Jump to content

Theological discussions


Toboe
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

My mom once got a mass-mailing letter from Andrew Wommack stating that he wanted to build a new building, but that the money he needed was in our wallets. 

She never paid attention to a televangelist again. 

Televangelists are literally "Wolves in sheep's clothing" since they take advantage of the elderly by preying on them with empty promises of hope in exchange for your credit card. Same for the desperate and disenfranchised.

Screen_Shot_2015-10-21_at_5.30.54_PM.png


 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

...It is stated, I have provided two examples where the world is described as a disc with a canopy stretched over it. Archaeologists know that near eastern people had thought the world looked like this for centuries before hand, so why would the Jews suddenly have a modern globe model? 

Isaiah, far from describing the Earth as round, describes it as a 'circle of land' with a 'canopy spread over it' 'like a tent'...how does that sound like a globe to you? 

The 'Ocean' currents described in Psalms are the well known Mediterranean sea currents which had been observed for centuries before hand...so no brownie points for spotting those. If they had spotted the deep western return flow currents, which oceanographers of the 20th century predicted before their discovery, then that would have been impressive...but let's use that fact to make things clear; Stommel and Munk predicted these currents using their brains, they didn't have divine wisdom. 

 

This is the paper which argues that in the Jewish creation myth, Eve is made from a Baculum, which may be of interest to you: http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/28/gilbert_zevit.php

 

Well Isaiah and Job both make possible references to a spherical earth but again its something the Bible doesn't focus on because in the grand schem,e of its purpose its not important. The Bible was written in a way for people to understand, obviously we know things that were not possible then, which goes back to my main point that the Bible doesn't consider it important. Thats not saying the people of the time didn't have beliefs about how they thought the world looked though. Just that, Scripturaly speaking, its not important.

I will have to look at that article another time as its getting a bit late here. I am curoius as to how that possible translation came to be when the original ancient Hebrew is a completely different word from all the concordances I could find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

I wanna go to one of those creationist "museums". Like the ones with exhibits like these.

That'd be fun.

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather our kids learn actual science that's neither founded nor dependent on anyone's sacred texts.

Also, the brothers photo with hilarious guesswork captioning, is that really in a creationist "museum"?  I mean, a place that pretends to be about debunking evolution and not propagandizing the war on drugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Well Isaiah and Job both make possible references to a spherical earth but again its something the Bible doesn't focus on because in the grand schem,e of its purpose its not important. The Bible was written in a way for people to understand, obviously we know things that were not possible then, which goes back to my main point that the Bible doesn't consider it important. Thats not saying the people of the time didn't have beliefs about how they thought the world looked though. Just that, Scripturaly speaking, its not important.

I will have to look at that article another time as its getting a bit late here. I am curoius as to how that possible translation came to be when the original ancient Hebrew is a completely different word from all the concordances I could find.

If the bible was written in a way 'for people to understand' why was it written in Ancient Hebrew in a largely illiterate society? ._.

Why would he choose this medium, given that hundreds of apparently false gods had also been recorded in ancient texts?

Surely God should just download a copy of the bible directly into everybody's brain, or actually appear for some television interviews. 

 

Essentially the world 'telsa' can mean side, crest, edge, prominence, beam, supporting strut and so forth. The 'first scar' given to men is consistent with the removal of the baculum, and it makes more sense that a bone related to reproduction would be used to craft eve, rather than a random rib. 

Of course, this is all irrelevant given that we know none of this actually happened. 

 

7 minutes ago, Strongbob said:

There better be yiff in hell, cuz there sure isn't any around here.

I'll yiff you in the butt real good.

Edited by Saxon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a preface, I have no problems with religious belief. I will say no more on that.

2 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

First what does firmament (KJV) or space (NLT) mean. What was the word being translated from in ancient Hebrew. Raqia is whats being translated here. Using Strong's Concordance you can see the definition is an extended surface, an expanse. What definition of the heavens are being used in the passage? Is the heavens being used to reference God's dwelling place or the heavens as the expanse of the sky? These are some of the other questions that should be asked. Without even digging very deep a possible conclusion could be that the expanse of the sky is being spoken of. The waters of the earth being water on the surface and the waters of the heavens being clouds and precipitation.

One of the best ways to understand an ancient word of contested meaning is to understand the contemporary translations.

Firmament (firmamentum) is the Latinization of the ancient Greek stereoma (στερεομα). Στερεομα refers to anything which stands firm, like a shield, and this is the reason firmamentum is of the root firmus - solid, strong, firm. For the Greeks and Latins, the firmament was solid - even metal or stone for the Greeks. "Bah," one may say, "Those are translations into distant and unrelated languages."

Thanks to the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, we know what most Assyrians - a people that would have spoken a language more contemporary of and closely related to Hebrew - would have used to describe the biblical raqia (רקיע) in a colloquial way. They would have used a word of the root ruqqu. Words with the root ruqqu described coins, metal sheets, and metal casings; however, it most interestingly described their own version of the firmament. A belief in a solid casing of metal or stone around the world that separated two parts - usually pure water without and saltwater within - was common to the ancient Semitic religions. In some cases, the casing was actually a primordial god. I could go on to point out the clearly solid nature of רקיע as used in other sections of the Bible, but my point is not to disprove anything. I am attempting to make a point about religion as a living idea.

As Christianity is a living religion, it adapts to changing understanding. While this change may have been slow, it became increasingly clear that there was no solid casing. To make the text more correct, translations have begun to forego anglicizing firmamentum in exchange for a use of expanse, space, or infinity. While this becomes a little odd when describing a separation of waters, I believe there also exists an attempt to explain this oddity with a rudimentary understanding of astrophysics. Genesis, as it is, is slowly becoming interpreted as a primitive interpretation of modern understanding or as poetic when it originally was the understanding.

2 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

But those ideas are more than three thousand years younger than the writings and ideas of Kemetic belief. According to them, Atum arose from the watery abyssal chaos Nu (or Nun) and from there he created Shu and Tefnut who from there created Nut and Geb who are all together along with their children responsible for keeping the order of creation so that Ma'at is upheld.

Geb was in the hearts and minds of humanity for longer than Yaweh or any other name you wish to call Him has even been an idea. So please answer my question rather than dodging it.

Around the same time one finds the earliest images of gods like Nu, Nut, and Geb, one finds eastern gods like Abzu (God of the primordial water), Tiamat (Goddess of the heavenly waters), and Anu (God of Gods/Earth). Anu, by the way, was contemporary of the western El, a god which may have been a kind of proto-Yahweh for people like the Canaanites.

Comparing related religions to see which one did something first is kind of pointless, though. They evolved with and of one another. It is like comparing languages to see which did something first.

4 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I am a Christian, I believe in Scripture. All of it.

 

2 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I hope I don't need to point out that some Scripture is poetic.

I honestly don't understand this, but I see it all the time. Could you explain, please?

Also, in the two hours it took me to build up anywhere near enough sources to speak with a little confidence, two whole pages of discussion happened. I don't move quick enough to get a word in for the vultures that prey on these threads.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Why would he choose this medium, given that hundreds of apparently false gods had also been recorded in ancient texts?

Surely God should just download a copy of the bible directly into everybody's brain, or actually appear for some television interviews. 

 

Essentially the world 'telsa' can mean side, crest, edge, prominence, beam, supporting strut and so forth. The 'first scar' given to men is consistent with the removal of the baculum, and it makes more sense that a bone related to reproduction would be used to craft eve, rather than a random rib. 

Of course, this is all irrelevant given that we know none of this actually happened. 

Hebrew was the language of the people of Israel. That makes sense to me at least. As far as how many people were literate, Everyone was commanded to read the books of the law and meditate on them day and night. So, they would have to be able to read it, or know someone immediately who could read it.

See I am trying to find a reference to the first scar in any Scripture translation that I use and I don't see anything mentioned. Just the word side, and the original Hebrew Tsela.

 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh.Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

 

[g] Or took part of the man’s side

[h] Or part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Rukh asks for a serious discussion.  

Rukh asserts his beliefs. 

Rukh refuses to entertain any possibility of being wrong. 

:3 

Saxon asks for a serious discussion.  

Saxon asserts his beliefs. 

Saxon refuses to entertain any possibility of being wrong. 

:3c

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

As a preface, I have no problems with religious belief. I will say no more on that.

As Christianity is a living religion, it adapts to changing understanding. While this change may have been slow, it became increasingly clear that there was no solid casing. To make the text more correct, translations have begun to forego anglicizing firmamentum in exchange for a use of expanse, space, or infinity. While this becomes a little odd when describing a separation of waters, I believe there also exists an attempt to explain this oddity with a rudimentary understanding of astrophysics. Genesis, as it is, is slowly becoming interpreted as a primitive interpretation of modern understanding or as poetic when it originally was the understanding.

I honestly don't understand this, but I see it all the time. Could you explain, please?

Also, in the two hours it took me to build up anywhere near enough sources to speak with a little confidence, two whole pages of discussion happened. I don't move quick enough to get a word in for the vultures that prey on these threads.

Didn't see your post Mallet, will give my best answer before I head off for sleep.

I mentioned to Saxon earlier that Genesis was never meant to be a scientific manuscript in the sense that it explains things scientifically. People thought back then bats were birds. Its written in human perspective so that it could be understood. Its harder for us to understand it now because we don't necessarily get all the references or metaphors right off hand. Some have taken into meaning everything is literal in Genesis including how things are explained, forgetting who the original audience was. Now, some things in Genesis I believe are literal, like creation happening in 6 days, or the flood as its described as a real event. Other passages such as the one that is being discussed (Genesis 1:6)  I believe are written in a way for the original audience to understand The sky is like a dome or an expanse and what not. Because they could just look up and go "oh, yeah that makes sense I get whats being said.". I don't believe in such context things were to be taken literally because it makes no sense, especially when there are possible Scripture references later that contradict such an idea (a snow-globe).

But the reason I think Scripture doesn't go into huge detail on those things is because, its not important in regards to what Scripture is saying. Or rather the details are not relevant to the point of the creation story. Which is God created creation, created Man, Man sinned, and creation fell. God made a promise that a savior would be sent to reestablish the relationship between God and Man like it was before the fall. Looking for scientific theories/evidence and what not I don't believe is anywhere close to the point. Thats just my take though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

But the reason I think Scripture doesn't go into huge detail on those things is because, its not important in regards to what Scripture is saying.

You think that?

Surely you will have entertained the notion that it was because the authors of said texts thousands of years ago had no idea what they were on about and made up whatever BS they could to explain things?

What basis is there to give any of these ancient scriptures credence in modern times, given the leaps and bounds we've taken in the last century alone towards understanding how the universe works? Genetic experiments have basically confirmed the evolutionary links of certain species of theropod dinosaurs into early bird species. And just this year astrophysicists finally confirmed the existence of gravitational waves, something Einstein predicted over a century ago. We are getting closer to understanding how the universe works by the year, and every new fossil find yields new data about the ancient hidden past. How much evidence does the world need for you to finally admit your beliefs are incorrect?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

You think that?

Surely you will have entertained the notion that it was because the authors of said texts thousands of years ago had no idea what they were on about and made up whatever BS they could to explain things?

What basis is there to give any of these ancient scriptures credence in modern times, given the leaps and bounds we've taken in the last century alone towards understanding how the universe works? Genetic experiments have basically confirmed the evolutionary links of certain species of theropod dinosaurs into early bird species. And just this year astrophysicists finally confirmed the existence of gravitational waves, something Einstein predicted over a century ago. We are getting closer to understanding how the universe works by the year, and every new fossil find yields new data about the ancient hidden past. How much evidence does the world need for you to finally admit your beliefs are incorrect?

Flynn, he denies other religions pre-dating his by plugging his ears and claiming his has been the truth since the beginning of time. All of time.

Science has no hope here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Hebrew was the language of the people of Israel. That makes sense to me at least. As far as how many people were literate, Everyone was commanded to read the books of the law and meditate on them day and night. So, they would have to be able to read it, or know someone immediately who could read it.

See I am trying to find a reference to the first scar in any Scripture translation that I use and I don't see anything mentioned. Just the word side, and the original Hebrew Tsela.

 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh.Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

 

[g] Or took part of the man’s side

[h] Or part

Have you read the article I referred you to? 

 

 Now, some things in Genesis I believe are literal, like creation happening in 6 days, or the flood as its described as a real event. 

Geologists proved that there was never a global flood in the 1830's. 

When 'transgressions of the sea' were first found in the rock record, clergymen interpreted them as the biblical flood. 

But it soon became apparent that there was more than one transgression of the sea. Clergymen concluded that God has flooded the world more than once, and that there must have been a previous race of men before Noah.

...then it became clear that there were hundreds of transgressions in the rock record, and the Clergymen finally admitted that this was getting silly and that there was clearly never one global flood. 

 

It is now suspected that flood myths, which trace back to the Mesopotamians in the near east, are likely based on the flooding of the Black sea, when the straits of Bosporous burst 7 thousand years ago, as the sea level rose at the end of the last glacial. 

 

 

Edited by Saxon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Conker said:

@MalletFace I just want to say you are awesome and that giant post on evolving languages is awesome.

Is linguistics something you study?

No, but I've honestly been considering it. Loved the textbooks I have gotten to use. Historical linguistics would be an amazing thing to be able to study and work as a job or career

I had even pondered studying the Semitic languages, but I'm not sure I could ever handle that challenge. The Hebrews specifically were eerily dystopian in their lack of recognizable art, literature, and design in architecture. Where one might find a statue in another city, a Hebrew city would have a tablet with a phrase from the Tanakh declaring Yahweh's omniscience. Where one might find a piece depicting a great ruler in another city, a Hebrew city would have a quote from the Tanakh declaring the authority of the Tanakh. I guess some would find this insulting, but it kind of reminds me of this.

There is almost nothing - there may actually be nothing, but I am not sure - outside of religious texts to inform us of ancient Hebrew, and that lends itself again to the literal nature of it all; you need nothing else, for the prayers and the word are the truth.

That's a tangent, but you brought it upon the thread.

On the topic of linguistics, I would ask some questions about the nature of the oddity of the pluralis excellentiae and other plurals in Hebrew, but I'm not so sure that's a good idea here. Really cool thing to look at if you want to tie linguistics and theology, though. No other Semitic languages are claimed to have those odd plurals, but they do use similar terms and phrases to describe actual plurals.

Edited by MalletFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Genesis including how things are explained, forgetting who the original audience was. Now, some things in Genesis I believe are literal, like creation happening in 6 days, or the flood as its described as a real event.

Thing is that the Tigris-Euphrates river had periods of really devastating floods during the rainy season, and people who lived along the banks of the river drowned. Land was loss, homes were destroyed, and anyone on boats going up and down the river drifted to sea and died. From the people's POV during that period, the whole world flooded and god was pissed.

A lot of what was passed down in oral tradition in the bible were kind of a pinhole view for people who lived in that region. Cool stories and such, but nothing in the bible should be taken literally. iI's all allegory and hyperbole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MalletFace said:

I had even pondered studying the Semitic languages, but I'm not sure I could ever handle that challenge. The Hebrews specifically were eerily dystopian in their lack of recognizable art, literature, and design in architecture. Where one might find a statue in another city, a Hebrew city would have a tablet with a phrase from the Tanakh declaring Yahweh's omniscience. Where one might find a piece depicting a great ruler in another city, a Hebrew city would have a quote from the Tanakh declaring the authority of the Tanakh. I guess some would find this insulting, but it kind of reminds me of this.

 

That's so terrifying in such an awesome way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@#00Buck Actually there is one thing you can hope to gain from Cthulu and that is a quick and painless death.

@Conker The religion I used to follow, Gnosticism, actually believed that God, yes actual Jewish God creator of the world, was a at worst a horrible monster that created this world to torture and lord over us and at best a misguided ignorant being that did not grasp the true nature of reality and accidentally trapped us in this incomplete world.  Though other entities you might call gods existed in Gnostic lore these Aeons were more of just things that existed and were born from Pleroma, but they weren't really things to be worshiped or prayed to.

@Rukh Whitefang You are now claiming that Genesis isn't meant to be a scientific account, but you still claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings.  You say that parts are poetic and some are literal, but how do you determine which is which?

@Saxon While I generally agree that supernatural claims are not useful in and of themselves there are however arguments to be made for religion itself being useful.  While sadly the link doesn't not seem to be working anymore and I can't find what I am looking for with a cursory search at this time there was the official document from the American Psychiatric Association that stated this among other things.

Patients’ religious and spiritual communities may
facilitate their integration into full community life.
Religious and spiritual communities may offer stability,
inspiration, and practical  support for mentally ill
members.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

 

Patients’ religious and spiritual communities may
facilitate their integration into full community life.
Religious and spiritual communities may offer stability,
inspiration, and practical  support for mentally ill
members.

 

Religion's saving grace is that it is a comforting delusion for the mentally ill? 

 

Says it all, really, doesn't it?

 

Thing is that the Tigris-Euphrates river had periods of really devastating floods during the rainy season, and people who lived along the banks of the river drowned. Land was loss, homes were destroyed, and anyone on boats going up and down the river drifted to sea and died. From the people's POV during that period, the whole world flooded and god was pissed.

A lot of what was passed down in oral tradition in the bible were kind of a pinhole view for people who lived in that region. Cool stories and such, but nothing in the bible should be taken literally. iI's all allegory and hyperbole. 

 

I'm not convinced that flooding of the Tigris, or Tsunamis from the Hellenic subduction zone or Red sea and Dead sea rifts are the cause of the flood myth; people get used to those because they happen reasonably often. 

Flooding myths date back to near the start of the Holocene epoch, when the global climate changed significantly from glacial to stable interglacial. This rapid change in climate to our new (and peculiar) climate was marked by a substantial sea level rise, which inundated huge areas of the near east. 

So maybe those biblical scale inundations are actually the biblical floods. 

I totally agree with you that ancient myths are often based on natural disasters, for example moses speaks to a column of fire and smoke on mount Sinai, the description of which matches a volcanic eruption column.

"On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning. A cloud covered the mountain, and a very loud horn sounded...... Its smoke went up like the smoke of a stove. And the whole mountain shook. The sound of the horn became louder and louder. Moses spoke, and God answered him with thunder."

There is no volcano in the Sinai, so it's likely the author got the location wrong, in my view. There are many volcanoes  nearby, in Anatolia and the fertile crescent. 

This has the bizarre implication that Yehoweh is actually a volcano god. 

 

Edited by Saxon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Religion's saving grace is that it is a comforting delusion for the mentally ill? 

 

Says it all, really, doesn't it?

The exact same thing you are saying here could be said about anti-psychotic drugs, but we don't go around claiming that those are utterly useless just because they only help the mentally ill.

Also this is only one argument let me find more.

http://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/new-research-better-quality-of-life-for-cancer-survivors-with-high-spirituality-religious-practice

Religion can also improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients.

I think if we had something that was able to help the mentally ill and could improve the quality of life of cancer patients I would say that it is pretty useful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

The exact same thing you are saying here could be said about anti-psychotic drugs, but we don't go around claiming that those are utterly useless just because they only help the mentally ill.

Also this is only one argument let me find more.

http://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/new-research-better-quality-of-life-for-cancer-survivors-with-high-spirituality-religious-practice

Religion can also improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients.

I think if we had something that was able to help the mentally ill and could improve the quality of life of cancer patients I would say that it is pretty useful

...We imprison people who try to convince healthy people to take psychoactive drugs, so this is not a good choice of comparison. 

When I spoke about supernatural claims being 'useful' I didn't mean to talk about how they might be used to manipulate people's emotions; I was talking about epistemological uses, for example I might describe a model that tries to explain tectonic plate motion as 'not very useful' if there isn't a way to test it. I understand this was ambiguous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

...We imprison people who try to convince healthy people to take psychoactive drugs, so this is not a good choice of comparison. 

I was neither advocating/nor supporting for the conversion of people towards religion.  Also your analogy here is the comparison that is really not a good choice seeing as the reason we imprison such people is due to the objectively harmful and proven side effects of such medication.  I have yet to see evidence of religion being as harmful as these side effects.

What I am really advocating for is an objective study of the benefits and/or harm caused by religion.  I feel like too often arguments made about religion being harmful and/or beneficial are merely anecdotal or based on individual biases.  I don't think we should merely assume that religion is harmful because we don't like it nor should we assume religion is necessarily good because we like it.

As of right now the evidence I have located seems to be leaning towards the side of religion being beneficial while the majority of the arguments I have heard about religion being harmful are based only on anecdote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Derin Darkpaw said:

  I have yet to see evidence of religion being as harmful as these side effects.

the majority of the arguments I have heard about religion being harmful are based only on anecdote.

clark4-800x555.jpg

Only an anecdote

saba_maqsood_2jpg.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo

Only an anecdote

sikh_temple_wide-97292788b71f69f8ee5b6c3

only an anecdote

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

You think that?

Surely you will have entertained the notion that it was because the authors of said texts thousands of years ago had no idea what they were on about and made up whatever BS they could to explain things?

What basis is there to give any of these ancient scriptures credence in modern times, given the leaps and bounds we've taken in the last century alone towards understanding how the universe works? Genetic experiments have basically confirmed the evolutionary links of certain species of theropod dinosaurs into early bird species. And just this year astrophysicists finally confirmed the existence of gravitational waves, something Einstein predicted over a century ago. We are getting closer to understanding how the universe works by the year, and every new fossil find yields new data about the ancient hidden past. How much evidence does the world need for you to finally admit your beliefs are incorrect?

I have entertained many notions and have formed my own worldview on what I believe, just as you have have. I believe that in regards to is the world flat or what the sky is regarding the Genesis passages is not important in the Scriptures. Hence why it doesn't make much more than vague references that made things easy for those it was written to to understand. The Bible is concerned with salvation.

17 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

Flynn, he denies other religions pre-dating his by plugging his ears and claiming his has been the truth since the beginning of time. All of time.

Science has no hope here.

You know, I think you came into the conversation with me with the wrong mindset. This isn't a debate. You nor anyone else is going to change my mind lets just get that out in the open. And I never have assumed nor made any claim that I am here to change your mind. I in fact alluded to that when I made that passing comment about your grandfather in which you agreed with. I had hoped perhaps foolishly that open honest engaging respectful conversations could be had.

12 hours ago, Saxon said:

Have you read the article I referred you to? 

 

Geologists proved that there was never a global flood in the 1830's. 

When 'transgressions of the sea' were first found in the rock record, clergymen interpreted them as the biblical flood. 

But it soon became apparent that there was more than one transgression of the sea. Clergymen concluded that God has flooded the world more than once, and that there must have been a previous race of men before Noah.

...then it became clear that there were hundreds of transgressions in the rock record, and the Clergymen finally admitted that this was getting silly and that there was clearly never one global flood. 

 

It is now suspected that flood myths, which trace back to the Mesopotamians in the near east, are likely based on the flooding of the Black sea, when the straits of Bosporous burst 7 thousand years ago, as the sea level rose at the end of the last glacial. 

 

 

I just finished reading the article now since I am home from work and have time to devout to it. Its definitely a strange read but in my personal opinion makes a lot of assumptions based on a preexisting worldview that conflicts with Scripture. The author assumes that the Genesis creation story of man is an explanatory myth on why humans lack a baculum. Where that assumption even comes from Scripturely isn't found. It seems as if the author is making the assumption himself with no Scriptural evidence. Further into the article the author somehow makes an insane assumption that if Adam did lose a rib then why isn't there evidence in other males of missing ribs. And this assumption is made even though they acknowledge that the word in ancient Hebrew Tsela doesn't even mean rib. If someone accidentally cut off a finger or lost an arm or leg in an accident, would we expect children he had after the loss to be missing a finger, arm, or leg? If a man has an appendix or gall bladder removed, would his children be born without these organs? Of course, no one would even suggest such a thing. Yet this author of the article you linked is making that very claim about Adam's rib. The articles entire premise seems to be built upon this and when its removed, there is nothing sustaining it.

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

Thing is that the Tigris-Euphrates river had periods of really devastating floods during the rainy season, and people who lived along the banks of the river drowned. Land was loss, homes were destroyed, and anyone on boats going up and down the river drifted to sea and died. From the people's POV during that period, the whole world flooded and god was pissed.

A lot of what was passed down in oral tradition in the bible were kind of a pinhole view for people who lived in that region. Cool stories and such, but nothing in the bible should be taken literally. iI's all allegory and hyperbole. 

I disagree that the flood was a local event. And there are scientists who obviously are Christians who say the same thing. Scripurely speaking the flood being only a local event completely destabilizes the rest of Scripture. The Bible is like building blocks and the Genesis story is part of its foundation. You remove part of it (the flood being a global event) and the whole thing comes crashing down.

16 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

 

@Rukh Whitefang You are now claiming that Genesis isn't meant to be a scientific account, but you still claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings.  You say that parts are poetic and some are literal, but how do you determine which is which?

Thats a fair question, and it has a loaded answer to be honest. First, context is very important. Knowing at least an outline of all Scripture is very helpful. Because Scripture often references other parts of Scripture in later books. So discerning what is a real event or literal and what is metaphorical you have to look at more than just one passage. Using the flood as an example its referenced all throughout Scripture as a real event for a real purpose that is entwined with the salvation story. And like I stated to Zeke above, if you change that event from literal to metaphorical, other parts of Scripture then make no sense. The other way someone can know the difference is a lot harder to explain per say. You need the Holy Spirit to discern for you. Yes I just made the statement that in order to have a better understanding of Scripture you have to be a Christian. You can only get so far without the Holy Spirit helping, honestly. Eventually a non-believer will hit a brick wall so to speak and not be able to understand any further. An example is trying to explain how God is a truine being yet one God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

only an anecdote

You have in no way demonstrated that religion makes an individual more likely to commit such heinous acts.  You have simply attempted an emotional appeal using deliberately shocking imagery to make it seem like I am horrible person for disagreeing with you.

Do you have any research to back up your apparent claim that religion makes an individual more capable of and/or likely to commit violent action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rukh Whitefang 

The author doesn't assume genesis is a myth explaining the lost baculum, that is their hypothesis, which they support with an argument. 

They argue that the penis is imbued with generative powers, and that there is a conspicuous scar on its ventral side, seemingly in the location of the missing baculum, hence this narrative suits the idea of God taking Adam's baculum, in order to use its generative properties to make a new person, better than God taking any other strut like bone. 

And why would ancient Hebrews believe that god taking away body parts cursed those creatures' ancestors? Because god takes the snake's legs, and no snakes have legs. (although fossilised snakes do have legs, which are lost gradually over generations of fossils, rather than stolen away in one go). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

 

Thats a fair question, and it has a loaded answer to be honest. First, context is very important. Knowing at least an outline of all Scripture is very helpful. Because Scripture often references other parts of Scripture in later books. So discerning what is a real event or literal and what is metaphorical you have to look at more than just one passage. Using the flood as an example its referenced all throughout Scripture as a real event for a real purpose that is entwined with the salvation story. And like I stated to Zeke above, if you change that event from literal to metaphorical, other parts of Scripture then make no sense.

But the flood objectively did not happen.  There is no way it could have physically happened.  How can that part of the Bible be literal if there is no evidence for that event ever occurring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I have entertained many notions and have formed my own worldview on what I believe, just as you have have. I believe that in regards to is the world flat or what the sky is regarding the Genesis passages is not important in the Scriptures. Hence why it doesn't make much more than vague references that made things easy for those it was written to to understand. The Bible is concerned with salvation.

The Torah was written as a creation myth and a lifestyle guide. The Bible was written centuries after its supposed facts by an organization seeking to cement its place in power and spread subservience through fear. It is ridiculously apparent that both texts were written by multiple people over an extended period of time, then hastily and messily vompiled into one book full of contradictions and nonsense. The bible is concerned with controlling the masses and was enforced at the point of a sword for centuries.

4 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

This isn't a debate. You nor anyone else is going to change my mind lets just get that out in the open. And I never have assumed nor made any claim that I am here to change your mind.

Therein lies the problem. This is exactly the problem with people like you. I was raised a christian but turned away from it when an increasingly scientific worldview based on an actual education made it apparent that such beliefs were false. I have known many people who were the same. I have known many others who needed more convincing. And then there are those stubborn types like you trapped in your own mental cages, refusing to let anyone simply hand you the key.

What possibly productive conversation could you expect here with an outlook like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

You have in no way demonstrated that religion makes an individual more likely to commit such heinous acts.  You have simply attempted an emotional appeal using deliberately shocking imagery to make it seem like I am horrible person for disagreeing with you.

Do you have any research to back up your apparent claim that religion makes an individual more capable of and/or likely to commit violent action?

Accepting religious teachings as divinely inspired truth that is beyond criticism predisposes people to develop delusions, which may include answering that god's calls to war.

It's very much the same process that happens to people who join a cult, or a political ideology. 

Do you think this observation needs to be contested? 

In this very thread, the intellectual blight of religion has already been displayed; Rukh thinks the entire human race is descended from 2 people, and 40% of Americans agree with him. Imagine if geneticists believed this; it would seriously hamper their ability to make medically useful conclusions.

Comforting religious delusions really do pose problems. The violent religious fervour of Asia and Africa is especially clear, but curtailed intellects in the west are also a problem. Religion very clearly has its toll. 

 

7 minutes ago, Terminal7 said:

Saxon, I'll remember to tear out your throat in hell. 

 

I thought hell is where our lot yiff? 

 

But the flood objectively did not happen.  There is no way it could have physically happened.  How can that part of the Bible be literal if there is no evidence for that event ever occurring?

Because an insidious religious delusion has a grip of him and it circumvents reason to protect itself. This is a problem. 

Edited by Saxon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I disagree that the flood was a local event. And there are scientists who obviously are Christians who say the same thing. Scripurely speaking the flood being only a local event completely destabilizes the rest of Scripture. The Bible is like building blocks and the Genesis story is part of its foundation. You remove part of it (the flood being a global event) and the whole thing comes crashing down.

Except, bible's stories were translated from people's perspectives, and those story perspectives were all localized events that happened.

A scientist can say that Bigfoot is real based on some old stories from Native American mythos, it doesn't mean it is true. As for floods. Heavy rains in those regions meant death since there was no logical reason to explain how they happened.  

I mean, it's a cool story along with Genesis, but it's allegory and a teaching tool to be interpreted. As a literal piece, no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

You say that parts are poetic and some are literal, but how do you determine which is which?

By using common sense. 

Genesis isn't meant to be a scientific paper fit for Einstein.

It's meant to explain to both primitive men and modern men the story of Earth's and mankind's origin in an easy-to-understand way. 

If comparing the world to a snowglobe or some shit was the best way to go about it, well then ok. It may be inaccurate in its terminology, but it gets the point across effectively.

@Saxon I think the author of that paper forgot that assume makes an ass out of you and me. The Bible makes no reference to any kind of "scar" being left behind, nor does it say that the removed body part was removed from Adam's descendants. Your argument is invalid. 

9 minutes ago, Saxon said:

And why would ancient Hebrews believe that god taking away body parts cursed those creatures' ancestors? Because god takes the snake's legs, and no snakes have legs. 

 

You're stretching it, man. More assuming. Those were two separate incidents with separate intentions. 

14 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

Do you have any research to back up your apparent claim that religion makes an individual more capable of and/or likely to commit violent action?

You don't need research to tell you that. If you believe in your religion, and your religion tells you to be an asshole, you're going to be more likely to be an asshole. No argument. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Accepting religious teachings as divinely inspired truth that is beyond criticism predisposes people to develop delusions, which may include answering that god's calls to war.

It's very much the same process that happens to people who join a cult, or a political ideology. 

Do you think this observation needs to be contested? 

In this very thread, the intellectual blight of religion has already been displayed; Rukh thinks the entire human race is descended from 2 people, and 40% of Americans agree with him. Imagine if geneticists believed this; it would seriously hamper their ability to make medically useful conclusions.

Comforting religious delusions really do pose problems. The violent religious fervour of Asia and Africa is especially clear, but curtailed intellects in the west are also a problem. Religion very clearly has its toll. 

Except I can also cite a number of delusional ideologies that clearly harm society and people that are not in any way based in religious thinking.  Things such as the ant-vax movement and climate change denial are seriously harmful and neither is related to religion.  Since it is clearly the case that such delusional thinking occurs outside of the context of religion it is too early to claim that religion leads to a greater harm to society.  Such a thing would need to be studied and determined via research not merely assumed because one likes the conclusion.

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

By using common sense. 

Genesis isn't meant to be a scientific paper fit for Einstein.

It's meant to explain to both primitive men and modern men the story of Earth's and mankind's origin in an easy-to-understand way. 

You say to apply common sense, but people can't seem to agree to which parts are and are not literal.  Also simply saying to apply common sense is not a satisfactory guideline as there is no way to apply it that isn't arbitrary in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

By using common sense. 

Genesis isn't meant to be a scientific paper fit for Einstein.

It's meant to explain to both primitive men and modern men the story of Earth's and mankind's origin in an easy-to-understand way. 

If comparing the world to a snowglobe or some shit was the best way to go about it, well then ok. It may be inaccurate in its terminology, but it gets the point across effectively.

@Saxon I think the author of that paper forgot that assume makes an ass out of you and me. The Bible makes no reference to any kind of "scar" being left behind, nor does it say that the removed body part was removed from Adam's descendants. Your argument is invalid. 

You're stretching it, man. More assuming. Those were two separate incidents with separate intentions. 

You're missing the point of the argument and addressing Rukh's failed understanding of it instead. The authors make an argument that the baculum is a more sensible choice than a rib, which was the Greek translation's favoured interpretation of the word, because of the penis's generative powers making it a good choice for generating a new person. 

The authors argue that this view is compatible with a myth to explain the loss of the baculum in humans, especially given we have a ventral genital scar and ancient hebrews may have imagined that this scar is where the bone was taken. 

Similar myths are widespread in other cultures, such as European christianity, where it is believed the Adam's apple is the cursed forbidden fruit of eden, stuck in Adam's throat. 

 

@ the notion of 'using common sense' to interrogate genesis, millions of Christians, including Rukh, obviously can't do that, and come to insane conclusions that the Earth was made in 6 days, the entire world was flooded, that man existed before woman, and than the entire human race is the product of their incestuous descendants. Great common sense. 

 

 

Except I can also cite a number of delusional ideologies that clearly harm society and people that are not in any way based in religious thinking.  Things such as the ant-vax movement and climate change denial are seriously harmful and neither is related to religion.  Since it is clearly the case that such delusional thinking occurs outside of the context of religion it is too early to claim that religion leads to a greater harm to society.  Such a thing would need to be studied and determined via research not merely assumed because one likes the conclusion.

 

 

This is my argument; that religion is a delusion based ideology, like anti-vaxing or climate change denial. Get it? 

We know delusion based ideologies are really bad, and religious is a delusion based ideology. It's all about accepting ideas without criticising them, accepting them 'on faith'. 

Edited by Saxon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Saxon said:

@Rukh Whitefang 

The author doesn't assume genesis is a myth explaining the lost baculum, that is their hypothesis, which they support with an argument. 

They argue that the penis is imbued with generative powers, and that there is a conspicuous scar on its ventral side, seemingly in the location of the missing baculum, hence this narrative suits the idea of God taking Adam's baculum, in order to use its generative properties to make a new person, better than God taking any other strut like bone. 

And why would ancient Hebrews believe that god taking away body parts cursed those creatures' ancestors? Because god takes the snake's legs, and no snakes have legs. (although fossilised snakes do have legs, which are lost gradually over generations of fossils, rather than stolen away in one go). 

 

A hypothesis that's is based upon an assumption that Adam's decedents must also have a missing rib in order for the Genesis story of the creation of man to be true. I will say it again, the author makes an improbable assumption that because men and women have to same amount of ribs another part of the body must have been removed. So they then somehow make the giant leap that it could be the Baculum, even though Scripture gives no evidence of any kind for this. The hypothesis is invalid because its based upon an invalid assumption that because all men have the same number of ribs as women, another body part must have been used.

12 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

But the flood objectively did not happen.  There is no way it could have physically happened.  How can that part of the Bible be literal if there is no evidence for that event ever occurring?

Again I disagree on both parts of your statement. I believe the flood did happen and I believe there is evidence.

7 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

The Torah was written as a creation myth and a lifestyle guide. The Bible was written centuries after its supposed facts by an organization seeking to cement its place in power and spread subservience through fear. It is ridiculously apparent that both texts were written by multiple people over an extended period of time, then hastily and messily vompiled into one book full of contradictions and nonsense. The bible is concerned with controlling the masses and was enforced at the point of a sword for centuries.

Therein lies the problem. This is exactly the problem with people like you. I was raised a christian but turned away from it when an increasingly scientific worldview based on an actual education made it apparent that such beliefs were false. I have known many people who were the same. I have known many others who needed more convincing. And then there are those stubborn types like you trapped in your own mental cages, refusing to let anyone simply hand you the key.

What possibly productive conversation could you expect here with an outlook like that?

Well when people refuse to be respectful and act like an adult no conversation can take place that is productive. Come now, Christopher Hitchens and Larry Taunton were best friends yet respectfully debated one another all the time on the existence of God. Don't tell me its not possible.

7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 

Because an insidious religious delusion has a grip of him and it circumvents reason to protect itself. This is a problem. 

Comments such as these have zero place or reason in conversations. Seriously can't you at least be respectful? Or is that to difficult?

3 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Except, bible's stories were translated from people's perspectives, and those story perspectives were all localized events that happened.

A scientist can say that Bigfoot is real based on some old stories from Native American mythos, it doesn't mean it is true. As for floods. Heavy rains in those regions meant death since there was no logical reason to explain how they happened.  

I mean, it's a cool story along with Genesis, but it's allegory. 

There is a problem with that though Zeke, the rest of Scripture is built around the flood being an actual event. Its necessary. Change it, and whole chunks of Scripture no longer make sense and begin to fall apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

This is my argument; that religion is a delusion based ideology, like anti-vaxing or climate change denial. Get it? 

We know delusion based ideologies are really bad, and religious is a delusion based ideology. It's all about accepting ideas without criticising them, accepting them 'on faith'. 

No the only thing we know for sure about delusion based ideologies is that they are based on delusion.  You hold a personal philosophical position that delusion is always bad.  To say that something is bad implies either a moralistic or qualitative assessment.  You have neither presented an argument for why delusion is immoral nor have you posited a valid argument for how something being delusional makes it qualitatively worse.  Until such a time as you can actually create an argument for why something merely being delusional is bad your negative assessment of religion will remain nothing more then your own personal opinion and I don't know about you but I want something a little stronger then an individuals personal opinion before I advocate removing something that has been a pillar of society since before recorded history.

2 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I believe the flood did happen and I believe there is evidence.

Where is this evidence and why has it not been found by the greater scientific community despite repeated attempts to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

A hypothesis that's is based upon an assumption that Adam's decedents must also have a missing rib in order for the Genesis story of the creation of man to be true. I will say it again, the author makes an improbable assumption that because men and women have to same amount of ribs another part of the body must have been removed. So they then somehow make the giant leap that it could be the Baculum, even though Scripture gives no evidence of any kind for this. The hypothesis is invalid because its based upon an invalid assumption that because all men have the same number of ribs as women, another body part must have been used.

Again I disagree on both parts of your statement. I believe the flood did happen and I believe there is evidence.

Well when people refuse to be respectful and act like an adult no conversation can take place that is productive. Come now, Christopher Hitchens and Larry Taunton were best friends yet respectfully debated one another all the time on the existence of God. Don't tell me its not possible.

Comments such as these have zero place or reason in conversations. Seriously can't you at least be respectful? Or is that to difficult?

There is a problem with that though Zeke, the rest of Scripture is built around the flood being an actual event. Its necessary. Change it, and whole chunks of Scripture no longer make sense and begin to fall apart.

This hypothesis posits that this is a hebrew explanation for the missing baculum, just like the snake's punishment is a mythological explanation for its missing legs? 

Geddit? 

Choosing the baculum as a candidate is not a 'giant leap', because the word telsa is used to mean 'mast' or 'supporting strut' in some instances. 

 

I don't think it's disrespectful to say that your religion has impaired your reasoning skills; you originally blankly refused to even consider alternative view points about human and earth origins; your expectation of a debate was that you would state your beliefs and that...nobody would be allowed to challenge them, because that's the only way your beliefs can survive. They would dissolve if you actually exposed them to criticism. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

No the only thing we know for sure about delusion based ideologies is that they are based on delusion.  You hold a personal philosophical position that delusion is always bad.  To say that something is bad implies either a moralistic or qualitative assessment.  You have neither presented an argument for why delusion is immoral nor have you posited a valid argument for how something being delusional makes it qualitatively worse.  Until such a time as you can actually create an argument for why something merely being delusional is bad your negative assessment of religion will remain nothing more then your own personal opinion and I don't know about you but I want something a little stronger then an individuals personal opinion before I advocate removing something that has been a pillar of society since before recorded history.

Where is this evidence and why has it not been found by the greater scientific community despite repeated attempts to do so?

So you don't think that subscribing to philosophies that accept delusional doctrines uncritically is harmful, then? 

It's getting a bit hilarious that people are now, in defense of religion, arguing that 'delusion isn't inherently bad'.

For those of us who retain at least some grip on reason, we appreciate that being a gullible deluded twit is a really bad thing. It's ironic that you claim 'science hasn't demonstrated that delusion is bad', while missing the grand point that science is all about exposing delusions and getting rid of them, and look how it has changed our world since its advent; people no longer suffer from delusions that epilepsy is caused by evil spirits.

Imagine what science would look like if delusional theories were accepted just as much as well founded ones. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

There is a problem with that though Zeke, the rest of Scripture is built around the flood being an actual event. Its necessary. Change it, and whole chunks of Scripture no longer make sense and begin to fall apart.

Yes, that is a problem.

Because the global flood has been geologically proven to have never happened. So the scripture does no longer make sense. Only people like you still believe it because you can't handle the thought of not believing. You fear it would render your life meaningless if there was no god and heaven.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Again I disagree on both parts of your statement. I believe the flood did happen and I believe there is evidence.

 

On that I can agree, but not in the biblical way.  Robert Ballard found evidence of settlements at the bottom of the Black Sea and has speculated that these settlements were inundated by a great flood at the end of the ice age when seawater broke through a natural dam at the Bosporus and flooded a vast area of inhabited lands.  This could have easily sparked the myth of the 'great flood' in many cultures.  So I too believe in Noah's flood, but its not a flood that covered the entire world.  Sorry, there is simply no geological evidence of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Saxon said:

So you don't think that subscribing to philosophies that accept delusional doctrines uncritically is harmful, then? 

It's getting a bit hilarious that people are now, in defense of religion, arguing that 'delusion isn't inherently bad'.

@Saxon you are entirely missing the point I was making.  I was asking if you can actually construct argument that demonstrates that delusion is inherently bad.  Because the only argument you have presented so far is that delusion is bad because it is obviously bad.  Which is clearly circular reasoning and a fallacious argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...