[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The parallels between Star Trek and Religion is scarily drawing closer.

Not to mention magic seems to be a big part of religion.

[design219]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The parallels between Star Trek and Religion is scarily drawing closer.

I always thought the Borg Collective was symbolic of the more evangelistic Christian sects. Assimilate or else (the or else would be the eternal damnation thingy). Seems an awful lot of the worlds people have assimilated.

*cue the pitchforks and torches.

[Chongo]

Here is a couple of interesting sites. I don't know if they reconcile anything.
101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
"A Question of Origins" video presentation (view it here on-line)

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here is a couple of interesting sites. I don't know if they reconcile anything.
101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
"A Question of Origins" video presentation (view it here on-line)

And you wonder why people laugh at creationists?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That would appear to be what the book says...

Is there a scientific method to determine when it rained first on earth, or at least to decide if there is a correlation between rain, the first appearance of humans and the first appearance of a garden?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Again, neither of these is my interpretation. They're just two interpretations that others have presented in this thread. Since it seemed there was some confusion on what could possibly be going on in the story I thought I'd re-hash what others had said.

Ok, I see. Maybe ebuddy and BigMac can offer their christian and jewish insights for these specific questions.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Is there a scientific method to determine when it rained first on earth, or at least to decide if there is a correlation between rain, the first appearance of humans and the first appearance of a garden?

Genesis 2:5 suggests it had not rained yet.
Genesis 2:6 suggests that a "mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground".
Genesis 7:11; "... all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
Genesis 7:12; "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

Rain is not mentioned as such until Genesis 7:12. It is suggested by Scripture that water was in fact used for "the field", but was not in the form of rainfall. God used the rainbow, (an effect of precipitation through light/rain) to indicate a new covenant with man.

Genesis 1:6-7 suggests there was a "firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters... divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Psalm 148:4; "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens."

II Peter 3:5; "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"

There are those who suggest a covering of vapor and/or canopy of water that remained over the earth. Some go even further to suggest an extremely warm, oxygen-rich environment.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Genesis 1:6-7 suggests there was a "firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters... divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

This, to me, is one of the most interesting passages in Genesis. Taken out of context it sounds like the Earth was originally covered in water and God separated the waters to bring up dry land. However what it actually says is that God created the firmament of the Heavens to separate the waters below (Earth) from the waters above. What those waters above could possible represent, I have no idea. But if you consider that the waters below are Earth, then two sets of waters separated by the firmament of the Heavens sounds like two different watery planets to me. Perhaps later on God went and created a second Earth?

[lpkmckenna]

The Hebrews believed that the sky was an invisible barrier with water above it. When it rained, God was allowing the waters above the firmament to leak thru. They didn't know anything about the water cycle then.

[Chuckit]

You could take it that way, but I think it just refers to ancient beliefs some cultures had about the sky. They thought it was a solid dome with water above it.

[nonhuman]

Yeah, you're probably right. But it's fun to think about.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And you wonder why people laugh at creationists?

and they laugh at Darwinists

[Dakar the Fourth]

Creationists believe every word that Genesis says. Personally, I don't even think Phil Collins is that great of a drummer.

Thank you Jimmy Carr.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here is a couple of interesting sites. I don't know if they reconcile anything.
101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
"A Question of Origins" video presentation (view it here on-line)

"Cain’s wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry – therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister."

Ew yuck. So in the beginning incest was cool?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

and they laugh at Darwinists

I'll take coming from a fish over dirt any-day.

[subego]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Ew yuck. So in the beginning incest was cool?

Even after the beginning. After the flood the farthest apart you could have gotten would have been your first cousin.

If you were lucky.

[lpkmckenna]

Ars Technica humiliates the Discovery Institute with common sense.

And Congo's links are hilarious...

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Uh, the ancient Greeks hypothesized about invisible elements long before Hebrew was written.

Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Crack science work, that.

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

None of which could exist without supernovae, which are oddly not mentioned in the Bible.

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Ok, but again, even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.

Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,” and that those who commit homosexual sin would “receive in themselves” the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Jesus wept.

That was only getting to #23. Now I'm too disgusted to go on.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I'll take coming from a fish over dirt any-day.

Hawt visual.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Ew yuck. So in the beginning incest was cool?

Barring any compelling genetic reasons, why would incest not be cool? I don't see how it's any more inherently disgusting than, say, two guys sleeping together.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Barring any compelling genetic reasons, why would incest not be cool? I don't see how it's any more inherently disgusting than, say, two guys sleeping together.

I guess they didn't teach you in Christian Science school that 2 gay men can't make deformed babies to start life on a planet.

Or did you think the only reason I was mentioning it because it was "Gross" and you had to pull in a gay card for no relevant reason?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I don't even think Phil Collins is that great of a drummer.

Take it back.

Now.

[Chuckit]

It is entirely conceivable for inbreeding not to cause harm in a species. As humans exist now, that isn't always the case, but if you go by the idea that we were intelligently designed, there wouldn't initially be any shared genetic flaws that would lead to deformity. So yes, it seemed like you were going strictly by the "eww" factor.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I guess they didn't teach you in Christian Science school that 2 gay men can't make deformed babies to start life on a planet.

Given how widespread stupidity is among humans, I'd say that the incest angle is the only credible claim from early Genesis.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It is entirely conceivable for inbreeding not to cause harm in a species. As humans exist now, that isn't always the case, but if you go by the idea that we were intelligently designed, there wouldn't initially be any shared genetic flaws that would lead to deformity. So yes, it seemed like you were going strictly by the "eww" factor.

No, it was because it is a stupid story. I mean some "god" makes man out of dirt and woman out of his rib and wants them all to screw each other for a set amount of time and then suddenly says "OK now incest and out of marriage is no good. Masturbating, condoms and gays are also sins. So everyone please stop screwing each other unless you get married, and then only sex to make kids, not pleasure. Carry on."

Ya it was the "eww" factor I was commenting on.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

and they laugh at Darwinists

I suppose this is supposed to be provocative, but in all honesty I just find it rather endearing

And yes, people laugh at creationists because they have no common sense. Only this mind boggling need to reconcile science with their faith, all the while deriding the science when it's not in their favour (and most isn't). This leads to shocking, laughable blunders like saying "100% of water exist on earth" or "the earth travels around the sun in a spherical orbit". Yes, we laugh at these rebels without a clue. And by we - I mean any non-creationists - as most Christians regard these as the embarrassing drunk uncle at a wedding they rather not talk to or about.

[olePigeon]

Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

The egg came first. Something that wasn't quite a chicken laid an egg that developed into the first chicken.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The egg came first. Something that wasn't quite a chicken laid an egg that developed into the first chicken.

Some sort of monkey-chicken, no doubt, you damned evolutionist!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

So everyone please stop screwing each other unless you get married, and then only sex to make kids, not pleasure. Carry on."

Because promiscuity is such a positive thing for society, right SWG? As for sex as a tool of procreation only and not pleasure, that's not a part of my religion. Judaism teaches that a couple should continue having sex even after the wife's fertile years are over.

There are so many misconceptions and lies spread out there about religion that people reject out of hand without bothering to actually learn the truth. And that's truly sad.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because promiscuity is such a positive thing for society, right SWG? As for sex as a tool of procreation only and not pleasure, that's not a part of my religion. Judaism teaches that a couple should continue having sex even after the wife's fertile years are over.

There are so many misconceptions and lies spread out there about religion that people reject out of hand without bothering to actually learn the truth. And that's truly sad.

Why should I have to learn everyone's religion and everyone's creation story? There are way too many for me to keep up with.

On the topic of promiscuity -- some of things that were acceptable in the old testament would be considered unethical and unacceptable in today's society. Women were an object.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

Why should I have to learn everyone's religion and everyone's creation story? There are way too many for me to keep up with.

You don't, but since one is not going to take the time to really understand someone's beliefs one shouldn't go making broad statements about those beliefs.

On the topic of promiscuity -- some of things that were acceptable in the old testament would be considered unethical and unacceptable in today's society. Women were an object.

I'm not sure I see how those two statements are related.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

Why should I have to learn everyone's religion and everyone's creation story? There are way too many for me to keep up with.

I'd tell you to focus on religions of truth, but perhaps the truth isn't for you.

On the topic of promiscuity -- some of things that were acceptable in the old testament would be considered unethical and unacceptable in today's society. Women were an object.

Not true. I assume you're talking about the 10th commandment. Just because a wife belongs to her husband does not make her an object or property, any more than saying "my son or my daughter" makes a child an object or property of his or her parents.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You don't, but since one is not going to take the time to really understand someone's beliefs one shouldn't go making broad statements about those beliefs.



I'm not sure I see how those two statements are related.

Considering that men could have many wives, I'd say it is related since that would be considered promiscuity today.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd tell you to focus on religions of truth,

Specifically, which ones would those be?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd tell you to focus on religions of truth, but perhaps the truth isn't for you.

How insane is it to not see the fallacy in this? You are simply an atheist to every other religion but the one taught to you by your parents.

[nonhuman]

Not everyone believes in the religion taught to them by their parents...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

Considering that men could have many wives, I'd say it is related since that would be considered promiscuity today.

I can see where many wives were mentioned in Scripture, but I can't find where it is condoned. Can you?

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd tell you to focus on religions of truth, but perhaps the truth isn't for you.

I think it is great how everyone so freely throws around the word truth. I would say that I don't care what people say except that I do because everyone wants their version of the truth to be taught in school and passed in law. Your beliefs are based in faith that they are truth, but they have not earned the title of truth.

On the topic of evolution, even if it was proven to NOT be true, that still wouldn't bump up the status of religion. It would just put us back to the drawing board.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can see where many wives were mentioned in Scripture, but I can't find where it is condoned. Can you?

No. It wasn't condoned in scripture, but it wasn't rebuked either. Regardless, Big Mac was right, it isn't a positive thing for society, but there are people who use your religion in today's society to condone it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not everyone believes in the religion taught to them by their parents...

The you here was specifically directed to Big Mac - not a general sweeping you.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The you here was specifically directed to Big Mac - not a general sweeping you.

What makes you so sure that the reason Big Mac believes what he believes is simply that it's what he was taught by his parents and not because he actually put some deep thought into the matter and decided for himself?

[Big Mac]

That's an interesting question to pose to him. Either erik views every person who holds to a religion to not have any basis for belief other than simple lineage, or he has some special dislike for me in particular.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think Erik is thinking of a statement you made along the lines of knowing your religion was the truth because your father shared it with you as the truth, as his father did, etc. and that fathers would not lie to their sons.

If I understood/recalled correctly.

[Big Mac]

Ah, I see Dakar. Thank you for clearing that up. But that's not the only basis of my belief - far from it.

But more power to erik if his faithlessness is bolstered by assailing Judaism.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What makes you so sure that the reason Big Mac believes what he believes is simply that it's what he was taught by his parents and not because he actually put some deep thought into the matter and decided for himself?

Because he specifically said so earlier.

Dakar recalled it correctly.

And no Big Mac, I'm not assailing Judaism specifically. I'm assailing all nonsensical claims of truth by invocation of supernatural, illogical or otherwise unscientific means. No need for you to take this personally, you were only used as an example

[- - e r i k - -]

And your usage of the word faithlessness perfectly illustrates where our differences lay. You perceive faith in the unprovable as a virtue - I see it as fallacious at best, dangerous at worst.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You perceive faith in the unprovable as a virtue

It's not all that surprising. I don't get why it's a virtue, but for some reason many of the Christian I've talked to on the board have said if God made it easier to believe in his existence this somehow diminishes the entire experience (for both sides?).

[Big Mac]

If you're referring to the point I made, I said that if the divine balance between truth and falsehood were tipped in favor of truth then people would have no choice but to perceive the divine and there would no longer be free will.

[design219]

Originally Posted by design219 

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd tell you to focus on religions of truth,

Specifically, which ones would those be?

I'm still interested in what you mean here Big Mac.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can see where many wives were mentioned in Scripture, but I can't find where it is condoned. Can you?

You're kidding, right? The central prophets and kings - Abraham, Israel, David, Solomon - had multiple wives. How can the marriage practices of God's own prophets not be condoned?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by design219 

I'm still interested in what you mean here Big Mac.

I'm sure he means monotheistic.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You're kidding, right? The central prophets and kings - Abraham, Israel, David, Solomon - had multiple wives. How can the marriage practices of God's own prophets not be condoned?

David and Solomon were chastised for the excess number of wives they kept. The greatest Jew of all time had only one wife.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The greatest Jew of all time had only one wife.

I didn't think Jesus was married.