Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
582

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sweetheart (may I call you that?), you might want to look in a Hebrew dictionary and explore the definition there as well as the context of how the word was used in the time that it was written. It had EVERYTHING in the world to do with theft. [/quote]

How so? I mean, please explain how the original word meant theft, not desire. Does “you shall not kill” still means to kill? What about steal? How come the “easy to follow” ones haven’t changed in meaning but the hard ones have?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In Bible times, like it or not, a woman was considered the property of the man. [/quote]

Well, of course. Maternity is a fact and paternity is a belief. It’s no surprise that rules and conventions would be made to prevent a man from feeding and caring for an extra mouth that was not his own kind. (oh I see some serious evolutionary aspect here, but I’ll refrain).

And if you’re going to think about women as property, what does theft mean then? Punching them in the head and carrying them to you cave? Persuading them into leaving their home? Having sex? Rape? I can see how if a woman has a child, her husband/owner would have the problem I said before, of feeding a mouth that is not his child, and no one wanted that, so that would be stealing for sure. But what if it’s just sex and nothing comes out of it, is it stealing? Isn’t that more like, borrowing? Or are we talking about stealing someone’s affection and attention? A lot of people interpret it that way. The same way you shouldn’t praise any gods other that God Himself. Isn’t that the second commandment or something? See, that’s clearly a case where the problem is the mental/emotional focus, not an action. So how is it different for women?

What about coveting someone’s husband, is that ok, since they’re no one’s property? You can’t steal what doesn’t belong to anyone.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So if you took my use of the word “desire” of you as what I just stated then yes, that would be wrong. I would be wrong.

You should have taken it as an expression of sexual attraction and that is NOT wrong.

Make sense?[/quote]

Both are a sin. I think you’re manipulating words to get to the conclusion that you’re looking for. Bad intentions and impure thoughts are sins, according to the bible.

584

Ok, maybe I’ll borrow your book (sounds interesting), maybe it’ll explain that one part to me. But it still doesn’t explain other things, of which the “covet other’s wife/property” was just an example. It won’t explain how come no one cares about the Sabbath. And the goats. And the virgins. And the haughty eyes and lying tongues.

I think your point of view if just different than mine on that one, and this is becoming more about relationships than religion. See I don’t even believe what I was saying about sin. For all I care, covet away (wish, not steal), because I don’t believe in sin and I don’t think (this is my opinion) that intentions are wrong. For all I care, my impure thoughts are free to sprout in my head, because I don’t think that one should be blamed for thinking. But the part of me that grew up catholic (it’s a tiny little part, but it’s in here somewhere), must be feeling SO guilty. And yes, this is a catholic thing: guilt. I honestly don’t know how much different, or not, protestantism (which is more common here in the states) is about that. Either way, catholics and protestants, as a church, are not creating rules out of thin air. They’re both based on the same book. Different interpretations of the same texts. And now you present YOUR interpretation. Which, come think of it, is just a point of view. No matter how close to the original scriptures you go, words are going to have different meanings and the same sentence might be looked at from different points of view. Which is why I said earlier, if you want to read a book and understand everything down to the smallest detail, read Harry Potter. Or find a way to talk to God and ask Him what exactly He means (if you see the bible as His book).

Which brings me to the question…

How is church teaching different from biblical teaching? If your math teacher and your math book are saying different things, either of them is wrong. So you can say your math book is wrong. Maybe it was a typo, a wrong number changes everything sometimes, maybe the author got confused, human mistake. Or you can say your teacher is wrong, which is either a bold assumption, saying you know better than your teacher, or it might be true, in which case you should find a new teacher. To sum it up, you have 3 alternatives:
a) your book is flawed, find a new one
b) you’re cocky and claim to know more than people who dedicate their lives to religion, but you’re wrong
c) your religion is wrong, find a new one

[quote]
BTW, you’re right, “bad intentions and impure thoughts ARE sins according to the Bible.” I agree. But me finding you sexually attractive does not mean I have bad intentions. [/quote]

Now after several posts arguing on the meaning of the word “covet”, let’s proceed with discussing the meaning of the word “bad”. Or “intention”. :stuck_out_tongue:

Example: I find Gerard Buttler sexually (insanely) attractive. Do I have bad intentions?

Edit: Ha. I just lol’d at my post: OMG NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE GOATS AND THE VIRGINS ANYMORE. Ok it’s late, things are funny when I’m sleepy.

587

[quote]pushharder wrote:

God gave you and me a mind. Use it. It is not incumbent on us to take everything taught to us by the church as infallible. The only infallible One is Him. Now, you’re thinking, “WHOA! Push! Are you the same guy that’s been arguing with me on this thread?” Yep! That’s me.

[/quote]

I promise to address the rest of these two posts tomorrow. But now it’s late. I shall now go to bed to dream of bad intentions and to savor the sweet taste of victory that is to read you admit that the Bible isn’t infallible and therefore its first chapter isn’t infallible. Which means you might be wrong on your view of the Genesis. Which means deep inside you know I might be right. Am I? Doesn’t matter. You just said I could be. Good enough for me. :slight_smile:

589

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
pushharder wrote:

God gave you and me a mind. Use it. It is not incumbent on us to take everything taught to us by the church as infallible. The only infallible One is Him. Now, you’re thinking, “WHOA! Push! Are you the same guy that’s been arguing with me on this thread?” Yep! That’s me.

I promise to address the rest of these two posts tomorrow. But now it’s late. I shall now go to bed to dream of bad intentions and to savor the sweet taste of victory that is to read you admit that the Bible isn’t infallible and therefore its first chapter isn’t infallible. Which means you might be wrong on your view of the Genesis. Which means deep inside you know I might be right. Am I? Doesn’t matter. You just said I could be. Good enough for me. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

You might be very interested in how he answers the last post that I left on my thread “How much do you really know about Christianity?”

It’s all about contradictions and contexts regarding the Bible.

590

My favourite highly accurate parts of the Bible are where Pi is 3, and insects have 4 legs. Yeah, that stood the test of time!

591

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Also, I think the evolutionists that have been posting here would like this: Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | WIRED [/quote]
Ha that’s fantastic. Where the fuck does any god exist now? As a “Prime Mover”?

592

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The tenth commandment: Nao cobicem o que os outros tem: a casa, a mulher, o gado e animais de carga - nada.

What’s very interesting is that the verb cobicar has two translations into English: “to covet” and “to lust after.” The word “covet” isn’t used very much outside of Bible discussions and Silence of the Lambs, but we all know about good old Deadly Sin Number One.

The Romans called it cupiditia, from which you get the Portuguese word cobica (lust), and we get the English word cupidity (which means unquenchable desire or greed).

It’s also where the Greek god of lust, Eros, got his Roman name, Cupid.
[/quote]

You should be a prof somewhere, bro. You’re more knowledgeable than most of the faculty at the uni where my wife teaches science, in my limited interaction with them.

593


Pretty much sums it up in my opinion.

594

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Discussing the actual intended meaning of certain verses in the bible is pointless.[/quote]

You started it.

There is to religious people. That’s surely the point of a religious text.

If you quote specific lines in response to a request to explain why you think the Bible says the Earth is flat then either the point is to justify your stated position, or your stated position is a fabrication just to be a shit-stirrer. Apparently it’s the latter.

[quote]
And seriously, if you disagree with me on this one, you’re only proving my point, and you probably won’t even realize it. But I don’t expect you* to grasp this little concept. :slight_smile:

*by you I mean anyone that tries to take the bible as more than an interesting fiction book, or a “guideline”.[/quote]

Because I disagreed with you I must be a Bible advocate - is that the thought process? And to think you were chastising Push for assuming you were a college boy.

595

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Discussing the actual intended meaning of certain verses in the bible is pointless.

You started it.

Trying to get to the “real meaning” of it is stupid, as there is no “real” meaning.

There is to religious people. That’s surely the point of a religious text.[/quote]

TO religious people. See the condition in your sentence? Might be harder to notice if you don’t use an obvious conjunction like “if”. But you still said, there is a meaning, IF you are a religious person. Therefore, there isn’t a meaning to just anyone. In fact, there isn’t meaning to ALL religious people either. Again, explanation: all people who see a meaning are religious, but not all religious people see a meaning. You have to consider there’s many religions out there that follow different doctrines.

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
My point was not to prove whether the bible describes the earth as flat or not.

If you quote specific lines in response to a request to explain why you think the Bible says the Earth is flat then either the point is to justify your stated position, or your stated position is a fabrication just to be a shit-stirrer. Apparently it’s the latter.
[/quote]

Are you playing dumb on purpose? I’ll give you the benefit of doubt here. Maybe you were just lazy to go through all my previous posts? What I’ve been saying from the start is that religious people SELECT what parts of the book to take literally or not. Like you, explaining to me that those verses don’t really mean that the earth is flat, that I should see it in context, and that words have different meanings, etc… But for some reason, people here have also said that when the bible says that God first made every living creature in a couple days, THAT is EXACTLY how it happened, no context, no different meanings.

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
And seriously, if you disagree with me on this one, you’re only proving my point, and you probably won’t even realize it. But I don’t expect you* to grasp this little concept. :slight_smile:

*by you I mean anyone that tries to take the bible as more than an interesting fiction book, or a “guideline”.

Because I disagreed with you I must be a Bible advocate - is that the thought process? And to think you were chastising Push for assuming you were a college boy.
[/quote]

No, that is not the thought process, and I honestly don’t see how you got to the word advocate. But as I said I didn’t expect you to grasp the concept, and there you go, getting your panties in a bunch over it, proving my point. Thanks.

596

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
My favourite highly accurate parts of the Bible are where Pi is 3, and insects have 4 legs. Yeah, that stood the test of time![/quote]

Oh, dear Jab1, haven’t you got it yet? Things in the bible change meanings silly boy. That’s what these nice gentlemen have been trying to teach us for pages here. It’s about time you understand. Just because the bible uses a certain very specific word, that isn’t necessarily what it means. See, things meant different things when it was written. It’s all about the context. Here, I’ll explain. You think that pi = 3.14159265… but that is what it means now, in modern age. Back in the day, circles worked differently and pi was only 3. Sorry I can’t explain how is it that circles were different, I’m not a geometry teacher. But at least now you know that the bible is never wrong!

597

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
My favourite highly accurate parts of the Bible are where Pi is 3, and insects have 4 legs. Yeah, that stood the test of time!

Oh, dear Jab1, haven’t you got it yet? Things in the bible change meanings silly boy. That’s what these nice gentlemen have been trying to teach us for pages here. It’s about time you understand. Just because the bible uses a certain very specific word, that isn’t necessarily what it means. See, things meant different things when it was written. It’s all about the context. Here, I’ll explain. You think that pi = 3.14159265… but that is what it means now, in modern age. Back in the day, circles worked differently and pi was only 3. Sorry I can’t explain how is it that circles were different, I’m not a geometry teacher. But at least now you know that the bible is never wrong! [/quote]

I have a very inquisitive 4 year old daughter, and I simplify many many things which I will have to go back and correct once she has a more sophisticated intellect.

Can’t it be said that humans as a whole are more sophisticated now as opposed to thousands of years ago? Perhaps we’ve grown into an understanding of the universe and God that is different from what was given to us when we had a limited capacity to grasp the full meaning.

598

[quote]Oleena wrote:
You might be very interested in how he answers the last post that I left on my thread “How much do you really know about Christianity?”

It’s all about contradictions and contexts regarding the Bible.
[/quote]

Oleena, I have been reading that thread, and I think you raised a nice discussion. I haven’t been posting there because, well, I don’t have much patience to argue about faith and religion. Truth is, those two things simply annoy me, so posting on this thread is hard enough on me already, since I’m trying to remain nice and polite.

That’s also why I’m trying to keep this thread (that has inevitably gone way out of topic but it’s still interesting) more on how people view and treat religion, faith, the Bible, God, and how that affects their view of life and science, and not so much on those things themselves.

599

[quote]borrek wrote:

I have a very inquisitive 4 year old daughter, and I simplify many many things which I will have to go back and correct once she has a more sophisticated intellect.

Can’t it be said that humans as a whole are more sophisticated now as opposed to thousands of years ago? Perhaps we’ve grown into an understanding of the universe and God that is different from what was given to us when we had a limited capacity to grasp the full meaning.[/quote]

She’s also a cutie (I’m assuming that’s her in the picture).

I agree with you. If she asks you where babies come from I’m guessing you’re not going to give her the full version. But that doesn’t mean that once she grows up she still needs to believe that storks bring babies, right? So why is it, that now that we’re all grown up, and know where babies come from, we’re still reading a book that tells us the storks deliver them and taking that book literally? What I’ve been saying is: why can’t we accept that when the Bible was written, somethings were unexplainable through science, and that’s why they have a supernatural explanation in the book? Why can’t the Bible be seen as more of a metaphor? Well, I take that back, why IS the Bible seen as a metaphor in some parts, and as infallible truth in others?

600

[quote]borrek wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
My favourite highly accurate parts of the Bible are where Pi is 3, and insects have 4 legs. Yeah, that stood the test of time!

Oh, dear Jab1, haven’t you got it yet? Things in the bible change meanings silly boy. That’s what these nice gentlemen have been trying to teach us for pages here. It’s about time you understand. Just because the bible uses a certain very specific word, that isn’t necessarily what it means. See, things meant different things when it was written. It’s all about the context. Here, I’ll explain. You think that pi = 3.14159265… but that is what it means now, in modern age. Back in the day, circles worked differently and pi was only 3. Sorry I can’t explain how is it that circles were different, I’m not a geometry teacher. But at least now you know that the bible is never wrong!

I have a very inquisitive 4 year old daughter, and I simplify many many things which I will have to go back and correct once she has a more sophisticated intellect.

Can’t it be said that humans as a whole are more sophisticated now as opposed to thousands of years ago? Perhaps we’ve grown into an understanding of the universe and God that is different from what was given to us when we had a limited capacity to grasp the full meaning.[/quote]

That’s an interesting point, but I do think it’s wrong. Primarily because there’s no evidence to suggest a decreased cognitive ability in humans from that long time of the Bible (as far as I am aware).

In fact, the ancient Greeks had a better understand of Pi than the Bible does, they managed to calculate the circumference of the earth after all! All this before Jesus came about. So while I agree that we are more sophisticated now, this is due to cultural and scientific, not biological, advancements.