Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Wow. All this started out as one ignorant troll...

    Comment


    • #62
      Yeah it did. The troll was ignorant but we are stubborn and have forced it to gain a semblance of meaning.


      Most threads on religion start as trolls.

      I have tried trolling for Scientologists myself but they won't take the bait. I can't tell if its because of training or the paucity of people that will admit to being so gullible that they have bought into L. Ron. Hubbards fake religion.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Ethelred
        When you start showing an error on my part you can claim I was wrong. Not till then. Are you getting paid for posting here? So then YOU are an amatuer. As for maturity you are only saying 'no tisn't'. Not exactly mature now is that.
        I think have rather convincingly proved error on your part. Your statement that since Noah's Ark was either a local flood or allegory disproves the existance of the Judeo-Christian god was obviously in error. Therefore, such a ridiculous statement clearly shows that your stated infaliability is greatly exaggerated, to say the least.
        Also, to simplify my arguements as a juvenile "no tisn't" would be no better than simplifying yours as a simple "tis".

        If you want to engage in more of this puerile name calling be prepared to recieve a broadside. Consider this a mere swival gun.
        The so-called "name-calling" you seem to be referring to were merely my attempts to call you at some of the ridiculous and immature statements you have been making, referring to the bible as a crock, your whole "tisn't" arguement, etc. Surely you wouldn't disagree that these statements would be considered immature to throw in by any standards.



        A lot of things can seem reasonable without being true. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly stories. They are labeled that way. Noah is cosistently treated as a true fact in the Bible.
        Making such a statement shows that
        1. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of the original writers
        2. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of any further biblical figures who mention Noah.



        Again this is modern thinking. No one the Bible seems to think of it as allegory.
        Again neither are presented that way. Now Job is pretty clearly a story. I don't know why its in the Bible at all. Its like putting the Oddessy in a book of Greek history as a historical event.
        To what degree do you argue that Job is a story? There is surely nothing scientifically impossible about it. Is it only a "story" because the bible is a "crock"? Circular reasoning on your part if so.


        Care to give an example of something in Genesis that is clearly labeled as allegory or metephor? I can't think of any offhand.
        I think the seven-day creation could be fairly clearly labeled as metaphor, when viewed in conjunction with other verses in the bible (To God, a day is like a thousand years).

        So you are now claiming that Noah is only mentioned once elsewhere in the Bible and that is treated as allegory there. Otherwise its your statement that is false. Lets see what a search for Noah turns up.
        I didn't say that it was mentioned once, but merely that it wasn't mentioned a host of other times. Now who is putting words in the mouth of who?
        Well not counting Genesis and some where it might be different person with the same name.

        Noah isn't mentioned in Luke. At least not by name.
        Ah found what you were referring too
        Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
        Looks like Luke thought of it as real.
        Noe?? In any event, Again, you seem to assume absolute omniscience when it comes to the thoughts of biblical figures. Certainly there is no way to prove with certainty Jesus was referring to an actual historical event or an allegory. But there is nothing about the passage that couldn't suggest that he was referring to a popular story of morality to make his point.

        Now for Noah as opposed to Noe.

        1Ch 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
        Now here you bring up an interesting point. The simple fact that Noah is mentioned in many of the "begats" has added to the localized flood arguement. However, this doesn't discount the possibilty of Noah's Ark being an allegory either. Noah most likely was a historical figure to be sure, and most likely a righteous man, from all appearances. The fact that he was a righteous man therefore may have played a part in a tale of morality being attributed to him.

        as real by Jehovah. Of course if Jehovah is a mere allegory why are you arguing with me?
        Oh come now Ethel, I know you are able of stringing together a coherent thought, why must you make ridiculous statements such as this one?
        1. The Bible refers to the God. Jehovah
        2. Several stories in the first book of the bible are possibly allegory
        3. Therefore, Jehovah is an allegory
        You say that no one here is proving you in err, however I think statements such as that one speak for themselves.
        I do give you credit for referring to the Peter referances to Noah, I was not aware of any further mentions of Noah in the New Testament.





        I don't exactly see that as an aplogy for putting words in my mouth. I mention that because you had the gall to call me immature. Without that I wouldn't mention it.
        Some of the statments you have made would clearly be defined as immature by even the most loose standards. You surely don't see me making statements such as "Darwin is an old, out of date coot" or "Origin of the Species is a bunch of ad hoc hokum" (the fact that I agree with the majority of Darwin's teachings notwithstanding of course). I think you are a bright fellow, you just rely too much throwing out insults or preposterous allegations to make a point. Such things may work in some cases, but are not smiled upon in intelligent debate.



        IF the Bible is not the word of god then why believe?
        Simply put, I believe it is the word of God.

        IF it is the Word of God then why does it have so many errors like the non existent Flood.
        The Bible is remarkably accurate, regarding it's history of the Hebrews, and prophecies and so forth. The fact that flood was either localized or an allegory does nothing to invalidate it.

        There was nothing fantastic in my arguement.
        Oh Ethel! Abandon this preposterous logic!
        1. The flood of Genesis didn't place literally, and was either a local flood or an allegory.
        2. Therefore the God of Genesis doesn't exist
        Simply put, one does not imply two! It *is* a fantastic claim by any logical standards!

        If you think the Bible is always dealing with allegory when it fails a test against reality then why do you think any parts of it that can't be tested is real?
        I had a feeling that you would make a statement like this, so I tried to deal with it in one of my earlier posts, but you may have missed it. It is not unreasonable that God used allegory to explain grandiose things to simple people. Surely God couldn't explain the physics involved in the Big Bang to Moses. There is no reason to think that the use of allegory in a few early stories creates a purely allegorical bible.
        http://monkspider.blogspot.com/

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by monkspider

          I think have rather convincingly proved error on your part. Your statement that since Noah's Ark was either a local flood or allegory disproves the existance of the Judeo-Christian god was obviously in error. Therefore, such a ridiculous statement clearly shows that your stated infaliability is greatly exaggerated, to say the least.
          You have yet to show error on my part. The statements I made were not ridiculous. The one you just made however is nearly incomprehensible.

          Also, to simplify my arguements as a juvenile "no tisn't" would be no better than simplifying yours as a simple "tis".
          You are doing it again I see.

          I showed what the Bible actually says.

          You claimed it is allegory.

          I showed the Bible treats it as real.

          You claimed otherwise but did not give any evidence to support you.

          Thats just gainsaying on your part. Support yourself.

          The so-called "name-calling" you seem to be referring to were merely my attempts to call you at some of the ridiculous and immature statements you have been making, referring to the bible as a crock, your whole "tisn't" arguement, etc.
          It was name calling. You inability to support your arguement in anyway is exactly like saying "tisn't". That you don't like me calling the Bible a crock is not a sign that I was immature. Its a sign I think the Bible is a crock.

          Surely you wouldn't disagree that these statements would be considered immature to throw in by any standards.
          So far you have done little that resembeled a mature action.

          Making such a statement shows that
          1. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of the original writers
          I never claimed to know their thoughts. I only dealt with what was written. YOU claimed to know not only their intent but what they were actually writing about.

          2. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of any further biblical figures who mention Noah.
          That too is utterly false. I SHOWED what they said. It did not require divination or mind reading of the dead to understand what was said. Nothing was said the even remotely hinted at allegory.

          To what degree do you argue that Job is a story? There is surely nothing scientifically impossible about it.
          There is no way for a fish to swallow Jonah. Nor is there a way for Jonah to survive such action even if he could be swallowed whole. People tend to need to breathe now and then. Hadn't you notice that you need air? So did Jonah.

          Is it only a "story" because the bible is a "crock"? Circular reasoning on your part if so.
          Well then you can quit pretending it was circular can't you. Jonah and the fish possible? Now that is ridiculous.

          I think the seven-day creation could be fairly clearly labeled as metaphor, when viewed in conjunction with other verses in the bible (To God, a day is like a thousand years).
          I was not asking for something that you could claim was metaphor but for something that was actually LABELED that way IN the Bible rather than your head. There are such things in the Bible. Just not in Genesis.

          After all I allready knew that you are willing to call things allegories.

          I didn't say that it was mentioned once, but merely that it wasn't mentioned a host of other times. Now who is putting words in the mouth of who?
          You do it to me. However that wasn't what I was doing to you.

          Didn't you notice the use of the word OTHERWISE. I said it was treated as real in the Bible. You said it wasn't and gave a vague reference. That means that there was no reference in the Bible that treated it as real. If there was a reference that treated it as real I was right and you were wrong. That limits the Bible to the one reference you made if it was correct in the first place. It wasn't correct.

          Sorry if what I said was too complex for you.

          Noe??
          Thats what it said in the KJV. I cut an paste those things. If you don't like it take it up with the late King James. I am sure he would apreciate the oportunity to discuss anything after all this time.

          In any event, Again, you seem to assume absolute omniscience when it comes to the thoughts of biblical figures.
          I just copied it. Its meaning is pretty clear. Its YOU who are claiming it doesn't mean what it says. Takes a lot of brass to accuse me of claiming omniscience when its you who are doing the mind reading.

          Certainly there is no way to prove with certainty Jesus was referring to an actual historical event or an allegory. But there is nothing about the passage that couldn't suggest that he was referring to a popular story of morality to make his point.
          Nor is there anything to suggest that he was. I don't claim to be a mind reader. Its you that are doing that.

          However, this doesn't discount the possibilty of Noah's Ark being an allegory either. Noah most likely was a historical figure to be sure, and most likely a righteous man, from all appearances. The fact that he was a righteous man therefore may have played a part in a tale of morality being attributed to him.
          It doesn't discount in your made up mind anyway. Do you make much money rewriting the Bible and does Jehovah pay cash?

          Oh come now Ethel, I know you are able of stringing together a coherent thought, why must you make ridiculous statements such as this one?
          The only thing ridiculous is believing the Bible. I certainly was coherent. Sometimes I am not but in this instance I think I even managed to spell everything right.

          1. The Bible refers to the God. Jehovah
          Yes.

          2. Several stories in the first book of the bible are possibly allegory
          Well you want to think that way. There is no evidence that the writers though of it that way.

          3. Therefore, Jehovah is an allegory
          No Jehovah is non-existant.

          Do you understand the concept of a conditional statement? Thats twice you have acted as if you don't in one post.

          You say that no one here is proving you in err, however I think statements such as that one speak for themselves.
          I said YOU hadn't. I don't think anyone else has either so far.

          I do give you credit for referring to the Peter referances to Noah, I was not aware of any further mentions of Noah in the New Testament.
          Neither was I. I knew it was mentioned but not how often or where.

          Some of the statments you have made would clearly be defined as immature by even the most loose standards
          More like by the standards of a believer dealing with an unbeliever.

          You surely don't see me making statements such as "Darwin is an old, out of date coot" or "Origin of the Species is a bunch of ad hoc hokum" (the fact that I agree with the majority of Darwin's teachings notwithstanding of course).
          Which would not be immature. It would be partly wrong and I would show why without calling you immature.

          Besides it is out of date. Darwin didn't know about genetics for instance. Blame that on Mendel. He was even worse about publishing than Darwin was.

          I think you are a bright fellow, you just rely too much throwing out insults or preposterous allegations to make a point. Such things may work in some cases, but are not smiled upon in intelligent debate.
          Let me know when you want to engage in an inteligent debate. You sure aren't trying here. There is nothing preposterous about calling the Bible a crock. Its full of nonsense especially in Genesis. I didn't throw out any insults except in return for yours.

          Simply put, I believe it is the word of God.
          Simply asked WHY?

          You keep rewriting it so you clearly don't really believe its the word of god or you wouldn't do that. I sure wouldn't, Jehovah is kind of intolerant about false prophets. I am pretty sure the penalty is stoning.

          Which was the point of my questions that annoyed you so much you ranted about them. If you don't think it means what it says why do you believe in the god that is in the passages you don't believe in.

          You don't believe in the creation story. You don't believe in the Flood. What else have you picked over?

          The Bible is remarkably accurate, regarding it's history of the Hebrews, and prophecies and so forth. The fact that flood was either localized or an allegory does nothing to invalidate it.
          The flood in the Bible is not localized nor is there any indication of it being allegory. There are few actual prophecies. I am amazed at some of the things that people try to pass of as prophecy. Its mostly backwards filtering.

          Real prophecy is labeled as such. Psalms written by David were not prophetic they were songs intended for worship. There ARE a few real prophecies but most of them are something that anyone could have either predicted or expected the Jews to say. Failed prophecies were filtered out so that leaves only proven prophecies being in the present Bible.

          Try to find 10 real prophecies. They have to labeled as prophecy or at least be clearly intended as somethng that will happen in the future. Which leaves out the Psalms for instance. The cannot have been subjected to filtering. That is the predicted event must have occured after the Bible was assembled since it is know that writing that were clearly wrong were left out. I know you can get some. Ten will be quite difficult. I am not sure it can be done.

          Just ten though. If you have more wait till I have gone over the first ten. It can be quite time consuming.

          I know I can show failed prophecies. At least one that is in the Bible both for the prophecy and the evidence of its failure.

          As for the history. Well lets just say that the Egyptian records don't agree. Some is real of course. Accurate history however is not a sign of divine guidance or we would all worship Tacitus.

          I suppose the sort that watch Jerry Springer would worship Suetonious.

          Oh Ethel! Abandon this preposterous logic!
          On you your say so? How about you find some logic. I keep giving you logic and you keep failing to comprehend.

          1. The flood of Genesis didn't place literally, and was either a local flood or an allegory.
          That isn't what the Bible says. Its what you say. And you claim I make fantastic statements. You try to rewrite the Bible.

          2. Therefore the God of Genesis doesn't exist
          Simply put, one does not imply two! It *is* a fantastic claim by any logical standards!
          1. is what YOU say not me. 2. is what I say and there is nothing fantastic about it.

          Genises has a ludicrous creation story that even has the order of creation wrong. It has a second creation story with a different and even less accurate order. It has all humans descending from two individuals a mere 6000 or so years ago. It has Cain marrying even though he his dead brother and his parents were the only ones around. It has a flood story that is clear in its meaning and in its failure to match the world we live in. It has a story about the Tower of Bable that just makes thing worse. It has loads of begatting that set the dates with remarkable precision but fail to match the real world.

          And that just in Genesis. Exodus is a horror story passed off as great thing.

          The Bible is not the word of god unless its a lying god. I think the Bibles many errors are adequate evidence that it is no more of divine origin than the Illiad and I don't think those gods exist either. You wouldn't call it fanastic if I said they didn't exist now would you? Yet for the same thing with Jehovah you pitch a fit.


          I had a feeling that you would make a statement like this, so I tried to deal with it in one of my earlier posts, but you may have missed it. It is not unreasonable that God used allegory to explain grandiose things to simple people. Surely God couldn't explain the physics involved in the Big Bang to Moses. There is no reason to think that the use of allegory in a few early stories creates a purely allegorical bible.
          Since I have made that statement in nearly every reply to you it shouldn't have come as surprise this time either. I didn't miss what you said. In fact I responed to it directly. YOU missed that.

          The Big Bang is no more fantastic than the biblical story and surely Moses would have taken the word of a burning bush anyway.

          I never claimed that Bible was purely allegorical. In fact I don't think ANY of Genesis was intended as allegory in the first place. I see no reaon to believe any of the fantastic stuff that can't be checked when ALL the fantastic stuff that can be checked suddenly gets called allegories because they failed the test.

          For over two thousand years all those stories were thought of as absolute truth. Suddenly they conviently turn into allegory when proven false.

          If its all true how come so much is wrong?

          Here are two questions that shouldn't bother you like they do people that actually believe what the Bible says.

          Has anyone seen the face of god? (not counting Jesus. The authors of the Bible were clearly not Trinitarians)

          What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?

          Comment


          • #65
            Ethel, I had an extremely long post typed out that was accidentally closed out when my internet kept booting me, so I will try to salvage what I could of it. I know this sounds like a cop-out, I appologize.

            Originally posted by Ethelred

            You have yet to show error on my part. The statements I made were not ridiculous. The one you just made however is nearly incomprehensible.
            Your statement is of faulty logic, therefore in error.
            1. The flood didn't take place as literally described
            2. Therefore, God doesn't exist

            that too is utterly false. I SHOWED what they said. It did not require divination or mind reading of the dead to understand what was said. Nothing was said the even remotely hinted at allegory.
            I only said that it was possible that it was an allegory, you said that it was without question not an allegory. i don't think your verses prove your case as many are still open to the "popular story of morality" interpretation.

            Try to find 10 real prophecies. They have to labeled as prophecy or at least be clearly intended as somethng that will happen in the future. Which leaves out the Psalms for instance. The cannot have been subjected to filtering. That is the predicted event must have occured after the Bible was assembled since it is know that writing that were clearly wrong were left out. I know you can get some. Ten will be quite difficult. I am not sure it can be done.
            1. Nineveh would be destroyed, permanently
            Bible passage: Nahum 3:19
            Written: perhaps 614 BC
            Fulfilled: 612 BC
            In Nahum 3:19 (and 1:9), the prophet said that Nineveh, which was the Assyrian Empire's capital and perhaps the most powerful city of the ancient world, would suffer a wound that would never heal. In 612 BC (about 2600 years ago), a coalition of Babylonians, Scythians and Medes conquered the heavily fortified city. According to the Bible, Nineveh was to be punished for the empire's inhumane treatment of Israel. It is unknown as to when Nahum delivered this prophecy - some scholars speculate that it was delivered a few years before the conquest. But, it is known that Nahum was correct - Nineveh and the Assyrian empire never did recover from their defeat. (Incidentally, the Assyrian empire had conquered Babylon many years beforehand, but Babylon was able to recover from that defeat).
            Here is Nahum 3:19
            Nothing can heal your wound; your injury is fatal. Everyone who hears the news about you claps his hands at your fall, for who has not felt your endless cruelty?

            2. Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years
            Bible passage: Jeremiah 25:11-12
            Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
            Fulfilled: about 605 BC to about 538 BC
            In Jeremiah 25:11-12, the prophet said that the Jews would live under Babylonian rule for 70 years. Jeremiah also said Babylon would be punished after the 70 years. Both parts of this prophecy were fulfilled. Sometime around 605 BC, Babylon began dominating Judah and taking many Jews as captives to Babylon. About 70 years later, in 539 BC, Cyrus, a leader of Persians and Medes, conquered Babylon and brought an end to the Babylonian empire. Cyrus later offered the Jews the freedom to return to their homeland. The prophecy might have been fulfilled in another way too: The Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem's Temple in 586 BC, and the Jews rebuilt it and consecrated it 70 years later, in 516 BC. Having the Temple again was a clear signal that the effects of Babylon rule had come to a complete end.
            Here is Jeremiah 25:11-12
            "…This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the Lord, "and will make it desolate forever."

            3. Tyre would never again be found
            Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
            Written: between 587-586 BC
            Fulfilled: after 332 BC
            In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of world powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult. Many of the original buildings were destroyed by Greeks, Romans, Crusaders and Moslems. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."
            Here is Ezekiel 26:21
            I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord."

            4. Babylon would be reduced to swampland
            Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
            Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
            Fulfilled: 539 BC
            In Isaiah 14:23, the prophet said that Babylon, which had been a world power at two different times in history, would be brought to a humble and final end. It would be reduced to swampland. After Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, the kingdom never again rose to power. The buildings of Babylon fell into a gradual state of ruin during the next several centuries. Archaeologists excavated Babylon during the 1800s. Some parts of the city could not be dug up because they were under a water table that had risen over the years.
            Here is Isaiah 14:23
            "I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction," declares the Lord Almighty.

            5. The Jews would regain control of Israel
            Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15

            In Amos 9:14-15, the prophet said that there would come a time when the Jews would again have Israel as their own land and that they would never be uprooted again. Amos delivered this prophecy about 2700 years ago, shortly before the kingdom of Israel lost its independence to the Assyrian Empire. Israel was not an independent nation again until May 14, 1948. Within hours of declaring independence in 1948, the surrounding countries attacked tiny Israel. But Israel prevailed and was able to expand Israel's borders.
            Here is Amos 9:14-15
            I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the Lord your God.

            6. Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re- established
            Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
            Written: between 593-571 BC
            Fulfilled: 1948
            In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel. Here's a summary of Jeffrey's theory:
            1. Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years because they had turned away from God. As part of the punishment, the Jews lost control of their homeland to Babylon. Many Jews were taken as captives to Babylon.
            2. Babylon was later conquered by Cyrus the Great, in 539 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and to return to their homeland. But, only a small number of the Jews returned. The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon.
            3. Because most of the Jews chose to stay in pagan Babylon rather than return to the Holy Land, the remaining 360 years of their punishment was to be multiplied by 7. The reason is explained in Bible's book of Leviticus. (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, the Bible says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. And, by staying in pagan Babylon, most of the people had refused to repent for turning away from God.
            4. So, if you take the remaining 360 years of punishment and multiply by 7, you get 2,520 years. But, Jeffrey says those years are actually "lunar" years, based on a 360-day lunar calendar that was in use during the time of this prophecy. If you convert the 2,520 lunar years to our modern solar calendar, the result is 2,484 years.
            5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.
            Here is Ezekiel 4:3-6
            (In this Bible passage, Ezekiel is asked by God to symbolically act out the 430 years of punishment)
            … Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel. "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel. "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

            7. Babylon's captive Jews would be freed by Cyrus
            Bible passage: Isaiah 44:28

            In Isaiah 44:28, the prophet Isaiah said that a king named Cyrus would one day release the Jews from their captivity in Babylon so that they could return to their homeland. History shows that a king named Cyrus did release the Jews about 150 years after Isaiah is believed to have delivered this prophecy.
            Here is Isaiah 44:28
            who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'

            8. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
            Bible passage: Micah 5:2
            Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
            Fulfilled: 5 BC
            In Micah 5:2, there is a prophecy that many Christians point to as evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. In this Bible passage, Micah said that a great ruler would be born in Bethlehem, a small town in southern Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as recorded in Matthew 2:1, about 2000 years ago. Aside from being the spiritual leader of 2 billion Christians worldwide, Christians believe that Jesus will return in the future to rule over an everlasting kingdom.

            There is disagreement regarding the translation of Micah 5:2. Some people say that the reference to "Bethlehem" is simply a reference to the bloodline of King David. Other people say that it is a reference to the town of Bethlehem. However, as explained in the book of Matthew, Jesus meets both criteria - He is a descendant of King David and He was born in Bethlehem.
            Here is Micah 5:2
            "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

            9. God will save the Jews and destroy their enemies
            Bible passage: Jeremiah 30:11
            Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
            Fulfilled: Throughout history
            In Jeremiah 30:11, the prophet Jeremiah said the enemies of Israel will be destroyed but that the Jews will never perish. History has many examples of how nations have tried to destroy Israel and the Jews:
            • In about 721 BC (about 2700 years ago), Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. They tortured, killed and exiled many Jews.
            • In 586 BC (about 2600 years ago), Babylon destroyed the southern kingdom of Judah. They killed and exiled many Jews.
            • In 70 AD (about 1900 years ago), the Romans killed an estimated 1.1 million Jews and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
            • In 135 AD, the Romans killed an estimated 580,000 Jews and exiled many others.
            • In the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis killed an estimated 6 million Jews. The Nazi plan, called the "final solution," was to kill all Jews.
            Since then, millions of Jews worldwide have returned to their ancient homeland. Today, Israel again is a vibrant, independent country. But, the empires of the Nazis, Romans, Babylonians and Assyrians have vanished. Today, we can judge with our own eyes as to whether Jeremiah was correct when he said, 2600 years ago, that the enemies of the Jews would be destroyed, but that the Jews would be preserved.
            Here is Jeremiah 30:11
            I am with you and will save you,' declares the Lord. `Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished.'

            10. God's servant would be crucified with criminals
            Bible passage: Isaiah 53:12
            Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
            Fulfilled: 32 AD
            In Isaiah 53:12, the prophet wrote about a servant who would bear the sins of many people and be punished side-by-side with criminals. Christians believe that Isaiah's description of this servant was a prophecy that was fulfilled during the life of Jesus Christ. As explained in the book of Matthew, Jesus, though sinless, was "numbered with the transgressors" and crucified along with two criminals.
            Here is Isaiah 53:12
            Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

            H.as anyone seen the face of god? (not counting Jesus. The authors of the Bible were clearly not Trinitarians)
            I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I honestly don't know. I don't think that God would have a face, as such.

            [/QUOTE]What were the last words of Jesus on the cross? [/QUOTE] I assume you are making this into a contradiction of some sort, so visit here to have his last words explained.
            Last edited by monkspider; April 24, 2002, 23:33.
            http://monkspider.blogspot.com/

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by monkspider
              Your statement is of faulty logic, therefore in error.
              1. The flood didn't take place as literally described
              2. Therefore, God doesn't exist
              Why are you still claiming that Ethelred made this statement, when in fact he never did so? From what I've skimmed on this thread, he has corrected you on this at least two or three times in this matter, yet still you misquote him. Are you ignoring his posts, or do you just find it easier to argue against words that you've put in his mouth rather than against what he's really said?
              <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Re: Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

                Originally posted by LordAzreal
                Look out there, and you're bound to find scientific evidence pointing towards creation.
                There indeed very possible be isolated bits and pieces of observations that can be construed as evidence towards creation. I still maintain, however, that a person cannot be a creationist if he accepts all the scientific facts (data if you will) ranging from genetics to anthropology.

                Originally posted by LordAzreal
                But don't dismiss Creationist scientists as less intelligent than evolutionist scientists. That is simply an arrogant generalisation. Most of them do have university degrees.
                A couple of them even have doctoral degrees, including Duane Gish and Michael Behe.

                Their problem is they are dishonest. Gish has been shown wrong over and over again, yet he still sticks to the same old tired diatribe. Same with Behe.
                (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                Comment


                • #68
                  WHAT?!!!?! Ethel never said that word for word, but it was implied several times, and he essentially affirmed that he believed this to be correct in his last post.
                  http://monkspider.blogspot.com/

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Anunikoba
                    Gen 1:1- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

                    This fact is in dispute, and more precisely, the actual time of this event is in dispute. Wether you believe in a god that can create things from nothingness is a matter of faith, though the very existance of the universe proves that "His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" Rom 1:20.
                    If one argues that this Universe needs a creator, the same logic will demand that this creator needs a meta-creator, the meta-creator needs a meta-meta-creator, ad infinitum.

                    I cannot see how the bible can be used as proof for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god because that simply is circular reasoning.
                    (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                    (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                    (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                      If one argues that this Universe needs a creator, the same logic will demand that this creator needs a meta-creator, the meta-creator needs a meta-meta-creator, ad infinitum.
                      How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?
                      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by monkspider
                        WHAT?!!!?! Ethel never said that word for word, but it was implied several times, and he essentially affirmed that he believed this to be correct in his last post.
                        He has always held that the fact that Genesis is flawed invalidates all "evidence" within Genesis that Jehovah (or, "the god of Genesis"), exists. There is nothing that is faulty with this logic--if you find that a source is flawed (and Genesis is flawed, since it makes several claims that are objectively false), then all other data derived from that source are in question.

                        He has repeatedly corrected you when you misquote him as saying that the errors in Genesis prove that God cannot exist. The errors in Genesis invalidate all "evidence" of the god described in Genesis (making it illogical for somebody who recognizes the errors in Genesis to nevertheless believe in Jehovah as described in Genesis), just like Ethelred has said. Ethelred never made the claim that the errors within Genesis invalidate all beliefs of all gods--that claim is yours and yours alone.
                        <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Exactly Dino, something that did not begin to exist has no cause
                          http://monkspider.blogspot.com/

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Rogan Josh
                            I agree with this. I would like to point out though that the problem of 'They would still have to explain who created God, of course' is there anyway. You have to explain where the 'Theory of Everything' came from.
                            From us, of course.

                            Scientific theories are just our attempts to explain things in this universe. "Theory of Everything" (another name for the yet to be derived Grand Unifed Theory) is no exception. What it seeks to do is to present a coherent explanation of the four known basic forces in this universe.

                            Now what does that have anything to do with an infinite, personal being?
                            (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                            (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                            (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by DinoDoc
                              How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?
                              You tell me. Singularities are outside of space-time since they break down the laws that govern space-time, yet people still insist that another entity outside of space-time is required to create the singularity from which the Universe was sprung. If you've already made one entity outside of space-time in order to create another entity outside of space-time, what's wrong with making a few more entities outside of space-time? A few more can't hurt anything...

                              Also, how is an entity that exists outside of space-time supposed to interact with entities (like us) who exist within space-time?

                              Also, if this entity God exists outside of space-time, how can we claim to know anything about it? From where do we derive our evidence of, for instance, God's omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence?

                              As you see, introducing God into the equation increases the complexity of the equation without actually solving anything at all.
                              <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by DinoDoc
                                How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?
                                Causality does not point to any supernatural origin of this universe at all. Such arguments must be theological/philosophical/logical.
                                (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                                (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                                (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X