The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by FMF
Science has not proven that aliens exist and does not claim to have proven
that aliens exist. You appear to be counter attacking your own waffle.

Then explain why it's arrogant to not believe aliens exist, but it's not arrogant to believe they do exist. What does an attitude of arrogance have to do with any of this?

Originally posted by FMF
Unlike you, I am unaffected by the use of the word "arrogant" by someone like Morgan Freeman in a TV documentary. Not being an atheist, I am similarly unaffected by someone saying I "would be arrogant for not acknowledging the possible existence of God". They would simply have the wrong end of the stick. Even if I were an atheist, the word "arrogant" would not a ...[text shortened]... If such rhetorical devices can influence or have meaning to you, then that is your prerogative.

You almost got it. My point was that it is a rhetorical device, used to influence the mind of the reader on an emotional level. It's nothing more than a cheap trick to influence weak minded people into going along with the premise of life on other planets. If there is such strong evidence of this, then why would anyone employ a rhetorical device to discourage people from not believing it?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Then explain why it's arrogant to not believe aliens exist, but it's not arrogant to believe they do exist. What does an attitude of arrogance have to do with any of this?

But I don't think it it's "arrogant" to not believe aliens exist and I do not think it's "arrogant" to believe they do exist. I don't think "an attitude of arrogance" has to do with any of this. Your waffle is a mere straw man.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You almost got it. My point was that it [b]is a rhetorical device, used to influence the mind of the reader on an emotional level. It's nothing more than a cheap trick to influence weak minded people into going along with the premise of life on other planets. If there is such strong evidence of this, then why would anyone employ a rhetorical device to discourage people from not believing it?[/b]

I am not affected by your use of the word "arrogant". You claim are not affected by Morgan Freeman's use of the word "arrogant" in a TV documentary [and yet you are going on and on and on about it]. I don't know anyone who is affected by cheap "rhetorical devices" like the ones you and Mr Freeman use ~ like your false claim "Science has proven aliens exist".

Originally posted by lemon lime
Take the serpent for example, the story doesn't say the serpent is a snake. All snakes are serpents but not all serpents are snakes. The story also doesn't specify the serpents home of origin. So for all we know it could be a reptilian alien species from outer space, and capable of telepathic communication... this would explain how the serpent was able to communicate with Eve.

I'm going to bump it again because I am starting to suspect that your red herring about "Science has proven aliens exist" is just a 'device' to sidestep my response to your post about the serpent.

That the serpent is allegorical is the most plausible explanation and the story-is-an-allegory explanation does not damage the theological or spiritual message at all. The story-is-literally-true explanation comes across as an almost hysterical demonstration of 'sincerity' ~ in some respects perhaps a manifestation of holier-than-thou vanity.

Originally posted by FMF
I'm going to bump it again because I am starting to suspect that your red herring about "Science has proven aliens exist" is just a 'device' to sidestep my response to your post about the serpent.

That the serpent is allegorical is the most plausible explanation and the story-is-an-allegory explanation does not damage the theological or spiritual message at a ...[text shortened]... onstration of 'sincerity' ~ in some respects perhaps a manifestation of holier-than-thou vanity.

You must be very proud of your opinion on this matter to have bumped it up twice. I'm often tempted to do the same when something I've said is being ignored.

Okay then, you're telling me the serpent is allegorical and I was saying it was possibly an alien. So what are you trying to do here, bring the wrath of the entire scientific community down upon yourself? I've been trying to help you out here man, but you're on your own now... you arrogant alien denier you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You must be very proud of your opinion on this matter to have bumped it up twice. I'm often tempted to do the same when something I've said is being ignored.

No. It's as matter of interest. I am interested in your reaction. This is a debate and discussion forum. If you have not overlooked it and are carefully ignoring it instead, then that is interesting too. Revealing even. If you personally see your posts in terms of whether you are "proud" of them, then that is your prerogative. I have been here too long to have anything like that going on.

I wrote that response to your post for you to read and either respond to or not, as the case may be. I also wrote it as a contribution to the discussion that is still ongoing and therefore for anyone to read. I also write stuff ~ in a sense, for myself ~ as a part of nutting out what I think about things. I presume everybody here does that to varying degrees. Thinking out loud/sounding people out, as it were.

I will leave the "often [being] tempted" to bump opinions because you are "very proud" of them ~ and all similar vanities ~ to you.

Originally posted by FMF
No. It's as matter of interest. I am interested in your reaction. This is a debate and discussion forum. If you have not overlooked it and are carefully ignoring it instead, then that is interesting too. Revealing even. If you personally see your posts in terms of whether you are "proud" of them, then that is your prerogative. I have been here too long to have a ...[text shortened]... pted" to bump opinions because you are "very proud" of them ~ and all similar vanities ~ to you.

Okay then, you're telling me the serpent is allegorical and I was saying it was possibly an alien. So what are you trying to do here, bring the wrath of the entire scientific community down upon yourself? I've been trying to help you out here man, but you're on your own now... you arrogant alien denier you.
[BUmPity BuMp]

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay then, you're telling me the serpent is allegorical and I was saying it was possibly an alien. So what are you trying to do here, bring the wrath of the entire scientific community down upon yourself?

Why, what is it you are claiming the "scientific community" says about the Genesis stories in question? As evasions go, your the-serpent-was-an-alien is a bit off target in terms of satire.

Originally posted by galveston75
Wow....You are having a hard time with this aren't you?

(((((((((((((((((((((((((Not at all)))))))))))))))))))))))

Originally posted by FMF
Why, what is it you are claiming the "scientific community" says about the Genesis stories in question? As evasions go, your the-serpent-was-an-alien is a bit off target in terms of satire.

...your the-serpent-was-an-alien is a bit off target in terms of satire.

Not your cup of tea, eh?

Originally posted by galveston75
Wow....You are having a hard time with this aren't you?

It's ok you don't have to answer to your erroneous statements; in fact I prefer it when you don't as it proves my point without me having to deal with another slice of your evasion and deflection.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Not your cup of tea, eh?

There are plenty of others here, besides yourself, who hide behind banter. 😉

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Do you think robbie and limeboy would still be rude and obnoxious if they were atheists?

Maybe they would be. It is the internet that empowers them here [whilst relegating personal inhibition] I think, and not so much their religionist doctrine ~ although the combination of vanity and religiosity, and its impact on interpersonal communication, is perhaps a whole interesting topic all of its own. Grampy Bobby would make an interesting witness/exhibit/case study on that issue.

My point was that I think people with the demeanour of the likes of lemon lime, Suzianne, FreakyKBH and robbie carrobie are entitled to declare and assert themselves as being Christians and meanwhile I am better off just observing [and engaging] what seems to make them tick and how they interact ~ and thus evaluating Christianity-in-action in that way ~ rather than trying to work out whether they, as proponents or adherents, are genuine or counterfeit.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. But the sun, moon and stars
weren't created until the third day. Where did the light come from before that? And don't tell me
he lit candles or handed out flashlights.

The Genesis account relates that during the fourth creative “day,” God caused luminaries to “come to be in the expanse of the heavens.” (Ge 1:14, 19) This does not indicate the coming into existence of light (Heb, ʼohr) itself, since this is shown to have existed previously. (Ge 1:3) Nor does it state that the sun, moon, and stars were created at this point. The initial verse of the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1) Thus the heavens with their celestial bodies, including the sun, existed for an undetermined period of time prior to the processes and events stated as occurring during the six creative periods described in the following verses of the first chapter of Genesis.

It should be noted that, whereas Genesis 1:1 states that God “created” (Hebrew bara) the heavens and the earth in the beginning, verses 16 and 17 state that, during the fourth creative “day,” “God proceeded to make [Hebrew, a form of asah] the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” The Hebrew word asah, often translated “make,” can mean simply to establish (2Sa 7:11), appoint (De 15:1), form (Jer 18:4), or prepare (Ge 21:8).

Thus the record here states what the already existing sun, moon, and stars now became in relation to planet Earth. On the first “day” light (Hebrew, ohr) evidently gradually penetrated the cloud layers still enveloping the earth and would have become visible to an earthly observer, had he been present. (Ge 1:3) On the fourth “day” things changed. The statement that “God put them in the expanse of the heavens” on that day expresses the fact that God caused the sources of light (Hebrew, maohr), namely, the sun, moon, and stars, to become discernible in the expanse. Their purpose was to “make a division between the day and the night” and to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” In addition to being signs of God’s existence and majesty, by their movements such luminaries enable man to mark accurately the natural seasons, days, and years.—Ge 1:14-18; Ps 74:16; 148:3.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001003