Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

a reply to: NOTurTypical

If you assume something in one part is factual for the sake or argument then you have already affirmed the book as authoritative.

Ooohhh!!! LOL. I get it.
If ONE SENTENCE in a work of fiction (say, for example, historical FICTION) is factual, then the whole thing is true?

I wrote an entire novel based on a 13th grandmother's life as far as I could trace it. I mixed in my own experiences in life with historical FACTS.
Does that mean, then, that the rest of my novel is FACT?

Hmmm. ERrrrrrrm.....
NO.
No, it doesn't.

It is true that the woman on whose life I based the novel lived - but the story I wrote was the result of my research into the times (1630s) and my geneaology and my own personal experiences. All mixed in. Even (in my novel) including witch-hunt stuff and the drums of war. Which REALLY happened in her lifetime.
Nevertheless, it is FICTION.

a reply to: shauny

Hey here's an obvious thought. If God couldn't defy
your atheist logic? He wouldn't be God in the first place.
What's wrong with atheism is that they refuse to see this
very simple premise. And in turn copy the same Circular definition
see circular definition, they identify and ridicule. With no scripture
at all to back their responsibility snubbing, intellectually dishonest
and highly unlikely view of convenience. Atheism is denial, you're
right about that.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

No, you are not an atheist. You are in the "I hate God" category. That means you believe in Him and don't like what you see.

You are the Riddick-style person.

Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe? Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe? Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God ... And I absolutely hate the f****r.

- Riddick

You call yourself an atheist, but you really just reject Him which is quite different from not believing He exists.

I have never seen Windword defined more than I do right now.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Adam and Eve were direct creations of God, we can assume they were the first souls.

LOL!!

Good Gawd. You believe Adam and Eve were actual humans?
Akragon's response was perfect - in fact I didn't see any reason to reply to your inane question about Cain and Abel. He graciously posted what I would have said.

But now you're talking like you actually think Genesis is 'true'. Is it possible you've gone round the bend? Dude! You used to at least make SOME sense. Or maybe I'm missing your point.

You know damn well that it is not possible that Adam and Eve, one pair of people were the progenitors of the entire human race. Not mathematically, not logically, and not true. Myth.

well the actual text says that elohim (plural word for god) created the adam, male and female. it's a race (meaning more than one, being copied/cloned in the image of the elohim, called "adam" but isn't procreative yet - they are copies of elohim (plural). later the eve is differentiated from the female adam, because she's procreative (the prior adam males and females were not procreative). the elohim come from before the opening events in genesis 1:2 which is describing a world wide cataclysm, and the rest of the next few chapters, explain the re-terraforming of the earth, not the first creation of the earth.

so rather than saying it couldn't possibly be accurate, i'd be more inclined to say that it's telling the truth but people's interpretation of it, is inaccurate. for example, in genesis 1:2 it says the earth was a desolate wasteland. that is not the correct translation. the word for "was" is actually "became". so the verses say that the earth was created and at some later date, it became a desolate wasteland, covered in water that sounds frozen, which draws back to reveal dry land that was already there.

my theory is that the elohim who re-terraform the earth and re-populate it with copies of themselves, are quite scientific in nature and not nearly as mythical as you might have been lead to believe, as the frozen water concept is likely a description of the ice age.

a reply to: Akragon

And the bible is not one book... so both of your points are moot...

Great point, that is why when people say that "using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning" they are incorrect, the Bible isn't a single source, it's 66 books written by 40 different men, most of whom never met the others.

Great point my friend.

but what I said wasn't arbitrary at all...

Arbitrary means "unsupported". There were no cited links to anything proving there is life on other planets, so that is "arbitrary".

Life exists in places other then here... that is logical based on what we know.... We just haven't found it yet...

That is "arbitrary conjecture" ^^^ Literally meaning "unproven guess".

a reply to: undo

You could have simply said the "gap theory" and saved a bunch of typing. That there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. And I agree with that, there had to have been some length of time between creation and the fall of satan. He appears in the garden already judged. And you are correct, the Hebrew doesn't say "was" it says "had become without form and void".

a reply to: HarryJoy

And for the people that don't believe in God I would say...what are your Ideals ? What type of mindset do you feel represents those Ideals and what type of Government would reflect them ?

Good post.

I don't "not" believe in God - nor do I "believe" in God - but my ideals are kindness, justice, compassion, cooperation, common interest, and empathy.
As for what type of Government - wow.
Loaded question.
I can only say Democratic Socialist.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

We already know

........yada yada

No, NuT. No, we don't.
We DON'T know.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Jesus said He was a gift from the Father only to those who asked.

Just like every humble but helpful person nowadays. Or sweet little kids whose parents ask them - "are you an angel from heaven? To me you seem like an angel from heaven." (Which, of course, they ARE.)

And Jesus said He would be sent after His ascension.

As will all the other masters.

The implication there is that He was never sent to mankind before that.

What?
No. It isn't.

That is not the 'implication'.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

the Bible isn't a single source, it's 66 books written by 40 different men, most of whom never met the others.

And ALL of whom never met Jesus.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

That is "arbitrary conjecture" ^^^ Literally meaning "unproven guess".

LOL!! You are making me LOL so much! Yes - 'arbitrary conjecture' is the PERFECT adjective for the Bible.
Unproven guesses.
STILL unproven.
Guesses.
Recording 'the guesses' from thousands and thousands of years ago.

If this is how you feel, then how do you dismiss the Egyptian records that contain the very same story that is found in the 'Trinity' and the 'Bible' - the same story, the same plot, just with different 'characters' as the cast?

a reply to: undo

Very interesting. You have lots of knowledge stowed 'twixt your ears there about ancient myth connections.
I admire you.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

i don't discount the egyptian version at all (some parts are heavily culturized but clues are all over the place that they are the same stories with slightly, to drastically different ways, of explaining it). in fact there's a very cool video about it
notice how it says he "created himself" and his name was atum ? (That's adam. the adam were copies of the elohim (which is another name for atum). the creation was named after their creator. moses picked the mesopotamian name for the creator and the egyptian name for the created, so it wouldn't be confused.

a reply to: undo

i don't discount the egyptian version at all (some parts are heavily culturized but clues are all over the place that they are the same stories with slightly to drastically different ways to explaining it).

I don't discount them either.
You are absolutely correct, and thanks for the vid link.
Going to watch it now.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: undo

i don't discount the egyptian version at all (some parts are heavily culturized but clues are all over the place that they are the same stories with slightly to drastically different ways to explaining it).

I don't discount them either.
You are absolutely correct, and thanks for the vid link.
Going to watch it now.

and the reason they are the same stories is because of ham, a son of noah, who took the mesopotamian version with him to egypt, after the black sea flood. after a thousand or so years it had morphed into what you see in the video. enter moses, the son of a pair of mesopotamian parents who have since migrated to egypt. his mom gets hired as his nanny and imparts to him the history of his people. meanwhile, the scholars of pharaoh also impart to him the history of the egyptian people (which starts with ham (ham=khem=egypt), a guy in his own ancestory).

at this point he has the egyptian and mesopotamian versions of who created what. on the sumerian kings list, the first "king" is alulim (i don't think it was a king but an entire group of people called alulim), an earlier title of elohim, which is actually adam, which is actually atum, who were named after their creator, alulim/elohim/atum.

etymology is yer best friend

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

the Bible isn't a single source, it's 66 books written by 40 different men, most of whom never met the others.

And ALL of whom never met Jesus.

Except, Peter, Matthew, James, Jude, John and Paul.

James and Jude were His half-brothers.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

LOL!! You are making me LOL so much! Yes - 'arbitrary conjecture' is the PERFECT adjective for the Bible.

Non sequitur.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That is not the 'implication'.

You're right, I misspoke. It wasn't an implication, Paul marveled at how after Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given to man and in the OT period He would just come to inspire a prophet then leave. So yes, you are correct, it wasn't an implication, it was directly stated.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

We already know

........yada yada

No, NuT. No, we don't.
We DON'T know.

You aren't in the "we" I mentioned, you aren't a Christian.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You aren't in the "we" I mentioned, you aren't a Christian.

I'm a HUMAN BEING. That "we". WE don't know.

And you are wrong about the Gospels - they may have names like Matthew and John attached to them, but it is FACT that WE KNOW that they themselves did not write the documents named for them.

As for Paul, he NEVER met Jesus. (Neither did Constantine, just in case you thought he had). I find it astounding that you are so willing to believe such tripe and remain so uneducated - the only cause of which is your refusal to investigate. When it comes down to it, your naivete is simply self-imposed. There's no excuse for being so uninformed, so it is by will - "you" (your 'we' - i.e. Christians who think the Bible is true) don't want to recognize that what "you" believe is not factual.

Oh well - it's your life. Wallow in whatever fantasy makes you happy I guess.