Poll: How did human life come about?

[Dritnul]

I voted with the scientists

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!

Actually, the quote was almost perfect... the word man was left out. Guys, if you use the word "con", then Vic thinks you think something should be outlawed! Because con is a synonym for fraud...and when fraud is used as a legal term, it means something illegal.. and when something is illegal, it is outlawed!

How is Vic wrong?

Con
Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: con
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: trick
Synonyms: bluff, cheat, crime, deception, double-cross, dupe, fraud, gold brick*, graft, gyp, mockery, swindle, take in
Source: Roget's New Millennium? Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Garth
What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

Garth, Genesis 2:17 was not speaking of an immediate physical death, but a spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God that would be the consequence of disobedience.

Adam's sin is the reason why Christ was required to die at Calvary; for by him sinners are able to recompense themselves through Christ, bringing forth the second birth (spiritual regeneration/rebirth) spoken of in the Scriptures.


John 3:3

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


Edit: I replied to this without reading the whole thread, and evidently there have been answers already proposed.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Garth
What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

Garth, Genesis 2:17 was not speaking of an immediate physical death, but a spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God that would be the consequence of disobedience.

Where does it say that?

Adam's sin is the reason why Christ was required to die at Calvary; for by him sinners are able to recompense themselves through Christ, bringing forth the second birth (spiritual regeneration/rebirth) spoken of in the Scriptures.


John 3:3

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


Edit: I replied to this without reading the whole thread, and evidently there have been answers already proposed.

But you're not taking cues from the text itself, but shoe-horning ideas from different authors' works written much later under the assumption that they MUST decide the correct interpretation of the passage. That's nonsense.

 

[Seekermeister]

Garth,

You are doing what alot of other people do, and that is to read the Bible as though it was written in the modern text. If you don't believe anyone else's interpretation of the Bible, then you must do it yourself. But considering the attitude that you have demonstrated, that is not likely to happen. The only alternative is to continue as you have, making alot of false assumption about something that you know nothing about.

 

[Vic]

How did human life come about?

I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[Karot]

Lol. I think Vic's got the Bill Gates Syndrome.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Vic

How did human life come about?

I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.

If you were a Christian Scientist, it would be you in Jacob's dream.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Vic

How did human life come about?

I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.

What are you, the windfish or George Orr (from the Lathe of Heaven)?

 

[Vic]

It was meant as a joke. Heated discussions about the unknowable inevitably fall apart because the unknowable is, well... unknowable. So my favorite way to kill such discussions is to bring up solipsism, i.e. the nature of existence is so unknowable that I question whether or not anything outside my own mind actually exists.
And... while it is meant as a joke... it is also meant to spur serious internal thought about your own personal beliefs (as opposed to just validating your own by attacking everyone else's). We all think we know so much, but the truth is that we can't even prove our own existences as living consciouses except to ourselves.

This will now likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes, as the case may be over the internet).

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Vic
It was meant as a joke. Heated discussions about the unknowable inevitably fall apart because the unknowable is, well... unknowable. So my favorite way to kill such discussions is to bring up solipsism, i.e. the nature of existence is so unknowable that I question whether or not anything outside my own mind actually exists.
And... while it is meant as a joke... it is also meant to spur serious internal thought about your own personal beliefs (as opposed to just validating your own by attacking everyone else's). We all think we know so much, but the truth is that we can't even prove our own existences as living consciouses except to ourselves.

This will now likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes, as the case may be over the internet).

If you were referring to me, I understand it was a joke. I just left off the .

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic
It was meant as a joke. Heated discussions about the unknowable inevitably fall apart because the unknowable is, well... unknowable. So my favorite way to kill such discussions is to bring up solipsism, i.e. the nature of existence is so unknowable that I question whether or not anything outside my own mind actually exists.
And... while it is meant as a joke... it is also meant to spur serious internal thought about your own personal beliefs (as opposed to just validating your own by attacking everyone else's). We all think we know so much, but the truth is that we can't even prove our own existences as living consciouses except to ourselves.

This will now likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes, as the case may be over the internet).

yes yes yes...the brains in a vat paradox. popularized by the matrix. just as undeniable as the existence of God.

you beat me to it, damn you. I was going to claim that all of you are simply a figment of my imagination. curse you, Vic--always one step ahead!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

You are doing what alot of other people do, and that is to read the Bible as though it was written in the modern text. If you don't believe anyone else's interpretation of the Bible, then you must do it yourself. But considering the attitude that you have demonstrated, that is not likely to happen. The only alternative is to continue as you have, making alot of false assumption about something that you know nothing about.

But, as usual, you are wrong. In fact, I'm making as few assumptions as possible, taking the text at its face value. You guys are the ones making leaps of logic based on your presupposition that the passages mustn't contradict.

So maybe you should have that plank in your eye examined.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

How did human life come about?

I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Did you eat some Taco Bell before you went to bed?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

How did human life come about?

I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Did you eat some Taco Bell before you went to bed?

...or after :shocked:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

You are doing what alot of other people do, and that is to read the Bible as though it was written in the modern text. If you don't believe anyone else's interpretation of the Bible, then you must do it yourself. But considering the attitude that you have demonstrated, that is not likely to happen. The only alternative is to continue as you have, making alot of false assumption about something that you know nothing about.

But, as usual, you are wrong. In fact, I'm making as few assumptions as possible, taking the text at its face value. You guys are the ones making leaps of logic based on your presupposition that the passages mustn't contradict.

So maybe you should have that plank in your eye examined.

of course, Seekermesiter frequently qualifies his statements this way: "When properly translated, the text..." Yet, he never attempts to provide his definition of proper translation, and the authority to which he ascribes a proper translation. It sounds like he's making his own assumptions. If he really doesn't go to church, I assume he is making these translations on his own, or relying on some garbage A&E "Stories of the Bible" documentary to be his source.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Garth
What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

Garth, Genesis 2:17 was not speaking of an immediate physical death, but a spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God that would be the consequence of disobedience.

Where does it say that?

Garth, you yourself are making the same "error" that you are, dare I say, accusing me of. The passage does not state specifically that Adam's death was a spiritual death, but neither does it say it was a physical death which you are assuming. Obviously Adam did not drop dead the moment he took of the fruit, so what does that imply to the reader? It is said:

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The Bible is neither purely literal, nor purely allegorical. Our own common sense should most often be sufficient for us to determine which passages are, and which are not. In the case of Genesis 2:17, the death described could not have been an instant physical death, for that is not what occurred. Instead we have to understand the spiritual applications of the scriptures and "rightly divide" the word.

The death spoken of in that specific passage could mean either of two things: Adam was to die a physical death, or he was to die a spiritual death the day he took of the fruit. Would you not agree that those are two possibilities? Because Adam did not drop dead at that very moment, the context itself has eliminated the option of instant physical death (a form of reductio ad absurdum). It is then safe to assume that the words of that passage were referring to the spiritual death of humankind as result of sin.

As long as there is a way for the event to have taken place, you cannot claim contradiction.

Adam's sin is the reason why Christ was required to die at Calvary; for by him sinners are able to recompense themselves through Christ, bringing forth the second birth (spiritual regeneration/rebirth) spoken of in the Scriptures.


John 3:3

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


Edit: I replied to this without reading the whole thread, and evidently there have been answers already proposed.

But you're not taking cues from the text itself, but shoe-horning ideas from different authors' works written much later under the assumption that they MUST decide the correct interpretation of the passage. That's nonsense.

What is the problem here? The text is the Bible as a whole, the canon of scripture.

 

[purplehippo]

It is pointless to debate creationism and religion simply because you cannot convince a non-believer of the existence of God. It is complete foolishness to them. I will however point this out. Romans 1:18-20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It is pointless to debate creationism and religion simply because you cannot convince a non-believer of the existence of God. It is complete foolishness to them. I will however point this out. Romans 1:18-20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

That's because the only true God is the Giant Flying Spaghetti Meatball Monster. You will never understand until you have been touched with one of his spaghetti tentacles with delicious pasta sauce.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It is pointless to debate creationism and religion simply because you cannot convince a non-believer of the existence of God. It is complete foolishness to them. I will however point this out. Romans 1:18-20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Yes, it is impossible for the unsaved to fully understand the word of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Unless someone approaches with a repentant heart, they will be hard against the scriptures and will not gain understanding. This is why it so disheartening to see people quote "contradictions" without so much as a small effort to find the answer themselves. They don't want to believe in God, so they find an excuse not to believe him.

Romans 1:28

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[eunsang]

wow! bible study time! lol.

 

[zinfamous]

I actually agree with Rapid Snail's argument about Adam's spiritual death. It's the kind of thing that you need to understand when explicating Renassaince literature, as well as Old/Middle English lit (Beowulf, Canterbury tales, etc). I place value in the bible as an allegorical fable and a wonderful literary text. It is not rational to me to say that God spoke, and vomited out the bible in pure, literal splendor.

The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I actually agree with Rapid Snail's argument about Adam's spiritual death. It's the kind of thing that you need to understand when explicating Renassaince literature, as well as Old/Middle English lit (Beowulf, Canterbury tales, etc). I place value in the bible as an allegorical fable and a wonderful literary text. It is not rational to me to say that God spoke, and vomited out the bible in pure, literal splendor.

The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles

Is it just me or is it circular to prove the truth of the bible with even more exerpts from the bible.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I actually agree with Rapid Snail's argument about Adam's spiritual death. It's the kind of thing that you need to understand when explicating Renassaince literature, as well as Old/Middle English lit (Beowulf, Canterbury tales, etc). I place value in the bible as an allegorical fable and a wonderful literary text. It is not rational to me to say that God spoke, and vomited out the bible in pure, literal splendor.

The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles

Is it just me or is it circular to prove the truth of the bible with even more exerpts from the bible.

Well, it depends on your idea of truth. And this is exactly why the debate between science and religion is ridiculous. Truth in science depends on testability, observation, fallibility. Truth in religion relies on the inherent truth that is the word. It is based on faith.

Rationally speaking, it is circular to use the one source to prove the validity of that source. For a pious individual, however, that source is the truth. You and I may find that idiotic, but I don't begrudge them their faith.

I will, however, take offense when they try to rationalize other aspects of life, versions of truth using that same irrational approach to truth. I know that I can distinguish these concepts; I also know that the truly pious can not.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I lived in Soviet Russia up until the age of 6. They did discourage religion but they didn't come to your house and kill you if they found out you read the bible. People celebrated Christmas, Quanza, and Chanukah. But my family kept the Jewishness on a down low because of anti-semetism among the people more than the government.

kwanza? in the soviet union? my ass.