29 May 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou are saying this about Biblical archeology? So these archeologists picked a religious book that is extremely unreliable and used it as the basis for their study?
From an archaeological viewpoint the bible can tell us much about the ancient world, but it is generally regarded as being hopelessly garbled and extremely unreliable as historical source material. You will, of course, be able to find some opinions contrary to this, but they are in a vanishingly small minority.[/b]
29 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhat I mean is, you take issue with the God of the Bible if he exists, correct?.
I'm sure that god, if he exists, is doing a fine job, I don't have a problem with him. I've never claimed I could do better. I don't understand how you think what I would do were I a god should be relevant to this thread.
29 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyNo, not even that. As I recall, I was wondering about when you christians believe the bible should be take literally and when you believe it's allegorical. And then I was somewhat amused at your interpretations.
What I mean is, you take issue with the God of the Bible if he exists, correct?.
30 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecaterased.
My point is that by interpretation you strip your scripture of meaning anyway. I am endlessly baffled by the desire of people to find enlightenment in ancient stories now so far separated from their original context as to be almost beyond comprehension, when surely, if god exists, he would have made his message accessible to everyone without exception. If god is to be found in this life, I cannot believe it will be in a book!
30 May 10
Originally posted by jaywillDo you understand the difference between interpretation and application ?
Do you understand the difference between interpretation and application ?
A devotional study of Bible passages may apply the passage in many different ways. Some may be frivolous. Others may be more serious.
Application of text may be how some spiritual lesson is relevant to one's immediate experience. This is usually done imaginatively, devotional ...[text shortened]... fled." You study, you weigh evidence for a view. You decide which seems more plausible.
Yes thanks.
Anyway, I doubt that in other areas of life you so easily throw up your hands and say "This guy says this. That guy says the other. I'm just baffled." You study, you weigh evidence for a view. You decide which seems more plausible.
Whatever the subject, if both views are based on unverified and unverifiable sources, I would almost certainly admit to bafflement, although I'm not big on hand gestures.
30 May 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhat did your original question in this thread have to do with verifiable sources ?
[b]Do you understand the difference between interpretation and application ?
Yes thanks.
Anyway, I doubt that in other areas of life you so easily throw up your hands and say "This guy says this. That guy says the other. I'm just baffled." You study, you weigh evidence for a view. You decide which seems more plausible.
Whatever ...[text shortened]... ources, I would almost certainly admit to bafflement, although I'm not big on hand gestures.[/b]
Why didn't you then ask about verifiable sources ?
30 May 10
Originally posted by jaywillHere's an extract from the post where I professed bafflement:
What did your original question in this thread have to do with verifiable sources ?
Why didn't you then ask about verifiable sources ?
"I am endlessly baffled by the desire of people to find enlightenment in ancient stories"
These stories are unverified and unverifiable.
Don't go telling me you have verifiable sources for what actually happened in the Garden of Eden...
30 May 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI mistook you for Agerg the originator of this thread.
Here's an extract from the post where I professed bafflement:
"I am endlessly baffled by the desire of people to find enlightenment in ancient stories"
These stories are unverified and unverifiable.
Don't go telling me you have verifiable sources for what actually happened in the Garden of Eden...
My apologies.
30 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecat==============================
[b]Do you understand the difference between interpretation and application ?
Yes thanks.
Anyway, I doubt that in other areas of life you so easily throw up your hands and say "This guy says this. That guy says the other. I'm just baffled." You study, you weigh evidence for a view. You decide which seems more plausible.
Whatever ...[text shortened]... ources, I would almost certainly admit to bafflement, although I'm not big on hand gestures.[/b]
Whatever the subject, if both views are based on unverified and unverifiable sources, I would almost certainly admit to bafflement,
==============================
No man was there in the creation of the world. Even if we had an account of the first man Adam, he could only tell us of things after he came into being.
It is my opinion, at the present time, that some of what I read in Genesis may be that which was passed down from very early humans, perhaps Adam included.
But if so, anything BEFORE man arrives on the scene has to either be pure fiction, conjecture, or revelation from Someone who was here pre-dating man.
In fact, the problem of who taught man how to speak is not as easy as you may think. And I have seen persuasive arguments that man had to have learned how to talk from someone already talking.
To me there is one tell tale indication that the Genesis must come from a divine mind. And that is the matter of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" verses "the tree of life"
The thing which strikes me as being too wise to have originated from the human mind is this. Both good and evil are on one tree. I would expect that human beings would have written it this way:
There were two trees, one the tree of the knowledge of good and the other the tree of the knowledge of evil.
This perfectly fits the typical ethical concept of all peoples. But the dichotomy seems too wise to attribute to man's typical moral consideration.
Both the knowledge of good and evil are on on tree, a negative tree. And on the other tree is the tree of life.
This one simple scheme in Genesis three persuades me that the writing is divinely inspired. Who could have thought of such a thing ? I don't even think an Aristotle or a Socrates or a Confucius could have imagined this.
The knowledge of good and evil are on one tree and over against it is a tree of life. Think about it a little.
30 May 10
Originally posted by jaywillWhat are you talking about? You really think this simple concept couldn't have originated in the mind of man? Have you ever read any books at all? There are authors out there who can inspire you to laugh, cry, love, hate, despair and indeed experience the whole gamut of human emotion by their artful weaving of genius-clever story and magically novel arrangement of language.
[b]==============================
Whatever the subject, if both views are based on unverified and unverifiable sources, I would almost certainly admit to bafflement,
==============================
No man was there in the creation of the world. Even if we had an account of the first man Adam, he could only tell us of things after he cam ...[text shortened]... d and evil are on one tree and over against it is a tree of life. Think about it a little.[/b]
And as for "persuasive arguments that man had to have learned how to talk from someone already talking"... are these from the same people who produce "persuasive" arguments that the pyramids were built by people who fled the destruction of Atlantis using technology from crashed alien-spaceships? Because it sounds about as credible.
01 Jun 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziit's argued that they didn't know evil or good, and so they had to listen to god. that was their rule. if your asking if not knowing evil from good absolves them of responsibility, no it doesn't. sure they didn't know they were doing something bad but they did know god doesn't want them to.
it's argued that they didn't know evil or good, and so they had to listen to god. that was their rule. if your asking if not knowing evil from good absolves them of responsibility, no it doesn't. sure they didn't know they were doing something bad but they did know god doesn't want them to.
like if you tell your 5 year old child not smash your plasma TV ...[text shortened]... ) and send him in the world to care for himself and suffer and die. that would be uncool.
But it should then be argued that assuming they did not have any knowledge of good or bad then they would not be able to assign a greater measure of goodness in failing to do what talking snake told them as opposed to what God told them.
like if you tell your 5 year old child not smash your plasma TV and he does it anyway. you still punish him even if he doesn't understand good and evil. but as a side note, please don't kick him out of the garden of eden(your house) and send him in the world to care for himself and suffer and die. that would be uncool.
But since 5 year olds are in general not equipped to make rational or reasonable decisions then a short sharp shock style of punishment to reinforce the notion they should avoid doing activity: smash plasma TV in lieu of the capacity to *understand why* serves to help guarantee they won't be so quick to do activity smash plasma TV II
The contrast between this analogy (or any derivatives), and the punishment meted out by God is far from subtle. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil, and the act of doing as God told them would prohibit them from understanding why they should blindly follow his commands. The response to their actions served only to pander to it's own requirement for vengeance and selfishly keep his trees untouched after "the damage was done" (quotations fail to cheapen them words as much as I would like).