A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-20 15:16:56

How many stars are there in the cosmos? Billions OF billions, correct?
How many descendants has Abraham been promised, by God, in the Book of Genesis?
How many human beings have been born since the time of Abraham?
Unless we spread human life beyond our one planet, its going to be a long, long, long, long time before Abraham will have been given sufficient descendants for God to have kept his promise.
= = =
Worry less about where we came from. 6,000 years or 12 billion years? Why does it matter? If science says 12 billion years, okay fine, so whats the big deal?
Worry more about where we are going.
Perhaps it was cloudy that night.
13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
and this
15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Do clouds matter? Taken together this seems to say (literally) that Abraham will have as many descendants as there are stars in the sky (whether or not he can count them).
So much for Left Behind, no?

It was an illustration of a number so big that it could not be numbered. Not that they would be the same in number. This is why it was said: if they could be counted or numbered... Which ever translation you have.

so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

So if it could be numbered. Is there a number that would fit how many grains of sand is on the earth? Nope.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 15:26:15

I can see where this thread is going and your attitude about it. All the things you accuse me of doing in interpatations of God's word, you do yourself. The bias shows. You are saying: My interpatation is better than yours and none of what you say I'll never accept. That's fine with me. My views are here for all to read and to accept or not. But your views you push and push as the "only way, the only truth etc..." Sorry we all don't think like you.
Just like God gave all choices to choose whatever. I choose not to participate in this thread anymore. O I know you'll come up with something witty to say to get the last word. As a show to your friends here that you are superior lol. But, when the time comes, there will be someone that no one can out do. And when He judges us all, there will be no excuse for not believing what is written. It is what you call faith. And faith is not what you have. And for that, I'm truly sorry.

Nope, the point is that you yourself interprit the bible figuratively not literally, and therefore are violating the very premise of your professed ideology.

Many people can interprit the bible in a manner that does not contradict contemporary science.

You choose to contradict contemporary science, professing biblical literalism, but then go about interpriting the bible non-literally yourself.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 15:27:59

Perhaps it was cloudy that night.
13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
and this
15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Do clouds matter? Taken together this seems to say (literally) that Abraham will have as many descendants as there are stars in the sky (whether or not he can count them).
So much for Left Behind, no?
It was an illustration of a number so big that it could not be numbered. Not that they would be the same in number. This is why it was said: if they could be counted or numbered... Which ever translation you have.
so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
So if it could be numbered. Is there a number that would fit how many grains of sand is on the earth? Nope.

your missing the point. The point, that you just illustrated yourself, is that the bible is NOT INTENDED to be taken literally.

Bill White · 2004-04-20 15:36:13

What number is so big that God cannot number it?

clark · 2004-04-20 15:39:01

zero. nuthin to count.

Euler · 2004-04-20 15:52:07

What number is so big that God cannot number it?

It is not too big for God to number, it is too big for the ancient Hebrew number system to number.

Bill White · 2004-04-20 16:02:29

What number is so big that God cannot number it?
It is not too big for God to number, it is too big for the ancient Hebrew number system to number.

Okay, fair enough.

Therefore it seems to me that humanity has a long run ahead of it since there are billions OF billions (not billions and billions) of stars and I read somewhere that fewer than 100 billion people have been born (and died) since the time of Abraham.

Mundaka · 2004-04-21 01:13:03

ikester7579 · 2004-04-21 22:44:08

I can see where this thread is going and your attitude about it. All the things you accuse me of doing in interpatations of God's word, you do yourself. The bias shows. You are saying: My interpatation is better than yours and none of what you say I'll never accept. That's fine with me. My views are here for all to read and to accept or not. But your views you push and push as the "only way, the only truth etc..." Sorry we all don't think like you.
Just like God gave all choices to choose whatever. I choose not to participate in this thread anymore. O I know you'll come up with something witty to say to get the last word. As a show to your friends here that you are superior lol. But, when the time comes, there will be someone that no one can out do. And when He judges us all, there will be no excuse for not believing what is written. It is what you call faith. And faith is not what you have. And for that, I'm truly sorry.
Nope, the point is that you yourself interprit the bible figuratively not literally, and therefore are violating the very premise of your professed ideology.

You choose to contradict contemporary science, professing biblical literalism, but then go about interpriting the bible non-literally yourself.

This one I could not resist to reply to. It's a perfect example of science as a replacement of God.

Many people can interprit the bible in a manner that does not contradict contemporary science.

It is ok for science to contrdict God? But it's not ok for God to contradict science?

So is science now going to replace God?

So who in science gets the honary position of God?

Bill White · 2004-04-22 07:08:56

I can see where this thread is going and your attitude about it. All the things you accuse me of doing in interpatations of God's word, you do yourself. The bias shows. You are saying: My interpatation is better than yours and none of what you say I'll never accept. That's fine with me. My views are here for all to read and to accept or not. But your views you push and push as the "only way, the only truth etc..." Sorry we all don't think like you.
Just like God gave all choices to choose whatever. I choose not to participate in this thread anymore. O I know you'll come up with something witty to say to get the last word. As a show to your friends here that you are superior lol. But, when the time comes, there will be someone that no one can out do. And when He judges us all, there will be no excuse for not believing what is written. It is what you call faith. And faith is not what you have. And for that, I'm truly sorry.
Nope, the point is that you yourself interprit the bible figuratively not literally, and therefore are violating the very premise of your professed ideology.

You choose to contradict contemporary science, professing biblical literalism, but then go about interpriting the bible non-literally yourself.
This one I could not resist to reply to. It's a perfect example of science as a replacement of God.
Many people can interprit the bible in a manner that does not contradict contemporary science.
It is ok for science to contrdict God? But it's not ok for God to contradict science?
So is science now going to replace God?
So who in science gets the honary position of God?

Science merely helps us understand that a prior purely human interpretation was incorrect.

Science can NEVER contradict God. But science can contradict some Dallas minister who believes * he * has a direct pipeline to God.

= = =

Edit: I agree with you, science cannot trump God. However science can trump your mis-reading of the Bible.

I am willing to admit I might be wrong about how I read the Bible and I humbly ask God to help my reading and interpretation.

Ikester, can you publically admit that your reading and interpretation of the Bible might be in error?

Palomar · 2004-04-22 07:24:50

*I thought I read a statement made by Ikester yesterday or Tuesday that he wasn't going to post here anymore? Perhaps faulty memory on my part, or perhaps he changed his mind (nothing wrong with that, of course).

I find debates of this nature futile. No matter what a skeptic or agnostic says, the religionist can mimick the point.

As for a statement like "science can never contradict God" or a question like "So is science now going to replace God?": These assume that God does indeed exist (proof? photograph? voice recording?) "just because" you believe it is so and that that particular point of a belief system can't be refuted.

There are other creation stories out there, from around the world. Why isn't the Hindu creation story true? Or the Apache Native American creation story? Why didn't humans just fall out of clouds or climb up from a hole in the ground? Why is only the Judeo-Christian Bible creation story "true"?

In my opinion, science is superior to religion. Science doesn't make audacious claims; it seeks to prove OR disprove its theories; doesn't demand blind acceptance or taking things on "faith." Also note how spiritualists/religionists often like to tack the word "science" onto their subjectivist pursuits and ideas. Why do they do this? IMO, it's an attempt to try and lend a bit of credibility/prestige to their points of view. Do people generally use something considered inferior in that manner? Nope.

What is faith? Intellectual laziness, IMO. "This book has all the answers, can never be wrong, I simply accept unquestioningly that A-B-C (though unproveable) are -true-, it can never change, the end."

If that's the way some folks want to live their lives, have at it. Just don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: As for this question from Ikester: "So who in science gets the honary position of God?" I think your question is rather disingenuous; frankly, -silly-. No one here is suggesting one scientist be "God." It is religion which arrogantly claims to know all the answers, -not- science (although, in my experience, religionists love to try and make science appear to be the arrogant party; what a joke).

Alt2War · 2004-04-22 08:51:51

I can see where this thread is going and your attitude about it. All the things you accuse me of doing in interpatations of God's word, you do yourself. The bias shows. You are saying: My interpatation is better than yours and none of what you say I'll never accept. That's fine with me. My views are here for all to read and to accept or not. But your views you push and push as the "only way, the only truth etc..." Sorry we all don't think like you.
Just like God gave all choices to choose whatever. I choose not to participate in this thread anymore. O I know you'll come up with something witty to say to get the last word. As a show to your friends here that you are superior lol. But, when the time comes, there will be someone that no one can out do. And when He judges us all, there will be no excuse for not believing what is written. It is what you call faith. And faith is not what you have. And for that, I'm truly sorry.
Nope, the point is that you yourself interprit the bible figuratively not literally, and therefore are violating the very premise of your professed ideology.

You choose to contradict contemporary science, professing biblical literalism, but then go about interpriting the bible non-literally yourself.
This one I could not resist to reply to. It's a perfect example of science as a replacement of God.
Many people can interprit the bible in a manner that does not contradict contemporary science.
It is ok for science to contrdict God? But it's not ok for God to contradict science?
So is science now going to replace God?
So who in science gets the honary position of God?

This is a perfect example of how you have violated the 2nd commandment

The Bible is not God. The bible did not make the earth. The bible is one of a million creation myths.

Though spiritual knowledge can be gathered from it (as was the works intention) it is not a valuable source of factual, scientific knowledge (though there is a log of good antropologic information to be had from it).

If the bible is in literal contradiction with scientific law, there are one of 2 explinations. There is also a third option.

Either 1: the bible is flawed and god had it wrong.

or

2: the bible was never meant to be taken literally, but instead intended ad a vehicle for spiritual developmnent, not scientific knowledge.

and if neither of these sit well with you, there is a third option.

3: Ignore the peer reviewed direct observations of careful, sceptical men and women and instead just think what my preacher tells me to.

Alt2War · 2004-04-22 08:54:45

As a side note, when I was 19 I worked at a Subway in a southern tourism destination. It had both a year round play depicting the life a christ and a year round elvis impersonation show.

One day, both Jesus and Elvis came into my Subway.

Just thought I'd share

Bill White · 2004-04-22 09:17:18

2: the bible was never meant to be taken literally, but instead intended ad a vehicle for spiritual developmnent, not scientific knowledge.

"Never" is perhaps extreme for my taste but otherwise I pretty much agree with #2.

God is bigger than the Bible. Otherwise, you violate the 2nd Commandment. Besides, how can the complete truth about God be written in a book humans are capable of reading?

IMHO, this is also pretty much the catechism of the Catholic Church. :;):

Purely IMHO, as a reader struggles with the ironies, ambiguities and conundrums found within the Bible, moral development occurs. What's that business about Abraham telling Sarah to tell Pharoah she is his sister and not his wife? Explain that story in a wholesome, family-value sort of way.

Text + reader = spiritual growth. Since each reader is different, God's truth is always larger than the text itself.

clark · 2004-04-22 09:24:06

I recall reading a fiction book sevearl years back whose premise centered on the ressurection of Christ, only this time as a women. She is a clone made in Isreal and ends up leaving new teachings for the world (after she is dead from persecution). One of her commands was that her teachings be made available, but that each individual approach it on their own. No more 'churches'.

There was a fun scene in there where she confronts the Chatholic Church, breaks an alter, and revokes the compact made with the Church.

Alt2War · 2004-04-22 09:41:45

I dont read a lot of religious fiction

one of my favorites though is:
BROTHERS:
The Untold Story of Jesus's Evil Brother
by Chayym Zeldis

It's an alternate story of Jesus with Judas as the primary creator of Christianity and Jesus as his lame, dopey brother.

It's a great book for an ex-christian or jaded jew

Bill White · 2004-04-22 09:51:56

I recall reading a fiction book sevearl years back whose premise centered on the ressurection of Christ, only this time as a women. She is a clone made in Isreal and ends up leaving new teachings for the world (after she is dead from persecution). One of her commands was that her teachings be made available, but that each individual approach it on their own. No more 'churches'.
There was a fun scene in there where she confronts the Chatholic Church, breaks an alter, and revokes the compact made with the Church.

As for the Catholics. . .

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Tradition has it place and should not be rejected for "light and transient causes" and a decent respect for the opinions of others requires, IMHO, that we give prima facie credence to long established systems of belief, reserving, of course, the right to reject those systems of belief if the arguments against that system prove overwhelming.

A nuanced approach which balances the ultimate right of each person to confront God/Life/reality for themselves while teaching that learning from people smarter or wiser than you (or me) is merely prudent.

After all, Pope John Paul II has apologized for that busines with Galileo. :;):

clark · 2004-04-22 09:55:17

A nuanced approach which balances the ultimate right of each person to confront God/Life/reality for themselves while teaching that learning from people smarter or wiser than you (or me) is merely prudent.

damn you moderates.

Bill White · 2004-04-22 10:31:10

A nuanced approach which balances the ultimate right of each person to confront God/Life/reality for themselves while teaching that learning from people smarter or wiser than you (or me) is merely prudent.
damn you moderates.

If Saint Augustine writes (as he did 1600 years ago) that the "days" of Genesis need not be read as literal 24 hour days, then that opinion needs to be taken seriously, though not given unchallenge-able authority.

Augustine is perhaps right and perhaps wrong about this but he was one smart and wise fellow and cannot be dismissed out of hand.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-22 20:38:41

Nope, the point is that you yourself interprit the bible figuratively not literally, and therefore are violating the very premise of your professed ideology.

You choose to contradict contemporary science, professing biblical literalism, but then go about interpriting the bible non-literally yourself.
This one I could not resist to reply to. It's a perfect example of science as a replacement of God.
Many people can interprit the bible in a manner that does not contradict contemporary science.
It is ok for science to contrdict God? But it's not ok for God to contradict science?
So is science now going to replace God?
So who in science gets the honary position of God?
Science merely helps us understand that a prior purely human interpretation was incorrect.
Science can NEVER contradict God. But science can contradict some Dallas minister who believes * he * has a direct pipeline to God.
= = =
Edit: I agree with you, science cannot trump God. However science can trump your mis-reading of the Bible.
I am willing to admit I might be wrong about how I read the Bible and I humbly ask God to help my reading and interpretation.
Ikester, can you publically admit that your reading and interpretation of the Bible might be in error?

No one has the absolute truth of God's word. But denying what is written in clear easy to understand words is calling God a liar. Plain and simple. God said He created in 6 days. How is that translated to 4 billion years? O, God did not keep His word true because man wrote it? Well if it's that easy to do away with the word of God, then God is powerless nothing who could create nothing. It would be much easier to look after a book then to create all that there is. Would not you agree?

ikester7579 · 2004-04-22 20:51:11

The Bible is not God. The bible did not make the earth. The bible is one of a million creation myths.

Well that explains your hate for God and his followers. But this does bring up a question. Why argue with a myth?

Though spiritual knowledge can be gathered from it (as was the works intention) it is not a valuable source of factual, scientific knowledge (though there is a log of good antropologic information to be had from it).
If the bible is in literal contradiction with scientific law, there are one of 2 explinations. There is also a third option.
Either 1: the bible is flawed and god had it wrong.
or
2: the bible was never meant to be taken literally, but instead intended ad a vehicle for spiritual developmnent, not scientific knowledge.

Sounds like your preaching. You make science sound like it's a way to follow and that to follow God is some type of threat to science.

and if neither of these sit well with you, there is a third option.
3: Ignore the peer reviewed direct observations of careful, sceptical men and women and instead just think what my preacher tells me to.

Or you could study science and learn how to think and do like science tells you to. That theories are true and God word lies.

Euler · 2004-04-22 20:57:19

Time is highly dependent on your reference frame. If you are moving at a near light speed relative to the Earth, or are near the event horizon of a black hole, then 6 days in your perspective might be 4 billion years on Earth. So it is possible that both sides can be literally true.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-23 02:31:27

Time is highly dependent on your reference frame. If you are moving at a near light speed relative to the Earth, or are near the event horizon of a black hole, then 6 days in your perspective might be 4 billion years on Earth. So it is possible that both sides can be literally true.

Just so no times wasted. I'm not convinceable to mix science and the word of God.
I have no problem with science... except when it interferes with the word of God.
Just like science has no problem with God until it feels threatened with interference. Problem is, if science is not a religion, then why are we even having this discussion?
Answer: Because it's a battle for the origins of everything. And who wins will be God in the minds of men.
Besides, to replace God with someting is to become God. For what can fit into the shoes of God?
Example: If we replace a CEO of a company, do we replace him with the bellboy, or with someone qualified to fill the spot?

dicktice · 2004-04-23 18:47:08

That's just about the funniest post I've ever had the pleasure of reading. When I got to "what can fit into the shoes of God" I cracked up. But when you used the metaphor of "a CEO of a company," I didn't think THAT was very funny.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-23 22:10:53

That's just about the funniest post I've ever had the pleasure of reading. When I got to " what can fit into the shoes of God" I cracked up. But when you used the metaphor of "a CEO of a company," I didn't think THAT was very funny.

It was a reference to man trying to fill the shoes of God. Mot a reference to science being like a bell boy, if that's what your saying. There was no joke intended, even though after your post, I realized it could be thought that way.

What I'm trying to relay is: What can man do, or say, or come up with, that would be well and good enough to fill the shoes of God?
And when we fill those shoes, are we not calling what is filling those shoes with, God?
This is where science is starting to skate the fine line in becoming a religion. You may laugh, but when you feel science has to out do a religious being, then there a reason for it. 6 day vs. 4 billion years? Why debate this? Are we not free thinkers? Or does science need to control what we think?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-04-20 15:16:56

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#77 2004-04-20 15:26:15

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#78 2004-04-20 15:27:59

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#79 2004-04-20 15:36:13

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#80 2004-04-20 15:39:01

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#81 2004-04-20 15:52:07

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#82 2004-04-20 16:02:29

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#83 2004-04-21 01:13:03

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#84 2004-04-21 22:44:08

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#85 2004-04-22 07:08:56

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#86 2004-04-22 07:24:50

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#87 2004-04-22 08:51:51

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#88 2004-04-22 08:54:45

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#89 2004-04-22 09:17:18

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#90 2004-04-22 09:24:06

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#91 2004-04-22 09:41:45

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#92 2004-04-22 09:51:56

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#93 2004-04-22 09:55:17

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#94 2004-04-22 10:31:10

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#95 2004-04-22 20:38:41

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#96 2004-04-22 20:51:11

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#97 2004-04-22 20:57:19

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#98 2004-04-23 02:31:27

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#99 2004-04-23 18:47:08

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#100 2004-04-23 22:10:53

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

Board footer