Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Arrogancy · 01-17-2003, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
I'm sorry, I know that we shouldn't post bible quotes but this business of claiming that the Bible is correct and then claiming that it doesn't say what it says but what you want it to say is just too much.
God hardens Pharaoh's heart ten different times. Not just once, but again and again. Pharaoh doesn't let his heart be hardened. God does it and gloats over doing it.

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt
7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.
10:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
11:10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honored upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.
14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.

Now post the literal Hebrew Aramaic translation as opposed to...what is that - the King James? You are using something that gives the contexual meaning of the words, correct? Please tell me that you're not arguing against my statement about the "closest interpretation" with your interpretation of the King James/whatever translation that is? Please tell me that is not the case. Post your reference material so that I know you are not doing that, please.

Arrogancy · 01-17-2003, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Hi-larious. Sin is hereditary??!! It's transmitted in genetic code?! And we're "sentenced to death" for inheriting it, even though we had no choice - even though its heritability is 100%? Your thinking is incredibly muddled - as if you're unable to separate religion and science at all.

Have you ever told a lie?

Arrogancy · 01-17-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Not only is the story of the flood a geological impossibility, but the dimensions of the ark would only have allowed less than two cubic feet for each pair of animals and their 40-day food supply. Some of those animals such as penquins, aardvarks, and polar bears would have to travel across vast oceans, which by the way, would have become so diluted from the deluge that the flood would have destroyed most marine life. Others, such as kuala bears and panda bears, would have had to carry their food themselves to the ark because of their unique dietary requirements; Noah would not have had eucalyptis trees or bamboo on hand.

Rick

What? Panda bears? Polar bears? Come on, now. Besides the fact that saying that you're sure about what kind of plants were native to a pre-flood area is ridiculous, (especially since some plant life would be tremendously shifted by the waters, things would be carried and moved farther so that they spread to other areas, others would disappear) you're talking about subspecies that are degenerative of the main species. Geneology tells you how "polar bears," etc. could have come to be in 4,000 years from two parent animals, and how geological conditions could have allowed them at one time to cross land where water exists now. Those are just the basics.

No wonder you think that there wasn't room - you're thinking that African AND Indian elephants were needed, cocker spaniels and AND great danes, etc. etc. etc. None of that is needed, especially if you go by geneology and come to the conclusion today that they variety that exists is a mix of degeneration and adaptation from parent species.

And "most marine life" would not be destroyed in the flood described in the Bible, especially given where the water came from in the first place and the way in which the Flood was caused. Explain.

Arrogancy · 01-17-2003, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Then let's all thank the unGod for cognitive dissonance!

("Cognitive dissonance": the ability to hold mutually exclusive views as both true, or the ability to "believe in" a Biblical verse without actually "believing" it in a real-world context.)

If Christians really believed this, they would be compelled to act to correct a monstrous injustice: the legal system only punishes the perpetrators of crimes, not their descendants. We should expect massive Christian vigilante activity against all those who are descended from criminals.

Of course, this is baloney. And, even if it was "God's law", it would still be unjust, due to the mismatch between crime and punishment, as already pointed out. Unless you wish to argue that merely carrying the "sin gene" is a crime in itself?

Yes, "of course" it is. Why? Because "you say it is," correct? That's a familiar sentiment

What possible reason would there be for Christians to go on massive vigilante activity, given that theocracy was done away with with Jesus' sacrifice and the difference between Christian and Mosaic Law? Not to mention that you're supposing that most "Christian" religions today even follow the Bible as opposed to church doctrine in the first place, when it is easily proven that they don't.

I thought you guys said that the atheists here "knew the Bible?"

I don't see what your problem with this is. The Biblical rule is that those who sin will die. Have you Biblically sinned ever in your life? Right, so has everyone who has ever been born, sans, taking Bible into account, Jesus. which was the whole point. This is "fair" because those are the rules set by the person who initiated life - and that basically covers anything you could come up with. If you use the Bible as "truth" argumentively, then the only human who would have the "rights" to his own life is one who created himself. If you are traced back to Adam, then you are owned by God, and the only "unfair" thing that could possibly be done would be if God broke his own rules.

Philosoft · 01-17-2003, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrogancy
Have you ever told a lie?

Yes. Is telling a lie always a sin? By the by, we probably should take this to MF&P if you want to continue.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2003, 07:45 AM

Quote:

What? Panda bears? Polar bears? Come on, now. Besides the fact that saying that you're sure about what kind of plants were native to a pre-flood area is ridiculous...

The fossil record.

Quote:

No wonder you think that there wasn't room - you're thinking that African AND Indian elephants were needed, cocker spaniels and AND great danes, etc. etc. etc. None of that is needed, especially if you go by geneology and come to the conclusion today that they variety that exists is a mix of degeneration and adaptation from parent species.

This is evolution. You are proposing hyper-evolution at a rate many times faster than what we observe, with no explanation of why it has suddenly slowed to a crawl.

Not that it matters, of course. There was no Flood. Such an upheaval in the fossil and geologic record in recent times would be unmistakable.

Arrogancy · 01-17-2003, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Yes. Is telling a lie always a sin? By the by, we probably should take this to MF&P if you want to continue.

You're talking about a subsection of this forum? I'll stop this line of discussion here and bring it up elsewhere when I get a chance then. I'm sporadic here, due to me posting on forums only when I take breaks from my design work.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2003, 07:47 AM

Quote:

No wonder you think that there wasn't room - you're thinking that African AND Indian elephants were needed...

...Incidentally, did you know that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than African and Indian elephants?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

I don't see what your problem with this is. The Biblical rule is that those who sin will die. Have you Biblically sinned ever in your life? Right, so has everyone who has ever been born, sans, taking Bible into account, Jesus.

God has supposedly killed many young infants. What Biblical sin is a newborn infant capable of?

Quote:

If you are traced back to Adam, then you are owned by God, and the only "unfair" thing that could possibly be done would be if God broke his own rules.

The punishment of innocents specifically for the sins of others may be deemed "legal" if God makes the rules.

I am not arguing that it is illegal. I am arguing that it is, by definition, unjust.

Arrogancy · 01-17-2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The fossil record.

This is evolution. You are proposing hyper-evolution at a rate many times faster than what we observe, with no explanation of why it has suddenly slowed to a crawl.

Not that it matters, of course. There was no Flood. Such an upheaval in the fossil and geologic record in recent times would be unmistakable.

The "fossil" record? The same "fossil record" that shows woolly mammoths frozen solid halfway up mountains with undigested food in their bodies? The same one that has found seashells on top of mountains as well? The great number of fossils found in mucky, icy dumps, undamaged and found kneeling/standing? Or the fact that many of the geological shapes once thought to be caused by glaciers are now supposed to be caused by mudflows and submarine landslides, etc. etc. etc. That's a whole new "can of worms," and there is probably a subsection in this forum for it.

And it's not talking about "hyper evolution" at a gigantically fast rate - you're talking about degeneration and evolution at their normal rates. Only around 43 kinds of mammals, 74 types of birds, and 10 kinds of reptiles were estimated to be needed on the ark to have the gene pool to create the variety of each that are on earth today over that amount of years.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.