Conquer Online Forum - Free Kung Fu MMORPG

Conquer Online Forum - Free Kung Fu MMORPG (http://bbs.co.99.com/index.php)
-   Emerald/Sapphire (http://bbs.co.99.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Religion (http://bbs.co.99.com/showthread.php?t=669272)

CheekyPunk27 03-14-2010 16:46

The ark thing is bogus.

That dude who supposedly found them is a liar, to have it put simply. Either that, or he's really confused.

Arro, as for your pig, here is the proof that it does not exist:

You cannot prove he does, therefore he does not exist.

ChaoticArcher 03-14-2010 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheekyPunk27 (Post 11027141)
The ark thing is bogus.

That dude who supposedly found them is a liar, to have it put simply. Either that, or he's really confused.

Arro, as for your pig, here is the proof that it does not exist:

You cannot prove he does, therefore he does not exist.

lololol what he said was a way to describe your fairy you call god

/selfpwnt

bigfry 03-14-2010 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaoticArcher (Post 11027237)
lololol what he said was a way to describe your fairy you call god

/selfpwnt

Actually the argument is good.

Why don't you explain how the light sensitive freckle or what Darwin called the irreducibly complexed came into being.

Wait lets do this.

How does something evolve from nothing?

The right answer is an Intelligent Designer.

You figure out how something came from nothing and you have proven there is no God. If you can't then there is a God.

I think that is a fair challenge.

Arronax 03-15-2010 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfry (Post 11027130)
Its important to remember archeological silence does not disprove an event. It wasn't long ago King David existence didn't have hard evidence now it is accepted fact.


And the egyptian papyrus scrolls are providing very interesting evidence daily for the New Testament.

However, I will say the ark is probably not the real thing although it might be. One thing to take into account is there are flood accounts throughout the ancient-near east.

As far as I know, there's no evidence at all suggesting that that the entire globe was covered in water. Such a massive phenomenon would at least leave SOME evidence behind, had it ever happened.


Quote:

Originally Posted by CheekyPunk27 (Post 11027141)
The ark thing is bogus.

That dude who supposedly found them is a liar, to have it put simply. Either that, or he's really confused.

Arro, as for your pig, here is the proof that it does not exist:

You cannot prove he does, therefore he does not exist.

Nah, he's just another christian pretending to be a scientist.
And you cannot prove that god exists, therefore he does not exist.



Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfry (Post 11027258)
Actually the argument is good.

Why don't you explain how the light sensitive freckle or what Darwin called the irreducibly complexed came into being.

Wait lets do this.

How does something evolve from nothing?

The right answer is an Intelligent Designer.

You figure out how something came from nothing and you have proven there is no God. If you can't then there is a God.

I think that is a fair challenge.

Ha ha. ha. No.

You're saying that "If a phenomenon does not yet have a sufficient scientific explanation, god did it.

That's not a fair challenge, that's just plain out retarded. There are many things yet undiscovered by science. We may never get a proven scientific explanation to how the universe came into being. That's still not proof of gods existence.


I'll give YOU a fair challenge: Explain the dinosaurs from a biblical perspective. (and you better not use the word 'metaphor' in conjunction with "7 days".)

bigfry 03-15-2010 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arronax (Post 11027580)
I'll give YOU a fair challenge: Explain the dinosaurs from a biblical perspective. (and you better not use the word 'metaphor' in conjunction with "7 days".)

Well this is what I live for I am thinking of doing doctoral dissertation on Genesis.

I find it interesting that the hardcore atheist and the extreme fundamentalist both have the same view of Biblical interpretation strict wooden literalism.

The word used for day in ancient Hebrew is "Yom" which is used to describe an age or a long period of time, a literal 24 hour day, and the time the sun is in the sky like we use for day time.

In reading the bible you have to recognize it is uses tools common to literature to express the whole story. It Is written with Genre poetry wisdom literature narrative( this would be the literal part) and letters.

When you say a women is hot do you mean if you touch her you will burn your hand.

No you me she is beautiful. Unless you are a doctor she is running a 104 degree temperature. One statement two different meaning taken in context they make sense.

Single verse strict wooden literalism is how you end up in Jones Town my friend.

Look at the Genesis account of how life was created on the Earth it matches up with what modern science now understands to be true. Not bad for an accounted handed down generation after generation for thousands of years before the written word came into being.

That's enough for now I am typing this on my IPhone and its a pain.

Arronax 03-15-2010 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfry (Post 11027833)
Well this is what I live for I am thinking of doing doctoral dissertation on Genesis.

I find it interesting that the hardcore atheist and the extreme fundamentalist both have the same view of Biblical interpretation strict wooden literalism.

The word used for day in ancient Hebrew is "Yom" which is used to describe an age or a long period of time, a literal 24 hour day, and the time the sun is in the sky like we use for day time.

In reading the bible you have to recognize it is uses tools common to literature to express the whole story. It Is written with Genre poetry wisdom literature narrative( this would be the literal part) and letters.

When you say a women is hot do you mean if you touch her you will burn your hand.

No you me she is beautiful. Unless you are a doctor she is running a 104 degree temperature. One statement two different meaning taken in context they make sense.

Single verse strict wooden literalism is how you end up in Jones Town my friend.

Look at the Genesis account of how life was created on the Earth it matches up with what modern science now understands to be true. Not bad for an accounted handed down generation after generation for thousands of years before the written word came into being.

That's enough for now I am typing this on my IPhone and its a pain.

I didn't even bother reading your entire posts. You could've just as easily written "metaphor, lulz".

If the story about creation is written in metaphors, then I claim that the ressurection, the parting of the red seas, the walking on water, the entire story about noahs ark, and everything else that is more or less 'miraculous' in the bible is meant metaphorically as well.

Who are we to judge which part of the bible is meant metaphorically, and which part is not? Or which part of the bible to pay heed to, and which part NOT to pay heed to for that matter? =)

bigfry 03-15-2010 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arronax (Post 11027869)
I didn't even bother reading your entire posts. You could've just as easily written "metaphor, lulz".

If the story about creation is written in metaphors, then I claim that the ressurection, the parting of the red seas, the walking on water, the entire story about noahs ark, and everything else that is more or less 'miraculous' in the bible is meant metaphorically as well.

Who are we to judge which part of the bible is meant metaphorically, and which part is not? Or which part of the bible to pay heed to, and which part NOT to pay heed to for that matter? =)

I never said creation was a metaphor but that's what you may have learned if you read the post, and I thought it was the religious that where closed minded.

Arronax 03-15-2010 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfry (Post 11027894)
I never said creation was a metaphor but that's what you may have learned if you read the post, and I thought it was the religious that where closed minded.

"In reading the bible you have to recognize it is uses tools common to literature to express the whole story. It Is written with Genre poetry wisdom literature narrative( this would be the literal part) and letters. "

Metaphors, lulz.




Idiot.

bigfry 03-15-2010 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arronax (Post 11027938)
"In reading the bible you have to recognize it is uses tools common to literature to express the whole story. It Is written with Genre poetry wisdom literature narrative( this would be the literal part) and letters. "

Metaphors, lulz.




Idiot.

When you cant do anything else name call its a debate tactic that fails every time.

it should have read:

Genre, poetry, wisdom, literature narrative( this would be the literal part), and letters. Five distinct types of literary tools found in the Bible. sorry I left out the commas the Iphone isn't the best for posting to a forum.

So I can understand why you might have been confused.

The Genesis account would be a narrative and it matches up with our best science.

Lets look.

Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This might also be a vague reference to a Big Bang event
Gen. 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
This might be a reference to the creation of the multitude of stars in the Universe. Modern science would place this as beginning from a few million years after the Big Bang essentially through the present. Many stars (and therefore many sources of subdued light) existed by 6 billion years ago.
Gen. 1:4 - ... and God divided the light from the darkness
This seems to refer to the creation of the Sun which establishes a clear distinction between light and darkness. Before the Sun came into existence, a faint level of starlight came from every direction. Modern scientists believe that this event happened about 5 billion years ago.
Gen. 1:9 - ... and let the dry land appear ... Gen. 1:10 - ... and the collection of waters He called seas...
This clearly indicates that the Earth as we know it now existed. Modern science believes this occurred about 4.55 billion years ago .
Gen. 1:11 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed
Plant life was created first, to feed the later animal creatures. First the simpler grasses and then the more complex seed-bearing plants. Scientists have found evidence of fossils of very simple and primitive plants to be the oldest of all fossils found, so that they know that plants came before the later animal creatures. This is estimated to have begun around 3.5 billion years ago. Modern science also believes that there was very little free oxygen in the atmosphere at that time. These plants, especially blue-green algae, used the plentiful carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as an important source material for their photosynthesis, and they gave off oxygen as a waste or byproduct.
Gen. 1:11 - ... and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth
Enough fossil evidence of these and all following plants and animals exists, such that sequences of subtle changes have been found by scientists that suggest a logical progression of how all these living things would seem to have come about. A fairly continuous fossil record exists for some species of plants, which suggests that later plants could have "evolved" from earlier plants adapting to new conditions. This set of scientific understandings allows scientists to be comfortable with an evolutionary explanation for these events that they can comprehend in a logical way and that they are comfortable with
Gen. 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
Fish became numerous in the seas during the Devonian period (390-340 million years ago). Modern science uses a large amounts of fossil evidence and radioactive dating information to confidently establish this. These fish could ONLY have come about AFTER the plants had created great amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere and then some of that oxygen had gotten absorbed into the seas. No fish could live without dissolved oxygen being present in the water, another nice logical aspect supporting the sequence of Genesis 1.
Gen. 1:20 - ... and fowl [that] may fly<05774><08787> above the earth in the open firmament of heaven
Birds are also preserved in fossil records. Modern science believes that birds seem to have developed and evolved from the reptiles that crawled out of the oceans
Gen. 1:24 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind
Science says that the crawling and slithering creatures arose as some types of fish adapted to life away from the waters. First, small amphibians crawled out of the water, but they never became dominant species. Later, reptiles developed and multiplied, so much so that the Mesozoic period of history (230-65 million years ago) is also known as the Age of Reptiles (of which dinosaurs were a part).
Gen. 1:24 - ... cattle, and the creeping animal, and the beast of the earth after his kind
After a great extinction of reptiles (and dinosaurs) about 65 million years ago, there was no longer a dominant type of creature on the Earth. This enabled the development of many varieties of (warm-blooded) mammals, beginning after 65 million years ago.
Gen. 1:26 - ... Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
Modern science says that this happened within the last 2-3 million years. Eventually, societies developed, man developed language, tools, weapons and logic, and has come to dominate over all the earth and its creatures (also mentioned in Gen. 1:26). Since humans have now gotten to a point of being able to scientifically research their heritage, they find adequate but subtle evidence that exists that supports the theory that they evolved from lesser creatures. This assuages their intellectual curiosity. No absolute proof will EVER be available that that was actually the case (to the exclusion of Biblical Creation), but extremely convincing evidence exists to support the scientific point-of-view. There will NEVER be any way of determining whether the Lord did this all in 6 days and thoughtfully pre-planned for future men's curiosity; or whether He used billions of their years to do it and necessarily had to describe it in terms of days because of the primitive nature of the intellect of the Bible's initial readers. Also, the early readers didn't comprehend the full scale of the Earth and Sun and Universe. They still thought the Earth was flat and couldn't possibly move!

Thanks I finished my research for a good sermon series.

CheekyPunk27 03-15-2010 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arronax (Post 11027938)
"In reading the bible you have to recognize it is uses tools common to literature to express the whole story. It Is written with Genre poetry wisdom literature narrative( this would be the literal part) and letters. "

Metaphors, lulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arronax (Post 11027869)
If the story about creation is written in metaphors, then I claim that the ressurection, the parting of the red seas, the walking on water, the entire story about noahs ark, and everything else that is more or less 'miraculous' in the bible is meant metaphorically as well.

There are different genre's and types of writings. Not all are the same. So not all should be read the same.

As for what I believe about the Genesis creation account:

Literal or metaphor, we must remember first and foremost that the Bible is about God, and about his plan for salvation through Jesus Christ. And so, I look for what I can learn about God and about Jesus from it.

Arronax 03-15-2010 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheekyPunk27 (Post 11028420)
There are different genre's and types of writings. Not all are the same. So not all should be read the same.

So we're free to choose which of the 'stories' in the bible are literal and which ones are not?


How many christians does it take to debate against one non-believer btw? :F

Arronax 03-15-2010 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfry (Post 11028272)
When you cant do anything else name call its a debate tactic that fails every time.

it should have read:

Genre, poetry, wisdom, literature narrative( this would be the literal part), and letters. Five distinct types of literary tools found in the Bible. sorry I left out the commas the Iphone isn't the best for posting to a forum.

So I can understand why you might have been confused.

The Genesis account would be a narrative and it matches up with our best science.

Lets look.

Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This might also be a vague reference to a Big Bang event It might also be a reference to the start of the McDonalds enterprise..
Gen. 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
This might be a reference to the creation of the multitude of stars in the Universe. Modern science would place this as beginning from a few million years after the Big Bang essentially through the present. Many stars (and therefore many sources of subdued light) existed by 6 billion years ago. It might also be a reference to the invention of the lightbulb.
Gen. 1:4 - ... and God divided the light from the darkness
This seems to refer to the creation of the Sun which establishes a clear distinction between light and darkness. Before the Sun came into existence, a faint level of starlight came from every direction. Modern scientists believe that this event happened about 5 billion years ago.
Gen. 1:9 - ... and let the dry land appear ... Gen. 1:10 - ... and the collection of waters He called seas...
This clearly indicates that the Earth as we know it now existed. Modern science believes this occurred about 4.55 billion years ago .I think I read somewhere that according to the bible, the earth is around 12000 years old
Gen. 1:11 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed
Plant life was created first, to feed the later animal creatures. First the simpler grasses and then the more complex seed-bearing plants. Scientists have found evidence of fossils of very simple and primitive plants to be the oldest of all fossils found, so that they know that plants came before the later animal creatures. This is estimated to have begun around 3.5 billion years ago. Modern science also believes that there was very little free oxygen in the atmosphere at that time. These plants, especially blue-green algae, used the plentiful carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as an important source material for their photosynthesis, and they gave off oxygen as a waste or byproduct.
Gen. 1:11 - ... and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth
Enough fossil evidence of these and all following plants and animals exists, such that sequences of subtle changes have been found by scientists that suggest a logical progression of how all these living things would seem to have come about. A fairly continuous fossil record exists for some species of plants, which suggests that later plants could have "evolved" from earlier plants adapting to new conditions. This set of scientific understandings allows scientists to be comfortable with an evolutionary explanation for these events that they can comprehend in a logical way and that they are comfortable with
Gen. 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
Fish became numerous in the seas during the Devonian period (390-340 million years ago). Modern science uses a large amounts of fossil evidence and radioactive dating information to confidently establish this. These fish could ONLY have come about AFTER the plants had created great amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere and then some of that oxygen had gotten absorbed into the seas. No fish could live without dissolved oxygen being present in the water, another nice logical aspect supporting the sequence of Genesis 1.
Gen. 1:20 - ... and fowl [that] may fly<05774><08787> above the earth in the open firmament of heaven
Birds are also preserved in fossil records. Modern science believes that birds seem to have developed and evolved from the reptiles that crawled out of the oceans
Gen. 1:24 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind
Science says that the crawling and slithering creatures arose as some types of fish adapted to life away from the waters. First, small amphibians crawled out of the water, but they never became dominant species. Later, reptiles developed and multiplied, so much so that the Mesozoic period of history (230-65 million years ago) is also known as the Age of Reptiles (of which dinosaurs were a part).
Gen. 1:24 - ... cattle, and the creeping animal, and the beast of the earth after his kind
After a great extinction of reptiles (and dinosaurs) about 65 million years ago, there was no longer a dominant type of creature on the Earth. This enabled the development of many varieties of (warm-blooded) mammals, beginning after 65 million years ago.
Gen. 1:26 - ... Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
Modern science says that this happened within the last 2-3 million years. Eventually, societies developed, man developed language, tools, weapons and logic, and has come to dominate over all the earth and its creatures (also mentioned in Gen. 1:26). Since humans have now gotten to a point of being able to scientifically research their heritage, they find adequate but subtle evidence that exists that supports the theory that they evolved from lesser creatures. This assuages their intellectual curiosity. No absolute proof will EVER be available that that was actually the case (to the exclusion of Biblical Creation), but extremely convincing evidence exists to support the scientific point-of-view. There will NEVER be any way of determining whether the Lord did this all in 6 days and thoughtfully pre-planned for future men's curiosity; or whether He used billions of their years to do it and necessarily had to describe it in terms of days because of the primitive nature of the intellect of the Bible's initial readers. Also, the early readers didn't comprehend the full scale of the Earth and Sun and Universe. They still thought the Earth was flat and couldn't possibly move!

Thanks I finished my research for a good sermon series.

Yeah, I couldn't be arsed commenting (or even reading) the rest of your post.


Really, you could read anything you WANT TO into those paragraphs. Trying to make religious jibberish fit into scientific theories by way of imagination is plain stupid.

Jerri~v.2.1 03-15-2010 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfry (Post 11028272)
long post is long

Isn't the human thingies in bible somewhere too... I only know the stuff in Finnish, somehow, so rough translation would be something like "Adam was molded by a spring water fountain, from spit and clay" w/e

Anyhow it had something to do with what scientists later found as the base elements of human beings.

Years ago one priest kinda dude (he wasnt priest just some dude in the congregation thingy who held our confirmation school), was saying about that thing and how people during that time could have known these things if it wasnt divine knowledge xD

He also said something along the lines "Can you see atoms? I've never seen atoms. Can you show me atom?" and then went on about how evolution theory is **** so it ate all his credibility.

Jerri~v.2.1 03-15-2010 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arronax (Post 11028469)
How many christians does it take to debate against one non-believer btw? :F

Well there's you and chaos... :D




I'm just backing up everything from bible because I can. :cool: Bible side is more fun, for now.

Ryuzaki 03-15-2010 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arronax (Post 11028469)
So we're free to choose which of the 'stories' in the bible are literal and which ones are not?


How many christians does it take to debate against one non-believer btw? :F

eleventyblue


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 19:54.