|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If we are all descended from Noah ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
What struck me about the original post in this thread is the idea that had we all descended from Moses, his religion would dominate worldwide.
Since that is not the case, the origin of religion becomes a real problem. To explain the religions of some early civilizations, you have to assume that Moses' descendants, within a few generations, abandoned the worship of a God who can destroy the world with flood-- and this before the mud dried. (Credit goes to Peter for preceding bit) People are not that stupid, even at their worst. People will hold onto prejudice and superstition like they are holding onto the last twinkie in the warehouse. Put some evidence, like global destruction, behind that belief and it becomes hard to imagine that they'd remodel those beliefs in the allotted time. : TrueCreation attributed the generation of other religions to "the result of diverging cultures and isolated populations as generations pass and cultural biases and beliefs develop." Think about the time table. In two thousand years, Christianity has changed only a fraction of what it would take to convert Judaism to Buddhism, or Hinduism, or to the Greek or Sumerian religions. Yet, at best, these religions would have had a few hundred years to develop. Assuming that these cultures developed after the Flood, they must have developed soon after it, or the time lines of the old testament have to be manipulated radically. This leads to another problem with TrueCreation's explanation: There really should not have been much in the way of "diverging cultures and isolated populations." A population of 14 adults (Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives-- assuming polygamy just to be fair) would likely swell to a somewhere between 800 and 1500 people over the first hundred years, hitting 4500 or so in five hundred years. There is not much population to diverge really, nor to spread and become isolated. I think this is a fair estimate. It assumes that the population doubles every generation, and that there is no mortality or infertility. Can't beat that with a stick. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Is 4500 years sufficient time to get race? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The evidence against it is overwhelming.
quote: Agreed. How is this one?
Gerald Larue Otll Chap3 » Internet Infidels quote: Right... you'll only chase around through dozens of apologetic sites then? Very balanced.
quote: quote: quote: Adam had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How then is it that he HAD knowledge of good and evil?
quote: Which pain she suffered because of Adam's sin. Men are always the responsible party, if you are to be believed.
quote: You forgot this one:
quote: You have several inplicit problems there. 1)God is refering to theirselves as plural. (The 'royal we' did not exist until much later) 2)Adam and Eve were created at the same time, hence Adam would have never been alone. This too screws with the whole rib story. 3)The order is wrong. It doesn't mesh with the order of the other version of creation. 4)In the Hebrew, the words used for 'them' (as in 'created he them') are masculine plural in both cases. This is very good news for like-gender lovers.
quote: Oh... here it is. You just failed to bring it up when it conflicted with your other passage.
quote: BS... you cannot construct a logical sequence of events in which all statements in both versions of creation are 1)included, 2)in order relative to the version in which the event is found, 3)and which does not cause conflicts in the final compiled version.
quote: Of course, definitions are meaningless unless you believe the dictionary. Why do Christians not understand that?
quote: Sorry, but you don't need a concept of sin to create and hold a society together. All you need is common sense. The concept of sin is superflous.
quote: Self-proven and self-supported are by default invalid. Its called circular reasoning. Backed by testimony is a fallacy called an appeal to popularity-- argumentum ad populum.
quote: In your own words:
quote: quote: [quote]Over time that faith basis is augmented through personal experience that the promises of the Bible are abundantly true, and the believer is treated to bits of physical evidence that shores up their faith even more.[quote]
People have a very hard time with causality, in general. People take coincidence as being meaningful and can't calculate probability to save thier souls. This is essentially why people keep gambling even though they are losing. It may make you feel better, but it proves nothing.
quote: No choice? This makes no sense. There are a few very shaky external bits of evidence that supports a couple of minor points mentioned in the Bible. That is it. And this is to be expected. The Isrealites were not living in a vacuum. That they existed is not the same as proving that there God existed, or that their religion is the one true faith. Show me your secular evidence. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Ignorance? Is that what you call objective analysis?What would you consider evidence anyway? ...signed document on God's own letterhead? quote: If you think the main argument is this verse then you really haven't done your homework. I would accuse you of not reading the url I posted, but I can't get it to come up either. Try this.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.religioustoleance.org/chr_tora.htm quote: quote: This is off-topic, but the worst people I have ever known have been believers.
quote: I have seen a number of 'errors' which I wouldn't really consider errors.
[quote][b]Several preachers online have noticed my involvement and have warned I'm really not supposed to engage in such foolishness with non/unbelievers.[/quote] [/b] Yes, step one: seperate the believers from the rational.
quote: Interesting turn of phrase.
quote: You've missed the point. Having no knowledge of good and evil, Adam had no way to process the command from God.
quote: This is not what you implied in an earlier post.
quote: hmmm.... well, it only works if you can extrapolate backwards from the new testament, which makes a mess of chronology...
quote: No, I am afraid not.
quote: Nope. The two accounts are much too different.
quote: You are full of implicit insult aren't you? Textual analysis reveals quite a few literary styles in there, indicating not one but several authors and a bunch of editting.
quote: This argument I have seen before, but the issue comes up again in a bit.
quote: Well, I wasn't exactly serious about this one. Nonetheless, it is interesting that your reply corrects me on something I never disputed. My comment was about the chosen pronouns.
quote: OK: 1)Chapter one is creation in seven days. The version in chapter two begins with "in the day..." "Day" singular. The word is YVM, the same chosen for "day" in the first account. This alone is a pretty clear indication that we are dealing with two creation accounts. 2)Your Chapter2 #2.... This apparently resides between the day of rest and verse 4, but where? 3)Your Chap2 #3.... You seem to be saying that this refers back to the first account? Ie. That was the creation.... It isn't written this way. It is written as an intro to a story that is beginning. 4)Your chap2 #4-5... now it gets interesting. Your 4-5 have plants growing prior to the creation of man, as in the first account. But actually, your points 4 and 5 should be reversed, at least partially. Plants don't grow until after man is created. Gen 2:9. 5)Now, it could be said that Gen 2:9 only refers to plants in the Garden and not to plants in general, so lets look at verse 2:5 instead. "No shrub of the field was yet in the earth..." Where would an already created shrub, as in your point #4, be if not in the earth? Its the little things that get ya.
quote: Again you've missed the point entirely. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God so your appeals to its authority are meaningless to me.
quote: Must I be parroting an atheist? No. I have certainly read material which was written by atheists, but I have read far far more which was written by those of other religious persuasions. Chimpanzees build and maintain complex societies. Are they dependent upon the concept of sin?
quote: Cheap shot. Very painful. Ouch.
quote: This statement proves only your biases. I have read the bible also. And I find it to be full of absurdity. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, I would actually, because knowledge and understanding comes from thought and experience-- none of which Adam had-- and is not simply a function of being told. Of course, the child now has experience with drinking from a toilet, but does that child understand? Doubtful.
quote: So we are back to the idea that God exacted thousands of years of punishment upon the entire human race because Adam-- having no understanding but only a command-- drank out of the toilet. Adam, as well, had no idea of the consequences. He hadn't been around long enough to get paddled or to understand death-- his proposed punishment. In addition, you are glossing over the main philosophical trust of the tale-- the origin of evil, the understanding of good and evil, ethics, morality. You make this all into a very trivial issue. God said, so there!!!!!
quote: LOL...... I post again, because you didn't addresst he point.
quote: This is a misreading on your part, in that case.
quote: Sophistry. This is a severely forced reading of the Hebrew. And yes, I am reading the Hebrew.
quote: When modified by an associated term. I cannot find any such modifiers.
quote: More sophistry. Are you actually reading this? "every plant of the field before it was in the earth" and "every herb of the field before it grew" Yet you claim that plants were growing? LOL....
quote: Re-read my post. I never said that verse 5 refered to the garden. I said that verse 9 could be said to refer to the Garden only and not to plants in general. I get the feeling that you really are not paying attention.
quote: ummm.... from verse 5.... Various translations read a bit differently. The Jewish Publication Society translates it as I have written. They ought to know their Hebrew eh?
quote: You're joking!!!! Christianity hold sway over nowhere near 98% of the population of the Earth.
quote: Gee... If I screw up I go to jail. Now THAT is authority!
quote: As is any religious authoritarian structure. This points seems to be frequently missed. Religion's power is in the consent of its believers, not is any God's magic.
quote: Right. Mine certainly are.....
quote: Valid only if you accept the truth of the myth.
quote: This is just blatantly silly. You cannot support this with anything other than faith.
quote: Valid only if one accepts the myth.
quote: Wrong. Chimps exhibit social structures every bit as complex as pre-civilization level human cultures.
quote: God is punishing the critters now too?
quote: 'k.... where are these proofs?
quote: Aha!!!!!! Ever wonder why there is such an injunction?
quote: God will reveal it when you die. Yes I know. That is pretty vicious though don't you think? I need the info now if I am to be saved. Not to mention that it is enoumously convenient for those without a leg to stand upon.
quote: I do not encounter rabid Osirian fundamentalists in this country, only rabid Christian fundamentalists. I have as much respect for the Bible as I do for any other mythology, though I think there are many other mythological systems that are much richer. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: My personal favorites are Hindu and Norse. The former largely because it is so abstract and mutable. The appeal, I think, is somewhat like the appeal of a Dali or an Escer. And the Norse... I just kinda like Yggdrasil. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That is a very good point. However, your reaction is due to a mis-understanding of holy doctrine. When Christian speak of salvation, what they mean is that Jesus saved them from all the nit-picky cultural stuff outlined in the OT. Dietary laws, for example. Or worship on the Sabbath. Or not working on the Sabbath. Or killing women who touch men's pee-pee's. Or not touching a menstruating woman or anything she touches. Or settling a rape case by paying off the family of the victim (and keeping the girl) ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I'm with Me on this issue as well. It does make for conveniently flexible ethics. The NT has Jesus saying something to the effect that 'I have not come to destroy the old law but to fulfill it.' This is represented by some as an out for dismissing things like dietary laws. But the consequence is that one gets to decide what to keep and what to not keep, because exactly what Jesus meant by that statement isn't clear. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: And ignorance. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital? This is special pleading.
quote: Right. And parents can teach their kids anything they like-- at home. School is not religion class.
quote: Wow, very noble..... but..... This is a very biased gamble. By putting creationism in science class you actually give it an edge on evolution, not make it equal. If these kids have been taught the myth since birth at home and in church, putting it in school only reinforces the it. It does not lead to careful and reasoned analysis. Of course, why not teach all of the many and sundry varieties of creation myth as well. You could spend three or four years going over them, then your kids would be well prepared for life in the real world.
quote: This is funny-- the fundie creationist complaining about de-education! LOL ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: right..... this was debated?
quote: Wasn't Christ crucified on Friday? Hence the rush to get him off the cross? And he was in the grave three days, yes? At least, that is the prediction Jesus himself made. That does not add up to Sunday.
quote: So they chatted on Sunday. The rule has yet to be changed.
quote: This practise being in violation of one of the ten commandments, yes?
quote: Again, what's with the math. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown == 1 day. Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown == 2 days. JESUS ROSE ON MONDAY!!! You guys have had it wrong all along. Of course, as above, this plays on the prediction Jesus made of his own death and resurrection. Though the gospels do all seem to agree that he was dead only a day and a half or so. Seems like, either Jesus was wrong or the Gospels all got it wrong. hmmm.... either way though, the bible has it wrong.
quote: But there are those peskie ten commandments.
quote: Well, what da ya know. I stand corrected. It is in there. But what about Mat. 5:17-18? Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tiddle shall in no wise pass form the law, till all be finished. Have you not been arguing that some laws HAVE passed-- ie. no longer required? Does the Bible itself not argue such? Lets go to verse 19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kindom of heaven..... As per some of your previous statements, Jesus broke these laws, the apostles broke these laws and taught others to do likewise. Are you paying attention?
quote: You are not paying attention. IT IS BY COMMANDMENT. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 09-21-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 09-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Thanks for the definition of special pleading, but how is what you are doing NOT special pleading?
You are claiming that in the case of creation it is ok to appeal to public opinion, yet you would not appeal to such in cases such as the one I cited. This is pleading special status for the creation issue. One could also consider this an appeal to pulbic opinion-- argumentum ad populum, if you prefer-- which is a version of an appeal to authority. You see, usually, a faulty argument can qualify for several different informal logical fallacies.
quote: Ah.... this would be the fallacy of faulty analogy. I believe I could also argue that it is misdirection, or the fallacy of the red-herring. You see, while greater numbers can in fact be an advantage in physical conflict, it does not follow that it is advantageous in matters of what is and is not factual. Consider all of the patently false things that have at one time or another been considered true by the vaste majority of people. Did this belief make these things true? Did this belief make the Earth flat? Or make the stars crystals of ice on the firmament?
quote: Which empirical data and physical laws you accept? Just checking. As to the statistics lesson and the stock market: It is a repeat of the same fallacy as above, unless you are taking the position that truth is relative.
quote: This is a sad statement about US schools systems, but to argue that we introduce psuedo-science to fix the problem is ridiculous.
quote: Sorry, but no it can't. I challenge you to do so.
quote: Isn't this just sweeping things under the rug? Sad way to go about educating ourselves.
quote: I don't want to avoid the issue. It happens to be important. But I have a question. You seem to be making the case that God created everything and then evolution took over. Now, avoiding the inherent difficulties of that position, you then wish to avoid the creation, or origin issue. Sounds like you essentially have evolution being taught in school. Something isn't making sense.
quote: But not in science class. It is not science, but religion.
[quote][b]If it is legal for Islamic studies, it must also be for the Bible to be brought back in.[/quote] [/b] And there you have it.... Islamic studies, not science class. I happen to believe that US schools should be able to get 10 times the information on the table that they actually do, and a good broad survey of religion and culture would be a great part of that. But not in science class, unless creationism can come up with some real science.
quote: Is this a prediction?
quote: Yes. Funny but true. And very sad.
quote: Again... at HOME.
quote: LOL ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: WOW.... now that is sophistry!!!!! Don't you get it? You've made the entire old testament fluid and pliable, and much of the NT as well. You are now free to pick and choose whatever you want. This is the problem.
quote: Now this is interesting, perhaps a new topic. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You still don't get it. The net result is that you get to pick and choose whatever you want from the OT and from much of the NT.
quote: But you've argued that there is no longer any need to worship on the Sabbath, Christians choosing Sunday instead. Did the Pharisees add that commandment to the other nine?
quote: Yes, I might. I wish only that I could say the same for you.
quote: Yes I know. This is the part that is interesting to me. I'll try to start that topic today.
quote: I love the condescension of christians. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Maybe you should read this:
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024