Welcome to Gaia! ::

@Rioku: when I said pm, I meant for just a notification. irl's busy and a pm would be helpful

@dboyzero:

1. People don't take the BIble literally anymore
Not a for nor an against in my opinion. Though that statement by itself is obviously not the whole of what is accurate. If people didn't take any part of the Bible literally then they wouldn't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. And yet, this seems like such a trivial thing that I dont' know why I am commenting...lol. Oh, by ya, you've taken english in school right? You do realize that there's something called literary strategy that is employed to enhance the work's quality correct? but ya.

2. 6 days
actually, for a start I did not prove the Big Bang to be true. If anything, I proved it to be false. If it came across otherwise I do apologize. It must mean that I have failed to communicate my thoughts properly. And for the 6 days, just by saying "because of the geological and cosmic timescale" doesn't mean anything...can you elaborate? give support? sorry, bad habit I've picked up I guess, lol. As for proving the flood to be false, again you need to bring up proof and support. Just stating it andy assuming its true is no better than me saying God is true without support. Sorry, I'm commenting as I read but... again, for the third time in that one point, please support your statements - and in this case, why "we know that it can't have happened as written". Zero supports and only assumption conclusions makes a statement very very weak >.<"

3. version of the Bible
lol, "still a biblical text". You do realize if the translation is skewed or if the text is wrong then there's going to be major problems right? Like...Jahova's witness, they use the same text but with added adn subtracted stuff as well as skewed information within the text. Do you still say that it is still a Biblical text? Regardless of whether you have a big name in the Oxford translation, you do realize that if it is not geniune that it is useless in terms of proving the Bible false right? I found this on the net. Since you have a Oxford Translation, why don't you confirm if its true.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199803/ai_n8803219


If indeed, it changed the words so that Jesus is no longer titled Son of God, then it has changed some rather critical core message of the Bible. As such, can it really be used to prove against the real thing? In addition, I can tell you now that I take the 66 books as the books of the Bible and not the Apocrapha. If you are trying to prove the Bible false, and you are trying to prove to me that my Bible is not true, please don't use unrelated stuff or stuff that I don't even believe in. Cause I know, or at least believe if you want political correctness, that the others isn't it.

4. ground, plain, water?

Genesis 2:4-7 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

meh, you're right, I missed the but. I re-read the text. lol, i guess I fell into your bias such that I wasn't able to see as clearly as I should. your bias was that the statement "when the Lord made the earth and the heavens - and no shrub of th efield had yet appeared on the earth.." described the earth before any of the seven days as described in chapter one. However, once you pointed it out to me and I reread it, your bias is not neccessarily true. no shrubs and no plants have appeared. Vegetation was on the third day. What makes you think it has to be describing the situation before the 7 days rather than just a time before the vegation bloomed?

5. creating man and women
lol, objectively speaking, in the first chapter it said that God created them. But it did not neccessarily say together at the exact same time. That, would be something either you purposely added to assist yourself in proving the Bible false or added unconsciously for whatever reason. Still, wouldn't it be more effective for you if you went to prove Jesus Christ false instead? That would be the most direct and most effective way to prove that Christianity is not true.

6. "Now the Lord God had formed..."

Quote:

Genesis 2:18-19 "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

Seem odd? Not really. It mentioned that God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. Then it brings up the point that it is these beasts that God brought to the man to name. I dont' see anything wrong with that. In both logic and grammer I can't say I see anything wrong. Recaping information before bringing out new one is something I do all the time really. When I rp battles I usualyl have a section for recap and one for main post but eh.... ya. As for "Now the Lord had formed", did you study english in school? Correct me if i am wrong because it seems to me that either you are skewing with the meaning to prove your point or just need some brush up on your english >.<" "Now the Lord had formed" meaning at this point in time the Lord had already formed. had is a past tense and form-ed is also past tense. So... no matter how I try to mess up the meaning I still cant' quite see it the way you do.

7. names of God
er... that argument seemed rather weak in my limited point of view but I'll try to comment on it anyways. In the english version God is generally described by the term "Lord" and "God" but in the Hebrew translation this is not the case. As well, within the text itself you can see many names for God. "I am" "Jehova" "Immanuel" "prince of peace" and so on.

As for why multiple names for the same thing... I'm a little bewildered that you could even ask the question....>.<" ya. Think about it this way. If we were to question them why not question ourselves first. If in one paragraph, with every sentence I have the word "Souloe" to describe my character what would happen? Gramatically, it would be called "repetition" and reduces my english quality. However, if I use "he" and "Devonshka" (my char's last name) then it creates a variety and reduces the repetition feel. In school I learned that repetition is not the best of choice. Course, I'm not you so I'm not sure what you learned. As well, you can also think about it in this example. For say... your girlfriend, you can - not saying you do, but just can - you can call her "honey", "sugar", "sweety" or just by her real name. Does it really matter that you don't use just one name? Is it possible that you - or whoever - may use the different names? How then is it a problem when this same situation occurs in the Bible? And for reasons that perhaps you do not yet understand. Aren't you expanding something so trivial and making it into a point against the Bible? but eh...ya.

8. putting God in a box
When I said putting God in a box I meant limiting Him into your own rules, confinement or standard of what He is supposed to be. By definition, He is all powerful. so he has the ability to do what He did in both first chapter adn second. I don't see anythign wrong wtih that. The fact that He chose to do things differently in first and secodn chapter does not bring out any conflict. And again, I'm afraid I dont' see your point of view. Why is that pointing to different gods? I mean, I could choose to speak to you in one way and to Rioku in another and then a different way to a 2 year old. I fully have the capability to do that and if I choose to do so, then why not?

9. Bible different authors, conflict
I didn't read your arguments? Perhaps or perhaps not. However, none of your arguments really stood to the test yet. They are being tested by my rebutals as my arguments are being tested by your rebutals. You have yet to prove conflict wtihin the Bible. You've brought up arguments, yes I'll give you that much. However, none of them are wtihout my rebutal/comments. Until you can actually prove it, your assumption that there is conflict does not stand.

10. ooc
haha, never back down from a challenge. Got spirit. Bravery, courage, strength. I'll be cheering you on dboyzero, this is indeed a very interesting topic indeed. Its not everyday that i can find someone who has logic and intelligence as you do to show me what perhaps I am wrong or insufficient at in my beliefs. Cheers!

Onix, from what I've seen of your other posts, I would very much like to see your input on the current subject. It's a bit of reading, but if you're willing to do so, myself, souloe, Rioku, and some other members to a lesser extent, have all been embroiled in quite the religious and philosophical discussion.

I'm hedonist. Hedonism. Dictionary meaning for ya here:

1. The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.
2. Devotion to pleasure as a way of life

I choose this "religion" because I was born very lighthearted. I don't really like any of the other religions, although I have an interest in Buddhism. I love having fun, and having thrills. I love too much in life to be devoted to one thing. It is just the way I am.

a valid standpoint. Sometimes though God does not have acess to the big billboard over the highway and can't put up a sign of his existance in neon lights. His message many times has just enough impact if whispered in your ear.
My point is, I'm happy that you want to believe but have an open mind. there are times that one looks for the big picture but misses the message due to its lack of grandure.
Good luck.

wow, I've been absent from this topic for like... almost a month now razz

@dboyzero: How goes the research and the investigation? Did you find anything for proving evolution?

@Onix: If you believe there is no proof for Christianity, then I can very well assume you've never went to research the reality of the situation. So many people in the past have set out to prove Christianity false and ended up converting because of the evidence that they dig up. If there is no proof for Christianity situations like that would not show up. (I can give you some names if you want, just ask)

@Sage: Hypocrites are the people, that doesnt' mean the God is bad. If you base your idea of a religion on just the hypocrites then don't you think you are missing out? Just because someone did a bad job of following instructions to make that cake doesn't mean the cake(when done properly) is bad right?

@BOHICA: If pleasure or happiness is the highest good then drug addicts on the streets are the enlightened. They know of the pleasures and the high when taking those drugs. Bad analogy I know but the point is essentially the same as dboyzero's. I do question this 'doctrine'

@Raikuya: If you want evidence and supports, I, by my limited amount of knowledge, have posted a few while discussing with dboyzero. I'm sure they would be interesting.

Souloe: Sorry, I've been far more busy than I anticipated, so I haven't been around much either. I apologize wholeheartedly, and may not be able to give you a proper response for a while. My future is a bit in dire straits at the moment, so please forgive me if I have to take priority away from Gaia at the moment. Rest assured, you are still a worthy adversary and will get your worthy repartee, but currently things are getting a bit too troublesome for personal projects. I'll get back to our discussion as soon as I have time permitting.

Aye, no prob. Take you time. irl is more important definately smile