Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://buffalobeast.com.s134940.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/the_jesus.jpg


That's mine....same guy?

Nobody ****s with the Jesus.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
...and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church.

Is there documentation or data behind this? I didn't know gnostics to be an especially put-upon group in modern society. At least relative to several religious groups that are openly mistrusted and persecuted.

Also, there are gnostic churches. I have a friend who's a gnostic bishop. To say the churches "dare not teach" certain things is a bit misleading. That's true of any belief if you selectively pick which churches to compare it to.

My Jesus is Carl Sagan.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My Jesus is Carl Sagan.

At least Carl Sagan Christ wrote his own books. Unlike Jesus who wrote... nothing.

And no one wrote anything about him in his lifetime.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And no one wrote anything about him in his lifetime.

I think the first book was written between 60 and 150 years after his death. It's amazing that the writers could remember things in so much detail after so many years.

It's also funny how there's historical evidence of the fall of Troy or the existence of Hrothgar's mighty hall, but no one willingly believes in the supernatural events in the tales. Religion requires a special kind of evidence filter.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It's also funny how there's historical evidence of the fall of Troy or the existence of Hrothgar's mighty hall, but no one willingly believes in the supernatural events in the tales. Religion requires a special kind of evidence filter.

Not all religions. Just the ones we are stuck with. If everyone was a Buddhist, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, its not really the Buddhist style to take over the world.

But what kind of Buddhist? It is not a homogeneous religion and has a large foundation of faith-based assertions as well. The difference being here in the west, Buddhism appears less aggressive and visible than Abrahamic religions.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But what kind of Buddhist? It is not a homogeneous religion and has a large foundation of faith-based assertions as well. The difference being here in the west, Buddhism appears less aggressive and visible than Abrahamic religions.

First off, Mahayana. Theravada is just weird. Then something that doesn't require temples or priests. You might as well keep Christianity, if you are going to have temples and priests.

Good luck convincinbg more than ten people to drop tax sheltered institutions and a religious eliute status.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Good luck convincinbg more than ten people to drop tax sheltered institutions and a religious eliute status.

There are other people who are now starting to fight over that. So, if I hold my breath, it just might all fall into place.

Ok, I'm tuning blue, so back to breathing.

We can not save ourselves or be saved without Jesus because we all have sinned and made mistakes. However, we do have the choice whether or not we believe in and follow Him- and, thus, whether or not we will let ourselves be saved.

Originally posted by m317
We can not save ourselves or be saved without Jesus because we all have sinned and made mistakes. However, we do have the choice whether or not we believe in and follow Him- and, thus, whether or not we will let ourselves be saved.

But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.

1) What's the oldest Adam and Eve story that you know of?

2) What happens in that version of the Adam and Eve story that is different from, say, the Official King James version of the Bible version of Adam and Eve?

Well, there's the Jewish Adam and Eve story, I guess if you could call it that - that the first woman born was actually Lilith and that Adam didn't want her because she wanted, you know, not to be subservient, and so she was cast out of the Garden and then Eve was made.

Judaism predates Christianity. By a lot.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1) What's the oldest Adam and Eve story that you know of?

2) What happens in that version of the Adam and Eve story that is different from, say, the Official King James version of the Bible version of Adam and Eve?

What siriuswriter said.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Well, there's the Jewish Adam and Eve story, I guess if you could call it that - that the first woman born was actually Lilith and that Adam didn't want her because she wanted, you know, not to be subservient, and so she was cast out of the Garden and then Eve was made.

Judaism predates Christianity. By a lot.

This.

Problems.


1) Christianity is BASED on Judaism. Part of the Jewish Bible is CONTAINED in the King James version of the Bible. With the exception that some names are rendered in Hebrew, as opposed to English, there are no major differences between the 2 Adam and Ever stories that I can see.

My reference to the Jewish Bible is as follows:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166

2) From what I've read of Lilith, she is part of what is called Midrash, writings ADDED to the Tanakh (i.e. the Jewish "Bible" after the Tanakh itself was written, to explain certain things.
As such, Lilith cannot be considered among the oldest tellings.
For the oldest writings did not include her.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Problems.


1) Christianity is BASED on Judaism. Part of the Jewish Bible is CONTAINED in the King James version of the Bible. With the exception that some names are rendered in Hebrew, as opposed to English, there are no major differences between the 2 Adam and Ever stories that I can see.

My reference to the Jewish Bible is as follows:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166

2) From what I've read of Lilith, she is part of what is called Midrash, writings ADDED to the Tanakh (i.e. the Jewish "Bible" after the Tanakh itself was written, to explain certain things.
As such, Lilith cannot be considered among the oldest tellings.
For the oldest writings did not include her.

It doesn't really matter because it is not a literal story. Adam and Eve never really existed. They represent all of us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Adam and Eve never really existed.

How can you be sure?

"Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?"

It's a weird thread, that one...Jesus

For me...........It's Faith, plain and simple. I aint no Bible basher - I don't care what people believe, just don't be a fanatic. I see Christians, Muslims, Jewish and very occasionally....Buddhist.

Be Merry....

Now, you have to say Happy Holidays, instead of Merry Christmas...hahahahahaha

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How can you be sure?

There are two many logic errors in the story for it to be true. If it was true, then the human race would have died out.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are two many logic errors in the story for it to be true. If it was true, then the human race would have died out.

Are you basing this on the premise of "not enough genetic variation"?

"Cain would have had nowhere to get a wife" or some similar theory?


Or are there even things, SEPARATE from procreation, that make you believe the story is untenable regardless?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Are you basing this on the premise of "not enough genetic variation"?

"Cain would have had nowhere to get a wife" or some similar theory?


Or are there even things, SEPARATE from procreation, that make you believe the story is untenable regardless?

First off, the story is filled with personifications. That tells me that the story is not real. Just like we know the story of Bambe is not real. Dear do not talk. Just like snakes do not talk.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Are you basing this on the premise of "not enough genetic variation"?

"Cain would have had nowhere to get a wife" or some similar theory?


Or are there even things, SEPARATE from procreation, that make you believe the story is untenable regardless?

Oh don't forget the giants of the earth/children of angels, etc. procreated with Adam and Eve's children, no doubt making most of us divine.

Or something. Whatever. The idea that the story could ever be taken literally is unbelievable.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Oh don't forget the giants of the earth/children of angels, etc. procreated with Adam and Eve's children, no doubt making most of us divine.

Or something. Whatever.


You're referring to what some call "The Nephilim".
I've heard a lot about this in the past few months.

It's taken from Genesis 6:


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=AKJV

Genesis 6

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

" ... 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord ...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it's in the beginning of Genesis. Shocking how many people don't seem to know anything about them.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The idea that the story could ever be taken literally is unbelievable.

There are a lot of unbelievable things that are true, though.

For instance, would you believe me if I told you that there were spiders that breathe air, yet spend the majority of their adult lives underwater?

What if I told you of a creature the size of a city bus that could take a single breath of air, dive down a mile or two, stay down underwater a full HOUR with no difficulty, and return to the surface none the worse for wear, splashing you playfully?

How about an animal whose nose grows so big and strong and long that he could use it to wrap around a full grown man and pick him up in the air and crush the man lifeless?


Yet you know by now that all these things exist, and you can probably list for me exactly what we call them in English, too.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
... the story is filled with personifications.

That tells me that the story is not real.
Just like we know the story of Bambi is not real.

Deer do not talk.

Just like snakes do not talk.


Shake?
(Do you mind that as the short form of your username? I won't use it if you do ...)

Ancient books often describe the way things WERE.
They DON'T necessarily describe things the way they are NOW.

There is a supposition among people that, whatever we see today, this must have been the way of the world yesterday. That's not always so.

And it is certainly not true that books of yesteryear MUST be telling us of something fantastical just because we don't see it today.

I can think of one sad counterexample right off the top of my head.
The Yangtze River Dolphin.


When I was little, my dad gave me a Zoobook (National Geographic Magazine for kids) that featured whales. It said that, although there were several dozen species that lived in the seas of the world, there were only 1 or 2 that lived in freshwater. I LOVED the look of the thing that book showed me.
I wondered if I might not see one someday in real life.
Sadly, that likely will never be the case.
The Yangtze River Dolphin, 14 of which were alive earlier in my life, apparently went extinct, a little more than 6 years ago:

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1651819,00.html

In other words, it doesn't exist now.
But does that mean it never did?

Was my book lying when it told me that, in the year of that Zoobook's publication,
there were indeed dolphins swimming in China's most famous freshwater river?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
in the beginning of Genesis. Shocking how many people don't seem to know anything about them.



I honestly cannot tell if you are joking or not.

There was a time in America, probably in the lifetime of your father or grandfather,
where such actually WOULD have been surprisingly common knowledge to many,
especially if your folks lived in one of the Southern states.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


... the story is filled with personifications.

That tells me that the story is not real.
Just like we know the story of Bambi is not real.

Deer do not talk.

Just like snakes do not talk.


My dog doesn't talk.

My cat doesn't talk.

The chimps at the zoo, though they apparently share 95% of the DNA talking people have, they do not talk, either.

(I'VE never heard them speak, anyway ...)




What would you say, though, if I told you I owned an animal that could fly AND say my name and six other phrases, in nearly perfect English, if I asked it to?

In fact, on its own, might demand a Saltine?

Certainly there are people in the world
who can claim to own animals able to do that much and more ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7ht0a2-OnA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Shake, I will not say in this post "A snake talked to Adam and Eve."
That'd be worse than saying a bird could talk.


What I will say, however, is that:

a) the Bible has a surprisingly good track record
b) yesteryear was NOT always like today, and you and I can both point to multiple examples of that statement being true
c) a lot of things that appear miraculous to us, like, say, manna in the desert, actually DO exist, though most people are completely unaware of it, not having done any research, or even ever considering such a thing
d) animals have gone extinct that might have amazed us as much as many of the ones with us today
e) there might have been an animal or class of animal as unrelated to us as parakeets, mynas, and parrots are today that could simulate spoken human language with similar effectiveness


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll stop short of suggesting overmuch that snakes appear as feathered in more than a few ancient sources.
Or that there are actual gliding snakes, though featherless, gliding through our modern day jungles.

After all, combined with the following video clip, such a thing might stun even jaded forum readers out of their cynicism for the wonder that exists in the world now.

They might even stop to think for half a quarter second that, with the number of species we have forced to go extinct over the centuries, there might have been natural marvels equally unexpected, though long gone now ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtlpfTwzziY

As I know people have absolutely abysmal copy and paste skills here,
I'll present the clips I gave above as easy-to-click links here:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90 seconds with ... "Einstein" , (2006 clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7ht0a2-OnA
(1 min 27 sec)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Snake of Paradise, NATURE, Moments of Impact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtlpfTwzziY
(3 min 54 sec)

Originally posted by bluewaterrider


I honestly cannot tell if you are joking or not.

There was a time in America, probably in the lifetime of your father or grandfather,
where such actually WOULD have been surprisingly common knowledge to many,
especially if your folks lived in one of the Southern states.

I live in the South now, and have many southern religious relatives. Some of them did not know anything more than their preacher cherry picked for them every Sunday, and a lot of Christians are the same way.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There are a lot of unbelievable things that are true, though.

For instance, would you believe me if I told you that there were spiders that breathe air, yet spend the majority of their adult lives underwater?

What if I told you of a creature the size of a city bus that could take a single breath of air, dive down a mile or two, stay down underwater a full HOUR with no difficulty, and return to the surface none the worse for wear, splashing you playfully?

How about an animal whose nose grows so big and strong and long that he could use it to wrap around a full grown man and pick him up in the air and crush the man lifeless?


Yet you know by now that all these things exist, and you can probably list for me exactly what we call them in English, too.

Yes, some things are hard to believe, but the story of Creation requires a complete "and then magic made it all happen" mindset to be taken seriously. You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but if they believe in Magic Six-Day Creation Yahweh, they must be taken seriously.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Jack-Nicholson-lol.gif

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shake?
(Do you mind that as the short form of your username? I won't use it if you do ...)

Most people call me Shaky.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Ancient books often describe the way things WERE.
They DON'T necessarily describe things the way they are NOW.

Are you suggesting that things were different in the past? Sounds like evolution. However, animals did not talk to humans in the past.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There is a supposition among people that, whatever we see today, this must have been the way of the world yesterday. That's not always so.

Yes, I believe in evolution. But I have a feeling that you are not talking about evolution, but about magic. I don't believe in magic.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
And it is certainly not true that books of yesteryear MUST be telling us of something fantastical just because we don't see it today.

I have news for you, books today, just like in the past, tell fantastical stories. They are called fiction.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I can think of one sad counterexample right off the top of my head.
The Yangtze River Dolphin.


When I was little, my dad gave me a Zoobook (National Geographic Magazine for kids) that featured whales. It said that, although there were several dozen species that lived in the seas of the world, there were only 1 or 2 that lived in freshwater. I LOVED the look of the thing that book showed me.
I wondered if I might not see one someday in real life.
Sadly, that likely will never be the case.
The Yangtze River Dolphin, 14 of which were alive earlier in my life, apparently went extinct, a little more than 6 years ago:

In other words, it doesn't exist now.
But does that mean it never did?

Did River Dolphins talk to people?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Was my book lying when it told me that, in the year of that Zoobook's publication,
there were indeed dolphins swimming in China's most famous freshwater river?

No. However, I don't see how that is relevant. Now if the Yangtze River Dolphins could talk to humans, that would be a different matter.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
My dog doesn't talk. .

My cat doesn't talk.

The chimps at the zoo, though they apparently share 95% of the DNA talking people have, they do not talk, either.

(I'VE never heard them speak, anyway ...)

Dogs and cats are domesticated. Unless Eve had domesticated the snake, we are talking about a wild snake.

Talking is very human.


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What would you say, though, if I told you I owned an animal that could fly AND say my name and six other phrases, in nearly perfect English, if I asked it to?

In fact, on its own, might demand a Saltine?

Certainly there are people in the world
who can claim to own animals able to do that much and more ...

Domestication is the difference.


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shake, I will not say in this post "A snake talked to Adam and Eve."
That'd be worse than saying a bird could talk.


What I will say, however, is that:

a) the Bible has a surprisingly good track record
b) yesteryear was NOT always like today, and you and I can both point to multiple examples of that statement being true
c) a lot of things that appear miraculous to us, like, say, manna in the desert, actually DO exist, though most people are completely unaware of it, not having done any research, or even ever considering such a thing
d) animals have gone extinct that might have amazed us as much as many of the ones with us today
e) there might have been an animal or class of animal as unrelated to us as parakeets, mynas, and parrots are today that could simulate spoken human language with similar effectiveness

a) The bible is not a history book. The bible is a collection of many fiction and nonfiction books of the past.
b) Tomorrow is also NOT always like today. However, in many ways things never change, like human nature.
c) Ignorance is not evidence for magic.
d) That is true. 65 million years ago dinosaurs all died out, and they would be amazing today.
e) There could of also have been dancing unicorns in that past, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'll stop short of suggesting overmuch that snakes appear as feathered in more than a few ancient sources.
Or that there are actual gliding snakes, though featherless, gliding through our modern day jungles.

After all, combined with the following video clip, such a thing might stun even jaded forum readers out of their cynicism for the wonder that exists in the world now.

They might even stop to think for half a quarter second that, with the number of species we have forced to go extinct over the centuries, there might have been natural marvels equally unexpected, though long gone now ...

We now know that dinosaurs were covered with feathers. So, a snake with feathers is not absurd. It is a genetic through back just like humans with a tale.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose


Yes, some things are hard to believe, but the story of Creation requires a complete "and then magic made it all happen" mindset to be taken seriously.


1) "God". Not "magic".
2) What kind of mindset is required to take the Big Bang theory seriously?



Originally posted by Stealth Moose


You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but if they believe in Magic Six-Day Creation Yahweh, they must be taken seriously.



Speaking honestly, no I would not tease an adult for believing in any of those things.

One, I would not believe THEY really believed in those 3 things.
I would think they were teasing.

Two, if they DID convince me they actually believed in those things, I would be concerned at that point if those were the ONLY ... unorthodox ... thoughts they held, but were otherwise stable and conventionally nonagressive ...

No, definitely don't think I would be teasing at the point I realized they were serious about one or all of THOSE 3 things ...

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but if they believe in Magic Six-Day Creation Yahweh, they must be taken seriously.



I've been giving further thought to this post of yours.

The reason, alluded to in my prior response, that I wouldn't be teasing is because belief in these 3 things in particular suggest that person might actually be a potential danger to me.

I would be taking the PERSON seriously, not necessarily his or her belief.
The potential danger the PERSON poses to me is what is no laughing matter.

I don't know how politically incorrect we're allowed to be on this forum; I would point to 911 as an illustration of how belief translated into action by people, regardless of whether the belief is valid or not, can lead to some very serious consequences indeed ...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Domestication is the difference.


You surprised me with this response.

I was going to present you the hypothetical:
"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?"

Actually, I'll still do so:

"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?"


Bear in mind, parrots imitate animals in the wild naturally.
How else would people have discovered they could be trained to "talk" were it otherwise?



Originally posted by Shakyamunison

a) The bible is not a history book. The bible is a collection of many fiction and nonfiction books of the past.


Which ones are fiction? What's your criteria for making that judgement?
While the Bible may not formally be a history book, it has been found to be historically accurate concerning a number of things mentioned in its pages.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison

b) Tomorrow is ... NOT always like today.

d) 65 million years ago dinosaurs all died out, and they would be amazing today.


Tomorrow hasn't gotten here yet.
How do YOU know it's not going to be like today?



A lot of animals became extinct far, far more recently than 65 million years ago.
I was pointing to things observable from writings of the last 300 years, and at least one from within our own lifetimes.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison


e) There could of also have been dancing unicorns in that past, but I doubt it.

We now know that dinosaurs were covered with feathers. So, a snake with feathers is not absurd.
It is a genetic through back .
Just like humans with a tale .


e) I've not done enough research to say with authority, but, I seem to remember that the word translated as "unicorn" does not by itself have horse-like qualities.
Much more like a mountain goat, if you're referring to one of the famed Biblical beast of prophecy, i.e. that one with the single horn beating down the ram.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Key word in your phrase "we now know" is NOW.

Whether right or wrong, we did not "know" it before, and, at that time, the proposition of a snake, or even a dinosaur, having feathers, was absolutely, completely absurd.

"Absurdity" often disappears as one learns more about the world, though.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
...You have chosen to interpret the non-Christian beliefs as dangerous without giving the same ruling to Christians, which is a baffling kind of selective judgment on your part.

I sometimes make this same mistake about Christians, but then again I know first hand how evil Christians can be.

The sad part is, good people and Christians are not mutually exclusive. But usually it's the liberal Christians who are the good people. The fundamentalist ones who prefer strict interpretations of the Bible are frightening people, relying on Bronze Age morality to define the modern world.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose


Big Bang theory isn't an absolute; it's a put-forth theory based on available empirical evidence and subject to change ... BBT is not be held up as a paragon of truth by anyone.


Not so, but thank you for acknowledging as much as you did in your FIRST sentence ...


Originally posted by Stealth Moose

you wouldn't recognize their beliefs as having the same legitimacy as Christianity, would you?


No, I would not.



Originally posted by Stealth Moose

If they told you you should leave cookies out for Santa or risk coal in your stockings, would you smile and snicker when they leave or would you very seriously nod and follow their tradition out of respect? Again, these are adults here, not kids.


Only one I could think of that would have done something like that is my grandma. I would have very seriously nodded and followed her tradition out of respect. For her. Not because I believed in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, though.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so, but thank you for acknowledging as much as you did in your FIRST sentence ...

This is hardly revolutionary though. Creationists think that BBT is some rival, when it's not. Scientific method does not allow for absolutes to be claimed without absolute evidence, and thus far none is forth-coming. So we make educated guesses and refine them with research. Which is how reality should be defined. Anyone who claims to have figured out the complexity of reality because of thousands of years of Middle-Eastern mythology has an agenda.



You dodged the point that you specifically brought up the potential danger they might possess, and even went so far as to make a 9/11 reference over believers of the Easter Bunny, but refused to acknowledge, despite my emphasis on the issue, that the faith-based belief system is equally valid to that of Christianity.

Why?



I'm not interested in your personal sentimental behaviors, which are themselves not rationally defined or defend-able. I'm asking you why Christians are more valid than beliefs in other beings who cannot be accurately measured?

Lucien posted this awhile ago, and I think it deserves a re-mention:

What if you're wrong.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You surprised me with this response.

I was going to present you the hypothetical:
"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?"

Actually, I'll still do so:

"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?"

No, the story has many more personifications then just that. Like God walking in the garden. This is a personification of God, but not really God. It is not literal.


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Bear in mind, parrots imitate animals in the wild naturally.
How else would people have discovered they could be trained to "talk" were it otherwise?

They also do not really talk. They simply imitate. However, there have been a few genius parrots that after a life time of training have talked. But their intelligence is more akin to the of a child.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Which ones are fiction? What's your criteria for making that judgement?
While the Bible may not formally be a history book, it has been found to be historically accurate concerning a number of things mentioned in its pages.

So is Gone With the Wind. But just because Gone With the Wind is set in a historical accurate setting does not mean that Scarlett O'hara was a real person.

I would never take any of the bible litterally.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Tomorrow hasn't gotten here yet.
How do YOU know it's not going to be like today?


Everything changes. This change maybe very slow at times, but it can also be quick. Tomorrow might appear to be the same as today, but it is not. That is how things get older.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
A lot of animals became extinct far, far more recently than 65 million years ago.
I was pointing to things observable from writings of the last 300 years, and at least one from within our own lifetimes.

Still the same.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
e) I've not done enough research to say with authority, but, I seem to remember that the word translated as "unicorn" does not by itself have horse-like qualities.
Much more like a mountain goat, if you're referring to one of the famed Biblical beast of prophecy, i.e. that one with the single horn beating down the ram.

It is a symbol that most people would Identify as something not real. I could have sued the Easter Bunny, but I like the unicorn better.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Key word in your phrase "we now know" is NOW.

What? Why capitalize now?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Whether right or wrong, we did not "know" it before, and, at that time, the proposition of a snake, or even a dinosaur, having feathers, was absolutely, completely absurd.

I think you misses the point and got sidetracked. If that was my doing, I apologize.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"Absurdity" often disappears as one learns more about the world, though.

Am I a teenager?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

You dodged the question.


Not intentionally.


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I asked if you would take them as seriously as you would Christianity.


I would not.


Originally posted by Stealth Moose

The point, which you missed miserably, is that all of these beliefs - from Claus to Christ - exist on the same amount of evidence. They have no basis in established fact and cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, they share an equal level of validity.

You have chosen to interpret the non-Christian beliefs as dangerous without giving the same ruling to Christians, which is a baffling kind of selective judgment on your part.


There's a book by Henry Cloud entitled "Integrity".
In it, he outlines that trust in a person is based on our belief in both their character and their competence.
Cloud also asserts that, to test whether a thing is good or not, you should examine the "wake" it leaves behind.

The wake traditionally associated with a religion like Islam ...
well, there's a reason I mentioned 911.

Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.
Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles.
Actually, according to a philosopher like Steven R. Covey, some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society BECAUSE they are in alignment with natural principles.

You can probably guess where I'd put some religions and the subject of your thought experiment based on the above.
I'm out of time today; check this space some time tomorrow or later in the week if you can't guess where I'd place them and why.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Am I a teenager?


How should I know that?

This is effectively the first time I've interacted with you in this forum.


However, unless you are literally more extraordinary than I could ever imagine any human being on Earth ever being EVER
... you do NOT know ALL there is to know about the world.





I'll consider your responses when next I visit.

As I told Moose, I am out of time.



Have a good day, Shakya.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How should I know that?

This is effectively the first time I've interacted with you in this forum.


However, unless you are literally more extraordinary than I could ever imagine any human being on Earth ever being EVER
... you do NOT know ALL there is to know about the world.





I'll consider your responses when next I visit.

As I told Moose, I am out of time.



Have a good day, Shakya.

Wow! So, did you not mean to treat me like a child?

You just told me that I will change my views once I go out and experience the world. Did I get that wrong?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not intentionally.

I take the time to address each of your statements as if they had merit of their own. Return the courtesy.



You did not answer the why. This is key to the discussion.



Except this is something of a red herring. The Crusades alone, have had estimates of death counts between 1 and 9 million, and that was single-handedly started by the Christians in an attempt to reclaim what they felt was theirs because of the Bible's claims and the motivations of their leaders.



But no belief system espoused by religion yields good things in people's lives and benefits society across the board. There is always discrimination, friction between religious ideas and progressive society, and a tribal "us versus them" mentality. In particular, the idea that non-believers are somehow morally bankrupt or defective is almost always a facet of major religions.



This is a loaded usage of the term 'natural principles', since these same 'natural principles' are often just religious morals redefined as natural to exclude alternative descriptions of otherwise morally neutral acts. Like you know, being gay. How dare they upset the natural order of things.

http://lilyvelden.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gay-animals-05.png



Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?




I await your well-thought out reply.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I take the time to address each of your statements as if they had merit of their own. Return the courtesy.


I think we're having some language difficulties here.
I've been answering your questions as directly as I know how.

I think the problem is you're expecting a certain form of answer, or want me to give exactly the answer YOU would give,
if you were to pose to yourself your own question, and don't realize it.




Restate your individual questions as a numbered list or something.


I'll see how many I can cover for you.



Originally posted by Stealth Moose

You did not answer the why. This is key to the discussion.


I DID answer the why, though obviously not in the way you were expecting.

Perhaps the problem is you're treating this as purest abstraction, like a set of "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?" problems.
You're expecting an answer not based on how I would actually behave in real life, even though your surface approach suggests that to be your goal, but how I might behave if I were some sort of PLB:

(excerpted from the book "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?", by William Poundstone)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


" ... Many logic puzzles speak of "perfectly logical beings" (PLBs). Examples include the puzzles about the adulterous village or the pirates splitting the gold coins. "Perfectly logical" is a code word, almost, whose meaning is clear to puzzle fans but opaque to everyone else. When you hear a phrase such as this, the puzzle is telling you to forget practically everything you know about human psychology. It means you are supposed to make these assumptions:

♦ PLBs have simple, one-dimensional motivations. The PLB is concerned only with getting the most money, or escaping the demon, or obeying a silly law, etc. Nothing else matters.
As a corollary, PLBs never do favors for "friends." It's every PLB for himself.

♦ PLBs think quickly. The being is promptly aware of the logical consequences of everything. Never does his mind wander, never does he make a mistake, never does he forget.

♦ PLBs understand the psychology (such as it is) of other PLBs and draw precise conclusions about their actions in utter confidence. More than anything else, this is what throws non-puzzle fans.
Human actions are always somewhat uncertain. PLBs' actions never are.
The intended solutions of these puzzles are therefore wildly unrealistic.
They generally take the form of A concluding that B will conclude that C will conclude that D will conclude ... and so on. No way would that work in the real world. Small uncertainties about real people's motivations would bubble up chaotically and render that kind of convoluted reasoning worthless.
But not in these puzzles. You can take this as a hint. When you hear about a perfectly logical being, the solution will almost always involve that being's reasoning about other PLBs (or about yourself, in puzzles that ask "What would you do in this situation?" ..."

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

There's a book by Henry Cloud entitled "Integrity".
In it, he outlines that trust in a person is based on our belief in both their character and their competence.
Cloud also asserts that, to test whether a thing is good or not, you should examine the "wake" it leaves behind.

The wake traditionally associated with a religion like Islam ...
well, there's a reason I mentioned 911.


Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Except this is something of a red herring. The Crusades alone, have had estimates of death counts between 1 and 9 million, and that was single-handedly started by the Christians in an attempt to reclaim what they felt was theirs because of the Bible's claims and the motivations of their leaders.



If anything, this response of yours is a red herring.

The Crusades were the work of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know the secular world considers Catholicism to be Christianity;
in reality it adheres about as much to what is actually written for Christians to follow as the Islamic faith you're comparing it to.

@bluewaterrider what about my questions that you never answer. Did you answer those in a way I couldn't anticipate?

Can you put the questions and answers together for me? I realize that I can sometimes be really stupid, so a little help would be great.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If anything, this response of yours is a red herring.

The Crusades were the work of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know the secular world considers Catholicism to be Christianity;
in reality it adheres about as much to what is actually written for Christians to follow as the Islamic faith you're comparing it to.

Your religion needs to take responsibility for its past or you're destined to repeat it.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

But no belief system espoused by religion yields good things in people's lives and benefits society across the board.


Not so. Nor is it true that there is no empirical evidence to support my premise.

Here is the first counterexample that comes to mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172112



But I think we're talking on different levels.

I'm short on time until the beginning of most people's typical workweek (i.e. Monday), so I hope you'll understand that I can only answer piecemeal and at random until then. Have patience.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so. Nor is it true that there is no empirical evidence to support my premise.

Here is the first counterexample that comes to mind:

...

But I think we're talking on different levels.

I'm short on time until the beginning of most people's typical workweek (i.e. Monday), so I hope you'll understand that I can only answer piecemeal and at random until then. Have patience.

Ya, Stealth Moose is a little bit wrong about that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I think we're having some language difficulties here.
I've been answering your questions as directly as I know how.

I don't see how there could be language difficulties when I am proficient with the English tongue and use it daily. Perhaps you have the difficulty here?



No, I want you to think outside of your comfort zone. Your answers and positions thus far imply that you can't reason outside of the POV that is sympathetic to Christianity, and furthermore you are unwilling to do so. You've equated faith-based beliefs in beings unable to be empirically verified as potentially dangerous, and brought up some ridiculous 9/11 reference, as if only Muslims are capable of great evil due to faith.

I've asked you many many times WHY and you seem to think that directly answering me is somehow a losing position and you just don't do it.



How lazy are you? This thread is barely three pages long. Find them yourself. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed my own readily available posts for your convenience.



The only thing you gave me that was a complete thought was someone else's thoughts. And even then, it didn't satisfy the direct question I posed to you.



I'm expecting you to be real to yourself. It is not a "pure abstraction" to ask you if you give validity to equally verifiable faith-based constructs. The beings I used were pure fantasy, but their ability to be proved was about the same. You're attempting to make this question unrealistic in an attempt to avoid answering the very problem you brought up. Why do you immediately think of danger and 9/11 when someone says "X believes in figure Y", and Y isn't Christ?

Why the double-standard?



What rubbish.

The question was simple. At first, you chose to answer it, even if your answer was full of all sorts of side-stepping the comparison of Christianity to the Whatever belief systems I proposed to get you, as an individual, to show to the rest of us what you consider the foundations for a valid belief system. What separates "I believe, therefore respect my beliefs" versus "I believe, because I have proof, and I can show you proof, so respect my beliefs".

You have attempted to spin the question so much Fox News is about to sue to for stealing their method.

Let's review your stance:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've been giving further thought to this post of yours.

The reason, alluded to in my prior response, that I wouldn't be teasing is because belief in these 3 things in particular suggest that person might actually be a potential danger to me.

I would be taking the PERSON seriously, not necessarily his or her belief.
The potential danger the PERSON poses to me is what is no laughing matter.

I don't know how politically incorrect we're allowed to be on this forum; I would point to 911 as an illustration of how belief translated into action by people, regardless of whether the belief is valid or not, can lead to some very serious consequences indeed ...

Now let's review the question I posed to you that elicited this response:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Yes, some things are hard to believe, but the story of Creation requires a complete "and then magic made it all happen" mindset to be taken seriously. You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but if they believe in Magic Six-Day Creation Yahweh, they must be taken seriously.

You went from "adults who believe in Santa Clause, etc." to "danger, 9/11", from that. What does that tell us about your belief system?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so. Nor is it true that there is no empirical evidence to support my premise.

Here is the first counterexample that comes to mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172112

^This doesn't refute this:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But no belief system espoused by religion yields good things in people's lives and benefits society across the board. There is always discrimination, friction between religious ideas and progressive society, and a tribal "us versus them" mentality. In particular, the idea that non-believers are somehow morally bankrupt or defective is almost always a facet of major religions.

... Even slightly. It doesn't even directly address it. Shaky, shame on you for buying into his rhetoric.



You're right. You seem to be talking everywhere but at me with all these unrelated sources and non-direct answers and fear-mongering over stealth-extremist Easter Bunny jihadists.


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If anything, this response of yours is a red herring.

The Crusades were the work of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know the secular world considers Catholicism to be Christianity;
in reality it adheres about as much to what is actually written for Christians to follow as the Islamic faith you're comparing it to.

No, I brought it up specifically to showcase that Christians are capable of great evil too, in the name of doctrine and belief. Your 9/11 example is a ridiculously small sample of the second largest religion in the world. It's the kind of "OMG ARABS 911, LETS IGNORE ALL THE CRIMES PERPETUATED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, ARABS ARABS" viewpoint that makes me want to say "Stop watching Fox News".

Also, LOL at Catholics not being Christians. When these acts took place, Catholics were about the only Christians in the world who had any power.



If you can't define 'natural principles' in your next long-awaited reply, don't bother. You're just wasting my time.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
... Even slightly. It doesn't even directly address it. Shaky, shame on you for buying into his rhetoric...



Not all religions are the same. Buddhism has added great befits to my life and the people around me. I know you were looking at the bigger picture, but I could help but chime in.

Trust me, I am not buying into his rhetoric. However, it would be nice if he would try to answer my questions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Not all religions are the same. Buddhism has added great befits to my life and the people around me. I know you were looking at the bigger picture, but I could help but chime in.

Trust me, I am not buying into his rhetoric. However, it would be nice if he would try to answer my questions.

Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.

Thank you. But most Christians and Muslims are also laid back and don't infringe on others rights. It's extremism that destroys a religion.

Hrm. True. LIberal Muslims and Christians usually take the best that religion has to offer and don't dwell on the literal wording that sometimes doesn't mesh with modern society.

Sometimes.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Hrm. True. LIberal Muslims and Christians usually take the best that religion has to offer and don't dwell on the literal wording that sometimes doesn't mesh with modern society.

Sometimes.

You are so skeptical. Even secularists sometimes screw things up.

There's a possibility we're all wrong. I just don't see why people want to control, fight and kill each other to prove they they are right.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
There's a possibility we're all wrong. I just don't see why people want to control, fight and kill each other to prove they they are right.

Evolution.

There is a connection between aggression and reproduction. And then there are limited resources. This leads to that killing thing, you mentioned. Plus, killing is so easy. Controlling is what is hard.

That explains the tribal mentality.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That explains the tribal mentality.

We now find ourselves in a completely different environment (cities and infrastructure) then the one we evolved in. The question is, can we survive this new environment.

Wait... was there a topic?

I forget. GIA hasn't returned since we questioned his profound knowledge.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I forget. GIA hasn't returned since we questioned his profound knowledge.

That seems to be spreading.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
(Serious.)
Because it's easy to forget just how "absurd" and "ridiculous" things we take for granted in the present were considered in the past before they were found to be correct.

Fun fact: the things we found absurd and ridiculous which were later proven right weren't faith-based assertions from singular sources. They were usually scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon.

There's a huge difference from disbelief in concepts of gravity, radio waves, or genetics versus disbelief in Middle-Eastern mythology.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How do you know it's not literal? Ignoring Jesus as God walking among men in the form of a man, there are also, arguably, Old Testament references of God the Father doing so. Here is one of the more striking accounts to suggest that:

Personifications are never to be taken literally.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That's why I put the word "talk" in quotes.
So, you agree then that the snake could not have talked to Eve?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're contradicting yourself.

Absolutes are their own cage. However, we are not talking about a domesticated genius snake that was trained to talk.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
(Serious.)
Because it's easy to forget just how "absurd" and "ridiculous" things we take for granted in the present were considered in the past before they were found to be correct.

Ignorance is not evidence for magic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Personifications are never to be taken literally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Absolutes are their own cage.


mmm



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
... you agree then that the snake could not have talked to Eve?



1) Modern-day standard snake, selected from the known species of today, absent the extraordinary, don't think that could have talked to Eve.

2) Pre-flood snake, of a now-extinct variety of animal, with the ability to imitate human speech like myna birds, parrots, and parakeets of today ... ?

-- would partially explain why there's little suggestion of Eve being absolutely flabbergasted by a snake talking to her ...

-- might explain why Hebrew/Jewish/Greek/Bible/whatever writings suggest the snake crawling on its belly after the affair was not the state of affairs before
(much like the gliding snake shown in the video before apparently spends most of ITS time in TREES as opposed to on the ground like other snakes)

3) Pre-flood snake, with the ability to imitate human speech like special bird species of today, "controlled" by someone else, or used as a visual mouthpiece,
even to Adam playing a trick on Eve via ventriloquism, if you want to go that route ... ("Bible as History by William Poundstone"-style approach)

4) King James Version of the Bible, traditional interpretation ...



Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Ignorance is not evidence for magic.

Ignorance is not evidence against what you're calling magic, either.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.
Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles.
Actually, according to a philosopher like Steven R. Covey, some belief systems yield good things in people's lives
and benefit society BECAUSE they are in alignment with natural principles.


Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?


Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wish you spent half the energy in answering any of my questions.


What question have you posed that I've failed to answer at this point?

Present it now and I will try to get to it tomorrow.

I am legitimately out of time for today, though.


Have a good day.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What question have you posed that I've failed to answer at this point?

Present it now and I will try to get to it tomorrow.

I am legitimately out of time for today, though.


Have a good day.

How does this line of questioning prove that the story of Adam and Eve is anything more than a story?

Next, I assume you are going to start drilling me on my spelling.

You could make me wrong all day long, and that would still not be proof anything. Remember, you are trying to prove to me that the story of Adam and Eve is real. You have failed at that.

It's always amusing to see people ignore me and engage you relentlessly, Shaky. IT MUST BE THE ALL-SEEING EYE.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It's always amusing to see people ignore me and engage you relentlessly, Shaky. IT MUST BE THE ALL-SEEING EYE.

No, no no no... They take turns. Plus I'm a bad speller, so there are lots of straw men to be had. To bad they don't take a moment and try to understand what I mean.

If they took an extra minute to understand other people, how could they find time to reaffirm their bias? Come on now.

I'm sure bluewaterrider needs another two weeks so he can define 'natural principles' to me, most likely by quoting some author no one's ever heard of, with a block quote that's only slightly related.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If they took an extra minute to understand other people, how could they find time to reaffirm their bias? Come on now.

Remember, they are instructed not to listen.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
...

I'm sure bluewaterrider needs another two weeks so he can define 'natural principles' to me, most likely by quoting some author no one's ever heard of, with a block quote that's only slightly related.

I responded too soon. You showed that you knew more about the topic. That's a good reason to ignore you. {/}

I just applied X-ray vision to some of the double-speak. Nitpicked a bit.

Also, I have found a new faith for us:

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.dailydawdle.com/images.dailydawdle.com/hilarious-meme-jesus-kitty-funny-cat-photos1.jpg.pagespeed.ce.SWe7pb-aOB.jpg

This is nine times better than the old one!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I just applied X-ray vision to some of the double-speak. Nitpicked a bit.

Also, I have found a new faith for us:

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.dailydawdle.com/images.dailydawdle.com/hilarious-meme-jesus-kitty-funny-cat-photos1.jpg.pagespeed.ce.SWe7pb-aOB.jpg

This is nine times better than the old one!

9 times more saved.

A large part of the reason Christians here praise Christ is because of his sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus Cat is nine times as good.

http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/327-Jesus-Cat-Has-no-interest-in-physics-funny-jesus-walking-on-water.jpg

http://f.kulfoto.com/pic/0001/0025/9YA0g24721.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/15fe1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p-UopsPTpZQ/UfP7g7j35JI/AAAAAAAAIXw/rkVbj24dJIY/s1600/Funny-Facebook-Twitter-Hashtag-Cat-No-Filter-No-Makeup-Yolo-Swag-For-Jesus-Selfie-Humor.jpg

And nine times as many links.

All those kitties! I just wanna pinch their wittwe faces until my sins are forgiven!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Remember, you are trying to prove to me that the story of Adam and Eve is real. You have failed at that.


I'm not trying to prove to you that the story of Adam and Eve is real.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It's always amusing to see people ignore me and engage you relentlessly, Shaky. IT MUST BE THE ALL-SEEING EYE.


Shaky has a cool dotgif image for an avatar, I must say.

You weren't ignored though, Moose.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If they took an extra minute to understand other people, how could they find time to reaffirm their bias? Come on now.

I'm sure bluewaterrider needs another two weeks so he can define 'natural principles' to me, most likely by quoting some author no one's ever heard of, with a block quote that's only slightly related.


You talk to me of laziness and not taking an extra minute to understand when, just on the page prior to this one, I defined exactly what you were asking for:



Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm not trying to prove to you that the story of Adam and Eve is real.

Then why did you ask this?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How can you be sure?

I told you there are personifications in the story. That makes the story fiction. You then tried to prove that the story was real by supposing things were different in the past. You cannot prove something with speculation.

So, my original post stands.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It doesn't really matter because it is not a literal story. Adam and Eve never really existed. They represent all of us.

Thank you.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You talk to me of laziness and not taking an extra minute to understand when, just on the page prior to this one, I defined exactly what you were asking for:

So nature principles is actually:

'Basic self-evident things which in turn accurately predict the future under conditions which are considered 'normal' by some subjective party'.

How is this even a definition if it can't relate from general to specific simply by virtue of making coherent sense? That's like me describing your ability to reason thusly: A predilection by the intelligentsia to engage in the manifestation of prolix exposition through a buzzword disposition form of communication notwithstanding the availability of more comprehensible, punctiliously applicable, diminutive alternatives.

I hope that's crystal clear for you. Also, if you need any help, I'll be back whenever I feel like it, because I am a very busy man.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I never said anything about Lilith.



You refer to "hoops of illogic" and then type a statement like the above?






Here, Shaky.

Re-examine the exchanges of page 1's end, and the 1st response by Stealth Moose on the 2nd page:


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1) What's the oldest Adam and Eve story that you know of?

2) What happens in that version of the Adam and Eve story that is different from, say, the Official King James version of the Bible version of Adam and Eve?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Well, there's the Jewish Adam and Eve story, I guess if you could call it that - that the first woman born was actually Lilith and that Adam didn't want her because she wanted, you know, not to be subservient, and so she was cast out of the Garden and then Eve was made.

Judaism predates Christianity. By a lot.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What siriuswriter said.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This.

@bluewaterrider You have mixed things that I have said with other people, and strung together your own story. I don't know what the other people were thinking nor am I responsible for things they add to my statements.

It still doesn't prove that the story of Adam and Eve is real.

Which was the original point of contention. The rest of this nitpicking is irrelevant.

Also, awaiting that personal definition of natural principles. You know, the one that actually makes sense?

http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u519/br114/An-Agent-in-The-Matrix-the-matrix-22575409-560-240.gif

Keep right on dodging.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

" ... If the story is not real, then your conclusions are nonsense ... "

2 problems with that:

1. What if the story IS real? What are my conclusions then?



Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Then personifications would happen in real life:
Unicorns dancing in the spring time.

Now do you get it?



No, I don't.



Is it "personification" if the qualities of people ARE qualities of God?

Or if His actions are being accurately described from a human standpoint?

And/or if WE, in fact came from HIM, and not the reverse, as you're thinking?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=AKJV

If you've already conceded that the Creation story is not a literal story, why speculate then? You're assuming that because you believe in the story, it then has some bearing on reality. This is false.

"WHAT IF SANTA IS REAL" does not have any bearing on reality.

Are you implying that they don't?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Are you implying that they don't?

Noah didn't let them onto the ark.

Noah, unicorn slayer.

Also:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6k0izie2b1qzfsnio1_500.gif

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If you've already conceded that the Creation story is not a literal story, why speculate then? You're assuming that because you believe in the story, it then has some bearing on reality. This is false.

"WHAT IF SANTA IS REAL" does not have any bearing on reality.


I've not conceded that the Creation story is not a literal story.

I've been asking Shakyamunison why he doesn't believe it's a literal story.

I'm looking for solid reasons AGAINST the Creation story being a literal story from him.


And not really getting any.

Well Jesus spent a lot of time talking about his Father.
So if your intrested in Fatherhood you might be intrested in Jesus.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've not conceded that the Creation story is not a literal story.

I've been asking Shakyamunison why he doesn't believe it's a literal story.

I'm looking for solid reasons AGAINST the Creation story being a literal story from him.


And not really getting any.

I've already told you many times, but I will tell you again. I do not believe the creation story in the bible because it is filled with personifications. That means the story in the bible is not real, but is a metaphor.

So, how many more times will I have to tell you?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.
Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles.
Actually, according to a philosopher like Steven R. Covey, some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society
BECAUSE they are in alignment with natural principles.



Originally posted by Stealth Moose

This is a loaded usage of the term 'natural principles', since these same 'natural principles' are often just religious morals redefined as natural to exclude alternative descriptions of otherwise morally neutral acts. Like you know, being gay. How dare they upset the natural order of things ...



Let's ignore the fact that you probably did not and do not even now know who Stephen Covey is.

Let's ignore the fact that you did not understand what I meant by use of the phrase and instead ran with your own version of what you want that phrase to mean.


You included some animals humping other animals to suggest that homosexuality is natural.


The question presents itself :

"Natural" under exactly what conditions?


Given what those conditions REALLY might be, are the animals in that picture you presented photo-ed IN their natural state?


First, however, let's get a standard definition of "natural".

Simply "Googling" the word yields the following:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is useful.
Were we to with the first part as our definition "existing in ... nature",
there would scarcely be any point in a discussion.

Computers and atomic bombs could exist in nature.

The second part is the limiter that provides some practical meaning:
"not made or caused by humankind".

I am not at all sure that the animal humping behavior depicted in your small picture collage satisfies this part.
Especially not if we focus on a specific example like the elephants.

For it is well-known that people in prison perform homosexual acts.
It is less well-known that animals behave similarly.
It is even less well known that, for animals who roam and migrate, otherwise large-looking tracts of land, are, in fact "prison" of a sort,
in the sense that they are cut off from resources, fraught with trauma and stress, and discouraging to the fostering of normal behavior and relationships.

In point of fact, that picture resonated for me.
For I've recently seen not only elephants humping other elephants, as in your picture, but also elephants humping rhinos.
And elephants goring rhinos.
And elephants killing rhinos.

The latter you see in nature.
From that standpoint alone you could argue it is "natural".


If you knew not the history, you might even argue it was un-caused by humankind.


And you'd be wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU
3 min 4 sec

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
...Computers and atomic bombs could exist in nature....

That is not true. The human brain is the best computer of all, and the sun is millions of atomic bombs going off every second. So humans have finally got around to coping nature.

The rest I don't care about.

For the convenience of forum viewers, the link version of the elephants versus rhino clip above.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU
3 min 4 sec


Note, as you watch or re-watch this, that what might otherwise appear natural, if puzzling, is, in fact, human-caused, and anything but natural, at least as defined earlier.

Note also the uncanny parallel made by the clip composers themselves, of the resemblance to human youth given little parental guidance, especially that of a strong father, and the striking observable behavior that results.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Let's ignore the fact that you probably did not and do not even now know who Stephen Covey is.

I do. But that's irrelevant. You made the assertion. I expect you to back it up. You did not preface anything you said as something other than your own viewpoint.



You didn't provide it in a meaningful context and refused to elaborate on it for days, despite me asking you repeatedly to bring reason to the table. You can pretend to be exasperated at my 'inability to get it', like you tried to do with the 'we're having language issues here', but you're the one in control of your own ability to communicate. I have a high level of education, I'm well read, and I'm intelligent. Unless you're not speaking English, there's no reason why I should be unable to understand you.

Unless you're not making sense.



Let's revisit what I posted:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This is a loaded usage of the term 'natural principles', since these same 'natural principles' are often just religious morals redefined as natural to exclude alternative descriptions of otherwise morally neutral acts. Like you know, being gay. How dare they upset the natural order of things.

http://lilyvelden.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gay-animals-05.png



Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?




I await your well-thought out reply.

My point still stands.




A question you failed to answer. Your 'definition' requires extensive elaboration, for the same reason "A Kivpf is similar to a devvwerw and has iubifsf characteristics" requires extensive elaboration.

Again, you have asserted, by advocating this quote and using it in direct response to my point, that there is a natural order of things, and that morality can be divined by what already is, since a naturally occurring order is observable in nature and not a man-made system.

So me showing you gay animals is a bit of a take that! to your poorly thought out attempt at establishing a moral argument.

Also, you still avoided the original argument prior when it came to whether or not you equated an adult belief in Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or Insert Fictional Creature Here with Christianity, even though you pretty much accused Islam of being this 9/11 spawning monster and implied that anyone who doesn't worship Christ is potentially dangerous.

Good job slipping that nose.



To answer your question with another, with good intention, are they depicted in an unnatural state? I mean, did they slip and fall into each other's asses? Or perhaps the film crew arranged them in that way? Or did they naturally have inclinations and instincts which led them to have a homosexual encounter?



So according to the above definition, those animals balls-deep in each other are in a natural state. After all, they are nature, in nature, not man-made or caused, having gay sex.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JxnNlQ0G9Fs/T4gFbnexIKI/AAAAAAAAASE/T-wu0jWn7gE/s1600/Deal_With_It.jpg



No, this is wrong. Computers and atom bombs are not found in nature and are man-made.



So there's a group of gay advocates out there, sweeping the globe and making all these animals have unnatural gay sex?

http://www.troll.me/images/brick-tamland/lmao-seriously.jpg



So long story short, animals are in free roaming prisons and are forced into unnatural gay/interspecies sex?

What's your proof for this anyways?

http://cdn6.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fox-news-logo.jpg



Clearly, this is binding proof that any and all homosexual events in nature are man-made.

Your ability to use sources in appropriately is quite amazing.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

No, this is wrong. Computers and atom bombs are not found in nature and are man-made.


Shaky says YOU are wrong:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not true. The human brain is the best computer of all, and the sun is millions of atomic bombs going off every second. So humans have finally got around to coping nature.




Whom should I believe?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shaky says YOU are wrong:





Whom should I believe?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1572723/matrix-smith-dodging-bullets-o.gif

A personal computer and a human brain are not the same thing; one is man-made, even if you can use them as analogies for each other in some situations.

A sun is not truly an atom bomb which itself is man-made and used for war, although it does operate similarly due to naturally occurring phenomena.

Keep dodging and misdirecting.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

A personal computer and a human brain are not the same thing; one is man-made, even if you can use them as analogies for each other in some situations.

A sun is not truly an atom bomb which itself is man-made and used for war, although it does operate similarly due to naturally occurring phenomena.




Shaky?

I think Moose is saying you're wrong ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shaky?

I think Moose is saying you're wrong ...




...and I think you are trying to cause trouble. Moose and I are not disagreeing. A personal computer is something man-made, but a computer can also be in nature (like the human mind). He was speaking in the particular, while I was speaking in the general.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...and I think you are trying to cause trouble. Moose and I are not disagreeing. A personal computer is something man-made, but a computer can also be in nature (like the human mind). He was speaking in the particular, while I was speaking in the general.


In other words, you were using what is called a fallacy of equivocation to try and mess with me, and it was YOU who were actually trying to cause trouble ?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright", this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In other words, you were using what is called a fallacy of equivocation to try and mess with me, and it was YOU who were actually trying to cause trouble ?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright", this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Look, I can do that too:

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EncfDiNNyiI/T1nsMOj1o7I/AAAAAAAAA_M/Bm1VBltZ6U0/s1600/DIlbert-fallacies.gif

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In other words, you were using what is called a fallacy of equivocation to try and mess with me, and it was YOU who were actually trying to cause trouble ?

No.

Play nice boys.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Play nice boys.

Regards
DL

Boys?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny,

No, as stated before, in real life, I would not.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

If you refuse to follow the assumption, you can't see the reasoning behind the comparison. You can replace "Santa", "Easter Bunny" etc. with Flying Spaghetti Monster, Wookie Jesus, or Xvim the Invader from Mars.


"Wookie Jesus"?




Originally posted by Stealth Moose

I never ever indicated that they were dangerous people. You have injected this assumption in because they believe in imaginary beings that we lie to our children about, but somehow Christianity is being given a pass. Why?



Christians don't believe their religion is a lie.

More likely than not, on the other hand, a person who believed, SERIOUSLY believed in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy, in real life, would have a number of other mental instabilities.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Fun fact: the things we found absurd and ridiculous which were later proven right weren't faith-based assertions from singular sources. They were usually scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon.

There's a huge difference from disbelief in concepts of gravity, radio waves, or genetics versus disbelief in Middle-Eastern mythology.


"faith-based assertions from singular sources"
versus
"scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon"



Explain the difference for me, please.

Your meaning isn't at all clear to me the way you wrote this.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"faith-based assertions from singular sources"
versus
"scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon"



Explain the difference for me, please.

Your meaning isn't at all clear to me the way you wrote this.

"faith-based assertions from singular sources" cannot change. It is ether right or wrong. "scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon" can change when they are proved to be wrong. The disproving of a theory can lead to a great discoveries. Blind faith lead nowhere.

Exactly. If that kind of reasoning is beyond your scope, BWR, by all means, quote someone else to indirectly avoid the argument.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Fun fact: the things we found absurd and ridiculous which were later proven right weren't faith-based assertions from singular sources. They were usually scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon.





Square what you're saying with the following then, Moose:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a difficult time for Faraday. His memory was failing and he could often barely get through a morning without extensive notes to remind him of what he was supposed to do. Even worse, Faraday also knew that the world's great physicists, almost all of whom had gone to elite universities, still patronized him. They accepted his practical lab findings, but nothing else. To standard physicists, when electricity flowed through a wire it was basically like water flowing through a pipe: once the underlying mathematics was finally worked out, they believed, it would not be too different from what Newton and his numerous mathematically astute succesors could describe.

Faraday, however, still went on about those strange circles and other wending lines from his religious upbringing. The area around an electromagnetic event, Faraday held, was filled with a mysterious "field", and stresses within that field produced what were interpreted as electric currents and the like. He insisted that sometimes you could almost see their essence, as in the curving patterns that iron filings take when they are sprinkled around a magnet. Yet almost no one believed him -- except, now, for this young Scot named Maxwell.

At first glance the two men seemed very different. In his many years of research, Faraday had accumulated over 3,000 paragraphs of dated notebook entries on his experiments, from investigations that began early every morning. Maxwell, however, quite lacked any ability to get a timely start to the day. (When he was told that there was mandatory 6 A.M. chapel at Cambridge University, the story goes that he took a deep breath, and said, 'Aye, I suppose I can stay up that late."
Maxwell also had probably the finest mathematical mind of any nineteenth-century theoretical physicist, while Faraday had problems with any conventional math much beyond simple addition or subtraction.
But on a deeper level the contact was close ...

When the young Scot and the elderly Londoner corresponded, and then later when they met, they cautiously made contact of a sort they could share with almost no one else. For beyond the personality similarities, Maxwell was such a great mathematician that he was able to see beyond the surface simplicity of Faraday's sketches. It was not the childishness that less gifted researchers mocked it for. ("As I proceeded with the study of Faraday, I perceived that his method ... was also a mathematical one, though not exhibited in the conventional form of mathematical symbols."
Maxwell took those crude drawings of invisible force lines seriously. They were both deeply religious men; they both appreciated this possibility of God's immanence in the world.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpted from E=mc2: A Biography of the World's most famous equation, by David Bodanis, 2000, pages 45-47.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8TX2tFLZ7gYC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45& amp;dq=aye+i+suppose+i+can+stay+up+that+late+farad
ay&source=bl&ots=eTs5tDTmuT&sig=Kc0N9JTyJBFvtqB98TAxyqXK1gA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OETgUp-gJc6CyAG2wIDIBA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage& amp;q=aye%20i%20suppose%20i%20can%20stay%20up%20th
at%20late%20faraday&f=false

bluewaterrider, why do you always defer to someone else when you are asked a question. Do you NOT have any of your own ideas?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Look, I can do that too:

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EncfDiNNyiI/T1nsMOj1o7I/AAAAAAAAA_M/Bm1VBltZ6U0/s1600/DIlbert-fallacies.gif

Stick to the argument, BWR. My words there are clear. Shaky even defined them for you above. You should open up a red herring department store at this rate.

http://www.svenskamagic.com/cardpics/mercadianmasques/misdirection.hq.jpg

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
bluewaterrider, why do you always defer to someone else when you are asked a question. Do you NOT have any of your own ideas?


I have quite a few of my own ideas.
But if you're going to challenge someone's assertions with real-world counterexamples, it only makes sense to PRESENT real-world counterexamples with real-world documentation that people can verify wherever possible.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I have quite a few of my own ideas.
But if you're going to challenge someone's assertions with real-world counterexamples, it only makes sense to PRESENT real-world counterexamples with real-world documentation that people can verify wherever possible.

Every single time? I'm surprised you didn't refer to someone else on my question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Every single time?

It's not just you, me, and Moose concerned with this thread, Shaky.

It may seem that way, but there are actually dozens of people looking through this thread, as a simple look at the "views" of this thread in the Religion forum will confirm.

My concern is over what is verifiable, either through direct or indirect means.

Where I've speculated, I've been interested in knowing what the evidence AGAINST a given assertion is. For instance, regarding the second, in response to m317's Adam and Eve question, you said:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.

I then asked you what older stories you knew of.
A poster named siriuswriter responded:

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Well, there's the Jewish Adam and Eve story, I guess if you could call it that - that the first woman born was actually Lilith and that Adam didn't want her because she wanted, you know, not to be subservient, and so she was cast out of the Garden and then Eve was made.

Judaism predates Christianity. By a lot.

To which YOU responded:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What siriuswriter said.

And you even quoted MY question, to make certain I knew that was what you were responding to.

All of this is on page 1 for people to see.
Yet you went on to deny that you intended any link between what siriuswriter wrote and your own stance just a page or two ago.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@bluewaterrider You have mixed things that I have said with other people, and strung together your own story. I don't know what the other people were thinking nor am I responsible for things they add to my statements.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=6

Why be so dishonest?
What exactly could I have possibly mixed up?

This is not something hard to verify.
It's right on the first page!

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=1



In relation to THIS particular post though, the important point is that your premise, at least for now, appears to be wrong.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.

You were shown the Lilith story siriuswriter presented was not older than the "Jewish" Adam and Eve story on page 2. You were also shown the "Jewish" Adam and Eve story and the "Christian" Adam and Eve story were one and the same.

Should not your assertion then have changed?
Did it?

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/redherring.gif

LOOK! IT'S RED! AND A HERRING! LOOK OVER THERE AT IT!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/redherring.gif

LOOK! IT'S RED! AND A HERRING! LOOK OVER THERE AT IT!

fish

I thank I got one!

They have a smilie gif for it? My god.

So since you consider rampant personification to be okay to use in a 'historical' work that is supposed to tell the absolute truth about creation, why don't you educate us on the valid reasons why said work should be considered sound at all?

Or is that not in your bag of quotes?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In other words, you were using what is called a fallacy of equivocation to try and mess with me, and it was YOU who were actually trying to cause trouble ?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright", this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Don't worry guys! All other scriptures are relevant to everyone here but the Bible has no merit, Instead of getting smarter and working together people want to dumb themselves down.

Shaky I seen you capitalize God before and then not capitalize god. What is the difference in which you do that?

Originally posted by Supra
Shaky I seen you capitalize God before and then not capitalize god. What is the difference in which you do that?

God = that something we cannot understand.
god = a deity made by humans. A graven image.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God = that something we cannot understand.
god = a deity made by humans. A graven image.

So what is Yahweh, Allah or Jehovah? God or god to you?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So since you consider rampant personification to be okay to use in a 'historical' work that is supposed to tell the absolute truth about creation, why don't you educate us on the valid reasons why said work should be considered sound at all?

Or is that not in your bag of quotes?

As I stated back on page 5, Moose:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm not trying to prove to you that the story of Adam and Eve is real.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=5



On the other hand, I AM testing out how strong the evidence against it is, at least as the posters in this forum can present it.


So far, at least in the case of Shakyamunison and yourself, it has not been that strong.