• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Creationism vs. Evolution - A Culture Divided

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Suzanne

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Book General
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:51 pm
14
Location: New Jersey
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 399 times

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
God did not murder them all. He murdered almost all. Almost all does not equal all.
"He murdered almost all"

"Almost all does not equal all"

This is sickening to me, and the most frightening aspect of religion. How can anyone worship a god that murders "almost all" creatures on a whim? And the few left are considered superior?

Is this a way of rationalizing the murder of innocent people who God worshiping people feel to be substandard? Is this how members of the KKK feel when they murder innocent people? Was this the mentality of the Third Reich? Is this the thought behind hate killings and the bombing of clinics and the killing of doctors who perform abortions? Are these sickening murderers just doing "Gods work" ridding the planet of defective people?

In my opinion, the answer to all of these questions is yes.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Unread post

Noah preached for repentence for 100 years before the flood. The people chose destruction over salvation just as they do now and will in the future. The people who died in the flood were not innocent. The Bible says that all they did, all they thought about was evil.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Make a suggestion for it in the fiction section Star, I'm sure it will get some votes.

Done, please vote for it.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Unread post

Frank 013 wrote:
Star
Please be more careful in your replies, I did not say the first commandment, I said the greatest commandment.

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


First of all the greatest commandment even according to what you have just supplied is not “love thy neighbor” but (of course) “love god”… why am I not surprised? :hmm:

The god character is a narcissistic, insane, murderous, whack job… is that what you worship?

Besides, I addressed your explanation before you responded… you should read the posts more carefully… if you want to set Jesus’ teachings above those of the Old Testament then you need to explain why those teachings are more significant…

Because the teachings of Jesus are not even commandments, nor did he say that they replace the commandments of old or should be added to them.

So I do not see why those stories and teachings should come before what god himself handed to Moses… god is perfect… remember?

In addition, the Jesus character himself said that he was not on earth to change the old laws.

Later


Stahrwe says: You are assuming that my quoting of Jesus regarding the greatest commandment elevated the teaching of the NT above that of the OT. Your assumption, in this case, is based on your lack of knowlege of and familiarity with the OT. Jesus was quoting from specific passages in the OT which distilled the 10 Commandments into two over-arching principles which, if followed, would result in establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let me know if you can't find the verses on your own.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.



That should do for now.

Stahrwe says. All of the objetions are very old saws which, as pointed out previously are addressed by any basic apolgetics website. If you want to have a serious discussion I suggest that we have a study of the enire Bible. My answer to the above question as it appears in ISBN ISBN-13: 978-1-6064-3081-1

Appendix I - Zelophehad’s Daughters And The Geneologies

Every year the media trot out the “experts” to educate the unwashed masses about Christmas. Invariably those “experts” consist of “scholars” from The Jesus Seminar, or similar groups. They sound impressive as they advise that most of what the Bible records about the birth of Jesus is not intended to be taken literally, afterall, the genealogies of Jesus as recorded by Mathew, and Luke do not even match, and they are correct, they do not. Why would they? Each of us has a family tree that has two main branches; our mother’s, and our father’s.

The issue we immediately encounter with Jesus’ genealogies is that neither identifies itself as Mary’s while both refer to Joseph. If you are already predisposed to believe that Jesus was just a great teacher, and that is all, this would be reason enough to stop, and say the Bible is not trustworthy because it does not even report the family tree of Jesus correctly. But wait a minute, Matthew Chapter 1 verse 11 reads, “…and Josiah begat Jechoniah, and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.”

Jechoniah was also known as Coniah, and in Jeremiah we find:
Jeremiah 22
24As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah wore the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;…28Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he, and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?…30Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Note: No descendant of Coniah will ever sit on the throne of David. Based on this passage, Joseph, and his descendants are excluded from being able to lay claim that throne. So we are finished! Jesus had no right the claim to be king of the Jews therefore, he was not the Messiah.
Not so fast, there is another genealogy, the one in Luke. In it there is no offending Coniah, and while it does not say that it is the genealogy of Mary, it does begin in an interesting way;

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,…

Note, it does not say this is the genealogy of Joseph, nor does it say that Jesus was Joseph’s son. The wording implies that people said that he was Joseph’s son. Based on that it is not unreasonable to assume that the Luke genealogy is that of Mary, that would mean that Jesus inherited the claim to David’s throne through her, and not Joseph, but that is not how inheritance worked, it was passed down from father to oldest son, so once again it appears that we are stuck. But appearances in this case are wrong.

In some rather obscure passages in the Old Testament, we encounter Zelophehad’s daughters. When Moses was advising how property was to be divided in the Promised Land these daughters approached him:
Numbers 26

33And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters:, and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

Numbers 27
1Then came the daughters of Zelophehad…
2And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest,…saying, 3Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. 5And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. 6And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 7The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren;, and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. 8And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

So God said that women could inherit from their father provided that he had no sons, but this created a controversy:

Numbers 36
2… my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters. 3And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance. … 5And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. 6This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. 7So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. 8And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. 9Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance. 10Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad: 11For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their fathers brothers' sons: 12And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.

The sons of Joseph were complaining that if a woman inherited from her father, and married outside her tribe, then her inheritance would pass to her husband’s tribe. The ruling was that the inheritance would pass to the daughter of a man with no sons provided that she married within her own tribe.

Joshua 17
3But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters:, and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 4And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.

These women were persistent, and got their inheritance.
Returning to Jesus’ genealogies, Joseph was excluded from inheriting the right to claim the throne of David. Mary would be able to claim that right provided that her father had no sons, that she was of the tribe of Judah, and that she married within the tribe of Judah.

Assuming that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s, it establishes that she is a descendant of Judah via David, and therefore would be eligible to inherit from her father, provided that she was the oldest, and had no brothers. So why bother with Joseph’s genealogy at all? Because it had to be established that Mary married within her tribe. The genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph descended from Judah via David. This validates Mary’s right to inherit from her the claim to David’s throne, and since Jesus was Mary’s son, but not Joseph’s, he also had a legitimate right to be King of his people.

As you encounter these pieces in the Bible, several things become evident. First, the story of the Daughters of Zelophehed pops up several times. Paper was expensive when the scriptures were written, so to devote so much space to this story seems to demand our attention. Second, it is amazing that pieces from Numbers are critical to solving a puzzle presented in Matthew, and Luke, and that all of the pieces are necessary to complete the story.
User avatar
Suzanne

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Book General
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:51 pm
14
Location: New Jersey
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 399 times

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
God did not murder them all. He murdered almost all. Almost all does not equal all.
stahrwe wrote:
The people chose destruction over salvation just as they do now and will in the future.
People choose to be murdered, and will continue to do so now, and in the future. You truly believe this don't you?

I wish you were a troll.

Maybe you are, lurking underneath a bridge waiting to eat the unsuspecting "unwashed" creatures that inhabit this earth.

I do not believe in vampires or ghosts or witches, although they are fun to read about. You, however, present true horror, and this horror will not go away with the closing of a books cover. You are steadfast in your attitude of hate, bigotry and oppresion which excelerates which each new post you make. You offer nothing in regard to useful knowledge or purposeful discussion. The only purpose you have is to make the skin crawl.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Unread post

Star
Noah preached for repentance for 100 years before the flood.
Did he? Show me some evidence that he even existed, let alone preached for a hundred years and I might begin to consider it.
Star
The people chose destruction over salvation just as they do now and will in the future.


No intelligent person chooses destruction when the danger is real and when the choice presented is a rational one; it is simply not believable that the whole population of the planet would think in one way (except for a small handful of people). And what of the great masses of people who would not have been able to hear Noah? Like the Asians? Or the American Indians? People continents away would never even been given the chance to repent... I guess that they were just S.O.L. huh?

Speaking of which, how did we get different races of humans if we all came from such a small sampling of DNA? How did animals get geographically isolated if they all got off the boat on one mountain top? How did Noah get the millions of species of animals onto an Ark that simply would not fit them all… was it a magic ark… was it bigger on the inside than on the outside?

Of course that’s not even considering food and water for all of the creatures for more than a month.
Star
The people who died in the flood were not innocent. The Bible says that all they did, all they thought about was evil.
“The bible says”… just so you know that holds absolutely no credibility to the rational, but lets go with it for a moment…

So the newborn babies were EVIL too? And what about the animals… all of the cute little kittens and puppies… were they EVIL as well?

I suppose the fact that the archeological and historical records don’t show this to be true doesn’t bother you either?

Your position seems to be what science agrees with the bible you will gladly assimilate, as you did with the stars and sand comparison (even though comparing sand to stars now seems like it might be a woefully bad underestimation) but when science does not side with the bible then science must be wrong?

You would side with the Bronze Age material written when man’s knowledge was still in its infancy; and trust that over the proven methods of science? You know the method that coded DNA… harnessed electricity… split the atom.

Your level of delusion boggles the mind.

Later
Last edited by Frank 013 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:45 am, edited 3 times in total.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar
Interbane

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Star: "The people chose destruction over salvation just as they do now and will in the future."

Most of the people who choose destruction are those who are convinced about some ideology. A few cults come to mind. No rational person chooses destruction. Religious people may think that by not believing, all the non-believers are destined to destruction. Quite the incentive to believe, don't you think? This among many false incentives has you hooked my friend.
User avatar
CWT36
Sophomore
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:04 pm
14
Location: Riverhead, Long Island
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:Chris,

so why don't we have a discussion of the Bible? Several people have challenged me to refute or respond to numerous inconsistencies and problematic verses. So why not bite the bullet and tackle the whole Bible?
I think there is little use in discussing the minutiae of the Bible for many reasons. You have asserted several times that the arguments presented here are all very old arguments and have already been answered. The problem is they have not been answered.

You want to discuss the Bible, but you base all of your arguments to support the Bible by citing the Bible. It is simple circular logic.

You come to the argument with an assumption, the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of god. We don't hold that assumption. Where, other than the Bible, is the proof that the Bible is inerrant? There is none. The contradictions, the scientific impossibilities are pointed out, and you have no answer for them that stands outside of the Bible.

You want to have a discussion about the Bible? Fine. I want to include topics like plate tectonics, carbon dating, and genetics. None of these are mentioned in the Bible. Yet you will use your circular logic to deny the scientific facts that are laid before you. It baffles me that an obviously intelligent person would do this.

You want to talk about Noah's ark? I want to know how where he found the penguins and the polar bears. I want to know how he kept the whales alive in the ark. How did he carry enough food and fresh water? What did he do with the thousands of pounds of elephant dung? How did he keep the carnivorous animals from eating their prey? When the flood receded and the animals returned to dry ground, where did they find food in the flood ravaged land? When the whales and the two plankton returned to the ocean, how did the two plankton that were on board the ark multiply exponentially fast enough to provide food so the whales could survive? Again, you are an obviously intelligent person, how can you pretend these problems don't exist?
-Colin

"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

CWT36 wrote:
You come to the argument with an assumption, the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of god. We don't hold that assumption. Where, other than the Bible, is the proof that the Bible is inerrant? There is none.
For that matter, CWT, I've wondered if even the Bible insists on its own inerrancy. Or is inerrancy a belief external to it? Having two different creation myths and four different gospel accounts might indicate that the assemblers of the Bible were actually less stuck on literalism than the Protestants who came centuries afterwards and somehow, despite all the glaring internal inconsistencies, made out this anthology of writings to be a product of one mind, that of God, of course.

You've done a great job of laying out why getting into the proposed discussion would be futile.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”