creationism is the truth
-
Every dog has its day!!Originally posted by kaister:I'm sure it will
Hahaha...
-
Where do you read that from?Originally posted by nomood:The point here rather, is that they do not claim to comprehend the writings thoroughly. Instead, they choose to keep an open mind about how the bible is interpreted. eg: the gift of apple is really eve offering adam sex. Thus, the scholastic nature of their religion. They are always STUDYING the book objectively, and not just accept it simplistically, unlike christianity.
Whose commentary was that? -
New sexual interpretations... -
You don't reject the bible. You only reject interpretations of the bible.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then we have a problem. Whether the world is created by god is unknown, whether men is created by god is unknown, whether adam eat the fruit is unknown, whether eve come from men is unknown, anything about noah is unknown and many issues left unknown if the we simply treat genesis as a peom. Or u gonna say u believe in part of it and reject part of it ? Then which part accept which part reject ? U reject the one u hate and accept the one u like, like buffet ?
I think you have been arguing too much with Christians until you are suckered into the fundamentalist approach. -
I can tell you rather frankly there are some sexual overtones in the Garden of Eden story, as explained by the sages.Originally posted by kaister: New sexual interpretations...
But his explanation is something new to me, so I thought I should find out more. -
Can you put it in a nicer way or not?Originally posted by nomood:1 - Jewish scholars regard Genesis as a poem. Thus, the literal meaning of creation should not be taken as a literal form. eg: the garden of eden was not a physical representation of a place, but rather, it was a connotation of an ideal world which god created.
I think you are not a literature student, 'cos poem is the only non literal thing you know.
Neither am I, btw. But the least you could say was allegory right?2 - Incest was a-ok with everyone until Moses (I think? or was it abraham) came along. Well, everyone is really referring to the jews here, since everybody else went to hell, and incest wouldn't have had matter to them.
Where did you get the idea?that being said, I have no idea what the jewish stand on evolution is. I suspect, due to the scholastic nature of their religion they would probably be arguing about it internally themselves.
I think it is similar to the Catholic stand on evolution - there is no contradiction. Their Scriptural tradition allows for some form of reconciliation. They have bigger problems to worry about - for example they often ask "Where was God during the holocaust?". -
You should start a seperate topic on theodicy lah.Originally posted by Icemoon:They have bigger problems to worry about - for example they often ask "Where was God during the holocaust?".
that's one big headache IMO -
This is the toughest question in Christianity and probably in Judaism as well.Originally posted by ben1xy:You should start a seperate topic on theodicy lah.
that's one big headache IMO
I'm quite shocked that many Christians here brush it aside and think there is no problem. This shows that they have not been thinking enough. -
i got one stack of articles on that if you want. all from Christian journals and the like though. however, i havent come across a line of arguement which i find convincing. the authors keep side stepping and avoiding certain issues.Originally posted by Icemoon:This is the toughest question in Christianity and probably in Judaism as well.
I'm quite shocked that many Christians here brush it aside and think there is no problem. This shows that they have not been thinking enough.
-
I read the Jewish best-seller "Why bad things happen to good people". Quite a disappointment.Originally posted by ben1xy:i got one stack of articles on that if you want. all from Christian journals and the like though. however, i havent come across a line of arguement which i find convincing. the authors keep side stepping and avoiding certain issues.
I suspect the solution is to recast our understanding of God. If you make him too "godly" .. you will have high expectation of him.
I think the Jewish author was saying God cannot be benevolent and omnipotent at the same time. -
i read that book too. i thought that Kushner evaded the issue. In Christianity, because we categorized God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; it makes explanation even harder. The articles i read keep trying to explain suffering as a lack of goodness. this to me doesn't really tackle the issue still as the lack of goodness was allowed to happen. Either that or it's the Free Will arguement which doesn't explain natural disasters. The only thing that comes closest to explaining natural disasters is the proposition that the earth itself has a free will. this is also sometimes attributed to chaos theory.Originally posted by Icemoon:I read the Jewish best-seller "Why bad things happen to good people". Quite a disappointment.
I suspect the solution is to recast our understanding of God. If you make him too "godly" .. you will have high expectation of him.
I think the Jewish author was saying God cannot be benevolent and omnipotent at the same time.
but overall, everything i have read so far still doesn't tackle the issue head on -
You don't reject the bible. You only reject interpretations of the bible.
The bible state tat the world is made in few days. People reject it. Bible says tat god made men. People accept it. Tis is plain as day tat it is written in the bible. Blaming everything on "interpretation" is easy. U can just push every hard to explain scripture on interpretation. Heck, I can use a collection of fairy tales and say it is the new bible and if there is anything in it tat sound insanely silly, i just blame it on interpretations. Isn't tat wat the christianity has become now ? In tat case any book can become the bible and any stupid statements in it, truth.
I think you have been arguing too much with Christians until you are suckered into the fundamentalist approach.
How do u "inteprete" ? Picking and choosing or brainwash by someone else (turn out only few top guys in church can read the bible) ? -
Seriously, nowadays in EH, every thread has similar discussions and they look the same to me now...
Can we try to keep to the topics? Makes reading easier
-
actually quite difficult lah... most of the time, it will end up being "proving Christianity as false" by you-know-who.... with plenty of accusations....Originally posted by kaister:Seriously, nowadays in EH, every thread has similar discussions and they look the same to me now...
Can we try to keep to the topics? Makes reading easier -
Jesus also talked about the fig tree and the prodigal son. Do you think He was referring to a particular tree and son?Originally posted by stupidissmart:The bible state tat the world is made in few days. People reject it. Bible says tat god made men. People accept it. Tis is plain as day tat it is written in the bible. Blaming everything on "interpretation" is easy. U can just push every hard to explain scripture on interpretation. Heck, I can use a collection of fairy tales and say it is the new bible and if there is anything in it tat sound insanely silly, i just blame it on interpretations. Isn't tat wat the christianity has become now ? In tat case any book can become the bible and any stupid statements in it, truth.
How do u "inteprete" ? Picking and choosing or brainwash by someone else (turn out only few top guys in church can read the bible) ? -
Actually the most depressing thing is the author of Job also evaded the issue.Originally posted by ben1xy:i read that book too. i thought that Kushner evaded the issue. In Christianity, because we categorized God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; it makes explanation even harder. The articles i read keep trying to explain suffering as a lack of goodness. this to me doesn't really tackle the issue still as the lack of goodness was allowed to happen. Either that or it's the Free Will arguement which doesn't explain natural disasters. The only thing that comes closest to explaining natural disasters is the proposition that the earth itself has a free will. this is also sometimes attributed to chaos theory.
but overall, everything i have read so far still doesn't tackle the issue head on
If you noticed. -
is it? haha, i better go and flip my old testament againOriginally posted by Icemoon:Actually the most depressing thing is the author of Job also evaded the issue.
If you noticed.
the only thing i liked abt Kushner book is the part where he was very transparent abt the suffering of his son and that the process made him a better man and later he mentioned that he would give all of that up in exchange for the return of his son. in a sense it was a pretty sad book. -
because God never really answers the question.Originally posted by ben1xy:is it? haha, i better go and flip my old testament again -
I will get back to you on this point. I apologize but I don't usually keep my references on hand. thus it's a little hard to rebutt points by reference.Originally posted by Icemoon:Can you put it in a nicer way or not? Laughing
I think you are not a literature student, 'cos poem is the only non literal thing you know.
Neither am I, btw. Mr. Green But the least you could say was allegory right?
And as it is, whilst i'm certainly no lit student, do note that allegory is a form of poetry. Unless your definition of poetry is severely constricted by what you learnt up to primary 6 of course.
And i most sincerely hope you're not suggesting that it has to rhyme...
Which one? the incest bit or the jew bit?Originally posted by Icemoon:Where did you get the idea?
The incest bit, i got it from asking a theological student studying in bible college.
The jew bit, they were the chosen people weren't they?
Where did you get the idea which suggests otherwise?
Only until Pope John Paul II came along and declared it made sense. Prior to that the theory of evolution was just another shenanigan to them.Originally posted by Icemoon:I think it is similar to the Catholic stand on evolution - there is no contradiction. Their Scriptural tradition allows for some form of reconciliation. They have bigger problems to worry about - for example they often ask "Where was God during the holocaust?". -
Ah, the old epicurean paradox.Originally posted by Icemoon:I read the Jewish best-seller "Why bad things happen to good people". Quite a disappointment.
I suspect the solution is to recast our understanding of God. If you make him too "godly" .. you will have high expectation of him.
I think the Jewish author was saying God cannot be benevolent and omnipotent at the same time.
on a side note, why was it a disappointment? -
who? voldemorte?Originally posted by Chin Eng:actually quite difficult lah... most of the time, it will end up being "proving Christianity as false" by you-know-who.... with plenty of accusations....
The only problem i have is that the theological stand for most contemporary issues (or not, since they've been on/off since forever) does not examine empirical evidence. understandably, since that is science's playing field.
And I truly would appreciate it if someone were to just come along and admit that it's FAITH that's more important then PROOF, which IMO is the fundamental difference between theology and science.
you'd rarely if ever see me arguing on the side of the christians, not because i dislike them, or that i don't think christianity is the right way to god. Rather, it is hard to argue anything in the bible short of proving that god exists.
failing which, god can really exist through faith. that's all there is to it.
edit:
failing which, god can really exist ONLY through faith.
Paiseh, missed out an important keyword. -
actually, that is probably the first answer a Christian can give - faith in God.Originally posted by nomood:who? voldemorte?
The only problem i have is that the theological stand for most contemporary issues (or not, since they've been on/off since forever) does not examine empirical evidence. understandably, since that is science's playing field.
And I truly would appreciate it if someone were to just come along and admit that it's FAITH that's more important then PROOF, which IMO is the fundamental difference between theology and science.
you'd rarely if ever see me arguing on the side of the christians, not because i dislike them, or that i don't think christianity is the right way to god. Rather, it is hard to argue anything in the bible short of proving that god exists.
failing which, god can really exist through faith. that's all there is to it.
edit:
failing which, god can really exist ONLY through faith.
Paiseh, missed out an important keyword.
if by saying that, all arguments ceases, then that's great - peace to all....
in that sense, Christians (plus followers of most religions) do not need to explain anything more.
however, in a forum like this one, there will always be those who insists on having empirical evidence - then siao liao lor!
also, those who are out and out against Christianity will simply NOT accept anything other than those they define as truth and evidence, sometimes even going the whole nine yards in splitting hairs over minor issues. -
also, those who are out and out against Christianity will simply NOT accept anything other than those they define as truth and evidence, sometimes even going the whole nine yards in splitting hairs over minor issues.
Ahh... but science work differently. They provide so much evidence and facts tat u do not have even a ground or chance not to accept it without showing stupidity on your side.(And if they have no answer to it, they readily admit it.) U do not accept it, u can really keep asking till u do. It is not saying something and u have to accept it without questioning or even convinced. U can be the most agressive critic of science but eventually they have to concede (unless they wanna appear stupid) since science have the evidence tat makes it convincing.
On the other hand faith teach a different thing. U r taught to accept things. If it doesn't make sense, u r taught not to question further and simply accept them. If someone tell u something, no matter how ridiculous, ex: tat the president of usa is actually an angel, U r taught to accept them and further questioning is not entertained. Tat is why when I ask further questions, I am given a reply to "accept" them and not ask further. Where if there is anyone not satified with the answer I have given, they r welcome to keep replying and replying and I will keep answering and answering till they r satisfied (if I have the time). Furthermore, there r no evidence difference between christainity and other religion. It is really just "believe" without thinking. -
Haha .. I am usually very careful in how I reply.Originally posted by nomood:I will get back to you on this point. I apologize but I don't usually keep my references on hand. thus it's a little hard to rebutt points by reference.
And as it is, whilst i'm certainly no lit student, do note that allegory is a form of poetry. Unless your definition of poetry is severely constricted by what you learnt up to primary 6 of course.
And i most sincerely hope you're not suggesting that it has to rhyme...
Actually you said "poem", not poetry .. they are not synonymous!!1 - Jewish scholars regard Genesis as a poem. Thus, the literal meaning of creation should not be taken as a literal form. eg: the garden of eden was not a physical representation of a place, but rather, it was a connotation of an ideal world which god created.
Only until Pope John Paul II came along and declared it made sense. Prior to that the theory of evolution was just another shenanigan to them.
It wasn't that bad. The dissenting voice came mostly from Protestants.
If you read history, you realize the Catholic Church was quite ok with new scientific theories as long as you can use Scripture to justify it. But when the Protestants came along, they place Scripture above everything else, including science. -
Personally I don't gain anything insightful from the book (even though it is a very thin book).Originally posted by nomood:Ah, the old epicurean paradox.
on a side note, why was it a disappointment?
And it didn't really answer the question.