The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

shizz · 12-10-2012 05:21PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

And you would honestly suggest that this would be a big enough advantage to affect the breeding population and hence become a selective trait?

Ever notice how women seem to like musicians a lot?

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 05:23PM

shizz wrote: »

Ever notice how women seem to like musicians a lot?

That must have (by definition) evolved after music

Benny_Cake · 12-10-2012 05:23PM

systemsready wrote: »

You are wrong there, you can only be a true jew by birth. through the mother.

No, I'm not wrong. Read this If you're interested.

shizz · 12-10-2012 05:24PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

That must have (by definition) evolved after music

Obviously? What's the problem?

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 05:27PM

shizz wrote: »

Obviously? What's the problem?

Then it wouldn't have affected the breeding population then.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:31PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

No, I'm not wrong. Read this If you're interested.

Not as easy as you say:

"Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity, a religion,[1] and citizenship, the definition of who is a Jew has varied, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic aspect was being considered"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

Lelantos · 12-10-2012 05:33PM

systemsready wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

So until you personally find Noah's ark on Mount Ararat, it remains something you heard in a pub on a Friday nite?

The difference is that what you tell me in a pub on a friday night ultimately is irrelevant, albeit important for you.
My sources of knowledge come from a tried and tested path. Beginning with;
Psalm 14:1-7
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Psalms from David, david gaining his knowledge from his predecessors back to Moses, and Moses getting his knowledge from God Almighty.
David giving his knowledge to Solomon and so on and so forth to all the Prophets all the way to John the baptist and Jesus. That knowledge has stood the test of time and will always stand the test of time. No other knowledge can refute it.
Not even something you "hear in a pub on a friday night"!

Sorry, but you have quoted a fairytale to try to prove an argument, ipso facto, argument invalid. I consider this the very essence of Friday nite pub talk.

shizz · 12-10-2012 05:33PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

Then it wouldn't have affected the breeding population then.

I'm exaggerating a bit here because I doubt it had a huge influence on it. But my point was it was a big social factor that would of had an impact on our evolution. Whether directly or not, it brought groups closer together and helped survival.

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 05:34PM

shizz wrote: »

I'm exaggerating a bit here because I doubt it had a huge influence on it. But my point was it was a big social factor that would of had an impact on our evolution. Whether directly or not, it brought groups closer together and helped survival.

OK then

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:34PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

No, I'm not wrong. Read this If you're interested.

A bit more of:

Judaism test
As of 2010, anyone who immigrated to Israel after 1990 and wishes to marry or divorce via the Jewish tradition within the state limits must go through a "Judaism test"[60] at a Rabbinical court. In this test, a person would need to prove their claim to be Jewish to an investigator beyond a reasonable doubt. They would need to present original documentation of their matriline up to their great-grandmother (4 generations)[61] (or, in the case of Ethiopian Jews, 7 generations back.[62]) In addition, they should provide government documents with nationality/religion shown as Jewish (e.g., birth/death certificates, marriage documents, etc.).
In the case of people whose original documents have been lost or never existed, it may take a lot of work to prove their being Jewish.[63] The courts rulings are not final, and any clerk has the power to question them[64] even 20 years later, changing one's citizenship status to "on hold", and putting them in jeopardy of deportation.[65]

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 05:38PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

a) Muhammed was a proven liar. He claimed to be illiterate before a miracle made him literate - odd that his work was influenced so much by existing literary traditions.
b)He only ever performed the above mentioned miracle. Moses did dozens

But surely this miracle was proof of his divine inspiration? The Koran is also a perfect document - this in itself is a miracle. So there's two miracles straight away.

Muhammed was a prophet like Moses, not a messiah.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:38PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

Muhumed selected an existing deity's name for his new creation.

http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d as Jews do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 05:39PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

The Bible only has one view. The Theosapy (not sure on spelling) and other texts differ for the Greeks

Yes, but only a few lunatics take the bible story literally - most recognise it as a simple creation myth for bronze-age illiterates.

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 05:40PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

Abram called God el-Ohim (not sure on spelling) - the Almighty One. It is the same name up until Moses. Jacob uses it too.

Right, but I'm talking about further back than Abraham and those lads.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:40PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Sorry, but you have quoted a fairytale to try to prove an argument, ipso facto, argument invalid. I consider this the very essence of Friday nite pub talk.

I think its your round!

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 05:41PM

systemsready wrote: »

http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d as Jews do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

The Bible claims a monopoly on spiritual truth. It calls Christ the stumbling block of the Jews. Jews are not righteous in the eyes of God because they refuse to recognize Jesus. The day Christ hung on the cross at Calvary was the day the Law ended

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2012 05:43PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

The Bible claims a monopoly on spiritual truth. It calls Christ the stumbling block of the Jews. Jews are not righteous in the eyes of God because they refuse to recognize Jesus. The day Christ hung on the cross at Calvary was the day the Law ended

Oh dear. This puts you in direct conflict with Systemsready, who says that the Law never ended.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:43PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, but only a few lunatics take the bible story literally - most recognise it as a simple creation myth for bronze-age illiterates.

I beg your pardon! Millions take the bible literally , if not at least a billion

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2012 05:44PM

J C wrote: »

Not in the least cornered ... but you guys are doing a great job turning the discussion onto all kinds of things ... and I just don't have the time to respond to everything.:)
There are legions of ye guys and just one of me.:)

Yes, it allows you to pick your targets. Generally ones lacking in scientific content. I find that strange given your much-touted background.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:44PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Oh dear. This puts you in direct conflict with Systemsready, who says that the Law never ended.

Me and Jan have parted ways a while back

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 05:44PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, but only a few lunatics take the bible story literally - most recognise it as a simple creation myth for bronze-age illiterates.

I take the Bible literally. I believe God may have aged the world and made look indistinguishable from a hundred billion year universe. Nevertheless I uphold the universe came into existence 6000 years ago.

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2012 05:45PM

systemsready wrote: »

Me and Jan have parted ways a while back

You've also parted ways with J_C on numerous points. You're actually more reasonable than him, which is more damning of J_C than it is complimentary towards you, unfortunately.

shizz · 12-10-2012 05:46PM

systemsready wrote: »

I beg your pardon! Millions take the bible literally , if not at least a billion

You realise that a billion is bigger than a million yes?

Also, if one seventh of the Earth's population takes the bible as literal truth I'd be shocked.

Any figures for that?

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2012 05:48PM

systemsready wrote: »

I beg your pardon! Millions take the bible literally , if not at least a billion

Millions probably, but not a billion I would hope. You don't even take it literally yourself. You deny the importance of the details!

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:49PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Millions probably, but not a billion I would hope. You don't even take it literally yourself. You deny the importance of the details!

I'm a separate case. I tend to form my own opinions of things.

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 05:51PM

systemsready wrote: »

I'm a separate case. I tend to form my own opinions of things.

Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you.

systemsready · 12-10-2012 05:52PM

Jan Hus wrote: »

Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you.

And he that accepteth without question tendeth to accept the words of man and not the words of God

Jan Hus · 12-10-2012 05:54PM

systemsready wrote: »

And he that accepteth without question tendeth to accept the words of man and not the words of God

Correct, but you do not question the Word Of God. You may question how men interpret it, but not it directly

shizz · 12-10-2012 05:54PM

systemsready wrote: »

I'm a separate case. I tend to form my own opinions of things.

A while a go you were saying not to question anything in the bible. Why would you form your own opinion on that?

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2012 05:54PM

systemsready wrote: »

I'm a separate case. I tend to form my own opinions of things.

Yeah, but your approach would actually be more common than that of the literalists. Most people, when they see conflicting opinions, will look for compromise of some sort, even if it's not empirically-based. J_C and others like him intuitively recognize the problem with that.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments