Science Vs Religion

[SnakeLord]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove that the Bible is false, and you prove that the Christian God is false. By breaking down the Bible, and God's idealogy and personality, we can prove whether he really exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well do it then, lets break it down, this is what I’m talking about…..bring it on.

Ok.... this is seriously hard work. I am now on page 24 of the bible- only 1,000 and something to go I have gleaned as much data as is possible and present the first few pages and points here now.

Please note that not once in these 24 pages have i seen god express any love to any human. He has let particular humans live when he goes on his path of destruction but has never claimed to like mankind. I have noted on many occasions god offering people lots of land and their kids spreading across the face of the earth because they have done something for god, so some mild pay off for services received but absolutely no mention of his caring for mankind.

This is bloody long- my apologies. After this i will actually put up a webpage making it easier to read and digest.

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

1) God shows multiple personality:

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, our likeness"
Gen 12:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language.."
Gen 3:22 "And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

2) God visits earth in physical form:

Gen 3:8 'Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as he was walking in the cool of the day, and they hid from the lord god among the trees of the garden. But the lord god called to the man, "where are you?"

3) God shows his first true signs of anger:

Gen 3:14 to Gen 3:24 God curses the serpent, curses the woman and makes her childbirth more painful, curses the ground and curses Adam.

4) God shows man does not have eternal life:

Gen 3:22 and Gen 3:24 ".. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever." God then banned them from the Garden of Eden specifically so they would remain mortal. 'He placed on the east side of the garden of eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way of the tree of life.'

5) God shows favouritism over offerings presented to him:

Gen 4:3 'In the course of time cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the lord. But abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The lord looked with favour on able and his offering, but on cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So cain was very angry and his face looked downcast.' Funnily enough it is also mentioned in Sumerian literature that the gods had a particular fancy for meat offerings. cains fruits were looked upon with discontent whereas the meat offered by able was liked. This is further mentioned in

Gen 8:21 'The lord god smelled the pleasing aroma...' When offered a meat sacrifice from Noah. After smelling the aroma of the meat god promised never to kill mankind again via a flood. It would seem the meat is of particular worth to god. I might have to kill my pet cat. God then gave cain a bollocking for not providing something to his satisfaction as seen in Gen 4:6 "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." The consequential actions of cain were as a direct result of the lack of love from god. Fruit wasn't good enough for the 'master' and he scalded cain for it.

6) God's first sign of vengeance:

Gen 4:15 But the lord said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over."

7) Got gets heartburn and grief stricken and realises he made a big mistake:

Gen 6:6 The lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

8) Got decides to end it all:

Gen 6:7 'So the lord said, "I will wipe mankind..." Not only mankind though.... god decided to wipe animals and creatures that move along the ground and birds of the air for he was 'grieved'.

9) God gets confused, so does Noah:

Gen 6:19 "You are to bring into the ark TWO of ALL living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you."

Gen 7:2 "Take with you SEVEN of every kind of CLEAN animal, a male and its mate, and TWO of every unclean animal.."

It ended up with Noah taking: Gen 7:8 'Pairs of clean and unclean animals...as god had commanded Noah' Pairs= TWO. If he took two of each clean animal he'd be specifically going against gods commandment of taking SEVEN of each clean animal.

10) God wants to admit to retriubution/pay back?

Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of god has god made man."

11) God doesn't want man to progress so he puts a spanner in the works:

Gen 11:6 'The lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

The question is: what didn't god want them doing?

12) God gets nasty.

Abraham goes to Egypt. In order to save his own life he tells his wife to lie and say that she is his sister. They both state Sarah is Abrahams sister so the pharoah takes her as his wife.

Gen 12:17 'But the lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharoah AND his household because of abrahams wife sarai.

Who really is to blame? Abraham and Sarah for lying or the Pharoah for not knowing they were married?

This happens again very shortly after:

Gen 20:2 'And there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." '.. But god came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman." Abimelech states his innocence. Not only had he not gone near the woman but they had specifically stated they were brother and sister. God then retracts his statement:

Gen 20:6 'Then god said to him in the dream, "Yes, i know you did this with clear conscience, and so i have kept you sinning against me. That is why i did not let you touch her. Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."

Strangely enough at this time there were no ten commandments and no written word of gods 'rules'. As such how would the pharoah know taking a married woman was 'sinning against god'? Not to mention it was Abraham and Sarah who had lied about their marital positions in both cases. In one case god inflicted diseases, in the other he makes cold calculated threats- both against innocent men who didn't know the truth and wouldn't even know the rules.The whole issue gets even stranger as it progresses. It would seem one cannot 'take' a married person but a married person can openly 'take' a single person as demonstrated in Gen 16:1- 16:4.

Gen 16:1-16:4 'Now sarah, abrahams wife, had borne him no children. But she had an egyptian maidservant named hagar; So she said to abraham, "The lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps i can build a family through her. Abraham ends up sleeping with hagar who conceives. No punishment was given, no disease was given. In fact god helped them out AFTER abraham had been adulterous by
allowing sarah to conceive even though she was 90 years old. The smart thing to do would have been to make sarah able to conceive the child of a prophet before he broke gods ruling of no adultery. The act of adultery was considered worthy of disease spreading and death to the pharoahs but it was all fine and good for abraham. Ok, his wife allowed and even encouraged the act but it was in direct defiance of gods ruling. As punsihment god gave them both the ability to have their own children- hardly in line to the punsihment the pharoahs and kings received and
were threatened with. God had actually gone so far as to close the wombs of all women in the Abimelechs household as punishment for him taking Abrahams wife, (Gen 20:18).

13) Do christians go against the specific word of god?

Gen 17:9-17:14 states that every male, whether bought or born must be circumcised. Jewish people still undertake this action whereas christians do not. Does this deamean the original word of god? It is specifically going against his rules- nowhere in it does it say only the jews must do it. God goes on to say that any
person who has not been circumcised will be 'cut off from his people' and is going against the covenant of god.I concur that no matter how many hymns a man can sing this 'breaking of gods covenant' will be taken into account when the time comes.I
fail to see the importance of chopping off the end of a mans penis but i'm sure god has his reasons.

14) God knows the difference between right and wrong. God feels guilt and shame at his own actions. God is a sinner:

Gen 18:17 Then the lord said:, "Shall i hide from abraham what i am about to do?"

God must have realised that what he was doing was bad. The second someone has to question a decision it becomes one of moral principles. If he needed to hide an action from someone he must have considered the fact it wasn't the right thing to do.

God 'goes down' to see if things are as bad as he suspects. This shows he is far from 'all knowing'. Abraham spoke to god and pleaded for the lives god was planning to destroy. Meanwhile in the city two angels had arrived. They were told to 'wash their feet' and to spend the night. After some persuasion they agreed. Their arrival seemed to arouse distinct homosexual urges. All men, both young and old, surrounded Lots house and demanded that the angels be brought outside so the men could have sex with them. Lot offered his two virgin daughters as an alternative but the men wanted the visitors.

15) God shows his destructive ability:

The two angels warned lot about the destruction that was about to meet the city. By the hand of god: Gen 19:13 "..because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." Gen 19:24 'Then the lord rained down burning sulphur on sodom and gomorrah- from the lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities- and also the vegetation in the land. But lots wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

16) God 'tests' people inconsiderately and shows his true want is for people to fear him.

Gen 22:1 'Some time later god tested abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here i am" He replied. Then god said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains i will tell you about."

Abraham has surely already proved his worth to god, and yet god now asks him to kill his child, (it states his only son even though just a bit earlier it clearly stateshe has a son with hagar). It seems god cannot count or has an extremely bad memory.

On the page before god tells abraham he will look after both sons, Isaac and Ishmail. As Abraham is about to sacrifice his son an angel calls to him, (Gen 22:12), "Do not lay a hand on the boy.. do not do anything to him Now i know that you fear god..."

Nowhere is love mentioned. No mention of god loving abraham and no mention of abraham loving god. The only thing mentioned and the only thing that saved abrahams son was fear. Because abraham feared god, his son was saved.

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

As an extra bit i will include this:

Gen 4:3 'In the course of time cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the lord. But abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The lord looked with favour on able and his offering, but on cain and his offering he did not look with favour.

Gen 8:21 'The lord god smelled the pleasing aroma...'

Gen 15:9 'So the lord said to him, "Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon."

These are just a few instances where god has shown his love for meat. Anyone who knows any sumerian literature will understand and appreciate this. The gods were always known as great lovers of meat.

Enjoy.

 

[wesmorris]

But Snake...

The bible is metaphor, it's parable. How can one perform any reasonable analysis on such? I mean, metaphors can't contradict one another right, since they blah, blah blah blah?



God is such a prankster, here is this garbled mess of bullshit! Believe it or burn in hell!!!!!!!

What a holy spirit!

If I felt there was any evidence whatsoever that there were a deity any resemblence to that which is presented in the bible, I'd be permanently crippled by despair.

 

[Nasor]

I'd like to point out that science and religion do not necessarily have to oppose each other. There are many religious traditions (Zen Buddhism comes immediately to mind) that don't necessarily conflict with modern science. Science and religion generally only contradict when religions try to make empirical claims. Science isn't interested in morality and religion generally isn't interested in how the natural world works. A claim like 'people should act forgivingly toward each other' doesn't have anything to do with science, just as Newton's laws of motion don't have anything to do with religion. The problem comes in when religions start making empirical claims like 'the earth is 8000 years old.'

I think that science and religion should stick to their respective fields and avoid a lot of conflict.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No no, when the religious man says god is all loving etc etc a non religious man is at total right to point out the bad side.

Your concept of arguing this point, is so wrong there is no point illuminating the nonesense, as there wouldn't be much left to argue about, so i will preceed along your line of reason.

So what you are saying is that there is a good and bad side to the bible, one side says God is good and the other says God is bad. Great, because that means God exists as both are using the same tool to come to a conclusion. The only downside to that is, the man who looks for the bad side, has a poor fund of knowledge.

I can use the bible to debate with you because you believe the bible to be the word of god, not me.

Then you must also accept that God is the creator, even though you think He is bad.

Once there's proof of the existence of god then i can read every last word of the bible but until then i use it to point out flaws and opposites in what you say.

Well I say, God is the creator of the earth, how are you going to point out the flaws, using the bible. Please hurry with the reply, as I am holding my breath.

For example: Truthseeker said: "There are no rules to get into heaven, god is all loving".

Well, Truthseeker is mistaken, there are rules to get into heaven, a good indication is the ten commandments.

Is there ever a reason to mass annihilate your own children? I don't think so.

Firstly, God can do as He likes. He breathed life into the clay and it became a living soul, remember, He can also take it away, but He claims the soul and the earth the body. The soul is distinct from the body, (breath/clay) the pure soul, coming from God, is neither born or dies, like God, it is eternal, this is what is meant by “sons of God” as opposed to "sons of Adam". Secondly, God kills, He anihilates demons. When the earth is overburdened with demonic activity, God steps in and relieves the earth. Thirdly, if you read carefully, you will understand that at that time, the earth was overburdened with demonic activity, so it became necassery.

So, can a person, who believes in God, be a scientist?

They can do as they please- i don't give rules.

Okay, let me put it another way, do you have any respect for a scientist who believes in God?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

People using SCIENCE made these objects.

Yes, I agree, people using knowledge, made these things.

Obviously you have never done physcology...

What is pyschology? It is the science of the soul or mind, it is a way to develop knowledge (science) of how and why we do the things we do, and act the way we act. There are different ways to learn, state education is one, observing yourself and others is another.

Love is basically made up of three parts: Passion, committment, and intimacy.

I do not doubt that love can contain these attributes, but these attributes are also found in actions which are not related to love, plus you do not have to have these attributes to love, so pure love is distinct from these.

All three can be tested.
Passion: The couple touch each other
Committment: The couple have stayed or will stay with each other for a long time. They are dedicated.
Intimacy: The couple are close, as in friends.

Why do you only attribute love to couples?
Passion may have nothing to do with love, one can be passionate about killing cows to make burgers, because it is pleasing to ones palate. Where is the love in that?
One could be committed to ones gang member friends, through fear, greed or vanity.
When a john pays a hooker for some intimate relations, is he really displaying love and affection?

Now, which love do you want to prove exists??? That's right, there are quite a few types of love (unlike god, who does not exist)

Well, you start the ball rolling.
Do you know for sure, God doesn’t exist? If so can you prove it?

So, you can test if love exists, by testing if the couple are friends, have sexual activity (not necessary), and are committed to each other, not ditching the other no matter what.

This couple thing is boring and presents no challenge in identifying love, do you think you can up the tempo a little?

Another theist claim bites the dust...

Yeah right!

Sure it can. Just because science doesn't know every answer yet,

If scientists don’t know, then they don’t know, accept it, but it doesn’t mean we should put everything on hold, that I regard as oppression.

Who made the mountains? God. Later it was discovered that tectonic plates pushing against one another made mountains. Who makes lightning? God. Later it was discovered that particles in the air and on the ground make lightning.

What caused the tetonic plates to move?
What causes the particles in the air and on the ground to combine in such a way?
If you enquire in this way, you come to the understanding it was the original cause, the cause of all causes, God.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by MooseKnuckle

Love , like hate, exists only by virtue of its past contribution to genetic proliferation. At the level of the gene, it is as crassly self-serving to love a sibling, an offspring, or a spouse as it is to hate an enemy. You can look at love like you look at hunger. Both feelings are designed to motivate one to a certain action. It is beneficial for the organism to have these feelings innately imbedded into the composition of the mind. This is because emotions are a great deciding factor in one's actions and if these emotions can be administered without much conscious thought and sometimes on an instinctual level than the varying brain processes used for decision making can be on a convienent sub-conscious level. This would allow for unconscious analysis. When someone is hungry they do not consciously examine their need for nutrients, instead the mind produces a feeling (hunger) that is sucessfull in leading to the desired activity- eating. Love can be looked at on this very same level. Love allows one to engage in behaviors necessary to interact with people and to sustain relationships that are beneficial for one's survival and genetic legacy. [/B]

I believe love is a personal thing, I love and am loved, but I do not see it in the same way you are expressing, and furthermore, my personal experience, which is genuine, bares no resemblence to your explanation. Therefore please bring your explanation more in line with something that not only me, but the majority of ordinary, everyday people, who also have experience of loving and being loved, can relate to.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[MShark]

Wesmorris: If I felt there was any evidence whatsoever that there were a deity any resemblence to that which is presented in the bible, I'd be permanently crippled by despair.

Since it appears that you have no evidence for the diety in the Bible does that mean your life is full of joy, hope and whatever is the oppisite of dispair? If so I am happy for you and it would be nice to see those feelings show a little in your posts.

I myself find a great deal of joy in believing in a loving God. From my perspective I see plenty of evidence of this God and if I thought that she did not exist I would be crippled by dispair.

 

[Persol]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No no, when the religious man says god is all loving etc etc a non religious man is at total right to point out the bad side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your concept of arguing this point, is so wrong there is no point illuminating the nonesense, as there wouldn't be much left to argue about, so i will preceed along your line of reason.
He is perfectly correct in using the Bible. If someone assumes that the Bible is correct, and uses it to support their opinion, it makes sense to use a different part of the Bible to point out a contradiction. Now if you say that you only believe certain versus, we couldn't use the Bible... but then the question would be how do you know which versus.

So what you are saying is that there is a good and bad side to the bible, one side says God is good and the other says God is bad. Great, because that means God exists as both are using the same tool to come to a conclusion.
No. It's like saying the 3 bears were both good and bad. It doesn't mean they exist, but if they did exist as described in the book they would have a bad side.

The only downside to that is, the man who looks for the bad side, has a poor fund of knowledge.
I call it looking at the whole picture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can use the bible to debate with you because you believe the bible to be the word of god, not me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must also accept that God is the creator, even though you think He is bad.
How did you jump from line 1 to 2? Him not believing in the bible as the word of god does not mean that he 'must also accept that God is the creator'. All he has to accept is that, if the book is correct, that God is the creator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once there's proof of the existence of god then i can read every last word of the bible but until then i use it to point out flaws and opposites in what you say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I say, God is the creator of the earth, how are you going to point out the flaws, using the bible. Please hurry with the reply, as I am holding my breath.
He wasn't. He was pointing out flaws in your other comments. I doubt many people will get upset if you say that you believe that the God of the Bible was the creator. It's your belief, is on pure faith, and has nothing to do with our current lives. The problem comes when you try to apply the Bible, but there are contradicting ideas within.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example: Truthseeker said: "There are no rules to get into heaven, god is all loving".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Truthseeker is mistaken, there are rules to get into heaven, a good indication is the ten commandments.
We agree. Truthseeker is almost always mistaken

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there ever a reason to mass annihilate your own children? I don't think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, God can do as He likes. He breathed life into the clay and it became a living soul, remember, He can also take it away, but He claims the soul and the earth the body.
So God has no morals? He can do as He likes, and to hell with everyone else? I know if I did what He did, most theists would claim I'm going to hell.

The soul is distinct from the body, (breath/clay) the pure soul, coming from God, is neither born or dies, like God, it is eternal, this is what is meant by “sons of God” as opposed to "sons of Adam".
So God can kill because the soul survives? Well hell, the soul survives if I kill too. The point is that he is taking the choice/potential/life away from the people He kills. He is stealing their life on earth, and stealing is a sin.

Secondly, God kills, He anihilates demons. When the earth is overburdened with demonic activity, God steps in and relieves the earth.
Yes, and also kills many many innocent people. He is all powerful, so is he just too lazy to sort out the good and the bad?

Thirdly, if you read carefully, you will understand that at that time, the earth was overburdened with demonic activity, so it became necassery.
This is like shooting the hostage to get to the guy with the gun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, can a person, who believes in God, be a scientist?
They can do as they please- i don't give rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, let me put it another way, do you have any respect for a scientist who believes in God?
As long as they realize that religion (just like science) is not perfect. All the scientific types I know realize this, and don't try to apply religion to their work.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by MShark
Since it appears that you have no evidence for the diety in the Bible does that mean your life is full of joy, hope and whatever is the oppisite of dispair? If so I am happy for you and it would be nice to see those feelings show a little in your posts.
Lol. He's enjoying himself

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I believe love is a personal thing, I love and am loved
How do you know that you are really loved? You can be VERY sure, but never certain. (Just pointing it out, I'm sure someone does)

but I do not see it in the same way you are expressing, and furthermore, my personal experience, which is genuine, bares no resemblence to your explanation
His explanation was about why we experience love as an emotion at all. Basically he said we experience love because it helps us as a species.

 

[MooseKnuckle]

Jan-

Therefore please bring your explanation more in line with something that not only me, but the majority of ordinary, everyday people, who also have experience of loving and being loved, can relate to.

Just giving people a different way to examine love. I happened to do it through science, evolutionary psychology and cognitive psychology. Love will still hold the same power, but i was just trying to give the underlying meanings to our concept of love. Dont jump down my throat next time. Was not attacking the validity of your emotions, instead was describing the origin and purpose of those emotions for a better understanding of one's self and motives. But i guess you dont care about the quest for knowledge, either that or your quick to dish out arguements.

I believe love is a personal thing, I love and am loved, but I do not see it in the same way you are expressing, and furthermore, my personal experience, which is genuine, bares no resemblence to your explanation.

Yes once again love is a valid emotion. Yes your personal experience does pertain to my explanation of love, since my explanation was describing love at its purest form, its real meaning.

Stop being so defensive and thinking that im trying to attack your perception of love. There is a scientific way to look at love and that is what i was doing. Now understand this will have little to absolutely no effect on how you experience love, my explanation was given simply to give one a more clear understanding of such a pure and common emotion.

This is a case of unweaving the rainbow so to say. If by explaining love in a scientific way im making it less poetic, then thats up to interpretation. Find value and meaning in truth.

 

[andy1033]

my point on this issue if we were not religious we never would of dreamed up many of our scientific discoveries.
with religion came our civilisations. governments know that it does not really matter what religion you are, it is just important that you are religious.
just think about it that if man had not become religious and all of what religious means, we would really be nothing more than apes. well some people might think we are nothing more than apes anyway. if you lived in my world, with these fucking neighbours and non stop haressment i have to put up with. how these apes(paedo police, neighbours, and news media) can call them religious is beyond me.
somehow i think why the f**k do people think they are religious.
if you went to mass on sunday would you think all those people have any concept of what the word morals mean.
people always seem to blame science for the evil that is in the world today. people maybe have a view that religion and science mean opposite things, like both go in the opposite directions of each other. i don't agree with this, but this following quote by i don't know who in history is as follows.

The more advanced a society becomes, the worse they seem to do to there own kind

 

[SnakeLord]

Fuck fuck and fuck. I had written a mini-novel and somehow lost it all Time to start again.......

You believe the bible is the authentic word of god yes? If you can't look at it in its entirety then you have no room to comment. In line with your belief every word written in that book comes from god, and as such has as much importance as every other word. You regard the 'bad side' as "illuminating nonsense" yet what position do you have to make such a claim? Sometimes i wonder if you've even read the bible.

At page 24 i had seen not one mention of love towards mankind.

There were a minimum of 15 references to gods destructive ability. Through disease, mass destruction, raining down sulphur and closing womens wombs.

There were 3 references to god being one of many. It would show he is the 'head honcho' or boss but is in direct correlation with others of his kind.

There were references to god attempting to hinder mankinds progress

There were references to gods love of meat and his hatred for nakedness.

There were references to god having walked upon our earth

There were references to God having emotions almost humanlike: Pain, grief, sorrow, anger, vengeance, guilt, shame, knowledge of wrong from right but a desire to do wrong instead and so many other traits never associated with a godly being.

There is however NOT ONE mention of god loving mankind. In fact it goes to show the opposite. God feels he has made a big mistake several times and one time even tries to end it all, save for a select few.

This is an open analysis. I am not a 'faith' man- thus i cannot be bias towards gods loving capability. I am also not a 'deny' man thus i cannot be bias towards non existence of god. I am analysing the book many have informed me is the word of god with the most open minded attitude possible. When i see mention of love i will state it, when i see hatred i will state it too. I am not in a position where i can palm something off as bad translated metaphor. Everything will be taken at face value because i have it on good authority this is the very word of god.

So what you are saying is that there is a good and bad side to the bible, one side says God is good and the other says God is bad.

Currently i have seen no evidence to suggest a 'good side'. There are cases where god has let certain people live which in itself can be attributed as some form of good, yet it is always at the destruction of others that this 'good side' emerges. We are in no position to deny the evil that was master of the good. There's still a long way to go. When god shows love or a 'good side' i will state it.

Great, because that means God exists as both are using the same tool to come to a conclusion.

It doesn't mean anything. However IF the bible is the word of god and IF there is a god i am here to analyse what/who god is, as was directly challenged. It's the most open position. I will not deny his existence but i will not claim his existence as fact. What we must do now is analyse the situation- analyse that which we have to work with. There is no recent documentation from god so unfortunately i must work on the words of ancient shepherds. However i state again i have it on good authority this is the very word of god and as such take it to be as poignant and worthy as it can be under the circumstance. Nowhere will you find me say: "God does exist" and nowhere will you see me say "God does not exist". I am open and analysing to the best of my ability via the evidence at hand. Please do not tell me my human mind cannot 'decipher' the word of god. Nobody has one iota of evidence to suggest such a thing and doing so is nothing more than groundless speculation.

The only downside to that is, the man who looks for the bad side, has a poor fund of knowledge.

The only bad side is when a man is so engrossed in his belief he fails to ever see any bad in it. The same can be said of mortal love/lust. When you start dating a new woman it wouldn't matter what your friends, colleagues or kids said about that person- you would never see fault. The faults are there, you just have to open you eyes. I can fully appreciate and understand why you wouldn't want to see the faults but in this issue i deem it paramount. It's called: 'driving with your eyes closed'.

Let it be known i have undertaken a direct challenge. I am not here to look for a bad side or a good side. I am here to analyse the data and work out the attitudes, behaviour and whatever else of this supposed being. It seems all i have found thus far is technically 'bad' but i have a long way to go. IF you know god, know his love and know the truth you have nothing to fear by my analysis because it will not show any pointless hatred or any wrong-doing. Along the course of this ongoing analysis, which i am preparing a webpage for, we will discuss attitudes, motives and whatever else we can find. If we don't find it- it isn't there.

Then you must also accept that God is the creator, even though you think He is bad.

I am not here to 'accept' or 'think' anything. I am here to analyse the evidence, search the available data for answers. Accepting and thinking have nothing whatsoever to do with truth. IF god is this that and the other it will come to light. None of this analysis is to show there is or isn't a god- that's not the purpose. It's purpose is to say: "IF there is a god this is what he's like, this is what he does." You can 'accept' anything you want, and you will anyway, that's your style. I am here not to just 'accept' but to seek and to question and to find. Understand? Good.

Well I say, God is the creator of the earth, how are you going to point out the flaws, using the bible. Please hurry with the reply, as I am holding my breath.

If you continue holding your breath you will die. That's scientific fact- prove it wrong.

Like i have already said my purpose at this time is not to show there is or isnt a creator. It's to show that IF there is, this is what he's like.

I take it your eyes have created a 'blind spot' for my previous post highlighting the first 24 pages. Kindly read that, it's a start to this huge analysis then we can talk some more. You can point out any flaws within my analysis and i can try to counteract that. Instead of sitting on your backside holding your breath why not do the better thing which is this: "Breathe, it'll make you live longer- and read what has been written thus far." If you follow this guideline you will undoubtedly stop yourself from dying and as such will be able to debate with me some more.

Well, Truthseeker is mistaken, there are rules to get into heaven, a good indication is the ten commandments.

You people can't even agree with each other. Doesn't that in itself show someone should sit down and do a proper analysis of the whole affair? Have any of you even read the damn book? I am currently reading it word for word and am working out an analytical response to all evidence and data found within. If you want to argue the points raised do the same and tell me what you find.

Firstly, God can do as He likes. He breathed life into the clay and it became a living soul, remember, He can also take it away, but He claims the soul and the earth the body. The soul is distinct from the body, (breath/clay) the pure soul, coming from God, is neither born or dies, like God, it is eternal, this is what is meant by “sons of God” as opposed to "sons of Adam". Secondly, God kills, He anihilates demons. When the earth is overburdened with demonic activity, God steps in and relieves the earth. Thirdly, if you read carefully, you will understand that at that time, the earth was overburdened with demonic activity, so it became necassery.

There is, thus far, not one word of evidence to suggest any 'demonic' activity upon earth. There is no mention of Satan or demons thus far. If that were the case i would have thought it pertinent to state within the bible at that time. There is very brief mention of worshipping rocks and 'idols' (and most times it just states humans were being naughty), but that in accordance with religious outlook is mankinds free will. On each occurence god has destroyed something without guilt. That in itself denies the very existence of free will. It is to suggest the second you think of something other than god you get drowned, blown up, turned to salt and so on. Out of the bible thus far there have only been a tiny handful of men that have been worthy of saving. God even went to the lengths of destroying ALL mankind save for 8 people and some animals. Every other human and every other animal was killed. There is no detail of what they did that was THAT bad it deserved entire annihilation.

Kindly explain to me, in your words, what 'demonic activity' is. There's no mention of it in the bible so your interpretation would be helpful. Or.... were you just making basic assumptions and 'accepting' that which your head tells you is true without looking at the evidence?

Okay, let me put it another way, do you have any respect for a scientist who believes in God?

I give respect to those who have earned my respect.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by MShark
Since it appears that you have no evidence for the diety in the Bible does that mean your life is full of joy, hope and whatever is the oppisite of dispair?

Well, my life IS that way but not because of what you said. My life is badass because I generally have a great attitude. I have more fun than frustration, but ample shares of both.

Originally posted by MShark

If so I am happy for you and it would be nice to see those feelings show a little in your posts.

You don't see it eh? *shrug* Hehe, how could you not tell how much fun I'm having interacting with all the big brains? It's awesome, I love it here.

Originally posted by MShark

I myself find a great deal of joy in believing in a loving God.

*shrug* Okay.

Originally posted by MShark

From my perspective I see plenty of evidence of this God and if I thought that she did not exist I would be crippled by dispair.

Too bad for you IMO. If you need to be pacified by bullshit, I do feel badly for you. I hope someday you'll be comfortable with facing the truth: Nobody knows anything, but some things are more plausible than others. The bible, christianity, etc.... is not plausible to a reasonable mind IMO.

 

[MShark]

Wesmorris: The bible, christianity, etc.... is not plausible to a reasonable mind IMO.

I would have to agree with you on this one. But, to me the whole show (existance and being alive and all of that) is not very plausible. It is all a lot like Alice's silly little looking glass.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by MShark
I would have to agree with you on this one. But, to me the whole show (existance and being alive and all of that) is not very plausible. It is all a lot like Alice's silly little looking glass.

Yes but, you are typing to me. I gather then that, regardless of the complexity of hopelessness of finding a reason for it, you most likely DO exist eh? Thusly, regardless of how feasible it seems to you, you most likely exist. Can you same the same for a deity while both being reasonable and honest?

 

[TheVisitor]

I see your having fun today...

You keep me guessing what side your on , sometimes....

I think there's hope for you yet.


(I want to "play" too......

I'll be right back.)

 

[TheVisitor]

Now, notice the Bible.....
Some of you say: "Oh, well, It's done this; It's done that."
It's full of contradictions...I say there not one, and challange anyone to prove it.
But first.....
Let's go into the history of the Bible just a minute and see where It come from. It was written by forty different writers. Forty men wrote the Bible over a space of sixteen hundred years apart and at different times, predicting the most important events that ever happened in world's history, and many times hundreds of years before it happened. And there is not one error in the entire sixty-six Books. Oh, my. No author but God Himself could be so accurate. Not one word contradicts the other. Remember, sixteen hundred years apart, the Bible was wrote, from Moses to the death of John at the Isle of Patmos: sixteen hundred years.
And was wrote by forty different authors. One didn't even know the other one, and they never had It as the Word. Some of them never even seen the Word. But when they wrote It, and It was understood to be prophets, then when they put their prophecies together, each one of them dovetailed one to the other.

Look at Peter, who announced on the day of Pentecost, "Repent every one of you and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." Paul had never heard nothing about it. He went down to Arabia for three years to study the Old Testament to see Who this Pillar of Fire was that spoke to him on the road, saying, "Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" How could he be wrong? He never even consulted the church at all. And fourteen years later when he met Peter, they was preaching the same thing, word by word. That's the Bible. Let other men's words fail.
No man can add to It. This is a complete revelation. That's all.
Even the "mysteries" hidden in the Seven seals, It was already wrote, but they didn't understand what it was."


Now, let's just see how this Bible was written. Now, say for instance, from... What if we went now and took sixty-six medical books that deals with the body, wrote by forty different medical schools, sixteen hundred years apart? Wonder what kind of continuity we'd come up with?
When George Washington, our president... About two hundred years ago for pneumonia they pulled his toenail out and bled him a pint.

Ha,.......No comparision

What if we took... Let's go a little further on some things that we so attracted to today; that's Science.
What if we took forty different scientific journals from sixteen hundred years apart and see what we'd come up with?
Oh my........you really don't want to read any more of this, do you...?..OK
A French scientist three hundred years ago proved by science, by rolling a ball, that if any terrific speed was obtained over thirty miles an hour, the object would leave the earth and fall off. You think science would ever refer back to that? Is any continuity with that now, when they drive down the street on the road here, hundred and fifty miles an hour? See? But he scientifically proved that by the pressure of the ball rolling across the ground, that at thirty miles an hour, that any object would lift up off the earth and go away, fall off in space.

No, there's no continuity to that, but not one word in the Bible contradicts the other. Not one prophet ever contradicted the other one. They was every one perfect, and when one come in and did prophesy, that real prophet raised up and called him down. Then it was made manifest.

They'll find out some day, there not seeing so many millions of years of light space either, but it's being bent back around in a circle..that's right....also
You're going to find out one of these days that when you go to heaven, you don't fly off somewhere else; you're still right here too, just in another dimension faster then this.

Science vs. Religion....I speak nothing about religion, it is a covering...
Lucifer was a "covering" angel..It is a false light.


But Science vs. the Word of God......
Ha, there no comparison.......The Word of God is true, let man's word be found a lie.

 

[SnakeLord]

Man have you ever read the bible? Unlikely, as you've shown so many times over so many different threads.

If you sit down and actually read the bible, (that means read from the beginning through to the end- not just any particular word and sentence from any particular page), you'll see it is packed to the brim with contradiction. I have shown an analysis of the first 24 pages alone and have found contradictions. why don't you go read that and dispute what is written without sitting there preaching something to be absolute truth when you have not one word of evidence and not one substantial claim to attest to that.

End.

 

[TheVisitor]

If you sit down and actually read the bible, (that means read from the beginning through to the end- not just any particular word and sentence from any particular page), you'll see it is packed to the brim with contradiction. I have shown an analysis of the first 24 pages alone and have found contradictions
========

What does this mean...absolutely nothing........You have run up against something you with the reasoning of the human mind, and the spirit of a man....which is natural, carnal understanding.....can not understand.
This is what the bible says will happen and proves it's Word even further.
You cannot "see" the kingdom of God, less you be born again by the Spirit of God. It will be contradictions and meaningless jiberish to the carnal mind of man..
Praise be to God.....not because you don't understand, my friend..no

I wish you did....
But the more man attempts to prove there is no God, the more His majesty is revealed in simplicity.
God, hides Himself in simplicity, and reveals Himself in the same.

God in simplicity.