Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 01-03-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Ohh so the Jewish scholars are disregarding the text? And where is your source that says Joshua was not a pious man?

And still irrevelant because these texts existed before Modern Jewish Scholars. You said my idea conflicts with the texts and yet the Hebrew bible says Nephilim. It is obvious both you and your sources are in conflict with the texts.....and not me.

But not before Jubilees, which is why scholars modern and ancient say this. Yours is the only faith I've ever heard of that questions this, I have to ask why considering? Is your faith more correct than every one else, if so why?

You also haven't tackled the logic of all those except Noah's immediate relatives dying here, which is perhaps the single greatest reason. When God says he's getting rid of all evil and the nephilim particularly, what about his promise makes him a liar?

Also Nephilim means the fallen ones.

Jews consider the book of Jubilees as a non canonical, pseudo-historical book. The canonical texts uses the Nephilim.....your view is at odds...not mine.

The Dagda · 01-03-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

But not before Jubilees, which is why scholars modern and ancient say this. Yours is the only faith I've ever heard of that questions this, I have to ask why considering? Is your faith more correct than every one else, if so why?

You also haven't tackled the logic of all those except Noah's immediate relatives dying here, which is perhaps the single greatest reason. When God says he's getting rid of all evil and the nephilim particularly, what about his promise makes him a liar?

Also Nephilim means the fallen ones.

Jews consider the book of Jubilees as a non canonical, pseudo-historical book. The canonical texts uses the Nephilim.....your view is at odds...not mine.

No your view is at odds with everyone elses, but then what's new?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

Non-canonical does not mean false. Consider the apocrypha. Consider the Gospel of St Thomas.

If you want to keep banging on about tall men being nephilim, then do so, but I'm not buying it.

I don't think there can be any agreement with you, at least not amongst the more orthodox religions.

Exciter · 01-03-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Question does the text say Giants or not?

Obviously, the Hebrew text(s) don't use the English word 'giants'. Today, it's impossible to say if the author by nefilim meant physical giants, or "fallen ones", whatever that may mean, or something else.

Strong note says...

properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.-- giant.

A feller is defined as a lumberjack :constern01:

Perhaps the Bible is talking about the giant lumberjacks that used to work in the Sahara Forests?

FreedFromOz · 01-03-2009, 07:44 PM

I might be a little late to the party, but I thought that god was all for wiping out any nations that didn't believe in him or any that stood in his way. What really strikes me as odd, is if god is all powerful, why isn't he capable of doing the deed himself? He spoke the universe into existance, he should be able to speak a few giants out of existance. He really does seem to rely on us lowly humans to carry out his acts of aggression on the world. (Aside from the flood thing.) As far as the genocide issue, if the story were true I would say that the answer would be yes he was condoning it. Demons or not, they were his creation. I believe genocide is considered the destruction of a particular group. The Nephilim would be a group of beings, although only half human. I think that in reality some groups just need justification as to why they can hate and/or kill someone different, and they rely on some mythic text to give them that justification.

As far a angels mating with human women, there seems to be some legistical problem's with this. (I'm assuming that most of the previous posters are guys and didn't think of the following issues.)

1. Where there no angel chicks, and if so were they so butt ugly that human women far surpassed them in beauty. (This is speaking from a perspective of modern bathing practices and makeup and such.) I thought angels were supposed to be the most beautiful creatures ever. Even Lucifer is described as the most beautiful. If not, it seems to be an omission on gods part. he even created one for Adam, but forgot about the angels. Oops. If he were omnicient wouldn't he have realized that they were going to be a horny bunch. (don't get me started on proof that god can't be omnicient based on sex alone.)

2. Angels were having relations with these women. Were they as large as the offspring? If so, doesn't that include certain appendages as well. I know that some women like their men extra large, but that might be pushing it a bit. Unless the angels had more human sized willies and that is a whole nother issue.

3. So now to the kids. Having had two c-sections and never the priveledge of passing my 8lb 12 oz child through my lady parts, there seems to be an issue with human women being able to give birth to giant babies. Seriously, we just aren't designed to have sush enoromous children, unless the were born normal sized and then miraculously grew to their giant stature. I do believe the pain in childbirth thing was in full swing here.

Sorry to get off topic, but this whole story doesn't seem logical. There can be no genocide if the parties didn't exist. But in this context god was all for it. Fun story though.

Side note: I did find that if you google fossils of giants, there are some conspiracy theories about how modern science is hiding all of the fossils that prove the existence of giants. I haven't really read them because it's too late and I have had too much wine to care:biggrin:, but I thought that it was interesting none the less.

juergen · 01-03-2009, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedFromOz

I might be a little late to the party, but I thought that god was all for wiping out any nations that didn't believe in him or any that stood in his way. What really strikes me as odd, is if god is all powerful, why isn't he capable of doing the deed himself?

One would think he'd be able to choose everyone.

FreedFromOz · 01-04-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedFromOz

I might be a little late to the party, but I thought that god was all for wiping out any nations that didn't believe in him or any that stood in his way. What really strikes me as odd, is if god is all powerful, why isn't he capable of doing the deed himself?

One would think he'd be able to choose everyone.

You would think that, which is was one of the questions I always had. Why create humans and only choose a small minority to serve you? That never made any sense. (god always seemed a egotistical in my opinion anyway, but I think that is another subject.) And when they start wiping out neighboring nations, giants or no, they get to claim that god told them to do it. Nice god.

arnoldo · 01-04-2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Question does the text say Giants or not?

Obviously, the Hebrew text(s) don't use the English word 'giants'. Today, it's impossible to say if the author by nefilim meant physical giants, or "fallen ones", whatever that may mean, or something else.

Also nowhere in the Hebrew texts does it state they were "60 foot giants" either.

Exciter · 01-04-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

Obviously, the Hebrew text(s) don't use the English word 'giants'. Today, it's impossible to say if the author by nefilim meant physical giants, or "fallen ones", whatever that may mean, or something else.

Also nowhere in the Hebrew texts does it state they were "60 foot giants" either.

So would it be safe to say anybody over seven feet tall was considered to be half human/half angel then?

Exciter · 01-04-2009, 01:16 PM

Would it be safe to say anybody over seven feet tall now days can be considered to be half human/half angel?

Why are people born that way, or is it a choice to become a giant? I wish it was a choice, I'd choose it in a heartbeat!

B9K9 · 01-08-2009, 03:26 AM

if this discussion is a piece of recreational banter well fine have fun. doesn't anybody see its just plain wrong to give serious consideration to a god-story where the good guy gets us mortals to murder some other tribe he's pissed off with? doesnt any body feel like shouting the emperor has no clothes? the Jews cooked it up to legitimise their murderous designs on their neighbours' lands and virgins. still it took me many years to unscramble that BIG LIE out of my brain..

Imagine a preacher having to convince a clear-thinking heathen that the good guy could have asked you once to dash a baby's skull on a rock and you would have to obey? take their virgins and have at them? kill everything else? and that's the inspired word? yes i once had that half down my throat but now i've puked it up.

have you ever seen or heard William Lane (Lame) Craig's attempts to justify "Divine Command Morality", or Glen Miller's? and found it convincing?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2009, 07:44 PM	#184
FreedFromOz Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Midwest Posts: 55	I might be a little late to the party, but I thought that god was all for wiping out any nations that didn't believe in him or any that stood in his way. What really strikes me as odd, is if god is all powerful, why isn't he capable of doing the deed himself? He spoke the universe into existance, he should be able to speak a few giants out of existance. He really does seem to rely on us lowly humans to carry out his acts of aggression on the world. (Aside from the flood thing.) As far as the genocide issue, if the story were true I would say that the answer would be yes he was condoning it. Demons or not, they were his creation. I believe genocide is considered the destruction of a particular group. The Nephilim would be a group of beings, although only half human. I think that in reality some groups just need justification as to why they can hate and/or kill someone different, and they rely on some mythic text to give them that justification. As far a angels mating with human women, there seems to be some legistical problem's with this. (I'm assuming that most of the previous posters are guys and didn't think of the following issues.) 1. Where there no angel chicks, and if so were they so butt ugly that human women far surpassed them in beauty. (This is speaking from a perspective of modern bathing practices and makeup and such.) I thought angels were supposed to be the most beautiful creatures ever. Even Lucifer is described as the most beautiful. If not, it seems to be an omission on gods part. he even created one for Adam, but forgot about the angels. Oops. If he were omnicient wouldn't he have realized that they were going to be a horny bunch. (don't get me started on proof that god can't be omnicient based on sex alone.) 2. Angels were having relations with these women. Were they as large as the offspring? If so, doesn't that include certain appendages as well. I know that some women like their men extra large, but that might be pushing it a bit. Unless the angels had more human sized willies and that is a whole nother issue. 3. So now to the kids. Having had two c-sections and never the priveledge of passing my 8lb 12 oz child through my lady parts, there seems to be an issue with human women being able to give birth to giant babies. Seriously, we just aren't designed to have sush enoromous children, unless the were born normal sized and then miraculously grew to their giant stature. I do believe the pain in childbirth thing was in full swing here. Sorry to get off topic, but this whole story doesn't seem logical. There can be no genocide if the parties didn't exist. But in this context god was all for it. Fun story though. Side note: I did find that if you google fossils of giants, there are some conspiracy theories about how modern science is hiding all of the fossils that prove the existence of giants. I haven't really read them because it's too late and I have had too much wine to care:biggrin:, but I thought that it was interesting none the less.

01-04-2009, 01:16 PM	#189
Exciter Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: America? Posts: 1,168	Would it be safe to say anybody over seven feet tall now days can be considered to be half human/half angel? Why are people born that way, or is it a choice to become a giant? I wish it was a choice, I'd choose it in a heartbeat!

01-08-2009, 03:26 AM	#190
B9K9 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 34	if this discussion is a piece of recreational banter well fine have fun. doesn't anybody see its just plain wrong to give serious consideration to a god-story where the good guy gets us mortals to murder some other tribe he's pissed off with? doesnt any body feel like shouting the emperor has no clothes? the Jews cooked it up to legitimise their murderous designs on their neighbours' lands and virgins. still it took me many years to unscramble that BIG LIE out of my brain.. Imagine a preacher having to convince a clear-thinking heathen that the good guy could have asked you once to dash a baby's skull on a rock and you would have to obey? take their virgins and have at them? kill everything else? and that's the inspired word? yes i once had that half down my throat but now i've puked it up. have you ever seen or heard William Lane (Lame) Craig's attempts to justify "Divine Command Morality", or Glen Miller's? and found it convincing?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.