- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
“have you read the book of genisis????”
No, I have to admit, I have not. I have, however, read the Book of Genesis. You should, too. When you do, you’ll find that God supposedly made our sun before the stars, or, at the same time He made the other stars, meaning no other star is older than ours. But perhaps dating stars is something only those stupid scientists do, and the Bible has it right. Or, perhaps, you’ve figured a “day” means something else in this context and is just one of many times what the Bible says and what you choose to believe is dissonant-yet-literal. In any case, consider this:
Genesis 1:3 through 1:31 says God created the universe in six days. Later, in Genesis 2:4, it looks like the whole thing took only one - [4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,] But let’s not bother with trivialities when there’s real work to do. Following 2:4, we get a recap of the creation story, and it seems to be talking about a different planet altogether.
Chapter 1 has fruit trees created before Man and Woman. In Chapter 2 it’s Man, fruit trees, then Woman.
Chapter 1 describes God had “…the waters bring forth…fowl”. Chapter 2 has God forming them “…out of the ground.”
Chapter 1 has God creating fish on the 5th day. Chapter 2 fails to mention fish at all.
Chapter 1 has animals created before Man and Woman. In Chapter 2 it’s Man, animals, then Woman.
It might be interesting to consider, unlike the science books you so despise, the Bible describes the firmament as something solid. This solid thing is between two sources of water. This solid thing is also Heaven.
[6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.]
This firmament is what God attaches the Sun, Moon and Stars to.
In fact on the day God made the stars, He also re-made the sun (remember the first time, when God made light, divided it from darkness calling it day and night and thus occasioning the first “day”?), and He made the moon; He indicated one of their purposes would be for “signs”, which I suppose should compel you to check your horoscope.
So, all this is clear and concise, how?
But perhaps my whole reply is unnecessary if your Book of ‘Genisis’ sets the record straight? All ribbing aside, how can you ask if I’ve read the darn thing if you don’t even know there are these ridiculous contradictions and inconstancies? You’ll find most atheists know the bible exceedingly well…that’s often a big part of why they’re atheists!
So, I know I've not misquoted anything. I also can't see context being an issue, I mean heck, we're not even out of Book 1, Chapter 2 for pity's sake.
I hope you can set me straight here, Jeremyfergus, because right now it looks like you've never read a word of Genesis and are preaching out of your divine derriere.
"If this being is omni-benevolent as well as omnipotent, it seems contradictory they would create a universal law which not only allows evil to exist, but deems it necessary to exist."
This takes care of omni-benevolent. Unless of course Dani's point is evil is proof of God's benevolence, given that it's a critical component of our exercise of free-will. This begs why he would punish us for exercising it in the first place. Certainly to the degree that the entire human race is cursed to be born in sin for one mistake of being tempted by knowledge. This seems like teaching a child about the dangers of fire by having her hold her hand over a match for a moment to see how it can hurt, vs burning the hand away altogether. All in the name of love.
"It's also paradoxical that God's existence could rely on a rule of His own creation."
This should cover omniscient...I mean, if He knows everything, He would certainly know that!
With regard to its role and impact, the Bible is a tremendously important text and should be understood. Not only does if frame many of the social and cultural paradigms that influence our daily lives, it represents one of the most destructive mass psychosis to grip our planet.
The more the Bible is understood, the greater the comprehension of its clear roots as a document of superstition and ancient ignorance is enabled.
The Bible itself is the greatest tool for rational thought there is...no sane person with an open mind could possibly be compelled to accept it as a genuine representation of anything but what it is: ancient myth.
"Well the reason why God said to take a lamb and sacrifice it was because to symbolize that, the lamb was representing Jesus that He died for us because we have sinned."
I think you're tying to say that Jesus was representing the Lamb. And I understand the ontological rationale.
But your conclusion "So now you must believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, do His will and live a life according to what the Bible says and teaches us." Still ignores my point. As you make clear, without giving Jesus your oath of acknowledgement, you are to be tortured forever. All the rest is window dressing to the issue at hand. All the good works one could do, all the sacrifice, selflessness and sincere dedication to the principles of Jesus' message means nothing. You will be boiled in a lake of fire for eternity for withholding your fealty.
If God is love, and he's willing to create you only so he can torture you if you fail to thank him for creating you in the first place, how is that love? Before I'm tempted to conclude the whole thing stinks like what it is...a bronze age take on the master-servant relationship between Gods and Men...you'll have to answer that one.
Where's the love?
"Well they only way to avoid eternal torture is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"
So, that's the deal you believe evidences love? Well, actually, let's forget the love part; it's so far down the list of why what you describe is morally wrong it's almost inconsequential.
Let's get this right: God creates Man. Man makes one mistake (yielding to the desire for knowledge, BTW). God curses Man and as a result the entire race is henceforth created in sin. We are thereafter born, by God's design, in sin. As a result of this designed defect, God arranges a blood sacrifice to Himself, to save us from the nature He created us with...but wait, there's nothing in all of this that concerns sin! It is rather, as a condition of avoiding eternal torture, that we acknowledge the sacrifice to Himself God arranged and believe it occurred the way He said it did. Sin's got nothin' to do with it? Where in this whole arrangement does sin come into it?
Are you Sunni? If so, which Madhhab: Maliki, Shafi`i, Manbali, Hanafi group do you identify with? How about Shi'ah? If so, Ismailism (Dawoodi Bohra, Sulamimani Bohra, Hebtiahs Hohra, Alavi Bohra, Mutaali, Nizazi, Druz, Atbi-I-Malak), Twelver (with crossover elements to the Ismailist branches and Alevi and the Sufi-oriented Bektashi). How about Alawi, or Zaidiyyah? How 'bout Sufism and their branches like Naqshbandi, Uwaiysi, Naqshbandi, Suhrawardiyya, Qadiri, Mauride, Shadhili, Mevlevi, and Tijaniyyah? Then there's Quranism and it's various sects. And don't forget Mahdavism, Moorish Science, Messiah Foundation International, or everybody's favorite Non-Branch the Nation of Islam.
"well islam doesnt branch off for one .......................................
"...humans are naturally stubborn and dont want to change their ways." Humans are the dominant species on the planet because they possess the ability to adapt. Left to their own devices humans will embrace change towards advancement of objectives. This is where religion retards tolerance. The dominant religions achieved domination through suppression/isolation of opposing dogma. Consider Christianity's inquisitions and crusades, Islam's fatwas and Judaism's cultural isolation. If one recognizes the objective of religions is conversion to the One True Word, one sees it is not stubborn human nature that is to blame.
Oh, and "...so many people who accept people of any religion and aren't critical?" What planet are you on?
If the God in question is the Theist's God, then he is omniscient and sees everything under the heavens, including CreateDebate.
If the God in question is the Deist's God, then He probably has better things to do.
If the God in question is the Rationalist's view of God, this all makes for entertaining reading.