The Bible Isn't Stupid, We Are

reply to post by Furbs

I reject God is love, because God, according to the Bible, has caused the wholesale genocide of multitudes of cultures.

Whoa, whoa...hold it right there.

Don't reject the Bible for that. Reject man's interpretation of the Bible. It's not like the Bible stood up and said, "Yep, that's right, keep writing that. No, no, go on. That translation is flawless. ...What? No, I swear it's true! You can't lie in Aramaic!"

You blame the Bible, but the Bible isn't interpreting anything. It is passing on the message...don't be mad because you are part of a race that can't understand it.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Furbs

 

I did, actually.

Take a bonfire and do some studies on it. Every 4 billion times you let it burn out, and then suddenly, one time, it turns into an ice sculpture. Obviously an outside influence suddenly changed its inevitable course. Sounds preposterous, yes, but I think Earth forming randomly is preposterous. Something so intricately designed does not happen spontaneously.

"I have seen estimates of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one thousand to one, up to one-million to one. The best estimates seem to be one-million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). ... In conclusion, mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of [the] information [in the DNA]."

Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, page 24 & 27

Genetic Entropy

Also, such odds are not even remotely close to betting odds...are you truly so blind to numbers? Those are dead chances. Someone with that probability of surviving, 1 to 10 to the 1000th power, would choose suicide because it's virtually guaranteed anyway.

Failure of our world forming was virtually guaranteed. The only logical conclusion is that something stepped in. The question is, what?

I was talking to someone recently about a tree in the woods. I pointed out how every part of it worked in sync to keep the tree alive, and how something so simple could last through snow and heat much more efficiently than man even without using man-made products. I showed out the structure was designed specifically to catch rain and grip soil, and how bugs could even exist within the tree and aid in its survival.

Man, I told the person, couldn't design something like that. If they started the genome from scratch, started with the most basic materials (atomic level, pretty much) they could not construct a tree.

If we can't do that, then what can? Something beyond our ken. Something that surpasses understanding, but exists everywhere, something with the data to create trees with a whim, completely from scratch.

We think we are amazing, but we are simpletons. We can't even build a real tree.

edit on CFridaypm040415f15America/Chicago06 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

Your esoteric musings aren't evidence of anything.

You claim we are virtually impossible, yet here we are, with zero evidence of being helped.

Zero.

You claim that the simple notion that we are here is evidence that we were helped, but that idea is flawed at it's core. The only thing that the number 10 to the 1000 (estimated) evidences is that there are 10 to the 1000 - 1 ways to get it wrong and 1 way to get it right. This planet at this time in universal history got it right. Just like it most assuredly happened elsewhere at different times in universal history.

We aren't special or smart, however we sure are superstitious.

Originally posted by Furbs
Which is why peer review of empirical evidence is paramount. It keeps people from simply saying, "Look at what God made!" Peer reviewed empirical evidence says.. "Uh.. God didn't make that, here is the reason for why this happened." As man got more and more sophisticated, the believers had to continue to push back the size of God's building blocks. However, science continues to break down the doors of Theology by finding out the reason for things.

1. God made Earth flat! (Nope.)
2. God made Sun revolve around Earth! (Nope.)
3. God created man! (Nope.)
4. God created DNA! (Nope.)
5. God created the natural laws by which we live! (Nope.)
6. Well.. GOD CREATED THOSE ANOMOLIES AS WELL! *puts fingers in ears*
7-Infinity LALALALALALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALALA

I agree. But, there is still no empirical evidence that God does not exist. There is empirical evidence for how certain things formed or built or evolved, but no empirical evidence that it wasn't all initiated by some external force.

I see that you put your faith in science and believe that science answers everything. The people who believe 1-5 put their faith in God and believe that God answers everything.

Honestly, I think it's rather rude and quite arrogant that you are trying to imply that anyone who believes that it is possible that a God or Gods do or did exist are just willfully ignorant.

I, personally, think that a God could or a God couldn't exist. What's the difference? We are here and we are alive, so why not focus on who we are and bettering who we are as a people rather than trying to prove how superior our beliefs are to the beliefs of other people?

Makes no sense to me.

I reject God is love, because God, according to the Bible, has caused the wholesale genocide of multitudes of cultures.

I counter God is Love with God is Genocide.

If you are taught genocide by your parents, you will learn how to kill. You will then kill any that do not conform to your ideas of what a person should be. The fear and murder you bring teaches them that God wishes them death, and they pass that death on to others.

You are right in that "God" can be substituted for any universal emotion of humanity.

What I was illustrating, and what you also illustrated, is that actual proof is the tangible evidence of an intangible force.

You see, we are speaking of the same things, just in different languages.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Furbs

 

I reject God is love, because God, according to the Bible, has caused the wholesale genocide of multitudes of cultures.

Whoa, whoa...hold it right there.

Don't reject the Bible for that. Reject man's interpretation of the Bible. It's not like the Bible stood up and said, "Yep, that's right, keep writing that. No, no, go on. That translation is flawless. ...What? No, I swear it's true! You can't lie in Aramaic!"

You blame the Bible, but the Bible isn't interpreting anything. It is passing on the message...don't be mad because you are part of a race that can't understand it.

I don't have to interpret the Bible understand that God's will created the floods that killed everyone but Noah and his kin. I don't have to interpret the Bible to understand that God's will destroyed Sodom. Shall I continue?

reply to post by Furbs

You claim we are virtually impossible, yet here we are, with zero evidence of being helped.

Zero.

Um, have you looked at the world around you?

Even the slightest miscalculation (as would have been the result of trial and error) would have resulted in the immediate deaths of half the life on this planet. Furthermore, if evolution is an ongoing process, shouldn't there be a series of trials? Mutations randomly happening without the influence of chemical reaction, whether induced or polluted?

The fact that there has been no evolutionary progress since 1750 (at least) says that your theory of evolution is more than slightly flawed.

Why don't you do your research on evolution and see how many flaws there are?

Just as many flaws as there are in the Bible. Flaws that, for all we know, might be arrows pointing to secrets buried in the text. We've already found quite a few.

This planet at this time in universal history got it right.

And you have absolutely no evidence to support that there were ever previous universes.

Nice try.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Starchild23
Does that make the Bible a tome of lies, or us a race of wooly headed sheep?
I just thought I'd get this perspective out there.

Here's the deal. If you had what you considered to be the most important message of all time, and you wanted to give it to everybody and make sure they understood it, how would you present it? As a puzzle? As a riddle? As the opposite of what you really wanted to say?

Of course not. You would make it as clear and unambigious and accessible as you possibly could. And that's the reason you have to take The Bible for what it is. Men trying to fool other men.

I agree that much of the bible is men trying to fool other men but I don't believe that all of the bible is like this.
I believe we need to take what we need from the bible as parts of it are very revealing of who we are. Even the contradictions can be revealing. This would give a person an entire lifetime to study the materials not just in the books of the bible but others as well like the "Dead Sea Scrolls"
I also believe that all things happen for a reason and all things are written to make them clear only to those with eyes to see and only when the time is right for them to see them. This could possiblly be the reason why it has not been written as clear cut and consise like one would think. One may also look at it like, If God wanted zombies obedient to everything he desired then why give them free will at all? If i was the heavenIy father I would want my children to figure out whats right from wrong on their own just like any good father would!

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Furbs

 

I reject God is love, because God, according to the Bible, has caused the wholesale genocide of multitudes of cultures.

Whoa, whoa...hold it right there.

Don't reject the Bible for that. Reject man's interpretation of the Bible. It's not like the Bible stood up and said, "Yep, that's right, keep writing that. No, no, go on. That translation is flawless. ...What? No, I swear it's true! You can't lie in Aramaic!"

You blame the Bible, but the Bible isn't interpreting anything. It is passing on the message...don't be mad because you are part of a race that can't understand it.

I don't have to interpret the Bible understand that God's will created the floods that killed everyone but Noah and his kin. I don't have to interpret the Bible to understand that God's will destroyed Sodom. Shall I continue?

Are you taking the Bible literally again?

You don't know what was going on at the time. Maybe it was a coincidental catastrophe chalked up to God's will, maybe someone used a God-story in order to metaphorically tell what truly happened, maybe someone wanted to make a point and simply used God as a medium.

You don't know, so don't pretend you do.

Originally posted by dontlaughthink
reply to post by netgamer7k

 

If what you say is true...(God will teach you to read the bible as you read it).... Why didn't God teach us to read the bible in the original language.?

I don't have love for everyone, but I have respect for every living thing.

I forget where exactly in the Bible that it says something on the lines of three languages turning into an inspired one, which then it will be perfect. In other words, what King James authorized in 1611 was prophesied many centuries before. That is why there is no other book in the world that is like the King James Bible.

The Bible says wisdom comes from counting, and if you count the words in the King James version, it will amaze you. Each number has a Biblical meaning behind it within the texts, 22 for example means revelation, 10 means perfection, 12 means a promise of God, etc.

Here are some examples:

'Wisdom', 'truth', and 'known' are used exactly 222 times each in the King James Bible.
'Brightness', 'discovered', 'learned', 'taste', 'opened & eyes' in same verse, and 'mystery' are all used exactly 22 times each in the KJV.

'All things' is used 220 times.
'Son' is used exactly 220 times each in the NT.
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28)

The word 'antichrist' is mentioned 5 times.
Satan mentioned 55 times.
Devil mentioned 55 times.

All this is just scratching the surface. See what is going on here? Only the hand of something supernatural is behind this. Trust in the Word!!! There's more on it here: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Starchild23
Does that make the Bible a tome of lies, or us a race of wooly headed sheep?
I just thought I'd get this perspective out there.

Here's the deal. If you had what you considered to be the most important message of all time, and you wanted to give it to everybody and make sure they understood it, how would you present it? As a puzzle? As a riddle? As the opposite of what you really wanted to say?

Of course not. You would make it as clear and unambigious and accessible as you possibly could. And that's the reason you have to take The Bible for what it is. Men trying to fool other men.

I agree that much of the bible is men trying to fool other men but I don't believe that all of the bible is like this.
I believe we need to take what we need from the bible as parts of it are very revealing of who we are. Even the contradictions can be revealing. This would give a person an entire lifetime to study the materials not just in the books of the bible but others as well like the "Dead Sea Scrolls"
I also believe that all things happen for a reason and all things are written to make them clear only to those with eyes to see and only when the time is right for them to see them. This could possiblly be the reason why it has not been written as clear cut and consise like one would think. One may also look at it like, If God wanted zombies obedient to everything he desired then why give them free will at all? If i was the heavenIy father I would want my children to figure out whats right from wrong on their own just like any good father would!

How would you explain to one of those people how a car works? Or maybe a light bulb? You would use examples from nature around you, stuff they are familiar with, right?

But that analogy wouldn't work in today's world. Take that example you would give, word for word, and tell it to a college professor (the average high school student compared to the people in the Bible) and they would tell you you are stupid, and go on to explain it the way we would understand it.

But the difference in eras and environment, as well as education and customs, prevents those people from understanding that which is commonplace for members of our society.

Does it make sense now? You can't base ancient Hebrew or Jewish understandings off of a world that uses great flying metal birds dropping exploding eggs more than I use the toilet.

Originally posted by Furbs
I don't have to interpret the Bible understand that God's will created the floods that killed everyone but Noah and his kin. I don't have to interpret the Bible to understand that God's will destroyed Sodom. Shall I continue?

The Old Testament is a set of histories.

These same stories can be found throughout ancient civilizations, all over the world. The ones in the Old Testament are attributed to the "Christian God" only because they were included in the commonly accepted incarnation of the Bible.

Also, do not forget that the people who wrote these books were looking for a way to explain unexplained events. You read them now, in the present, and think those people were complete and utter fools for attributing these events to God or Gods.

They did not have the benefit of any modern science to influence their beliefs in natural disasters or the inception of basic laws or basic language; they could only explain it as an external being.

Originally posted by netgamer7k

Originally posted by dontlaughthink
reply to post by netgamer7k

 

If what you say is true...(God will teach you to read the bible as you read it).... Why didn't God teach us to read the bible in the original language.?

I don't have love for everyone, but I have respect for every living thing.

I forget where exactly in the Bible that it says something on the lines of three languages turning into an inspired one, which then it will be perfect. In other words, what King James authorized in 1611 was prophesied many centuries before. That is why there is no other book in the world that is like the King James Bible.

The Bible says wisdom comes from counting, and if you count the words in the King James version, it will amaze you. Each number in the Bible has a meaning behind it, 22 for example means revelation, 10 means perfection, 12 means a promise of God, etc.

Here are some examples:

'Wisdom', 'truth', and 'known' are used exactly 222 times each in the King James Bible.
'Brightness', 'discovered', 'learned', 'taste', 'opened & eyes' in same verse, and 'mystery' are all used exactly 22 times each in the KJV.

'All things' is used 220 times. 'Son' is used exactly 220 times each in the NT. "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28)

The word 'antichrist' is mentioned 5 times. Satan mentioned 55 times. Devils mentioned 55 times.

All this is just scratching the surface. See what is going on here? Only the hand of something supernatural is behind this. Trust in the Word!!! There's more on it here: www.youtube.com...

We are humans. Do you expect a race that constantly seeks perfection to always stay the same?

Derp.

Originally posted by ottobot
I agree. But, there is still no empirical evidence that God does not exist. There is empirical evidence for how certain things formed or built or evolved, but no empirical evidence that it wasn't all initiated by some external force.

We keep going round and round on this. There -is- empirical evidence. That evidence is the -Evidence of God's Absence-. If God were here, much like the elephant walking through my garden, he would have left a trail. There isn't a trail. This lack of a trail is the evidence that God, like the elephant, isn't here.

I see that you put your faith in science and believe that science answers everything. The people who believe 1-5 put their faith in God and believe that God answers everything.

Science is a tool. I do not put my FAITH in it, Science is a tool that helps us understand the universe. One does not need to put faith in something that can be verified using the scientific method. The world either is or it is not. Science helps us separate what IS from what IS NOT. This is the difference between Science and Theology.

Honestly, I think it's rather rude and quite arrogant that you are trying to imply that anyone who believes that it is possible that a God or Gods do or did exist are just willfully ignorant.

You are inferring that, I am not implying that. There is a difference, and let me be quite clear. I am -fortunate- to be educated and intelligent and never -blame- anyone for their lack of either. Jesus is the one dealing in absolutes. Jesus is the one the tells me I can't get to heaven unless I believe he is God. THAT is quite arrogant and rude, if you ask me.

I, personally, think that a God could or a God couldn't exist. What's the difference? We are here and we are alive, so why not focus on who we are and bettering who we are as a people rather than trying to prove how superior our beliefs are to the beliefs of other people?

Makes no sense to me.

Well, this thread isn't about getting along, it is about discussing the Bible. If the topic doesn't make sense to you.. I think you see where I'm going here so I will stop.

You are right in that "God" can be substituted for any universal emotion of humanity.

What I was illustrating, and what you also illustrated, is that actual proof is the tangible evidence of an intangible force.

That is proof of higher brain function, not God.

reply to post by Furbs

We keep going round and round on this. There -is- empirical evidence. That evidence is the -Evidence of God's Absence-. If God were here, much like the elephant walking through my garden, he would have left a trail. There isn't a trail. This lack of a trail is the evidence that God, like the elephant, isn't here.

I can answer all of your arguments by answering this one quote.

If an elephant walks through your garden and transforms itself into a new garden, wiping out all trace of it ever having been there, will you still walk out and decide there were no intruders?

Suppose God became the universe...what then? Would you still expect footprints? Especially if God gave every single piece it's own bit of intelligence, or it's own blueprint...

Source (as I call it) is the greatest architect in existence. Why? Because it made it's masterpiece out of its own flesh. It transformed into a vast space full of potential opportunities for life and knowledge.

Originally posted by Starchild23

We are humans. Do you expect a race that constantly seeks perfection to always stay the same?

Derp.

What? What you said had nothing to do with my previous post. Try reading it this time.

reply to post by Furbs

We keep going round and round on this. There -is- empirical evidence. That evidence is the -Evidence of God's Absence-. If God were here, much like the elephant walking through my garden, he would have left a trail. There isn't a trail. This lack of a trail is the evidence that God, like the elephant, isn't here.

Are you omnipresent? If not, your statement is faulty. In order for you to say GOD doesn't exist (based on absence), you'd have to be everywhere in the universe at once, because GOD could quite possibly be somewhere that you aren't.

Originally posted by Starchild23
Um, have you looked at the world around you?

Even the slightest miscalculation (as would have been the result of trial and error) would have resulted in the immediate deaths of half the life on this planet. Furthermore, if evolution is an ongoing process, shouldn't there be a series of trials? Mutations randomly happening without the influence of chemical reaction, whether induced or polluted?

The fact that there has been no evolutionary progress since 1750 (at least) says that your theory of evolution is more than slightly flawed.

Why don't you do your research on evolution and see how many flaws there are?

Estimations are that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are dead. This lines up well with your ideas. Every birth is a genetic trial. Mutations happen all the time. I was born with only a bottom set of wisdom teeth, as was my mother. I am curious to see if this genetic mutation was passed on to my son.

I am fortunate enough to be partnered with an biological anthropologist in the process of getting her PhD at University of Oregon. I have read and spoken with many people much more qualified that you appear to be that have discussed contemporary evolution. Some seem to be under the impression that or modern medical practices are allowing us to interfere with natural selection by imposing our will.

And you have absolutely no evidence to support that there were ever previous universes.

Nice try.

edit on CFridaypm464629f29America/Chicago06 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

Never implied that there were multiple universes, I will chalk that up to your not understanding what Universal History means. Universal History is the history of the universe. I do have evidence that the universe has a history, because I have shared the last few decades with the universe, so it has at LEAST that much history behind it.

reply to post by Starchild23


I agree whole heartedly.

You see God designed or created humans so well that he risked his own creation not loving him. He did such a good job (He is THE LORD) that his own creation has the choice to reject Him, hence freewill. This is His "simulation" or reality we are living in and the instructions are clear but some choose to close their eyes because they are drunk with they're own sense of righteousness. Because they believe the lies that some men has bestowed upon His words. They twist and bend the meaning like light through a dirty or warped glass. They remove the meaning of the words which were carefully chosen. He spoke the truth from the beginning, it is certain men and the misuse of their freewill that corrupts the message. Religion is not evil, evil people practising religion make religion evil.

When people say to me that religion has caused so many wars that is a fallacy. Why? THY SHALL NOT KILL. Is this clear enough??? You don't abide to these words if you kill. You cause pain and suffering. Religion has always held the value of life and love above all. The ones who go against those words are the cause of the wars. Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. A lot of people think they are practising perfectly but they are caught in their own worship of fake idols and gods (which is against one of the commandments) including myself once upon a time. I forgive those who have caused such pain on humanity for they do not know what they do. They do not clearly understand Your message. They do not know how to be with this freewill gift you have given them.
Who would not place their faith in the love of your creator? Who thinks that love is not like sustenance for the soul? I have FAITH that science and religion will converge when science becomes honest and sincere like the REAL scriptures of the holy books. In the end that is what FAITH is: believing. Pain does come when death affects a loved one. Thy shall not kill. Simple yet the contrary is so widely applied.

For those who don't believe He is the Most High then at least adhere to the morals and dogmas that I am sure you can agree with. Even if God is imaginary, the men who wrote these words understood that placing the power and moral authority in the hands of a fictional entity is safer then in the hands of a corruptible soul with freewill to make the wrong choices. Nice thread OP, thank you for opening the dialogue!

reply to post by bitsforbytes

When people say to me that religion has caused so many wars that is a fallacy.

Religion has caused wars. This is fact.

However, the people only blame it on God...God rarely takes responsibility for war. We choose to have a worthy cause, otherwise we're just violent idiots.

Make sense?

Originally posted by ottobot

Originally posted by Furbs
I don't have to interpret the Bible understand that God's will created the floods that killed everyone but Noah and his kin. I don't have to interpret the Bible to understand that God's will destroyed Sodom. Shall I continue?

The Old Testament is a set of histories.

These same stories can be found throughout ancient civilizations, all over the world. The ones in the Old Testament are attributed to the "Christian God" only because they were included in the commonly accepted incarnation of the Bible.

Also, do not forget that the people who wrote these books were looking for a way to explain unexplained events. You read them now, in the present, and think those people were complete and utter fools for attributing these events to God or Gods.

They did not have the benefit of any modern science to influence their beliefs in natural disasters or the inception of basic laws or basic language; they could only explain it as an external being.

edit on 4/6/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)

Well, luckily this thread is about how the Bible isn't stupid. So.. a book explaining natural phenomenon by attributing it to a God character seems less and less divinely inspired, eh?

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
reply to post by Furbs

 

We keep going round and round on this. There -is- empirical evidence. That evidence is the -Evidence of God's Absence-. If God were here, much like the elephant walking through my garden, he would have left a trail. There isn't a trail. This lack of a trail is the evidence that God, like the elephant, isn't here.

Are you omnipresent? If not, your statement is faulty. In order for you to say GOD doesn't exist (based on absence), you'd have to be everywhere in the universe at once, because GOD could quite possibly be somewhere that you aren't.

I don't have to be everywhere to state that there is not evidence that a "God" character was ever -here-.