When has religion irked you personally and why?

The myth of Jesus is exemplary, but not necessary. No myth is necessary. There is no story that must be told. Stories do not have a truth that someone needs to reveal, or that someone needs to hear. It is part of the myth of Jesus that it makes itself unnecessary; it is a narrative of the word becoming flesh, of language entering history; a narrative of the world becoming flesh and dying, of history entering language. Who listens to his myth cannot rise above history in order to utter timeless truths about it. It is not necessary of valid minds to be christians; indeed is not possible for them to be christians. Neither is it possible for them to be Buddhists, or Muslims, or atheists, or New Yorkers. All such titles can only be playful abstractions, mere performances for the sake of laughter. Valid minds are not serious actors in any story, but rather, joyful poets of a story that continues to originate what cannot be finished.

Must qualify my above post: Without plant life, there would be no oxygen produced by plant life. Animals, all creatures, and mankind would not survive.

Here's a non-maliagar, christian, interpretation of Genesis I: "

God uses a relatively large amount of space in Genesis 1 to make it very clear that He created the universe in six days. There is no mention of billions-of-years or any great period of time. However, many people still wonder whether or not the modern scientific belief that the earth and universe have existed for billions of years can be harmonized with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Most Christians have heard the argument that the word "day" in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the "days" represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.


The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The "days" in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words "evening and morning." This phrase is used with "day" 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase "evening and morning" is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word "yom", there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years."

So much for understanding the writers and their culture.

Sounds like creationism to me, maliagar.

Let's see if you see the train hitting you:

A statement of personal belief is far from being an explanation or an argument. It's as if I said: "Genesis is right because I believe in creation."

An explanation involves giving the reasons WHY you believe X.

You've done nothing of that sort. No explanation... just your personal creed (and still expect to be taken seriously).

An ambulance for Craven! (even if he claims to be fine... :wink: ).

I think maliagar may have admitted "shifting topics." I call that a coup.

maliagar, Nobody, but nobody claimed "A statement of personal belief is an explanation or an argument." First of all, someone must first claim a belief. Next, they must show by explanation or argument why they have that belief. Two separate and distinct issues.

I believe in Santa Clause, because I see him during every christmas season. Belief: Santa exists. Why? Because I see him every year. The question becomes, how reliable is my belief, and why?

Read carefully, before typing senselessly:



Clear now?

[Ah, if I were to charge for my services...]

He's only asking for your opinion. Is that so difficuilt?

Good, Cicerone! You're starting to get it together...

Then, of course, the question would be: How do you explain to others the reliability of your belief? How do you explain why your belief ought to be accepted as true by others?

As in the statement "I don't believe in creation", used as an "explanation" of the "fallacious" character of the first three chapters of Genesis...

Get it now???

[Is there a way of having the government pay for my services?]

maliagar, The only thing clear to all of us is your evasion. Don't worry about my typing abilities. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You asked about my personal opinion. Would you also like me to explain?



A bit melodramatic, buddy. :wink:

I didn't ask for your personal opinion. I asked for an explanation of your beliefs about "right" and "wrong" applied to Genesis.

(Evasion, evasion, evasion.... or perhaps it's the water you drink?)

maliagar wrote:
"...the question would be: How do you explain to others the reliability of your belief? How do you explain why your belief ought to be accepted as true by others?

As in the statement "I don't believe in creation", used as an "explanation" of the "fallacious" character of the first three chapters of Genesis... "

No, the question is "do you believe god created the world in seven days?" I repeat, the question is "do you believe god created the world in seven days?"

One question at a time. But you still haven't answered the first question. Other questions will follow, I promise!

I believe Genesis to be "wrong" because it states that the world was created by God and subsequent geneology can be dated to solomon's temple aging the passages' time frame at betweeen 6 and 7 thousand years (I can look up the exact passages if you like).

Science has shown that there are objects on this world that are older than that and this is just one reason that the account in Genesis is simply incorrect. Wrong.


I don't evade Maliagar. Bring on the train.

You sound like a kid I used to know. He's claim he could beat me, just absolutely thrash me, in a race but he was "saving his energy to run away from the anti-christ".

That is what you are sounding like when you said:

"I would love to dissect all the BS you utter (and, as always, a train would run over you, and you wouldn't even notice). "

Put the ball where your mouth is. Bring on the train.

This reminds me of a Clive Cussler novel I read as a kid.

:wink:

Even provided you with "another" christian interpretation of Genesis I. Trying to help you out, but you continue to evade the question; "did god create the world in seven days?"

this seems to be a mobius loop of tautology, when do we get to the off ramp?

Cicerone Imposter:

A test for your honesty: If you care about the truth, check the following postings:

- Craven: Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:45 am Post subject:
- Maliagar: Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:04 am Post subject:
- Craven: Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:33 am Post subject:
- Craven: Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:02 am Post subject:

Then tell us which question came first.

(Let me make sure of one thing first: you know that 4:04 is earlier than 4:33, right?)


You're in no position of promising anything. You depend on others for the course of the conversation. You're way outside your league.

And that's also a truth.