Quote :

"Where do you get off making such an outrageously biased claim like this? This is just like saying "homosexuality is a choice," which is just not true. "

It is interesting to me that you employ the very logic you use to dismiss my argument in order to prove yours. My question right back would be, where do you make an outrageously biased claim that homosexuality isn't a choice? Your evidence is empirical at best. I am not saying this as an attack but watch your logic on that.

Quote :

"In all fairness though, my personal feeling is that if the Christian God is capable of that, then I have no desire to worship him. A wrathful god is not a merciful god."

I would say that as an emotional response is def. understandable. However, I think think to focus on the wrath of God is to avoid the full picture. Wrath comes with Justice. If you can separate wrath and justice for me please show me. But we all know that people are always crying for justice. Happens every single day. What is Justice if there is no wrath?

As for your statement "A wrathful God is not a merciful God." This doesn't logically follow through. These are two character attributes that coexist in tons of people I know. So to deny that ability to God if he really did create the heavens and the earth is in my opinion not logically consistent. My point is that it is important to be logically consistent when making a point. Let's not just turn to hyperbole.

[Edited on May 10, 2010 at 7:26 AM. Reason : asdf]

5/10/2010 7:22:26 AM

Examples of New Testament Bigotry/Intolerance (not all inclusive):
Jesus

Quote :

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

Quote :

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. "

Paul

Quote :

"Everything out of my god-damned mouth"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"As for your statement "A wrathful God is not a merciful God." This doesn't logically follow through."

I gotta go with Lutz on this one. You can't have mercy without something to punish people with. Mercy is the decision not to punish.

I think what you're struggling with is not mercy, but the problem of suffering. It's the single greatest flaw of the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving god. And sorry Christians, free will is not a good answer to hurricanes and children getting cancer.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

5/10/2010 9:19:06 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/10-ways-christians-tend-t_b_562583.html
Ten Ways Christians Tend to Fail at Being Christian


i don’t think all 10 make sense, but 2 3 and 9 are apt.

5/10/2010 9:28:06 AM

this got ignored:

Quote :

"As for why this sin would be different. Yes, everyone is a sinner, but homosexuality is really a lifestyle. It would be accepting a sinful lifestyle. Yes many Christians struggle with various sins but many (not all) of them are actively trying to rid their lives of sin. Whereas homosexuality or even continued adultery or even compulsive lying is a lifestyle. It's not daily picking up one's cross. It is in fact the opposite of that."

why should any of that keep someone out of the church? how can you justify excluding any of that from the church without picing and choosing scripture.

Quote :

"If that is what you meant by passing, I guess I need clarification. Do you think more is necessary to include it?"

no, what i am saying is that paul mentions homosexuality right beside heterosexual acts he finds sinful; he is talking about promiscuity of all kinds. are you saying that your reading of the bible says that promiscuous people are worthy of death? because if you are claiming a literal, infallible reading of paul that is what you are saying.

and again, how does any of this exclude anyone from the church?

5/10/2010 10:46:11 AM

The problem with an argument about omnipotence is the fact that omnipotence is the power to defy human logic. An omnipotent being can be both up and down, yes and no, here and there; in this case omnibenevolent in the midst of suffering.

5/10/2010 10:51:44 AM

^ it's true in general that an omnipotent being can defy logic like that.

But the problem for religions, including Christianity, is that people impose and order and logic onto their God that helps to differentiate the religions. the christian god for example is known to have a will and an order that he is supposed to be pushing humanity towards. If this is true, then you can weigh human actions against the will of god.

If you believe that we don't know the will of god, then you're throwing out large, very important portions of the bible.

5/10/2010 11:17:43 AM

Quote :

"The problem with an argument about omnipotence is the fact that omnipotence is the power to defy human logic. An omnipotent being can be both up and down, yes and no, here and there; in this case omnibenevolent in the midst of suffering."

But it's only convenient to explain away suffering with this nonsense. How can you describe anything about God without logically invalidating it thusly? If God is not something that can be described, it obviously does not merit mention.

I'm fine with religious people claiming gods can't be observed, but if we can't even conceptualize them, what's the point of building churches in their name?

5/10/2010 11:51:17 AM

Quote :

"The problem with an argument about omnipotence is the fact that omnipotence is the power to defy human logic. An omnipotent being can be both up and down, yes and no, here and there; in this case omnibenevolent in the midst of suffering."

Just to clarify, the Bible goes against this logic (maybe surprisingly?). See Hebrews 6:18 where is says that it is impossible for God to lie. Thus a yes can't be a yes and a no. Truth is true regardless of what we may or may not want to believe.

Quote :

"I'm fine with religious people claiming gods can't be observed, but if we can't even conceptualize them, what's the point of building churches in their name?"

Paul stated that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (See Colossians 1). Jesus said if you have seen the father you have seen me (see John 14). Thus I would argue that we can conceptualize who God is by looking at who Jesus is. Does that make sense?

Quote :

"But the problem for religions, including Christianity, is that people impose and order and logic onto their God that helps to differentiate the religions. the christian god for example is known to have a will and an order that he is supposed to be pushing humanity towards. If this is true, then you can weigh human actions against the will of god."

I think you make a great point. Although, I think that that might sell God short of his potential. Let me try to explain. If you read the story of Joseph in Genesis you will find that he was sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt. Then he was able to rise to be 2nd to the Pharaoh and he was able to prevent a famine from wiping out tons of people by prophesying it would happen and then saving food for 7 years prior to the 7 year famine. The interesting part is that when he is reunited with his brothers they ask for forgiveness and Joseph makes an incredible claim that "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive" (see genesis 50). IE the people would have died had Joseph not been there.

Now how every minute detail of God's will vs. human free will come together has boggled my mind for a long time. And I plan to continue thinking on that.

I hope what I am saying makes some sense. Not that everyone will believe me obviously, but that some might understand the perspectives I am trying to present.

5/10/2010 9:58:50 PM

Quote :

"Now how every minute detail of God's will vs. human free will come together has boggled my mind for a long time. And I plan to continue thinking on that."

It boggles your mind because you can't have God's will and free will. I would often hear people refer to "God's plan" when I went to church and talked with Christians. It's the idea that God has already designed a purpose for each of us before we existed. That's a huge problem if you also want to say we have free will. If God has a plan for all of us, why is his plan for most of us to be tortured in hell for eternity? Is that really the best plan he could come up with? God seems like a malevolent dumbass to me, at least if the humans that claim to know his will are any indication.

5/10/2010 10:16:14 PM

Quote :

" why should any of that keep someone out of the church? how can you justify excluding any of that from the church without picking and choosing scripture."

Sorry saw this one thing too...

I don't think anything should exclude someone from going to a church...unless of course they are just there to cause dissension.

With that said, I don't like to say church here because church sometimes implies a building, whereas in Christianity it should imply a body of believers. Anyway, with that said I don't think there is a place for people in Christianity for people that openly and carelessly rebel. See Hebrews 6:4 and 1 John 3:4-6. Those are hard verses and yes many Christians obviously including myself struggle with sin. However, it must always remain a struggle, it shouldn't be something we give up on. Thus if I compulsively lie and cheat and say, you know what, I am going to keep on doing this regardless, I would say that that person falls under the same category as someone accepting a lifestyle of homosexuality. The reason I personally believe this is that God isn't going to true believers become complacent.

Now some people may be offended that I made a comparison between homosexuality and lying/cheating which is not the point of this discussion. The point is that if God is who he says he is (which this Christian I assume believes) then they should see all three of those should be viewed as sin. I am not weighing one against another, I am merely stating that the God of the Bible identifies all three as sin and thus I would hope this singer would too as a Christian.

5/10/2010 10:18:44 PM

Quote :

" It boggles your mind because you can't have God's will and free will. I would often hear people refer to "God's plan" when I went to church and talked with Christians. It's the idea that God has already designed a purpose for each of us before we existed. That's a huge problem if you also want to say we have free will. If God has a plan for all of us, why is his plan for most of us to be tortured in hell for eternity? Is that really the best plan he could come up with? God seems like a malevolent dumbass to me, at least if the humans that claim to know his will are any indication."

You make a great point. And while I wish there was an easy answer I can't say that there is. However, I can point you to one example in the Bible that I think portrays free will and Gods will coalescing together without interfering with one another.

If you look at Samsons life. Samson's mother was told by an angel that her son would save Israel from the hand of the Philistines. Now if you read about Samsons life you will find he didn't always listen to God and he did things his own way. However, in the end Gods plan/purpose came into fruition even though Samson's made free choices. Thus I think that God's plan incorporates our free well and yet his purposes still stand. Because God would clearly not condone some of the things Samson did (such as solicit a prostitute).

Now I obviously recognize that this could be seen as a stretch for some to believe. But as someone once said something along the lines of...give me Genesis 1:1 and the rest is a piece of cake.


PS samson saved Israel from the philistines...kinda forgot to mention that...woops

[Edited on May 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/10/2010 10:24:44 PM

:ahem:
Quote :
"If that is what you meant by passing, I guess I need clarification. Do you think more is necessary to include it?"

no, what i am saying is that paul mentions homosexuality right beside heterosexual acts he finds sinful; he is talking about promiscuity of all kinds. are you saying that your reading of the bible says that promiscuous people are worthy of death? because if you are claiming a literal, infallible reading of paul that is what you are saying.

and again, how does any of this exclude anyone from the church?

5/10/2010 10:57:20 PM

^sorry about missing that.

It is not me that is saying that. I am saying that the Bible says that (to avoid confusion, yes I agree with the Bible on this). See Romans 6:23, for the wages of sin is death. However, i don't think the death that paul is referring to here is physical. He is referring to spiritual death. Read Romans chapter 6-8 (specifically 8:1-15ish) for more on this.

As for literal/infallible reading point. I think its obvious when we look at the context here, that paul was literally talking about spiritual death.

as for excluding anyone from the church. I am not sure i understand exactly what you mean so please clarify if this doesn't answer your ?.

I believe that people who continue to go against what God has said and have no problem whatsoever with it don't really have a place in the church. Again, church being here followers of Jesus. Because in all reality, is someone who adamantly goes against the teachings of the Bible a true follower of Jesus? I say no, but I guess one could argue that point, but I don't think they can argue it using the Bible as a source which is my entire point since this singer calls herself a Christian and therefore should be able to argue it using the Bible.

5/11/2010 6:01:49 AM

Quote :

"Paul stated that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (See Colossians 1). Jesus said if you have seen the father you have seen me (see John 14). Thus I would argue that we can conceptualize who God is by looking at who Jesus is. Does that make sense?"

No, it doesn't make sense.

Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18

Quote :

"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34

Quote :

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

John 20:17

Quote :

"I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.[/user] Colossians 3:1 [quote]Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

1 Timothy 2:5

Quote :

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Even Jesus himself seems confused as to whether he is God. The whole concept of the trinity reeks. Why would God send himself to be sacrificed to himself to break his own covenant and replace it with a new one? And then why did he cry out to himself asking why he had forsaken himself? It makes absolutely no sense and is wholly contradictory.

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 8:54 AM. Reason : quotes]

5/11/2010 8:53:30 AM

King James' English adaptation of thousand-year-old Roman apologues is taken too literally ITT

5/11/2010 9:11:45 AM

And there it is! The moment you try to reference the source material for the goofy religion, you get called out for it.

It's like I'm a prophet:

Quote :

"And finally, don't act like there isn't bigotry in the New Testament. I'll be happy to cite passages, but then I'm sure someone will say "women should never speak" is taken out of context."

5/11/2010 9:31:11 AM

You're a prophet because you correctly predicted that someone would call you out for totally ignoring context?

5/11/2010 9:44:53 AM

I'd prefer an illustration on how I ignored context or how the original manuscript Hebrew (or Aramaic) differs the meaning significantly.

Or why it's only relevant when citing passages that show that Jesus is not God, but Lutz gets a pass to throw out passages left and right to prove his points about Christianity.

It's a crutch, and it's weak.

5/11/2010 9:55:01 AM

I'm not giving Lutz a pass. You guys are treating the Bible like a textbook, but it's a tome of arcane lore from the dark ages. It's meant to be interpreted by the Church; degree-holding ministers and ordained clergymen, who treat the vast majority of it as figurative. I'm not about to deny that it's full of bigotry and contradictions, if taken by itself, literally.

You're far from the only ones doing it, but I still think its pointless.

5/11/2010 10:37:44 AM

Is there a guide to know which parts are figurative and which parts aren't? How could anyone possibly know that an individual passage or fable is metaphorical? Does this fact not make the Bible as useful ideologically as the Iliad?

5/11/2010 11:10:07 AM

Disco-stu! i think you might just know more about Christianity than a lot of so-called Christians...unfortunately I am serious on this...

Anyway with that said you again make some great points.

I probably can't get all of them this point but I'll hit on two (then I gotta cram for a grad final...haha good times...)

1. The trinity. Thats a tough one but I want to present you with an interesting perspective that I believe old CS Lewis had some to do with (could be wrong on this, I heard it from Ravi Zacharias and dont remember the exact source). He postulated that without the trinity God needed people in order to love. Obviously the Bible says that God is love. But, if God was just God the father, there would be nothing to love. But in "God the trinity" there is the possibility of community and love in the first Cause (IE God, the great "I AM"). Now how exactly God is one and three persons is a bit fuzzy because we don't have an exact description of how this can be. But I think this goes beyond accounting. Obviously 1+1+1 is not equal to 1 mathematically but I am not convinced that that is God's intent in saying that God is one.

2. I think parts of the Bible that are to be interpreted figuratively vs. literally can follow these rules of thumb. Now to be honest I just thought of this on the fly and haven't thought it thru too many examples so please let me know if you disagree because I could use some feedback on it. But with that said here we go:

-If the story loses power because it isn't true, then it most likely literally happened. Example: While in undergrad I had a prof who said that Noah's ark could be interpreted figuratively and still hold the same meaning and purpose. I say that is a fallacy because if such a story is made up then it serves no purpose. If God didn't bring judgement on the earth then, what point does a story serve about that? Another example would be Jesus saying that he is the bread of life and that you must "eat his flesh". Now I think its obvious that this is figurative for many reasons. The number one reason is that Jesus gave them real bread as a symbol of this while saying this. The other reason is that it doesn't take any power away from the story for that to be figurative.

-I think you have to look at the full context of not only the passage but also the whole Bible before determining figurative vs. literal. Example: ""If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." ~Jesus. Now this taken literally sounds pretty bad. But jesus is clear that we are to love people in so many other places that he is driving a different point home here. That point being that we must put Him first. All else is 2nd to that.

Good discussion and good points. Can I ask what everyone's worldview here is?

5/11/2010 7:51:47 PM

Quote :

"1. The trinity. Thats a tough one but I want to present you with an interesting perspective that I believe old CS Lewis had some to do with (could be wrong on this, I heard it from Ravi Zacharias and dont remember the exact source). He postulated that without the trinity God needed people in order to love. Obviously the Bible says that God is love. But, if God was just God the father, there would be nothing to love. But in "God the trinity" there is the possibility of community and love in the first Cause (IE God, the great "I AM"). Now how exactly God is one and three persons is a bit fuzzy because we don't have an exact description of how this can be. But I think this goes beyond accounting. Obviously 1+1+1 is not equal to 1 mathematically but I am not convinced that that is God's intent in saying that God is one. "

"Without the trinity, God needed..." why does God need anything? If a being is omnipotent, it could create whatever it "needs" effortlessly. Without blood sacrifice or condemning billions of people to eternal torture. If God "needs" things he is either not omnipotent or an omnipotent sadist, neither of which are worthy of worship.

Quote :

"-If the story loses power because it isn't true, then it most likely literally happened. Example: While in undergrad I had a prof who said that Noah's ark could be interpreted figuratively and still hold the same meaning and purpose. I say that is a fallacy because if such a story is made up then it serves no purpose. If God didn't bring judgement on the earth then, what point does a story serve about that? Another example would be Jesus saying that he is the bread of life and that you must "eat his flesh". Now I think its obvious that this is figurative for many reasons. The number one reason is that Jesus gave them real bread as a symbol of this while saying this. The other reason is that it doesn't take any power away from the story for that to be figurative. "

The concept of the amount of power a story has on you is totally subjective. A story would have differing amounts of power on different people and there is no way the writers/compilers of the Bible would know. You picked an example of a story (Noah's Ark) which cannot possibly be literal truth, yet it's underlying message means to you that it must be truth. There is absolutely no evidence that such an event happened, and plenty of evidence that it did not.

To disregard such evidence (which is something most Christians don't even do, by your own admission) and determine truth in the Bible by some scale of the force of the message is for lack of a better word delusional.

A much more simple answer is that all of it was made up as an attempt to make sense of an existence that was difficult and not at all far-reaching. According to Genesis, it took God 4 days to make the Earth and then a mere moment to make the sun, moon, and all of the stars. We know today that this doesn't make sense as our Earth is but a small pale dot in the vastness of the Universe and the stars came long before. Noah's Ark and eating christ chex and all of it are fables, just like Hercules, Gilgamesh, etc.

5/11/2010 8:12:32 PM

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2010 8:20:43 PM

Quote :

""Without the trinity, God needed..." why does God need anything? If a being is omnipotent, it could create whatever it "needs" effortlessly. Without blood sacrifice or condemning billions of people to eternal torture. If God "needs" things he is either not omnipotent or an omnipotent sadist, neither of which are worthy of worship. "

That was my point. That God doesn't need anything. If the trinity didn't exist then God couldn't have been Love which He claims to be.

Quote :

"You picked an example of a story (Noah's Ark) which cannot possibly be literal truth, "

Now I assume you to be a naturalist or an atheist? Maybe agnostic? Anyway, I would hazard you to go down the road of saying things are not literal truths without being able to prove it, because when we begin to look at naturalism and evolution or any other non-religious world view we absolutely have to answer these questions.

Where did we come from? IE, How did life come about?
How do entropy and eternity work together?
Why are we here?
Are we just time+matter+chance? (If this is true, I don't see how we have free will)

Can you give one piece of evidence for the origin of life apart from a theist worldview?

The reason I ask these questions is because inherent in your worldview I assume these questions are unanswered. Correct me if I am wrong on that assumption please. So thus when you attack Christianity by saying that Christians disregard evidence I think it is important to make sure that your own beliefs don't disregard evidence. In other words you can't claim that one thing is false because there is a lack of evidence while meanwhile subscribing to your own beliefs that also lack evidence. Thus your test for determining falsehood of my beliefs must also be applied to your own.

As for the scale/force of the message I disagree wholeheartedly. Example. Lets say you see an inspirational story about someone doing a great thing, like maybe seeing Invictus (movie on Nelson mandela). If such a story is true it has so much more meaning because it actually happened. We can invent great stories but if they never happen how is that at all practical? The answer is that it isn't. Thus my point was that many people try to say that Noah can't be true and it is merely figurative. What is the point of the story if it is figurative? There is no point because meaning comes from reality.

5/11/2010 8:39:28 PM

Quote :

"The reason I ask these questions is because inherent in your worldview I assume these questions are unanswered. Correct me if I am wrong on that assumption please. So thus when you attack Christianity by saying that Christians disregard evidence I think it is important to make sure that your own beliefs don't disregard evidence. In other words you can't claim that one thing is false because there is a lack of evidence while meanwhile subscribing to your own beliefs that also lack evidence. Thus your test for determining falsehood of my beliefs must also be applied to your own. "

What evidence are you alleging that disco_stu is disregarding?

What evidence do you understand yourself to disregard when you assert there was a massive, global flood as described in the Bible ~5000 years ago?

5/11/2010 8:50:50 PM

^Disco-stu claimed Christians disregard evidence against the flood.

I don't think I alleged disco-stu of disregarding evidence unless my assumption is correct. That assumption being that he subscribes to naturalism or something along those lines. Then the evidence I would be alleging that he is disregarding is the overwhelming evidence against evolution as a start.

Now again, I don't want to make that assumption without first stating it as I did in my original post. If my assumption is wrong my apologies. If not then I think the logic he used to prove me wrong could be applied to his own beliefs.

But again, please poke holes in my logic if you see them, I am not trying to be a douche bag here...haha

5/11/2010 8:58:47 PM

So you'd accept that the flood couldn't have ever happened as the Bible literally describes because practically all the evidence is against that, if disco_stu accepts that live couldn't have ever come about by natural processes?

5/11/2010 9:28:32 PM

^nope. And lets take disco-stu out of this because I don't want to misrepresent him.

What I was saying is that someone cannot logically say that A isn't true because of a lack of evidence. Meanwhile they believe in B but have a lack of evidence to support it.

5/11/2010 9:34:16 PM

^ but doesn't that cut both ways?

You're saying that B isn't true because of lack of evidence, while believing that A is true, despite lack of evidence.

5/11/2010 9:35:22 PM

^I see your point but thats not exactly what I am saying. I never said B was false due to a lack of evidence. If I did claim that it, then I couldnt by the same logic claim A was true. However, I can still claim A is true despite a lack of complete evidence so long as my reasoning for ruling out B is not due to a lack of evidence.

Example:

Person A believes the Bible

Person B Believes naturalism is true

Person A cannot claim that naturalism isn't true solely because they lack some evidence. However, Person A can claim that naturalism isn't true because they believe the Bible to be correct even though they may lack some evidence for it. Thus Person A's reasoning for not believing person B is not related to a lack of evidence, it is related to the evidence that they believe about the Bible to be true.

5/11/2010 9:43:41 PM

^ so you believe that the flood story is literal truth, not because any evidence indicates that it was real, but because you believe the Bible is true, therefore the flood story must be true. and any evidence to the contrary is simply wrong?

5/11/2010 9:48:12 PM

Yes I believe the flood is literal truth. And i believe there is evidence for it. I am ignorant of any evidence against it. I am not saying there isn't any, but i don't know of any because I haven't researched that. I would be glad to look at some if you have a link or know of any.

And I think evidence to the contrary should be looked at. If I deem is simply wrong because of a belief, I would become an ideologue. Ideologues don't necessarily seek after truth, they seek after something they believe to be truth. Evidence can confirm or disprove those such beliefs. That does not take away from my confidence that the Bible is true, so if you have evidence to the contrary I wouldn't mind taking a look at it.

Also, Moron, can I ask what your worldview might be?

5/11/2010 9:56:03 PM

there is evidence of a flood in that region, not one that covered the entire world. is that what you mean?

and are you suggesting a literal translation of the creation story, a story that predates christianity? i think that is pretty clearly figurative.

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 10:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2010 10:24:31 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_flood

Quote :

"Sumerian The earliest extant flood legend is contained in the fragmentary Sumerian Eridu Genesis, datable by its script to the 17th century BCE.[1] The story tells how the god Enki warns Ziusudra (meaning "he saw life," in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods), of the gods' decision to destroy mankind in a flood—the passage describing why the gods have decided this is lost. Enki instructs Ziusudra (also known as Atrahasis) to build a large boat—the text describing the instructions is also lost. After which he is left to repopulate the earth, as in many other flood legends. After a flood of seven days, Zi-ud-sura makes appropriate sacrifices and prostrations to An (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), and is given eternal life in Dilmun (the Sumerian Eden) by An and Enlil."

Quote :

"Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh) In the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, toward the end of the He who saw the deep version by Sin-liqe-unninni, there are references to the great flood (tablet 11). This was a late addition to the Gilgamesh cycle, largely paraphrased or copied verbatim from the Epic of Atrahasis[citation needed] (see above). The hero Gilgamesh, seeking immortality, searches out Utnapishtim in Dilmun, a kind of paradise on earth. Utnapishtim tells how Ea (equivalent of the Sumerian Enki) warned him of the gods' plan to destroy all life through a great flood and instructed him to build a vessel in which he could save his family, his friends, and his wealth and cattle. After the Deluge the gods repented their action and made Utnapishtim immortal."

Quote :

"Greek Greek mythology knows three floods. The flood of Ogyges, the flood of Deucalion and the flood of Dardanus, two of which ended two Ages of Man: the Ogygian Deluge ended the Silver Age, and the flood of Deucalion ended the First Bronze Age."

Quote :

"Germanic In Norse mythology, there are two separate deluges. According to the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson, the first occurred at the dawn of time before the world was formed. Ymir, the first giant, was killed by the god Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve, and when he fell, so much blood flowed from his wounds that it drowned almost the entire race of giants with the exception of the frost giant Bergelmir and his wife. They escaped in a ship and survived, becoming the progenitors of a new race of giants. Ymir's body was then used to form the earth while his blood became the sea. The second, in the Norse mythological time cycle, is destined to occur in the future during the final battle between the gods and giants, known as Ragnarök. During this apocalyptic event, Jormungandr, the great World Serpent that lies beneath the sea surrounding Midgard, the realm of mortals, will rise up from the watery depths to join the conflict, resulting in a catastrophic flood that will drown the land. However, following Ragnarök the earth will be reborn and a new age of humanity will begin. The mythologist Brian Branston noted the similarities between this legend and an incident described in the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf, which had traditionally been associated with the biblical flood, so there may have been a corresponding incident in the broader Germanic mythology as well as in Anglo-Saxon mythology."

Which one is the literal truth? And what about records of ancient Greek gods, or Zoroastrian, or other near east gods that did the immaculate conception, or water to wine, or back from the dead thing before. Like all literature and all religions Christianity drew on the ones that came before it down to when to have Christmas. Sort of like how voodoo is easy to dismiss because it was created close enough to the present that it is even easier to see it drawing from older religions.

The idea that any of it is so literal that we should use it as rigid rules for guiding our lives, our government, or our history books is ridiculous. The Illiad, the Bible, Sha naqba imuru, Qur'an, and the Prose Edda may have some decent cautionary tales and life guidelines with some connection to history but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that they are accurate literal descriptions of what happened.

That people in the ancient world experienced flooding as a problem, sometimes as a big problem, is probably true. Noah's Ark? Not so much.

5/11/2010 10:31:26 PM

Quote :

"but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that they are accurate literal descriptions of what happened. That people in the ancient world experienced flooding as a problem, sometimes as a big problem, is probably true. Noah's Ark? Not so much. "

As to which one, I believe the one in the Bible. As to your quote i put above, I challenge that you are equally as hard-pressed to make the case that they aren't literal descriptions.

Also, I find it convenient that all my questions about the origin of life have gone unanswered.

The point I am making is this. We all believe something, whether by default or by choice. When someone claims that what I believe is "Not so much" or nonsense that is fine. But you ought to be able to come up with a coherent and logical alternative worldview that answers who we are, where we came from, and what is the purpose of life. Until you can do that, you cannot logically tell others they are wrong unless you have proof that they are wrong because you have no basis to do so as you have no proof.

5/11/2010 10:43:18 PM

a

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 10:44 PM. Reason : def. posted same thing twice...woops]

5/11/2010 10:43:45 PM

are you suggesting the creation story is literal?

5/11/2010 10:45:57 PM

^yes

5/11/2010 10:47:05 PM

I am an atheist and a naturalist. It's important to note that Atheism is not a world view. It is a simple refutation of the existence of gods due to lack of evidence.

Quote :

"because when we begin to look at naturalism and evolution or any other non-religious world view we absolutely have to answer these questions."

I'm sorry, but we don't have to answer any of these questions. The meaning of life, the origin of the universe, these are all philosophical questions that probably will never have a scientific explanation, and that's fine. Science is not an explanation itself, it is the constant attempt to explain.

Regarding the origin of life, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis is looking pretty good, but more research is needed. That's the great thing about a Naturalist view, I don't have a conclusion and then seek to prove it. I come to conclusions based on the evidence that we observe.

Now, onto the flood. I'd suggest you take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html.
There are more points there than I care to put in this post, but some of the most compelling for me are.
1)There is no geological record of a global flood. There is plenty of geological record that suggests billions of years of tectonic activity and the formation of valleys, canyons, and mountains through sedimentary processes that would have been wiped out by the flood. There is no evidence of a flood in tree rings or ice cores that date to biblical times.
2)Why are there no human artifacts mixed in with the dinosaurs and the trilobites?
3)The logistics of building a shipworthy boat of the specified dimensions solely out of wood, of gathering 2 of every species in the time allotted, of fitting said species on said boat, and of 8 people caring for every animal on said boat for 40 days is impossible.
4)There is no record of the flood in historical record of Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations that existed during the proposed time of the flood.


----------------------------------------------------
And regarding a literal creation story, it's not logically consistent with what we know about our planet and the Universe. I'll buy into the "a day to God is a long, long time" argument for a second. The consistency problem comes in the ordering of the days.

The creation story states that the earth was created first, and it took 4 whole days out of the 7 to get it done. Then, it took God just a moment to create the Sun, the Moon, and the rest of all of the billions of billions of billions of stars in the Universe.

We know this to be incorrect. The Sun coalesced together long before the Earth formed, and most of the other stars long before that. Stars are constantly being created and destroyed, and this is observed.

It's a nice story, it's simply not supported by evidence. It appears that it is simply a story created by people who did not understand the vastness of the Universe and whose cosmic understanding was localized entirely to their little plot of desert.

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 10:56 PM. Reason : creation story]

5/11/2010 10:49:09 PM

Quote :

"I am ignorant of any evidence against it. I am not saying there isn't any, but i don't know of any because I haven't researched that. I would be glad to look at some if you have a link or know of any."

There are many angles that you can look at it. When you presume that a catastrophe wiped out practically all human life on the planet within the past few thousand years, there are a lot of markers that should be around. When you think of the energy it would take to make water flow to cover the earth, then recede, in 40 days, you're talking about energy millions of times greater than the most powerful nuclear device humans have made. Then there's the fact that if you "count backwards" using the Bible, the flood dates to around 2200BC . During this time though, Egyptian civilization was thriving, with no writings of a massive flood destroying all life.

If you accept that somehow all the land animals on the planet were guided by God to make their way to the Ark, they still couldn't fit those animals on the ark. Marine life too would have been devastated by a flood, assuming they survived the initial shockwave from all that moving water, because salt water fish don't like freshwater, assuming a freshwater flood, and freshwater fish don't like salt water (especially) if it was a salt water flood.

The appearance of such a massive amount of water on the earth, then the disappearance would have wreaked havoc with the earth's orbit. Assuming god magically made the water appear, the spin of the earth would have slowed and the orbit would have become more elliptical, then when the water disappeared 40 days later (because to evaporate all that water in such a short time span would have cooked Noah and every other living thing on the planet) would have sped the earth up, and thrown it into an erratic orbit. The earth's orbit has been fairly stable for a good few billion years now.

Then there is the DNA evidence. If all human life descended over the past few thousand years from Noah's family, how then do you explain studies of mitochondrial DNA that supports the archaeological evidence that humanity slowly migrated and established colonies from africa, branching outwards through the mid east into europe, asia, and north america? If Noah's wife and daughters are the sole progenitors of humanity, then you'd see a pattern that indicates an outward spread of mDNA from the area in the mid-east outwards. The rate of mutation would have to have been astonishingly high to account for the mutation rates we observe for mDNA.

Practically nothing remotely rational supports the idea that all life on earth was wiped out by water 3000 years ago, then life re-formed. It's far more likely that the flood story was adapted from the epic of gilgamesh due to the same cultural forces that has caused even our modern language and numerical system to be traced back thousands of years to sankskrit and sumerian civilizations.

5/11/2010 10:52:46 PM

Quote :

"But you ought to be able to come up with a coherent and logical alternative worldview that answers who we are, where we came from, and what is the purpose of life. Until you can do that, you cannot logically tell others they are wrong unless you have proof that they are wrong because you have no basis to do so as you have no proof."

This is simply wrong.

The question of how old the Earth may be, or if there was a massive flood a few thousand years ago is logically distinct from how the first life came to be. Not to mention that there is no valid reason why life couldn't have come about on its own.

The question of why we're here/the purpose of life is not a scientific question, it's a philosophical question. It's irrelevant why we're here, as long as we are here.

What you're arguing is that because I don't know exactly how a car engine works, then I can't claim to know how a microprocessor works.

But it's possible to know that the earth couldn't have flooded 3000 years ago, and that the earth couldn't have been created 7000 years ago, but not know the exact mechanism for the first life 3 billion years ago. we didn't know 1000 years ago electricity worked, but now we do. Humans are intelligent, and we learn, and there are numerous intelligible theories on how the first life came about, and we learn new things about this on a monthly basis.

It's not true that because we don't know everything now, that we can't know anything. It's fallacious to say that because we don't know everything now, that what the Lutz™ brand of Christianity says is true supersedes reason and logic.

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 11:02 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2010 10:52:47 PM

the creation story, and the flood, are pretty clearly figurative.

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2010 10:56:49 PM

As to the Miller experiment. That is highly debatable as many believe that the atmosphere that Miller used was not realistic and that he used such an atmosphere to rig the results. Regardless the atmosphere was most likely not representative of the early earth. As for your other points, many of them are new to me and I would like to get both sides of the story!

So thanks for the new info to research here. Good stuff.

5/11/2010 11:00:05 PM

^ the miller experiment has been made mostly irrelevant by the direct discovery of pre-biotic molecules on comets.

5/11/2010 11:03:31 PM

Quote :

"the creation story, and the flood, are pretty clearly figurative."

You'd think that was obvious, and yet, here we are.

5/11/2010 11:08:16 PM

haha...i think everytime i get on this subject it leads to this...

5/11/2010 11:12:06 PM

why does it change anything if instead of a global flood its just a really large flood covering everything he could see, and maybe two of every kind of animal is hyperbole, how does that change anything about the purpose of the story? and how does it change the message if the story of creation is just a metaphor for the way god has his hand in everything? if this is the case then suddenly there is no conflict with what we are learning about how the universe came to be.

5/11/2010 11:23:21 PM

^^^ variety is the spice of life...

5/11/2010 11:28:27 PM

^^
How then do you separate the figurative stories from the ones that you should actually believe and base your religious beliefs on? 500 years ago, it wasn't obvious to humanity that the creation story is figurative and saying that it was got you killed.

There is nothing internal to the story that makes it figurative. It's only our understanding of reality that makes it obvious that it can't be true. If you concede this point, then you couldn't possibly believe that the Bible is the word of God or even inspired by God. And then why believe any of it?

5/12/2010 8:47:28 AM

as a presbyterian i am called to draw on reason, experience, and the holy spirit inside me when reading. we believe god's word is in the holy spirit as you read, not the words itself. you listen for the word of god and not to the word of god.

5/12/2010 11:30:05 AM