PM
Lazy Sunday? Hehe, maybe god pulled a ham string?
;D
That's funny, actually. I like it. I'm now picturing an entire sequence of events leading up to god pulling a hammy: going for a layup, 100 million meter dash without warming up properly, the possibilities are endless.
I bet he/she has to crack their knuckles a lot. XD Do some lunges.
Do you have a beef with me or something, AD? You have been snide and condisending in various threads. o_o
It's possible that I annoyed AD to the point of putting him into a snit. I'm not saying that I did or didn't, only that it's possible....
I'm not sure. He's been giving me a weird response on various threads, including this one. . I'm atheist, like the majority on this forum. I ask for evidence aside from the bible. If he cant provide it, that isn't my problem really.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 18, 2012, 08:37:37 PM
Do you have a beef with me or something, AD? You have been snide and condisending in various threads. o_o
Not really. Just thinking that maybe you're not really seeking what I believe, but to find what you believe is fodder to throw back as a joke and to condescend my beliefs. It's already well known how the typical Atheist here at HAF feels about Christians, but when I try and answer questions to the best of my ability, I expect at least a smidge of respect. There are few here that if they don't have that smidge of respect, at least seem to fake it. I believe they really do.
I don't expect much...I am at an Atheist forum...in the way of respect, but I thought a smidge wasn't too much to ask.
I am human and do not think I am better than the Atheist. I have a few friends that are and as I've mentioned before, they sometimes live a better "Christian" life than even I do.
So when I get worked up, please don't fault me for doing so. I have tried to control my emotions as I like being here at HAF. The people on the whole are good and I like them regardless of their thoughts about me as a Christian or my beliefs.
@
Ali...no you haven't annoyed me at all. On the contrary. At the moment, you're the only one that seems to be genuinely interested in the beliefs I hold and why as evidenced on the thread about the mole rat.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 08:12:26 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 18, 2012, 03:38:54 AM
I think we're supposed to be doing our own reseach, in order to avoid being classed as intellectually lazy atheists. Frankly, I'll accept the label because I really don't care enough -- all the "evidence" I've read to this point has struck me as weak and circular, and I've got other books calling my name.
This. When christians tell atheists to read the bible, I'm wondering why I would possibly waste my time. Every passage I've read seems like pretentious bullshit, and that's enough for me to go on. Besides, there are way too many fascinating books out there waiting to be read to waste one's time reading 2000 year old drivel.
From this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9148.msg147352#msg147352).
...it's all just pretentious bullshit.
Doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen, it just means I'm not willing to read the book cover to cover. If you do indeed have an excellent answer as you say then please, I'm all ears. Forgive me if I expect this excellent answer of yours to be in cryptic, ambiguous wording that will ultimately raise more questions than it answers.
If you feel that way, why do you even post here? If another poster who didn't consider the bible pretentious bullshit asked, would you have answered their question? The asker of the question hardly seems relevant seeing as how we are on a discussion board and all.
You-->
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_b4NUOvpNwXA%2FTOy1KJy9_tI%2FAAAAAAAAA9M%2FT2S1kmqochw%2Fs1600%2Fchild-covering-ears1.jpg&hash=ee65f5088a2b63fc8672c5af6fc4ce7fd89ccde7)
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 09:25:29 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 08:12:26 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 18, 2012, 03:38:54 AM
I think we're supposed to be doing our own reseach, in order to avoid being classed as intellectually lazy atheists. Frankly, I'll accept the label because I really don't care enough -- all the "evidence" I've read to this point has struck me as weak and circular, and I've got other books calling my name.
This. When christians tell atheists to read the bible, I'm wondering why I would possibly waste my time. Every passage I've read seems like pretentious bullshit, and that's enough for me to go on. Besides, there are way too many fascinating books out there waiting to be read to waste one's time reading 2000 year old drivel.
From this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9148.msg147352#msg147352).
...it's all just pretentious bullshit.
Doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen, it just means I'm not willing to read the book cover to cover. If you do indeed have an excellent answer as you say then please, I'm all ears. Forgive me if I expect this excellent answer of yours to be in cryptic, ambiguous wording that will ultimately raise more questions than it answers.
If you feel that way, why do you even post here? If another poster who didn't consider the bible pretentious bullshit asked, would you have answered their question? The asker of the question hardly seems relevant seeing as how we are on a discussion board and all.
You-->
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_b4NUOvpNwXA%2FTOy1KJy9_tI%2FAAAAAAAAA9M%2FT2S1kmqochw%2Fs1600%2Fchild-covering-ears1.jpg&hash=ee65f5088a2b63fc8672c5af6fc4ce7fd89ccde7)
Come on. Knock this stuff off.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 09:25:29 PM
Doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen, it just means I'm not willing to read the book cover to cover.
What is amazing is that you don't have to. One word. Internet. There are many sources that present what the bible teaches in much less wording than reading the bible from cover to cover.
Quote from: HeisenbergIf you do indeed have an excellent answer as you say then please, I'm all ears. Forgive me if I expect this excellent answer of yours to be in cryptic, ambiguous wording that will ultimately raise more questions than it answers.
I wouldn't want to give it knowing you're just going to spout "bullshit" without even knowing what I'm talking about. We already know you don't believe the bible, so what interest do you have? Are you one that finds the bible interesting and really wants to learn it inside and out as in those that find Lord of the Rings so facinating that they delve into it fully to understand the story even if they understand the story is fiction? I've given the example for this many times...I hardly think I have to do it again.
Quote from: HeisenbergIf you feel that way, why do you even post here?
Because there might be some that really want to know, at least the "truth" as the bible teaches even if they don't believe the bible. That...and a lot of what Atheism believes as true of the bible is really just things blown out of proportion and so the worst is believed. I'd like to think I can help in finding the "truth" and then *you, the Atheist, is free to make fun of that "truth" rather than stuff that isn't "real"
Quote from: HeisenbergIf another poster who didn't consider the bible pretentious bullshit asked, would you have answered their question? The asker of the question hardly seems relevant seeing as how we are on a discussion board and all.
Given what I know about your feelings now, I wouldn't waste my time on your questions.
Quote from: HeisenbergYou-->
Sorry. I can't view this image. I gather it's just another funny that belittles me. Maybe it is for the Image thread instead?
You do realize that every atheist on here rejects the bible as a holy book right? Because that's all you know about my feelings about it. Maybe you got your panties in a bunch when I referred to it as pretentious bullshit, get over it. My feelings on the bible are no different than most anybody else on this forum, I just use harsher words to describe it.
Anyway, since you won't answer the question I assume that you have no answer or you recognize that your answer is weak. I mean it's pretty simple: why would an omniscient and omnipotent being with infinite time and resources take 6 days to do anything while also requiring one to rest? I am genuinely curious, as I have wracked my brain and can't come up with a logical reason that this would be so.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 09:53:15 PM
You do realize that every atheist on here rejects the bible as a holy book right? Because that's all you know about my feelings about it. Maybe you got your panties in a bunch when I referred to it as pretentious bullshit, get over it. My feelings on the bible are no different than most anybody else on this forum, I just use harsher words to describe it.
Maybe EVERY one feels that way. Not all would just say so when asking questions on the subject. Is that rude to do so or am I just an idiot?
Quote from: HeisenbergAnyway, since you won't answer the question I assume that you have no answer or you recognize that your answer is weak. I mean it's pretty simple: why would an omniscient and omnipotent being with infinite time and resources take 6 days to do anything while also requiring one to rest? I am genuinely curious, as I have wracked my brain and can't come up with a logical reason that this would be so.
You've wracked your brain? Apparently it is flawed...so why even try?
Who says the reason is logical as you see logic?
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 09:53:15 PM
You do realize that every atheist on here rejects the bible as a holy book right? Because that's all you know about my feelings about it. Maybe you got your panties in a bunch when I referred to it as pretentious bullshit, get over it. My feelings on the bible are no different than most anybody else on this forum, I just use harsher words to describe it.
Anyway, since you won't answer the question I assume that you have no answer or you recognize that your answer is weak. I mean it's pretty simple: why would an omniscient and omnipotent being with infinite time and resources take 6 days to do anything while also requiring one to rest? I am genuinely curious, as I have wracked my brain and can't come up with a logical reason that this would be so.
Is it the day, or what? Second warning to a forum member in five minutes. Refrain from personal attacks. I just warned you about it in your previous post. This is your first official warning.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:44:47 PM
Because there might be some that really want to know, at least the "truth" as the bible teaches even if they don't believe the bible. That...and a lot of what Atheism believes as true of the bible is really just things blown out of proportion and so the worst is believed. I'd like to think I can help in finding the "truth" ...
Funny, I really wanted to know what it was exactly that I got wrong in the other thread. I was born a christian and continued to be a Christian for many years of my life. Even went to private school, church EVERY day, bible study, ect... and was genuinely interested in why you disagreed with my discription of the christian afterlife.
Quote
and then *you, the Atheist, is free to make fun of that "truth"
I hope that's the singular you. Aimed at a specific person.
I'm really interested in how my view on heaven is wrong. If you would like to pm me I would listen to every word with out argument.
Quote from: Genericguy on January 18, 2012, 10:06:07 PM
I hope that's the singular you. Aimed at a specific person.
No. It was an all-inclusive *you, as in any Atheist.
Quote from: GenericguyI'm really interested in how my view on heaven is wrong. If you would like to pm me I would listen to every word with out argument.
Do you really want to know where you went wrong here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9041.msg147128#msg147128)? It's a fundamental error and one that many make and the Atheist loves to throw about. I'll answer by saying simply, salvation is not gained by following rules, as if it were attainable by oneself, if it were, God needn't have died in the person of Jesus...as the story goes. Add to that the idea that from death, we are spirits in heaven when clearly the bible and even Jesus show this to be untrue. I would go further to explain why, but what for if you don't believe it anymore.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 06:22:09 PM
I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?
Excellent question. There is an excellent answer. Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction. So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 06:28:48 PM
C'mon Heisenberg. Everybody likes a lazy Sunday.
Sunday?
if i remember correctly it was to set an example for us to follow regarding the sabbath
btw the sabbath is actually
saturday
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 26, 2012, 03:54:51 PM
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 26, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
btw the sabbath is actually saturday
Oh? :)
yes, (not sure if you are being serious or not so i'll assume so.) the jewish calender places it on friday at sundown, to saturday at sundown. also a jewish DAY is sundown to sundown. "and there was evening, and morning". it was changed to sunday by the catholic church quite a long time ago.
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 26, 2012, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 26, 2012, 03:54:51 PM
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 26, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
btw the sabbath is actually saturday
Oh? :)
yes, (not sure if you are being serious or not so i'll assume so.) the jewish calender places it on friday at sundown, to saturday at sundown. also a jewish DAY is sundown to sundown. "and there was evening, and morning". it was changed to sunday by the catholic church quite a long time ago.
This is the reason mankind has so many problems - God created us on Friday afternoon right before he knocked off for the weekend. Any manufacturer can tell you that goods made on Friday pm have lower quality.
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 26, 2012, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 26, 2012, 03:54:51 PM
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 26, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
btw the sabbath is actually saturday
Oh? :)
yes, (not sure if you are being serious or not so i'll assume so.) the jewish calender places it on friday at sundown, to saturday at sundown. also a jewish DAY is sundown to sundown. "and there was evening, and morning". it was changed to sunday by the catholic church quite a long time ago.
I was being facetious. Apologies. You're preaching to the choir here.