Is the story of Adam and Even real...or allegory?

No. Strings in string theory do not have to be parallel lines.

Animals are part of the physical death before Eden

neologist wrote:

I can understand why one could read the bible and, without meditating on its meaning, might conclude that God is brutal, misogynistic and homophobic. But I can't for the life of me understand why one could read and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will

I am uncertain that you actually meant what you wrote. A careful and thoughtful reading of the old testament shows the god of the ancient Jews to be racist, sexist, elitist, homophobic and a murderously vicious and vengeful being. Additionally, you go on to write: ". . . and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will" You meant to assert that the god of the old testament can be limited by any necessity and does not possess free will?

This part of your response seems confused, and i suspect does not say what you had intended it to say.

Precisely the strongest reason for not believing the old testament to be anything more than the perfervid maunderings of ignorant and supersitious nomadic tribesmen is the very puerile and vicious nature of the diety described therein. When that is coupled with the rather obvious polytheism textually evident before the return from the Babylonian captivity, at which time it appears the Hebrews imbibed Aryan monothesism from the Pharsee and Meda--the Persians--it seems all too painfully obvious that the bible is a collection of superstitious tales, ill-considered and never edited. The amount of contradiction and absurdity is sufficient to indict the document as flawed, and to demolish any attempt to describe it as the inerrant revealed truth of any description of deity.

Your reference to what one might conclude having read but failed to meditate upon the meaning of the document suggests that it is not what it seems, and that one is obliged to extract from it a meaning which is not apparent on the face of the text. That is a call for obscure, particularist and idiosyncratic exegesis--which in my never humble opinion is booking a cruise down the primrose-bordered path to theological lunacy.

The old testament is an account of what happened and how so called "holy men of God" saw and understood God... It is most likely true to fact and very revealing to us today... It is the Christ in us today that is the reason why our eyes are open to the brutality of such a legal travesty of justice... Let us not forget the love of Christ.

RexRed wrote:

Are you telling me parallel lines don't exist?

Then what are strings in the string theory?

Parallel lines maybe?

No. Strings in string theory do not have to be parallel lines.

Anyway:

It's not a guess, Frank. It's what I know.

Oh, wait. You appear to actually know something which is not a guess:

Frank Apisa wrote:

That is not the very worst.

Tell us what you know, Frank. I thought you guessed everything. :wink:

If God exists, the worst thing that could happen to me would be my eventual death and return to nothingness.

Frank Wrote:

"Believing" is simply the word theists use when they are blindly guessing about the unknown.


Comment:

Frank all logic is based on guesses AND believing...

Hypothesis:
Will the sky fall today?

Statement:
The sky won't fall today

Reason:
Because it hasn't fallen yet and the odds thereof are rather good...


Therefore: The sky won't fall today.


Comment:

Due to this reasoning process (I believe first detailed by Euclid) hypothesis is built upon hypothesis.

You are saying you don't have a hypothesis? I am saying I have many and they are based on observable logic containing often several statements and reasons, they end in a therefore...

Comment: Somewhere between the hypothesis and the therefore is believing...

As statements and reasons build they often credibly answer the the basic hypothesis.

This is not only the basis of "true" biblical thought but also all other scientific disciplines.

I would hope it is the basis of your own logical systems.

I don't intend to answer your stupidity here, Rex. You have willfully added text to the quote of my post which was not in the original post. You have willfully misrepresente4d what i wrote.

I have reported your post to the moderators as an attack on another member and have asked that it be removed from the thread.

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:

I can understand why one could read the bible and, without meditating on its meaning, might conclude that God is brutal, misogynistic and homophobic. But I can't for the life of me understand why one could read and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will

I am uncertain that you actually meant what you wrote. A careful and thoughtful reading of the old testament shows the god of the ancient Jews to be racist, sexist, elitist, homophobic and a murderously vicious and vengeful being. Additionally, you go on to write: ". . . and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will" You meant to assert that the god of the old testament can be limited by any necessity and does not possess free will?

This part of your response seems confused, and i suspect does not say what you had intended it to say.

Precisely the strongest reason for not believing the old testament to be anything more than the perfervid maunderings of ignorant and supersitious nomadic tribesmen is the very puerile and vicious nature of the diety described therein. When that is coupled with the rather obvious polytheism textually evident before the return from the Babylonian captivity, at which time it appears the Hebrews imbibed Aryan monothesism from the Pharsee and Meda--the Persians--it seems all too painfully obvious that the bible is a collection of superstitious tales, ill-considered and never edited. The amount of contradiction and absurdity is sufficient to indict the document as flawed, and to demolish any attempt to describe it as the inerrant revealed truth of any description of deity.

Your reference to what one might conclude having read but failed to meditate upon the meaning of the document suggests that it is not what it seems, and that one is obliged to extract from it a meaning which is not apparent on the face of the text. That is a call for obscure, particularist and idiosyncratic exegesis--which in my never humble opinion is booking a cruise down the primrose-bordered path to theological lunacy.

Was this God that made these laws to the Hebrews? Maybe it was... Maybe and most likely these Hebrew people were the best the world had to offer as pitiful as often they were. They were far from perfect but they were all God had to work with (due to the original sin). God saw the future and knew ahead that his ultimate plan would be met through the Hebrews and that was enough.

So what part Set would you like to edit out? The parts about human frailty, weakness and social division caused by overbearing legalistic emphasis? I think it is a very telling example of intolerance and triumph and stands to be an example for a long time to come of how we never want to become as a society and what we can attain.

Yet it is a subjective tale of times that are displaced by millennia. Much of the Bible's meaning is rooted in spiritualism, the occult and mysticism. It is very difficult to really understand it the way it was understood some six thousand years ago.

The justification for times of old came in the new testament where the messiah a man Jesus of the house of David crowned the world with grace over law, liberty over law.

So law lost it's emphasis in culture... and this was a good thing.

It united people. Thus, the most diverse can be the most united.

No, i don't intend to repsond. Not only did you originally willfully misrepresent what i had written, you respond as though absolutely nothing which i wrote--in response to Neo and not to any of the crap you normally post--had sunk in with you. It is obvious from the outset that i don't accept any of your idiotic premises--least of all that the Hebrews were "the best the world had to offer." They were the hillbillies of the middle east. There was virtually no other people in the middle east as ignorant and superstitious at that time.

You keep your idiotic fantasies to yourself.

The Hebrews were goat herders and part-time bandits.

talk72000 wrote:

The Hebrews were goat herders and part-time bandits.

A more and more commonly-held view among historians (who have no stake in promoting Judaism or Christianity) is that Jewish "Kings" such as Solomon ran a small-time "protection racket" with the caravans which plied the route from the head of the Red Sea and the Punic cites of Tyre and Sidon. That view sees the Phoenicians as tolerating some silly pretentions on the part of the Jews, so long as they protected the caravans on their rather brief trip overland. It would have been easier and made more sense from the Punic point of view to tolerate the Jews and pay them a modest fee rather than to be obliged to deal with tribal bandits, and to attempt to run them to ground in the Judean hills.

The measurements give for the Temple and Solomons palace are pathetically modest. The measurements for the original Temple in Jerusalem had a ground floor smaller than the main gun deck of an eighteenth century United States frigate such as Constitution. Only in the eyes of the Hebrews and the self-deluded minds of modern Christians does a silly expression such as "Solomon in all his glory" resonate. Basically, they were the Semitic hillbillies of their time and region.

RexRed wrote:

Dogs don't die for sin

Then why do they die?

RexRed wrote:

One must associate life with God before an afterlife can be predicated likewise.

Why? See if you can do it without quoting the bible.

Chumly wrote:

RexRed wrote:

One must associate life with God before an afterlife can be predicated likewise.

Why? See if you can do it without quoting the bible.

This presents an interesting conundrum for religionists and non believers alike, for here is one place where wishful thinking has trumped reason:

When you are dead, you are dead. Period.

Chumly wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Dogs don't die for sin

Then why do they die?

Good question. But so far as I can find, only humans were given the prospect of everlasting life.

Perhaps because only humans are mentally able to comprehend indefinite time.

Is this important?