I still would like an answer that makes logical sense.

Once again Easter is upon us, and once again I muddle through pretending to go along with everyone. That's just me, though. Two things I've wondered about always come to the forefront of my mind during this time. Can anyone out there come up with a valid and logical explanation?

1. OK according to the Bible, Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman. They had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain killed Able and was punished by God and sent out of Eden. He went into Nod, I believe, and there married and begat a nation.

So who the heck did he marry if he was the only living child of the first man and woman?

2. This whole bit about the Israelites being the "Chosen People" makes no sense to me. I mean, think about it. They are "chosen" by God, yet have been nationless wanderers (or something like that) throughout all their history, or most of it. Yet as Hebrews (Jews) they don't believe that God's son Jesus is the Messiah. Now, how is it that the people chosen by God wouldn't believe in his son? And if those who believe in Jesus are the ones destined to go to heaven and others will therefore be denied admission, does this mean the Chosen People, after being screwed out of a nation here on earth, will likewise be screwed out of eternal life?

But #2...

Concerning the Israelites belief in Jesus as the Son of God...

They are still human, and still had the CHOICE to believe or not to believe. They'd been operating under strict Jewish costums which were modified by things that Jesus did during his tenure on Earth. As for the Chosen People being "screwed out of eternal life," once again God created all with the ability to choose for himself or herself.

And most Christians believe that, because the Jews are God's Chosen people, that they will be given a final chance to accept him towards the end of time. I could go into a big biblical thing here about it, but it's highly complex, so I'll just leave it at that.

And "lack of logic" or not, that's what I believe.

To me, it appears as though he who believes the strongest gets there... and all beliefs operate on that principle... so accordingly, everyone either goes to Heaven or not depending on whose viewpoint and whose faith we are talking about.

The God that I believe in doesn't sit in the clouds and say that everything is okay and that everyone will just make it into heaven.

It's not a matter of YOUR belief. It's not a matter of ANOTHER'S personal belief. It's the juxtaposition of the belief systems in this world. I don't know how else to say it.

It's a matter of taking a step back, stepping OUT of your belief system, and taking a logical and OBJECTIVE look about. It's noticing the belief systems of others in comparison to one's own... and the paradoxes that result when you try to gel them all together.

It's a "what's good for the goose not being good enough for the gander" sort of thing.

I guess that before I started heavily modifying my belief system, I thought there was only one god. This god I believed to encompass the entire world. Yet according to the variety of schisms betwixt and between all these various and sundry systems, only the people in that individual system who follows certain "parameters" held by that system will be "saved," or "go to heaven," or whatever, according to their system. According to each system, those who don't follow that system will not. (Except maybe for the Hindi and the Taoists... the former being very liberal and holistically oriented, the latter being somewhat mystical.)

You said it yourself: "...what would you think of my convictions if I then said that anyone can get to heaven any way that they like? ((Bold mine)) What would be the point of my believing that someone needs to accept Christ as Savior if I didn't believe it all the way?" According to this, which is a very strong Christian belief, then if you don't believe in Christ as Savior you can't get into heaven. So all the OTHER cultures who do not believe in him will not either. Yet according to THEIR beliefs, Christians are faulty by not adhering to certain parameters in THEIR system... and so we will not go to heaven either.

Unless there ARE myriad gods for every system, and myriad heavens and so on, I still see this as a paradox on a global scale. Who is "right" and who is "wrong?" And why would god choose a people and then not let them gain entry into heaven because they don't believe in his son? Isn't he allseeing? Why "choose" them to deny them? What's the big deal about a test of this sort, if that's indeed what it's supposed to be?

I still can't see the logic in any of this. And that is what I'm striving to understand.

All that exists is atoms and space. Everything else is just happy coincidence.

Another thing, you expect people to change their religion, to follow Jesus, to get into Heaven. Except, they feel the God they follow will let them in for what THEY believe. So, who is right? And if you are, why would God send people who didn't have a choice to believe or not to Hell? Not everyone has the choice to believe in different religions either because they are repressed, or because they don't know about it.

And "changing your religion" is something you do when you know that it's the right thing. I'd be stupid to sit here and argue logic with you on all of this when alot of what I believe is historically based, and can't be "logically proven." It's kinda like asking someone to logically prove that George Washington existed. You can bring out HISTORICAL FACTS that he existed, but you can't "logically prove it."

And as to why would I expect anyone to change their religion when I would "reject" theirs (no, I am NOT rejecting THE PERSON. Just because I don't agree with what you or someone else believes DOES NOT MEAN I have somehow rejected you as an idividual..do you reject me because I'm a Christian...?

...anyway, that all stems back to the question I asked that you didn't answer. What would be the point in my believing all this if I then said that a person could get to heaven any way? That just doesn't make sense. Why would it be important that I follow the beliefs that I do if they really didn't matter? Why make that sacrifice and get ridiculed for it?

Second, I never said you reject a person because of their religion. I said you reject people's advances to try and get you to change yours, when you expect people to change their own so that they'll get into heaven. Granted, you mean well, but what if they're right and you're wrong?

That the $64,000 question Mara. Why would you believe in it if anyone can get into Heaven? Seem life for you would be easier if you chose the believe anyone can get there, the same way you choose to believe that only christians can get there. You only believe in Christianity because it's what you were raised with, and when you believe something so deeply, no wonder you think you can "feel" God there with you.

And if you tell me one more time that I believe what I do simply because that's how I was raised, I'm going to come rip your head off. I know you don't believe me, but there's more to it than that. I'm SICK of people downgrading what I believe because they THINK I they know why I believe it. You can't and shouldn't assume to know the reasons I believe what I do. You assume that I've used NO LOGIC to figure this out. You assume that I'm just a blundering idiot who follows everything that I'm told.

You would be wrong.

And I don't know why I bother to answer these questions. It's not that I'm not perfectly willing to nor that I can't answer them. It's that, in spite of my answers, you continue to insist I'm being lead blindly along. If I have an answer to the question, I've OBVIOUSLY thought it through on more than one occasion.

And I know you SAY this wasn't what this thread was meant for, but I'm beginning to wonder if it was meant for nothing more than to start a big argument and debate. Debates are fine, but devaluing what someone else believes in the context of religion IS PERSONAL. It's not the same as the politics you believe in, it dictates the very meaning for your existence.

You can argue that they are simple questions. But how would you feel if one day I posted "A simple question" for all the atheists? I honestly wouldn't, because I DO believe what I believe fully, and to do so would merely be patronizing.

Ok, now I've rambled and made myself look an idiot probably, but this sort of thing really sets me off. You needn't worry. I won't be answering anything else in this thread.

The account of creation is an allegory. That means there weren't necessarily these two people named Adam and Eve who were the FIRST people EVER. I mean, geez, we've found fossils of hominids, so there were obviously more than just 2 people around back in the day.

Which isn't to say that Genesis isn't the truth!!! Because we all know that there are different ways of stating the truth. My PERSONAL belief (note the emphasis on personal) is that Adam and Eve are not actual historical figures. They represent the first people who became aware of a higher power (God) and chose to disobey the will of God.

That's my take on it anyway. And Mara, you are NOT an idiot. Your faith is a great thing and you're braver than I am for standing up for it. There's a reason that I don't usually get into these threads, and that is this:

You will never convince someone that your beliefs are right and truthful when they're totally committed to believing otherwise. No offense, but I know Ani is always going to see Christianity as a crock, and I'm not going to try to tell him otherwise. But like I said, Mara, you're a braver person than i am.

Most atheists are smart people, and they can talk me around in circles until I'm not even sure if I'm saying what I truly believe or not. That's dangerous, and no offense to anyone, but I'd rather stay out of it.

I think you missed the gist of the question again. It was not dealing with rejecting a PERSON on the basis of his belief... it was dealing with scrutinizing different belief systems to determine which is "right" and which is "wrong." (I hate to use those words, but at the moment can't come up with anything better.)

Again, taking the "big step outwards," so to speak, so see all the belief systems in their RELATIONSHIPS with one another.

Christians believe theirs is "right," and send out missionaries to spread "The Word" to persuade others to alter their beliefs and follow them. (A belief system which, to me, is definitely in the long run extremely male-oriented, in how it views both people and the world in general. This system seems to support the use of the world/things more so than the nurturing/care of it that is found in some eastern beliefs as well as those followed by Native Americans. The whole idea of "male is boss, female the life-bringer but somehow "subservient" or "secondary" to the male -- the whole thing about Eve being created from Adam's rib states this clearly --, ownership of things, use of resources, so on and so forth. This in itself is worthy of another thread of discussion, I think. But that's my humble opinion.)

Anyway, point is, Christian missionaries feel it their "duty" to go out and persuade others to change their belief systems, because somehow this one is the right one. I don't think many others actively do this; just because we have somehow been "told" to do this to me doesn't stand as any proof that this is the "genuine article." I mean, the "fact" that we have been "told" comes directly OUT OF our own belief system, not an outside source. If the latter, I would really sit up and take more notice.

It's like saying, "These eggs that I'm selling are the best eggs because I say they are, and I base that upon the farmer from whom I bought the chicken." Nevermind the myriad other chickens out there in the world happily spitting out egg after egg after egg, some perhaps another flavor or color, but who's to say which one is best? Where is the overall judge of the chicken competition, to point and say, "Here's the winner, the eggs from this chicken and all its progeny are the ones to buy!"

The objective third party. That kind of thing.

So where is it? How do we know that our beliefs are "the ones to have..." and justify the persuasion upon others? And saying "you gotta have faith," to me, is just too easy an answer.

Again, may I point out the fact that the limbic system in the human directs both thought and emotional processes. We are biologically geared toward linking emotions with thoughts/beliefs. It's hard to separate the two, to carefully study all the facts one can and therefore come up with a supported answer.

This difficulty is what lies behind all the brouhaha in the "Leaving Orbit" thread: the separation of beliefs/thoughts from the emotions inherent to them. I think teaching people of this relationship, then teaching the importance of gathering fact and using deductive reasoning is really the only answer to many of the world's problems... catering to everyone's emotional states will only lead us in circles.

But I've digressed.... Heh.

"......anyway, that all stems back to the question I asked that you didn't answer. What would be the point in my believing all this if I then said that a person could get to heaven any way? That just doesn't make sense. Why would it be important that I follow the beliefs that I do if they really didn't matter? Why make that sacrifice and get ridiculed for it?"

Hehe... boy does this support what I've been trying to show. The thought/emotion thing. See how quickly you've leapt into the assumption that I (or anyone else) am somehow ridiculing you (or anyone else holding these beliefs) for your beliefs? I'M NOT.

Anyhoo, I think religions were developed in an older world where man didn't have much of a handle on things. They were handy to explain the unexplainable. "Faith" is so easy and comfortable to fall back on in regarding the unknown. Not to mention Man is intelligent... and just can't stand the thought of his own mortality. So everyone develops some sort of belief reflecting something to the fact that if certain parameters are adhered to, we won't really die. And that there's always a big nurturing "mother" (god, gaia, whatever) looking out for us so we don't have to be afraid of the dark.

That's the conclusion I am currently agreeing with. But as with anything else, more fact coming along on down the pike may alter it completely.

And again, it is the opinion of THIS WRITER, and not necessarily those of this site or any other members of it.

RA, I know that's how it should be interpreted, but some people honestly believe two people named Adam and Eve actually existed. I like the way you interpret Adam and Eve, but there is a problem to it. Obviously, the first people couldn't write it all down, so you can rule that out. And we know that 1000's of years ago people really didn't focus a lot on history, and if they had, chances are they still wouldn't know how the first humans thought. So, it's either a really good guess and they actually meant what you interpret it as, or, and this is what I really do think, whoever wrote it actually thought something like that happened.

Again, Man is intelligent and inherently arrogant because of it. We just can't seem to be able to even consider the possibility that we JUST MIGHT BE only another animal in the "Circle of Life" on this earth, albeit a higher-thinking one. Everything revolves around us, because we think.

"I think. Therefore I am."

As far as "athiests" being "smart" people and therefore "dangerous..." Hmmm. This kinda goes right back to the ol' Tree of Knowledge in the garden, ey? (Again right out of the ol belief system, heh.) And touches lightly on "the end of the world" as presented in Revelations: an end which I postulate (POSTULATE!!!) might not represent the end of the world, per se, but the end of the Childhood of Man. Our stepping out into the discovery that the only beliefs we ought to be worrying about concern those regarding EACH OTHER, and how we use our time while on this planet; how ethically we treat each other and the earth, all that kind of thing. Letting go of the apron strings, of the need to have that "mother" or "big brother" or "all-knowing wise one" looking out for us... because we have finally recognized that responsibility as being OURS. We have "grown up."

I'm not saying a person's beliefs are not right. I am saying that on a personal level, a person's beliefs are indeed RIGHT FOR THAT PERSON.

What I am trying to distinguish is the truth of them, in the true meaning of the word. That involves stepping into the realm of total objectivity, away from emotions and so on, in order to not only gather all the data possible, but to analyze it accurately and come to a conclusion. As science always does in everything it investigates: true science seeks truth.

I used to believe faithfully what the Bible taught, and what I was taught in church. I began to study more, to expand my views. Then I got into the allegory interpretation. I kept studying, gathering all the information that I could. Now I am where I am in what I believe, but that is just me. I am not upset that I cannot alter anyone's views, for that is not why I began this thread. I began it simply to see if there was any other fact out there which might substantiate my earlier belief system, to make it more "right" for me.

I've seen alot of things, a hell of alot of things, that just are frankly inexplainable. You can add scientific theory after scientific theory, but theories are just that--something that someone PROPOSES they believe is "right."

Take for example the "Big Bang." Now, I don't know if you personally believe in this, but it is still largely A THEORY. Nobody was there when Adam and Eve were created except Adam and Eve. And CERTAINLY no one was there when the Big Bang happened. And if the big bang created all that is, how "In the Universe" (can't say Earth in that case, eh?) were the atoms that collided and such there BEFORE it happened?

It's scientific law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Big bang seems, to me anyway, to be proposing that matter was created out of NOTHING. You could argue that the energy was there and the matter, which is energy, was formed from that, BUT THEN WHERE DID THE ENERGY COME FROM? WHO PUT IT THERE?

That's part of my line of "logic" on the whole "why I believe in God" thing.

And Gray, as far as the male/female relationship that you see in the Bible, yes, it's there. And yes, I think there's a bit of logic behind it. Now, I am MOST CERTAINLY NOT saying that a male should "rule over the female," you should be able to tell that at least somewhat from the things I write on RPG here (and how the heck THAT particular parallel came up, I don't know...just convenient, heh). But I do believe the male/female design is beneficial because MEN AND WOMEN THINK DIFFERENTLY. There is scientific proof to support the differences in how the male and female brain operate. But, you put them together, and VOILA! you have an amazing team.

Rogue: your comment that "athiests are smart..." and "...can talk circles around ya..." which somehow "...is dangerous..." is in itself an extremely dangerous thing to say, don't ya think? I mean, just in and of itself it suggests that nonathiests are therefore stupid, doesn't it? Which ain't a fact at all.

I like to think of it more of as being more learned. LEARNED DOESN'T MEAN SMARTER. More input gained, of a wider variety, to be assimilated and integrated. Not stupid. Learning takes TIME. It's an ongoing event, and the more actively you seek it, the more "input" you will have over time. Stupidity is stubbornly refusing to expand a paradigm, to refuse to consider an opposing view/fact/opinion, whatever, simply because "it isn't right." Stupidity is refusing to acknowledge diversity, so to speak. I'm sure you've heard teachers say over and over: "There is no such thing as a stupid question except NO question." I don't think that's what athiests are doing. As well as I don't believe it is what anyone ought to do. Gather your data. Assimilate for yourself. But give yourself a broad enough data base to work with. Then come to your own opinion/view/belief/whatever.

Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and opinions. But I think that to instinctively reject another bit of data as being automatically wrong or false without checking to see if it actually IS wrong or false is a dangerous thing to do, and leads to stagnation in the long run.

YES. At the moment it is a scientific Law that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. But guess what? In science, laws remain laws until disproven. That is what science is all about: TO CONTINUALLY SEEK THE TRUTH BY CONSTANTLY TRYING TO DISPROVE.

Just a little fact that most people don't understand because they don't realize it to begin with. Example, Newton's laws were THE END OF IT as far as motion and gravity was concerned. But then we came to learn of subatomic particles and how they operate, and Newtonian mechanics just fell apart on a quantum level. A whole new set of laws has developed out of it; the original laws have been further fine-tuned.

Up until we learned that quarks DO spontaneously and autonomically pop in and out of existence we said, "Yes. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed." Now cosmologists are studying this phenomenon further, to continue their constant fine-tuning of what we know.

Do you honestly not see how belittling that is to me? You could at least RESPECT the beliefs that I have for what they are and agree to disagree. But you seem to enjoy taking it a step further and downgrading my belief system as "blind faith." If it were "blind faith" I could NOT have produced the post I did concerning the big bang. Blind faith means that I just said "ok" and went with it.

Well HELLO, I didn't. So get over the idea that this is what I did.

And I still don't really buy that matter can just "fall out of a hat." That's like me saying I can wiggle my nose and "poof!" dinner will appear (at least, that's what it's like TO ME.)

If anyone ever PROVES THIS, let me know. I'd love to make a new car appear.

You talk about Christians judging, and that's precisely what you are doing to me by saying that I'm following blindly.

There are two sides to every coin. I've never said once that I don't respect your beliefs and opinions for what they are. I do. I DON'T, however, agree.

I'll admit freely that the whole Tree of Knowledge thing confuses me...that's one of the things I'm working out about my faith. The way I see it at the moment, Adam and Eve's greatest sin was in disobeying God, and not necessarily in seeking more knowledge. But I DO want to let you all know that I do have questions...I don't believe blindly...I'm secure enough in my faith not to be threatened by some uncertainties.

Science has its place, but so does faith, and neither can replace the other. Some things just can NOT be explained by logic, Anakin, and I think you'll eventually come to understand that. If you think that everything in this world has a logical and rational explanation, then you've obviously never been in love. If you try to ignore the role of the heart and soul in human affairs, human beings might as well be computers.

Ani: I can show you texts by non-Christians talking about Jesus and how he did great miracles. Although nowadays I don't see why Jophesus texts are used more often to back up Christianity. But yes there is a number of texts that say that Jesus Christ did do a number of miracles. And not all of them were not written by Christians.

We did a fun thing in one of my classes not to long ago to that I'm going to tell you about. Alright you start off with Adam and Eve, and then we did their ages and went down through the timeline in the Bible and went through the population. You have to remember that in biblical accounts that many people lived close to 1000 years or more. In theory you go through the timelines. You get a LARGE number of people.

Ohh and GS, even many scientists say that all the world's population can be traced back to 2 people. Neat huh?

You keep on talking about how Christians send out missionaries to convert people. You act like there is something wrong with sharing your beleifs with someone. They don't force it upon anyone. They are there to save people who want to be saved, not to shove stuff down people's throats. Sure we, Christians, think that we are right...that's the whole point of a belief. I just don't really see your point here?

Heh, why don't we discuss evolution while we're at it? j/k!

Yea, I've been reading A LOT lately about Biblical texts. Its amazing how much evidence there is to prove the Bible, more than to disprove.

I mean its the ONLY religion on Earth that is entirely historical accurate. It's funny how the Bible has been tried to be disproved through historical inaccuracies so many times. Yet things will show up to show that the Bible was accurate.

Biblical error is very small. Go back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and look at those. You go to the modern day versions we have and you know how many errors you have? They have found only 2, yes that's right. And guess what? Those were so small of errors their like forgetting to capatalize a letter in a sentence that should be. SOOOO, in other words the Bible is probably just as error free as other books that you read.

You beleive in Plato and other greek philosophers don't you? Well, guess what!?! We don't even have manuscripts for many of the Greeks,yet we still use them for fact in many things today. Just think about all the texts you probably trust in and think about how many times they were passed down. Plus the Bible we still have many older manuscripts, and the New Testement even has some that are almost autographs.

The books? You want names? Um...they don't really have names. Like Jophesus didn't name his books, they were just volumes of writings. I think he had 12 volumes in all and they are VERY large.

If you want to read a pretty good book on the subject of proving the Bible accurate read, "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was a crime investigator for the Chicago tribune. In this book he goes through and pretty much cuts the Bible down to see if it is historically accurate and a bunch of other things. You'll find many of the arguments that you make in here proven wrong by him.

Also, I'm gonna try and find a book for you by a preacher I know of called Dr. Meyer. He is one the most highly regarded ancient Biblical scholars of the world. He taught at Harvard for a long time and lets just say he knows his stuff.

Logic can solve every problem. There are some problems we don't understand, but in time we'll learn it and it will be a logical explanation. Love has a logical explanation, I just don't know it.

Blake, I never said Jesus was a big ass bull shitter. I know he did grat things for the way of life of the entire world, but he didn't do real miracles. At the time the peopel thought they were, and wrote it in a way that would make us think it too. But you send a scientist or soemone back in time to watch, I don't doubt he'll give you an explanation. How did he bring the guy back to life? He more than likely wasn't dead, ever seen Unsolved Mysteries? It happens.

God, Blake, you're dense. Of course it can be traced to two people, or even one. A mutation is all it takes. A mutation that make this species survive better than that one, and it only takes one mutation to spread it.

No, Blake, Christianity was forced on many natives in south america. Due to the fact they didn't understand it, they took it and said ok. It didn't mean what it means to you to them. There was a tribe who was being "christianized" and they were about to be enslaved by the portugese and said they'll fight if they have to, the jesuits said it's wrong to fight, they said screw what you said, were gonna fight.

Christianity is not entirely historically accurate, dork. The only reason a lot of it can be proven, is because it was written by people who saw things, and actually believed it. But to someone from our times to see it, they would write it completely different because they have a way higher level of intelligence, well, everyone except you.

You're denser than I thought. You really think translations through languages wouldn't change some things? You think error would be minimal. You're high, don't post while you're high.

You're retarded. They don't note errors in spelling or capitalization.

I don't think the Odyssey is fact, dork, it's a story. Plato and others said a lot of common sense type things, that's what we do go by because its the truth, we can prove it today.

Point being, as Ani pointed out, it was written to try to explain the unexplainable, I believe. And many of the early mysteries could have (and probably do have) simple and realistic reasons behind them.

I'm still waiting for solid third-party "proof" for people living 1,000+ years. I mean, something is not meshing here. The early earth had a faster rotational spin and thus days were shorter, but not that short. Probably an aforementioned error... should be 100 years, and taking earth's slightly faster spin things could balance out correctly... just a guess.

Oh yeah, and about the early Greek philosphers/scientists... we DO have their early manuscripts, scads of them. That's what generations following read and began questioning... regarding the movement of heavenly bodies and so on, and in this case I can go right now and get a list of ancient books and writings. But science still developed, and doesn't NEED the earlier manuscripts to prove a point because the experiments that WORK and result in TRUTH are REPRODUCIBLE by others...

And thus are scientific laws made. Which is truth enough for me.

quote:

---

God, Blake, you're dense. Of course it can be traced to two people, or even one. A mutation is all it takes. A mutation that make this species survive better than that one, and it only takes one mutation to spread it.

---

No, I'm not talking about through mutation either. Through pure genetics it could logically be traced back to 2 people.

quote:

---

Blake, I never said Jesus was a big ass bull shitter. I know he did grat things for the way of life of the entire world, but he didn't do real miracles. At the time the peopel thought they were, and wrote it in a way that would make us think it too. But you send a scientist or soemone back in time to watch, I don't doubt he'll give you an explanation. How did he bring the guy back to life? He more than likely wasn't dead, ever seen Unsolved Mysteries? It happens.

---

Dude, if your gonna take something from the Bible at least KNOW it! By the time Jesus got to Lazurus he was pretty well dead. Remember this is the days before modern technology and he'd be pretty well off in about a weeks time. Which it was BTW. So it WAS known as a miracle. Heh, its funny you brought this up because we just studied this same exact story at my school...weird.

quote:

---

No, Blake, Christianity was forced on many natives in south america. Due to the fact they didn't understand it, they took it and said ok. It didn't mean what it means to you to them. There was a tribe who was being "christianized" and they were about to be enslaved by the portugese and said they'll fight if they have to, the jesuits said it's wrong to fight, they said screw what you said, were gonna fight.

---

Your making a broad generalization. This doesn't happen all the time. And its not all Christians who want this to happen. You go and talk to missionaries today and see if they do this. If you want I'll give you an email of a Lutheran Missionary who is supported by my church. You'll find out why he is in and what he faces every day....

quote:

---

Christianity is not entirely historically accurate, dork. The only reason a lot of it can be proven, is because it was written by people who saw things, and actually believed it. But to someone from our times to see it, they would write it completely different because they have a way higher level of intelligence, well, everyone except you.

---

Show me where it is not historically accurate.

quote:

---

You're denser than I thought. You really think translations through languages wouldn't change some things? You think error would be minimal. You're high, don't post while you're high.

---

That's why we have them in the original languages, dork! Talk to any preacher who goes through a seminary. They have to learn all the languages the Bible was orginally put in. My grandpa for instance knew Arabic, Greek, and Latin fluently. Along with a handful of other languages.

Like I said before, I've studied this and I know this! We have manuscripts that are 400 years apart and there are NO errors. Thank you Ani, you have been burned.

quote:

---

You're retarded. They don't note errors in spelling or capitalization.

---

Uh...who's retarded? I'm gonna send you some articles in the mail. I'm gonna need your address.

Ani: Seriously, don't even try to act like you know more than me on this subject, because YOU don't! I've had to study about this stuff for a long time. Growing up with a strict religous father you have to.

I'm not trying to attack you guys. I am trying to defend my faith. I know it is hard to beleive at times, but thats why I have faith. Sure there are times when I doubt my faith. But there are times when I am more sure about it than I am about many other things in life.

quote:

---

I don't think the Odyssey is fact, dork, it's a story. Plato and others said a lot of common sense type things, that's what we do go by because its the truth, we can prove it today.

---

I'm not saying its fack, I'm just saying we do beleive we have the orginal story?

And not everything the Greek philosopher's said was true...not by a long shot. There were many good things they did, but they were also very misinformed about other things.

quote:

---

Ummm, Bob... Genesis and Exodus and I think Leviticus... the beginning of the old testament was supposedly passed through the generations by word of mouth before being written, so of course there could be error. Unless you're going to tell me that Adam started a journal that got passed down through his children and so on???

---

Actually I beleive that by word of mouth it was still ok. Remember they were living in a different time where word of mouth was really all you had. You go back even to Jesus's time and the high preists or any preists knew ALL of scripture by heart. So word of mouth is entirely feasiable.

I can't say that there were not maybe some errors. But I can also say that if they were there were none that were probably significat.

I mean these people memorized stuff all the time and I'm sure the way they were passed down. I'm sure they were made to be passed down properly memorized.

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for solid third-party "proof" for people living 1,000+ years. I mean, something is not meshing here. The early earth had a faster rotational spin and thus days were shorter, but not that short. Probably an aforementioned error... should be 100 years, and taking earth's slightly faster spin things could balance out correctly... just a guess.

---

This might be just a faith thing, but I'll see what I can find on this subject. The one thing I can think about for them living such longer lives is that we don't have all the pollution that we have today. I mean it was much more purer earth than it is today.

quote:

---

Oh yeah, and about the early Greek philosphers/scientists... we DO have their early manuscripts, scads of them. That's what generations following read and began questioning... regarding the movement of heavenly bodies and so on, and in this case I can go right now and get a list of ancient books and writings. But science still developed, and doesn't NEED the earlier manuscripts to prove a point because the experiments that WORK and result in TRUTH are REPRODUCIBLE by others...

---

We don't have any manuscripts that are any older than much of what we have of the Bible. If I remember correctly from the book I just read("Case for Christ"). The closest we have is around 400 years or so...yea.

Ummm... soooo, then I go right back to my original question: WHO THE HECK DID CAIN TAKE AS A WIFE IN THE LAND OF NOD AFTER HE SLEW ABEL??!!?? And this is in my King James version, by the way.

I, ahhh, think this is where your "genetic proof" breaks down a touch wee. And THAT information above is straight out of Genesis...YES I have read the Bible (well, parts of it at least).

"...Dude, if your gonna take something from the Bible at least KNOW it! By the time Jesus got to Lazurus he was pretty well dead. Remember this is the days before modern technology and he'd be pretty well off in about a weeks time. Which it was BTW. So it WAS known as a miracle. Heh, its funny you brought this up because we just studied this same exact story at my school...weird..."

Ummm... again, this is just what Joey was saying. He probably wasn't dead (used to happen that infrequently people who were thought dead were then buried alive...) and then Jesus came up and "brought him back." From a coma, maybe... or he spontaneously came out of it then. The Bible doesn't mention time here, does it? I mean, doesn't it say Jesus was brought to Lazarus... or he got to him one way or another... and said "rise" and brought him back, right? Doesn't mention that he could have been with him for some time....

"..Your making a broad generalization. This doesn't happen all the time. And its not all Christians who want this to happen. You go and talk to missionaries today and see if they do this. If you want I'll give you an email of a Lutheran Missionary who is supported by my church. You'll find out why he is in and what he faces every day...."

Happened A LOT in history: Spaniards were great, Inquisition and all. You think that Christianity spread out of goodness and light? Heck no, it spread by brute force in many cases, "Believe this or you're a heathen and will die!" So of course many people took it up, sheesh. In the case of the Aztecs they "conformed" but didn't really have a clue what they were conforming to. They still believed in their own system, and because of this were resoundingly stomped upon in the long run. Christians can be so damned cruel when they want to be, all in the name of "The Word," - SHEESH.

"...Show me where it is not historically accurate...."

Still waiting for reproducible proof that it is entirely historically accurate as it stands. I realize parts may be, but there is a lot of allegory in the bible. ((C'mon now, if you're talking that it is entirely historically accurate, then either angels or aliens from somewhere else came down and skedaddled with our women; there's a passage in I think Exodus - maybe Genesis - where it says something along the lines of "...and the sons of god (???) looked down and saw that the daughters of the earth were fair, and came down and took wives of them upon themselves..."))

"...That's why we have them in the original languages, dork! Talk to any preacher who goes through a seminary. They have to learn all the languages the Bible was orginally put in. My grandpa for instance knew Arabic, Greek, and Latin fluently. Along with a handful of other languages..."

Ummm... I don't think that the Arabic then is the Arabic NOW, and translation errors DO occur... I don't even believe that "the original" was in Arabic... um, I didn't think we had the original copies of the first books in the Old Testament. Weren't they in the Ark of the Covenant, which has yet to be uncovered? And even so, it is material written BY MAN in an effort to explain his surroundings. Yes, it was solidly true for the time, and the understanding of natural events and so on. It might stand as a fairly good family tree for some lineages... so if it's so accurate, where is the current living descendant of say, Moses or Saul or anyone? Sheesh, how about Noah? He had tons of sons, where are his I-don't-know-how-many-times-removed grandkids now??? Anyone ever look into this?

You persist in taking all your references within the scope of this topic, and since we are dealing with a faith thing here of course you will find things easy to "prove" in this way. I am STILL waiting for the third party proof... which is where faith parts ways from deductive reasoning, I suppose.

I guess solid evidence to then indirectly support the majority of what is mentioned in the Bible would be if we had the original slab on which God wrote the 10 Commandments... and if we could show that it was made in a manner too advanced for the time. But of course it was thrown down to earth and destroyed in a fit of temper, how convenient. Oh well, the commandments themselves lived on... if indeed they were the ones God gave to Moses and not "tweaked" by him, heh... not that I have anything against them, as they are just great bylaws to live by in general. And in regard to them, sure seems like Christians have gone through history breaking them right and left, all to spread "The Word," especially the "Thou Shallt Not Kill" one.

"...We don't have any manuscripts that are any older than much of what we have of the Bible. If I remember correctly from the book I just read("Case for Christ"). The closest we have is around 400 years or so...yea..."

EXCUSE ME. We have "living" proof of man's early attempts to understand the heavens and "grow," all for the sake of truth. Stonehenge is a large "calendar" base on the motions of the sun and stars; it was built 4,000 years ago. The Mayan culture built an observatory at Chichen Itza (AND IT EXISTS, I'VE BEEN THERE) 1,000 years ago. Ptolemy wrote of his astronomical observations in his manuscript, "The Almagest," in the SECOND CENTURY A. D. (He was wrong, but Copernicus took it from there.) I do believe we have this manuscript in a European museum; I'd have to find where I read this. But I've seen photos of some of his calculations. Anyway, I can dig up others, but these spring immediately to mind.

"...I've had to study about this stuff for a long time. Growing up with a strict religous father you have to...."

All the more reason to step outside the Box. Gather OPPOSING evidence.... Er, by that I mean study evidence that would oppose your view, and try to maintain an open mind. Try to be logical and use deductive reasoning. DARE TO QUESTION. THEN come to a conclusion.

"...This might be just a faith thing, but I'll see what I can find on this subject. The one thing I can think about for them living such longer lives is that we don't have all the pollution that we have today. I mean it was much more purer earth than it is today..."

Ummm... the earth was a much purer place ANYWHERE during the pre-industrial years, and life-spans were wayyyy shorter then. Early man, in fact, was lucky to see 20, I think; we know this from carbon-14 dating and studying bone growth factors in remains we have uncovered. Our lifespans have steadily INCREASED post-industrial age due to the advancing technology that goes along with it.

AND THE GRAND FINALE: "...You say scientific law is enough for you? Well I've seen that a lot of your beleifs are not based on facts. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?"

Please specify "a lot" so I may make a logical rebuttal. So far everything science has uncovered remains proved by test after test of law after law... the only oddball out there, to my knowledge, is the missing graviton (particle associated with the gravitational force). Once we find it, then other mysteries may be solved... like discovering that all the forces of the universe are part of one large one. Kind of like atoms are made of neutrons, protons and electrons, and those in turn are made of quarks. (Well, not the electrons.) We have discovered the existence of these AFTER we theorized of their existence... and have the ancient Greek idea of "atomos" to thank for heading us off in this particular direction.

I guess to me there might be some great unknown (perhaps this is where the Unifying Force will come into play) and perhaps that will be what we come to know as "god." But what I find so hard to believe is the arrogance and self-centeredness of the Bible in general: how EVERYTHING revolves around man, US; in this entire universe WE are the important ones. Good grief, it says "God made man in his own image!" Now if that isn't the ultimate arrogance in existence I don't know what is.

Science CONSTANTLY seeks to maintain truth by trying to DISPROVE. So far, things keep working out, no matter how diligently science tries to show those things are "wrong." Things theorized end up being proved, and proof is maintained as our technology gets better and better and our means of trying to disprove likewise improve. One big potential "AHA!!!" was the unveiling of the quantum theory, where Newtonian physics breaks down. But this lead to realizing what indeed quantum physics entails, and that particles have their own unique set of laws because they are so tiny... Newtonian mechanics works great on a grand (universal) scale, though. Hehe... we see proof of this every day. Planes fly. Cars go. We have sent men to the moon, and Galileo to Jupiter and Voyager beyond the edges of our solar system.

Faith and religion to me, however, are exactly the opposite. Or beyond, actually, as I see it. All is either accepted as rote, without trying to disprove or prove in any manner. But when questioned, ALWAYS TRYING TO PROVE.

When one tries to constantly prove something, of course he or she is going to stick to what does in fact "prove" his or her idea/theory/belief. This is nothing more than what we call "skewing the data," and leads to unreliable results in a laboratory setting.

Dork. They only way to track it genetically is if you had the bodies, which you don't.

About the dead guy. 2 weeks could have really been 2 days, but it was translated wrong a long time ago. So, the guy coulda been in a comma, even for weeks, and they didn't take stuff out of the body back then, because, logically, he can't very well be brought back to life without a heart.

Ok, how tall was the giant in the story? 9 feet? People just don't grown that tall, especially back then. It was passed down, translated and shit. Or, it was a BS lie a David supporter wrote to make it look like David did more than he really did.

Eat my butt, you know you want to. You don't know those languages, you don't know if its the same in english. Just watch someone translate someone else for you, it sounds like a 3 year old most of the time.

Blake, don't be dumb, they do not count mistypes as actual translation errors.

A lot of what Greek Philosophers thought can be disproven, but at the time, they didn't know and it was fact.

It has to do with electromagnetism, a classic example showing this being why terra is so firma that we can stand upon it. We "stand" because, electromagnetically speaking, "like charge repels like charge." Consider more closely the lowly electron, that subatomic particle of negative charge. WELL... all the atoms in the floor have electrons about their nuclei, as do the atoms in our feet. Like repels like. Hence we "stand." NOW, it has been proven that electrons do NOT "orbit" like tiny planets going about a tiny sun. They pop in and out of existence; actually it's more of an energy level thing. They exist in a "probability cloud" about the nucleus of the atom; there is a probability at any moment that any electron will be HERE, then THERE, and so on. Finally, since it is the electrons in atoms which give us our sense of "reality," if you will, then yes, at any given moment I could indeed walk through a wall.

The ODDS of this happening, of course, are astronomically, unbelievably remote... but those odds DO EXIST. It's been proven, actually.

Science doesn't play mind games. Science isn't someone sitting around, pen and paper in hand, feverishly scribbling away seeing what new mischief he or she can unleash on the world. It doesn't operate like that. Instead, something is FIRST OBSERVED. Science then goes about methodically trying to explain all the hows and whys behind said observation, utilizing carefully gleaned facts. Said facts must in turn be subject to laboratory investigation, so they can not only be used to substantiate said observation, but will also be considered as "actual fact."

Which is where science (fact-based) and belief systems (emotion-based) differ so greatly from each other. AND why most people tend to shy away from science. It's very painstaking, methodical, and thorough. Science doesn't run ONE test somewhere, then say THAT'S THE ANSWER.

And contrary to popular belief, science doesn't go about manipulating the facts to support a theory. Which, unfortunately, seems in turn to be the case with belief systems, where some facts are selectively presented to support a belief while a wealth of others, just as viable (but which don't fit the bill) are handily ignored.