Serious bible question

[john82wa]

ummmm, amen? lol - been fun, I think my argument if there ever was one is done. Been truly thought provoking nonetheless.

[chiplee]

If you think of the earth as the center of the universe, as they all did in the old bible days, then indeed, the sun does travel in a circuit : purely by perception.

 

This comment of yours reminded me of a famous exchange between an old philosopher and his student. It went like this. Philosopher: "Why do people say it was natural to think that the sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth turned on its axis?" Student: "I suppose because it looked as if the sun went round the Earth." Philosopher, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the Earth turned on its axis?" Think about that for a second, lol.

 

Anyway, if the thread is over, I'd like to say I was thoroughly impressed with the arguments presented on the side of science in this discussion. There was some varsity stuff thrown out there, and I know I'm no authority, but I've heard more than my fair share of this kind of debate. My sqc discussions probably represent about 10% of the total religion debate I participate in. Chad, Imwii, Patra, and BOHO were especially on point with their unbiased analysis, knowledge of not only the actual subjects but "how" to think. Chad I was very surprised at some of the stuff you came up with. I don't know if we've seen that from you before. Maybe I've always just missed it, but it was awesome.

 

As much as I was impressed with the "defenders of reason" in the group, I honestly think I was more impressed with the willingness of a few of the believers to subject themselves to this. When a person has it so engrained in them that their faith is just true beyond a shadow of a doubt, it can be very easy to just flee when people start suggesting it might be false. To the relative newcomer going by john82wa, man it takes guts to keep coming back for more when you know you could be exposed to ideas that might disrupt your current view of things. You either faked it really well, or sincerely wanted to understand our points. It never fails that believers see a few shocking posts and run for the hills, but you kept coming back and actually trying to understand, so that's impressive. Lionbull and 87quest??, be more like John next time. If you had been born to a poor Pakistani sheep herder you'd be a devout Muslim, and that's all there is to it. Don't be so sure of yourselves when your faith is a product of the accident of your birth place. All in all though, very enjoyable thread, and very well timed for me. I'm on detachment away from my wife and baby so I was able to fit it in.

Edited March 29, 2012 by chiplee

[chiplee]

When there is a theory in place it is truly just theory and its argued by hundreds of people far more inteligent then you or I - there is no reason that I can't be on one side & you the other.

 

Sorry, I can't let this one go unanswered. Everyday theories are not like scientific theories. They're like scientific hypotheses. When an untested hypothesis is proposed, it is "truly just a theory". Non-scientists throw around the word theory in a context that is basically synonymous with the word "hunch". Scientists use the word "theory" to represent a hypothesis that is first and foremost able to be falsified, and then has been shown to be consistent with observation and repeatable prediction. Wikipedia explains it like this, "A hypothesis is a prediction which has yet to be tested, while a theory is a prediction-making conceptual framework that is consistent with data."

 

In other words, the word "Fact" would be used, except scientists actually DO understand the tentative nature of knowledge, so they know better than to apply such an inflexible word. Make no mistake however, no matter how certain of evolution science becomes, it will remain the "theory" of evolution. And while you are correct to say there's no reason you can't be on one side or the other, you should know that there is a very good reason the rest of us should refuse to take you seriously if you choose to be on the "other" side. Data is data, and people who fail or refuse to recognize what the data suggests are people who aren't operating within the confines of the intellectual field of strife, as it's called. The "theory of evolution is as much a fact as the "Germ theory of disease," or "Atomic theory" or "Cell Theory" or any of hundreds of other former "hunches" that have now been thoroughly tested, vetted through the peer review process and found to be consistent with data. You can "be on one side or the other" if you want, but you should know what you risk. You risk being thought either too dumb to understand what you see, or too biased to even see in the first place.

 

It seems a lot of believers think they're on solid footing when they reason that if scientists have their theories, believers can have theories as well. The problem is that religious "theories" stop at the hypothesis stage, are never tested in any way, and are not consistent with ANY data, let alone the preponderance of data. In fact, these "theories" don't even meet the criteria to become a hypothesis in the first place, because they are unfalsifiable. The religious theory, "God created the Universe," for example, doesn't have any testable attributes, and therefore could never be falsified or verified. This is why the religious are so deeply wrong to consider their "theories" to be similar or equal to scientific theories. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Edited March 29, 2012 by chiplee

[patra_is_here]

the use of 'falsifiable' is interesting. for the theory to be valid, it must have a method in which you could test whether it's false. saying 'god made flowers' is an invalid theory, because there's no way to test whether the theory is false. the mechanics of the testing mechanism does not exist. IF there was a way to test claims about god, then such claims would be falsifiable, and we could actually start forming the basis for a theory. I'm glad that the concept of 'falsifiable' was brought up in this fashion.

 

thanks guys, good thread.

[DieHARDmitsu.]

Question of the day: How many of you believe in having a soul? Edited March 29, 2012 by DieHARDmitsu.

[patra_is_here]

ironically, we can't answer that until YOU define what a soul is. because I may have no idea if I have one until I know what to look for. so, please, define 'soul' so that I can tell you if I have one.

[marso]

Something I saw today made me curious. People say god is love and satan is bad. But,.... in the bible how many people did satan kill? How many people did god kill? I can't think of a single story involving satan killing someone. But I can think of stories where god laid waste to entire cities and civilizations. Seems kinda ironic to me. Can anyone think of a story involving satan killing someone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a serious question. Please don't start fights. I really do want to read your answers to this question.

 

To give a quick answer and stay away from all the gobbly goop flying around in here what I've learned Satan uses humans to do the killing. It's basically a slap in the face to God by using God's creation(?) against itself and to prove it is superior. Killing something on your own isn't as impressive as persuading something to kill itself or others. Kind of like a Don in the Mafia. Why would you do the killing when you can control other people to do it for you. It's the power trip of all power trips.

Edited March 29, 2012 by marso

[john82wa]

Thank you Chad - I don't necessarily think that you, Patra or anyone else is bashing my belief and if it had come to that, I certainly would have bowed out early on in the discussion. There has been a fairly clean argument from both sides and it would be naive for any one person to ignore each others educated opinion. I will be entirely honest with you, this doesn't upset me one bit and it is more empowering then anything. It allows me to do more research and I am certainly okay with that. The more I study, the more I can present a better argument the next time this conversation comes around

 

With the limited time I do have I did discover one thing that was brought up by Chad. When he quoted Isaiah 11:12 and it referenced the 4 corners of the world. The translation he was using was the King James Version. This was a translation at the time when Hebrew / Greek / Latin was not very understood and there were many errors with the translation by King James's scholars. Then came the New King James Version to help correct this. The reason I bring this up is because there is another translation that that was translated to english prior to the KJV. This translation (Douay-Rheims) is:

 

"And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth."

 

During the time when it was written, reference to measurements was often used (things that could mathematically be understood) and thus, four quarters makes a whole. So it goes to question if the meaning was something in regards to 'the whole earth' or 'entire earth'. Now keep in mind the translation im quoting is derived off of the Latin manuscripts, not the original Hebrew, Aramaic and some Greek. For one to be sure, I would need to learn Hebrew which doesn't sound half bad to fill my curiosity.

 

Another thing to note in reading the bible, is it does not go into depth of what some of its claims are. For example, when I brought up the wind traveling from the north to the south. Im sure if I dug, that verse could be translated several different ways - but it does not discredit that there was an implication of what we know today, a jet stream. It was after all only one sentence, not a 400 page report that goes into detail. In regards to the sun, it is known that it rotates around the Milky way now - the sheer thought that the sun was on rails or continues on an orbit was like trying to tell the common man an elephant can fly & blow fire from its snout. Again, the VS says that it is on a 'circuit', not just that it rises in the east and sets to the west.

 

In regards to a soul - the best way I can describe it is the gut feeling one experiences. How does one reason with another person? What about the feeling of doing something wrong or right NOT based of worldly values? Some even argued its what allows us to wake up while sleeping vs sleeping and not waking up at all (if you have someone alive and someone dead side by side with all the same organs, what makes one work and the other not?) How does the NA Node in the heart know to fire impulses to trigger the muscles of the heart & in turn pump blood through the body?

 

Small bit of useless information...why did people say "bless you" when you sneeze? In older times, they thought the soul might escape during the sneeze

 

The soul is a tough one, but I completely, entirely, with out a doubt, believe that I have one. How do we have personalities? What about intuition? I personally don't know, but that's thinking off the top of my head. Maybe we have found out how those things work, if not, well....I don't have the answers.

Edited March 29, 2012 by john82wa

[Turborusty]

I just wanted to make a cameo appearance on page 13.

 

 

Turborusty

[Chad]

You are correct that the bible is vague about many details as the details are far less important than the lesson at hand. Thus, there is no point in using the bible to prove onces point about details, right?

 

You can't dismiss it's vagueness on one hand, and then use it as a refrence on anohter, It was never ment to be used that way, and those that try to churn science ouf the book are conducting in a very foolist endeavor.

 

Just shrug your shoulders and say what you feel about what it has to day, not what the book literaly says. The book is subject to interpretation, and means different things to different people. with a billion people reading it, there will be a billion differnet opinions, but the book in it's essense is still the same. Devine or not, it is still unchanged by opinion.

 

Debating science with it was never it's intention, and will never pan out in the end. That's not to say the lessons are without merit or moot, just that this is a misuse of it. Some wan tto save their faith with scientific analysis of the book to put those "science guys" to rest, that's a sure way to finding disapointment.

[DieHARDmitsu.]

ironically, we can't answer that until YOU define what a soul is. because I may have no idea if I have one until I know what to look for. so, please, define 'soul' so that I can tell you if I have one.

Ok,

We have a material body which can be seen, touched, ect,, We also have a mind but its not physical like the body. Some believe we have an energy or light or force within the body that is undetectable by the eyes or instruments. It is said to present in the body when its alive and parts when it dies.

I'm asking about that kind of "soul" who think(s) they have one?

Edited March 30, 2012 by DieHARDmitsu.

[patra_is_here]

Ok,

We have a material body which can be seen, touched, ect,, We also have a mind but its not physical like the body.

before we go any further, I need to know what 'the mind' is. you say it's something that isn't part of physical reality? (btw, im not busting your balls, i'm trying to work towards a very clear question and answer

[DieHARDmitsu.]

before we go any further, I need to know what 'the mind' is. you say it's something that isn't part of physical reality? (btw, im not busting your balls, i'm trying to work towards a very clear question and answer

 

... the imaginative, creative aspect of a person that is able to visualize, reason and conjure ideas.

dictionary definition: "the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons"

 

hope we can go back to answering the original question.

[patra_is_here]

 

... the imaginative, creative aspect of a person that is able to visualize, reason and conjure ideas.

dictionary definition: "the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons"

 

hope we can go back to answering the original question.

 

well nothing about that definition implies non-physicality. all those elements can be emergent properties of the physical brain. so IF that's the case, then no the soul doesn't exist. IF it is the case that the soul is something MORE than an emergent property we might conclude that the soul does indeed exist, and that the non-physical have found a way to interact with the physical.

[patra_is_here]

what i'm getting at is that ultimately the question is rather loaded, because there are a ton of premises which have to be accepted

[SubZero]

Something I saw today made me curious. People say god is love and satan is bad. But,.... in the bible how many people did satan kill? How many people did god kill? I can't think of a single story involving satan killing someone. But I can think of stories where god laid waste to entire cities and civilizations. Seems kinda ironic to me. Can anyone think of a story involving satan killing someone?

 

 

Wow Jeff, your question took off like wildfire in just a few days!

 

People are right in saying that God is love, here are some verses about it:

1 John 14:31 Anyone who does not love does not know God,

because God is love.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son,

that whoever believes in him shall not perish but

have eternal life.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we

were still sinners, Christ died for us.

 

Satan(adversary), devil(slanderer), deceiver(as an angel of light),.......nothing loving about him!

Look what Satan did to Job, he caused a wind and brought down Job's

oldest son's house killing Job's 10 sons and daughters.

Satan influenced raiding parties to steal Job's livestock and kill almost all his servants.

Then Satan afflicted Job with a painful disease, Job was then wrongfully accused by

his friends, lost respect before the people, even his own wife wished him dead!

 

In the book of Job, it is clear that Satan can influence people to do his will, which

is to destroy and murder. Satan cannot force it like some people say: the devil

made me do it! So who knows how many millions have

been murdered because of Satan's influence.

 

There's a big difference between God's love for us and Satan's desire to murder.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that

they may have life, and have it to the full.

 

There's a difference between kill and murder.

When we sentence a criminal to death, we are killing not murdering.

The court judged and justified the killing of the criminal.

 

From Genesis, God first killed when He gave Adam and Eve animal skins

to cover their shame, an animal life was sacrificed because of their sin.

 

Without a doubt the scriptures tell us that God kills, God does judge and

can be an executioner or order an execution.

 

Starting with Adam, God told him that the consequence of sin is death.

Adam was never killed but he knew why he was someday going to die.

 

Does God have the right to kill? Yes, and God also gave us that same right.

Justification and many times warnings comes before an intentional kill or killings

from God and even from ourselves. Does that make it unjust or evil, I don't think so.

[ucw458]

Wow Jeff, your question took off like wildfire in just a few days!

 

 

Yeah I'm a little shocked. 14 pages and no lock. That's definately a record for SQC.

[chiplee]

 

Yeah I'm a little shocked. 14 pages and no lock. That's definately a record for SQC.

 

Hardly. Couple 18 pagers out there unlocked. Still impressive though.

Edited March 30, 2012 by chiplee

[Metric-man]

I'm still under the impression it is a trick question.

 

It maybe for the sake of discussion, but I think you should follow the question on a premises of a story that for the sake of argument is either fictional or non-fictional and regardless of belief, still is a literary question.

For example..

"As I was going to St Ives" a nursery rhyme that is a question, draws on details of itself.

If you read the bible and pay attention to the nature of the characters in detail you start to understand their intent.

Of course this is part of the reason for the writing, but if you have read it you can answer the question.

It is always going to be a discussion or a debate that could rise to arguments because of the nature of its source.

 

I am not going to pretend to be a biblical scholar, but I have read and listened to teachings from the bible in Sunday school and bible study for extracurricular activity.

I don't find fault with Christian belief as a whole but,

I do despise the use of organized religion for monetary gain and prestige on any level.

And for those same reasons academic institutions.

[john82wa]

I do despise the use of organized religion for monetary gain and prestige on any level.

And for those same reasons academic institutions.

 

I couldn't agree more and I certainly believe it's where many are turned off by the church - A bad apple can go a long way unfortunately

[chiplee]

 

There's a big difference between God's love for us and Satan's desire to murder.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that

they may have life, and have it to the full.

 

The problem for thinking people is that even if they can get past all of the factors that call into question the validity of the entire story, the Christian God idea's definition dictates that God could stop Satan if He wanted to. So, thinkers are left with the fact that God chooses not to stop Satan, and therefore tacitly approves of Satan's actions.

 

There's a difference between kill and murder.

When we sentence a criminal to death, we are killing not murdering.

The court judged and justified the killing of the criminal.

 

If only that commandment had been, "Thou shalt not murder" instead of "Thou shalt not kill". You'd think God could have anticipated our confusion on this one and not been so ambiguous.

 

From Genesis, God first killed when He gave Adam and Eve animal skins

to cover their shame, an animal life was sacrificed because of their sin.

 

Without a doubt the scriptures tell us that God kills, God does judge and

can be an executioner or order an execution.

 

Starting with Adam, God told him that the consequence of sin is death.

Adam was never killed but he knew why he was someday going to die.

 

Does God have the right to kill? Yes, and God also gave us that same right.

Justification and many times warnings comes before an intentional kill or killings

from God and even from ourselves. Does that make it unjust or evil, I don't think so.

 

And the problem thinkers have (or should have) with this line of reasoning is that it begs us to hold God to a different standard. The standard maker Himself doesn't have to lead by example as we expect our earthly leaders to do, but instead gets to run roughshod over human morality as a reckless and brutal dictator would, while we give Him a pass on all of it. We wouldn't accept any of these arguments about any living person, as demonstrated in this mock trial. http://www.thegodmurders.com/

Edited March 31, 2012 by chiplee

[ucw458]

[/color][/font]

If only that commandment had been, "Thou shalt not murder" instead of "Thou shalt not kill". You'd think God could have anticipated our confusion on this one and not been so ambiguous.

 

And the problem thinkers have (or should have) with this line of reasoning is that it begs us to hold God to a different standard. The standard maker Himself doesn't have to lead by example as we expect our earthly leaders to do, but instead gets to run roughshod over human morality as a reckless and brutal dictator would, while we give Him a pass on all of it. We wouldn't accept any of these arguments about any living person, as demonstrated in this mock trial. http://www.thegodmurders.com/

 

 

Funny thing is after god gives moses the 10 commandments the first time he comes down the mountain and kills those who built idols to worship. Then after the second set of commandments god tells them to conquer and kill several times on their way to the promise land.

[DieHARDmitsu.]

 

well nothing about that definition implies non-physicality. all those elements can be emergent properties of the physical brain. so IF that's the case, then no the soul doesn't exist. IF it is the case that the soul is something MORE than an emergent property we might conclude that the soul does indeed exist, and that the non-physical have found a way to interact with the physical.

what i'm getting at is that ultimately the question is rather loaded, because there are a ton of premises which have to be accepted

Fair answer.

We cannot confirm or deny the existence of the “soul” Even though some scientists have dismiss its existence as just a false belief while religion(s) claim the absolute opposite.

 

We are told by science that man reached a rapid rate of advancements over the past 300 years or so. No argument there, more so, the last 100 years. Man is now more capable and much more aware of his surroundings including his own anatomy.

 

In recent discoveries we have been able to detect that which is invisible or undetectable to “limited human senses” by using special instruments ex: x rays, gamma rays, ultra violet light, radiation, radio waves, sonar, and the list goes on,,, We were said to be ignorant of gravity until Sir Isaac Newton discovered it and paved the way for better understanding of the force. The Earth was also said to have been flat and the Sun revolved around it. The discovery of the internal combustion engine, turbine and nuclear energy must also be noted.

 

According to science, all of the mentioned discoveries were unknown to the more primitive civilization as we go back deeper in the time line.

 

However, there have been some intriguing anomalies in contrast to the principal findings of science. In some eastern religious records that date back for thousand of the years, parallels of modern scientific discovers/and theories are present but noted in an uncommon poetic/metaphoric form of language. If you’ve read the works of William Shakespeare which is only a few hundred years old, I almost certain you have, you‘ll understand the nature of old world language.; as they tend to be less blunt and direct than that of present day.

 

The so called “Big Bang” theory tells us of the ever expanding universe and how it came to be.

Here you’ll find an ancient parallel that tells of a similar theory but again in old world tongue.

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_universe

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Multiverse

 

It goes deeper to tell us about “multiple universes“ “string theory” and “quantum theories” things that modern day science is now beginning to entertain.

 

 

The forces of gravity, anti gravity and the “Mercury Vortex Engine“, a technology that NASA has barley touched on but pursuing.

http://www.bluewiss....User-Manual.pdf

 

Another discovery that science has touched on but dismissed a few times before finally accepting its existence is “anti matter” This is also widely mention in some ancient text. “that which cannot be seen or touch but is present”

 

Many of these ancient parallels are dismissed by the scientific community and modern day authors as myths and/or man’s “over active imagination” Still, I can’t ignore the findings of science or dismiss the anomalies that the ancient world/religion has thrown at science. If science were to uncover one piece evidence to prove otherwise that man did not go from caves to building straw houses then to launching space shuttles, will it bring that out into the open?

 

Old world cultures or the known religions as we have labeled them don’t have the answers. On the other hand science tries to explain things with its findings and theories. The understanding of our existence and world we live in seems to have more questions than answers; if we look at them from a wider scope.

 

In my opinion its foolish to solely trust in religion to explain reality. Relying strictly on science to be the authority on telling us what’s real and unreal is just as bad. Yet, somehow science seems to have become the new world religion. Will it ever be used as a means to control the masses as religion has done in the past? Who knows…

 

 

If the “soul” does exist, perhaps it’s composed of that which is beyond our current understanding. To be fair and give an answer to the very question I asked, I’d say, there is more to me than just flesh, blood brains and bones. I see others the same way too.

Not sure how many see it that way...

Edited March 31, 2012 by DieHARDmitsu.

[john82wa]

The Multiverse and Hindu cycle is certainly something that we are very very very far from knowing or proving the theories correct. We don't have the means to test them and so many other things described in the bible. The very idea seems so far off the rocker, but then again, men were able to overcome flight and eventually land on the moon (now don't bring up that conspiracy theory) which was a criminal thought and thought to be just mad.

 

I think DieHard is on to something though. If it wasn't for these wild thoughts and ideas brought from the bible or scientist alike, we would be stagnant as a species. It's hard to ignore what the bible suggests and label it as something as a story passed through the generations until the printing press was created to hold the stories in place. Especially when several books of the bible have shown to be correct with science still proving more and more to be accurate.

 

Im hoping - that there would be more scientist to get involved in the Red Sea crossing in the bible. The artifacts at the bottom of the sea and even the pillars described in the bible from which King Solomon put in place to mark the very crossing NEED to be looked at. I wait in anticipation for science to catch up to the bible and little by little it comes to light. The Dead Sea Scrolls is another that is absolute fascinating. More scripture from an entirely different belief system that catalogs Jesus's life and it is in line with the Gospel (new testament) of the Bible. These ancient stories are so incredible that I would absolutely love to know the mysteries behind them. Im incredibly open to science today - because science is the very means to discovering Gods creations. I suppose thats why im not threatened by science - just more intrigued by it.

 

I don't understand how people can NOT be intrigued by the bible. Especially those who seek the truth and are truly open to ideas that seem today to be utterly mad, but later in the future it just might be the normal thought pattern backed by newly discovered evidence. Thats just me of course.

Edited March 31, 2012 by john82wa

[SubZero]

Chip, God can and will stop Satan. It is even prophesied how God will do that.

One third of the bible is about prophecies, all fulfilled prophecies have been 100% right.

I can't think of any other religion that can back up their word with prophecies.

 

 

As for the thinking people:

Isaiah 55:8-9

⁸ For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.

⁹ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

so are my ways higher than your ways

and my thoughts than your thoughts.