1. Does soul assumes life?

Soul in bible is the only criterium to consider human because they are the only ones who have it and nothing else. This is one of the most common contradictions between creationists and evolutionists as genetics show that everything alive is so similar that the assumption that only human have a soul and not everything that lives is ridiculius.
For example how could Cain leaving Eden find himself a wife? I heard recently a version that there exist some form of human-like creatures without souls
And that was the reason for the flood to destroy those half-souled he had progined (feels like having it with a monkey to me) so that only pure souls would remain.

2. Does science explains the Genesis in 6 days?

On one hand it could be considered as a metaphor of world's elementary, or maybe it's some sacred number which had a significance for the author. Or I heard another information that it has really happened in 6 days in the year 4004 BC and that days took different intervals of time. For example God created life in the first day but our scientific knowledge says that Universe started billions of years ago. So this explanation says that it took really a gay for creating life but God intentiously presuming our future curiosity made it the way for us to say light was created that long. The sanme with dinisaurs, he created them on the same day with all other animals almost immedeiately extincted them and made the way for us to find them and assume that they had died millions of years ago
For me, something is not right in this although time paradox is somehow bypassed

3.Does our knowledge of the Trinity suggests that God is a non-physical being?

That he exists independently from our space-time and so has the knoledge of future and past. And we're all already doomed for his sight. And we don't have to worry about our souls because everything is destined. I don't like it even more than I don't like the idea that God is within our space-time and so doesn't have knowledge of future and our soul salvation is an actual thing. In bible texts there are indications on both ideas.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Homuncul
1. Does soul assumes life?

Soul in bible is the only criterium to consider human because they are the only ones who have it and nothing else.

There's no evidence of "souls" in any way, and this is why we must assume, and work under the assumption that for all intents and purposes, souls do not exist.

2. Does science explains the Genesis in 6 days?

In 6 days? Not by a long shot.

In several billion years? Maybe, but probably not in the exact order given in the Bible - should we then begin to take seriously?

3.Does our knowledge of the Trinity suggests that God is a non-physical being?

He can't really exist in the physical world, can he? :p

Redundancy aside, if he's non-physical, he's non-existant. If he's "supernatural", he's omni-present and omni-powerful - conjures up a truckload of paradoxes faster than you can "Jesus Christ on a pogo stick" - one of 'em being that our lives are laid on a railroad track and we thus don't have any free will at all.

Of course, if he's physically present, what are we really worshipping then? Some alien?

Originally posted by Homuncul
So this explanation says that it took really a gay for creating life


Bwwwahahahahaha! When I read this my cat looked at me funny because I was laughing so hard. One of the best typos I have read so far.

BigTeddyPaul

Bwwwahahahahaha! When I read this my cat looked at me funny because I was laughing so hard. One of the best typos I have read so far.

I'm russian. For me "g" is english "d" so I apologize for making your cat look funny. And I feel myself very silly forwarding the theory that life was created by an ordinary gay without any proof. Still some votes from sexual minority are mine. That's encouraging

It may come as a shock to some modern fundamentalists, but much of the bible is myth and metaphor.

How do I know this? In college I studied the early Christian church, specifically what are called the "Fathers."

Now I'm not a Doctor of Theology (yet!) but what this tells us is what early Christians were thinking and writing about the Bible and other teachings. Now granted, the Old Testament was written many centuries before by the Jews, but again, you can go back in history and read what people thought of it back then.

While Genesis is metaphor mixed with a bit of history (starting probably with Abraham, which most scholars believe was an actual historical figure), it is also not a book of science. The Ancients didn't have the benefit of our knowledge of biology, astronomy, geology, etc. Science simply didn't exist at the time.

So to pick up the Bible and conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old (which is to be found nowhere in the Bible text, but is actually the back-of-envelope speculations of a medieval Bishop and others after him) or that dinosaurs didn't exist, or that evolution didn't happen, etc. is not a tenable position. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Many religious people, "bible believing" (not beating/bashing or thumping) Christians and Jews take science seriously and hold their spiritual beliefs on the other hand, without trying to force them into the same holes and fudge the figures to fit.

Studying early Christianity is something I wish more people did, because it would do a lot to clear away many of these misconceptions and misunderstandings between different religions and about the bible, etc.

I think some of these fundamentalists do more harm then good when they beat some half-baked idea they cooked up (or had fed to them by some fiery preacher they heard on the radio or tv) over the head of some poor sap who doesn't know the first thing about religion, and either confuses the heck out of him, or ends up having him "cursed to hellfire and damnation" (by the well-meaning missionary) and returning the favor with curses of his own.

People need to take the time to be honest with each other. If they can't agree, at least agree to disagree, but cut out the bull....

Anybody ever read those "Jack Chick" tracts well-meaning peopel are always dropping at bus stops and such? Those things are probably some of the worst examples of tossing theology into the blender and seeing who you can confuse with it... trust me, the real thing is FAR more interesting.

Studying the history (from several viewpoints) from learned scholars (PhD's) alongside the bible text is probably the best way to go about it. Reading the Gideon Bible in your hotel room is fun, but without knowing the backstory, it can be anyone's guess what it means... which helps explain why there are thousands of Christian denominations....

The six day creation actually works backwards, because it allows modern day (at the time) people to pre-present the creation of the world (the universe) in their everyday lives.

A six day week, followed by the Sabbath, the day of rest, is laid out by God from the beginning. So thus our everyday routine is a constant reminder that we owe our existence to God.

In the Bible it says that to God "a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day" so maybe from that you could literally get "6,000 years" but that's still missing the point.

A "thousand" is just another way of saying "a whole lot" in ancient writings like this anyway.

Six is an imperfect number, but adding 1 to it makes seven, the number of perfection (God). So God at the end of the week, makes it perfect (or complete, whole, etc). A person is made whole (holy) by celebrating God's gift at the end (which is also the beginning of the next week, etc.).

These stories are laced with symbols, ignoring that and forcing it into literalism does great injustice to it.

Right. Just like it says to forgive someone 777 times does not actaully mean that. The meaning is that you are supposed to keep on forgiving someone and not counting how many times you forgive them.

Oops Kurgan you pissed me off. Only 372 more times and then I never have to forgive you.

In a nutshell.

BigTeddyPaul

Also, if we're having a debate about religion here, perhaps we should avoid loaded polemical terms like "heretic, superstition, idol" etc which are all prejorative in nature.

The term "Myth" is not, in the anthropological sense, it is a metahporical story that uses symbols, allegory, etc to teach a moral lesson(s), and not a literal statement of fact.

When I was in Boulder, CO a few weeks ago, I listened to a guy talk about how he felt that Nature was his religion. Quite interesting. In fact, there are many types of atheists and agnostics and they have as many different beliefs as you'll find in any religion. I would characterize them as a philosophy or ideology (although some atheists are just simply a-religious). A moral code is often akin to a religion, because much of it is non-rational in nature, and not necessarily quantifiable by science.

What is religion? That's a whole nothing topic...

Let us say that something being non-rational does not make it necessariliy "irrational" ...

If you want to get technical, it was 70 x 7 times to forgive someone (490). ; )

Yes, I agree.

Also, people like to trot out the "number of the beast" which deals with numerology (most scholars agree it refers to Caesar Nero) varies from 666 to 616, depending on the language it was rendered in and translated from (the total equaling his name).

It's really fascinating stuff. Even atheists study the Bible, because much of our civilization has been influenced by it in some way or another, and billions of people use it for inspiration, even if they ignore parts of it or interpret it differently. It's one of the cornerstones of literature... the classic themes and characters are borrowed in modern stuff all the time.

Arg. I am too excited about the three game 7s of hockey on in 20 minutes. Excuse my lapse in thinking. DANG! Now I only have 489 times left.

BigTeddyPaul

Nicely said Kurgan. All Christians in here ought to read it, as it's crucial to understanding the Bible, IMO.

Many people forget to use their common sense when reading. To me, the Bible is built on a fundament of myth and folklore, but to some people it's all God's spoken word. Some of what happened in the bible is real enough, and some of it is probably just a well intentioned myth to help people guide their lives according to the morals it preaches.

But what's so wrong with that? It doesn't take long to figure out that evolution is more plausible than young creationism, but why does that stop you from following the Bible? It doesn't - you can still be a good religious and moral person even though you've realized that not all the Bible preaches is factual truth.

EDIT: and yes, I've read the Chick tracks... makes for some good fun if you're bored and want to experience one ugly ogre of a Christian God. He's practically forcing people to believe.

Nice that we agree on that. When all is said and done, that's pretty much what it boils down to.

I like to read about all the various theories on the bible, even the totally "out there" ones (the Beatles are the Antichrist, the Bible Code, etc), not because I believe them, but I like to see other perspectives, and when wrong, the ways to refute those arguments.

I think tolerance is needed in this world of ours, and I see a lot of religion bashing and radical fundamentalism on the 'net, so these types of talks are needed.

I think if people did more research, and thought with their hearts (so to speak) some of this could be avoided.

Ever watch that lady and man at 11:30 on like CBS? Jack Van Impe and some woman. Funniest thing on TV. They get all these obscure references to current events and say stuff like how Saddam is laying down the foundation for the anti christ and how Acts 34:99 speaks about the SARS thingy. So unbelievably funny.

Anyways, those people once talked how like Bill Clinton can be found 77 times in the Bible using the Bible Code thingy. Hi larious of some of the other things. They also said that Waco and Flight 780 that crashed outside NY? was in there many times too.

The absolute best part is during the show they try to sell you useless God crap for like fifty dollars. God's servants my tookus.

BigTeddyPaul

Even Jesus warned about "false prophets" and I'd say these guys probably qualify in that category.

A little healthy skepticism never hurts, especially when somebody is trying to sell you something.

Ever watch Robert Tilton (moved to 3am on BET)? 'Nuff said.

That guy's such a bafoon, I don't know how anyone would trust him with their money, and he quotes the Bible out of context to support his outrageous financial schemes, it's just sad.

I'd like to explore (again) a little bit about Christian God from multiversal point of view. Please don't send me to the swamp.

There is no place for God in our space-time. He's not presenting here completely. He's like a sphere trying to get into 2-dimentional plane. He's only partly seen. And as he comes out of our space-time say to the 5-dimention (maybe more) he perceives our space-time completely. He sees our future-past, he can see inside us and through us (see parallel universes thread) and more he can perceive multiverse (if time is a multiverse too then it is even more obvious) so seeing all possible variations of space-time.
And what do we know about Christian God. He says (through others) that there would be a judgement day for every soul to go to hell or to heaven. But since he's the master of time and multiverse he had already decided every soul in billions of ways and he's of no need of such a day. Everything is already decided and so fighting for soul's salvation is useless.
But then there can be contradiction. Some might say that with your assumption taken it's easy to prepose that our universe is just one of the variations of his multiversal decisions. That leads to a new definition of Christian God (as presented in Bible). That it's merely a private occasion and lacks its devine completeness (as Bible points) in our space-time. And that God is too complex of a structure to be conservated in just book. And religion (if not a political weapon) is worthy only for education but not for dogmatisation of understanding structure of reality and God

If anyone's interested I can make some other examples (or you can make some on your own if someone agrees this crap)

From that perspective, ancient writings like the Bible represent attempts to put the mind of God into understandable human terms.

If God knows the future, that doesn't necessarily mean that free will doesn't exist. If "the future is in motion" for example.

A multiverse concept is compelling, but I don't know if I buy it. Something like the movie "The One"? Seeing the equations would be one thing, explaining it philosophically would be another.

As a philosophical construct, a multiverse theory doesn't really help explain the existence of THIS universe (occam's razor comes to mind), and so without the equations to back it up, it sounds like a real leap of faith.

Alright, these religious threads have gone on long enough. IF YOUR ALL SO SURE about your beliefs, then you shouldn't argue them with peoples whos beliefs are different! It seems like all these are for people who need others backing them so they dont feel like they could be wrong. And yes, I've posted in these threads before, and now I realize how dumb I was for arguing my opinion with another person. But I swear, how many more Chritian vs Non-Christian threads do we need?

You have a good point, I quit arguing a while ago, because it is pointless, we are all getting to far into it, Senate is supposed to be fun and its turning into a holy war almost. I think we all should just stop insulting Christians/Non Christians, and debate other subjects.

Originally posted by munik
I'd like to think it was random. It's kind of disheartening to think that such a supreme being such as God made man the way he is. For instance, if it was me, I know I could do a better job. Making sperm need to be a cooler temperature then the body thus having the testicles hang freely in a sack of skin, and then make them so sensitive...yep, that must have been the design of an infinitely wise being. Making the fetal position the pose of choice for protection, but then neglecting to maybe add another rib or some other bone to protect the kidney's...once again, the true sign of omnipotence. Toenails? You guessed it, absolute genius. I could go on for quite some time, but I reckon those are enough.

What is the point of making something that is so inherently flawed? sometimes your briliance astounds me.:)

But I swear, how many more Chritian vs Non-Christian threads do we need?

As long as people with free minds feel the need to discuss these ideas with each other and express their differences, we'll most likely continue to see threads like these from time to time.

Now, as everybody knows, this forum is for "serious" discussions, and that's what they are. That doesn't mean we can't have fun, but nobody need attend who can't stomach a little controversy or debate. Right?

Now on the other hand, I'm not saying Christians and non-Christians need to "verses" each other, like conflict is a good thing, but perhaps these kinds of threads can help promote understanding. Every discussion need not end with agreement or compromise, but at least people have a chance to aire and test their ideas for others to see. It helps a person get out their thoughts and see if others can help them understand better.

For example, you may not agree with things I have said, but at least you can help understand what I believe, or why I choose to believe it, etc, rather than just assuming I'm a psycho or something. ; )

(PS: And if you think I'm a psycho, I'll have you know I'm perfectly sane and you have nothing to fear from me... unless you go trolling on my forums or something.... heh)