People! There is no god just admit it! The theory of evelution is no longer a theory it's fact as for the big bang I can't say it happend because there's no proof. But to believe in something that someone created this all is stupid! That like saying that a car runs on god power god created the most sophisticated systhem on earth the nervus system. HEY LOOK GODS THE VERY FIRST COMPUTER GEEK!!!!! A few months ago my brother was killed and everyone says that god needed him. Yah! Well he has a 6year old son that was left behind and a girlfriend that would give her life for him. So where the hell was God HUH! I'l' tell you where he was smoking a big fatty...... OK!!! No I'm not angry at the fact that every one It's just that's totally stupid. My brother wasn't taken by the word of god he KILLED by his friends ignorance. Not God.... Ignorance! When you can show me proof that god is real than i will believe. But for those who do believe I'm not going to tell you that you should stop believing all I'm gonna say is keep your mind open as will I!
The God Delusion - ongoing review
- Thread starter GeoffP
- Start date
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Politics are very likely a better place to get answers to that question.
Okay, so, uh, let me get this straight: you're saying evolution disproves God's existence?
Actually, speaking either as an observer or a participator, the accounts are actually highly similar. If anything, one would argue they're too similar.
It's an interesting question: I would consider it a lot more likely if thousands of people saw such an abduction simultaneously, which is the case for some of the events in the Bible. You might argue there were no eyewitness accounts for the miracles, but you could as easily argue that all history is written in perspective anyway. Our recording system is a bit better these days, of course.
Maybe you do? Sorry, but those are definitely not the words we use. What do you want me to say? Why do you keep going, if you hate it so much? Do you simply become lost on the way to the liquor store?
Feeling lusty?
Anyway, my comment was about their social positions. Your position appears to be that they can't have any, because they're all stupid. All...rightie then.
Oh? A comparison: you're Australian, Bells. Is gay marriage legal in Australia? How about gay adoption? Has Australia been guilty of, say, racist citizenship or immigration policies in the last fifty years? Twenty-five years? Are you going to renounce your citizenship, then?
Or perhaps you might work for change instead from inside Australia.
Yep - and, excuse me: "claim"? Watch it.
Now, I reiterate: I've never heard any Catholic service even bring up that part of Romans. Sorry. And it would be pretty hard to do so in the context of a forgiving Saviour. So, in short: Paul was wrong. Period. Missed the memo. It's well within my rights as a Catholic and a Christian and a human being to believe exactly that. Does any faith have to justify every single passage of its book? Or are they - as I reiterate again and again about one faith in particular - allowed to reject it out of hand? I think they are, and that everyone is, according to their humanity. Are all Americans Bush supporters?
Again: tear up your citizenship, Bells.
Or start bleating.
Rather, I hear the message of peace, and stick with that. I'll leave Paul and Timothy to their empty ruminations until I can get them out of the Book.
*cough* Uh-huh. You were right there, then. Were they holding out their gay identity card, then? No? Perhaps a handbag? Buttless chaps and Gay Pride Day costume? How, exactly, did the priest identify them? Merely curious.
If you've actually seen it occur, then regulation, obviously. You expected something different? Now, where is that passport of yours? The scissors are waiting.
The five year olds, eh? Right. That certainly defines every church service I've ever been to. Instead of running around in the aisles and poking each other, they sit in perfect order, like little stone angels, genuflecting on command.
Right.
Well were you a teenager or a child? Which are you now? Did the Churchmen chase you into the street and turn you into a newt? This is your right, by the way, Bells, which I am not impugning in any way, nor even demeaning. Yet you attack mine.
Again: how are they identified? And speaking of sin, how are other 'sinners' identified at Communion, out of curiousity? How is a couple living together before wedlock identified and scorned, since we're speaking of lifestyles here? Do they carry a sign? Where is this "not bloody you, mate" line that you think appears? I've gone to service with openly gay people and nothing is ever said.
Why, thankyou. Very kind. Now: do muslims support sharia just by going to mosque? Dhimmitude? FGM? No. There is some percentage with that opinon in the islamic community, but the act of observing islam itself is not inimical to anyone, and all communities have percentages of one thing or another.
It was a choice. You said yourself above that you terminated your "contract". Ergo, a choice, Bells. So yes, you "selected to become an atheist".
They most certainly are not. Not in any Catholic church I've ever heard of. Let me illustrate something to you here: in the story about casting the first stone, was the adulteress woman in the example then meant herself to have cast the first stone via adultery?? You do realize that Jesus used that bit to get her off the docket? How can he criticize them for wanting to throw the first stone when - as your comment above suggests you think - she's supposed to have already done so. Don't re-write gospel bass-ackwards. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
But most of its believers have.
And you desire not, so you are easily led not to believe. A choice, good Bells!
I always do.
Nothing offensive in it, unless you object to iconographical perspective, which is exaggerated....calls me fat, then tells me I only need astound myself, which is meant to mean...ugh. Pointless. Bells, you are as incognisant of me as you are incognisant of everything else you don't agree with in your life. Which, so far, is quite a lot.
Relations with the hubby a little strained? Now, now: I'm a married man.
Best,
Geoff
Bells
Staff member
Maybe I do? Geoffy boy! I laugh at your lame attempts to turn this back on me. HAHA! <--- That was me laughing.
Those words are used as part of the Gospels Geoff. Maybe the Catholic Church is attempting to change its visage to the dumbed down sheep who attend, lest they be seen to be politically incorrect. It is in the Bible, Geoff, and it has been part of the Gospels. Why would you want to support a religious organisation that preached from a Bible that states homosexuals deserve death? I find the whole thing to be quite confusing. You harp on about other religions that kill homosexuals, but you support a religious organisation that follows a book that deems homosexuals worthy of death. Pot.. kettle.. black perhaps?
I don't attend Church anymore. I am an atheist. I don't believe there is a God. I also believe the Catholic Church to be one of the most dangerous and hypocritical organisations on this planet. I guess my eyes opened from a very young age.
Yes, but not for lamb. I am in the mood for beef to be honest.
Ermm lets see.. They believe in a all supreme God who watches their every move from the sky... Ya.. smart one's they are.
Yes. I am an Australian citizen. And no, homosexuals are not allowed to marry and have in the past, as well in the present, exhibited racist tendencies. And guess what Geoff, I am working for change in the system. Do you think you are encouraging change in Catholic doctrines by attending church every week and forking out the money when the little tray comes around? Have you written to the Holy See to demand the Catholic Church abandons their belief in the Biblical teachings and Gospels about homosexuals? My guess to those questions is a 'no'?
Righteo then. Moving right along..
Oh, how delicious. A threat perhaps? Going to put me in my place with your words on the screen? I am feeling excited anticipation Geoff. Really.
But it is in your Bible and is deemed to be part of the Gospels, Geoff. So why support and believe in a Church that views homosexuality as being deserving of death?
Mmmm hmmm..
Do you want to tell the Catholic Church that? Because he is still lauded as being saintly in the Church. You going to tell them he is wrong? You going to campaign for the Church to be more accepting of homosexuals and to remove or strike out those Gospels from the Bible? Yes?... No?.. Instead, you will attend Church every week, kneel down, recite the Creed, take holy communion and then kneel down and beg for forgiveness for all your sins, knowing deep down the Church you are currently defending holds the Bible as being the words of truth and goodness, the very same Bible that claims homosexuals are deserving of death.
But hey, you say Paul was wrong. Shame the Church you happen to support does not agree with you, now isn't it?
Why are you defending yourself Geoff? At the end of the day, you attend a Church that follows a book that deems homosexuals as being deserving of death. You are, a Catholic. You can claim Paul was wrong all you like. You have a choice whether to attend said Church or not. Americans do not have a choice as to where they live. They can try to vote for the other party. But you have a choice. You choose to exercise it by continuing to attend.
Refer to above. You see Geoff, Australia is attempting to right the wrongs of the past. Has the Catholic Church taken such steps? Yes? Or no? My guess is 'no' since Paul is still such a big figurehead in the Church and in the Bible it follows.
You were saying about 'bleating'?
You mean you sit, with your hands over your ears and sing 'la la laaaaa'?
You won't get Paul out of "the Book". I strongly advise you to go to the Vatican website and search on homosexuality. Then you'll see just how accepting they happen to be. In short, peaceful my arse.
Are you trying to be blind? No, seriously, are you?
Usually if the priest knows the individual is a homosexual or the person is wearing a pin or scarf to identify their support for homosexuals (rainbow pattern or sash) or are homosexuals themselves have been refused communion, sometimes even asked to leave.
I have heard of parents of homosexuals supporting their children also being turned away and refused communion.
As I said Geoff, I am no longer a Catholic. And I am working to change the system in Australia. Question is, are you working to change the belief system in the Catholic Church? Having paid a visit to the Pope's website, my guess would be you are not succeeding in that regard. But you still defend them. Strange.
Yes, actually we did. We weren't allowed to run around in Church as children. Doing so would result in the whole family being asked to leave. But then again, as a small child, I lived in a country (not Australia) where pews were reserved for white people and anyone of colour was relegated to the back. If a person of colour dared to sit in the front, the white Catholic priest would be sure to order you to move before and during the mass. So coloured children like myself were not allowed to move around and run in the aisle during mass. We had to genuflect upon command, because not doing so would mean being ordered to leave.
I have seen supposedly 'peaceful' Catholic priests abuse and insult a dark coloured elderly woman for daring to sit in the second row in Church, telling her she did not belong. Such experiences mark one from a very young age. So please, spare me the "message of peace" crap. I have seen the worst in the Church and frankly, the day I turned my back on it as a child was the best day of my life.
I was about 13 at the time actually. I was only going to mass to please my parents. And that day, enough was enough. I asked my father for the car keys and I got up and walked out and sat in the car for an hour until my parents came out and we went home. Stony silence and anger on their behalf. Sadness from me. Because not only did I no longer even want to associate with such an organisation, but I knew then without a doubt that I did not believe in God. Especially a God that was portrayed in the Bible.
Am I attacking you? I guess so, yes. I suppose I find extraordinary how someone can abuse and insult others because their religion actually kills homosexuals while still believing so strongly in a religion that follows a Book which views homosexuals as being deserving of death. I see a level of hypocrisy that is astounding to be honest.
Don't pretend to be so blind Geoff. Stupidity does not become you.
How do you think this couple were identified?
And if you happen to wear a rainbow sash, you will be denied, homosexual or not.
So tell me Geoff, how are you going to get them to understand they are wrong? Protest will result in your being denied the holy sacrament. Read question 5. Amusing if it weren't so damn pathetic.
Right. So next time you have a go at a Muslim member for their support of their religion, I shall be quite correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument when one considers you support and adhere to a religion that preaches from a book stating homosexuals are deserving of death? Righteo!
Because you are not practicing what you are preaching Geoff. You accuse Islam of being backward when you belong to the Catholic Church, which is, equally backwards. Again.. pot.. kettle.. black..
No dear. I became an atheist because I honestly believed there was no God and I left the Catholic Church because of its belief system. My disbelief in a higher being had been confusing me quite a bit for a few years as a child. But one day, in Church, it all became quite clear. And that was it.
Oh I do pet. Do you think Jesus would have been as forgiving if she had been a homosexual? She was a sinner in the eyes of the people. She was a sinner in the eyes of Christ. She was saved by Christ because he viewed that she could only be judged by God and that no one had a right to cast that first stone. Now, homosexuals have two choices in the Bible. They can repent and become celibate, or he can live in unforgivable sin in the eyes of man, only to be judged for his sin's by God. In the meantime, he will be deemed to be deserving of death and denied communion. Hmmmm.. So tell me again Geoff, do you think if she had been a homosexual, that Jesus would have dared to use the 'he who casts the first stone' as a means to save her? Somehow I doubt it. A sinner casts the stone against themselves Geoff. But as Jesus argued, it is not for man to judge her for her sins, but for God the father to do so. That is why Jesus saved her. Not because she was innocent. But because it is not for man to judge her and punish her for her sin, because the only judge for a person's sin is God. Get it?.. Follow me now?..
Really? So why is it still in the Bible then, Geoff?
Actually no. Desire does not come into it. I really do not believe there is a God. I would desire there be a God to stop the carnage around the world, but there is not. I would desire for anything to have the power to stop the violence and the killing around the world. But alas, there is no one with that kind of power.
Of course it is Geoff.
We disagree with a lot of things in life Geoff. Which is why you amuse me so much.
See? You get emotional at my saying your backside is rotund! Tis funny.Sorry my dear, but I am not into hairy men with girlish voices.
No, I reiterate: why do you keep going then, if you hate it so much? This isn't a turnback, but a reasonable question. Is someone making you go or something? Have you slipped a gauge somewhere?
It appears to be a part largely unknown to me, then. I reiterate: I have never heard it cited in aid of anything in the Catholic church, at any time. Given your back-and-forth about being Catholic as a kid, or then a teen, or then still going but hating it, I wonder if you've actually ever set foot in a Catholic church at all. It seems a bit more likely you've associated with some small evangelical extremist group.
Again: when are you tearing up your Australian passport?
Oh? Then you'll be so good as to indicate the last execution of a homosexual by religious Christian law in the West, please. Thankee.
But you just said you did, and hated it! Which is it?
Given your arguments, I would have suspected something lying behind said beef, but as you will.
Can you disprove the observations of the Apostolic books of the Bible? If so, by all means do so.
Halleluiah! Go, Sister! Go! Now, what change have you worked for? Have you, say, written to Canberra about their policies? Marched? Maybe bitched about it a little in the checkout line, even? Me, I've brought it up quite openly to everyone who asks; I disagree both with priest celibacy, and with discrimination against homosexuals. So far, no excommunication. I shall await albino priests with Glocks.
Do you think you are encouraging change in Australian doctrines by observing Australian citizenship and forking out your tax money when the little letter from Canberra comes around?
There you are correct, for a change. I haven't written them. I will do so tomorrow, when my papers have been finished. Now: what change have you worked for? Have you written to Canberra about their policies? My guess to that question is a 'no'. Moving right along.
Well, it's rather more that you risk self-identification as a idiot and slanderer when you accuse me of homophobia or whatnot. I suppose illustrating your errors to those who run the site wouldn't help, of course.
See above. Why are you still an Australian citizen? Why not move to Holland? Why do you continue to support a homophobic and racist institution with your tax dollars and citizenship? Or are you still trying to "take on Australia from the inside"?
Ah! Agreement! You have a pair of brain cells to rub together! Excellent.
Yep. I'm going to check first and make sure that wasn't a translational issue (unlikely) and then write in and complain.
You going to do any of that in Australia?
No.
In case you missed it - and you have - I'm also there for my sins. You understand this, yes? The act of contrition is about the individual, not forcing the institution organizing such contrition to also make contrition. You've bought into all the old ridiculous stereotypes, and seem to be trying to force me into a mold of your own creation. Why such anger?
It is a shame. Paul's part in that early chunk of Romans is being avoided, instead of recognized and shamed or removed. It's amazing that you can attack someone for actually having a moral perspective on this.
Because my personal character - along with my religion - is being attacked by a hysterical git.
This would be a lie. They do have every choice, as a free people, to live anywhere they like; and so do you, by the way, my hypocritical friend.
Haw! A dollar for the Abos, then? Pittance and a foot out the door? Right.
Again: tear up your citizenship, Bells.
It's rare that someone can so categorically misunderstand a person, or their morality, or their position. I decided to colour-code this example.
Oh, but I will.
Will you get the racism out of Australia, as you continue to be a member thereof?Uh-huh. Because homosexuals have a club badge. I see. You are quantifiably insane.
Interestingly, when I searched on the term on www.catholic.org, I got this:
http://www.catholic.org/search_site.php?search_term=homosexual&qqq=Encyclopedia
Seems unfilled.
Already answered.
Are you making much headway against your government then? No. Strange you defend them. Have I defended homophobia in the Church? No. I merely question the, shall we say, legitimacy of some of your supposedly first-hand observations. I'm sure it occurs. I've just never seen it.
Well, this is an issue of local racism rather than religion per se, I'd say. Have you turned your back on Australia too? Just curious.
No kidding.
I criticize elements of that other religion as they apply to human rights and freedoms. Denying someone the right to Communion is not the same level of offense as denying someone the right to oxygen. Were they to give those elements up - which, as you note, encompasses actually killing people, as opposed to Paul's whining - I would have no complaints at all. If I have given you the impression that I disapproved of that religion in toto, then I apologize for that misconception. However, your complaints, as always, appear to eminate from your sense of personal offense.
Then so be it: I will be denied the Holy Sacrament.
...hasn't happened yet, but let's all be hopeful, shall we? It might.
Please do: I am not responsible for the ignorance of your arguments.
In response: I do not attack their support of their own religion - as I have made clear several times, but which children sometimes miss - but some of the elements thereof. I have repeatedly stated that reform in behaviour is required; I have even offered, true, liturgical change as a possible remedy. But I have not blanketed islam wholesale as wrong, nor do I so believe. Given that the Quran contains many elements of various humanitarian value, this would be categorically impossible. If you think otherwise, please prove it or shut your yapping. People are much free to think as they like, regrettably. It is what they do that enters into humanitarian morality.
Oh? Am I preaching Romans 1:24? Had I even heard of it, until now? Do I support it?
Of course. It's implicit in the issue of throwing the first stone.
Internal politics, obviously. You assume that the Catholic church is immune?
And I would desire for there not to be a God. I would actually prefer it. I am not a good Christian. I sin. I err. I covet. I would prefer, since I consider myself irreparrably damaged, not to be, after a miserable, drawn-out struggle with death, to be judged and sent into a fiery afterlife for all time. This is something I imagine you cannot properly contemplate. Yet, I feel differently to you. You may tolerate such difference, or carry on as you do. Strangely, I have yet to attack atheism.
Yet I'm apparently the member of the offensive faith system.
How odd.
Best,
Geoff
Remember that the issue is that these people are all supposedly observers, which seemingly cannot be so given the dating etc.
You said: "I think it could be generously argued that the Gospels represent the position of several observers"
and then argue similarity as somehow supporting that. Needless to say it does not. The Noah flood is clearly a later copy with addition to the flood saga seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh, containing exact duplicated details and so on. It's very doubtful, given the dating and story itself, that both authors could have been observers of the event.
Likewise, the dating and so on of the gospels indicate that they could not have all been observers.
Fine, let's put this into perspective:
You find a report by some individual you have never met, will never meet and simply do not know that claims he was abducted by aliens and that thousands of people witnessed the event.
No, you cannot interview or hear from any of those claimed eyewitness. Ever.
You find another report by another man that you do not know and will never know that details incredibly similar things. The aliens look the same, the spaceship interior is described identically and this man too claims that there were thousands of eyewitnesses, (none of whom you can ever interview).
What do you ultimately have?
Yes, you have a claim made by complete strangers followed by a claim that thousands of people can attest to the truth of it, and writings by some other complete stranger that detail incredibly similar things and also have thousands of witnesses.
You read the case and say it is true, and amusingly it is true because "there were thousands of eyewitnesses" and "it's very similar".
So where do the double standards come from?
Saying cars and computers are unnatural is like saying that a beavers dam is unnatural?
They may not be direct observations, true, but I recall that some of them at least date prior to 100 AD, and might only be secondhand observation.
Well, actually I could. Similarity among several observers suggests a correct vein.
Well I think hardly anyone would reasonably point to Noah as being correct or likely; yet how is it that it is "clearly" a later copy? How is this "clear"? It sounds to me more like supposition, whether accurate or otherwise. But we don't take supposition, however reasonable, as evidentiary.
...? Actually they don't. Actually I'm not following where this is going; when I said above they actually seemed too similar, if anything, it was in respect of the argument that there's a lot of variance among them, and thus that that proves their fallibility.
Here's another thing to consider, which has never to my knowledge emerged in the discussion: it might be argued - and has - that in vein of my point above that the Gospels are too similar, too close. Therefore, that they must have been co-written. Yet I don't think anyone would have thought to demand multiple observations (increased n) in that period - the birth of parametric statistics was far off yet. So why not have a single testament, complete and entire? Why the four or five, all mutually supporting to a fairly large extent, and why give them different names?
Best,
Geoff
The writings of Paul seem quite vague about this Jesus fellow though do they not? In fact, as if he doesn't know Jesus as a real person? Are the Gospels not simply a reaction to the popularity of this figure Paul was preaching about? I'm sure all that stuff was just supplemented in a similar way to all religions tell a few tall tales. I'm not entirely sure of the time frames involved... but it just seems that the gap between the alleged death of 'Jesus', Pauls writings and then the gospels just seems to support the dominant theory of myth and chinese whispers.
But if you believe that people actually witnessed Jesus turning water to wine, fly off to heaven, feeding thousands of people with I forget what... etc... Then I think you are too trusting of people.
Your impression of Paul is similar to mine, and my main dialectical difference with the Catholic Church - he doesn't write about Jesus at all the same way and it smacks of social politics. Timothy too, for his comments about women gossiping in church. Or maybe he just had a personal gripe with some women in his region which spilled over into his general impressions. Either way, his contributions as a book to the NT need to be seriously re-evaluated because of that.
I may be too trusting of people, but faith is faith too. What can I say? It's a personal choice.
Anyway, I'll try to get back to the point and blog old Dawkins again - ironically, as Paul is to my Catholicism, Richard is to my evolutionism.
I may be too trusting of people, but faith is faith too. What can I say? It's a personal choice.
Anyway, I'll try to get back to the point and blog old Dawkins again - ironically, as Paul is to my Catholicism, Richard is to my evolutionism.
Bells
Staff member
*Sigh*
Then why believe?
I am not going to even ask how you sin or what you covet. No one is irreparably damaged Geoff. We all have our faults. Life is what you make of it. Does it comfort you to believe there is something else? If it does, then so be it. You need to come to grips with your "sins". You need to come to terms with any harm you have caused anyone or anything. And you need to rectify any wrong committed by you. Begging for forgiveness and not learning from your mistakes will do nothing to assuage your own feelings of guilt.
How can I put this. You need to come to grips with your own faults and deal with them instead of merely asking God for forgiveness and hoping like hell you don't end up in hell. It is only when you come to terms with your faults that you can find comfort in yourself.
Great.. now I feel guilty for giving you a hard time.:bawl:
Ugh.. I'll leave this topic alone now. This is obviously something very important to you and means a lot to and in your life. You are too emotionally involved in it. Just stop being so hard on yourself.
And I apologise for any insults I may have thrown at you.
[Edit]
I have removed the long response I had originally typed out in this post, for reasons stated above. You have too much emotionally vested in this subject for me to discuss this with you as I have been.
Last edited:
triplelite
Registered Member
Let me ask you a question: how many sins are you aware that you've committed?
Do you just 'know' that you sin and continued life and continued the same sin?
Bells
Staff member
What is a sin? I have never cheated, felt jealousy for something or someone, I don't lie (except for the little white lies I sometimes tell telemarketers), I do not steal. I am not lazy or greedy. So what sin am I supposed to have committed? What exactly is a sin? A social wrong or an injustice? Or a wrong in the eyes of God? Because sometimes, both are not one and the same.
Err I am an atheist. If I do something wrong, be it to another person or not, I do what I can to rectify the situation and make sure never to do it again. I do not believe in "sin". I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions and learning from one's mistakes. I do not believe in doing something wrong, then just asking for forgiveness then carry on on my merry way, not caring if I do it again or not. I do not believe in the notion of asking some all seeing God for pardon, then thinking that I am somehow off the hook. In short, I do not believe in God.
I don't let myself off the hook if I have done something wrong. Nor do I say 'forgive me father for I have sinned' and believe I am somehow absolved for any wrong I have committed. Many do so and never even bother to attempt to right the wrong they committed, believing just asking for forgiveness from the 'heavenly father' is all that is needed, absolving themselves of all responsibility for their own actions. I, personally, don't work that way. I believe in personal responsibility and responsibility to others. God does not enter into the equation.
Thanks for your comments - yes, this is a subject very close to me. How did I arrive at it? Gut feeling, and that's about it, I suppose.
No worries.
Geoff
That they are seemingly not direct observations, (while claiming to be), leaves a bit of a problem. Even second hand stories undergo a great deal of Chinese whispers - it is human nature. You can even see it in the gospels:
It is quite apparent that Chinese whispers has played a major role here and yet it is considered absolute undeniable reality by, I would assume, the majority of christians.
And yet, it needs to be added, these very same people would not offer the same credibility to any other claimed event, (of a similar nature), that suffered from the same.
If they are observers, sure. There's the problem. However, again it must be stipulated that there are thousands of "observers" of alien abduction that have recounted incredibly similar events. At what stage does one accept these claims? (Note that it would be even worse if these people were merely second hand observers [heard it from their father etc])
Then you'd most likely think wrong. Maybe not the little faith christian, but among the more faithful the Noah saga is considered to be a factual, historical event. I believe Adstar is one of those people.
The following link states that 60% of Americans believe it to be true, (along with other biblical stories),Here
CBN states that 64% of Americans believe the story of Noah and the flood.
I'll start off with the simplest explanation and see how that goes..
We know this is a 'copy' of earlier works for a few reasons. Given the dating, we know that the Noah saga is not an original global flood telling. Unless there were several global floods, we know that the Noah story cannot be the source story - in the same manner that we know Anne Rice's 'Interview with the Vampire' is not a source work of vampire mythology. We know 'clearly' that her work was copied from earlier sources. Yes, she certainly adapated, modified, changed and added but it is quite clear to state that the source work is not hers. The same is true of the flood story - unless there was more than one global flood.
Of course Abraham, (a Sumerian that grew up in Ur [Gen 11:27 etc] and also the founder of the jewish people), would have undoubtedly spread common Sumerian stories, (including the ram and thicket, story of Moses etc), which ultimately would most likely have led to this later global flood story. Either way, it cannot be considered an original but a 'copy', (I do use the term relatively loosely), of earlier work.
My apologies, I tend to use "you" in a very loose manner, (i.e not you specifically).
Last edited:
triplelite
Registered Member
Sin is any wrongdoing pretty much. Now, according to the religion, God didn't create us perfectly so he doesn't expect us to do no wrong. So God gave us a way to rectify by confessing this sin to God, and ofcourse, that you'd do your best to not commit the same sin again. Otherwise God ain't happy at you
^^^ clear evidence of lack of Christianity knowledge
Ahh yes, even those who believe in the holy God also sin...and ofcourse all those against the religion loves to attack something that is a minority and even that heaps of ppl commit a sin, either knowing it or ignoring it is wrong, do it all again...
Tell me, is the average christian vs the average person going to commit wrongdoings or less?