I made a topic.
we were here all civilised Then MOD of the month barges in.
With his Great debate about the origins of humans,
And look at this,
Great moding M8.
Way to keep the forum in line
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
I made a topic.
we were here all civilised Then MOD of the month barges in.
With his Great debate about the origins of humans,
And look at this,
Great moding M8.
Way to keep the forum in line
Re: Religious People Maybe Should Not Read This.
Get off your high horse. A thread that will antagonise anyone who is religious. Mixing metaphors with literal sentences. Sentence structure that makes it hard to figure out what you are saying let alone decide if there is anything deep within the structure. It is the visual equivalent of a drunkards slurring.
The onus in communication does not lie with the listener, it lies with the sender in sending understandable information.
If you want to have a deep and meaningful discussion about things, at least match it with the prose.
Netspeak makes for poor communication and for misunderstandings.
Unintelligeble sentences are not conducive to intelligent converstations.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: Religious People Maybe Should Not Read This.
And your Input to this thread Is not needed Nor wanted Papewaio.
maby the new members dont Mind your Antagonistic belitteling and Patronizing remarks.
But i wont take any of it,
if you have a problem with me Spit it out.
Stop hiding behind This bull shit.
Its obvious You have been offended by Mo topic,
Which you shouldnt have read if your Religious,.
The Damn Topic name name is enough for that.
Its not like You needed to check to make shure it was all ok in here As you dont even mod the back room,
Your intentions seem to be obvious.
1. Insult grammer Insite of topic debate and Distrupt topic.
2. Antagonize response which could warrant thread closure.
3, Be happy in knowing that your presious religion hasent come under close scrutiny.
Im gonna ask you 1ce more,
If you dont have Anything worth will to add to this topic PLEASE dont post in here,
You are distrupting a civilized conversation,
Well atleat it was civilized till You arived.
Re: Religious People Maybe Should Not Read This.
I have been very upfront, it is deciphering the sentences that is annoying. I am very direct with people.
I don't require perfect grammar or spelling, the occasional mistake is overlooked because I can get the context of what is meant by reading the entire sentence. However when entire sentences have to be deciphered it brings into question what is the idea that is being tried to be delivered.
I am not the kind of person who clings to religion, and I am quite happy to take an idea that I cherish and examine it in the light of day. I just prefer to see ideas under a decent wattage. If you wish to enlighten your fellow man, please try and post something that is understandable.
When you are the Emperor of Rome or a master poet you can freely ignore grammar.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
I can't believe nobody's brought up Lot and his daughters. That's some freaky stuff. They get him drunk, then they decide to have sex with the old man so that their family won't die out. And they do it in a cave, right after mom turns into a pillar of salt.
Either people were way way kinkier five thousand years ago, or the Old Testament has a lot of metaphor in it.
Why on earth would a discussion of incest make people lose their religion? Incest isn't even nearly the worst stuff that happens in the OT. Check out what God does to Job, and all because Satan hits him up with a bet. Or read the part where God tells Abraham a thing or two about child care.
God is, by definition, unkowable. We can't understand him, or his motives; if we could, he wouldn't be God. Why people beat their heads bloody trying to unravel this paradox or that is beyond this Lemur. It's as though we're insects trying to unravel the meaning of a 747 widebody. Give it up. The unknowable is unknowable, the divine is unfathomable. Don't let a little trans-human weirdness put you off the whole God thing.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Well God is not In question here.....
its the bible more than anything.
Im all for people beleving what they like,
But i dont like the bible as some dirty old monk who liked a bit of incest wrote it.
And now its the basis of more than 1 religion.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Well, for starters you can leave monks out of it. If memory serves, the first monastary was founded in the Desert of Skete somewhere between 100 AD and 200 AD (if I could be bothered to go to Wikipedia, I'm sure I'd have the date down better). The Old Testament pre-dates the first monks by at least 2,000 years, and probably much more.
So we can talk about dirty court scribes, or dirty village storytellers, but the monks are blameless.
Just a Girl, if you're really curious about the OT, there are some wonderful books you could read. Forensic linguistics have done a lot to tell us when certain parts of it were written, and quite a lot is known about the later editings and revisions (Almost all of which pre-date Christianity).
Remember, the Bible is not a book -- it's a library. A subtle but important distinction.
[edit -- addendum]
I see Pape has finally decoded the true meaning of Lot and his daughters. "What happens in Sodom stays in Sodom."
Last edited by Lemur; 01-27-2006 at 06:26.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Hey dont get me wrong.
thi bible's great as a history referance (new testament)
But thats Not the bible in my eyes.
The bible is the old testament. And any thing els is just an addition,
So the OT was the definition of the lords word, before the new testament came allong.
And every 1 beleved in it's literal meaning And vilagers were hapy to say that there daugter was posessed by a demon cos she was hot to the touch.
And white as a sheet.
"cours science would call this a fever. But back then people were Reallly dumb, so they called it Demons, and Tried to preform exorzism"
Thats not bad, Cant blame them At the time thats The best explanation they could offer as to why Little suzie was 120 degrees and Throwing up green bile.
But thats how most of it goes.
Simple things, they could not explain get put down to either Miracles or act of god,
If it realy was anything to do with god.
Dont you think he/she would have pointed out...
"Well there not actualy the devil there viruses...
If you just collect some of that mold and make some penicilin.."
i mean its obvious... Now what caused them back then to beleve in such things,
These days Weve explained that the stars ARENT heaven.
(dont know where you guys think heaven is now)
weve showed that people Dont get posessed by deamons,
there viruses and colds.
A mental illnes does not mean you ar satan's love child.
Yet this Book is THE fundimental building blocks of some of the most influential religions today.
And its just a load of dumb storys strung together To try and explain The mysterys of life before science arived.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
I second Pape's motion -- you would do us all a great kindness if you would follow the basic traffic rules of written communication. In fact, you would do your arguments more justice if your readers didn't have to struggle so much.
Or I suppose you could go the opposite route -- abandon convention completely! The comma was another invention of those monks you dislike, so get rid of it! And putting spaces between words only came into vogue after the Roman Empire -- who needs them? Rock out, J.A.G., and show us the new/old form of English!
This seems to be the crux of your objection. You don't see any value to pre-science systems of belief, correct? And you don't see that they add any value to modern life.
It's very important to understand everything a tradition does before you throw it away. The French found this out in their revolution. The Russians found this out in theirs. It's no accident that the biggest auto-genocides in history happened in atheist states.
Human beings respond to a belief in a higher power. I don't care whether you are religious or not, you can't argue with this demonstrably true aspect of human nature. Since not everybody is going to be a super-evolved I-don't-need-no-stinkin'-belief-sysem kind of person, what do you propose they believe in? Science has no answers to ethical/moral problems. Science just examines what is, not what ought to be. Science is a methodology, not a religion. So why does religion bug you, J.A.G.?
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Human beings respond to a belief in a higher power. I don't care whether you are religious or not, you can't argue with this demonstrably true aspect of human nature. Since not everybody is going to be a super-evolved I-don't-need-no-stinkin'-belief-sysem kind of person, what do you propose they believe in? Science has no answers to ethical/moral problems. Science just examines what is, not what ought to be. Science is a methodology, not a religion. So why does religion bug you, J.A.G.?
I think its catagorically clear, that its the use of Silly storys dumb people wrote to explain things they did not understand, That is buging me.
All the reasons for having beleif in the old testament as the word of gone have disipated since the advent of science.
As now we can explain away The Deamons, and speaking in toungs, as mearly being viruses or fevers.
Now i know i just said its the old testament that bugs me but other things bug me to.
like the old soothe sayers "i think"
Who saw visions, but spoke in riddles.
Just so u know who i mean il describe them,
They were always women, Who were deemd to be able to have visions,
they were given a special room in there monestrys "or whatever they were"
Where thwy would go to receve these visions.
These days we Know why they had visions...
Its becous they built the damn room on natural gas vents!
I mean,
these things are The VERY foundation of these religions.
yet even when they are gone and proven to be nothing but a bunch of storys to explain things that werent possible to explain yet. The religion still professes they are correct.
It makes no sence to me.
I beleve in logic.
Things CAN be explained. We just havent figured it out yet.
Like they hadnt figured out little suzie had a feever, So they said she was posessed.
I beleve in the big bang,
We can watch stars die and come to life out there in space. So theres no reason not to beleieve in that.
but, il also admit that The matter to create the big bang must have come from some where.
And then you can say God created it, And he was always there.
To me that means i can use the same argument.
The matter to create the big bang was always there.
But Thats Illogical.
Just like saying God was always there is illogical.
Any way like i said Im not against religion per say,
more against its foundations.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Yes there was incest after Adam and Eve but as far as I know, it was not God's intention or an endorsement by God of incest.
You see, Adam and Eve orginally were never meant to be reproducing new humans via sexual relations. At least not until such time as God would have told them he wanted them to. Whether God would have done that or not, I do not know.
When they committed original sin and had sexual relations against God's will, that is when corruption and evil came into the world and made way for things like incest.
Before that, incest was not necessary, nor were sexual relations of any kind.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
So... make a thread about the Bible, but bar religious people from the discussion. Contributors to the thread are also not allowed to give the "metaphore b(ovine excrement)". The idea of the thread being, what? To have a big atheist lovefest to quack on about how dumb this origin story is because it must be taken at face value, and the resulting idiocy of all religion? Mind you, I'm not religious at all, but this doesn't really seem to me at all like a sincere effort at starting a decent discussion.
Apart then from all that, the heaps of vague personal pseudo-science about (for instance) evolution, casually defining the 'Bible' as only being the Old Testament because that's how you like it, and the outrageous insults thrown at people now dead who tried to make sense of their world long ago, and therefore were "dumb" - I would just like to ask why it must be absolutely impossible for it to be meant in a metaphorical way. Just because the authors of the text didn't attach any footnotes along the lines of "just to clarify, folks, we didn't actually mean that God made the world in literally six days or that Eve was grown from a rib - it was just metaphore"? Why should they have bothered with the metaphores in the first place, if they were then required to explain the whole thing all over again for those who didn't get it? Maybe some people did and do believe that all of the Bible should be taken at face value, but that doesn't mean you can simply throw all the other interpretations out the window, just because they don't fit your anti-religion crusade.
On another note, I don't think many people would agree that religion became obsolete when modern science reared its head. Science can not nor will it ever disprove religion. Even if all the Universe were explained from the tiniest neutron to the vast expanses of space, you could still always claim that yet, there is more to this world than science can measure. That's not my position - I don't have to believe it, but I can't refute it.
Now, I do apologise if all this has been offensive or insulting to some, I just felt the need to write something when the implication was made that all of our ancestors before, say, the 17th century were just plain "dumb". That sort of thing never goes down well with me, is all. It may also be part of my big procrastination scheme, I should really be studying instead of writing stuff here.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Single man, salt, lime and tequila... anything happens.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
You beat me to it. I think though that somethings should be kept in the family because they're just too much fun.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
I still maintain that whatever theory you accept about the origins of life, there had to be a degree of incestuousness. The theory with the 2000 men and 2000 women has a point, but it would be quite a strech that all those groups evolved in the same lifetime...
I still think that there is incest and maybe even bestaility in our ancestery...
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
there must be im afraid, but as i have said it does have less bad effects when natural selection is around to mop up any mutations and it has been proved that we are decended from a single female individual who lived a long time ago (nicknamed Eve!)
bestiality would have had no effect on our species evolution unless it was a close animal relative (we may be able to breed with chimps, to my knoledge n o one has tried, thank god)
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Then again, all of this is conjecture, and so the truth could be weirder still...all the more reason to go and eat some ice cream...there must be im afraid, but as i have said it does have less bad effects when natural selection is around to mop up any mutations and it has been proved that we are decended from a single female individual who lived a long time ago (nicknamed Eve!)
bestiality would have had no effect on our species evolution unless it was a close animal relative (we may be able to breed with chimps, to my knoledge n o one has tried, thank god)
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Don't be too sure.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond to this, since normally I just ignore such ignorance, but regardless... look, Just A Girl, it's not my intent to offend you, but I think you'd be better off speaking of things of which you have some knowledge. Your initial post makes it seem as if you haven't even read the biblical passages in question, and if you have, you haven't made a serious attempt at understanding them. Where to begin?
1. Your assertion that Adam and Eve only had two male sons is false. I assume you mean Cain and Able, but another son (Seth) comes along at a later date. Then there's this from Genesis 5:
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Notice the "other sons and daughters" part. This pattern, BTW, repeats itself often in Genesis; the genealogies are not complete, and we should not assume so.
2. If you can find the place in the Bible where it says the earth is 6K years old, point it out to me. Actually, don't bother - I've read it through and know that it's not in there (just like it never says the earth is flat, or at the center of the universe, as some believe). Some have tried to calculate the age based on biblical genealogies, which as I've already shown, are incomplete (and were never intended for that purpose anyway).
3. You don't seem to understand genetics any more than you understand the Bible - otherwise you might know the actual reason that incest has a tendency to produce visible genetic defects. I could go into a lengthy description of it here, but suffice it to say that it doesn't cause any problems until genetic defects/mutations have had sufficient time to accumulate in the gene pool. People who are closely related are more likely to share the same genetic defect; thus, if they breed, it is more likely that the offspring will inherit the same defect from both parents, resulting in its physical manifestation.
Thus, if the literal interpretation of Genesis (which you, for some unfathomable reason, insist upon) is correct, you shouldn't be surprised at incest going on in the early eras of humanity. It would never have become a problem until much later, when mutations and defects began to accumulate in the gene pool.
4. The above is only relevant if you insist on the literal interpretation of everything (which is unusual, especially for non-believers). Listen: the Bible is literature. Just like most other literature, it makes use of literary devices: metaphor, allegory, imagery, etc. Do you remember the primary way in which Jesus taught? It was in parables - stories meant to teach something. Do you think he intended for the parables to be interpreted literally? Or do you remember what he said to the disciples when they made that mistake? It was something like this: "Are you still so stupid?"
I could go on, but that's enough for now. Please understand that the last thing I want is to be disrespectful or insulting; I can't stand rancorous debates. But these are all relatively basic, introductory considerations; I am neither a biblical scholar nor a scientist or a literary critic. You have a lot to learn before you can meaningfully contribute to adult discussions of these topics.
If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward. -Jack Handey
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Actualy if you look a few posts back.
I have actualy posted quite a bit of genisi Mainly the adam and eve story,
That is what i am using as referance,
And i dont see it says they had more than 2 sons.
Prehaps you could go and quote the part hwhere it says ther for my persusal?
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
I read that post; you didn't post enough of Genesis. Please re-read my original post; it's in there, near the beginning. Once more, from Genesis 5:
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward. -Jack Handey
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
So im to beleve
"3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."
And im suposed to beleve that Time in the bible is not relitive to our time as 1 day reprisents thousands of years
"biblical people say that to explain how the world was made in 6 days"
If I am suposed to beleve that.
Adam would still be alive
Cos he would not be 930 years old yet if each day was thousands of years.
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
And i already Said the new testament isnt a problem,
Its the old testament.
Which was writen before jesu's so he wouldnt have had any better idea than you or I.
And i dont see where you can say I have more to learn before staring a discussion/debate.
Isnt the whole point of a debate to share oppinions And then learn from others input as well.
A ignorant stance of this is how it is, and thats all there is to it is the problem here.
And thats not on my part.
And it does say its 6k years old,
But it NEVER said the earth was flat.
Thats a modern day myth,
he may have said they were metaphores but that was HIS oppinion,
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
I'm not saying you need to learn more before starting a discussion or debate. I'm saying you should learn more before you start making sweeping, bold, confident assertions, as you did. Examples include calling the Old Testament a bunch of "dumb stories," claiming that people in ancient (pre-scientific) times were "really dumb," and the claims I refuted in my first post.
Unfortunately you continue to do it with this post.
For example, you continue to claim that the Bible says the earth is 6K years old. I challenged you to prove this, since I know it to be false. However, you continue to make the claim, even though you will never be able to demonstrate it.
Also, you claim that Jesus "wouldn't have had any better idea than you or I" about the Old Testament. Once again you make a confident claim without knowledge of the facts: if you had learned about Jewish culture during the life of Jesus - especially about what it meant to be a "rabbi" - or even read some of the early chapters in the gospels, you would never have made this claim. The depth of knowledge Jesus and other rabbis would have had about the O.T. is greater than you or I will ever fathom.
Finally, the use of metaphor, imagery, and other literary devices in the Bible does not originate with Jesus. It is prevalent throughout the entire writing - the prophets, the history, the poetry and wisdom books.
Once again, I'm not saying you can't participate in discussions on these topics. I'm saying you should come to ask questions and to learn, not to put your "know-it-all" ignorance on display. BTW, that's what I do all the time; like I said, I am not "learned" by any stretch of the imagination. Do you remember why Socrates considered himself the wisest man in Athens?
Because of all the philosophers there, he alone knew that he knew nothing.
If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward. -Jack Handey
Re: Religious People Maby should Not read this.
Im quite asertive bold and confrontetional.
I find its the best way to get people to express there real feelingas about the matter.
I have no problems in saying people were Dumb back then,
But i supose i shoud say Un-educated.
But again, The fact that i said dumb Has provoked an input from you,
And you seem to have Plenty of info to share,
So I dont see the problem.
I may have a strange almost agressive stype of puting my point across,
But im quite open minded,
"so long as you can demonstarte logically your point"
telling me Jesus said its a metaphore, isnt going to cuch much ice with me,
I beleve Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish carpenter Who recited fable's and myths trying to spread jewish beleifs. Then he married mary magnolyn, As Told by the scrolls mohamed found. This is most probably true as It would have been a GREAT stigma to any Male jew not to be married,. (But I dont think thats a bad thing)
I also beleve that the new testament is prety damn good as a historical referance.
But thats as about as far as i will endorce it.
Its the old contradiction's and Ludicrous claims made by people who wrote the Old testament Thats the problem,
The people who wrote it Tried to explain away the misterys of science befor they invented science,
and religion was the best explanation.
Science has since proven the eareth was not made in 6 days.
BUT.
So i dont get totaly 1 sided here.
In the early history of the earth we had much more ozone.
Which allowed animals and plants to Live longer and grow larger than there modern counterparts.
So its plausable that the early humans could have lived in to there 100's "baring illnes and injury"
However
930 yers at multiple thousand years per day = Total BS.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks