Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

I didn't mean to respond to you. I responded from my smartphone. Sorry. Ref post 39.Edited by Alias, : Ref

Hello larni! Ref to post 40. Thx. Sorry about the confusion.

Such as? I mean the idea that abiogenesis occurred is completely logical to atheists yet there is absolutely no evidence for it. What do you purpose how life started?Edited by Alias, : question

no not really. Most theists believe in some format of religion. Very few fall into the free thought (my)neck of the woods.

Correct. IT is very interesting that science, good philosophy and good theology agree. Free thought is much better than main stream thought.Edited by Alias, : additionEdited by Alias, : deletion

Im guessing that you believe in evolution (understandable). Well greek philosophers argued evolution long before science theorized it. Seems like science is following the foot steps of philosophical idea.Theology has plenty of subject matter including suggestions that the earth brought forth life. It too discusses evolution. No disagreement but science is rather lost without fresh ideas, you know those imaginative ones that come from free thought.IMO, it is better to have free thought because it is the leading path way. I'm not arguing in favor of the toe, just making a point which renders your point and quotes moot.

Fact is not equal to the toe. The toe is an idea based on facts and so is creationism. Theories change like the wind. No I'm not confusing the usage of the word theory with that of speculation. Religion has never been in control of people except in very early times of most cultures. Religion has been a tool to control the people since the beginning though. I don't think hitler was all that religious do you? He is one example of secular thought that was evil. So don't get to high and mighty about secular thought. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power is the issue not religion. As for your comments on theology and proving that god exists, I don't think that is a fair and logical conclusion/thought since science can't even prove anything. Theories don't quantify to truth/proof. Evidence/facts don't quantify to truth. Ever think, what if god does not want you to know it exists absolutely but would rather have you be free from those chains to see what you will do without that fear/control? And if god was that way, that would be its choice. All the science in the world would be completely blind to it. Perhaps god wants you to have faith vs absolute knowledge... In that case I believe theology has lots to tell you. Do you ever ponder why particles come in infinite types? Even if they find the higgs bosson we still need to figure out those particles that are moving around creating larger mass. Then that will continue on forever to the next smaller particle. Why is it that now we live in a multi verse? What's next? It used to be just a universe.Edited by Alias, : 1 more pointEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : questionEdited by Alias, : gramEdited by Alias, : more

Did you actually refer to a commentary. Lol. OK so it was not to make them strong. Perhaps to help them mate then. Does not change much. Ref to verse 40, which you skipped, then back to my post 17. The rest of your post is moot. If laban removed any spotted flock, etc to cheat jacob how could jacob line up flock facing those spotted speckled flock in v 40??? Answer please! Jacob removed them in 35 had access to them in v 40 and used them to make new spotted ones in 37, 38, and 39. This entire thread is trying to bash the bible that is the point of it. It is not to discuss the verse logically or even friendly. Get it straight. Lol. This website is filled with atheists lol...Edited by Alias, : ErrEdited by Alias, : ErrEdited by Alias, : Err

35 does not make it clear laban removed the animals. It would be clear if it read laban removed the animals but that is not how it reads. And in your last paragraph when you admit they are facing laban's colored animals you expect me to believe that they were 3 days apart from Jacob??? Roflol. Now who's making stuff up... Jeez man all you have to do is admit you don't know instead of writing its so clear.... But I can tell you won't. I'll just take that last paragraph as you admitting you re making stuff up as you go... At least I admitted my mistakes. I predict you will respond saying oh no its so clear blah blah blah.. How about this, its clear this chapter is not clear what happened.... I'll agree to that long before I agree to a con/cheat occurring hence post 17 my last paragraph. And one last comment, in my prev posts when I say this or that is moot it's because at times I'm on my smart phone and don't have the ability to respond defeating your posts using quotes formating so to be clear I respond to the broader point that covers your smallers points and I toss in this or that is moot to let you know I read and argued those points in what I did post by defeating your broader point.

Right, which you knew would happen yet you engaged... Good way to withdraw I suppose.

I'll take your first point that since I don't believe Jesus walked on water so why should you believe your version of gen 30-31. FYI: my version of 30 is different than fundies point of view that's something i'm proud of but that does not quantify to trash talking the story since I'm standing up for what the story reads hence verse 30:40 that the colored flock were with jacob as he removed them in v 35. There is value to the story and it is god helped the faithful. I'll agree to that point.Edited by Alias, : Err

I'm going to respond to the main conversation. In verse 30:40 it reads that Jacob faced the young, that were born in 39, toward the colored flock of Laban's. It even states it was to seperate his from Laban's which means jacob had access to Laban's colored flock from 35. No where does it suggest laban left colored flock behind after (if laban removed them in 35) removing them in 35. If we read it as Jacob removing them in 35, 30:40 is much more clear as is the whole passage due to their agreement in 32-34 and in CH 29 where it reads laban wanted to pay Jacob something (vs cheating him).

??? Your second sentence answers your first.

Maybe this will clear it up. The agreement in 32 between laban and Jacob was for Jacob to breed colored/spotted, etc flock using Laban's flock as wages from laban. That way there is no gift from laban as per 31. Then it took place.Edited by Alias, : Clarity

Laban's colored sheep in 40 came from the flock Jacob removed in 35 as per the agreemeant in 32. And I'm not doing a diservice to the bible as I'm not claiming god's servant is conning laban (thus making the bible seem as though it is endorsing conning). The passage is not clear and that is why interpretations vary. But I am interpreting it to support biblical thought that a con by god's servant didn't happen and is supported by biblical fact v 30-42. On top of that I will assert that this part of the story does matter because it portrays the morality of god hence why god is helping it's faithful servant.Edited by Alias, : ClarityEdited by Alias, : clarity