tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.comments2023-05-13T11:26:20.678-04:00SkeptiKyleKylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-19099477059870232632014-12-11T21:58:42.313-05:002014-12-11T21:58:42.313-05:00Thanks for the response, Seth. Despite the fact th...Thanks for the response, Seth. Despite the fact that I disagree with some of what you wrote, I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind it.<br /><br />My main point with this post was not that nothing in the Bible is credible, but that I don't think it makes sense to buy into the religion that's based on it. If it were all divinely inspired by a god with the power described in the Bible, it wouldn't be so preposterously full of holes. Having been away from religion for a number of years now I'm obviously biased against it, but I find nothing divine about it. If it's not divine, why base a religion around it? Yes, it contains some stuff that can be inspirational or uplifting in the right light, but so do a multitude of other writings that have come around in the last 2,000 years that have nothing to do with deities.<br /><br />To clarify one other thing on that point, I don't think being a Christian automatically makes one an idiot, and I've tried to stress that. I do, however, think that being Christian is irrational is some fashion. I also think that most smart Christians recognize that there's some irrationality in their beliefs but continue to believe anyway for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with simple logic.<br /><br />I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the argument for religious pluralism or the idea that multiple religions can be partially right and it's OK if none of them are entirely right. The following statement is either true or false: There is a heaven, and one must accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior in order to get in when they die. If that's true, Christianity holds infinitely more value than any other viewpoint in the long run. If that's false...that doesn't necessarily make Christianity useless, but that makes it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less worthwhile.<br /><br />I don't mean to totally discount the value that Christianity provides to some people or the good done in the name of Christianity, so I take your point in the last paragraph. If religion were 90% "love your neighbor as yourself" and 10% goofy traditions then I wouldn't have much reason to rail against it. And, to be fair, that's mostly what it is for many moderate Christians. The problem is the rest of them, as well as fundamentalist Muslims. Those are the groups that I have a problem with. Even if you're not in those groups, I find it hypocritical to criticize them as a Christian when they have just as much justification for their beliefs about the supernatural as you do.<br /><br />I admire the effort to try to make Christianity more about acting like Christ and loving everyone; it's objectively better than being prejudiced against people or pretending like sex is something that only happens between married heterosexual people and justifying that stance because of what was written in a book 2,000 years ago. I just don't know how the former is more justifiable than the latter when both ideas come from the same book.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-25880161845377230382014-11-26T13:43:50.130-05:002014-11-26T13:43:50.130-05:00Kyle, interesting post. You raise some good issues...Kyle, interesting post. You raise some good issues. Here are some thoughts I had in response. <br />On the Bible, your position seems to be that because parts of the Bible are irrelevant, offensive, or even appallingly wrong when considered from a modern perspective, that nothing in the Bible is credible. Either God wrote it or didn’t, and clearly it is impossible today to believe that God is responsible for everything in it. But it is much more helpful to recognize that the many different books of the Bible were written by a variety of different people for different reasons over roughly a thousand years, give or take. From this perspective, the Bible contains inspired writings written by people struggling with the significance of God in their lives and communities. Some of these writings are not relevant or helpful to us today, but some of them contain profound and timeless truths that continue to be important today. And, yes, it is a matter of how we interpret them. But that is true of any writing, ancient or modern. Interpretation is simply the process by which we understand the meaning of a text, and different interpretations are inevitable. You seem rather disillusioned that God did not make everything clear cut and simple like you learned in Sunday School or Campus Crusade or wherever. But that does not mean the Bible holds nothing of significance or of sacred truth, or that anybody who doesn’t reject it completely, as you do, is an idiot. <br /><br />On the Bible, the Quran, and other world religions, you write that “They cannot all be right...but they can all be wrong, which is way more likely than any of them being correct.” How about a third option: no religion is entirely “correct” or exclusively possessive of divine truth, but there is much wisdom and insight into the sacred in many different religions. No one of them has to be the “right” one, despite the tribalist impulse of many believers to insist that theirs is the only one. <br /><br />Finally, you are right that there is much moral evil, hypocrisy, and offensiveness that has been done and is still being done under the umbrella of “Christianity” let alone all religion. But such things are not endemic to religions or churches per se, but rather, are endemic to all humanity, and most of humanity is religious in some sense. Nonreligious people are hardly more innocent as a whole than any other group. You see remaining in the Church as an act of enabling “jackass fundamentalists.” But if that is all you see it as, then you are willfully ignoring the tremendous good countless Christians are responsible for precisely because of their Christian faith. Rather, any Christian who takes seriously the witness of Jesus as expressed in the New Testament and in the traditions of the Church has committed to Christ and the Church precisely because of Christ’s response to the evil and “sin” endemic to humanity. If the Church often fails to reflect the grace of God in the world, then working to improve it is at least as respectable a choice as taking potshots at it. <br />sethaumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08605413773633414926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-80297361777162679552014-04-21T22:09:13.924-04:002014-04-21T22:09:13.924-04:00The point I wanted to make with this verse (and I ...The point I wanted to make with this verse (and I certainly could have made it clearer) was this: God had an opportunity here to demonstrate His omniscience. At the time Genesis was written, man certainly thought of the moon as a source of light itself, and any descriptions of the moon at the time would describe it as such--they didn't know any better because they didn't have the tools. God, on the other hand, created the thing; He knew how the sun and the moon and the Earth worked and had a golden opportunity to lay it out correctly in the creation story (if he would have explained how protons worked at the time it would have been REALLY impressive, but I would have settled for simply being correct at a high level).<br /><br />The case for God would be much, much, much stronger if the Bible were to contain knowledge that mere mortals of the time could not have obtained on their own (like an explanation of the solar system at a time before telescopes). Instead, the Bible has false information. You can call this nitpicking if you want since we colloquially talk about moonlight even today, but the phrase "God made two lights, the sun and the moon" is incorrect, and omniscient beings should be able to get it right.<br /><br />Thanks for all the replies, by the way. We're bound to have different interpretations on this stuff since I'm in the "this book was written entirely by men with no godly influence" camp and you're not, but I found it interesting to see how you view these passages. We still probably disagree about everything other than the opinion that bears are a cool way to bring down holy wrath, but I still found it interesting.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-37052772364651696602014-04-21T21:26:53.568-04:002014-04-21T21:26:53.568-04:00I actually really enjoy this verse as I find it hi...I actually really enjoy this verse as I find it highly entertaining--I don't really have much against it, especially with the justification/clarification you added ("go away baldhead" and "DIE, LEPER!" have slightly different connotations). I wish there were more stories in the Bible about followers of God being rewarded through bears that act as bodyguards.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-44304333426505761612014-04-20T22:30:27.466-04:002014-04-20T22:30:27.466-04:00What about the 10% that see the light--why do they...What about the 10% that see the light--why do they and their children get punished for their parent's blasphemy? If those are God's rules then those are the rules, I guess. It just doesn't seem fair to me, but I'm a crazy meritocratic.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-76777884634579806252014-04-20T22:21:30.892-04:002014-04-20T22:21:30.892-04:00...except that the verse explicitly says that the ......except that the verse explicitly says that <i>the Lord</i> hardened his heart. It doesn't say <i>he</i> was a stubborn, hard-headed heathen who refused to accept the evidence God threw in his face (literally, in some cases); it says that God intentionally prevented him from believing that the miracles were, in fact, acts of God. Again, Old Testament God is a jerk.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-29272583431696806152014-04-20T22:12:47.671-04:002014-04-20T22:12:47.671-04:00Does it even matter? If it's all true, then He...Does it even matter? If it's all true, then He created all those people so it's His right to wipe them all out if He felt that was the best course of action. It just means Old Testament God was temperamental, vengeful, and a fan of genocide/eugenics. This is fine, and you have the out of New Testament God, but you can't deny that He used to be a mass-murderer rather than the all-loving dude that He is commonly portrayed as now.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-44884976280928652482014-04-20T22:02:10.673-04:002014-04-20T22:02:10.673-04:00My point is simply that this is a false statement ...My point is simply that this is a false statement (unless we haven't reached "the future" yet). If people are going to live longer than 120 years, then don't say that they won't live more than 120 years. Say 130 years instead. Or, better yet, put a timebomb inside every person that will blow after 120 years. Then you would actually have some evidence for God that you think could never exist--even if we found a scientific explanation for this (for example, say the appendix <i>always</i> burst at 120 years with lethal effect) you'd be able to point to this verse and say "This is something that could not <i>possibly</i> have been predicted by man when it was written; only God could know."<br /><br />Instead, this verse has been proven wrong. Is 2 years nitpicking? For mortals, perhaps. But if you're going to make a straightforward statement like this with no room for interpretation, and you're the omnipotent creator of life, there's no excuse for an inaccuracy like this. It decreases the trustworthiness of the book as a whole.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-31340340880363019062014-04-20T21:46:20.088-04:002014-04-20T21:46:20.088-04:00It could be interpreted in either of those ways......It could be interpreted in either of those ways...but how in the world are people supposed to <i>know</i> that it's meant to be interpreted the second, figurative way rather than the first, literal way? They don't, which is one of the biggest problems with the Bible--in order to live life as both a devout Christian and a reasonable human being, one cannot take the Bible literally. Instead, you have to "interpret" passages figuratively and rationalize the hell out of the whole book. What's more, if your interpretations are different than my interpretations, how do we determine who's right? Is it Catholics? Methodists? Baptists? Lutherans? None of the above? If the Bible was supposed to be written as a guidebook for life, you'd think it would provide something close to clear directions within, no?Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-60291589488442137262014-04-20T21:30:22.761-04:002014-04-20T21:30:22.761-04:00I think you and I must have different definitions ...I think you and I must have different definitions of "die." I am, at this moment, writing this reply, so I'm pretty sure I'm not dead, and I consider myself to be a member of mankind. Eve, in particular, did not die immediately after eating the apple. Ergo, my point stands that God lied.<br /><br />Using your analogy of parent and child--what kind of parent honestly expects their child to follow every single thing they're told without question? Kids are stupid (or ignorant, if you prefer), and any parent who expects them to behave perfectly is stupid (or a complete effing idiot, if you prefer). Likewise, God should have known that ignorant humans with free will could be persuaded if they're told that A) He's a liar and B) they would know everything. It's His own damn fault for putting them in an impossible situation. Parents are responsible for their kid's behavior, and God was responsible for Eve's.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-13132498815304233292014-04-20T21:02:27.651-04:002014-04-20T21:02:27.651-04:00I'm rolling with the New Living Translation Bi...I'm rolling with the New Living Translation Bible that I got when I completed my confirmation class in 7th or 8th grade--you'll have to forgive me for not owning multiple translations :-)<br /><br />Today, yes--mankind is the champ...but that hasn't always been the case. My point was simply that God said man would be master of all creatures at a time when that was clearly not true. The purpose of this post was to make the point that the Bible, the bedrock of Christianity, leaves much to be desired for a book that was supposedly inspired and influenced by an omnipotent being. It shouldn't have silly mistakes.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-56067799691397546952014-04-20T20:45:30.519-04:002014-04-20T20:45:30.519-04:00At least at the present, any conceivable explanati...At least at the present, any conceivable explanation for creation requires faith to buy into it, but I don't think they're all equally plausible. Is the Big Bang theory accurate? I have no idea. There's some evidence for it, and it's the best explanation anyone has come up with so far, but we're talking about a 14 billion year-old event so we obviously don't <i>know</i> whether it's true. So yes, that absolutely requires some faith to believe in it.<br /><br />While I don't know whether the Big Bang happened, I see no reason to believe the story in Genesis. There's ample evidence that this planet is old and that much of the topography and life we see today is a result of millions of years of natural effects (glaciers, erosion, evolution, etc.). Of course, some people don't interpret the "seven days" literally and believe the Earth is much older than 6,000 years (and I think you're in the that camp rather than the New Earth school of thought--correct me if I'm wrong), but those that believe the planet (and the universe) was created a mere 6,000 years ago require WAAAAAY more faith than the rest of us because not only are they buying into a story that has no evidence other than some scrolls written 3,000-4,000 years ago, they have to actively <i>reject</i> all the evidence pointing to an old Earth. It's essentially saying "God created everything 6,000 years ago, and He did so in a fashion that would make any rational, educated person believe that He didn't."Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-2093618382518935522014-04-17T10:56:18.153-04:002014-04-17T10:56:18.153-04:00"For God made two great lights, the sun and t..."For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth." (Genesis 1:16)<br /><br />Sorry, I realized I missed your FIRST verse listed...figured I should do my due diligence and talk about that one as well.<br /><br />How many people over the course of human history have said the statement "by the light of the moon"? Even in recent times? Would you argue that on a full moon, light does not come from the moon? Sure it may be reflected light from the sun off the moons surface that we are seeing, but that does NOT change the fact that light is coming from the moon. When the full moon is out vs when the new moon is out is an UNBELIEVABLE difference in light. <br /><br />God didn't make a false statement here...he put it in terms that the humans writing and reading it could actually understand (especially at the time).<br /><br />Why stop where you did? Why just say that "the light from the moon is simply the light from the sun being reflected off the surface of the moon back to the Earth?" If you're going to tell humans that, why not make Genesis 1:16 read "God created a great light, the sun, and also the moon, from which the light that you see is actually caused by nuclear fusion in the core of the sun, thereby converting hydrogen into helium...which then causes a crazy amount of this stuff called ENERGY...which then for some reason makes these things called photons shoot out at different wavelengths which hit the surface of the moon, and then bounce off and reflect back to the Earth. Now, don't worry, these photons don't actually have any size or mass, so they won't hurt when they hit you, and you can actually only see the light they create if it falls within a narrow wavelength (yes, it's a particle AND a wave...wait...what?)" <br /><br />Yeah, that sounds better...<br /><br />Scientists can't even tell us what light ACTUALLY is (wave, particle, both, neither??). They cannot explain how it's actually CREATED (sure, electrons moving from a high energy to low energy state creates radiation...aka, a photon...). These magical things that we call photons create light, and thereby allow us to see everything; they have no mass (probably), no electric charge, no dimensions whatsoever, which means you can't ACTUALLY see it or PROVE it exists, but TRUST me, they're there...hmm...this is sounding familiar, isn't it? I mean, don't get me started with the speed of light, either...that's just all sorts of messed up.<br /><br />Why would God have to have proclaimed that "the Earth revolves around the sun"? What would that have added or proven? Had he proclaimed that, you would be arguing that he should have said, "well, but the sun revolves around a massively large black hole in the middle of your galaxy...which by the way revolves around other galaxies in your local group...which by the way orbits a super cluster of galaxy groups..." No where did God say that the sun orbits the Earth. So why are you giving Him crap for NOT saying that the Earth orbits the sun?ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-14912333827543043032014-04-15T12:13:43.814-04:002014-04-15T12:13:43.814-04:00"As Elisha was walking along the road, a grou..."As Elisha was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. 'Go away, you baldhead!' they chanted. 'Go away, you baldhead!' Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them." (2 Kings 2:23-24)<br /> <br />Again, maybe a little harsh, but let's look at this verse a bit more: First off, "Go away" is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew...it's actualy "Go up". This is basically them saying they wanted him dead..."baldhead" was a very insulting term back then, as lepers were required to shave their heads...so even if someone had a full head of hair, if someone called them a baldhead, they were saying they were the lowest of the low.<br /> <br />Now, there are 42 people (AT LEAST) that were out mocking him as he was walking along the road?! That's A LOT OF people...I would say that's an organized mob. They knew he was a prophet...they knew his father Elijah (and how he asceneded, aka "WENT UP", to heaven)...and they wanted this guy DEAD. God protected his prophet against a mob of people who wanted him dead. You have to admit, I bet the crowd wasn't expecting bear attacks...that's pretty original!!ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-38173590373709757932014-04-15T12:13:18.684-04:002014-04-15T12:13:18.684-04:00"Each week, work for six days only. The seven..."Each week, work for six days only. The seventh day is a day of total rest, a holy day that belongs to the Lord. Anyone who works on that day will die. Do not even light fires in your homes on that day." (Exodus 35:2-3)<br /><br />Ok, much like the "don't dress like a prostitute" verses, this is basically saying "Take a full day each week to give to the Lord...don't do any extraneous labor on that day". You have to realize, back then, lighting a fire was a difficult job (hint: it didn't involve a lighter), AND it WAS being written to people who lived in Egypt at the time. So again, the context simply means don't do any labors that will take your mind off the Lord for ONE day per week<br /> <br />And he IS advocating 6-day work weeks instead of the normal 7 of the time. You're doing 5-day work weeks...which means you're one step ahead of the game and have an EXTRA day to sit on your ass and drink! Be happy!!ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-17453801656299315582014-04-15T12:12:34.645-04:002014-04-15T12:12:34.645-04:00"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who w..."I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not share your affection with any other god! I do not leave unpunished the sins of those who hate me, but I punish the children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generations. But I lavish my love on those who love me and obey my commands, even for a thousand generations." (Exodus, 20:5-6)<br /><br />The way that I read this is "what comes around, goes around"...Let's say 95% of the time, if a parent is an athiest, their children will grow up athiest as well...which by that logic means THEIR children have a 90% chance of being athiest. "Way Down the Line" by The Offspring pretty much says it all...ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-26707551834766166772014-04-15T12:11:54.106-04:002014-04-15T12:11:54.106-04:00"He will demand that the people of Israel be ..."He will demand that the people of Israel be allowed to leave Egypt. But I will cause Pharaoh to be stubborn so I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. Even then Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you. So I will crush Egypt with a series of disasters, after which I will lead the forces of Israel out with great acts of judgment." (Exodus 7:2-4) <br />"Although Moses and Aaron did these miracles in Pharaoh’s presence, the Lord hardened his heart so he wouldn’t let the Israelites leave the country." (Exodus 11:10)<br /><br />This is 100% what I have talked about with secularists not believing things that they see can be attributed to a God. The Pharoah probably simply decided it was a natural phenomenon. "Hardening their hearts" is simply their way of saying "they wouldn't believe it even if they saw it..."ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-36844837342290994352014-04-15T12:11:34.066-04:002014-04-15T12:11:34.066-04:00"I will completely wipe out this human race t..."I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them." (Genesis 6:7)<br /><br />Yeah...ok...maybe a slight over-reaction. But we don't know. For all we know, every single person (except Noah and his family) read some guy's blog that was etched on a big stone monument and decided there was no way they would ever believe in God again...even if he showed himself, they would simply attribute it to swamp gas or something...and there truly was no hope for all of humanity. We just don't know.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-6132333677015801242014-04-15T12:11:05.934-04:002014-04-15T12:11:05.934-04:00"Whenever the sons of God had intercourse wit..."Whenever the sons of God had intercourse with human women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes mentioned in the legends of old." (Genesis 6:4)<br /><br />"Sons of God" = "Other gods"?? I guess it depends on what you mean by "godlike". I'll simply say these could be angels, demons, or something of the sort and that they were there during creation. This verse is one that is obviously pretty debated as to the meaning...personally, I believe that the "sons of god" were angelic/demonic beings. They did the nasty with human women...created literal giants (Nephilim) that grew to be as much as 15 feet tall...and this was in fact one of the primary reasons for God to bring the flood. The Nephilim are pretty fascinating when you read about them and theories around them...believe me, I know it sounds rediculous, you don't need to tell me that...it's almost as rediculous as the RNA world theory...almost...ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-13775479502053205652014-04-15T12:10:06.907-04:002014-04-15T12:10:06.907-04:00"In the future, they will live no more than 1..."In the future, they will live no more than 120 years." (Genesis 6:3)<br /> <br />122 years is pretty darn close to 120 years...Yes, those two years are significant (if I lived to be 122 and someone called me 120, I'd be pretty pissed)...but come on, you're really going to argue this one?!<br /> <br />With regards to Job...He lived well into his 200s. It is widely believed that Job actually lived before Moses...and in fact he lived near the time of the other Patriarchs in Genesis. So his lifespan isn't too crazy to think about considering the lifespans of other patriarchs. If I said "in the future, people will no longer die of cancer," would you then claim I was wrong if it takes 6 or 7 generations before my statement is true? At the time this statement was made, people were living in to their 900s. To jump from 900 to 120 wasn't going to happen over one generation. In fact, if you read the geneologies, the lifetimes of people slowly started decreasing every generation...eventually 120 basically became the "max" age.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-49059337508745565422014-04-15T12:09:35.176-04:002014-04-15T12:09:35.176-04:00"Then he said to the woman, 'You will bea..."Then he said to the woman, 'You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be your master.'" (Genesis 3:16)<br /> <br />Just like a lot of places in the Bible, you must look at the whole context: Yes, he said that about women...but then in the following verses he basically said, "Men, you're just as much to blame here...and for that, you will work your asses off through pain, sweat, and tears just to survive off the land and then you'll die..."<br /> <br />This verse can also be read multiple ways: 1) God is giving a commandment (women, obey men...men, you're women's master). This is the "normal" reading of this verse...and could very well be the intent. But maybe it's 2) This could just as easily be read as to the battle of the sexes and simply what man/women's natural inclinations will be: "Women are going to want to dominate/be jealous of/desire their husband's stature...and he will want to act as their master." Basically this could be read as a statement of what is to come between the two sexes.<br /> <br />Unfortunately, just like with other verses in the Bible, men over the years have used these verses to make women submissive and subordinate. When Jesus taught, he taught the exact opposite. He said that women were to worship WITH men as equals...he said that women will be the joint-heir with men in the resposibilities and grace of life.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-12615923931927602352014-04-15T12:08:52.064-04:002014-04-15T12:08:52.064-04:00"'God says we must not eat it or even tou..."'God says we must not eat it or even touch it, or we will die.' 'You won’t die!' the serpent hissed. 'God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil.'" (Genesis 3:3-5)<br /><br />Mankind DID die. Our spiritual relationship with God was completely severed...Knowledge itself is not evil. Belief that we are as smart as or smarter than God is: THAT is the sin that occurred...THAT is what's evil. <br /> <br />Did the actual TREE itself give them the "knowledge" of everything? I would argue that it was simply the action of eating the fruit which God commanded them not to led to them thinking they knew better than God. By eating the fruit, did they all of a sudden gain some amazing insight and become extremely intelligent? No, probably not. Instead it's much like when a child first does something their parents told them not to do: "Don't go outside without us!"...When the child first opens the door and runs outside, they have a sense of FREEDOM, of thinking they are greater than their parents...they think they are masters of their life. Unfortunately, by doing that simple action, they have broken their trust with their parents. From that point forward, their parents have to be stricter and watch them more closely. That simple action completely changed the relationship between the child and parent.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-58958247971412620282014-04-15T12:08:21.774-04:002014-04-15T12:08:21.774-04:00"Can you catch a crocodile with a hook or put..."Can you catch a crocodile with a hook or put a noose around its jaw? Can you tie it with a rope through the nose or pierce its jaw with a spike? Will it beg you for mercy or implore you for pity? Will it agree to work for you? Can you make it be your slave for life? Can you make it a pet like a bird, or give it to your little girls to play with? Will merchants try to buy it? Will they sell it in their shops? Will its hide be hurt by darts, or its head by a harpoon? If you lay a hand on it, you will never forget the battle that follows, and you will never try it again! No, it is useless to try to capture it. The hunter who attempts it will be thrown down."<br /><br />...Um, what translation are you using that Leviathan = Crocodile? If you read the entire chapter with Leviathan's description, and the other few references to Leviathan in the Bible...I would certainly say it is not a Crocodile (nor a Whale as some may contend)...maybe it's some creature we have never seen. Either way...that doesn't really change your point that "SOME CREATURE > Man". Well, God was using this as an illustration to Job PERSONALLY to show that since JOB can't even contain Leviathan, how could he possibly contain the CREATOR of Leviathan.<br /> <br />I mean, I think I've had the fun drunken discussion with you about "what's the largest animal you can kill in a cage match?"...right? If we haven't had that discussion, we DEFINITELY need to do that, because it's ALWAYS a good time. Anyways, even though I can't personally kill a tiger doesn't mean that mankind isn't "master" of tigers...I mean we've driven them to the point of extinction!<br /> <br />I see nothing in this verse that says that Leviathan is Lord of mankind as you imply.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-70472607282840336642014-04-15T12:07:30.314-04:002014-04-15T12:07:30.314-04:00"Then God said, 'Let us make people in ou..."Then God said, 'Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life--the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals.'" (Genesis 1:26)<br /><br />Who was he talking to? There are a couple interesting possibilities with this verse. First: this verse backs up the Trinity (talking about Himself in the plural form) Second: He could also have been talking to the angels...because we know from Job that they "shouted for joy" when he created the world. When did he create the angels, then? We don't know...just like you don't know what happened to cause the Big Bang. Not a satisfying answer, but the only one I can give.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-56851701526253306722014-04-15T12:07:12.488-04:002014-04-15T12:07:12.488-04:00Since there happens to be a limit on these comment...Since there happens to be a limit on these comments, I'll just address each "contradiction" in its own comment...so, I'm sorry in advance for all of the separate comments...<br /><br />PREFACE: These are simply the way I understand/choose to believe these passages...am I completely right? no. I simply am offering an interpretation that I, personally, believe. I know you will disagree with everything I say, since you have already stated your view on these verses...but figured I would chime in :c) Also, keep in mind, I'm writing these while sitting at work, so I'll keep them pretty concise and won't go into more detail than I need (hopefully).<br /><br />First off, it's interesting that Andy mentioned Hubble with regards to the "creation myth"...considering it was Hubble that caused scientists to have a need for the origins of the universe to begin with. Before him, science believed that the universe has always been here, with no beginning and no end. Because of him, there is a NEED for a creation story (atheist or theist)...And both creation stories are just as far fetched as the other, and both require the same amount of faith to believe in them.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.com