Total posts: 5,294
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
When I say The Truth, I am refering to The Word of God,
Yeah, that's my point. I am asking why you don't just say that instead of trying to confuse the issue by using a word that already has a meaning assigned to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The only thing I said in this OP that I could see as maybe being interpreted as somewhat smartass-like is my description of Cain as "an asshole"
I stand by that description of Cain. He is, as portrayed in the Bible, an asshole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There is an implication that Abel offered was of the best ('fat potions of the firstborn')but Cain's offering was not necessarily of the best ('some of'). That might be what displeased God rather than the difference between meat and veg.
I think that is grasping a bit for a number of reasons. Even in that translation it seems rather thin - just based on the placement of a single word 'some' in the story - but also not all translations use that precise wording. Most do not in fact, and the YLT (Young's Literal Translation, which translates word for word without adjusting the grammar or syntax to make more sense in English) gives no indication that Cain was at all stingy with his sacrifices.(1)
After looking around for a bit, the word 'some' seems to appear in only in about half of the English versions (2)
Also before you mention it, yes I do realize the potential irony of my bringing up other versions after my stated stance on the subject last thread. However like I said even just saying that the use of the words 'some of' in that context indicates a stinginess in Cains offerings seems like reading into it a bit too much to me considering there is no other indication in the story that any difference existed between the offerings besides one being of meat and the other of plants. I do not think there is reason to draw that conclusion even if the word some appeared in all versions or we looked only at a version where it does.
Also Cain's worry that he might be killed is interesting - who is worried about?
The same thing occurred to me as I read it. Just seems to confirm what I have always thought, the stories of the Bible were never meant to be taken as literal history even by those that wrote them - at least not the stories of the old testament. I have never read cover to cover on the new testament so can't say for sure on those. Cains stated worry about revenge being taken on him is probably just a literary excuse for god to give him the Mark of Cain.
As for the wives, presumably Adam and Eve had a few daughters whose names were not worth recording due to them being female and all.
It seems to me the writers tacitly acknowledge a belief that other gods and other people existed. However as the scribes were writing a patriotic 'history' of the Hebrew they studiously and deliberately avoided mentioning them!
That is definitely something that will come up one day if I actually do keep doing these threads for long enough. Still not sure how I feel about it personally but I have heard that from a lot of people that have put a lot more time into studying this than I have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
As I said several times before, I'm just just reading and talking about the Bible. I am not trying to prove any point.
Is that difficult for people to understand, or simply difficult for them to believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Clearly the words "Truth" and "truth" (yes, capital letters are the only difference, not a typo.) as you use them do not mean the same thing and are meant to represent two separate concepts, so why do you choose to confuse the matter by using the word "Truth" rather than something that more closely resembles what you actually mean?
Created:
Posted in:
The previous thread read Genesis 2-3, where we learned why snakes eat dirt, among other things. This thread will read Genesis 4-5, a heart-warming story about socioeconomic inequality and temptation. As before reading along is recommended, reading the stories themselves will probably take less time than reading this OP and finding a Bible online is not difficult at all.
In the beginning of the next story we meet the two main characters Cain and Abel, sons of Adam and Eve. Cain and Abel both work difficult labor to survive as part of gods curse punishing Adam in the previous chapter, Cain is described as a farmer and Abel a shepherd. The stories main conflict begins when the brothers both bring sacrifices to honor god. Being a farmer, Cain has only his crops to sacrifice and Abel has only his livestock, and both make offerings out of what they have. It is never stated what portion of their labors is given, so it can be assumed to be either roughly equal or not relevant to the story. Cains offerings are not found to be to gods liking, but Abels offerings are accepted.
Remember, the only difference between the two sacrifices is that one is of plant food and the other is of animal parts. The idea is that animal meat is simply better/more desirable than crops. Realizing this, the story starts to come together. The two brothers were born into their positions of farmer and shepherd, neither had any choice over that aspect of their lives. The two were not born equal because Abels position as shepherd is considered better. Cains natural response of anger and jealousy is something that I am sure many people that are not born rich in the modern day can relate to. God picks up on this right away and cautions Cain not to give in to his anger.
Cain however, being an asshole, does not take these words to heart. Instead he allows his jealousy to get the better of him and lures Abel into a field to be murdered. His punishment from God is to be banished, and he leaves to form the first city, the city Enoch in the land of Nod. I do not know if the people that made these stories originally intended it, but it makes a lot of sense that the first city would be founded by the descendants of the first agricultural specialist given how important the invention of agriculture was to actual founding of permanent settlements in the real world. I personally do not think that this is a coincidence, the original story tellers probably intended for that to be considered in the reading of the story, but it plays such an insignificant part of the narrative that I can't say for sure that is the case and it doesn't seem too relevant even if it is.
Chapter five is just a partial family tree. I did read it myself and do a little bit of research on the internet regarding it and apparently there are a lot of inconsistencies within when compared to other parts of the Bible, but as I have stated several times I am not really interested in talking about Bible contradictions because I don't think it is really fair to expect a bunch of bronze age nomads to keep their stories straight over the span of so many generations anyway. So, considering that and how boring chapter five is I am not going to cover it in detail. It just tells us how we get Noah from Adam, for any weirdo that happens to be a biblical literalist.
That is all for this OP, next thread will cover Noahs flood. Lots to talk about there, might even be a two-parter.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
You are correct of course, which is the reason I was careful to specifically refer to a different concept of Satan from what the authors would have believed at the time, in this case I was referring to the concept of Satan as an independent entity who is an enemy of God. That is the concept of Satan that I was referring to in the OP:
the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is commonly understood in popular culture to be the fallen angel Satan
As well as in post 51:
The earlier stories of the Bible existed long before Christianity and the modern concept of Satan began to exist.
You are correct about Satan being a concept that did exist at that time, albeit in a vastly different form from the Christian version. That is not the interpretation I was talking about (nor do I think it is what tradesecret meant based on context clues in his post), however looking back now I can certainly see how that may not be entirely clear since I devoted only a few words in each post to making the distinction so any misunderstandings as a result are naturally my fault and I apologize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No, that's... that's the point. It's not slipping, because it isn't something that anyone should give a damn either way about.
Created:
God takes a break from creating - not from working. How is it a contradiction?
I don't recall saying this was any sort of 'contradiction'... It was more of a literary critique, my exact words were...
"This is just poor formatting on the part of either the people that originally recorded these stories or one of the people in the line of translators from the original to the modern versions"
The idea of this being Satan was drawn not from popular thinking but from the context of the rest of the bible as it was written and handed down over the years. I dare say that in its initial reading - the Hebrews probably knew no more about it than someone today reading it for the first time.
The earlier stories of the Bible existed long before Christianity and the modern concept of Satan began to exist. That is the reason it is not recorded as being Satan who tricked the first woman, it it is not because Genesis is placed in the same collection of stories that later mention Satan and people were expected to connect the dots. It is because the stories of Genesis existed for hundreds of years before the stories of Satan.
If your position is that the bible contains elements of language found in other books - then I agree with you. In other words, all cultures have stories and therefore it is not unusual to see the bible containing stories which have similar elements then we agree. If your point is that the bible has derived its stories from other cultures or that this similarity of language and elements somehow detract from its unique message and authority then I will need to you make your case.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am not trying to prove any point at all. I am simply reading a book.
Anyone that wants to assume that it is fiction and tries to gather information and studies just to prove that idea is free to do so, but that is going to detract from their reading.
Anyone that wants to assume that it is non-fiction and tries to gather information and studies just to prove that idea is free to do so, but that is going to detract from their reading.
If reading the book from a non-presuppositionalist point of view leads to different conclusions than reading it from a presuppositionalist point of view that is not my problem. That is a problem for the presuppositionalist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I guess I can't comment on that since I am a racist, misogynist, and literally genocidal, and who wants to listen to someone like that? I mean, I have been accused of such things over the years on DDO and here on DART anyway so it all must be true.
Created:
Posted in:
So Sam simply wasn't able to "offer a substantive defense"?
Yeah, let's not involve concepts like burden of proof...
On a debate site of all things...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I couldn't give less of a shit what hand you want to hear it through, speak to me that way one more time and you will learn to respect me.
AHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA! Holy shit dude. I was worried that logging on to DART tonight would be a waste of time but that comment just made my fucking week. Thanks for the laugh man, God knows I needed it XD.
Who the hell even are you? XD.
Created:
Posted in:
It didn't. It was one tiny thing adding to it and was used to insult and refer to something that Zarro wants kept in the past.
If Wylteds story is accurate (I have heard the same exact narrative from multiple other sources btw) then it should not have been a thing at all. Sam did not doxx anyone. Period.
I am opposing him and saying 'no here is what Sam did'.
Besides vague and non-specific references to alleged 'calculated and directed abuse' you have not actually said anything that Sam did wrong at all. Where do I go to get a mods explanation for why this ban occurred rather than a random DART members opinion? I would like to hear this from the horses mouth rather than second or third hand through you.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Basically he tried to play the victim card by conflating me with past persecution in order to support his previous claims that you and I would be in favor of genociding people that disagree with us (see post 13, this thread) and I called him out on it. Now he is trying to backtrack without withdrawing the statements that I quoted in post 13.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Just to be clear, the part of my post that you quoted was me summarizing my interpretation of Mopacs position. I do not agree with the conclusion nor do I neccesisarily agree or disagree with the individual premises.
I do not think he was saying that I (a secularist) would support the creation of the modern state of Israel because it is a bad thing to do. I think he was saying that I (a secularist) would support the creation of the modern state of Israel and it is a bad thing to do, or at the very least that there were bad things done in the name of that goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Broadly speaking, religious people would stand for creationism
Objectively false, citation needed.
Created:
Though there have been and are governments that have adopted Orthodoxy as a state religion, the church has always, even in this situations, maintained that church and state should not be the same entity.
Okay... You made the claim in post 14 that I, Discipulus_Didicit, would be against that and that I would be in favor of the creation of the modern state of Israel. Nowhere in post 14 or 16 to you back that claim up.
I will once again request that you...
- back that claim up OR
- Withdraw it.
I am making my posts short and easy to read so that they will be easy for you to respond to. There is no need to dance around this point or any other.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think I follow this to a certain point. The creation of the modern state of Israel - half a century before I was even born - by people that were intimately familiar with modern interpretations of Biblical end-times prophecy and pushed for such interpretations to be a part of national foreign policy is something that is a very bad thing for a variety of reasons as well as something that I and other secularists would obviously support, therefore I would potentially be in favor of doing such a bad thing again.
I guess the only missing links are:
- Actual evidence that I would or should actually be in favor of religious beliefs having such a strong influence, or any influence at all in fact, on any sort of national policy.
- How this relates to me reading the Bible.
Please cite your sources on both points at your earliest convenience.
Created:
Just send us to the gas chambers, look the other way.
Whatever justifies you consenting to the genocide of my people.
Justifying in the minds of those who take us Christians as a disease that our beliefs need to be eradicated.
Umm... citation needed? How did a thread about reading the Bible turn into genociding Christians? I know that evangelical Christians tend to suffer from at least moderate persecution complex but this is a bit over the top even by what I am used to hearing, and I am used to hearing some really insane shit.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If you aren't trying to understand the faith, you are wasting your time.
This is debateart.com. Presuppositionalism is boring and runs completely counter to the spirit of the site's purpose. Please try to bring yourself to actually have a reasonable conversation.
Created:
This is not an attempt by you to understand the faith, it is simply a way for you to make pretense that you know better.
I am not trying to understand the faith OR prove any point (both of which have been stated previously). I am reading the book. Respond to the actual points on what I am saying about the book and we might have a useful conversation.
Created:
This is a follow-up to the previous thread with a similar title. In that thread the most contentious topic seemed to be what version of the Bible I should be reading. Specifically the KJV and NKJV were claimed to be objectively superior to the NIV. I have decided that we should all take this opportunity to perform a small experiment. Instead of stating which version I am now using, I'll simply say that it was randomly chosen from the three above (via rolling a six sided dice).
If I am right and the stories are essentially the same then my interpretation and commentary on the version I am reading should be indistinguishable from commentary on any other version I might read, in other words it will be hard to tell which version I am talking about unless I paste a direct quote from the text or some other dead giveaway. If I am wrong then the message from the different versions is different enough from each other that commentary on one cannot necessarily be applied to commentary on another and it will eventually become clear which version I am using as a source. I wouldn't expect it to be obvious right away even if they are different, but it should eventually. If I am wrong.
With that hopefully out of the way, we continue. Previously I read the first chapter of Genesis. God created the universe and everything in it in a suspiciously similar way to the creation stories existing in several other much older mythologies, all within six days. For this thread I will be reading Genesis 2-3.
The first thing in chapter two is Gods famous weekend break on the seventh day. Based on this the chapter seems to be a continuation of the story in the first chapter, but the very next thing that happens is the creation of all plant life, which of course happened already during the last chapter. If this is a retelling of the same story then I am curious as to why the first three verses of chapter two were not put instead at the end of chapter one. This is just poor formatting on the part of either the people that originally recorded these stories or one of the people in the line of translators from the original to the modern versions and I would like if it was more clear in the book itself whether this is a review, a retelling, a continuation, or what. Today we can use the internet to instantly get information like that directly from people that spent their entire lifetimes studying this book, but it is not at all clear just from a basic reading of the actual text.
Anyway, God makes man out of some dust picked up from the ground and a rough geography lesson in regards to the location of the garden of Eden is given (bookmark this section for if we ever get a biblical literalist in here, they have a lot of explaining to do). Some foreshadowing of the fall is also included in verses 9 and 17 of chapter 2. I remember from the last time I read the Bible (and did not make it all the way through) that the authors do include lots of foreshadowing in many of their stories. In this case I think they did a pretty good job of it. They made it feel natural by working the creation of the trees of knowledge of good and evil and of life into the creation of the worlds overall vegetation so props to them on that. Someone just needs to teach them how chapters work.
I now think that we should take some time to talk about common understanding of the Bible and its stories. Regarding the story of the fall, the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is commonly understood in popular culture to be the fallen angel Satan despite a plain reading of the text not lending any credibility to this interpretation. There are numerous examples of technically 'incorrect' elements in Bible stories being believed to be part of the narrative that actually aren't which I will point out as we get to them in this series. It is important to acknowledge these inconsistencies in a study of the book itself despite these ideas not coming directly from the book because this book is the basis of many beliefs, and a cursory understanding of the beliefs based around the book can help to understand the greater context of some of the later parts of the book.
The last thing I will touch on, because this OP is way too long already, is the way in which the stories resemble fables such as those used in some other mythologies, the basic summary of many of which being "Because ______ happened, that is why we now have ______." Compare for example the Native American fable explaining why bears have short tails and make groaning noises (http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/the-legend-of-how-the-bear-lost-his-tail/) to the various things that this story claims to explain, including:
- Modern agriculture (God created us for the purpose of maintaining vegetation)
- Why animal species have names (Adam named them)
- Why men and women leave their parents to get married and become "one flesh" (woman was created from mans flesh)
- Why people wear clothes (Adam and at-the-time nameless woman realize nudity is inherently bad after eating of the tree of good and evil)
- Why men perform physical labor to survive (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- Why childbirth is painful (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- Why serpents don't have legs (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- etc.
Like I said this OP is getting way too long. I am going to close it here. Let the discussion begin.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, just spent several hours putting together the OP for part 2 only to lose everything I wrote just as I was almost done. Guess part 2 is going to have to wait for tonight or tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't like the phrase "your truth", it reduces truth to something arbitrary.
I was simply referencing your quote from earlier:
"We don't mistake knowledge for truth."
Edit: the most commonly accepted definition of knowledge is "justified and true belief"... just in case there wasn't enough irony here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you are not really speaking from a position of knowledge.
Be careful not to let knowledge stand in the way of your truth. You taught me that earlier in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
https://hangouts.google.com/call/t2sSdazdF9UHko4PRRL8AEEE I guess. Hangouts is really dumb in the was they format their crap so it took a lot longer to figure that out than it should have.
Created:
Posted in:
idk how to start a hangouts call, only how to join.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think there is any good reason to believe the Lilith explanation, yeah. I don't believe it was ever a part of Genesis.
There is a distinction between the Genesis story and the Genesis book. The stories existed in oral tradition long before as well as alongside the various written versions of Genesis.
But like you say, in your denomination of the religion your scriptures are the canon and all you are concerned with. That is fine, I am actually pretty sure that is the case for most if not all denominations and their respective scriptures and I am not aware of any modern version where the Lilith story is canonized.
I am also fully aware of your objections to using any Protestant version and I think I have given adequate reason for why I am choosing to do so anyway. You consider your text to be more inspired and they consider theirs to be more inspired. I consider them to both be equally uninspired of course, but between the Protestants and the Orthodoxy the group with more influence over my daily life are the Protestants simply due to where on the planet I happen to have been born. Were I to live in an Orthodox majority country my default version would be to read Orthodox texts, but that isn't the case. All that being said I will take your suggestion as to which Protestant text to read under advisement going forward.
It would probably be better to assume that it was intended to be this way.
I think simply assuming something because it matches with your previous convictions is absurd and I think that under any context other than religion you would agree with me, but a more detailed conversation about reconciling the two Biblical narratives for creation can wait for my next Reading the Bible thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@Deb-8-a-bull
And your scripture translations are mmmmmmm. They are absolutely 100% spot on.Fukin beautiful, you've a certain way of translating scriptures like no other.Your a scholar.
Hard to tell if that is sarcasm like most of the rest of your post clearly is, but since I know myself not to be a genius I am inclined to believe that anyone who claims I am a genius is either being sarcastic or sorely mistaken
More importantly... I am making this post to tag Mopac in it because I forgot to do so in post 10 where I responded to post 5 by them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why? are you not interested in the message of Genesis as a unique work?
Um, quite the contrary in fact. I am proposing to spend hundreds of hours of my own personal time reading pages of text from the bible specifically because the biblical view is what I am interested in studying. If I was interested purely in mythology as a whole I would make a topic about mythology as a whole, that doesn't mean I am going to avoid pointing out facts regarding the narrative simply because some people may dislike those facts, because I am approaching this from a neutral point of view. Facts are facts, and acknowledging facts that are true will help to further understand the context of the stories within.
Please refrain from claiming that I am biased against a certain story when the obvious fact is that if anything I am naturally biased very much in favor of it due simply to the fact that it is the only fucking story that I am reading out of thousands that exist. People will think that you are very silly if you do so.
Created:
Posted in:
The Lilith theory is a creative explanation that to my knowledge has no actual factual basis.
Please clarify. Are you claiming that the Lilith story did not exist at the time that the original creation narrative did and was instead a later addition/explanation for something? That is what is seems like you are saying but I am not sure and do not wish to straw man your position by replying to that claim if it is not the one you are making.
Created:
Posted in:
The orthodox bible is a bit different than the protestant bible. In fact, the base texts are different! There are more books in the orthodox bible too. The protestant bible chops the beginning and end of the book of Daniel off too... its also ordered differently... ah well..
Using a more protestant-oriented version is the natural choice for me simply due to the fact that the majority of people in my country are Protestants.
Anyway, if you are going to use a protestant bible, there are many reasons not to use an NIV. Even some protestant circles jokingly call it the non inspired version.Modern bibles remove a lot of scriptures. I use the King James online mostly because it doesn't have a copywrite, but also because the base texts are closest to what we use in the orthodox church(for the new Testament). The New King James uses the same base texts, and is a bit more modernized in its English.
I am aware that the KJV is, at least where I live, the usual go-to for people reading the Bible. Some get very emotional about it, with the more evangelical even going so far as to claim that Satan has tampered with all other English translations in an attempt to mislead people. Absurd. My decision to not go with the KJV as my primary subject of study was far from arbitrary, however. The old English tone simply struck me as something that I should not have to work around if I did not have to. People did not talk like that at the time that these stories were made or first written and they do not talk like that now either. The New KJV that you mention is something that I had not considered. Tomorrow I will do some research as to whether there are signifigant differences between that and the NIV and if there are I will consider switching.
Good luck. I'd write more, but I am on a break. When I can, I'll talk a bit more on Genesis chapter 1.
Looking forward to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Nobody is required to argue for a perfect Bible, especially if we really look at what the objective of the accounts are because after all this is a spiritual book not a science book and that is the nature of it.
As I said before I agree that reading the texts from the point of view of whether they are actually accurate is silly. Of course there will be inaccuracies since the people making the stories knew so little about the world around them. That is why I tried to brush over that and focus on instead learning more about the actual writing itself, such as looking at the similarities it shares with other mythologies and the evidence of the cut-out story of Lilith.
Created:
Posted in:
I have recently undertaken to read the Bible from the beginning to end, something I have never done before in full. I suspect that if I just did so by myself then I would soon quit from boredom, so I decided to discuss my thoughts on the topic with others here in this forum to give me a motivation to continue along as I do so.
How this will work is I will read a few chapters and write my thoughts about the work as I read along, then do some minor edits at the end of the reading. I won't be copy-pasting the actual text itself here. For reference I will be reading the New International Version (NIV) but discussion of any other versions is welcome in the thread. With all that said, let's begin.
The first obvious things that we notice as we read the first few verses are of course how little the story matches with what we know of modern science. The obvious things such as day and night existing before the sun and moon, light and plants existing before the sun, etc. These are hard statements to ignore considering modern scientific knowledge. However, I am not reading this book to find things to criticize about it or try to prove some point. I want to try to get a genuine understanding of it. After all these stories were created thousands of years ago by ignorant people, for them it was natural to look at the blue sea and see it is made of water then look at the blue sky and assume it is made of water being held above us (Genesis 1:6) It makes sense that someone would look into the sky during a full moon and think that the moon produces light (Genesis 1:16) even if we know these things to be false.
So then ignoring the obvious scientific inaccuracies, let's look deeper into this. As early as the second verse we start to see something interesting. The biblical description of God "Hovering over the waters" and the later creation of land paints a picture of the early world being covered entirely in water. Scientifically nonsense, of course, but that isn't the interesting part. The theme of the early universe starting as a vast expanse of water is a common one in many mythologies. Ancient Egyptian, Hindu, and even some Native American Folklore share this concept. This would seem to give credence to the idea that early mythologies, including the oral traditions from which the biblical tales are descended, either borrowed heavily from each other or share one or several common ancestor mythologies from which all take inspiration.
The next verse that catches my attention that I would like to talk about is Genesis 1:27. In most teachings of the biblical creation story Eve is presented as being the first human woman. In this verse, however, it states that man and woman were created at the same time. This is not an obscure translation error that got missed, the NIV is not the only English version to say this. For those of you that do not know there are many books and stories which existed within the same tradition as the original biblical stories but were later removed from the narrative and this verse is an example of a vestigial remnant of one such story. In the original story the first woman on earth was Lilith, and she was made from the same dirt that Adam was made from. She refused to be subservient to Adam however and she left the Garden of Eden prior to The Fall. This story does not exist in the Bible today because of mankinds tinkering with the stories over time, but it existed within the tradition at one point and this verse is one piece of evidence for that.
Well, that completes the first chapter of Genesis and I think that is a good place to stop this OP. I expected to get farther along than I did because I did not think there would be this much to comment on but I think this is enough to induce a dialogue for now. Looking forward to seeing if anyone else is interested in this topic and if this does lead to an interesting conversation perhaps I will continue to read the next few chapters and we can discuss that as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That is my point. There is no evidence for these deities or others such as Shangdi or the Demiurge. The fact that the universe and life exists and there are stories giving these deities credit for that is not evidence.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I may have misconstrued your POV.
Probably not. You may have incorrectly assumed that I am a theist, but the fact is that I intentionally avoided mentioning that I am an atheist because I think that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. A Jew or Christian could easily make the same point. They could then go on to say that their god is real and I would disagree with them on that point, but it would be internally consistent for them to say that the scriptures were written as allegory rather than history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How can the earth be further from the sun and still support life? Please give your evidence for this statement.
It can't. Not in the real world anyway. But if there was an omnipotent creator such as Ahura Mazda or Eiocha then it would easily be within their power, would it not?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Oh do get into it.
I wrote posts 59 and 63 prior to reading the entire thread, since I was at first responding only to the OP and not the thread as a whole. Now that I have read through the thread I noticed your mention in post 41 regarding the Babylonian captivity, and as it happens that is what I was alluding to when I mentioned that the stories were put to paper for a specific purpose. A way of maintaining cultural identity and all that. I suspect based on your mentioning of it earlier that you probably already know at least as much about that aspect of it as I do. Certainly enough to understand the rest of what I said in my previous posts in context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God, and the fact that there is any perceived order or reality at all is all the evidence you need to believe that there is a way things truly are.
I guess if your definition of god is reality rather than referring to some form of supernatural being... well, I am not a solipsist so I believe that reality exists. Seems like a pretty useless definition though and I doubt that is actually what you mean when you use the word god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Because God could do it, that means God has to do it?
No, I do not think that. I do however think that the fact that we happen to exist in the one place that it is naturally possible to do so is something that should not be ignored considering how unlikely that is given how indescribably small the portion of the universe we are capable of inhabiting actually is.
If the universe was fine-tuned for life, we would be able to live in it. For the most part, we aren't.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
What makes you think that? The authors definitely wanted to be believed. I know it was fairy tales but the authors weren't after that interpretation.
What I mean is that the specific stories within were not meant to depict a literal history of the world and founding of the tribes of Israel. The stories of the Old Testament were a collection of oral traditions that the people had which were written down and recorded at one time for some specific reasons that I won't get into here.
The Hebrew authors certainly did believe that their god really does exist in the real world, but stories such as for example the story of Adam and Eve have a definite fable vibe to them which is very evident when looking at the meaning of the names Adam and Eve in the original Hebrew which the story was written in. The from which Adams name is derived translates as 'man' and Eve as 'living' or 'to give life'. These names have very clear meanings in light of the story itself. This continues for other Biblical stories as well. Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, etc. Many Biblical Characters have names which very directly related to their stories within the book.
Again the people that made the stories clearly did believe that their god was real, but the stories were created to convey certain messages rather than saying that the things in the stories literally happened in history. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon which I think gets in the way of those messages from the authors by trying to shoehorn ridiculous narratives where they clearly do not and cannot fit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Life on this planet is fit for its inhabitants.
I do not understand how this should be the case in a fine-tuned universe. I once made a thread to this effect on DDO:
I think the idea I try to get across in the OP of that thread went over the head of most that read it, despite it being such a simple idea. Life as we know it cannot exist in most of the universe.
Even if every planet in the entire universe were miraculously made to be perfectly fit for life most of the universe would still be incapable of supporting life.
Even if our solar system was all there was in the entire universe and hundreds of thousands of earthlike planets were added to it the vast majority of the universe would still be incapable of supporting life.
One has to ask why our civilization just happens to exist on a planet, and not only that but a planet where the conditions for the natural development of such a civilization are physically possible. Please stop reading this for about thirty seconds and just think about that for a moment. Why is it that our civilization exists in the one place we know of that it is possible for it to naturally exist?
Surely if a creator being capable of designing the universe such as Aten, Gaia, Ymir, Vishnu, Ngai, Zamba, Atum, Pangu, Xamaba, or any of a dozen others were responsible then our civilization could exist anywhere. Earth could be, for example, several times further from the sun and still support life just fine. We would hypothetically not even notice a difference until we developed astronomy and began to better understand the physical laws of the universe. Would this not be within their power?
So why instead do we happen to be in the one tiny part of the universe where the development of life is physically possible? Some people would say that such is the case because this is the one tiny part of the universe where life is physically possible. Of course we would develop here. Others would instead choose to believe that the entire cosmos exists literally for their benefit alone.
Created:
The Bible seems to become significantly less interesting when viewed in the light of interpreting it as literal and historical truth rather than literary metaphor such as was clearly the intent of the various authors of the Old Testament.
Created: