Biblical Marriage

[homersapien 11,393]

22 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

No he isn’t. Repeating what he always says. “Do not make the Bible God”.

Which is extremely insightful advice.

Edited May 16, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

11 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

It's true. Homey has a man crush on himself. He's his favorite person...lol

That's pretty funny coming from the forum's self-styled iconoclast.  

No doubt that's why you find me so threatening.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

I said that given time, "Star Wars" could become the basis of a religion. 

All this talk about "Satan" (the dark side) in the last couple of pages demonstrates it. 

(Of course, Star Wars is simply based on the same "very common" dichotomy of good and evil that is common to many religions in human history.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil

https://psy-minds.com/dichotomy-of-good-and-evil/

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That sounds like the bible is one of Satan's tools.

 

It is

[homersapien 11,393]

6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i have a question about the bible since we touched on it earlier in this thread. If the bible is gods word why is it that so many things concerning books of this or books of that WHO decided what would and what would not be included in the bible? this makes no sense to me and it is confusing. why not allow everything god said available to be read? who gets to make that choice for god? i am not looking for an argument i am curious.

Islam is pretty straightforward in that respect. In fact, it's pretty straightforward in its dogma in general. 

Not to say they don't have their problems with extremists, obviously they do.  Interesting to consider extremism in both religions are rooted in a interpretations of a manuscript.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

13 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

It is

That makes absolutely no sense. The Bible is literally the number one tool in the Christian tool bag. You can't both say that God inspired man to write the bible and that it is a useful tool for Satan. Unless you subscribe to the idea that God inspired man to write the bible as a tool to trick man. And if that is the case, you wouldn't be able to believe anything that's in there and the whole record of the Abrahamic God is a fiction. 

I believe that, but I wouldn't think that a devout believer in God would ever believe that. It contradicts the whole argument of God. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Interesting to consider extremism in both religions are rooted in a interpretations of a manuscript.

Interpretations that all all knowing, all powerful being should be able to clear up. Yet, so much suffering happens, because of the misinterpretations. 

[homersapien 11,393]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:54 PM, jj3jordan said:

What is that thing? Slightly resembles my high school trig teacher. There is a lot of chaos out there for sure. That's what happens in science. Things move from order to chaos, not the other way. That plus the 50,000 missing links and zero transitional life forms are what make evolution way less believable than creation.  It actually takes more faith to believe evolution than creation. Throw in the big bang where nobody can say what was there before the bang, and who put it there and you have an unexplainable unprovable theory of universal cosmos existence. The size is unclear but with some tempura and hot oil could taste like chicken , or maybe catfish, worst case scenario squid.

You need to read more scientific books on evolution instead of the theologically-based nonsense you are citing from. (And it is nonsense.) One cannot understand scientific theory if you are predetermined to believe religious dogma that contradicts it, by definition.  And anyone who seriously says evolution "requires more faith to accept than creation" obviously has a totally closed, religious mindset that is not open to science.

There's a program on one of the religious channels that is based on "disproving" evolution.  It's pure nonsense dedicated to those who are looking for organized reasons not to accept evolution. No doubt there are books written with the same goal.

The essential problem is you obviously don't understand the scope of supportive scientific evidence - in many, many fields of study - that proves evolutionary Theory (big "T").  

And the Theory cannot be overturned with a trivial examples of undiscovered bits of data, when the universe of data is practically infinite.  It is impossible to discover every missing bit of data, by definition.  Many - if not most - are no longer even available for discovery.

It would take something extremely significant to challenge evolutionary Theory.  For such examples, see https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/

Now I can understand a religious person - scientist or not - choosing to believe God worked via evolution. While that's a religious belief, it's rational in the sense it accepts evolution as a valid theory.  But no scientist - or any rational, educated person for that matter - would reject evolution in favor of creation for "origin of species".

And the "big bang" theory which represents the leading edge or limit of our scientific understanding of how the universe originated. But as any "leading edge" theory of science, we don't know (yet) what preceded it. That does in no way invalidate it as a (working) theory.

Edited May 18, 2023 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

41 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

That makes absolutely no sense. The Bible is literally the number one tool in the Christian tool bag. You can't both say that God inspired man to write the bible and that it is a useful tool for Satan. Unless you subscribe to the idea that God inspired man to write the bible as a tool to trick man. And if that is the case, you wouldn't be able to believe anything that's in there and the whole record of the Abrahamic God is a fiction. 

I believe that, but I wouldn't think that a devout believer in God would ever believe that. It contradicts the whole argument of God. 

Sure it is a useful tool. Just as some supposedly Christian ministers are. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Now I can understand a religious person - scientist or not - choosing to believe God worked via evolution.

That is true Brother Homer. He could have made it look anyway he wanted. 

[homersapien 11,393]

On 5/16/2023 at 1:07 PM, AuCivilEng1 said:

That plus the 50,000 missing links and zero transitional life forms are what make evolution way less believable than creation.

Really? Way less believable? To believe in creationism is to suspend the disbelief of every single piece of physics and reality that humanity has ever discovered. There is zero proof of creationism, outside of religious texts that were written by humans. Were those humans helped by God/the Holy Spirit? Nobody knows, because its unprovable. There is a reason that it is called "having a faith". Because that is all that someone needs or can bring to the table, when it comes to a divine creator. I wouldn't call anything that can be studied with physical evidence "way less believable" than creationism. Creationists speak about the big band as if they have some form of evidence that brings more to the table than the big bang. A book written a few thousand years ago is NOT evidence. It may be inspiring, or believable or unbelievable, but it isn't evidence. If your only argument for creationism is that, "it couldn't just happen by chance" or "the other theories don't make sense to me" or "the other things aren't conclusive" then you have nothing. 

A religious person's idea of "evidence" is a 2000+ year-old manuscript which reported a claim they went to the tomb and it was empty.

Edited May 17, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

That is true Brother Homer. He could have made it look anyway he wanted. 

Yep.  It's a lot more rational to view the bible as literary metaphor than it is fact.

But good luck with that.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yep.  It's a lot more rational to view the bible as literary metaphor than it is fact.

But good luck with that.

 

I don’t see it as important to know how God created everything.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

But as any "leading edge" theory of science, we don't know (yet) what preceded it.

And here is a metaphysical problem science encounters that theology can solve. 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

You need to read more scientific books on evolution instead of the theologically-based nonsense you are citing from. (And it is nonsense.) One cannot understand scientific theory if you are predetermined to believe religious dogma that contradicts it, by definition.  And anyone who seriously says evolution "requires more faith to accept than creation" obviously has a totally closed, religious mindset that is not open to science.

There's a program on one of the religious channels that is based on "disproving" evolution.  It's pure nonsense dedicated to those who are looking for organized reasons not to accept evolution. No doubt there are books written with the same goal.

The essential problem is you obviously don't understand the scope of supportive scientific evidence - in many, many fields of study - that proves evolutionary Theory (big "T").  

And the Theory cannot be overturned with a trivial examples of undiscovered bits of data, when the universe of data is practically infinite.  It is impossible to discover every missing bit of data, by definition.  Many - if not most - are no longer even available for discovery.

It would take something extremely significant to challenge evolutionary Theory.  For such examples, see https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/

Now I can understand a religious person - scientist or not - choosing to believe God worked via evolution. While that's a religious belief, it's rational in the sense it accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory (true).  But no scientist - or any rational, educated person for that matter - would reject evolution in favor of creation for "origin of species".

And the "big bang" theory which represents the leading edge or limit of our scientific understanding of how the universe originated. But as any "leading edge" theory of science, we don't know (yet) what preceded it. That does in no way invalidate it as a (working) theory.

I could read more scientific journals as you have presented. I would definitely learn more intricate knowledge of genetic code variations which are all very interesting. They all have the same bottom line though. “We don’t know”. It leaves a reader empty and never explains the jumps in organization and complexity of systems in the body of animals and plants which would even minutely explain “creation” (for lack of a better word because there is not) of a new and more advanced species from a lesser species. 

We don’t know how it happened we just know it did (because it could NOT be that an all powerful God created it). That would be childishly ignorant to believe in God. In my opinion you will actually understand it one day; probably soon if you are as old as me. It is easy for me to believe God and creation. I don’t need humans to verify what God does. The fruitless search throughout the universe for the “God particle” is an example of this. Seems like when we have advances in science regarding atomic particle level  operations or a new telescope to peer into space (which is awesome by the way) we find that we know/understand less about our origins, not more. Things are not more clear. They should be with all the knowledge we have acquired in the last couple of decades and continue to acquire. But they aren’t. The answer is we actually still don’t know what was before the bang. Maybe a bigger bang? Or a smaller one? Maybe an expanding universe? Or a contracting? One of those has to be true if it was a big bang right? Or maybe a universe not expanding or contracting at all? I’m  comfortable waiting until I meet God and I believe all will be understood at that time. 

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

And here is a metaphysical problem science encounters that theology can solve. 

The only problem theology solves is the need people have for answers.  So, in a sense, you're correct.

But don't suggest that science has reached the limits of knowledge, it hasn't.

Edited May 17, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

52 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I could read more scientific journals as you have presented. I would definitely learn more intricate knowledge of genetic code variations which are all very interesting. They all have the same bottom line though. “We don’t know”. It leaves a reader empty and never explains the jumps in organization and complexity of systems in the body of animals and plants which would even minutely explain “creation” (for lack of a better word because there is not) of a new and more advanced species from a lesser species. 

We don’t know how it happened we just know it did (because it could NOT be that an all powerful God created it). That would be childishly ignorant to believe in God. In my opinion you will actually understand it one day; probably soon if you are as old as me. It is easy for me to believe God and creation. I don’t need humans to verify what God does. The fruitless search throughout the universe for the “God particle” is an example of this. Seems like when we have advances in science regarding atomic particle level  operations or a new telescope to peer into space (which is awesome by the way) we find that we know/understand less about our origins, not more. Things are not more clear. They should be with all the knowledge we have acquired in the last couple of decades and continue to acquire. But they aren’t. The answer is we actually still don’t know what was before the bang. Maybe a bigger bang? Or a smaller one? Maybe an expanding universe? Or a contracting? One of those has to be true if it was a big bang right? Or maybe a universe not expanding or contracting at all? I’m  comfortable waiting until I meet God and I believe all will be understood at that time. 

Theology is obviously the "solution" for you.

Meanwhile, you need to adapt it to scientific realities - or not - as you wish.

(BTW, you had a lot of statements in that post that don't reflect anything I've said or implied. )

Edited May 17, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I don’t see it as important to know how God created everything.

Then you should be comfortable with the bible as metaphor.

[gr82be 14,440]

On 5/14/2023 at 6:18 PM, aubiefifty said:

i have read this several times in the last few days. people claim this is true. i am open to opinions but i want to know if the homosexuality thing was made up or a real thing?

 

Why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?

It is a very common belief in Christianity that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because their residents did homosexual sex. Genesis 18:20 says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for committing "grave sin". Now what is this "grave sin". According to r/Christianity, the "grave sin" is that they didnt feed the poor and didnt help the needy, not homosexuality, they cite Book of Ezekiel to back their claim. As a new Christian, this is the first time I heard someone saying this. So I want a comprehensive answer here-Why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?What is their "grave sin"?

The answer is all of the above. Basically pure wickedness. By the way, today is no different than in those days. If you turn you're back on God you're pretty much toast, literally and figuratively. People like to think the Bible is a cafeteria and choose what they want and ignore the rest. The Old Testament is a record of history. The New Testament is our navigation to get from earth to Heaven. Some folks still want to think they can get there on their own when they wouldn't even think of going on a long trip without their phone for help. Too many forks in the road along the way to go without instructions. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

we find that we know/understand less about our origins, not more

That is not true.  When we learn,,, it often raises more questions.  That is to say, learning one new fact can often lead to even more new unanswered questions. Still, that doesn't mean we don't know more.  It only means that our understanding is still incomplete and, that the puzzle may be larger than we previously believed.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 hours ago, gr82be said:

People like to think the Bible is a cafeteria and choose what they want and ignore the rest.

So the bible is fundamental to salvation?  The bible is the key information source as to being a "good" person.

Do we not have a single commandment of love?  Is Jesus the word? 

[homersapien 11,393]

6 hours ago, gr82be said:

The answer is all of the above. Basically pure wickedness. By the way, today is no different than in those days. If you turn you're back on God you're pretty much toast, literally and figuratively. People like to think the Bible is a cafeteria and choose what they want and ignore the rest. The Old Testament is a record of history. The New Testament is our navigation to get from earth to Heaven. Some folks still want to think they can get there on their own when they wouldn't even think of going on a long trip without their phone for help. Too many forks in the road along the way to go without instructions. 

So, what do you think of the Quran?

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Then you should be comfortable with the bible as metaphor.

You will have to explain. Your statement, assumption or whatever makes no sense to me. 

[homersapien 11,393]

26 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

You will have to explain. Your statement, assumption or whatever makes no sense to me. 

Seriously?

Most of this discussion has been arguing over the validity of biblical accounts of how things happened vs. what science tells us.

You said "I don’t see it as important to know how God created everything."

You even agreed that evolution could be seen simply as the way God created all species.

A willingness to accept scientific explanations as "how God worked" is the very definition of treating biblical accounts as metaphor instead of literal fact.

Edited May 17, 2023 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,463]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seriously?

Most of this discussion has been arguing over the validity of biblical accounts of how things happened vs. what science tells us.

You said "I don’t see it as important to know how God created everything."

You even agreed that evolution just represents the way God created all species. (As opposed to the Adam's rib story or just saying "poof" and homo sapiens - and every other species - simply appeared.)

The willingness to accept scientific explanations as "how God worked" is the very definition of treating biblical accounts as metaphor instead of literal.

Seriously,,, you want depth?