God & Evil

Steve, you'll find out that "real life" is a biblical literalist until such time as it conflicts with his personal view of what the bobble should mean. Earlier in this thread, with both Neo and "real life" insisting that "evil" is a human creation, BDV posted a verse which contradicted them:

BDV wrote:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

This verse clearly, unambiguously asserts that the imaginary friend created evil. But "real life" wasn't down with that, so he sneered at BDV, asking him if he takes the bobble literally.

I think you'll find that "real life" will insist on the bobble as divinely-inspired, inerrant revealed truth, but will try to slither away when that contention might embarrass another position he has taken.

Step right up, Ladies and Gentleman, see the Human Reptile--quotes scripture, chapter and verse, and crawls on his belly like a snake ! ! !

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

rl please dont tell me you believe in the literal truth of the biblical creation myth?

hi Steve,

Specifically what in the Genesis account of creation do you object to?

I'm not looking for a laundry list here, because I'm not going to take the time to type out a book to answer dozens of objections that are cut and pasted from somewhere else.

But I'd be glad to discuss specifics, one at a time.

What is your single biggest objection?

0 Replies

I have no particular objection. Its a nice story. But its bronze age mythology, not fact. I object, no despair more like, when apparently intelligent people take it literally.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
RL, I take it you're still researching the rebuttal to my earlier post concerning the myths of your holy book.

If you want to discuss these one at a time, that's fine. Pick one.

Well, I never said in my post you had to address them all at once, although to be fair, I could have been clearer on that point. Pick anyone you would feel most comfortable attacking.

As Diest TKO and I said before, the onus is on you. So out of courtesy, I shall allow you to pick whichever one you are most knowledgable on.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
According to the Bible plant life was created before the sun.

One day before.

So?

The "days" of Genesis are at best vague because the Bible uses the word "day" as a reference to an age / large period of time.

It would seem you feel plants don't need sunlight, and you'd be correct to the extent that all plants are fungus.

Perhaps biblical scribes were nibbling on 'shrooms.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
According to the Bible plant life was created before the sun.

One day before.

So?
The "days" of Genesis are at best vague because the Bible uses the word "day" as a reference to an age / large period of time.

The Hebrew word for 'day' is used much like the English word for 'day'.

When used by itself, it can indeed mean 'age' or 'period of time'.

But when used with a number , as in 'first day' , 'second day' etc, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day, not a general period of time.

And that's exactly the usage we see in Gen 1.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
RL, I take it you're still researching the rebuttal to my earlier post concerning the myths of your holy book.

If you want to discuss these one at a time, that's fine. Pick one.

Well, I never said in my post you had to address them all at once, although to be fair, I could have been clearer on that point. Pick anyone you would feel most comfortable attacking.

As Diest TKO and I said before, the onus is on you. So out of courtesy, I shall allow you to pick whichever one you are most knowledgable on.

That's very generous of you.

You mentioned there was no evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah. It sounds like an argument from silence on your part.

Since the Bible says they were completely destroyed, I wondered what evidence you expected.

0 Replies

Real life = feigned controversy.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You mentioned there was no evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah. It sounds like an argument from silence on your part. Since the Bible says they were completely destroyed, I wondered what evidence you expected.

Speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, I was at the Royal Academy exhibition of Lucas Cranach the Elder last week. Interesting that S and G were destroyed because of their debauchery and afterwards being wifeless the first thing Lot does is screw his daughters. Thats true, its in the bible. And Cranach painted it.

0 Replies

The destruction or the screwing?

Lot was a right **** when it came to his daughters. Before the destruction routine, he was visited by angels (or some con artists calling themselves angels). The local boys came around to comment on it (walled city in the middle east thousands of years ago--who can blame 'em?), so Lot shoved one of his daughters out in the street, and told the boys to help themselves.

That's all the text of scripture alleges against them boys in S & G, by the way--that they was rude to angels.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Before the destruction routine, he was visited by angels (or some con artists calling themselves angels). The local boys came around to comment on it (walled city in the middle east thousands of years ago--who can blame 'em?), so Lot shoved one of his daughters out in the street, and told the boys to help themselves.

That's all the text of scripture alleges against them boys in S & G, by the way--that they was rude to angels.

0 Replies

You crack me up. Not only do you hold that the bobble must be interpreted when that is convenient to your argument, and that it is to be taken literally when that is convenient to your argument, now you are using a source as the basis for your contention which is not universally considered to be canonical. Jude may allege what he wishes, he has no more basis for such a claim than you do. In Genesis 18, your boy "god" tells Abraham that for sake of merely ten righteous men, he will spare the city. Genesis 19 jumps immediately from Abraham's quaint dickering with your boy "god" about how many righteous men can save the city, to the story of vile Sodom, and the equally vile Lot.

However, even someone as witless as you might have ascertained from the manner in which i framed my remarks that i was not being entirely serious. The claim against the "cities of the plain" to the effect that they were iniquitous is based on your boy "god" telling Abraham that there was an outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah (the witnesses, the "outcriers" are left unnamed), and the subsequent disputed passage in which them gay boys in Sodom are said to have wanted to butt rape the visiting angels.

But hey, "real life," you never let a little matter of accuracy stand in you way when you're preaching the Word of God according to yourself--why start now?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The destruction or the screwing?

Well not the screwing obviously...this is religious painting...and anyway they wouldn't stay still long enough.

ps the funniest thing I came across lately is the Brick Testament.

if you dont know it its worth a look

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

0 Replies

That's pretty damned funny . . . i saw your link for that in another thread, but the link wouldn't work for me. This one works OK. The god dude they've got there looks pissed all the time.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

ps the funniest thing I came across lately is the Brick Testament.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/

I saw that. I liked it. But what's funny about it, isn't that pretty accurate (except with plastic figurines)?

0 Replies

Ok, here, this is pretty funny: http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/garden_of_eden/gn03_21.html

God made leather clothes for Adam and Eve (and in the background there is a dead plastic horse on the ground... gave up its life for the leather obviously) Smile

Cool.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
ps the funniest thing I came across lately is the Brick Testament.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/

I saw that. I liked it. But what's funny about it, isn't that pretty accurate (except with plastic figurines)?

Ok, I take it back. This thing is a riot, I just hadn't read enough of it before. It's very hard to tell the original bible from outlandish comedy. Come to think of is, maybe the bible was originally intended as ancient hebrew comedy. Maybe it's a satire. How would we know?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Maybe it's a satire. How would we know?

I went through exactly the same thought processes. And now I agree with you perhaps those Dead Sea Pedestrians really had a wicked sense of humour.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know