Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[Aeson]

I don't remember any statements which would suggest that the Bible hasn't affected culture and beliefs. I think everyone would agree that it has had a large effect on the world. The dismissive posts on this subject by Ethelred seem to be directed at the Bible's scientific ability to explain the physical state of our world.

An example from the first page.

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred
None of them any more relevant to reality than the Elder Edda unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality.

Here we have "relevent to reality". To paraphrase, 'The Bible is not relevent to reality.'

quote: Originally posted by ckweb (in response)
I beg to differ about their relevancy. Many people, including myself, find the biblical stories extremely relevant.

Here we have 'relevent' in the reply. Without the term reality, the paraphrased idea becomes 'The Bible is not relevent'.

Now reality is a qualifier, and a rather nebulous one at that. I can't be sure about how Ethelred meant it, but judging from his other posts I would assume reality means physical evidence, or that which can be proven through physical evidence. Without the qualifier, or even if it is defined differently, the statement can read as a dismissal of the Bibles significance in any aspect of life.

The reader can be just as influential as the author in which point comes across.

[SpencerH]

I think you've picked out an interesting example of Ethel's slant.

None of them any more relevant to reality than the Elder Edda unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality.

Given that the Elder Edda is some norse god-mythos with a giant cow creating the world through licking a ball of ice, I think we can exclude scientific discussion.

For me, its the second part of this quote thats the most interesting "unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality. "

Why would that be? Is it even important given cvwebs's original question?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
RE: My alleged misquoting or misunderstanding of your position in statements made by you with Fundamentalists.

Actual not alleged. You make statements that do not include quotes but are actualy your perception of what I have said. This simply created even more misperception. Both in yourself and in others that read it. Things get mixed together over time and your versions of what I say get mixed up with the real thing.

For the sake of saving myself some time, I'm not going to bother to pull out the quotes.

That IS THE CAUSE of the misperceptions. If you would take the time you might start dealing with I actually say instead of the model you have in your mind. I find that I do that if I do not check. I see no reason to think you are immune to this as it seems to be human nature. Please in the future actually post what I realy say and not your restatements as they often change the real meaning.

If you were better at it I wouldn't need to ask that you do this. I am not that good myself either. Its sheer laziness when I do it. Usually its OK but sometimes its not.

Let it suffice to say that it appears to be that you take the position that the Bible is collection of fictional stories as a result of the fact that after a literal reading of Genesis,

YET AGAIN you change the meaning. Again:

"The Bible is a collection of myths legends and often dubious history"

Not once have I claimed it was all fiction. For one thing the people of that time did always make much of a distinction between fiction and fact in books.

you believe the stories to be untrue.

Fictional stories are just fiction. You have a different definition of true than I use. You have this concept of Eternal Truths. I don't. I am thinking true/false or factual/fictional as well as precise/fuzzy.

In other words, you are using the term "stories" pejoratively rather than stemming from an appreciation of the genre of the literature itself.

Again that is entirely your perception. I am using the term stories to denote that its not a true statement about real historical events. You also say many of the things in the Bible are just stories and not real events. The Flood being the most obvious example and I suspect you would treat Job the same why. Its just a story. That is in no way pejoritive. Stories can be good entertainment or even upon occasion insightfull. They are however not a sign from a hypothetical god.

Even in you post about your beliefs you don't claim that the Bible is the source of your beliefs. You beliefs seem to be based largely on the beliefs of others and two events that are only documented in the Bible. Those both could be stories just as the Flood is a story.

It seems that you deny the Bible any efficacy or value in religious discussions because you believe the Creation and Flood stories are scientifically inaccurate.

I give them great value in that regard. Its shows the Bible is a not a good source of information about any hypothetical god. It can't be trusted as so much is wrong. A Flood story that is true is usefull in that respect. A Flood story that is fictional is not. I do not see how it could be usefull if its fiction except in the same way as any other story. Which give the Flood story the same exact usefullness as Gilgamesh.

I am pretty sure you do not consider Gilgamesh usefull in understanding god so why do you find the Flood at all usefull?

All that I am saying is that the Creation and Flood stories should not be judged according to their scientific accuracy because they were never intended to be scientifically accurate in the first place.

So just what are they good for besides entertainment? You seem to be insisting they have some intrinsic value regarding your version of god even though you think they are fiction. Remember the context of the discusion. This is a discusion about religious beliefs in god not compative literature.

In your discussion with Fundamentalists, it appeared to me that you were attempting to deny the Bible its efficacy and value not only for Fundamentalists but for anybody who studies and reads it.

If you want to read for literary purposes that is fine by me. I prefer Irish and Norse myths myself. Less killing but more blood and thunder. Or is that thud and blunder when Thor is involved?

I am still waiting for you to show some religious value to something that even you admit is often fiction. Specificly Genesis. Other parts of the Bible are not fictional although much of it is clearly told through a purely Jewish point of view.

I will leave it up to the observers on this thread and the other threads to which you have posted to discern whether or not I am making an accurate criticism of your position.

Well I have been telling you all along the you are not doing that. I think you got your feathers ruffled and are having hard time looking at what I write except through Believer colored glasses. Your statments claiming I actually believe the Bible to be as the Fundamentalists claim clearly shows this perception on your part. The fact that has taken dozens of posts to get it through to you shows that you do not want to accept that fact that you have strongly colored your reading of what I have written.

Spencer is pissed at me for some discusions about the Civil War so I am not sure how objective he is about me here either.

I do appreciate that you have qualified many of my alleged misconceptions of your position.

Not alleged. Real. Speaking of people that won't concede a point no matter how obvious.

I have not read all of your posts in the other threads (there are far too many) and so if you have made those qualifications in the past, I apologize for not having read them.

Apology accepted. As you say there were MANY posts. It become exceedingly redundant to use all the many weasle words in each every post and on each and every line of each post. My posts are long enough allready. Its why I cut the quotes for space. Often to the bare minimum. I do not cut to change meaning, after all the original is still there and readily available since this is not printed media.

RE: Alternative to Jehovah.

Continue to use it if you want, I don't really care. You should just be aware that scholarly circles do not use it as it is an inaccurate transliteration of the divine name. I don't think your point about divine names is a valid one. Whether the Bible is true or not really doesn't change the fact that the Bible attributes a particular name to divinity it alleges to discuss.

I don't care if its attributed to divinity. I don't accept the claim. Its not divine if the god does not exist.

I note here that you did not address the other part of that. So I will ask again to be sure just how extensive you definition of a divine name is.

Do Thor, Odin, Jupter, and Zuess qualify as divine names?

To me they are not. So neither is the name of the god of the Bible. A name you seem reluctant to use.

BTW, I just realized something I totally overlooked. Elohim is the divine name used in Genesis 1 and not as often in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2, you have the first appearance of the divine name, the tetragrammaton, used exclusively in Israelite religion.

I sometimes mix them up considering the English version does make that kind of distinction most of the time. I only notice when I check the original language. I don't obsess on this. I do it at least partly to annoy the Fundamentalists anyway. Its called trolling.

However it does show that there is more than one author and that is significant consdering how many people think the Pentateuch was entirely the work of Moses. Why they do I cannot fathom since it includes his death. Its darn hard for a corpse to write about its death.

So, you don't find my evidence convincing about the use of plurals in Classical Hebrew or the fact that the verbs are singular in reference to Elohim?!? Do you simply not trust that I am making accurate statements? Or, do you contest the validity of my explanation on the basis of other evidence?

I find it to be less than fully convincing. Its very plausible but not certain since as I said there is evidence that Jews at one time were polytheistic and that could be the cause of some storys using a plural word.

If so, what other evidence can you offer that Elohim functions polytheistically in Genesis 1? To simply allege that Israelites once believed that many gods existed is not sufficient as it really has no grammatical relevance to the passages in question.

It has relevance. I did not simply allege it. The Golden Calf story alone shows the Jews were not far removed from polytheism at one time.

As an alternative to Jehovah, you could just use God.

No. I can't. God capitalized is for a real god only. I know of none. I want to make it clear that I am talking about a specific god. Not all people are christians you know and not all people that join religious discusions are christians even if they think there is a creator.

Frankly I think you are upset over my use of the word Jehovah for religious reason. It used to be a stoning offense to say the name of the Jewish god. Your refusal to offer an alternative shows that there is a hidden agenda here. God capitalized is neither correct for me nor sufficient for my use. It must be a specific god since we are not talking about a general creator. You are not a Deist.

By the way I don't capitalize christian for a reason. Its generic to me. I do capitalize specific christian beliefs. Catholic, Baptist, Marinite and such all get capitalized. Islam is less balkinized so I don't bother with the distinctions there.

Many other religious groups have their own names for the divine that sufficiently differentiate themselves from the Christian God, i.e. Allah is the Muslim god, all Hindu gods have names, the Jewish god could be written as G-d to respect their Orthodox religious traditions, the JW god is Jehovah, and the Mormon god is just wacked .

The Islamic god is the same as your god. Just ask a Moslem.

Now the agenda is no longer hidden. I am not beholden to your religious squemishness. I will not be struck by lightening for saying or writing god. I am not Jewish and the Jews don't do that because of tradition but because its againt their religion. Christians do it too sometimes.

Am I also to deliberatly leave out part of Quetzalcoatal if I talk about Aztec gods as well? Sure would be easier to type anyway.

You sure have some odd ideas up there. The JW god is the same god as you have. So do the Mormons, well the Mormons think so anyway. They are wacked though I will agree with you on that. Calling a 20 year old an Elder is only one minor indication of peculiar thinking.

Oh by the way the Mormons get just as annoyed with me as you do. More so in at least one instance. I can't quote some of Elder UltraJared here. It would be full of asterisks. He never apologized even after he admited that I was telling the truth about a real event. (the massacre in Utah of about 150 non-Morman imigrants by some Mormons).

RE: My understanding of the Bible

The Bible is a cultural and historical artifact. It preserves nearly one and half millenia of cultural history. Many of the places, names, and events of biblical record did occur and some have even been substantiated by extra-biblical sources.

I fully agree. There is however nothing special in that. Nothing unique to the Bible in that.

These sources include the Tel-Dan inscription, the Amarna Letters, the Merneptah Stele, as well as the result of numerous other archaelogical finds in the Ancient Near East.

Stuff in the Hittite diplomatic archives. Surprisingly little in Egypt however. There is some possibilty that the Hicksos were Israelites.

Historically speaking, we now know the bible contains a great deal of accurate information and in fact, it remains for Christian and non-Christian archaeologists alike, one of the primary sources for information on the 4th-11th centuries B.C.E. in the ANE.

Its a good starting point anyway. Much the other information that had been written has been destroyed over the millenia. The destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria was a major loss to history.

Portions of the Biblical Text clearly belong to genre best classified as myth (though we are not talking in the sense of Greek and Roman mythology). The prehistory stories of Genesis 1-11, while containing possible historical names, are not strictly speaking history.

Obviously however it is NOT obvious to many christians.

The Genealogies very likely contain real names of real people but there is not necessarily a direct succession between father and son.

I suspect some are real. Especialy the later ones. Others are likely not. Noah as written for instance. Someone might have been called that but the specific person is pure myth not even legend.

For instance, Assyrian court documents list their kings as living in the tens of thousands of years, which far exceeds even any age the Bible attributes to humans.

Its likely the same name was given to succeeding monarchs. Similar to Ceasar but much more so since the Romans began to use it as a title. However the Assyrians weren't even around that long. Heck no civilization has been. It may be that its kind of like the use of millions or thousands to mean a lot.

To give a real world example of that. For a long time anthropologists thought the Aborigines of Australia had no number higher than three. This is because they would ask them to count as high as they could go. This made no sense to the Aborigne and they would stop at three. They do have words for higher numbers. They just did not understand the idea of mathematics.

The issue of numbers is a very contentious one among scholars. Some suggestions have been that these texts simply employ exaggeration. Some have suggested that the calendar or at least the way of calculating age according to that calendar was sufficiently different as to account for the higher numbers. Many more suggestions have been put forward but the present evidence from the ANE allows few conclusions.

Propaganda is also possible. Making outragious claims to cow the unwary is nothing unusual. Mile grazia does not involve actualy saying thank you a thousand times after all.

The Flood story is clearly the joining of at least two distinct accounts. It is believed that the accounts may reflect some underlying tradition of some kind of local flood, exaggerated as a universal flood, because this is how it was perceived by the people.

This is know as preaching to the choir. That is I know these things. Well I don't know about the two distints accounts but the general idea anyway. It looks a lot like one to me. Perhaps in the Hebrew its more clear.

For instance, there are doublets: two virtually identical stories repeated in different places sometimes with different main characters.

Genesis one and two being one of the more obvious doublets.

These doublets may result from the fact that Israel was once divided into a Northern and Southern Kingdom,

That is believed to be the source of the Elohim/Jehova dichotomy. The doublets have the differing versions of the reference to god.

The stories themselves seem to be fictionalized re-tellings of plausibly historical events;

Often not so plausible as in the Flood, the Tower of Bable and the Exodus slaughter of Egyptians.

The stories of intereactions with their God, however, are likely to have achieved a certain reverence and remained relatively stable depending on the nature of the story.

Stable or not its not evidence that such an interaction ever occured.

In fact, dating anything in the pre-monarchial period of the Bible, which includes Moses, is extremely tenuous.

Precise dating yes. There realy was no such thing as Isreal prior to Moses anyway. Actually prior to Joshua as Moses was a nomad except when in Egypt.

I hope this gives you something to go on.

I knew most of that allready. Its exactly what can be expected of a book written by men of that time wether Jehovah is real or fiction. That is why I say there is nothing special in it.

RE: Has anyone seen the face of God?

There are traditions in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish and Christian literature that suggest Moses, Elijah, and possibly also Isaiah saw the face of God. A close reading of the relevant passages, however, shows that this is unlikely. Moreover, you have the declaration in the Bible that seeing the face of God would result in death.

Oh dear you missed one. True its fiction but is pretty clear that Abraham saw Jehovah in the story. He even washed his feet according to the Bible in Genesis 18.

Presumably, however, the dead in Christ have seen God face-to-face. And, quite obviously, Jesus has seen God face-to-face. Although, we must be careful here because we are anthropomorphizing. The obvious philosophical question is: Does God even have a face?

Accoding to Genesis 18 he must. He ate. Hard to eat without a face.

Genesis 18 looks like a patch job to me. I think it was tacked on later to justify the morals of killing everone in two towns.

No miracle is needed for both the towns to burn down the same night. That happened in the US once. The day of the Chicago fire another city had an even worse one, it was so bad no one knew about it for days after the Chicago fire took over the papers. That other city's fire has a know cause AND the cause could be the same as the cause of the Chicago fire.

The cause was meteor. Fire from the sky.

[Ethelred]

[

Originally posted by SpencerH
There's more to Ethelreds comments than "the Bible is not literal truth". Whether by intent or not, he is dismissive in this, and in other threads, of the cultural and spiritual importance of the Bible.

If the Bible is just a book written by men it remains no more important regarding any god than any other set of religious writings. I am NOT dismissive of its cultural IMPACT. I simply point out those things do not have a thing to do with wether its THE source for information about a real god.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Given that the Elder Edda is some norse god-mythos with a giant cow creating the world through licking a ball of ice, I think we can exclude scientific discussion.

The same could be said for the Flood story EXCEPT that many people think that is not just a story but a factual relating of a real event that included the deaths of all but eight human beings. Hence scientific discussion IS RELEVANT to that sort of thinking. Without real evidence for the supernatural things in the the Bible it remains a Hebrew god-mythos.

For me, its the second part of this quote thats the most interesting "unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality. "

Why would that be? Is it even important given cvwebs's original question?

Why wouldn't be more accurate if a god that knows how it created things was involved in the writing. Why would a god that knew how things really happened make up something so clearly divergent with reality.

Ckwebs original questions are based on his misperceptions. I am not claiming the Bible is supposed to be the literal word of god yet he was (still is sometimes in his latest post) going on that perception of his.

Spencer the cultural impact of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about any god. Other religions have had strong effects as well. None quite so broad but Islam is close in many ways. Budihism in its various forms has effected nearly as many people when you consider that it even older than christianity. None of that makes any of those religions the source for information about a real god. Not unless there is something that shows a special knowledge had be involved. By special I mean knowledge that could only have been attained from a supernatural source.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan. I don't see ANY proof of the extraordinary claims of the Bible much less extraordinary proof.

[Grandpa Troll]

Eighteen Inches!

Eighteen Inches. Thats the difference for those of us whom believe in JESUS CHRIST as our personal Lord and Savior.

Eighteen Inches.........the difference between "Head" knowledge..all you so called experts of science and literature and writings.......and "Heart" knowlege, knowing JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior.

But I cant argue the point, because knowing JESUS CHRIST is a matter of Faith, and if you dont have Faith than what He, GOD offered up as an Atonement for our Human Sinfulness, than this is foolishness to man in his own thought process.

I pray, and yes you folks can ridicule me, not a problem, I only offer up a testimony, but one day, sooner than you think, you will appear before the Master, and He will look to his Son, JESUS CHRIST and then He will either say "Well done thou good and faithful servant, or Depart from me you worker of iniquity!

It is sad, those whom try to rationalize to a point, because Faith is what God's plan of Salvation is based upon.

This is indeed a Test, and it is simple to pass, Accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior or deny him and spend eternity in Hell. Not a halfway house for good behavior or self worth as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed, but simple childlike faith in the One whom died for the ransom of our Sinfulness.

Troll

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

The same could be said for the Flood story EXCEPT that many people think that is not just a story but a factual relating of a real event that included the deaths of all but eight human beings. Hence scientific discussion IS RELEVANT to that sort of thinking. Without real evidence for the supernatural things in the the Bible it remains a Hebrew god-mythos.

But ckweb was not suggesting that the flood story was scientifically verifiable. Those arguments are perfectly valid when debating with those who dont agree that genesis is an allegory.

Why wouldn't be more accurate if a god that knows how it created things was involved in the writing. Why would a god that knew how things really happened make up something so clearly divergent with reality.

Maybe the concept was more important than the details. Similar things happen in science.

Ckwebs original questions are based on his misperceptions. I am not claiming the Bible is supposed to be the literal word of god yet he was (still is sometimes in his latest post) going on that perception of his.

I dont read either of your comments in that way.

Spencer the cultural impact of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about any god. Other religions have had strong effects as well. None quite so broad but Islam is close in many ways. Budihism in its various forms has effected nearly as many people when you consider that it even older than christianity. None of that makes any of those religions the source for information about a real god. Not unless there is something that shows a special knowledge had be involved. By special I mean knowledge that could only have been attained from a supernatural source.

I agree again. But again I dont read ckwebs comments in the same way as you do. For example, I dont recall a comment where ckweb stated that the Bible was 'divinely inspired' or something similar.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan. I don't see ANY proof of the extraordinary claims of the Bible much less extraordinary proof.

"The proof is in the pudding"-Unknown

[SpencerH]

I realize that you're just a troll, but personally I think I'lll pass. Your god (did you think about that god is dog spelled backward) is some kind of psycho killer -ques que c'est (from the song). If the time ever comes, I'll choose another less destructive - like baal maybe.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Here's some questions to get the discussion back on the track I intended in the first place:

SOME. Hordes is more accurate. Thats why I passed over this to get to the others first.

You say you've read Genesis and Exodus. When you read it, did you read it literally as Fundamentalists do?

Depends on who I am discussing it with at the time. To me its all myth, legend and a possible touch of some history.

Do you believe that Genesis 1-11, regardless of whether or not you agree it is true, is meant to be history? Do you think the author meant to make an accurate report of historical even of creation (regardless of whether or not you believe he failed in this task)? If so, on what basis to believe this reading strategy to be the right one?

I have covered this exceeding well already. Only your stubborn insistence on holding on to a false perception has you continuing with this line. Please try another. I don't like talking to brick walls except to practice my voice impressions.

And, do you believe that scientific theory invalidates belief in the Christian God?

Why do you ask this again since you allready made a post where you seemed to have finally got the right idea. Did you lose your memory between one post and the next?

Why don't you believe in the Christian God?

Why should I? I know why you do but there is no real reasoning involved in your thinking. Most of it is pure bandwagon and the rest is based on unsupported claims in the Bible.

On what basis do you reject or deny the testimony of the community of faith to events such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the national revelation at Mount Sinai?

The total lack of evidence for them. You have to believe the Bible to believe it constitutes evidence. Your thinking is circular on this. The Bible says it happened therefor it happened. Thats circular.

By the way that whole of Isreal was not there even if it did happen. Only the Jews from Egypt were. There were Jews that never left the fertile crescent.

How do you account for the growth and evolution () of Judaism and Christianity?

I don't need to account for it as nothing supernatural was involved. All religions evolve for one. Judaism has only grow by population growth and Christianity got lucky in Constantines use of it for political purposes. Often it has spread by axe and sword as in the case of Norway. Or Musket and cannon as in Mexico.

Here's some other questions that can take our discussion in new directions:

Not if you keep on with the same misperceptions about my method of reading the Bible when dealing with fundamentalists. I thought you had decided to get over that.

You claim to be an agnostic (not an atheist). To what extent do you believe in a god?

I take it that the word is new to you.

Agnositcs DON'T believe. At all. Atheists often have a belief about god. Those that don't are really Agnostics that have been cowed into taking a stand they don't actually hold. For some reason there are people that like to sneer at Agnostics as fence sitters. Slowhand for one.

There may be a god but I see no evidence for one. I don't live my life on belief. I like evidence.

Do you simply allow for the possibility or is it more than that?

Simply. No more as there is no evidence.

If more, what form does that belief take? On what basis, do you have these beliefs?

I believe in the church of baseball - Annie Savoy in Bull Durum.

Actually I am a Lakers fan. The team is god and Chick Hearn is the prophet. For another year anyway, at 85 he really can't keep doing the broadcasting much longer. Baseball is ssssllllloooooowwww and I don't like the present Dodger owner so I am sticking with Basketball till he sells.

You deny the idea that humanity is inherently evil (at least, I assume you do based on previous posts).

I answered that allready. Its a silly thing to say. Mankind has inherent self interest and people that don't understand that others might have different interests call the results of the differences evil. Thats not being realistic.

You want evil try Charles Ng or Charly Manson. Don't name your children Charles.

Is humanity essentially good then? Or neutral?

Self interested.

How do you derive your sense of morality?

The same way christians do minus the god part. The golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Treat those that can't manage to do that themselves as you must to survive.

Do you believe in moral absolutes? Is it community-based? Is it based on instinct?

B and C not A. There is at least some instinct involved in human socialization. Those with less of the instinct make better salesmen. Those with nearly none are very dangerous. The two Charles above for instance.

By what standard should moralities be judge?

The golden rule and survival when dealing with the socialy dangerous.

Or, alternatively, can you judge morality? What is morality to you?

I will point out to you that Agnostics and Atheist are much more prevalent in the general population than in the prison population. Non-believers don't have anywhere near as many problems with acting in a moral manner as christians do or the non-believers would be majority of the prison population or at least of a greater percentage than in the general population.

Are you a moral nihilist?

Thats a contradiction in terms.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I realize that you're just a troll, but personally I think I'lll pass. Your god (did you think about that god is dog spelled backward) is some kind of psycho killer -ques que c'est (from the song). If the time ever comes, I'll choose another less destructive - like baal maybe.

Hmm so your trying somehow to equate some god with spelled backward being dog..ok..you get an "A" for spelling!
..BUT..I was speaking of THE GOD..in Heaven..and ball..well..Elijah had his day with God vs the 450 prophets of baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings 18:15-40 ...baal -0- God 1..God wins then and God wins Now!


Troll

[SpencerH]

I was reading your signature, would that include red beans and rice ?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
But ckweb was not suggesting that the flood story was scientifically verifiable. Those arguments are perfectly valid when debating with those who dont agree that genesis is an allegory.

Then why are both you and he protesting my use of them?

Maybe the concept was more important than the details. Similar things happen in science.

Maybe wishes are horseshoes. The concept of the Flood and Creation is misleading at best. This is not a good thing. Not to me anyway.

I agree again. But again I dont read ckwebs comments in the same way as you do. For example, I dont recall a comment where ckweb stated that the Bible was 'divinely inspired' or something similar.

I never said he did. I am asking what makes the Bible a reason for believeing in the god of the Bible if there is no evidence of that god in the real world. Especially when the Bible has that god doing things that never happened. Without some evidence for divine inspiration the Bible is just the word of men. Of no more value for showing any reality of the god in it than for anyother collection of religious writing. Its just the word of men either way.

"The proof is in the pudding"-Unknown

Where is the pudding. The Bible cannot prove itself. It must have external evidence to support its extraordinary claims.


Don't tell me. I get it. Jello is proof of god.

Hallalucination.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I was reading your signature, would that include red beans and rice ?

That is concerning the Bread of Life...and I am sorry that you choose to taunt God..for that is a very dangerous walk..heed what you say..not because what i say..but I am just sharing that you should not tempt God..just a warning..is all..

Troll

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Troll


Hmm so your trying somehow to equate some god with spelled backward being dog..ok..you get an "A" for spelling!Troll

Oh goody an excuse for one of my favorite outlandish phrases.

What if there was cosmic significance in the fact that god is dog spelled backwards? And that live is evil reversed. Massacre and mascara are intriguingly similar Mr. DesCartes so what do you mean when you claim 'I drink therefor I am'?


And for being a troll you get this one as well.


(tm) Liars For Jesus is an unregistered trade mark of a nonexsistent organization of real people. Un authorized use of this trademark will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the Minions of Satan(tm) after you die. Remember even Satan has an important job in Gauwuds plan.


Maybe I should lay off the religious threads. I have these things saved in my Formum Holding folder.

Copyright by me. Free use for quotes is extended as long as the original author (Ethelred) is acknowledged.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Then why are both you and he protesting my use of them?

Because its a red-herring. Save it for the fundamentalist types.

Maybe wishes are horseshoes. The concept of the Flood and Creation is misleading at best. This is not a good thing. Not to me anyway.

Well I dont 'get' the flood story either. But is the idea that god exists (without proof) and that it created the universe so antithical to you? I see no proof that god exists, and I dont believe in god either, but "there are stranger things under heaven and earth Horatio". I'm willing to accept a small possibility.

I never said he did. I am asking what makes the Bible a reason for believeing in the god of the Bible if there is no evidence of that god in the real world. Especially when the Bible has that god doing things that never happened. Without some evidence for divine inspiration the Bible is just the word of men. Of no more value for showing any reality of the god in it than for anyother collection of religious writing. Its just the word of men either way.

Now thats a viewpoint that ckweb might argue. I hope he will.

Where is the pudding. The Bible cannot prove itself. It must have external evidence to support its extraordinary claims.

I believe its called faith, some take it to extremes, others dont.