Bible Scholar: God Not the Creator

Monday, October 12, 2009

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew. She claims fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

Posted by Zarathustra at 09:10 AM | 210 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

Zarathustra

Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage.

Private E-mail
Visit Home Page

Joined 2006/08/23
Visited 2009/11/15

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Halloween Horrorscope (9 comments) ...

Russian Historian Arrested Over Stalin Study (17 comments) ...

N.C. Church Plans Halloween Book Burning (142 comments) ...

Bible Scholar: God Not the Creator (210 comments) ...

What's With All the Zombies? (9 comments) ...

Where Religious Belief And Disbelief Meet (21 comments) ...

Greenwald: Afghanistan Debate Suffocatingly Narrow (52 comments) ...

G-20 Protester Charged with TwitterCrime (48 comments) ...

Placebos Are Getting More Effective (29 comments) ...

Who's In Charge: Obama, Congress, or the Military? (91 comments) ...

Greenwald: The Sources Used by the Liberal Media (0 comments) ...

Hightower: Wall Street's Latest Ghoulish Gimmick (25 comments) ...

FDA Bans Flavored Cigarettes (41 comments) ...

Talk Is Cheap: Saying 'Sorry' Costs Nothing (2 comments) ...

Zero Tolerance, Zero Effect (6 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Makes you wonder what else has been mistranslated, and/or subsequently distorted.

#1 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-12 01:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

...yet the OT/NT - with all their various translations and likely misinterpretations (not to mention outright redactions and editorship by mere mortals) - are regarded by some to be more reliable sources of evidence than, say, Darwinian evolution and all its supporting evidence?

"'I think what God meant to say is...'

Shit, I've never been THAT confident" ~ Bill Hicks

#2 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-12 01:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

God is not the Creator, Claims Academic

Hmm, who to believe?

Professor Ellen van Wolde

GOD

Such a dilema.

Think I'll stick with God

#3 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-10-12 02:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

are regarded by some to be more reliable sources of evidence than, say, Darwinian evolution and all its supporting evidence?

#2 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-12 01:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Geez, you spend a lot of time fretting about something you don't believe.

The Bible is not a science book, and is not intended to be a science book.

People who spend their time trying to, say, calculate the age of the world based on on the ages of the characters in Scripture are ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as people like Zara here, who piss away so much of their life trying to discredit Scripture. If you don't believe, that's up to you. God gives us free will, so you can go play Xbox instead. (It could also be that God is speaking to your heart, which is why you struggle so much. You may be trying to find reasons to refute what your inner man is saying).

The Bible is a book about two main people, Adam and Jesus (whose actual name translates to Second Adam). And it is a book about God's relationship with man.

There are plenty of interesting debates about how to interpret some verses or doctrines, but those are intramural debates, for people who already understand and agree on the three vital points -- the five solas.

If you are not a Christian and try to argue with a Christian about the Bible then you are just being foolish.

#4 | Posted by vernon at 2009-10-12 04:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oops it should have said ....

for people who already understand and agree on the three vital points OF SALVATION -- CONTAINED WITHIN the five solas.

#5 | Posted by vernon at 2009-10-12 04:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

She is a professional linguist, an expert in the Hebrew language. She knows that the bible comes from ancient texts written long before the modern version of those texts. The bible was not written by God, the current bible was written by different authors over several centuries.

Her interpretation fits in with the first bible, of which the current bible is a pale shadow in comparison, in the beauty of the written word, and the logic of creation.

The first bible shows that creationists are correct, and evolutionists are correct. If there were a creator of humanity, would that creator be any less of a God than if that entity had not created the universe? If that same creator were still alive today, as the first bible says is entirely possible, would we consider that entity to be immortal? If the creator of humanity had the power to end humanity at will, would that make that entity any less of a God than the biblical God?

Current religions talk of Heaven---but the bible describes Heaven as a real place--a place in our dimension, not some ethereal place where souls go after death.

GENESIS

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

That is a real place, and that comes from the original bible--the Enuma Elish. Modern scolars who are studying Enuma Elish for the origins of the solar system equate the description to the asteroid belt.

There has been found to be water above the asteroid belt on the outer planets and moons, and water below the asteroid belt on planets like the Earth. Even the sun has water.

#6 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-12 06:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | Posted by CalifChris at

Yeah, I saw that piece on Hardball the other day when god called Professor Ellen van Wolde out.

#7 | Posted by NoGov4Me at 2009-10-12 07:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you are not a Christian and try to argue with a Christian about the Bible then you are just being foolish.
#4 | Posted by vernon

Perhaps the single most ignorant, blinkered statement from one of the DR's most consistently ignorant and perpetually blinkered posters.

Time to do what you do best, Vermin: Pour yourself another drink and give it another go.

#8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-12 07:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Bible is a book about two main people, Adam and Jesus (whose actual name translates to Second Adam). #4 | Posted by vernon

Really? What was his "actual name," Vermin?

Your creds as a someone knowledgable on matters involving religion -- other than formulaic regurgitation (something you're really good at) of biblical quotations -- currently occupies a solid place in the column labeled "Ridiculous." As I recall, you "taught" a church history course in which you claimed -- relying on a theory widely discredited by scholars actually knowledgable about the subject -- that the Ashkenazi Jews started out as Turks.

So, that "actual name," Vermin...was it Izzy? Moe? Curle? Irving? Billy Bob? Or Betty Sue?

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-12 07:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, that "actual name," Vermin.

Shlomo.

No evidence offered.

I just like the name Shlomo.

That and Ike.

I like Ike.

#10 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2009-10-12 07:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

#10 | Posted by silver_ironist

Wave that FF with pride. And while I, too, like Ike, I must say that Shlomo is my all-time favorite. In fact, if I had a ton of money and owned winning race horses I wouldn't rest easy until Shlomo of Sarvis Stables won the Kentucky Derby.

Speaking of which, why is there no Mount Shlomo, Lake Shlomo, or the vaunted scrap metal frigate the U.S.S. Shlomo?

#11 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-12 07:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmm, who to believe?
Professor Ellen van Wolde
or
GOD
Such a dilema.
Think I'll stick with King James

There, fixed that for you.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 09:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmm, who to believe? Professor Ellen van Woldeor GOD Such a dilema.

If the Bible has been mistranslated, the dilemma is not between Van Wolde or God. It's between Van Wolde and existing Bible translations.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2009-10-12 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey, a King is still better than a Professor.

#14 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-10-12 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

So one "Old Testament scholar" says that God is not the creator? What do other "Old Testament scholars" have to say about this?

Can we all agree that before jumping the gun on this that we should have "Old Testament scholar" consensus before agreeing that God isn't the creator?

#15 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-10-12 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think it's a safe bet that scholars disagree.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2009-10-12 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

For a minute I thought Vernon was saying that Salvation was contained within five sofas.

I could go for that.

#17 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-10-12 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Her confusion in Hebrew grammar concerning a word she admits means "to create" is better satisfied as a "re-creation" of Earth from the first sentence.

Also, ADM and Eve are told to "replenish" the Earth when there is a perfectly good word that could have been used to tell them to "plenish" the Earth.

And in later books of the prophets, the earth is shown as having cites and populations of "men" (not ADMs, which is a different word) prior to the re-creation described in Genesis.

In the totality of the texts, we find an Earth that has been destroyed and recreated several times, last time by water, next time, they say, by fire.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Multiple, often conflicting translations of a book written 2000 years ago tend to give me pause. I don't put much stock in anything written 2000 years ago - no matter how it's translated.

#19 | Posted by cbob at 2009-10-12 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

If "BARA" means "spatially separate" surely it is the origin of the word "BRA".

#20 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-10-12 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

The portion of the texts we are talking about was first written 3500 to 4000 years ago, and consistently maintained in the translation known as the Septuagint, which is the document quoted by Jesus and Paul and others in the NT.

Thought Jesus spoke Aramaic, the early Greek that the NT texts were written in conveniently died just after the turn of the new millenium, and thus did not change meanings over time.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1

Scholars are known to succumb to the temptation of suggesting that their findings are of revolutionary significance even if they are not. It's an issue of framing. If the desire of your heart is to be a revolutionary, you will frame your findings in opposition to all previous interpretation. This appears to be the path that Ellen Van Wolde has chosen (note this press report; for a first reaction, see Doug Chaplin here). Based on her recent findings most of which do not seem unusual she asserts: "The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now." At the very least, saying something like that is a surefire way to attract attention.

Below the jump, text, translation, and commentary on Genesis 1:1-3. My thesis: the traditional view of God the Creator is as tenable as ever.

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ

וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם

וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי־אוֹר

ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.co
m

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

So easy to "fact-check" the Hebrew and how it's used....even from home on a PC.

So how did the earth get here, Bible scholar?
Even if she's correct, it's just moving the line a little.

It's like arguments about evolution--it still comes down to when and how life came from non-life.

#23 | Posted by kirk at 2009-10-12 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Can we all agree that before jumping the gun on this that we should have "Old Testament scholar" consensus before agreeing that God isn't the creator?

The discussion is not about who is the creator.

The discussion is about what the original Bible texts say about who is the creator, what sort of creating took place, and how those writings may have been mistranslated.

I would hope that's an easy enough thing to understand, but maybe it's not.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

#23 - Kirk - I'm not even really a believer (not really a non-believer either - just a skeptic of everything religion-related), but I got a kick out of your response.

#25 | Posted by cbob at 2009-10-12 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

other commentary

"My initial, gut reaction was, "She's off her rocker." After a few minutes' consideration, I thought, "Okay, I can sort of see where one might get that." Then I went back to "off her rocker."

www.heardworld.com

goddidntsaythat.com

scroll to third article

clayboy.co.uk

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps the single most ignorant, blinkered statement from one of the DR's most consistently ignorant and perpetually blinkered posters.
#8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-12 07:04 AM | Reply |

You must be new to the DR
OR
you are willfully and completely biased because there have been thousands of posts of incredible ignorance here

and I KNOW you're not new here

you should just take your ball and go home.

#27 | Posted by kirk at 2009-10-12 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

That has to be amoung the stupidist comment of the week and its only Monday.

Naaaaaaaaaaa. He created the animals first. They were floating around in space then he put earth under their feet.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-10-12 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

He created the animals first. They were floating around in space then he put earth under their feet.

No Sniper, you're missing it. The interpretation is the Earth was already here, then God created animals and put them on the Earth. Some other God, or who knows what, had already made the Earth before God did that.

How or why the Earth came to be is not actually explained in the Bible, according to van Wolde's translation.

This has nothing to do with spirituality, or the "logic" of when God created what. It's just an attempt at translation.

To me it sounds a lot like the stuff from Star Trek where an earlier race explored the stars, found worlds capable of sustaining life, and stocked them. The way we might stock a lake with trout. See Also: Panspermia. en.wikipedia.org

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2009-10-12 10:14 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Your choice of where to draw your line of absurdity is interesting, Sniper.

#30 | Posted by JonO at 2009-10-12 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ancients believed there were for elements: fire, air, water and earth. I don't have Genesis 1:2 memorized. So I will note that it tells is there was air and water before creation. The Hebrew word for spirit is air. And there is the phrase "waters of the deep." So we know there was water before creation. The Hebrew word for "Deep" is Tehamon(? sp), which is close to the pagan serpent "Tahamat" (?sp).

The Genesis creation myth parallels the pagan myth where Marduk slayed the serpent by cutting him in half.

What about fire and earth? On the first day, god created light - fire. The light from the sun and the moon were created later. As was earth.

Genesis does not tell us God created the universe from nothing. It tells God created order out of chaos.

#31 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-Robert Frost

#32 | Posted by deadseasquirrel at 2009-10-12 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Bible is not a science book, and is not intended to be a science book.

That is because it's a book of myth and legend.

#33 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, we need something concrete we can believe in.... like the myth and legend of a 1400 point Dow during this recession.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The Bible is not a science book, and is not intended to be a science book.
That is because it's a book of myth and legend."

and also because none of its lessons involve the use of a bunsen burner...

#35 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2009-10-12 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

Yeah....but still not right as it is not past tense in Hebrew, but rather active, so it should read "in the Beginning, G-d separates the Heaven and the Earth."

#36 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-12 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Kanrei do you only eat Kosher food or would you also eat Halal food?

#37 | Posted by jackass at 2009-10-12 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

"pagan"

What a non-specific, non-descriptive term to use.

#38 | Posted by JonO at 2009-10-12 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

in the beginning, god separated the heavens and the earth....

...he gave the jews the heavens and the palestinians the earth.

...and both immediately started complaining about not getting both.

...and god rested the rest of that day after realizing he had a 10,000 year headache coming on....

#39 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2009-10-12 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't keep Kosher as they were really more health guidelines attributed to G-d, not the word of G-d. Today's medical advancements and little things like refrigeration has basically nullified those laws.

Remember Jackass, I don't take the Bible as the word of G-d, but as the word of Man credited to G-d. G-d didn't say anythign to them either IMHO.

#40 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-12 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Kanrei do you only eat Kosher food or would you also eat Halal food?

The real question is: Who makes a better falafel. :)

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Arabs make better falafels, or they did in 84 when I was over there.

#42 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-12 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, we need something concrete we can believe in.... like the myth and legend of a 1400 point Dow during this recession.

#34 | Posted by Corky

only 400 points to go! We could do that in a single day ya know.

As for the bible...

Well, it is either the words (inspired) of a God or not.

Some believe it because they just want to believe or they NEED to believe. Some don't believe because they have decided to think for themselves instead. It is way more harder to doubt than to just beleive now isn't it?

I do not think the Bible is the word of a God..inspired or otherwise. I think the Universe is way more complicated than what can be imagined by a few goat herders living in a cave who were so obviously misogynist. People say, "well if God didn't do then who or what did it then? They are just too damn lazy to use their own brains...as some of us have done...we call that science....but it is so much easier just to say "God did it!" right?

But, then where did God come from (Captain Kirk)? He always existed right? So, why don't we just cut out the middleman and say the the Universe always existed and leave it at that. Forget all the religious mumbo jumbo. Let God speak for himself. Quit trying to speak for Him.

...if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 164.]

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-10-12 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

I don't think it matters much, after all, whatever God did, and however he did it, He created this world.

This is also an example of science complimenting spirituality. A human professor, who is fallable, is talking about the Hebrew writings of another person, in this case Moses, who was also fallable, and his works have been translated by numerous other people, all of whom were also fallable.

Not trying to beat on the human race or anything, but the professor's work is simply pointing out how fallable we as humans are when it comes to such things as what God did, and when, and other such things.

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#44 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-12 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

bring back the Spanish Inquistion! well, we misinterpreted what God meant...

#45 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2009-10-12 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

So easy to "fact-check" the Hebrew and how it's used....even from home on a PC.

It may be easy, but software language translators are not comparable to the work of experts in a language. I.F. Stone learned Greek so he could read the works of Socrates in their original language and write the book The Trial of Socrates. It's a great read, and it really shows how much error can be passed down over the centuries by bad translations.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2009-10-12 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Some other God, or who knows what, had already made the Earth before God did that.

Pondering the existence of existence is fun. Why does it have to be created by a Creator? If you can accept that a Creator didn't have to be created, why not an existence that always existed?

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2009-10-12 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's a little more than that. It might alter our perceptions if it turns out the Bible doesn't actually say God created this world, despite what so many have asserted.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

-only 400 points to go! = huh?

The Dow is at 1800 now? Who'd a thunk it?

-how much error can be passed down over the centuries by bad translations.

Bad translations, outright additions and deletions, cultural and religious bias..... fortunately, we still have some of the most ancient (some original) manuscripts, many of them dug up well after the KJV.

One of my favorites is the KJV has Jesus walking around saying, "Be of good Cheer!" all the time, like some fat happy beer salesman.

What he said was, "Courage!", or "Have courage!".

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

-only 400 points to go! = huh?

The Dow is at 1800 now? Who'd a thunk it?

-how much error can be passed down over the centuries by bad translations.

Speaking of bad translations, I think "Dow" got mistranslated as "S&P 500..."

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

-why not an existence that always existed?

You'd have to argue the math with the BBT, which is what scientists have done since it was formulated, albeit without much luck replacing it.

But parallel universes, string theory, MTheory and such are mind expanding, I think, and fun conceptually.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

-I think "Dow" got mistranslated as "S&P 500..."

I should have thought of that....

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-12 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

you should just take your ball and go home.

#27 | Posted by kirk

He doesn't have any to take home. If you have been reading the DR you would realize that.

#53 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-10-12 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your choice of where to draw your line of absurdity is interesting, Sniper.

#30 | Posted by JonO

"and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals"

I just read the words she said. Her statement is absurd.

#54 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-10-12 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is because it's a book of myth and legend.
#33 | Posted by Ray
Yes, we need something concrete we can believe in.... like the myth and legend of a 1400 point Dow during this recession.
#34 | Posted by Corky

Whenever I'm hitting home, Corky tries to change the topic.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why not an existence that always existed...?"

Because it doesn't excuse you from the, "Yeah, sure, how?" question.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually the Bible doesn't teach that God created the earth out of "nothing." As Einstein postulated and currently still appears valid, mass and energy are related and can exist in either state. (E=mc2) As Isaiah revealed in chapter 40:21-26, in verse 26 the scriptures describe "an abundance of dynamic energy" existing within this one called God. That is, spirit. Therefore theoretically and in accordance with Einstein's equation, if God had an abundant source of energy, he had the raw material for mass. Therefore the scriptures indicate that the huge amounts of mass in the universe did not come from "nothing", but came from spirit, or active force, compressed in some way into the mass we now observe around us. Verse 26 also indicates that it is because of this abundant force in creation that "not one of them is missing." Not because they were already existent and just "spatially separated."

Author unknown.

#57 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-10-12 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

Kanrei, can you explain something real quick?

Why do you use "G-d" to refer to God?

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#58 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-12 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pondering the existence of existence is fun. Why does it have to be created by a Creator? If you can accept that a Creator didn't have to be created, why not an existence that always existed?

#47 | Posted by rcade

Bingo! To say that something existed before existencd ignores the meaning of existence.

There is only one logical answer: existence is eternal.

#59 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Long story short, some Jews believe that, just as it is wrong to say the name of G-d, so too is it wrong to write the word down on anything that can be destroyed, erased, or changed. It goes back to writing "Ah-Do-Ni" when you come to the name of G-d in Hebrew texts.

#60 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-12 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because it doesn't excuse you from the, "Yeah, sure, how?" question.
#56 | Posted by Zed

That's a bad question called "special pleading." It implies an answer.

#61 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hate to tell all you christians this but there is also no mention in the original text of the bible of a 'virgin birth'.

That was all a mis-translation too.

But everybody knows that it is much more likely that God impregnated a young girl than if she slipped off behind the haystack with Joseph. Just ask the Greeks, they had women impregnated by birds, bulls, and all kinds of different entities and gods.

Wasn't it the Minotaur that was the son of King Midas's wife and his prize bull?

#62 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-10-12 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

-I think "Dow" got mistranslated as "S&P 500..."

I should have thought of that....

#52 | Posted by Corky

ya the dow IS at 10,000 not 1000... my bad... I misunderesitmated!

#63 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-10-12 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

My mistake. The question of "why" is a leading question. It implies an an answer.

#64 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Long story short, some Jews believe that, just as it is wrong to say the name of G-d, so too is it wrong to write the word down on anything that can be destroyed, erased,

But God is not God's name; it's a title like "your highess." I don't the confusion.

#65 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is only one logical answer: existence is eternal.

Physics has come up with a different answer, which may at first seem less logical. However it does have this going for it: it is not the product of unfettered speculation; but rather the result of experiment and observation.

Now, the answer provided by physics is (naturally) constrained by our ability to perceive the universe, but it is reasonable to say existence has only existed for 13.7 billion years or so, as best we can tell.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It implies an answer...."

Maybe these sorts of questions are always beyond human intellect and psychology. Seems not only possible, but likely.

Answers we will never know. What a concept. Come on RAY--Concede there might be something beyond your personal capacity to come to a conclusion.

#67 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zed

All you are doing is claiming ignorance. Either a thing exists or it does not. There are no other alternatives.

#68 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Either a thing exists or it does not...."

Sure. Just like a light-switch. On or off. Until you're teenager manages to balance the toggle precisely in between.

The old black-or-white logical tool has it's limitations. Can you name a few?

#69 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only in part. The Big Bang Theory is based on mathematical extrapolation. That theory leaves a lot of unanswered questions, like where did this cosmic egg come from?

#70 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Like where did this cosmic egg come from....?"

Well, RAY---From your point of view, the egg, she always has been. Just because, you know, that's the way you thought it through.

#71 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

First, the text, even as the professor presents it, does not say, "God is NOT the creator." That is a big jump in logic. Second, she is interpreting a word--like most words--that can be read at least a couple of different ways, to create or to separate. And if it is "separate," then separate from what? The "In the beginning" phrase gives much more credibility to the interpretation, "create." It makes little sense the other way. Third, separate is inconsistent with later sentences about all the things he created including the stars. God created the stars but merely separated the Earth? He can create the stars but not the earth? Hm. Finally, by her own admission, she's using OTHER ancient works to interpret the Bible. Do we now use Hindu books to claim what the Koran really says? Do we use the Epic of Gilgamesh to correct our understanding of Noah's flood account? Her method at arriving at her conclusions is questionable at best. She's got an opinion. She's entitled. Luckily, we all have access to the same information if we choose to look into it.

#72 | Posted by dingdion at 2009-10-12 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure. Just like a light-switch. On or off. Until you're teenager manages to balance the toggle precisely in between.

Impossible. There is no state between on and off. A slight leakage, it would imply a degree of on.

The old black-or-white logical tool has it's limitations. Can you name a few?

Black defines an absence of light. White defines the full spectrum of light. With color there is a spectrum of colors in between. None are black or white.

There is either existence. Or there is no existence. There is no such thing as partial existence.

#73 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, RAY---From your point of view, the egg, she always has been. Just because, you know, that's the way you thought it through.
#71 | Posted by Zed

It's only a simple matter of knowing the definition of "existence." The word defines an absolute state.

The forms of existence is a whole other topic for which I admit my limitations.

#74 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is either existence. Or there is no existence. There is no such thing as partial existence.

You deny Schrdinger's cat?

See, that's where pure logic unbridled by experimental verification and theoretical underpinning will lead you: Straight to the wrong damn answer.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with proving or disproving G-d is that it is like a debate on what Red looks like between blind people. Neither side really knows what they mean by "G-d" when push comes to shove.

#76 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-12 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It would imply a degree of "on"...."

I'm sorry, but if we are now speaking of degrees, it seems like there could be more than two states to the reality of a light-switch, at least in theory.

#77 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#72 DingDion> Her method at arriving at her conclusions is questionable at best. She's got an opinion. She's entitled. Luckily, we all have access to the same information if we choose to look into it.

Good summary. Some folks act like nobody ever seriously examined the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic of the New and Old Testaments before. Language experts have studied the old texts for many centuries -- and as more old texts are uncovered/discovered, they too are examined closely.

#78 | Posted by AKat at 2009-10-12 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Neither side really knows what they mean by "G-d" when push comes to shove.

Well, I don't "believe "in "God," but you have a point.

When it comes to the God of the Bible, I can't quite say with utter certainty He didn't just go on an extended leave of absence starting five or six thousand years ago.

There's precious little historical evidence, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Trees falling in the woods and all that.

Actually God not creating the earth makes at least the creation myth in the Bible a lot more palatable to me, as I'm fairly certain the Earth was put together, slowly, by gravity. It doesn't exactly seem like it would be the preferred method for a being who likes to set bushes on fire and rain frogs on people.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sorry, but if we are now speaking of degrees, it seems like there could be more than two states to the reality of a light-switch, at least in theory.
#77 | Posted by Zed

In theory, anything is possible. But not in physics. You are speaking of degrees. I am speaking of words that define absolutes.

#80 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Smart-assed skepic
Monkey-man will MAKE you believe

(Penn and Teller anyone?)

#81 | Posted by kirk at 2009-10-12 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

"Long story short, some Jews believe that, just as it is wrong to say the name of G-d, so too is it wrong to write the word down on anything that can be destroyed, erased, or changed. It goes back to writing "Ah-Do-Ni" when you come to the name of G-d in Hebrew texts."

Thank you for the explanation. While some might question why such honor to the *title* of God, in reality, God didn't give us a name such as John B. or anything else. In Exodus, Moses asks, and God replies "I am", basically. The Hebrews translated God's name into YHWH, or Yahweh, which was later
translated to Jehovah.

However, even the respect of God's title is nice to see, so thanks again. :)

John B.

#82 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-12 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

If one goes back to the original texts and intereprets them honestly, then god is one of the most horrific murderers of all time.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Here is where I get the usual response, "this is a story", not really an actaul event. The people who wrote this, didn't actually mean this is what happened, they only meant it as a lesson.....blah, blah, blah.

#83 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-12 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I got to use you 'Treat you religion like you treat your dick' to some fucking Bible Knocker on Saturday ZH!

WatchTower that motherfucker!

#84 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-10-12 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...Such a dilema.Think I'll stick with God - #3 | Posted by CalifChris..."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Shit. What a Moron.

#85 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2009-10-12 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

For a minute I thought Vernon was saying that Salvation was contained within five sofas.

I could go for that.

#17 | Posted by sitdown

Yeah, but WHICH five?
Over the last 54 years(my lifetime)-I've seen HUNDREDS of the damned things.
Do I have to search ALL of them?

#86 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-10-12 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it would behoove everyone to stop using vermin's calculators.....they're ALL broken.

He does, after all-

ManufRacture them........

#87 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-10-12 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Big Bang Theory is based on mathematical extrapolation."

And the misrepresentation continues.
As a simple explanation, per Wiki: "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day."

The BBT is not merely about the one "instant" when the universe was "created". It is about explaining the universe as it presently exists, where it came from, how it got to here from there. It is based on observations and testable hypothesis. Math supplies the underpining but is _not_ the basis.

People _really_ need to be aware of the essence of things rather than toss around their half-baked views.

#88 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think everything has always been here. Existing in continual expanding and contracting states.

Total contraction = Big Fucking Bang and expansion takes over until it's kinetic energy is used up and back to contracting until the next big fucking bang.

No I can't prove it. It just makes the most sense.

#89 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-10-12 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

(notice no fucking arc in my version)

#90 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-10-12 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

"Total contraction = Big Fucking Bang and expansion takes over until it's kinetic energy is used up and back to contracting until the next big fucking bang."

... except that current theory on dark matter and dark energy says that the universe will eventually reach a critical mass effect and keep expanding until the entire thing basically freezes.

Nice thought. Good thing humans won't be around to see it.

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#91 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-12 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Theory? Dark Matter?

I'm sticking with my guess.

And Gravity always wins.

#92 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-10-12 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I got to use you 'Treat you religion like you treat your dick' to some fucking Bible Knocker on Saturday ZH!

hahahahahaha how did it go?

#93 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-12 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And Gravity always wins."

Except where the universe is concerned. It seems to be expanding relentlessly and gravity isn't stopping it.

Of course, the real question is what exactly "gravity" is. A force of some kind? Contortions in space/time? A protrusion from another dimension?

#94 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Conversation over!

My soon to be bride answered the door, and she is just the sweetest little thing. She couldn't tell the guy no or anything, and he just kept talk and talking. As I noticed her wanting to get rid of the guy and close the door, he said something to the effect;

"Well everyone gets what the get out of Religion and it is not the same for everyone, and everyone needs to find their own......"

"Yeah. That's why I treat my religion like I treat my dick!"

"OK, well enjoy your reading....."*leaves a Watchtower.*

I am really hoping that he comes back like he said. I am going to print out your entire comment on it on nice stationary. When these bible knockers come to my door and give me something to read, I will be able to return the favor.

"Thanks for the Watchtower. Now here's something for you to go read."

#95 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-10-12 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#94 | Posted by AILtd

You and your protrusions......

(But I don't know. The Universe is facinating. When I want to know it's answers, "I eat massive amounts of mushrooms, lay in a field and say "Show Me!"

WWBD?

#96 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-10-12 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah. That's why I treat my religion like I treat my dick!

And how do you treat your dick?

"I beat my dick like it owes me money."

#97 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-12 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Except where the universe is concerned. It seems to be expanding relentlessly and gravity isn't stopping it.

Gravity may be driving the expansion of the universe. It is permitted by general relativity.

In Newtonian gravity, the force is always attractive and its magnitude depends only on the mass of the gravitating objects and their distance. In general relativity, matter determines the curvature of spacetime, and the curvature of spacetime determines the path of matter passing through it. The curvature of spacetime is determined by mass/energy and stress.

Pressure is a kind of stress that contributes to gravitation. If the pressure of some form of matter is sufficiently negative, spacetime is curved in an opposite fashion of what we are familiar with in ordinary life. Gravity becomes "repulsive", but it is still gravity. That's one theory of dark energy - matter with negative pressure.

#98 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-12 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

People _really_ need to be aware of the essence of things rather than toss around their half-baked views.
#88 | Posted by AILtd

People need to realize that mathematical extrapolations in of themselves do not constitute proof. The idea that the universe had a beginning is preposterous! More so, it borders on religious dogma.

It is based on observations and testable hypothesis. Math supplies the underpining but is _not_ the basis.

The Big Bang Theory cannot be observed or tested.

#99 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Big Bang Theory cannot be observed or tested.

Everthing (on a large scale, don't talk about galactic scale) is moving away from everthing else. That has been observed and is not contested except by the "tired light" crowd.

#100 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-12 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#98 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Of course, dark energy may not exist. While there are some indications of the actual existence of dark matter, dark energy still seems to be only a math symbol tossed into the equation to make the equation balanced.

#101 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Big Bang Theory cannot be observed or tested." - Ray

But its effects can be - and are. And it answers more of the questions about the present condition of the universe than any other existing theory.

"The idea that the universe had a beginning is preposterous!"

Amazing that "constant state" advocates still exist. Despite all of the observations to the contrary. And even though they can't explain those observations in another acceptable way. Not _that_ is a preposterous religious belief.

#102 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

But its effects can be - and are. And it answers more of the questions about the present condition of the universe than any other existing theory.

Do you mean read shift? When red shift theory implied that the universe had a beginning and that it is expanding, they should have reassessed their theory.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed - First Law of Thermodymics.

#103 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everthing (on a large scale, don't talk about galactic scale) is moving away from everthing else. That has been observed and is not contested except by the "tired light" crowd.
#100 | Posted by goatman

I'm just going to stick with what I argued before. The universe has no beginning and no end. Infinity cannot expand. Something is deeply flawed with their theories.

#104 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you mean read shift?" - Ray

Do you mean "red" shift?

Wow, so you are _really_ going to push the tired light crap? Talk about lack of credibility!

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed - First Law of Thermodymics."

And yet the BBT doesn't say that energy was created or destroyed. Which only underscores your utter and complete lack of knowledge about the BBT. And makes your critique of it preposterous.

#105 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The universe has no beginning and no end." - Ray

Prove it.

"Infinity cannot expand."

When did that become an issue? The BBT merely states that our universe is expanding. Again, learn about the theory before you criticize it.

#106 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gravity may be driving the expansion of the universe. It is permitted by general relativity.

Here's another strongly held belief that makes no sense. Gravity is an attractive force. If it was the only force in the universe, the universe would be contracting. All the planets in the solar system would have crashed into the sun by now.

#107 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, so you are _really_ going to push the tired light crap? Talk about lack of credibility.

As I've long said, you can't think independently, always deferring to your favored authority. I said nothing about tired light. I don't even know much about it.

Prove it.

I just stated the First Law of Thermodynamics. The idea that the was no existence before existence, belongs in religion, not science.

#108 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Infinity cannot expand."
When did that become an issue? The BBT merely states that our universe is expanding. Again, learn about the theory before you criticize it.

That's the whole point. The universe (existence) is infinite in time and space. It cannot expand. If it is expanding, what is it expanding to?

You're a parrot. You memorize nonsense without thought.

#109 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Multiple, often conflicting translations of a book written 2000 years ago tend to give me pause. I don't put much stock in anything written 2000 years ago - no matter how it's translated.

#19 | Posted by cbob

no shit.. there is not a single body of knowledge that HASN'T changed in 2000 years. Math, Biology, Language, Commerce, War, Medicine..and yet somehow we are suppose to be this tome written by men and translated time and again by men is the word of a god?

Pass the Bong Cheech these people are crazy.

#110 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-12 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

And yet the BBT doesn't say that energy was created or destroyed. Which only underscores your utter and complete lack of knowledge about the BBT. And makes your critique of it preposterous.

Then where did the energy come from? If it was there in the first place, then it existed. Ergo, the universe had no beginning.

#111 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#106 | Posted by AILtd

Munch on that for a while. I have to go for a few hours.

#112 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I just stated the First Law of Thermodynamics. The idea that the was no existence before existence, belongs in religion, not science." - Ray

No, that is _not_ "proof". That is philosophy. Lousy philosophy at that. The First Law of Thermodynamics applies to our present universe. It describes an aspect of it. And has zero pertinence to anything outside of that. It is akin to proving the Bible by using quotes from the Bible. So, as usual, you are merely arguing against yourself.

"As I've long said, you can't think independently, always deferring to your favored authority."

No, I read what the theory states and it makes sense. Vastly different from the idiotic POV which you dote on, that if something is generally accepted, it must be wrong.

#113 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

be=believe

#114 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-12 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The universe (existence) is infinite in time and space." - Ray

Prove it. Astronomy states that the universe is 13.7 years in diameter.

"Then where did the energy come from? If it was there in the first place, then it existed. Ergo, the universe had no beginning."

Circle logic. The FLoT applies to the present aspect of the universe. It has no bearing outside of that.

As usual, you can't think outside of a box you create for yourself. Pathetic.

#115 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Then where did the energy come from?" - Ray

BTW, lots of people say that God created it. Prove them wrong. What I see is only what _you_ believe as the counter. And that is obviously meaningless.

#116 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-12 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

RAY has determined, merely by thinking about it, that the universe can't expand because it's infinite, and his definition of infinity does not allow that.

All that red shifting is a sort of trick. No, RAY can't tell you who is playing the trick, he isn't finished thinking. He's just sure it isn't God because, you know, he finished thinking about that.

#117 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Is the word of God...?"

The Bible? Inspired by God as a general work. God is quoted directly only every once in a while.

Sure, science changes. That's what's great about science. But it does nothing more than uncover what's true.

What's true is always true, and this gets you to God, Who never changes. That's what's great about God.

#118 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Bible? Inspired by God as a general work. God is quoted directly only every once in a while."

Says Zed, because he is done thinking about it but the people who wrote it claim otherwise. That doesn't matter though, ZED thought about it and has spoken. Zed has manipulated the belief to fit his own lil version of fantasyand.

#119 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-12 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Because he is done thinking about it..."

I think about it virtually every day, often at great length. You need not accept any of my conclusions. Free country and all that.

You fellows, at least a lot of you, are very angry beings. Not merely ticked off or angry in a transitory way and will get over it-but seething and unconsolable.

What's up with that? Got your reasons and just won't quit, I'll wager. Won't be happy until you've got a war. Or rather, won't be happy until you can argue that your wars are so much better than those of someone you dislike.

It's like high school. Your intellects may have progressed a tad, but not much else.

#120 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The people who wrote it claim otherwise..."

Now THAT'S an interesting comment. If you can cite Scripture, I would be interested. If you can't, well, Scripture was never all that important to you, was it?

#121 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You fellows, at least a lot of you, are very angry beings"

Psychiatry as well, and via computer no less(sounds like a money maker). My kind aren't really into wars. I follow no book that says I must fight for my beliefs or spells out how the end will happen (via war).....no, my kind aren't really war mongering at all. I just stand up for the basic rights of humanity, and free will sorry that's inconsolable some how to you, although I would label it more as confusion but hey your the psychiatrist here.

#122 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-12 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Now THAT'S an interesting comment. If you can cite Scripture, I would be interested."

I can, and not only in your x-trian belief system, imagine that!!

#123 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-12 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Psychiatry as well...."

I make no claims of special knowledge. Fortunately, such is rarely required in this venue.

"Imagine that...."

Much rather read it. Citation?

#124 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I just stand of for the basic rights of humanity and free will...."

Everyone I know does that, with certain evil, beer-drinking on Sundays exceptions.

#125 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Everyone I know does that, with certain evil, beer-drinking on Sundays exceptions."

I don't drink......

My current favorite passage is from Ezekiel 23:20

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Football is on, next time.......

#126 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-12 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

As usual, you can't think outside of a box you create for yourself. Pathetic.
#115 | Posted by AILtd

RAY has determined, merely by thinking about it, that the universe can't expand because it's infinite, and his definition of infinity does not allow that.
#117 | Posted by Zed

It is amazing how difficult it is to explain the meaning of a simple word like "existence."

#127 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Zed. I won't even attempt to explain the meaning of "infinity."

#128 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I won't even attempt to explain the meaning of "infinity."

Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 07:56 PM | Reply

That's easy. Infinity is what a human voice sounds like when someone is screaming into Sarah Palin's ear. It bounces off of Her skull for infinity and beyond.

Larry

#129 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-12 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Zed. I won't even attempt to explain the meaning of "infinity."

Fortunately others have tackled this problem. Georg Cantor comes to mind.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-12 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Georg Cantor comes to mind."

Bernhard Riemann comes to mind.

#131 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-10-12 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is this lady for real, or a paid heretic? Funny how they don't read or quote Gen 1:2 which already kills her whole re-translation!

#132 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-10-12 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nice try Zara. You should know your Bible a little better before jumping to ridiculous conclusions about mis-translations just because they say so.

#133 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-10-12 09:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Funny how they don't read or quote Gen 1:2"

Genesis?!?

The book that proves it's all bullshit, by claiming the moon is a light?!?

#134 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-12 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#134 danforth
Since you decided you don't like Genesis, the argument isn't valid?

#135 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-10-12 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Since you decided you don't like Genesis"

Don't like?!?

The moon isn't a second light, it's a reflector of the sole light, or hadn't you noticed?

#136 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-12 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's a Light
Shining at the Frankenstein place
There's a Light
Shining from the fireplace
There's a Light; There's a Light

#137 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks for the Watchtower. Now here's something for you to go read.

That is hilarious... and it got him to leave. Nice work.

#138 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-12 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the beginning...
there was no beginning.
And, in the end...
there is no end.
-----Stephen hawking-----

#139 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-12 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the beginning...
there was no beginning.
And, in the end...
there is no end. ... Stephen Hawking

Exactly - we have words, but we KNOW nothing.

#140 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-10-12 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#4 | POSTED BY VERNON AT 2009-10-12 04:07 AM | REPLY | FLAG: If you post it...they will shit bricks

LOL!

#141 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-13 01:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Exactly - we have words, but we KNOW nothing."

On the contrary...we know that from a big bang 13-odd billion years ago matter/energy came into being. Gravity caused matter to clump, slowly getting "lumpy" The larger masses begin to rotate gaining in strength and size. Some become dense enough that at their centers gravitational forces are so great they ignite in giant fusion furnaces. Smaller bodies orbit them. Amino acids rain onto some and do something amazing - self-replicate. Over time these evolve into millions of life forms to fill every environmental niche. All of this using physics and chemistry. No supernatural interference needed.
I'm not sure I would call this KNOWING nothing!

#142 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 02:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

God is not the "Creator"?

No, of course not.

God is the "Created".

Man began creating God and giving him names about 5 minutes after achieving sentience.

This process has never really stopped.

Has slowed down recently though.

Be Well.

#143 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-13 03:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

In the totality of the texts, we find an Earth that has been destroyed and recreated several times, last time by water, next time, they say, by fire.

----

The Matrix has you, Neo.

#144 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-10-13 07:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm not sure I would call this not knowing nothing...."

I know that was a double negative in an entirely different way than you know the Big Bang, BILLY.

You missed the point.

#145 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 08:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

"No supernatural interference needed...."

Perhaps the most interesting thing I've learned this year is the number of scientists that dispute you, BILLY.

What I've discovered is that when many scientists state they are atheists, they have an entirely different meaning for that word than I (or you) do.

They just define God differently, perhaps because they don't want to go to church Sunday mornings.

They just think God doesn't answer prayers. Now, He can create the universe but He can't do that. But I'm sure they'll figure that one out eventually. Scientifically, of course.

#146 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 08:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Is the word of God...?"

The Bible? Inspired by God as a general work. God is quoted directly only every once in a while.

Sure, science changes. That's what's great about science. But it does nothing more than uncover what's true.

What's true is always true, and this gets you to God, Who never changes. That's what's great about God.

#118 | Posted by Zed

utter horseshit, uttered by a dumb cow..

#147 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-13 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Moo, LEGIO, Moo.

#148 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 08:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"No supernatural interference needed...."

Perhaps the most interesting thing I've learned this year is the number of scientists that dispute you, BILLY.

What I've discovered is that when many scientists state they are atheists, they have an entirely different meaning for that word than I (or you) do.

They just define God differently, perhaps because they don't want to go to church Sunday mornings.

They just think God doesn't answer prayers. Now, He can create the universe but He can't do that. But I'm sure they'll figure that one out eventually. Scientifically, of course.

#146 | Posted by Zed

More inference and LIES from Zed..More anecdotal statements that can't be backed up with proof or concrete information..

Pathetic.

Mooo..

#149 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-13 08:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"More inference and lies from ZED...."

Speaking of anecdotal statements, did you see what Dawkins said (anecdotally) about the existence of God in a recent public debate?

I wonder if he'll include that in some additional work on existential philosophy? Think it would make money?

#150 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Someone re-posted a recent poll that stated 20% of all athiests believe in God. Well, I've advanced an explanation for that.

It's like they deny the existence of glazed doughnuts while admitting the reality of lemon-filled. Quite consistent, from their point of view.

#151 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

If something exists it must "Be"
To "Be" it must have energy of some type.
If it has energy it is by definition measurable.
If it is measurable, by definition it is not supernatural. God, by nearly everyones definition is first and foremost supernatural. I have never heard a reputable scientist claim a belief in the supernatural.
Excuuuuuse me for the double negatives. I ain't got much social interaction.

To do is to be
-------Descarte
To be is to do
-------Sartre
Do Be Do Be Do
-------Sinatra

#152 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 09:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I have never heard a reputable scientist claim beleif in the supernatural...."

I'd investigate the stats. Like it or not, many scientists are Christians, or whatnot. Maybe you never hang out with them? It's a theory.

#153 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

BILLY, nothing exists without energy in the universe you know. Even your atheistic scientists play with concepts of universes where the rules are different.

But I'd say this, in terms of this universe, if you could arrange to be where God is or is doing something, it would be measureable in terms you understand.

The real question is whether you'd accept God as a potential explanation for the energies measured. if you wouldn't, then you have a very dishonest dog in this hunt.

#154 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not sure I'd define God as supernatural, by the way. My idea is that he is more natural, more real, than we are.

When you get to Heaven (I'm rooting for you, BILLY), I think almost your first thought will be: "Of course! It's all just common sense!"

#155 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Don't waste your time (or energy) rooting for my entrance into heaven. Even if there was a heaven, spending eternity with the likes of you, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Boone, Anita Bryant, etc.
would be HELL.
Many so called christian scientists, when pressed admit it is the social interaction and "pomp" that attracts them to church more than an actual belief.
They like and enjoy the routine. (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that)
I have never been proselytized by a scientist.
By

#156 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

People who think that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Boone, Anita Bryant represent Christianity probably also think that Judge Judy represents the legal system.

#157 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Many so called christian scientists, when pressed admit it is the social interaction and "pomp" that attracts them to church more than an actual belief."

That makes no sense to me since they are scientists, sooooo....gotta link to back that up??

#158 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-13 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"People who think that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Boone, Anita Bryant represent Christianity probably also think that Judge Judy represents the legal system."

LOL

True!!!

#159 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-13 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

-supernatural, by the way. My idea is that he is more natural

Super natural does mean "more natural", not outside of nature.

A super nova is not something outside of novas, is is more of a nova. Superman is..... well, you get the idea.

#160 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you are not a Christian and try to argue with a Christian about the Bible then you are just being foolish.
...#4 | Posted by vernon

......right on.......

....might as well argue with a bag of rocks......

#161 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-13 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

See, Cuz Skiz is SO much smarter than any Christian you could name, whether they graduated from Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford.... whether they are astrophysicists or Poti (plural of POTUS)or PhDs of philosophy or religion.... they just can't compare in intellect to Skiz....

#162 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

See, Cuz Skiz is SO much smarter than any Christian you could name
#162 | Posted by Corky

......I was just agreeing with Vern........

.....but certainly, in the land of the blind, the one eyed is king.......

......don't forget your white cane as you leave.....

#163 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-13 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

......I was just agreeing with Vern........

....might as well argue with a bag of rocks......

Not big on honesty, eh?

Perhaps you should get some religion..... and any color cane, as you obviously couldn't tell the difference.

#164 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That makes no sense to me since they are scientists, sooooo....gotta link to back that up??"

I don't have an internet link, but I can tell you where the information came from...
It is an observation by the well known physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg talking about his "Christian" physicist friends on the great BBC documentary "The Atheism Tapes" by Jonathon Miller.
I am not trying to change anyones mind here, just trying to express mine.
If you feel a need to bow to an invisible man in the sky...by all means...bow away.

#165 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

By the way...

"People who think that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Boone, Anita Bryant represent Christianity probably also think that Judge Judy represents the legal system."

Tell me Corky
Who does represent Christianity?

#166 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps you should get some religion.....
#164 | Posted by Corky

.......just to please you Corky......I'm putting this on my organ-donor card......"Dear Doctor, If I become severly brain-damaged or brain-dead, please have the hospital chaplain baptize me"......

.....there......now get some rest.......

#167 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-13 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

The hundreds of millions of Christians the world over, from peasants to Oxford grads, who either never heard of the people you mention, ignore their inanity, or, as I do, bash them as often as possible.

#168 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Super natural does mean "more natural", not outside of nature."

It precisely does mean outside of nature...
Supernatural
Thanks fer playin'

#169 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Poor Cuz Skiz.

First he compares Christians to arguing with a bag of rocks, then denies doing anything other than agreeing with Vern, then wanders into an (unfamiliar for him) attempt at being clever.

He should just stick with thinking that he is some sort of intellectual, and that Christians are all beneath him.

At least the arrogance is believable.

#170 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

-Super natural does mean "more natural", not outside of nature."

Context, Billy. Context.

#171 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Poor Cuz Skiz.
......#170 | Posted by Corky

......you lost the debate, therefore you proceed with the ad hominems......

.....as long you refuse to address the evils inherent in religious practice, you will never be able to sustain a reasoned debate.......

........deflections are not points........they are only sustainance for losers

#172 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-13 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Context, Billy. Context."

Logic,Corky. Logic

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end"
-----Leonard Nimoy-----

#173 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

-the evils inherent in religious practice

Evils are inherent in human endeavor of any sort. The idea that religion sets out on an evil mission, as is your presumed case, is ludicrous.

And stop whining. Your posts about how stupid Christians are and how bright you are are laughable.

#174 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

"supernatural, by the way. My idea is that he is more natural
Super natural does mean "more natural", not outside of nature.
A super nova is not something outside of novas, is is more of a nova. Superman is..... well, you get the idea."

Where does it mean this, NARNIA?

Your string theory of supernatural to super nova is a gigantic leap, not of faith but of ignorance.

And superman was not a man, it's a misreprestation. He should have been superalien, but that's not natural.

Supernatural was another word that was created to try and explain things that curent logic and understanding have not fully defined. Many supernatural events turn out to be bullshit, like the red sea parting, the ark, fire and brimstone, walkin on water, living in a whale, wandering ther desert for 40years, global floods and on and on.....

Context means nothing, just because you arbitrarily determined a new definition, much like the new interpretations of the bible, it doesn't make it valid or accepted.

#175 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-13 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

There is only one God and he is the eternal creator. Life could not have started without him. All creatures are made from L-amino acids. L-racemic amino acids acn't even be created and separated in the most modern laboratory without poisoning it with some R- amino acids.

Any protein that incorporates an R- amino acid is immediately rendered uselss. Living proteins can only be developed from a pure soup of L-amino acids. this cannot even be accomplished in a laboratory, yo have to have apecific enzymes that form only L amino acids in the first place.

Monsanto takes credit for making L- amino acids and proteins, but all they did was isolate living enzymes from cells and then using them to create the proteins and they are EXPENSIVE.

No way can any lab make an insulin molecule (one of the smallest proteins) from scrath without using ingredients from already living cells

To make all L amino acids, 23 of them at a time in the same solution WITHOUT having any R amino acids which would poison the suop is so rediculously impossible as to defy description it is not possible.

Anyone who hthinks it is is just ignorant.

Only God can create all the proteins. Oh buy the way DNA uses only R sugars without any L sugars, the odds of that are 2 to the billionth power.

it aint happening.

So this guy, who says God did not creat everything is wrong. There are many fools in the world who think they know everything when they don't

His credibility with me is zilch.

#176 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am surprised how ignorant professor wold is.
She certainly doesn't know about hebrew.
She certainly goes against over 500 professors of Oxford university in 1500, who certainly were much closer to the origins of hebrew than we are with our twisting of hebres into two version.
(Go watch on video.google.com the viddeo called NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS

it explains how they twisted the hebrew texts at least 10% so that they could make COPYRIGHTED Bible texts. you cant copyright unless you have changed it at least 10%

100% perfect minus ten percent error (changing perfection means adding error.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

that word she is CHANGING is a change into error.

you see, her interpretation is in error because she now is out of sync with the rest of the bible.
Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

The Lord made us, not evolution.
says so right in the Bible

#177 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Last point:

The professor can't READ.

She talks about the word CREATED in this verse:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

and she says it MEANS SEPARATED NOT CREATED...

Now, she is out of sync, because in verse 7 on the SAME PAGE it says:

Gen 1:7 And God MADE the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Which is a differnt word which means actually CREATED

so the Bible says God CREATED and MADE (both words match

but after professor changes the meaning in the first, they no longer match

She is just ignorant, can't read and doesnt even know how to use a condordance.

Don't take any classes from her. I wouldn't

#178 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also, the professor's false interpretation as "bawra" meaning being "SEPARATE", this interpretation makes no sense at all, because a few verses later in first Genesis, God syas ASAH the whales which definitely means created and manufactured, forget the controversy over Bawra this professor straw-manned into existance.

Look, you cannot "BAWRA" the whales meaning separated them out. makes no sense. That would counteract . verse 26 in first Genesis says"

God MADE FROM SCRATCH the beasts and made the word "ASAH" which means physically created the whales...

One cannot change a word when all the other words would then go against it.
They used to match until her straw-man attack.
God did not "Separate" and then "Create" the whales.
That makes no sense at all.
Why would that happen?
Just so a professor thousands of years in the future can manufacture a straw man and be right? I don't believe so.

no.

God "created" and "created" the whales, not "separated" then "created" because you can't separate first then create them. Get it? you would have to create then separate them!

Sorry. No soup for you, O professor, the only ones that will believe your deception are those who want an excuse to drink beer and pork women,.

wWhya re you bothering to do this really ignorant work, professor, anyoone who read can read the chapter and see that interpretation makes no sense at all.

Why do you even bother to change the Bible, just go do what you want, you are just wasting time
There is very little time left for you to drink beer and pork women. Time is wasting playing with the Bible...

you have very little time left to keep on sinning, you are wasting good rare time hacking up the Bible.

Just do what you want, and shortly it will be all over. The brown material is about to hit the fans.

#179 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

RICHARDRHINE...
It isn't science that thinks it has the answers. Science is a gradual building of testable ideas, maturing and getting more and more exact as time goes on. Rather, it is religion that claims to have the answers.
Science starts with a question in search of a correct answer.
Religion gives the answer first and any questions that disagree with that answer simply are not tolerated.
Your lack of understanding about how and why science works is astonishing.
I suggest you look around you at everything science has given...from indoor plumbing, to vaccines, to cars, to iPods. If you really believe what you say, forsake every gift science has given you, and we won't be subjected to your arrogant ignorance again.(since you won't have a computer)

#180 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

God did not "Separate" and then "Create" the whales.
That makes no sense at all.
Why would that happen?

Most of the Bible makes no sense at all...and you are questioning why one particular word makes no sense to you? Why are thinking you can question the ways and thoughts of a God anyway?

Does it actually make sense to you that God made light before He apparently made the sun and the stars?

First day: The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command) to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

Nice physics trick there.. huh.. silly knave?

#181 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-10-13 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

CONCERNING POST "Makes you wonder what else has been mistranslated, and/or subsequently distorted."

I agree, that is why this silly non-scholarly attack was made, because they cannot prove anything was ever translated incorrectly, they want to bring it up to sow doubt.

King James and the Oxford university worked for many years to make it as perfect as possible, and some lady who hates the Bible just decides to change it all.

Straw-man.

She needs to be fired.

#182 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

All the Bible makes perfect sense. it is the truth.

The lady changes a word that now conflicts with many passages that make them non-sensical. your statement that you think the Bible makes no sense just means you can't read and understand English.

#183 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

CONCERNING: "It isn't science that thinks it has the answers. Science is a gradual building of testable ideas, maturing and getting more and more exact as time goes on. Rather, it is religion that claims to have the answers. "

Religion has nothing to do with the Bible.
None of the "religious" people" follow the Bible anyway.

Bible says NO IDOLS and the largest churches have idols everywhere.
Bible says Give up covetousness and selfishness, and the false religiouns build crystal palaces.
Bible says repent, and every religion says keep on living as you always have, Jesus died for your sins so you can keep on living in sin...

All religions do not have the answer.
So called Science, falsly called, thinks it has the answers, when it does not.

Only the creator has all the answers, and the "religions" who have misrepresented him will be punished.

TRUE RELIGION according to the Bible is:

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

EVer hear that in YOUR religion?
Of course not, you belong to a scam.

#184 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"... because they cannot prove anything was ever translated incorrectly ..." - RR

Amazing, given that Biblical scholars keep debating lots of passages and their meaning. And taking them back to the original Greek or Aramaic or what the original spoken versions might have been. And coming up with different conclusions.

#185 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-13 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"All the Bible makes perfect sense. it is the truth." - RR

The motto of the literalists.

#186 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-13 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's alright, BILLY. God won't make you spend time with Falwell if you don't want. But if you both get as far as heaven I think you'll find you leave your pet peeves at the gates.

#187 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

BILLY--If it's easier for you to believe sceintists go to church merely for the "pomp"(superficial bastards, aren't they?), then by all means do.

It's sometimes easier for me to believe many atheists say they are atheists because they are angry at parental figures and enjoy playing the rebel. So I guess we're even.

#188 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Who does represent Christinaity....?"

The last time I looked, Christ.

#189 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Most of the Bible makes no sense at all...."

I've never had any trouble with it. Certainly I can find a verse or two that seems mysterious. This summarizes the experience of every Christian that I know.

Stated more simply: You're speaking about what bible, exactly?

#190 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you are not a muslim and try to argue with a muslim about the koran then you are just being foolish.
#4 | Posted by vernon

The Lord made us, not evolution.
says so right in the Bible

Reality tells us differently. Then again, I assume you can read aramaic, latin and greek as well as hebrew, or do you use the New Concise Bible for Slow Readers? And when exactly was Jesus born and killed?

#191 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-10-13 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I've never had any trouble with it. Certainly I can find a verse or two that seems mysterious. This summarizes the experience of every Christian that I know.

Stated more simply: You're speaking about what bible, exactly?"

Wow, how does this not surprise me. The multitude of lies and out right atrocities the bible(OT version) and you hae no problem. This always goes back to, it's only a story, not real. Ust a few things that would be easy to tell if the bible were accurate......

flat earth, earth is center of universe, two arks, global flood, red sea parted, sodom/gomorrah, first born in Egypt were all killed, three guys suvived an oven, samson, jonah, and hat is just the tip of the iceberg. Doesn't even o into the fact that whomever this god figurehead was, was a liar. Many passages in teh ible and you know which I am referring to prove he is a liar.

#192 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-13 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)"

If x-trians had any guts, real faith, they would get together and test this. It would be easy for the pope to ask everyone who is a true believer to pray that mt ararat be lifted and thrown in to the sea. Sadly, all I wll get are excuses as to why this wont happen, lying cowards!!

#193 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-13 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

-And when exactly was Jesus born and killed?

Most likely about 4BC, due to an error in the Vogon Accounting Dept, and died 33 years later.

He was 6 mos younger than his cousin, John the Baptist.

-and does not doubt in his heart

LM, apparently unfamiliar with the placebo effect, has no science to document what faith can do.

#194 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-13 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"LM, apparently unfamiliar with the placebo effect, has no science to document what faith can do."

Oh hebrew speaker, send a letter to pontiff and ask if he can dial up the shroud owner and move this mountain. Atheist everywere call bullshit on this crazy scripture and the lies contained therein.

This is a simple test cork, or do you really lack faith?

That is why this simple challenge will never be accepted by the "believers", they know their sham will be exposed. That placebo effect is about the healing power of the mind, not faith in god, and completely irrelevant here.

As I said earlier, they will never take this challenge because they know it will fail. That is what hey have faith in, faith in failure.

#195 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-13 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#184 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-13 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why do I get visions of the albino from Da Vinci code everytime you post?

#196 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-10-13 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

EVer hear that in YOUR religion?
Of course not, you belong to a scam.

#184 | Posted by richardrhine

so saith a member of the Death Cult.

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine Also, Billions and Billions p. 215]

#197 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-10-13 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"EVer hear that in YOUR religion?
Of course not, you belong to a scam."
My religion is no religion so I don't "belong" to anything.
You can whistle through the graveyard, pretending that if you just kiss the Invisible Man in the Skies butt enough you will live forever. You can pretend that all you have to do to know everything is to read one book.
You can pretend to have all the answers.
Some of us think that the search for the truth is what being a human is about. And knowing that it is most probable that we can never no the truth completely doesn't diminish the quest in the least.

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can"
-----Frank Zappa-----

(That advice worked great for my four, now grown, children)

#198 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Most likely about 4BC, due to an error in the Vogon Accounting Dept"

Isn't that who destroyed the planet Earth in "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? (The Vogons)

Arthur Dent: Just wait a sodding minute! You want a question that goes with the answer for 42? Well, how about what's six times seven? Or how many Vogons does it take to change a lightbulb? Here's one! How many roads must a man walk down?
Lunkwill: Hey, that's not bad!
Arthur Dent: Fine. Fine, take it. Because my head is filled with questions and I can assure you no answer to any one of them has ever brought me one iota of happiness. Except for one. The one. The only question I've ever wanted an answer to - is she the one? The answer bloody well isn't forty-two, it's yes. Undoubtedly, unequivocally, unabashadly yes. And for one week, one week in my sad little blip of an existence, it made me happy.
Trillian: That's a good answer...
Lunkwill: Rubbish, we don't want to be happy, we want to be famous!
Fook: Yeah! What is all this "is she the one" tripe?
Lunkwill: Take his brain!
----Hitchhikers guide----

#199 | Posted by BillyChan at 2009-10-13 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

rcade, can we now relegate this to the archives or at least the backpage as this Quack has been properly debunked.

#200 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-10-13 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speaking of anecdotal statements, did you see what Dawkins said (anecdotally) about the existence of God in a recent public debate?

I wonder if he'll include that in some additional work on existential philosophy? Think it would make money?

#150 | Posted by Zed

Here is what Dawkins was saying..It is not a pro "god" argument at all..But don't let THAT tidbit dissuade you from thinking about it..

latimesblogs.latimes.com

#201 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-13 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd investigate the stats. Like it or not, many scientists are Christians, or whatnot. Maybe you never hang out with them? It's a theory.

#153 | Posted by Zed

more inference without fact..link ..

{crickets}

#202 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-13 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#162 | Posted by Corky

NO.. he understands that you cannot argue fact with faith.. you have faith which can't be substantiated by any facts but you still believe which is illogical.

#203 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-13 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now comes Professor Ellen van Wolde to straighten out all the Old Testament prophets, the writers of the Psalms and Proverbs, the Apotles, and even God the Son on their Hebrew. Wonder what color the sky is in her world.

#204 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2009-10-13 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now comes Professor Ellen van Wolde to straighten out all the Old Testament prophets, the writers of the Psalms and Proverbs, the Apostles, and even God the Son on their Hebrew. Wonder what color the sky is in her world.

#204 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2009-10-13 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, a spelling omission in the first post.

#205 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2009-10-13 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Here's what Dawkins was saying...."

Actually, having read the article you posted, I find nothing relevant to my own statements about Dawkins.

Dawkins was debated into conceding a Deistic position in a fairly recent public debate. I'll see what I can do for you....

#206 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God...."

Richard Dawkins, 10/21/08, Dawkins-Lennox debate.

Now, when I read such things, I really start to wonder what all the hub-bub is about and what, really what, "atheists" are attempting to do.

#207 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God...."

Richard Dawkins, 10/21/08, Dawkins-Lennox debate.

Now, when I read such things, I really start to wonder what all the hub-bub is about and what, really what, "atheists" are attempting to do.

#208 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-13 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Prof. Ellen is wrong... but she is entitled to her opinion as a free moral agent.

The word "Bara" is used consistently as create in all the references in Genesis.

#209 | Posted by takitez at 2009-10-14 12:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

- That placebo effect is about the healing power of the mind, not faith in god, and completely irrelevant here.

Denial is not pretty, eh?

The placebo effect is based on the faith of the user in what they are using, as one would suspect that most minds would have about the same "healing power(?)", and is totally relevant here.

#210 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-14 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag: