Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If extra terrestrial life was discovered

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Sometimes the thing I find most horrific about the things that many religious people say is that if you swap out God for Daddy they are basically the things that traumatised children say...

    I must be bad because Mommy and Daddy are good by default. Daddy hits me because he loves me, bad things happen because we arent good enough... its evil to not love Daddy.
    Now look what you made him do.

    The whole Adam and Eve fall story is like leaving your kids in a room with a bowl of sweets laced with poison. You told them not to eat the sweets, its their fault they got sick. Time to beat them and then try to get them to thank you for it.

    This is what I get when I read Phil's we're all bad and we know it deep down. We all deserve what ever nasty punishment that God would throw at us.


  • Options
    #93
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    The bible says Earth, the cradle of all life, was made first and then the rest of the universe was made afterwards. Also according to the bible, Jesus is going to come down, bring us all to heaven and then destroy the universe :( Poor aliens!!

    If these aliens never heard of a God or something similar will religious people start to question their beliefs? Will aliens think less of us for taking these fairytales so seriously? Will they have a religion of their own?

    And I'll ask in fairness, imagine if they came to Earth with their own bible and it was exactly like ours :O Would you start praying? :P


  • Options
    #94
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    Will aliens think less of us for taking these fairytales so seriously?

    I've actually thought about this. I would imagine that aliens, should they even be inclined to contact other species, would probably have a checklist for whether a species is worth contacting yet. Like

    - Has the species transitioned beyond a fossil fuel based economy to clean and sustainable energy (solar/fusion)?
    - Is there a unified planetary government?
    - Is there global parity of economic development, educational availability and infrastructure?
    - Has the species moved beyond superstition and magical belief?

    In this context the idea of actual violent war taking place between members of the same species, and having (lol) organised religion retain powerful political influence is rather laughably under-developed. I'd be tempted to add "Does the species still breed, raise and kill other animals for sustenance?" but that might seem preachy (filthy carnivores).

    Anyway, stop praying to the Sky-God, Mom, you're embarrassing us in front of the aliens.


  • Options
    #95
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    What I am arguing is that God as Creator of the world is the rightful Lord over it

    Tosh. I have one daughter. I do not own her despite being her part creator. I also live in a democracy where we elect our leaders. They do not elect themselves by declaring themselves lord and punishing with torture and worse any who disagree. No wonder Milton's Lucifer rebelled against such a Dictatorship. Not only is there no reason to think your above crap true... I am quite relieved there is no reason to think it true.
    philologos wrote: »
    It's entirely reasonable. It's more reasonable than the atheistic view concerning ethics and morality as I've pointed out on many occasions on this forum.

    No you have DECLARED this on many occasions but you have not explained it, supported it, backed it up, substantiated it or any of that. I am not sure how anyone can claim to have studied philosophy while acting like "If I say it often enough it will become true" is a valid line of debate.
    philologos wrote: »
    The atheist view of ethics is built on a shifting sand of good is whatever the heck I want it to be, and evil is whatever the heck I decide it to be.

    We have told you on innumerable occasions what forms of basis we use for morality and it is not as you paint it. What is it about you that you have this continued need to misrepresent our positions and ignore them when we explain them to you? You seem to think you know our positions better than we know them ourselves and that it is your job to explain our own thoughts to us while avoiding substantiating a single one of your own.
    philologos wrote: »
    because if these terms are not situated in an objective reality they are utterly meaningless.

    To you maybe but again we have told you on innumerable occasions what meaning they hold for us. You just ignore that, lay low awhile, and then find another thread to pop into to espouse the exact same tosh that these terms are meaningless to our worldviews.


  • Options
    #96
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    Zillah wrote: »
    I've actually thought about this. I would imagine that aliens, should they even be inclined to contact other species, would probably have a checklist for whether a species is worth contacting yet. Like

    - Has the species transitioned beyond a fossil fuel based economy to clean and sustainable energy (solar/fusion)?
    - Is there a unified planetary government?
    - Is there global parity of economic development, educational availability and infrastructure?
    - Has the species moved beyond superstition and magical belief?

    -Don't know that they'd have fossil fuels or fossil fuel analogues, or that they'd really care. Surely they could solve the problem for us by giving us better tech? Otherwise, dicks.
    -Don't know that they'd necessarily value this.
    -Again, don't think I'd assume they would value this.
    -Seems a bit more likely, but still, they may just have lucked into super-advanced tech or huge energy budgets; doesn't mean they've got refined epistemology.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    swampgas wrote: »
    Yet the fact that this hypothetical God you describe created the world this way doesn't make you wonder if maybe God couldn't have found a way to create a world without sin? Where punishment and wrath weren't required? Surely God must have wanted there to be sin, wrath and punishment?

    This largely comes down to whether or not God should have created robotic beings versus autonomous ones.
    swampgas wrote: »
    Sorry, it's a complete crock, I don't know how you keep convincing yourself otherwise.

    Believe me, I feel the very same about atheism particularly its position on moral action.
    Sin City wrote: »
    How does Jesus know no sin
    If he was human, then surely he was born with original sin like the rest of us. If he wasnt, then he wasnt fully human, so his death is meaningless.

    Christians don't believe that Jesus was human. Christians believe that Jesus was God who took on human form. It's an event referred to as the incarnation. A good passage to look to for a start on this would be Philippians 2:1-11. Christians will be celebrating this in about a months time. It's also important to note that Christians have traditionally believed Jesus to have been pre-eminent.

    If I actually believed that Jesus was entirely human, I'd understand your point entirely, but this isn't a Christian belief. You're right though, if Jesus were not God in human form His death would be entirely meaningless because He could never atone for sin. That's very perceptive of you.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Define evil? I have never done anything evil iv done wrong but nothing evil
    Synonyms
    adjective: wicked, bad, ill, vicious, malign, sinister, malicious, malignant, mischievous, maleficent, nasty, nefarious
    noun: harm, ill, mischief, wrong, disaster, wickedness, misfortune, vice, sin
    adverb: ill, badly, wrong


    We've all done what is wicked, bad, wrong, etc rather than doing what is good. Therefore we've all done evil.

    Honestly, if I look back through my own life, I can see that I would be a liar if I said that I hadn't done what is evil rather than what is good. Although, I guess if you think that evil is whatever you want it to be, and good is whatever you decide it is then evil and good no longer have any objective grounding and are meaningless. Considering that the world does not regard these terms as being meaningless, I'd hazard a guess and say that they are abundantly meaningful for a reason.

    God doesnt have to have had Jesus take our place, its his rules, and he could change them if he wanted.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Bollix, atheists can have morals and not becuase an imaginary deity demands it

    I've not said that atheists can't do what is good. What I have said is that atheism can't explain why people are inclined to do good. Or why the terms good and evil are meaningful, and have objective substance and meaning. The Christian gospel can.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Man can explain his position, you can argue with man and use reason and demand and recieve proof

    By man what do you mean? - Human kind in the absence of God? Or human kind in general? - If the former, I'd strongly disagree. I've posted on this subject time and time again, and I've seen the problems of moral subjectivism ignored. I was struck by the flaws of moral subjectivism whilst a philosophy student at university. The logic didn't hold together, and honestly I've not seen it explained to this day how it does. Even the most sophisticated philosophers who hold this position can't explain it.
    Sin City wrote: »
    What,??????? Are you serious?

    First off what if Jesus had been released? He couldnt have saved mankind for their sin could he? This is absolute bollix of the highest order

    I'm very serious. It's the most powerful image that exists in this world.

    In the Christian view Jesus did save mankind from their sin, by taking God's wrath in our place. I've posted about your position about Jesus being a human and so on up above. If you read that and have any thoughts post back to me.

    What if Jesus had been released? - If Jesus was meant to die on the cross (as Christians believe) as a part of God's sovereign plan for humanity even asking the question "what if Jesus had been released" doesn't make sense. If God had preordained the death of Christ as Christians believe in order to save humanity from sin, then there is no possible way that Jesus couldn't have died and indeed resurrected from the dead.

    Instead of complaining about it being "bollox" why don't you give me a reason as to why it is "bollox"? Then we can talk.
    robindch wrote: »
    If you took the five minutes to understand what non-religious people say about human behaviour, you'd also understand what a truly dumb comment that is.Ok, phil, I moderate this forum from time to time. Sticking to the preposterous model you propose, you really reckon that whenever somebody breaks the rules, I should nail myself to a tree to restore order?

    Are you mad?

    I've taken a lot longer than 5 minutes to walk though this.

    Not every analogy under the sun is going to work in respect to Jesus. There are a number of marked differences between you moderating this forum and Jesus crucified and resurrected. The better analogy (which Jesus Himself uses in a similar way in the New Testament) would be a debtor in court. The accused is in court charged with not repaying his debt, the judge looks at the law and although he sympathises with the plaintiff he orders him to repay the amount plus interest. After court the judge writes a cheque in full for the amount of the debt. The just penalty has been paid, the plaintiff is still declared guilty.

    God's justice and God's mercy met at the cross for much the same reason. Jesus paid the penalty we deserved to pay, we although guilty have been forgiven.

    I'm not really sure that it is preposterous when you take a long hard look at it.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    Phil, sorry for taking so long to get back to this, I had a few other things on my plate (no not the souls of unborn babies). I'm going to start with the last point you made in your reply to me.

    That's fine. If you don't get to post I understand this completely. Don't feel as if you owe me a response. I want this to be an interesting and fruitful discussion. I genuinely think we can reach a better understanding of the other if we are willing to listen to one another.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    No, I haven't read the bible. I have certainly read parts of it and I spent 18 years of my life going to mass every Sunday and day of "obligation" so I've heard a good bit of it but by no means would I pretend to have the same insight into it as you.

    I'm interested in this. To be honest with you, I read the Bible out of curiosity about 5 years ago. This is mostly why I am a Christian today. I read what it said and I thought long and hard about it. I looked into Jesus for myself, and I came to my own conclusion after mulling it over.

    I'm curious as to how you feel that you can criticise Christianity when you haven't engaged with what it claims about the world for yourself.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    There's no doubt in my mind that the writers of the bible intended that it be for "all nations". Of course the aim would be to spread it as far and wide as possible. The point I was making is that it was clearly written by someone with very little knowledge of the world outside the Middle East. All the stories and references they contain are centered around the customs, animals and culture of that part of the world. In a time when one side of the world didn't know the other existed why wasn't god making an effort to spread his word to every corner of the planet in a way that everyone could understand? Whey not let the Chinese in on the act given that they were more advanced in methods of recording the words of god/jesus. The reference to a camel fitting through the eye of a needle would have left a lot of Irish (or whatever name we were going by back then) scratching their heads given that they had never seen or heard of a camel.

    Which stories and which references are you talking about in particular? Honestly if I look through the Bible, although I can see things that do pertain to the region and the time, I can see far far more that pertains to us today in the 21st century. Even in the passages that do pertain to time and place if one takes a brief look at the situation at hand, or the places and the people involved one can see that these passages are applicable to us today. The Bible contains many genres, narrative, poetry, moral guidance, history and so on. It is by understanding properly what the Bible is and what it is intended to do that we can get a bigger picture of what it is about.

    By the by, about China - this is one of the regions where people are turning to Christianity. PDN on the Christianity forum has described much about his experiences in China if you search his name you'll probably find it. Historically Christianity did spread into China, but today Christianity accounts for about 10% of the Chinese population.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    So what's your point i hear you say!! Well it's this, the writings of the bible and the gospels in particular (which i believe are supposed to be the word of god?) were not universal and although you and the writers claim they were intended for all nation they are obviously the words of someone with limited knowledge of the world and universe around them.

    I'm sorry, but if you take even a cursory look at the Gospels you will see that they were intended for all men. Claiming that they weren't intended for all people when they specifically state that they were, and claiming that they weren't for all nations when people risked their lives to spread the Gospel to all nations sounds bizarre.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    I wouldn't say I consider god to be obliged to tell us anything, all i said is that i find it peculiar that he would choose not to at least mention some of the fairly massive things about the world in which he created. We're told all about how he created everything around us and it even goes into the detail about what order he created all these things in. In my mind it's a fairly major omission that he didn't say "on days 5 and 6 i created life on earth, but just so you know a few million years before that i created Dinosaurs but it didn't work out so I had to kill most of them off". That to me is a glaring omission that makes me think that "god" (by god i mean the people whos words we're really referring to) didn't know anything about dinosaurs and therefore couldn't write about them.

    What I'm getting at is why is it peculiar? I don't understand why it is bizarre that God wouldn't mention aliens in a book that is intended to be about His relationship with humanity.

    If you look at Genesis 1 you'll see that God starts with the earth. For the record, Genesis 1 is structured as a poetic account in the Biblical Hebrew. If you want further information on why I think this I can link you to some previous posts of mine.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    It would be the same if ET life arrived on Earth or was discovered, I'd be asking the question why was this left out, why is there another major omission in the list of things god did?

    I'd be asking what do you think the Bible is, and what was it intended to do?
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    You say "the Bible is about the holy and righteous God who created all things and how He relates to us", I'll accept that is the interpretation of some people and yourself but what gets me is if the bible is about how god relates to us then why is so much of it centered around us worshiping him and carrying out acts in his name. Why isn't it a book about all he has done for us and all the amazing acts he himself has done. It would make so much more sense and be infinitely more logical if it discussed things or at least referred to things in some small way that weren't common knowledge at the time of writing such as dinosaurs, the truth about the shape and age of the planet or the truth about the orbit of the Earth or who knows what other discoveries are yet to be made, and when we discover these things we can look to the bible and say wow thanks god for that little hint about what you had done you truly are an impressive god.

    Why is so much centered around worshipping Him? - I think more is centered around not ignoring something as fundamental to the nature of reality than that we were created by God. If we miss this, not only are we missing the point, we're missing the underlying reason of life itself. We are essentially wasting our lives if we put our focus onto what is fleeting and passing rather than considering the reality of our situation and coming to know the one who created us.

    I find that most objection to giving God due and just praise due to what He has done before us comes from the idea that God is somehow not deserving of praise. I don't give thanks to God because I have to, I give thanks to God because I want to, and because I can see for myself what He has done for me and how He has shown me immense mercy when I didn't deserve it at all.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    I suppose you'll tell me that belief is all about faith and god shouldn't need to be offering any hint of evidence towards his existence, but lets be honest here if the lads who wrote the bible were given a do-over and were allowed to use all the knowledge we have today the bible and the great works of god would read very differently to how it does now.

    Not at all. Faith is about trusting what God has done, it is about trusting the evidence that God has given us and about living our lives in the light of this.

    I don't believe that God hasn't given us any evidence, rather He has given us an abundance of evidence both in the eyewitness testimony that we've received concerning Jesus, and from looking around us and making sense of this Creation that we happen to find ourselves in. I don't share the view that there is no reason or no grounding to this reality, and that a God is gratuitous and unnecessary.


  • Options
    #98
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    The bible says Earth, the cradle of all life, was made first and then the rest of the universe was made afterwards. Also according to the bible, Jesus is going to come down, bring us all to heaven and then destroy the universe :( Poor aliens!!

    If these aliens never heard of a God or something similar will religious people start to question their beliefs? Will aliens think less of us for taking these fairytales so seriously? Will they have a religion of their own?

    And I'll ask in fairness, imagine if they came to Earth with their own bible and it was exactly like ours :O Would you start praying? :P

    I missed this.

    Can I ask you what Bible were you reading and what passage you were looking at? The Bible doesn't say that the universe was created after the earth. The "cradle of fire" notion also sounds quite interesting.


  • Options
    #99
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Could you possibly get back to Nozzie's posts you ran away from all those years ago? Because nothing you say has value until you do that.


  • Options
    #100
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    philologos wrote: »
    I missed this.

    Can I ask you what Bible were you reading and what passage you were looking at? The Bible doesn't say that the universe was created after the earth. The "cradle of fire" notion also sounds quite interesting.

    If you read Genesis it says the Earth was created first, then the stars, the moon and the sun.

    I don't what's so exciting about the Earth catching fire and being destroyed. You really believe this?


  • Options
    #101
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    If you read Genesis it says the Earth was created first, then the stars, the moon and the sun.

    I don't what's so exciting about the Earth catching fire and being destroyed. You really believe this?

    I'm confused as to what you're even attempting to argue here to be honest :confused:

    The passage starts off by saying in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was without form and void. This is where it starts.

    It doesn't say that the universe was created after the earth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    philologos wrote: »
    It doesn't say that the universe was created after the earth.

    But it does say that he created the light from the sun and the moon after the earth (first day), but before creating the actual sun and moon, and the stars, themselves (fourth day). And it says that the water in the sky is actually above it (ie in space) and that Heaven (with a capital H) is actually the sky, below the water that's in space. And that the waters of the sea are all in one place.

    Going by the nonsensical construction order, you'd have to wonder if god didn't just buy the universe flat packed from Ikea.


  • Options
    #103
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But it does say that he created the light from the sun and the moon after the earth (first day), but before creating the actual sun and moon, and the stars, themselves (fourth day). And it says that the water in the sky is actually above it (ie in space) and that Heaven (with a capital H) is actually the sky, below the water that's in space. And that the waters of the sea are all in one place.

    Going by the nonsensical construction order, you'd have to wonder if god didn't just buy the universe flat packed from Ikea.

    This is why I note that the passage is structurally written in a poetic form.

    The first and the fourth days match. (Let there be light - sun and moon created)
    second and fifth days (water and sea creatures)
    third and sixth (land and animals).


  • Options
    #104
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    Phil,

    Most of what you posted above in reply to me is based on your interpretation of the bible, other groups interoperate it entirely differently so who's to say who's right, if anyone is.

    As I said previously, I accept that the writers of the bible intended for it to travel to all nations but what I cannot accept is that if it contains the word of a god who wanted it to be universally accepted why was it not written in a manner in which it could be universally understood. Even to this day people are taking from the bible what they want to take from it.

    As far as I can see from my limited reading of it the only cultures referenced by the writers are ones that middle eastern people of that time had knowledge of. The stories that contain references to animals only refer to animals present in that environment. The geographical references to mountains and seas are again specific to the middle east.

    Why would god only carry out his works in that part of the world. I think it's far more likely that the bible was written by people who intended for it to travel but lacked the knowledge to write it in a manner that showed a true understanding of the world and the universe.

    All of this is merely my opinion much like how your interpretation of the bible is your opinion so we could easily end up going around in circles here and I'm hoping to avoid that. If you have examples of writings which show a greater understanding of the world than I'm giving credit for I'd be very interested in hearing them.


  • Options
    #105
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm confused as to what you're even attempting to argue here to be honest :confused:

    The passage starts off by saying in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was without form and void. This is where it starts.

    It doesn't say that the universe was created after the earth.

    I don't want to get bogged down in details or drag this off topic, but universe I don't mean the literal universe, maybe substitute Milky Way. Genesis 1:14-1:18. He made Earth, then the moon, sun and stars. No mention of another planet with life, you'd think the Bible would. (should aliens be found)

    And you avoided my question about the Earth being destroyed by a great ball of fire.


  • Options
    #106
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    This is why I note that the passage is structurally written in a poetic form.

    The first and the fourth days match. (Let there be light - sun and moon created)
    second and fifth days (water and sea creatures)
    third and sixth (land and animals).

    when was Earth created?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #107
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    :/

    That would be after he made the Earth.

    But that stuff is all make believe imo.


  • Options
    #108
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Ooh! He's pretending to ignore me too now! I guess philly's bible really does instruct him to run away from difficult questions.

    I should make an Xbox achievement for it...


  • Options
    #109
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    philologos wrote: »
    This is why I note that the passage is structurally written in a poetic form.

    The first and the fourth days match. (Let there be light - sun and moon created)
    second and fifth days (water and sea creatures)
    third and sixth (land and animals).

    Not many poems mistake rhyming schemes for chronological order. Even at that, the source of the light is made after the light itself.


  • Options
    #110
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bloodwing wrote: »
    Phil,

    Most of what you posted above in reply to me is based on your interpretation of the bible, other groups interoperate it entirely differently so who's to say who's right, if anyone is.

    If we're going to get into Biblical interpretation, I'm going to need to assume that you have:
    1) Clear passages in mind to bring up to show my opinion to be mistaken,
    2) Examples of other interpretations of the passages that I have brought up.

    If we don't have 1 or 2 we are engaging in whataboutery rather than a tangible discussion about what the Bible means.

    To say that other groups "interpret it differently" without giving me clear examples of what you mean seems meaningless.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    As I said previously, I accept that the writers of the bible intended for it to travel to all nations but what I cannot accept is that if it contains the word of a god who wanted it to be universally accepted why was it not written in a manner in which it could be universally understood. Even to this day people are taking from the bible what they want to take from it.

    Again, if we're going to get into a discussion with examples of people taking what they want from the Bible. We need to have a discussion about what you mean and what specific passages you have in mind.

    Honestly from engaging with the Scriptures over the last few years, it would take a heck of a lot of mental gymnastics to claim that the New Testament doesn't proclaim that Jesus came into the world to save mankind from their sin by standing in their place on the cross.

    The Bible for the most part can be understood and can be read clearly.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    As far as I can see from my limited reading of it the only cultures referenced by the writers are ones that middle eastern people of that time had knowledge of. The stories that contain references to animals only refer to animals present in that environment. The geographical references to mountains and seas are again specific to the middle east.

    Not exclusively. After the Resurrection and ascension of Jesus the Apostles went into the Gentile world proclaiming the Gospel. The fruit of which is that people like me had the chance to hear about the Gospel and in turn to share that with others around me whether it be family, friends, work colleagues and so on.

    There's a distinction - just because the events concerning Jesus happened in Israel, doesn't mean that the message is confined to Israel. Jesus is abundantly clear in the Bible that the good news that He came to rescue sinners is for the entire world.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    Why would god only carry out his works in that part of the world. I think it's far more likely that the bible was written by people who intended for it to travel but lacked the knowledge to write it in a manner that showed a true understanding of the world and the universe.

    This presumes that God isn't living and active in the world today in the lives of Christians. Just because Jesus came to Israel does not mean that God was confined to Israel or has been since His arrival. What it does mean is that God established His covenant to all people beginning at Jerusalem and from that point on to the entire globe.

    I don't see that just because the Biblical events took place in the Middle East that somehow it shows that Christianity wasn't intended for the entire world. It seems like you aren't making the distinction between the message that is being proclaimed and the place where it was proclaimed and indeed the reality that Jesus Himself told His followers to proclaim the Gospel and to make disciples in all nations baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:20).
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    All of this is merely my opinion much like how your interpretation of the bible is your opinion so we could easily end up going around in circles here and I'm hoping to avoid that. If you have examples of writings which show a greater understanding of the world than I'm giving credit for I'd be very interested in hearing them.

    I don't agree. I find it remarkable that most Christians I've met irrespective of denomination have come to largely the same conclusion concerning the Bible. If you actually give the Biblical text a chance, and if you actually give Jesus and His word a chance, you might actually see this for yourself.

    A challenge I'd give you is to read Mark's gospel from the New Testament, you could probably read it in about an hour, although I'd encourage you to spend a few days on it. If you haven't given Jesus' words a fair hearing, how can you be sure if what you are saying about them is even correct?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Not many poems mistake rhyming schemes for chronological order. Even at that, the source of the light is made after the light itself.

    You do realise that the Genesis 1 account is a translation from Hebrew to English?


  • Options
    #111
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Sarky wrote: »
    Ooh! He's pretending to ignore me too now! I guess philly's bible really does instruct him to run away from difficult questions.

    I should make an Xbox achievement for it...

    Well you did mention nozz in your post so he's going "miss" that post. It seems to be that any mention of nozz causes random activation of the ignore feature :eek::pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    It's a temperamental little thing, isn't it? Phil, are you sure you're a programmer?


  • Options
    #113
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Phil and his unshakeable tower of faith aside...
    I believe we were talking about how discovering alien life would effect people.
    Obviously as we know people are good at rationalisation so many would just fold it into their situation.
    So let's say we pick up signals from a star 50 ly away and we decode them as their version of TV.
    We've just started receiving their signals and that means they've just started to get ours. It'll be another 50 years before we start to see their reaction so we get to watch 50 years of their news and what ever crazy tv programming... they watch our tv and so there is a 100 year getting to know year period before either starts to see the others reaction...
    Now we know Phil's reaction would be "wow, aliens, ding no effect on my position"
    But what about other sorts of Christians...
    The ones that have straight up said there is no life else where in the universe because they're not mentioned in genesis?


  • Options
    #114
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    :/

    That would be after he made the Earth.

    But that stuff is all make believe imo.

    This doesn't say that God created the universe after the earth if one actually considers verse 1:1.

    Other passages in the Hebrew Scriptures use the same term as in Genesis 1:1 to describe the sky. For example Psalm 19:1.
    Psalm 19:1 wrote:
    The heavens declare the glory of God,
    and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

    The word for sky in the Hebrew is the same as the word used for expanse in the Genesis 1 passage. The heavens and the earth were already created in verse 1:1 of Genesis. Where we start off is that the earth was without form and void.

    Irrespective of whether or not it is make believe, you should try and understand what Christians believe before criticising it.


  • Options
    #115
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    philologos wrote: »

    If we're going to get into Biblical interpretation, I'm going to need to assume that you have:
    1) Clear passages in mind to bring up to show my opinion to be mistaken,
    2) Examples of other interpretations of the passages that I have brought up.

    If we don't have 1 or 2 we are engaging in whataboutery rather than a tangible discussion about what the Bible means.

    To say that other groups "interpret it differently" without giving me clear examples of what you mean seems meaningless.



    Again, if we're going to get into a discussion with examples of people taking what they want from the Bible. We need to have a discussion about what you mean and what specific passages you have in mind.

    Honestly from engaging with the Scriptures over the last few years, it would take a heck of a lot of mental gymnastics to claim that the New Testament doesn't proclaim that Jesus came into the world to save mankind from their sin by standing in their place on the cross.

    The Bible for the most part can be understood and can be read clearly.



    Not exclusively. After the Resurrection and ascension of Jesus the Apostles went into the Gentile world proclaiming the Gospel. The fruit of which is that people like me had the chance to hear about the Gospel and in turn to share that with others around me whether it be family, friends, work colleagues and so on.

    There's a distinction - just because the events concerning Jesus happened in Israel, doesn't mean that the message is confined to Israel. Jesus is abundantly clear in the Bible that the good news that He came to rescue sinners is for the entire world.



    This presumes that God isn't living and active in the world today in the lives of Christians. Just because Jesus came to Israel does not mean that God was confined to Israel or has been since His arrival. What it does mean is that God established His covenant to all people beginning at Jerusalem and from that point on to the entire globe.

    I don't see that just because the Biblical events took place in the Middle East that somehow it shows that Christianity wasn't intended for the entire world. It seems like you aren't making the distinction between the message that is being proclaimed and the place where it was proclaimed and indeed the reality that Jesus Himself told His followers to proclaim the Gospel and to make disciples in all nations baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:20).



    I don't agree. I find it remarkable that most Christians I've met irrespective of denomination have come to largely the same conclusion concerning the Bible. If you actually give the Biblical text a chance, and if you actually give Jesus and His word a chance, you might actually see this for yourself.

    A challenge I'd give you is to read Mark's gospel from the New Testament, you could probably read it in about an hour, although I'd encourage you to spend a few days on it. If you haven't given Jesus' words a fair hearing, how can you be sure if what you are saying about them is even correct?



    You do realise that the Genesis 1 account is a translation from Hebrew to English?

    Do they Mormons not interoperate the bible differently to how the catholic church interoperate it? Does Fred Phelps not interoperate it differently to you? I don't think quoting passages is necessary here Phil as its common knowledge that throughout the years different interpretations of the bible have been put forward by different groups.

    The catholic churches interpretation changes fairly regularly on different topics, up to but not exclusive to evolution. So I don't think it's right to claim that everyone who reads the bible interoperates it the same way. I know there are people in this forum who have read it and believe it to be full of rubbish.

    And again Phil I know the word was spread, I can see that every time I drive past a church. The point is it was written be people with a limited knowledge of the universe around them, it was written by someone who only knew of their immediate surroundings and therefore isn't universal, but as I said I'm open to hearing examples of scriptures that show a knowledge of the rest of the world. I'll give Marks gospel a try if it's relevant to some of the points I've made. Does it show a knowledge of the world outside of the middle east?


  • Options
    #116
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Bloodwing wrote: »
    Do they Mormons not interoperate the bible differently to how the catholic church interoperate it? Does Fred Phelps not interoperate it differently to you?

    Yes, but they got it wrong. Only Phil knows the Truth.

    Regarding the actual point of this thread, religious people have proven good at ignoring reality before. I have little doubt they'd manage to conveniently ignore extraterrestrial life in favour of jebubs.


  • Options
    #117
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    when was Earth created?

    More than likely 4.54 billion years ago. The Bible doesn't specify a date for creation, or define how long it was ago.


  • Options
    #118
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    More than likely 4.54 billion years ago. The Bible doesn't specify a date for creation, or define how long it was ago.

    the bible gives a window of 6 days and you don't know which day the planet was created? You'd think the bible would mention when our planet was created.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #119
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bloodwing wrote: »
    Do they Mormons not interoperate the bible differently to how the catholic church interoperate it? Does Fred Phelps not interoperate it differently to you? I don't think quoting passages is necessary here Phil as its common knowledge that throughout the years different interpretations of the bible have been put forward by different groups.

    Mormons don't believe in the same faith as Christians. Their beliefs are largely based on the Book of Mormon in addition to Scripture.

    Fred Phelps arguably puts more emphasis on certain passages while ignoring others to suit an agenda.

    Even if I am to look at the claim that Christianity is entirely subjective to the individual as to what it is (I don't believe that is true for a second, but lets go with it), there's only so far one can go with that position while believing that there is an objective God over Creation. If there is an objective God, then not everything can be true about Him. This brings our definition of God back to Him, not to us.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    The catholic churches interpretation changes fairly regularly on different topics, up to but not exclusive to evolution. So I don't think it's right to claim that everyone who reads the bible interoperates it the same way. I know there are people in this forum who have read it and believe it to be full of rubbish.

    From studying the Bible with people from a wide range of denominations from Brethren, to Roman Catholics, to Pentecostals and varying shades inbetween. There is very little difference between them in respect to Scripture.

    The best evidence against the claim that the Bible can't be actually understood hypothesis would be to do what I challenged you to do. Read Mark's Gospel and see how much of it you can understand. It's only 16 chapters. If the claim doesn't arise out of a genuine and a sincere attempt to investigate, one can only meet that claim with skepticism.
    Bloodwing wrote: »
    And again Phil I know the word was spread, I can see that every time I drive past a church. The point is it was written be people with a limited knowledge of the universe around them, it was written by someone who only knew of their immediate surroundings and therefore isn't universal, but as I said I'm open to hearing examples of scriptures that show a knowledge of the rest of the world. I'll give Marks gospel a try if it's relevant to some of the points I've made. Does it show a knowledge of the world outside of the middle east?

    Again, I don't know if that is true though. What basis are you claiming that people had a "limited knowledge of the universe"? Rather what makes you think that their view is essentially a huge amount more limited than ours is?

    You seem to be saying that because the events that are described in the Gospels took place in Israel that it means that the Gospel doesn't have meaning or significance outside of Israel. Demonstrably that's false, and the Gospel was intended to go to all nations.

    I'd recommend reading Mark's Gospel and thinking it through. Feel free to PM me with any thoughts that you have. I'd be very interested to hear them.


  • Options
    #120
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Not every analogy under the sun is going to work in respect to Jesus.
    Er, no analogy works in respect to Jesus because the story is nonsense, it fits no notion of justice anyone has ever heard of, God killed his own son, who was utterly innocent, in order to avoid punishing us.

    The closest analogy is a father who is humiliated at work but for some reason can't punish those who humiliated him so he goes homes and beats his wife and children instead. "Justice" as Christians would say, after all someone got a beating, and that is the important thing, right? Doesn't matter if the person getting the beating is innocent, has nothing to do with those who are actually guilty and who's suffering actually negatively effects the father (ie the father gains nothing from his wife and children suffering). So long as some one suffers, justice is served. Surprised that isn't on a plaque in my local court house :rolleyes:
    philologos wrote: »
    There are a number of marked differences between you moderating this forum and Jesus crucified and resurrected. The better analogy (which Jesus Himself uses in a similar way in the New Testament) would be a debtor in court. The accused is in court charged with not repaying his debt, the judge looks at the law and although he sympathises with the plaintiff he orders him to repay the amount plus interest. After court the judge writes a cheque in full for the amount of the debt. The just penalty has been paid, the plaintiff is still declared guilty.

    How utterly disingenuous of you :rolleyes:

    Try that again properly this time where the judge himself is the person who the debt is owed to. See if it makes sense then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    the bible gives a window of 6 days and you don't know which day the planet was created? You'd think the bible would mention when our planet was created.

    I've explained my position on Genesis very clearly on boards.ie before. I've given justification from the passage in those posts to suggest that 'yom' in the Hebrew in that passage can be used to refer to a longer period of time. Given the poetic structure of Genesis 1 and 2 this holds a lot of water:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78454413
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78457196

    Perhaps I should put those in my signature so that people can more easily access them.


Advertisement