*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[Keith&Co.]

Rhea, whether the earth goes around the sun or dips behind the moon, that was not the point.

If we're discussing whether or not The Books can be used as a reference for history, and you get nutburger ideas from your reading of The Books, then that would be exactly the point.

The point is that I successfully proved my point that the six days of creation story is symbolic - you cannot have 'days' (of the 24 hour variety) without planets and stars.

Oh, THAT was your point?
Well, then where did you prove that OUR definition of a day (361 degree rotation of the Earth around its axis (+/- a few milliseconds)) is the definition of the day held by the author of Genesis?
That would be a lot more helpful than just projecting your current knowledge into the text and pretending they must agree.

The authors of The Books always describes a Flat Earth, a mud pie over the Waters Below, under a solid sky, with the sun, moon and stars rolling around inside that sky. Some of it's metaphor, sure, but that doesn't help because metaphors compare similar things or they would not be metaphors.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, if planets and stars existed before the days in Genesis began, why does it talk about God creating the planets and stars after the days had began?

 

[Sarpedon]

Rhea, whether the earth goes around the sun or dips behind the moon, that was not the point. The point is that I successfully proved my point that the six days of creation story is symbolic - you cannot have 'days' (of the 24 hour variety) without planets and stars.

But you absolutely could. All you need is the sun and the earth. Other Planets and stars are unnecessary.

And that is one of our primary objections to your religion. If this Earth is the focal point of the Universe, the battleground between God and Satan, which is absolutely what the Bible proposes, why is there so much extra? Back in the day, when they thought the sky was like a tent over the earth and the planets were just lights that mysteriously moved about on top of it, it made a great deal more sense. You had heaven above, hell below, and earth between, the natural meeting point.

In the Universe as we know it now, that breaks down. Is God really lord of the Universe, or just this planet? Were the authors of the bible wrong about the nature of the confrontation that is supposedly happening here? If not, what is the rest of the Universe for? Does every planet have its own Christ and Antichrist? The Universe is just too vast to be explained by these myths written by primitive people.

 

[funinspace]

Others have already addressed the science end sufficiently...

Here's a thought. For the atheists. If not God, then what? Do you guys all believe that there was just this big explosion, rocks and random stuff went flying out, and then, given a billion years, everything just fell into place, by accident. I think not. After a billion years, a rock is still a rock. You are not explaining the part about the spark of life. Where did that originate? You are not explaining the part about the code (ie. DNA; laws of mathmatics and physics) that was obviously planted into everything to make it work. Where did that code come from? I say God.

The Deluge is a fairy tale; the Exodus is a fairy tale; the tower of Babel story is a fairy tale; the day the earth stood still for Joshua is a fairy tale; the sun moving back for Hezekiah is a fairy tale; handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison is dangerous and stupid. Therefore, there is no Christian God. Your ignorant projection of your lack of science comprehension is far weaker than my projection based on all the fairy tales in your holy book. Even with your 'question', it only gets you up to a blind watchmaker, not the Christian God.

 

[funinspace]

1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=53
8+8=16

I believe that, as most of the above is true, it must therefore all be true. I am not quite certain exactly how four plus four can equal fifty three; But I know that some of what is written above is true, so I am going to be wise, and believe that it all must be, even though right now I cannot see exactly why.

I believe that '4+4' really should be: 42

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=53
8+8=16

I believe that, as most of the above is true, it must therefore all be true. I am not quite certain exactly how four plus four can equal fifty three; But I know that some of what is written above is true, so I am going to be wise, and believe that it all must be, even though right now I cannot see exactly why.

I believe that '4+4' really should be: 42

Okay, references to 42 has been done. Please find a new lesser done to death reference.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(Earth goes around the sun each day? Really? Duuuude.)

Rhea, whether the earth goes around the sun or dips behind the moon, that was not the point. The point is that I successfully proved my point that the six days of creation story is symbolic - you cannot have 'days' (of the 24 hour variety) without planets and stars.

Congratulations on your success. The Jewish will be proud that you were able to demonstrate that the First Story of Creation is symbolic.

When you get back, maybe you can prove to us that the Narrative of the Flood was just a story.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That is silly reasoning. The "Iliad" has some sections that describe real events as does "Gone With the Wind". Do you really believe that since there is some truth in these books then everything in them is truth?

Mikey, a few cubes away from me, insists that The Books was WRITTEN as history, therefore it must be TAKEN as history, and accepted as accurate.

Mikey, though, insists that the Founding Fathers held positions against the Theory of Evolution. He's just SURE they wrote, somewhere, that it was a bogus theory... at, what, 90 years before Darwin published... So, he won't take a fucking TIMELINE of HISTORY as history...

 

[Atheos]

... The point is that I successfully proved my point that the six days of creation story is symbolic - you cannot have 'days' (of the 24 hour variety) without planets and stars.

That's all I got for now. Thank you all who are contributing to this lovely thread. I wish that I had the time to correct you all : ) but I just don't have the time.

But I'll be back.

1i

Successfully proved?!? You've done nothing of the sort. You've rationalized a single absurdity from a pre-technology goat-herder myth. In so doing you have ignored key context contained in the rest of the myth. The myth is quite clear that:

• Yahweh spoke light into existence
• Yahweh then separated light from darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night."
• Once this was done "the evening and morning were the first day." Each subsequent day is referred to in the same way: the progression from evening to morning.
• On the 3rd such "day" Yahweh created "two great lights, one to rule the day, the other to rule the night."

The myth makes it quite clear that the bronze-age originators of this myth saw the sun and moon as lights that "ruled" their dominions (day and night) but did not realize the sun was the source of all the light experienced during the daylight portion of the earth's rotational period.

Hindsight's 20/20 as they say. They'd have written a better myth had they been better informed. In other news snakes don't talk and magical fruit trees don't make you smarter or make you live forever.

 

[Learner]

I didn't need to study thoroughly the flood in particular to believe because there are tons of varied events.Simply: If I believe one section then I should believe in all of them. You'd accuse me of not being consistent. Its still an ongoing process, I believe archeology and bio-chemistry (mostly) will potentialy get there before the physicists, bringing us closer to some conclusion.

Science doesn't support my position, but I'm sure it will one day, therefore God exists.

Some conclusion would put the story to rest at least. Meanwhile the debates go on e.g. W.L.Craig V Dawkings coz science hasn't decided.

The Narrative of the Flood is in the Jewish scriptures. Oddly enough, most Jewish people don't believe it is a historical event. Yet, they still manage to keep the faith.

Still a tradition yes, for these people, Christians are often told its "Picking and choosing" if ever they disgard a part here or there..

 

[Learner]

(Bit late on posts.. trumps in town lol)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some conclusion would put the story to rest at least. Meanwhile the debates go on e.g. W.L.Craig V Dawkings coz science hasn't decided.

Who now?

The Narrative of the Flood is in the Jewish scriptures. Oddly enough, most Jewish people don't believe it is a historical event. Yet, they still manage to keep the faith.

Still a tradition yes, for these people, Christians are often told its "Picking and choosing" if ever they disgard a part here or there..

Strawman/out of context claim there.

 

[Learner]

But I am not asking you to compare your holy-spook-enhanced interpretation to a secular one.
Two people who believe in their hearts that they are Christains, open their hearts to the same divine being, read the same divinely inspired book, and come up with opposite meanings. How is that possible if the holy spirit helps you (or any Christain) read the book for God's intended meaning?

The importance is to be a believer in the first place imo. Theres nothing difficult in accepting Jesus (the main requirement for salvation) and understanding the simple commandments HE gave, practically everyone knows and agrees with this....should be in their hearts too.

 

[Learner]

Who now?

Still a tradition yes, for these people, Christians are often told its "Picking and choosing" if ever they disgard a part here or there..

Strawman/out of context claim there.

You mean I replied with a strawman for a strawman?

 

[Learner]

No, that's poor reasoning. The Bible is a compilation of writings from various sources, so even if you trust one source it doesn't mean you should automatically trust the rest.

I would have thought that more the one source with the same theme would be more credible than a single source by one lone writer. Its easy to corrupt one source, so to speak.

You're right. Bio-chemistry has already discovered that the flood story is false. We know that humans were never reduced to a single family, because geneticists can show that the human species has never had less than a few thousand people.

]And if we look at other parts of Genesis then we find that science has already demonstrated pretty soundly that Genesis is wrong in many ways.

How do you deal with the fact that science disagrees with the Bible?

Not so fast.. the nights is still young, in an ongoing process.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who now?

Still a tradition yes, for these people, Christians are often told its "Picking and choosing" if ever they disgard a part here or there..

Strawman/out of context claim there.

You mean I replied with a strawman for a strawman?

You don't seem to understand what a "strawman" is.

 

[Atheos]

Still a tradition yes, for these people, Christians are often told its "Picking and choosing" if ever they disgard a part here or there..

Religion is like a Garden Party. Can't please everyone, gotta please yourself.

 

[Worldtraveller]

But I am not asking you to compare your holy-spook-enhanced interpretation to a secular one.
Two people who believe in their hearts that they are Christains, open their hearts to the same divine being, read the same divinely inspired book, and come up with opposite meanings. How is that possible if the holy spirit helps you (or any Christain) read the book for God's intended meaning?

The importance is to be a believer in the first place imo. Theres nothing difficult in accepting Jesus (the main requirement for salvation) and understanding the simple commandments HE gave, practically everyone knows and agrees with this....should be in their hearts too.

Lots of sects don't even agree with what you say is 'the main requirement', so you're 0 for....about 100 now.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still a tradition yes, for these people, Christians are often told its "Picking and choosing" if ever they disgard a part here or there..

well, yes, diregarding something like 'It's a sin to eat shellfish' but doubling down on 'It's a sin to have gay sex,' that's picking and choosing.
Accepting a 'just so' story as an allegory is not disregarding it. If the Adam and Woman tale is not historical, but symbollic, and tells u s that Man has a capacity for sin, whic requires an intercessor, then we can have a Messiah without any need to prop up a Creationist Fairy Tale as Fact.
...and tgat would be NOT disregarding that part of the Books.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But I am not asking you to compare your holy-spook-enhanced interpretation to a secular one.
Two people who believe in their hearts that they are Christains, open their hearts to the same divine being, read the same divinely inspired book, and come up with opposite meanings. How is that possible if the holy spirit helps you (or any Christain) read the book for God's intended meaning?

The importance is to be a believer in the first place imo. Theres nothing difficult in accepting Jesus (the main requirement for salvation) and understanding the simple commandments HE gave, practically everyone knows and agrees with this....should be in their hearts too.

So, you cannot answer the actual question.
If two believers read the same The Books with an open heart, but get different results, differing enough that they can't both be right, 9ne must not actually be getting divine help understanding what he's reading.
What tells you that the Holy Spirit has actually helped you discern the true meaning of a passage? How do you know you're not just going with what feels right by a wholly internal standard?