religion

[Myweponsg00d]

*shortened for page length courtesy*

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

 

To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus.

[Dheginsea]

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

 

Kid in my class believes this particle story and the adam and eve story to be true, besides that he realizes most is false. So i think this is a legitiment question

[Distracted]

*shortened for page length courtesy*

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

 

To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus.

 

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all. It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

 

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

 

Kid in my class believes this particle story and the adam and eve story to be true, besides that he realizes most is false. So i think this is a legitiment question

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

[Myweponsg00d]

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all.

 

Of course it wasn't "no reason". They obviously had a reason, but this reason may have been a false reason...I mean, why were they Jewish to begin with? Because someone made up a story about God. It isn't that much of a stretch to think that someone would make up a story about the son of God and people would start to believe it in the same way.

 

It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

 

I just think that there would have to be a LOT of lost documentation. A good comparison is that we have a lot of detailed knowledge of Chinese emporors from the same time period, and Egyptian rulers from even earlier time periods. But this guy comes along who is "king of kings and lord of lords" and there is only religious scripture to prove his existence. It just seems to me that if such a momentous figure really existed, there would be more conclusive evidence to suggest so. I mean and this is even in question of only his existence. We at least have multiple writers of scriptures who write about Jesus existing. If we want to question the validity of any of the stories in the Bible...what do we have? One recording of each story?

 

 

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

 

Well if they don't believe this...then what DO they believe? How else did God create men?

[Distracted]

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all.

 

Of course it wasn't "no reason". They obviously had a reason, but this reason may have been a false reason...I mean, why were they Jewish to begin with? Because someone made up a story about God. It isn't that much of a stretch to think that someone would make up a story about the son of God and people would start to believe it in the same way.

Except there were multiple people in that period writing about Jesus, it wasn't just one person. Besides, if one guy would spread rumors about the Messiah coming to Earth, do you think it would spread over all of Judea like that? No, the logical explanation is lots of people witnessed Jesus (it's always told in the Bible that great crowds followed him) and that some of those wrote down what he did and those writings are what we now call the canonical gospels. I know people probably exaggerated it all, for example, there's no way the gospel writers could've known a lot about his childhood, but the man was there. Like I said, it's not because it was written with an agenda and exaggerated the good deeds of a man, that it didn't happen.

 

It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

I just think that there would have to be a LOT of lost documentation. A good comparison is that we have a lot of detailed knowledge of Chinese emporors from the same time period, and Egyptian rulers from even earlier time periods. But this guy comes along who is "king of kings and lord of lords" and there is only religious scripture to prove his existence. It just seems to me that if such a momentous figure really existed, there would be more conclusive evidence to suggest so. I mean and this is even in question of only his existence. We at least have multiple writers of scriptures who write about Jesus existing. If we want to question the validity of any of the stories in the Bible...what do we have? One recording of each story?

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

 

Well if they don't believe this...then what DO they believe? How else did God create men?

 

I'm not sure what exactly they believe. I know my sister, who's a devout Christian, told me she knows it didn't happen like in the Bible, that the stories are more a demonstration of the power of God and a way of showing God's intentions with mankind (for example, he gave Adam and Eve free will and he allowed them to do whatever they pleased, except for one thing). Anyway, I'm not gonna speak for other people here, so you'll have to ask actual devout Christians.

[fakeitormakeit2]

[hide=incest comment]

*shortened for page length courtesy*

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

 

To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus.

 

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all. It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

 

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

 

Kid in my class believes this particle story and the adam and eve story to be true, besides that he realizes most is false. So i think this is a legitiment question

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

[/hide]

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.

[Myweponsg00d]

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

 

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.

 

And you don't think that it is equally likely that the rest of the stories in the Bible are of the same nature? Mythology created to serve a human purpose?

[Distracted]

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

[Myweponsg00d]

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

 

Well I know that there are other writings that mention the resurrection, but what I am asking is if there are multiple people who actually "recorded" the resurrection. Or whether it is just one author who said "This resurrection thing happened this way" and all of the other guys just mention "Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well heres why it is so great"

[Dheginsea]

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

 

Well I know that there are other writings that mention the resurrection, but what I am asking is if there are multiple people who actually "recorded" the resurrection. Or whether it is just one author who said "This resurrection thing happened this way" and all of the other guys just mention "Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well heres why it is so great"

 

I think that there are no other documentations besides Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well here's why it is so great but I'm not really positive about that.

 

 

 

Hey i kinda feel like a new topic soo what about gods morality? Here's an example of why I do not think that god (christian god anyways) would be a moral being: infinite punishment/reward for finite deeds. Here's a good analogy lets say your son/daughter kills a person then robs a bank what do you do:

 

A. Call the police

B. Do nothing (he/she your kid right)

C. Make a torture chamber in your basement and torture for all eternity

 

In this situation the Christian god most likely would choose C (if I'm interpreting this right) now would you consider this moral?

[Distracted]

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

 

Well I know that there are other writings that mention the resurrection, but what I am asking is if there are multiple people who actually "recorded" the resurrection. Or whether it is just one author who said "This resurrection thing happened this way" and all of the other guys just mention "Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well heres why it is so great"

 

I'm pretty certain they all wrote the story from their own POV. I'm certain that John's version is different from the other 3, but I'm not sure about the 3.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

I think that there are no other documentations besides Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well here's why it is so great but I'm not really positive about that.

 

 

 

Hey i kinda feel like a new topic soo what about gods morality? Here's an example of why I do not think that god (christian god anyways) would be a moral being: infinite punishment/reward for finite deeds. Here's a good analogy lets say your son/daughter kills a person then robs a bank what do you do:

 

A. Call the police

B. Do nothing (he/she your kid right)

C. Make a torture chamber in your basement and torture for all eternity

 

In this situation the Christian god most likely would choose C (if I'm interpreting this right) now would you consider this moral?

 

This isn't a good thing to argue about because any Christian will tell you that no mortal man can make a call about whether or not somebody is going to go to hell. The Christian God would not necessarily choose C because no sin guarantees your place in Hell, as long as you "find Jesus" or something like that.

[Dheginsea]

 

I think that there are no other documentations besides Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well here's why it is so great but I'm not really positive about that.

 

 

 

Hey i kinda feel like a new topic soo what about gods morality? Here's an example of why I do not think that god (christian god anyways) would be a moral being: infinite punishment/reward for finite deeds. Here's a good analogy lets say your son/daughter kills a person then robs a bank what do you do:

 

A. Call the police

B. Do nothing (he/she your kid right)

C. Make a torture chamber in your basement and torture for all eternity

 

In this situation the Christian god most likely would choose C (if I'm interpreting this right) now would you consider this moral?

 

This isn't a good thing to argue about because any Christian will tell you that no mortal man can make a call about whether or not somebody is going to go to hell. The Christian God would not necessarily choose C because no sin guarantees your place in Hell, as long as you "find Jesus" or something like that.

 

Fair enough point, though I forgot to mention that the person has not "found Jesus" and also pretty sure that if you break the 5th commandment and you don't repent you would go to hell.

[Zygimantas]

Maybe the devil is a nice guy and hell a decent place. God just wants to make his enemy look bad. :P

[Myweponsg00d]

Maybe the devil is a nice guy and hell a decent place. God just wants to make his enemy look bad. :P

 

Possible.

 

Another possibility is that God is real and he made all of this religion stuff to see who is going to live their life stubbornly and who is going to live rationally. Then when people die, everyone who was blindly having faith about God gets punished and everyone who used logic and reason to form ideas about the world will be rewarded with eternal life.

[Zygimantas]

Maybe the devil is a nice guy and hell a decent place. God just wants to make his enemy look bad. :P

 

Possible.

 

Another possibility is that God is real and he made all of this religion stuff to see who is going to live their life stubbornly and who is going to live rationally. Then when people die, everyone who was blindly having faith about God gets punished and everyone who used logic and reason to form ideas about the world will be rewarded with eternal life.

Ha. If there was a god then I don't think he would send anyone to "hell". He would understand that he made humans in a way that it is inevitable that many would "sin" and some much more than others. Its all part of his creation anyway, I don't think that he would be a perfectionist. He would simple accept everyone, because he knows that "god works in mysterious ways."

[fakeitormakeit2]

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.

 

And you don't think that it is equally likely that the rest of the stories in the Bible are of the same nature? Mythology created to serve a human purpose?

Did I ever say it wasn't? Or at least the majority of it is. The Old Testament is essentially an overt development of Judeo-thought. Anyone who thinks it fully literal is obviously not a Semite, because figurative and symbolic stories are integral parts of Semitic cultures.

[Dheginsea]

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.

 

And you don't think that it is equally likely that the rest of the stories in the Bible are of the same nature? Mythology created to serve a human purpose?

Did I ever say it wasn't? Or at least the majority of it is. The Old Testament is essentially an overt development of Judeo-thought. Anyone who thinks it fully literal is obviously not a Semite, because figurative and symbolic stories are integral parts of Semitic cultures.

 

So your saying that if you think it is literal you can't be a Semite?

 

 

Maybe the devil is a nice guy and hell a decent place. God just wants to make his enemy look bad. :P

 

Possible.

 

Another possibility is that God is real and he made all of this religion stuff to see who is going to live their life stubbornly and who is going to live rationally. Then when people die, everyone who was blindly having faith about God gets punished and everyone who used logic and reason to form ideas about the world will be rewarded with eternal life.

Ha. If there was a god then I don't think he would send anyone to "hell". He would understand that he made humans in a way that it is inevitable that many would "sin" and some much more than others. Its all part of his creation anyway, I don't think that he would be a perfectionist. He would simple accept everyone, because he knows that "god works in mysterious ways."

 

I would think that god would be a perfectionist, i mean he created the world :shock: Though ya i doubt that even if god did exist he would send people to hell considering he kinda made em.

[Zygimantas]

I would think that god would be a perfectionist, i mean he created the world :shock: Though ya i doubt that even if god did exist he would send people to hell considering he kinda made em.

Exactly, the world doesn't seem perfect to most people. But then again maybe thats just part of the perfectness... that it has the flexibility to seem imperfect.

[Dheginsea]

I would think that god would be a perfectionist, i mean he created the world :shock: Though ya i doubt that even if god did exist he would send people to hell considering he kinda made em.

Exactly, the world doesn't seem perfect to most people. But then again maybe thats just part of the perfectness... that it has the flexibility to seem imperfect.

 

That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

[fakeitormakeit2]

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.

 

And you don't think that it is equally likely that the rest of the stories in the Bible are of the same nature? Mythology created to serve a human purpose?

Did I ever say it wasn't? Or at least the majority of it is. The Old Testament is essentially an overt development of Judeo-thought. Anyone who thinks it fully literal is obviously not a Semite, because figurative and symbolic stories are integral parts of Semitic cultures.

 

So your saying that if you think it is literal you can't be a Semite?

I read that and I got annoyed because I was like no I didn't say that, but it appears I actually did once I went back and read what I wrote haha. What I meant to say was anyone who interprets it literally is not well-versed in its proper and original context, i.e. Semitic culture. Now one may argue Hellenistic influences, yes, but that's more so an argument that is had to determine how much is not Semitic, not if there is a Semitic basis.

[Zygimantas]

I would think that god would be a perfectionist, i mean he created the world :shock: Though ya i doubt that even if god did exist he would send people to hell considering he kinda made em.

Exactly, the world doesn't seem perfect to most people. But then again maybe thats just part of the perfectness... that it has the flexibility to seem imperfect.

 

That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

Life may seem very contradictory at times. Its not perfect if it doesn't have the capability to seem imperfect.

[Dheginsea]

I would think that god would be a perfectionist, i mean he created the world :shock: Though ya i doubt that even if god did exist he would send people to hell considering he kinda made em.

Exactly, the world doesn't seem perfect to most people. But then again maybe thats just part of the perfectness... that it has the flexibility to seem imperfect.

 

That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

Life may seem very contradictory at times. Its not perfect if it doesn't have the capability to seem imperfect.

 

 

Then an imperfect life would seem perfect?

 

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.

 

And you don't think that it is equally likely that the rest of the stories in the Bible are of the same nature? Mythology created to serve a human purpose?

Did I ever say it wasn't? Or at least the majority of it is. The Old Testament is essentially an overt development of Judeo-thought. Anyone who thinks it fully literal is obviously not a Semite, because figurative and symbolic stories are integral parts of Semitic cultures.

 

So your saying that if you think it is literal you can't be a Semite?

I read that and I got annoyed because I was like no I didn't say that, but it appears I actually did once I went back and read what I wrote haha. What I meant to say was anyone who interprets it literally is not well-versed in its proper and original context, i.e. Semitic culture. Now one may argue Hellenistic influences, yes, but that's more so an argument that is had to determine how much is not Semitic, not if there is a Semitic basis.

 

Oh, okay that makes more sense.

[Zygimantas]

I would think that god would be a perfectionist, i mean he created the world :shock: Though ya i doubt that even if god did exist he would send people to hell considering he kinda made em.

Exactly, the world doesn't seem perfect to most people. But then again maybe thats just part of the perfectness... that it has the flexibility to seem imperfect.

 

That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

Life may seem very contradictory at times. Its not perfect if it doesn't have the capability to seem imperfect.

Then an imperfect life would seem perfect?

 

Exactly, it could. Perfect and imperfect are subjective anyway. One man's imperfect may be another man's perfect.

[Dheginsea]

I would think that god would be a perfectionist, i mean he created the world :shock: Though ya i doubt that even if god did exist he would send people to hell considering he kinda made em.

Exactly, the world doesn't seem perfect to most people. But then again maybe thats just part of the perfectness... that it has the flexibility to seem imperfect.

 

That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

Life may seem very contradictory at times. Its not perfect if it doesn't have the capability to seem imperfect.

Then an imperfect life would seem perfect?

 

Exactly, it could. Perfect and imperfect are subjective anyway. One man's imperfect may be another man's perfect.

What would you then define as a perfect world?

 

Mine would be:

A mix of both poverty (nothing extreme) and wealth (nothing extreme)

Wars (conflicts really) but nothing like WWI or WWII or even Iraq/Afghanistan.

Freedom of speech/religion

No religious bias

Low but still existent crime rates

 

Those are the basic parameters to my "perfect" world, because you need the bad in the world to remind you of the good.

 

 

Also would you then agree with this (as said in the book 1984 by George Orwell):War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Power