If GOD wants belief in him based on faith...

philologos

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Firstly, in relation to your example, there is almost no archeological evidence of widespread child sacrifice in that region at that time. In fact, in the story in Genesis 22, Isaac is confused by his father's actions:

Most modern archaeologists agree that child sacrifice was performed by the Carthaginians at the site of the Tophet, just a few hundred metres from the Punic port. The Tophet (not the original name, but the biblical name for sanctuaries for child sacrifice in the Middle East) lies next to a sanctuary dedicated to Baal Hammon and Tanit, but little remains of this.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/37

Similar "tophets" have since been found at Carthage and other places in North Africa, and in Sardinia, Malta, and Sicily. In late 1990 a possible tophet consisting of cinerary urns containing bones and ashes and votive objects was retrieved from ransacking on the mainland just outside of Tyre in the Phoenician homeland.

liamw wrote: »

So how do you determine which parts are accurately describing god's word and which aren't? What is your cross-referencing source?

I believe the Bible is God's inspired word. That would be all of it. We still have to understand it though. A bad use of the Bible would be claiming that God endorses David's adultery with Bathsheba just because it is contained there fore example. Human action is put in the Bible at times so that we can learn from their lead if you will.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/37





I believe the Bible is God's inspired word. That would be all of it. We still have to understand it though. A bad use of the Bible would be claiming that God endorses David's adultery with Bathsheba just because it is contained there fore example. Human action is put in the Bible at times so that we can learn from their lead if you will.

Thank you Jakkass, you have clarified your position very nicely for me.

BTW, I defer to the more reasoned argument of UNESCO. This is the link I was using for my last post:

http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I guarantee that you just can't answer these questions without point
blank apologising for the most foul kind of murder, purely disgusting stuff.

This is a strawman. You're creating an argument against an argument I haven't made. Murder refers to unlawful killing.

I believe that God does and has taken life, precisely because it is His to give and His to take.

Psalm 137 is written during the period when the Jewish people are under Babylonian occupation and the author is hoping for the swift defeat of the Babylonians and the Edomites. That's what I would take from this. v.7-9 discusses how the Edomites and the Babylonians treated the Israelites. Indeed, the whole book of Obadiah in the Old Testament also deals with the betrayal of Edom in respect to their brother people Israel.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the Bible is God's inspired word. That would be all of it. .

I get that, but what is it about the biblical texts that make you think it is god's inspired word and not just another ancient text? There must be some really convincing stuff there to make that giant leap.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

I get that, but what is it about the biblical texts that make you think it is god's inspired word and not just another ancient text? There must be some really convincing stuff there to make that giant leap.

How convincing it is, how it all fits together in a synthesis despite the fact that it is written by people of different professions living in different places over 4,000 years ago. The truth that it speaks about the world, human hearts, reality, morality, ethics, philosophy and so on. How it all makes sense from creation until that day in Calvary when Jesus rose again. The dramatic changes it produces in peoples lives, the dramatic change it produced in my life. The sheer evidence backing up a huge array of Biblical events. Biblical history and archaeology pointing to the accuracy of the text. The sheer accuracy of Biblical prophesy. The sheer improbability of this universe not having a specific telos, the sheer improbability of this universe coming together of its own accord. The world and all things despite what people may or may not claim begs a purpose.

Words can't describe adequately how fully this book can make people see clearly. Words can't describe the type of lives that people fully motivated by Jesus can lead. Words can't describe how unrivalled Jesus is as a person.

One can point to evidence time and time again. I have a strong feeling it isn't solely about evidence for any of you. It is about how open you are to looking into it earnestly. It is about how much you are willing rather than how intellectually satisfying the argument is. Many of you simply don't want to be Christians. That's an entirely different argument that involves taking a look to much deeper roots as far as I see it. No argument no matter how lofty it is will have any impact unless you're willing to hear it and willing to consider it earnestly.

I don't really think I'm making a leap. I think that I'm embracing the relationship I should have fully embraced years earlier. The relationship with my Creator. There could be nothing more natural as far as I see it. It's more a homecoming than a leap into the unknown.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a strawman. You're creating an argument against an argument I haven't made. Murder refers to unlawful killing.

I believe that God does and has taken life, precisely because it is His to give and His to take.

Psalm 137 is written during the period when the Jewish people are under Babylonian occupation and the author is hoping for the swift defeat of the Babylonians and the Edomites. That's what I would take from this. v.7-9 discusses how the Edomites and the Babylonians treated the Israelites. Indeed, the whole book of Obadiah in the Old Testament also deals with the betrayal of Edom in respect to their brother people Israel.

Guess you cant be breaking the rules when you're the one making them up to begin with. I'm sure every god fearing person who's suffered a violent death in his name has taken solace in that.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually I would say that there is local evidence of Noah's flood.

Not as described in the Bible.

Do you believe the authors of the Bible story meant the reader to believe that all land life was destroyed except for the ones Noah brought on to the Ark for 40 days and nights?

Or do you believe that they wanted this story to be taken just as a metaphor?

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with you on the death of the first born in Egypt in respect to archaeology with a caveat, we don't have any yet.

It is not just that we don't have any yet. We have the Egyptian records that make no mention of it at all. It is like saying that in 1976 there was a massive genocide in Washington DC and then finding the newspapers that year that talk about little more than election news.

Jakkass wrote: »

True. Although context is still important even in reading texts such as Pandora's Box I would imagine, and indeed many of Plato's fictional dialogues.

It is but it is pointless unless a person is prepared to accept which ever context makes the most sense without bias to one particular one. Christians are limited as they often have already decided the only acceptable interpretation is the one that allows for an infallible revelation from God.

Imagine how funky the interpretations of Greek history would be if you had to limit yourself to historical interpretations where the Greek gods existed.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe there is a strong case to say that the general thrust of the Biblical text is likely, that's why I'm a Christian.

What does that mean? If significant events in it never happened how is the "general thrust" relevant if it requires believe in an infallible revelation from God?

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense. I've already told you that in the study of any ancient text this happens.

What, people believe the text is the inspired word of God? Of course they don't.

No one still believes the Greek stories must have happened as described. People are perfectly happy with the idea that Troy might not have existed, or Hercules wasn't a real person. They don't invoke dodgy theological justifications such as well Jesus mentioned him so he must have been real.

Do you believe Noah existed? Do you believe Moses was a real person? Do you think that matters to your faith at all if they weren't?

Jakkass wrote: »

There is simply more value in reading when you understand the world around the people at the time, or more simply where the passage lies.

Of course there is. But you have to open to the idea that the world around them at the time wasn't as they claim, not wedge in convoluted notions to fit a theological premise.

Complaining that people are not looking for the context that things were written in and then doing the exact same thing is just silly.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you believe the authors of the Bible story meant the reader to believe that all land life was destroyed except for the ones Noah brought on to the Ark for 40 days and nights?

I'd be of the mind that it was probably a local flood. I do believe it happened though.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is but it is pointless unless a person is prepared to accept which ever context makes the most sense without bias to one particular one. Christians are limited as they often have already decided the only acceptable interpretation is the one that allows for an infallible revelation from God.

Nonsense. If I read Plato, I look up about Athenian culture and the thinking of the sophists. I don't look up Peruvian culture because it isn't particularly relevant to what I am reading.

If I read the Bible, I look into both Jewish and Roman culture. Indeed some Greek culture also because if one looks to the New Testament there are some Greek philosophical constructs there. For example the Logos at hte beginning of John's Gospel. The focus on the archoi (first principles) of existence is a Greek cultural trait particularly in respect to the fuslogikoi (natural philosophers). Many of whom would have been from regions where the Christian Gospel was preached about a millenium later. Such as Ephesus and nearby Miletus. This kind of knowledge can open me up to stuff that I wouldn't have noticed before.

Wicknight wrote: »

Imagine how funky the interpretations of Greek history would be if you had to limit yourself to historical interpretations where the Greek gods existed.

Actually one has to know at the very least something about Homer and Hessiod before reading Greek philosophy. Hereclitus although far from an atheist would have regarded the teaching of Homer and Hessiod and the Greek panthenon to be child abuse indeed Xenophanes regarded the stories contained in Homer and Hessiod to be immoral. Plato in his work also uses Homer and Hessiod to a certain degree. Knowing about the Greek gods is something that I'm going to have to look in at in more depth because it might help my understanding of Plato.

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that mean? If significant events in it never happened how is the "general thrust" relevant if it requires believe in an infallible revelation from God?

I don't believe that they never happened. I believe much of the Bible is substantiated for example. I also am willing to admit that there is still much archaeology to be done and we haven't found evidence for some of the events thus far. Given the track record thus far I do believe we will find more evidence over the next few decades in addition to some extraordinary finds that people have found.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you believe Noah existed? Do you believe Moses was a real person? Do you think that matters to your faith at all if they weren't?

Yes to all three.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course there is. But you have to open to the idea that the world around them at the time wasn't as they claim, not wedge in convoluted notions to fit a theological premise.

Of course I do, but it seems quite likely that the Israelite world was as the Bible described it to be.

Wicknight wrote: »

Complaining that people are not looking for the context that things were written in and then doing the exact same thing is just silly.

I'm not complaining at all. I've committed myself to finding out the context, that's why I can say that very often people neglect it.

AhSureTisGrand

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd be of the mind that it was probably a local flood. I do believe it happened though.

Local floods do tend to happen. I imagine it would be quite easy to pick one and call it "Noah's Flood"

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a strawman. You're creating an argument against an argument I haven't made. Murder refers to unlawful killing.

To 'brutally kill' is also murder.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that God does and has taken life, precisely because it is His to give and His to take.

Baloney!

Statements like that serve to remind me that humans in general need to be strictly governed.

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a strawman. You're creating an argument against an argument I haven't made. Murder refers to unlawful killing.

I believe that God does and has taken life, precisely because it is His to give and His to take.

Psalm 137 is written during the period when the Jewish people are under Babylonian occupation and the author is hoping for the swift defeat of the Babylonians and the Edomites. That's what I would take from this. v.7-9 discusses how the Edomites and the Babylonians treated the Israelites. Indeed, the whole book of Obadiah in the Old Testament also deals with the betrayal of Edom in respect to their brother people Israel.

Man I never said you made any argument, I specifically said you couldn't
apologise for the quotes of the bible that condone such horrendous
murder, from Yahweh's own mouth (apparently), without condoning his
actions:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I guarantee that you just can't answer these questions without point
blank apologising for the most foul kind of murder, purely disgusting stuff.

That's what I said & you responded to & it clearly indicates what you can't
do (future tense) not what you have done.

Notice your response only goes for the apparent strawman by claiming I
was attributing any argument to you - I wasn't. I was stating that if you
were to make an argument defending the quotes I have, from the bible,
you would be compelled to condone the murderous desires of Yahweh.
So I think it would be fair to say that you were in fact setting up a
"strawman" argument by incorrectly attributing to me something I clearly
never said. If we are going to descend into a back-&-forth about who
strawmanned who this will make for a poor conversation indeed but I really
do think it's clear from my own words that I said were you to make the
argument (not past tense, future tense) you would do what, in fact,
you've just done.

Now, if we want to look at the one incident you chose, for the obvious
reason that you think it benefits you in some way, it is a case of you
thinking that murder in this situation was justified. Fair enough, I highly
disagree with the entire concept but we'll grant you that Psalm 137 was
a moral situation just for the sake of it (I just don't want to get sidetracked with a
load of just war apologetics, if you want to argue this specific situation we can later on).

But what about all of Deuteronomy 7, (or even Joshua 7), how can you
argue that, & I qoute, "God was demonstrating clearly that He was
opposed to it" which, as you can go back and check, was a statement by
you that god did not approve of human sacrifice. I would call god in
Deuteronomy promising to wipe out all those who make marriages with
"them" while simultaneously promising to wipe out nations a god who
approves of sacrificing no matter what context you want to apologise for.

Furthermore Joshua has god sacrificing the people of Israel because "Israel
hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I
commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and
have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put [it] even among
their own stuff". Now, I am simply taking your statement & asking you how
you can square it with the very words of the bible. I just can't understand
how a person in 2011 can honestly do this without deceiving themselves.
Again, as I fear you skirting the point with trivialities, I'm just asking you
how you square the statement you made (which caused me to bother with
this) with the words of the book you're defending - that's all. To be crystal
clear, he clearly does approve of sacrificing since he is the first to sacrifice
the Israelites when they "hath sinned" & there are plenty more passages
that we can drag up - which I'm sure you're well aware of.

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually one has to know at the very least something about Homer and Hessiod before reading Greek philosophy. Hereclitus although far from an atheist would have regarded the teaching of Homer and Hessiod and the Greek panthenon to be child abuse indeed Xenophanes regarded the stories contained in Homer and Hessiod to be immoral. Plato in his work also uses Homer and Hessiod to a certain degree. Knowing about the Greek gods is something that I'm going to have to look in at in more depth because it might help my understanding of Plato.

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

You'd want to be careful there Jackass.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

You're creating an argument against an argument I haven't made.

<cough>, <cough>!

Jakkass wrote: »

Murder refers to unlawful killing.

That's a translation which is most common with religious organization who self-identify as protestant. Catholic organizations tend to translate the word as "kill".

The "murder" translation is, I believe, the more accurate, but at the horrendous cost of allowing bible-believers to kill whomever they want, so long as they can interpret some law to mean it.

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Man I never said you made any argument, I specifically said you couldn't
apologise for the quotes of the bible that condone such horrendous
murder, from Yahweh's own mouth (apparently), without condoning his
actions:

Psalm 137 is essentially a cry of frustration to God by one of the Jewish people who is in exile in Babylon. Hence why it describes the situation throughout the Psalm.

vs.1 (NIV) wrote:

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.

Zion being Jerusalem.

vs.4 (NIV) wrote:

How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?

vs.6 (NIV) wrote:

May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.

Surrounding text established. We see that this is a Psalm written about God, and Jerusalem.

vs. 7 - 9 are an expression of frustration at what the Babylonians and Edomites have done to them.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

But what about all of Deuteronomy 7, (or even Joshua 7), how can you
argue that, & I qoute, "God was demonstrating clearly that He was
opposed to it" which, as you can go back and check, was a statement by
you that god did not approve of human sacrifice. I would call god in
Deuteronomy promising to wipe out all those who make marriages with
"them" while simultaneously promising to wipe out nations a god who
approves of sacrificing no matter what context you want to apologise for.

Genesis 15:13-16 wrote:

Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Furthermore Joshua has god sacrificing the people of Israel because "Israel
hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I
commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and
have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put [it] even among
their own stuff". Now, I am simply taking your statement & asking you how
you can square it with the very words of the bible. I just can't understand
how a person in 2011 can honestly do this without deceiving themselves.
Again, as I fear you skirting the point with trivialities, I'm just asking you
how you square the statement you made (which caused me to bother with this) with the words of the book you're defending - that's all. To be crystal clear, he clearly does approve of sacrificing since he is the first to sacrifice the Israelites when they "hath sinned" & there are plenty more passages that we can drag up - which I'm sure you're well aware of.

I'm not sure if we are using "sacrifice" in the same way. Divine punishment != sacrifice as I would see it. I do believe that God punished both Israel and Judah after 400 years of turning away from God and for failing to live by the law that God had given them, I also believe that God punished the nations that occuped Caanan after 400 years.

I'm not going to ignore questions on passages such as Deuteronomy 7 or Joshua because I believe that God had the right to punish. Another question it might raise is to what extent that God can intervene in human affairs. Indeed, it might make us wonder why God waited so long in both cases (400 years).

b318isp

Jakkass wrote: »

It is about how open you are to looking into it earnestly. It is about how much you are willing rather than how intellectually satisfying the argument is. Many of you simply don't want to be Christians. That's an entirely different argument that involves taking a look to much deeper roots as far as I see it. No argument no matter how lofty it is will have any impact unless you're willing to hear it and willing to consider it earnestly.

In all honesty, I'm desperately trying to try and grasp what I'm missing. I have been very sypathetic to religion in the past, but over the years there is a growing load of contradictions and, to me, nonsense going on.

I really enjoy your patient, good natured and honest posts, but nothing has made me move back to religion (not that I would assume you'd want to do that!). I come from a very religious family and I have a close uncle who is a priest (a theologian and philosphist too). I've been searching for this call of religion in my head, but as a get older, I can't find it. For me, the premise is false, so nothing follows.

b318isp

Jakkass wrote: »

...because I believe that God had the right to punish. Another question it might raise is to what extent that God can intervene in human affairs. Indeed, it might make us wonder why God waited so long in both cases (400 years).

Our infinitely caring, loving God?

When did God last "intervene" in human affairs? We could have done with him after two world wars.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The "murder" translation is, I believe, the more accurate, but at the horrendous cost of allowing bible-believers to kill whomever they want, so long as they can interpret some law to mean it.

I don't know in the light of the Gospel if it is really all that reasonable considering that Jesus died in my place to forgive the full weight of my sin against God.

b318isp wrote: »

When did God last "intervene" in human affairs? We could have done with him after two world wars.

I don't know.

Doc_Savage

For me, the premise is false, so nothing follows.

thanks b318isp, that sums up most of our approaches to the faith question, so friction comes about when the people from neighbouring forums come over and begin to explain things that support their beliefs but circumvent the athiest common view that if the premise is false nothing follows! It leads to a butting of heads that is irreconcilable...

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know in the light of the Gospel if it is really all that reasonable considering that Jesus died in my place to forgive the full weight of my sin against God.

I have two main problems with this statement. Firstly, Nobody can shoulder the consequences of someone elses actions and it would be immoral of them to do so. People should start looking to take responsibility for their own actions and not looking for some scapegoat in the sky.

Secondly, most christians admit that the story about adam and eve is purely metaphorical for the simple reason that science has shown they never really existed. And if you bring up mitochondrial eve and Y-MRCA, I shall be very disappointed in you. If they admit that adam and eve never existed, do they believe that jesus died for a metaphorical sin? And if they do, how in the hell can they or anyone else take them seriously?

b318isp

Doc_Savage wrote: »

thanks b318isp, that sums up most of our approaches to the faith question, so friction comes about when the people from neighbouring forums come over and begin to explain things that support their beliefs but circumvent the athiest common view that if the premise is false nothing follows! It leads to a butting of heads that is irreconcilable...

I'd give credit to them for doing so all the same. Jackass, antiskeptic and a few others are genuinely making an effort to explain their thoughts here, which I think is both admirable and, dare I say it, virtuous.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd be of the mind that it was probably a local flood. I do believe it happened though.

A local flood that wiped out all humans and all land creatures?

Gen 6:13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Gen 7:4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

Do you believe God said that to Noah? Do you think those who wrote Gen 6,7 and 8 meant for it to be understood as a local flood?

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense. If I read Plato, I look up about Athenian culture and the thinking of the sophists. I don't look up Peruvian culture because it isn't particularly relevant to what I am reading.

If I read the Bible, I look into both Jewish and Roman culture.

Do you also happen to look up a history, geography or biology book that would tell you there was no wiping out of all animal life, nor are all humans descended from a single man living a few thousand years ago?

Are you prepared to accept this context for the Old Testament, that it is describing literal events that never took place?

What about Moses' escape from Egypt, and event that is very unlikely to have actually taken place given the Egyptian historical record that makes no mention of it? Is that context ok with you? Is it necessary that Moses existed to believe in Christianity?

Jakkass wrote: »

Knowing about the Greek gods is something that I'm going to have to look in at in more depth because it might help my understanding of Plato.

Knowing about them, and believing the must have existed are two different things.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe that they never happened.

I know. That is the issue. You are severely limited in the context you are prepared to view the Bible with.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe much of the Bible is substantiated for example. I also am willing to admit that there is still much archaeology to be done and we haven't found evidence for some of the events thus far.

Are you also willing to admit that we have found evidence they didn't happen?

Jakkass wrote: »

Given the track record thus far I do believe we will find more evidence over the next few decades in addition to some extraordinary finds that people have found.

Again demonstrating the limited context you are prepared to view the Bible in.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course I do, but it seems quite likely that the Israelite world was as the Bible described it to be.

No actually it doesn't, the opposite in fact. The historical evidence does not support major claims in the Bible about places people and power, and in many cases contradicts it.

Are you prepared to accept, or simply entertain, contexts where the Bible is an inaccurate historical recording, perhaps a propaganda tool? Or can you only see one context, the infallible world of God?

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

I have two main problems with this statement. Firstly, Nobody can shoulder the consequences of someone elses actions and it would be immoral of them to do so. People should start looking to take responsibility for their own actions and not looking for some scapegoat in the sky.

Christianity is about acknowledging ones actions and being willing to change. Christianity is about bringing sin into the light and committing yourself to overturning it. It's also about restoring the greatest relationship ever known to man, that with God.

TBH with you Christianity lends itself to acknowledgement more than other worldviews which lend itself to putting it under the carpet.

Improbable wrote: »

Secondly, most christians admit that the story about adam and eve is purely metaphorical for the simple reason that science has shown they never really existed. And if you bring up mitochondrial eve and Y-MRCA, I shall be very disappointed in you. If they admit that adam and eve never existed, do they believe that jesus died for a metaphorical sin? And if they do, how in the hell can they or anyone else take them seriously?

Science hasn't shown that they've never really existed. There are a number of Christian scientists who have brought up the idea that:
1) Adam and Eve were neanderthals.
2) Adam and Eve were people amongst others (If you look to Genesis 4 Cain fears that others will kill him if God banishes him after killing his brother Abel, if Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel were the only four people in existence how could this have been the case).
There are multiple approaches that one can take to Adam and Eve without disputing their existence.

I don't believe Jesus died for original sin ala the RCC. I believe He paid for it all. Everything that you and I have done. Indeed, I would question original sin as being the tangible guilt for Adams sin rather than the predisposing nature to sin.

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity is about acknowledging ones actions and being willing to change. Christianity is about bringing sin into the light and committing yourself to overturning it. It's also about restoring the greatest relationship ever known to man, that with God.

TBH with you Christianity lends itself to acknowledgement more than other worldviews which lend itself to putting it under the carpet.

At which point, you abdicate responsibility by saying that an ultimate authority forgives you for your sins because he sent his son to earth to die.

Jakkass wrote: »

Science hasn't shown that they've never really existed. There are a number of Christian scientists who have brought up the idea that:
1) Adam and Eve were neanderthals.
2) Adam and Eve were people amongst others (If you look to Genesis 4 Cain fears that others will kill him if God banishes him after killing his brother Abel, if Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel were the only four people in existence how could this have been the case).
There are multiple approaches that one can take to Adam and Eve without disputing their existence.

Where is the evidence?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe Jesus died for original sin ala the RCC. I believe He paid for it all. Everything that you and I have done. Indeed, I would question original sin as being the tangible guilt for Adams sin rather than the predisposing nature to sin.

So god makes you sinful in nature and then sends his son down to die so that he can forgive you for being the way he made you?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

A local flood that wiped out all humans and all land creatures?

Gen 6:13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Gen 7:4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

Do you believe God said that to Noah? Do you think those who wrote Gen 6,7 and 8 meant for it to be understood as a local flood?

The Hebrew term for earth is eretz and it may also refer to land.
Fuller explanation can be found here. I'm not going to claim that I know 100%.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you also happen to look up a history, geography or biology book that would tell you there was no wiping out of all animal life, nor are all humans descended from a single man living a few thousand years ago?

This is a strawman as I don't believe what you've just attributed to me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you prepared to accept this context for the Old Testament, that it is describing literal events that never took place?

I believe that they did but not as you describe.

Wicknight wrote: »

That about Moses' escape from Egypt, and event that is very unlikely to have actually taken place given the Egyptian historical record that makes no mention of it? Is that context ok with you? Is it necessary that Moses existed to believe in Christianity?

I wouldn't say that it is very unlikely, I would say at present we've not found archaeological evidence for it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Knowing about them, and believing the must have existed are two different things.

You might want to tell that to himnextdoor.

Wicknight wrote: »

I know. That is the issue. You are severely limited in the context you are prepared to view the Bible with.

Not at all. I'm willing to admit that there are things described in the Bible for which there is no archaeological evidence yet. I'm also willing to admit that there is a huge amount in the Bible that we do have archaeological, historical and other forms of evidence for.

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you also willing to admit that we have found evidence they didn't happen?

We've found evidence that they didn't happen as you describe.

Wicknight wrote: »

No actually it doesn't, the opposite in fact. The historical evidence does not support major claims in the Bible about places people and power, and in many cases contradicts it.

It supports many major claims, and points very strongly to the Resurrection which we've been through time and time again :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you prepared to accept, or simply entertain, contexts where the Bible is an inaccurate historical recording, perhaps a propaganda tool? Or can you only see one context, the infallible world of God?

I'm willing to consider them, I would need a lot to convince me against the strong case that already exists for the Bible being as it is.

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

At which point, you abdicate responsibility by saying that an ultimate authority forgives you for your sins because he sent his son to earth to die.

Not at all. Christianity doesn't end with just being forgiven. One also resolves with God's help to live a fulfilling life reflecting and living by His standards.

Again, much more accountable than refusing to accept that one even has done wrong and refusing to deal with it.

Improbable wrote: »

Where is the evidence?

I haven't made the claim that science has proven their existence. These are simply possibilities proposed by Christian scientists as to what could have happened. You however have claimed that science has disproved their existence. I'd be interested to hear as to how.

Improbable wrote: »

So god makes you sinful in nature and then sends his son down to die so that he can forgive you for being the way he made you?

I believe this inclination would have occurred post the Fall of humanity. At least in a Christian sense.

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. Christianity doesn't end with just being forgiven. One also resolves with God's help to live a fulfilling life reflecting and living by His standards.

Again, much more accountable than refusing to accept that one even has done wrong and refusing to deal with it.

I didn't say that christians don't attempt to live good lives. I merely said that allowing someone else to shoulder your responsibilities is an abdication and no moral person would feel good about it. If christians do believe that they are sinful and that jesus died so that these sins would be forgiven, I don't understand how anyone can then argue that this is being held accountable for your responsibilities.

I also somewhat resent the implication that people who aren't christian are somehow not accepting of the fact that they sometimes do bad things. Did you honestly mean to say that or were you trying to get at something else?

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't made the claim that science has proven their existence. These are simply possibilities proposed by Christian scientists as to what could have happened. You however have claimed that science has disproved their existence. I'd be interested to hear as to how.

Ah, so you're using non-scientific ideas to counteract a scientific one. That doesn't hold any weight with me. If you say that christian scientists have come up with the idea, you're implying that the idea has a scientific basis. If there is no evidence and it's just a random idea that someone came up with, it's just an idea that has been come up with by some random person and the fact that they happen to be a scientist is irrelevant. Unless of course there is evidence, in which case I'd like to see it.

And simply speaking, in purely sexually reproductive organisms, a species with the diversity of the human race cannot have come about through 2 individuals (one of whom was made from the other's rib and should have the same DNA if I wanted to be really pedantic), unless you concede that the human race has existed in its current form for a lot longer than has been scientifically shown.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe this inclination would have occurred post the Fall of humanity. At least in a Christian sense.

Ah, so the fall of humanity is now a real thing? So adam and eve did exist? Or were they still among other people? And in that case, if they were among other people as neanderthals, I guess none of them ever "sinned" before that time? Or is that just another metaphor and and are you using a metaphorical argument about something that didn't happen to give explanations about human nature?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The Hebrew term for earth is eretz and it may also refer to land.
Fuller explanation can be found here. I'm not going to claim that I know 100%.

Do you believe that is what the original authors meant?

Or is it your believe that it had to have happened some how that forces you into that interpretation/context?

What is the Hebrew phrase used for all animals and all people? Are they also open to interpretation along the lines of a local flood?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a strawman as I don't believe what you've just attributed to me.

What do you believe is being described in the story of Noah, and do you believe that was what the authors were attempting to describe?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that they did but not as you describe.

Ok, how do you choose to interpret God being described as wiping out all people?

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't say that it is very unlikely, I would say at present we've not found archaeological evidence for it.

And archaeological against it. That would put it into the unlikely camp.

Jakkass wrote: »

You might want to tell that to himnextdoor.

Perhaps, though I don't think he is a Christian.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. I'm willing to admit that there are things described in the Bible for which there is no archaeological evidence yet. I'm also willing to admit that there is a huge amount in the Bible that we do have archaeological, historical and other forms of evidence for.

Are you willing to admit that the Bible attempts to describe things that didn't happen as they were meant to be understood? i.e that it is wrong?

Jakkass wrote: »

We've found evidence that they didn't happen as you describe.

Given that as I described was quotes from the Bible, that is the point.

Jakkass wrote: »

It supports many major claims, and points very strongly to the Resurrection which we've been through time and time again :pac:

This is what I'm talking about. You have decided (foolishly in my opinion, but that is a different matter) that the Resurrection happen and Jesus was the son of God.

This forces you into interpreting the rest of the Bible within a very limited context.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm willing to consider them, I would need a lot to convince me against the strong case that already exists for the Bible being as it is.

The strong case that God wiped out all humans and we are all descended from Noah?

If you think that is another "strawman" please explain how you interpret the Noah story.

krudler

Christianity is about acknowledging ones actions and being willing to change. Christianity is about bringing sin into the light and committing yourself to overturning it. It's also about restoring the greatest relationship ever known to man, that with God.

massive lol's at this, "great relationship"? that god who kills people he feels like, decimates entire regions with floods and judged all of mankind based on the actions of one? humans are like a battered wife in that relationship, if he didnt hit us, its cos he loves us, if he hits us, is to show that he loves us because of our actions.

Zombrex

krudler wrote: »

massive lol's at this, "great relationship"? that god who kills people he feels like, decimates entire regions with floods and judged all of mankind based on the actions of one? humans are like a battered wife in that relationship, if he didnt hit us, its cos he loves us, if he hits us, is to show that he loves us because of our actions.

Unfortunately this is mentally appealing to many. Which is why abusive relationships are so common and religion is so common I guess

krudler

Wicknight wrote: »

Unfortunately this is mentally appealing to many. Which is why abusive relationships are so common and religion is so common I guess

Yup, and then the "but its his will" arguments happen.

I had enough of this sh1t watching an aunt die a horrible, horrible death "god wanted her" was my deluded families reasoning, what utter fcuking bull****, really shows why christianity is such a ludicrous belief system.