ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians - Latest Comments in Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Darren Wong — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:30:02 -0000

Do any of you Know who the student was?

FYI: It was Albert Einstein.

"True", considering that Albert Einstein was Jewish and saying that the religion that is most rational/scientific is Buddhism.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

anonymous — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:09:08 -0000

Do any of you Know who the student was?

FYI: It was Albert Einstein.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

boomSLANG — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:46:58 -0000

CB: This may sound like propaganda to you but i saw someone ask if all atheists are evil because of the absence of God, the truth is we all do something bad in our lives from one little white lie to murder it is all bad. Therefore we are all evil,[emphasis added]

CB,

Your premise is false, and your conclusion amounts to non-sequitur. "Evil" is a word that only has meaning if the Christian's philosophy is true. Neither you, nor any other Theist, has established this philosophy as Truth.

So, in reality, all you've established is that human beings are imperfect; that they use poor judgement, and that this poor judgement sometimes causes unnecessary harm to other human beings. Calling unethical or disrespectful behavior a "sin" is to imply that one falls short of a state of perfection, or as Christians love to put it, "falling short of God's Glory". The latter, of course, assumes a "God" exists, so your "logic" ends up being circular in the end.

Perhaps instead of listening to other Theists tell you all about Atheism, it would be better to gain knowledge from the source. For instance, Atheists are not "complaining" about "the Truth of the Gospel"; we're complaining of people like you who go around insisting that said "Gospel" is true, with no evidence to back it. We also don't take too kindly to threats about "Judgement days", and the like, even though no such thing exists. It's kind of like pointing a toy gun at someone and pulling the trigger..i.e...completely harmless, but really rude.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Concerned Believer — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:40:12 -0000

This may sound like propaganda to you but i saw someone ask if all atheists are evil because of the absence of God, the truth is we all do something bad in our lives from one little white lie to murder it is all bad. Therefore we are all evil, if you claim to be without doing one bad action in your life that is a lie right there. No one is perfect and you can complain all you want but the Truth of The Gospel of God will stand I just hope that Truth gets to you in time before you are in front of God on Judgement Day.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:44:00 -0000

Thanks for your response, m.

I'm not an Ancient Hebrew scholar; I don't have a Hebrew lexicon.

So I'll take you at your word.

Why, then, do most translations of the bible not use this information to more accurately portray what you say is the truth?

Of course, there are many other problems with the Noah story, but I won't detail them here. I'm sure you know them yourself, and most likely have answers to any objections to the truth of the bible in which you believe.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:37:00 -0000

gregg,

"Genesis 7:2 also says:

...and of beasts that are not clean by two..."

...and two (sanayim - a pair of) related (‘asher) animals (bahemah) which are not (lo’) clean (taher), a male and female.

Again I will repeat myself, He used the Hebrew word taher to indicate clean animals which are usually farm type animals that can be eaten. Then He used the word 'asher to say related animals, in other words the other type of farm/domesticated animals that are not to be eaten.

Noah's Pet Zoo if you may!

The word 'asher is one of the most common words used in the orginal Hebrew but yet the most forgotten word in English versions. It's a crucial word left out.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:59:00 -0000

M said...

(Genesis 7:2)

Notice He actually said DOMESTICATED animals, not all species known to man.

Genesis 7:2 also says:

...and of beasts that are not clean by two...

Doesn't this include all the non-domesticated animals?

...the whole world was affected by the asteroid impact...

Again, there is no consensus regarding the dating of the impact to which you refer. Yet you take it as fact that the Burckle crater impact is the cause of the biblical flood.

But this is beside the point, isn't it? If there is a god, he could cause a flood in numerous ways. Humans are the ones obsessed with reasons and causes.

...but He was referring to the region...

I agree. Your exegesis is sound on this point.

~ ~ ~

The articles to which you link are interesting, but again: what do they prove?

Only that there may have been a major tsunami (or series of them) about the time of the biblical flood.

Many other religious traditions wrote of this. Does the Burckle crater evidence validate those traditions as well as Christianity?

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:15:00 -0000

"From (min) all (kol) the clean (taher - pure) domesticated animals (bahemah - non human creatures) take (laqah - select and grasp) for yourself, seven (seba’) males (‘iysh) and seven (seba) females (‘iyssah) and two (sanayim - a pair of) related (‘asher) animals (bahemah) which are not (lo’) clean (taher), a male and female." (Genesis 7:2)

Notice He actually said DOMESTICATED animals, not all species known to man. The Hebrew word Taher refers to clean animals, those you can eat, such a lamb, cattle, goat, etc, which are all domesticated animals. And then the Hebrew word ‘asher means related to or in a relational sense, as in this case animals related to the other animals, being domestaiced as in pigs, rabbits, dogs, etc. And birds as well. Not that many, so once again English versions are wrong, they were translated from the Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. But we have the Dead Sea Scrolls now to get the accurate interpretations.

And where did the rain specifically fall? Well the whole world was affected by the asteroid impact with torrential rains, darkness and strong winds, but He was referring to the region (the Middle East, the land surrounding Israel, as far as Turkey) as found in the verse below.

"Indeed (kiy), on (la) the passage (‘owd) of seven (seba’) days (yowm), I will send rain down (matar) upon (‘al) the (ha) region (‘erets - earth in the sense of ground, soil, dirt, area, region, land and territory) for forty (‘araba’ym) days (yowm) and (wa) forty nights (laylah) and wash off and wipe out (mahah - clean and annihilate, blot out and obliterate) accordingly (‘et) all (kol) the (ha) living creatures which stand (yaquwm - life forms which were established upright) whom relationally (‘asher) I made (‘asah - fashioned and created) from (min) upon (‘al) the face (paneh - presence) of the soil (‘adamah - ground, earth as in dirt, and fundamental particles of natural elements)." (Genesis 7:4)

How are just two interesting articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006...

http://tsun.sscc.ru/proj.htm

If you read the entire articles you will notice the dates they provided are parameters. From the land evidence they collected in the nearby island they are sure of the period it hit but haven't pointed out the exact date. However, the fact that vast amount of stories/myths (175) with them all describing the same event is a significant contribution. Notice too, no one seemed to refute the dates by saying a completey different number.

And to close, to confirm what happened on that fateful day:

"In (ba) repetition (sanah - years, changes, and renewals), six (shesh) hundred (me’ah) years (sanah) Noah had lived (hyym). In (ba) the second (seni) month (hodes - time of renewal), in the seventeenth (seba’ ‘asar) day (yowm) of the month, in that day, a great magnitude and quantity of (rab) deep ocean water (tahowm) and all underground springs (ma’yan - subterranean cisterns) burst and gushed forth (baqa’), and the floodgates (‘arubah) of the skies (samayim - heavens or atmosphere) were opened (patah - freed and released)." (Genesis 7:11)

http://www.wyattarchaeology...

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:33:00 -0000

The AntiChristian said...

Despite using logic and reason being the proper way to go, I'm afraid it's a classic case of pearls before swine with these fanatic fundies.

I agree completely. But I personally stop short of the ridicule and contempt you advocate, simply because, though it may be deserved, it does nothing to advance progress.

I realize you're saying that reason and logic don't advance progress with extremists, either.

But there are many that aren't extremists, and I don't want to cut off the possibility of reaching them by using a vitriolic approach.

Consider a middle-of-the-road person who hasn't really thought all that much about religion but attends religious services every now and again because it's a part of his cultural background to do so.

What would such a person think of an extreme fundamentalist and a militant atheist screaming insults at each other?

Probably that both are out of touch with reality.

Perhaps.

No, my way is not the only way, but, for me, logic and patience seems more likely to reach the non-extremist.

It means I have to suffer the fools, so to speak, dialoging with them when I might prefer not doing so.

Perhaps the day will come when I see things differently. To each her own, of course.

I do enjoy the back-and-forth I find here, though. I'm always interested to see who will say what next.

Cheers,

Gregg

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

The AntiChristian — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:01:00 -0000

Despite using logic and reason being the proper way to go, I'm afraid it's a classic case of pearls before swine with these fanatic fundies.

I'm with Christopher Hitchens, who says that religion should be treated with "ridicule and contempt."
For some of these people, a good swift verbal kick in the crotch is what's in order, letting them know that ignoring logic and reason can only be met with "ridicule and contempt," letting them know that there is no place for such ignorance among thinking people.

Belief in Christianity is calculated ignorance, and it should not receive any respect whatsoever.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:50:00 -0000

lynne said:

. . .atheists should be more likely to choose the red pill and feel strongly about their choice in a hypothetical Matrix situation and theists more likely to choose the blue.

That's about as good an explanation as I've heard. It's a very good analogy.

Thanks, lynne.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Lynne — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:42:00 -0000

In my last post I described Dennett's idea that religious people are in love with the idea of God. Then I suggested that people only fall out of love when the object of their affection no longer meets their needs.

I just thought of something - maybe theists and atheists are the way we are because we have different needs. And most theists are perfectly happy to take the blue pill, or in other words, engage in some wishful thinking if it fulfills their emotional needs. Atheists, on the other hand, NEED to have the red pill. See: http://www.arrod.co.uk/essa... if you haven't seen the Matrix. If I'm right then atheists should be more likely to choose the red pill and feel strongly about their choice in a hypothetical Matrix situation and theists more likely to choose the blue.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Lynne — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:29:00 -0000

godsfavoritecolor,

I don't think crazy can explain it, since most otherwise very mentally healthy people are religious. But I like Daniel Dennett's idea (Breaking the Spell) that religious people are in love (with the idea of God.) That explains perfectly why rational arguments usually don't work. You can't talk someone out of being in love. Point out their beloved flaws, and the person will simply make excuses for them. People fall out of love, of course, but that is usually when the object of their affection is no longer meeting their needs - whatever needs those might be.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:44:00 -0000

Gregg, your questions are becoming stupid, as if you aren't even paying attention to what I've said.

------Really? I can look them over again. I think all I've asked for is supporting evidence for what you claim.

1) Original languages sources: There are at least 100 concordances, lexicons, interlinears, manuscripts, translation guides, dictionaries, etc etc. All one needs to do is find the original word used, find the full meaning of the Word, expanding to its full extent, and then find the most suitable translated word or phrase to get full meaning. Hard work, but logical.

------Biblical exegesis is much, much more than that. The three tenets of biblical exegesis are:

What does the author say?

What did the author mean?

What does it mean for me?

-- Quoted from Richard Ascough's Guide to Biblical Exegesis found here:

http://post.queensu.ca/~rsa...

Ascough is Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek at Queen's
Theological College.

But M, you miss the point. You haven't shown me anything to support your theory. You've only thrown back at me a bewildering array of facts that only partially relate to my questions.

I'll make this very succinct:

Please give supporting evidence/articles/sources/authorities for any of the things you claim other than your own knowledge and understanding.

2) Concerning the flood and an asteroid impact during Biblical times, I don't like to use wikipedia but I don't have time to search now as I'm leaving the office, look for Burckle crater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

------To quote from that article:

Burckle Crater has not yet been dated by radiometric analysis of its sediments.

Ergo, the crater's existence proves nothing. It suggests (no more) that many cultures wrote about the disaster in their religious texts.

3) There wasn´t actually that many animals that He required, read the verse again and do the maths. He had more than enough space.

------Do you mean to argue that the English word "all" (see Gen 7.2) translates a Hebrew word that doesn't mean "all"?

4) Will answer the other maybe tomorrow...

------I look forward to you explaining how I haven't been listening.

Oh, and don't mistake "I don't buy your argument" for "I'm not hearing you."

They aren't the same thing.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:56:00 -0000

Gregg, your questions are becoming stupid, as if you aren't even paying attention to what I've said.

1) Original languages sources: There are at least 100 concordances, lexicons, interlinears, manuscripts, translation guides, dictionaries, etc etc. All one needs to do is find the original word used, find the full meaning of the Word, expanding to its full extent, and then find the most suitable translated word or phrase to get full meaning. Hard work, but logical.

2) Concerning the flood and an asteroid impact during Biblical times, I don't like to use wikipedia but I don't have time to search now as I'm leaving the office, look for Burckle crater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

3) There wasn´t actually that many animals that He required, read the verse again and do the maths. He had more than enough space.

4) Will answer the other maybe tomorrow...

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:53:00 -0000

M:

You quote an unnamed source as saying:

This blueprint (DNA) is a language, and languages require a creator, a beneficiary, and a purpose.

More correct is the assertion that DNA is somewhat analogous to language in some respects.

Language is a method of human communication that involves rules of grammar. These rules of grammar are what distinguish language from other forms of communication.

You've mistaken the metaphor for the reality, it seems, and then based your conclusions on it.

You also say:

Furthermore, since life existed on earth immediately after liquid water was available, there was no time for random chance in either inception or mutation.

Can you provide any support for this claim?

How do you define immediately?

"No time for random chance." What other kind is there?

How do you know there was no time for chance?

Really, you should think about what your words mean and be ready to support your assertions before posting.

I'm still, by the way, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you just haven't had time today to dig through your reference material and provide me with answers to any of the questions I've asked.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:52:00 -0000

"The reason xtianity (and most other religions) survive and florish is that people are primarily motivated by emotions, not logic."

Bloviator, I agree with your comment, that's why I have no pleasure in traditional Christianity.

Now let's consider the logic of "There is no god." by discussing DNA, the double helix computer code of life (the following is copied and pasted from another source, I'm too lazy now to rewrite in my own words):
This blueprint (DNA) is a language, and languages require a creator, a beneficiary, and a purpose. No designer, no language - especially one with billions of character combinations. Further, the odds of elements accidentally engaging in a manner capable of forming life, and doing so with nutrients available, a means to acquire and process a food source, and a means to reproduce itself, all within the five million year timeframe this actually occurred, is astronomical beyond reason, beyond belief. Statistically, it is less than one chance in ten to the billionth, billionth power. This probability is so ludicrously extreme the number exceeds the quantity of fundamental molecular particles in the entire universe by a million-billion fold.

Furthermore, since life existed on earth immediately after liquid water was available, there was no time for random chance in either inception or mutation. Mathematically, biologically, and physically speaking, macro evolution from inorganic matter to complex life forms through random chance rather than intelligent design is so improbable that belief in such a theory ironically requires a blind leap of faith, one that goes against all rational sensibilities.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:36:00 -0000

M,

I appreciate your willingness to ignore the name-calling and dialog seriously about these things.

Here are my responses to your last:

Gregg, yes the difficulty of proving man with and without a conscience is almost impossible.
Today's man is searing his conscience by the moral code of political correctness, whereby being judgemental is a sin, because it prevents you from discerning between right and wrong.

Today's man may, indeed, be searing his conscience, but what does that have to do with my question? You haven't offered any evidence to back up your claim that there ever were humans without conscience.

Yes, you say that it's nearly impossible to prove the point, and I agree. But is there any creditable anthropologist who espouses this view?

It's a new concept to me. I'd like to see more than just your personal statement that "it's accepted."

But, man has only advanced in the last 6000 years of his 200000 year history, before Adam all we know is men were Cavemen. The most rationale conclusion is God's Scriptures are correct in that He took Adam from them and made him different.

Why is this the most rational conclusion? Can you give a reason for this?

And my reading of Genesis is that God did not take Adam from prior humans. Do you have insights into the original languages that indicate this, and -- most important -- creditable authorities who agree that this is what the text is really saying?

God let the universe naturally change over time, He even wiped out the dinosaurs so that mammals could come in the 6th day of creation.

On what basis do you figure this timeline?

Everything was perfectly planned so that Man would eventually take his place on center stage.

Concerning Noah:

The word ‘erets in Hebrew can can be translated as land, ground, area, territory, or earth. It was a local flood, still on a grand scale, but not a global flood. Christians deny the obvious. In this case the correct translation should be "in the region" not "all of the earth." The asteroid caused tsunamis to flood the Middle-East basin as well as torrential rain from the incredible amount of water thrown into the air.

The asteroid? During biblical times? Sources and evidence, please?

It would've caused any mountains in area to be covered with snow, and due to the shape of the earth if Noah was situated in the middle he wouldn't be able to see any coasts or mountains. In Genesis 7:11 water came from all directions, Scripture was right and science as well.

Was Noah to bring two, seven, or fourteen of each species into the ship? "From (min) all (kol) the clean (taher - pure) domesticated animals (bahemah - non human creatures) take (laqah - select and grasp) for yourself, seven (seba’) males (‘iysh) and seven (seba) females (‘iyssah) and two (sanayim - a pair of) related (‘asher) animals (bahemah) which are not (lo’) clean (taher), a male and female." (Genesis 7:2) The keyword being bahemah meaning domesticated, like farm animals, not hard to get actually. English translations rarely have it right!

Forget the numeric discrepancy. Even if you say that only two of each species, there are still millions for which to account.

Gregg, concerning your "The biblical dimensions of 450 feet long by 75 feet wide give 33,750 square feet." The U.S.S. Nimitz was designed to retrieve, carry, and launch aircraft. It is considered to be one of the most stable and stout ships ever built. The aircraft carrier has an overall length of 1,092 feet and features a beam of 134 feet below a flight deck which is 252 feet wide. The ratio of average width to her length is therefore 0.17. The Ark’s ratio of width to length is also 0.17, making it look like Yahweh aced His classes at the Naval Academy. By analyzing the Ark’s engineering specifications, and comparing them to those mankind has only recently been able to understand and achieve, it is evident that the Ark’s proportions were nearly five-thousand years ahead of her time.

Even so, there is still no room for millions of pairs of creatures.

The most logical explanation for this reality is that these words were inspired by someone with foreknowledge.

Why do you say that? Have you sought other explanations, weighed them, considered the pros and cons of each? Or do you simply choose the one to which you're predisposed because it supports your belief?

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Scriptures are more than 2200 years old and have not changed.

What does this have to do with anything we've been discussing?

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Bloviator — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:40:00 -0000

Oh, and one more thing:

The reason xtianity (and most other religions) survive and florish is that people are primarily motivated by emotions, not logic. WebMDave has a good post about the use of emotional arguments to witness to unbelievers.

Naturally, this also ties into my previous post about fear. Fear is one of the primary emotions, one that kept our early progenitors from being saber-tooth tiger fodder. Great motivator, fear... yeah, that and guilt, which of course is merely fear of being caught or found out.

Combine the tension and stress of fear and guilt and the pressure is almost palpable. Now here comes the get-out-of-jail-free card and the flush of emotional release often causes ecstatic joy and tears, etc. The classic conversion experience.

We are emotional creatures who are hard-wired to respond to emotional appeals.

My 'problem' is that my logical faculties are strong and due to that I can't resist the urge to test any claims that come my way. The religious way of life, especially xtianity, just didn't make the grade. Too loopy. Too contradictory. Too emotionally-based.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Bloviator — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:17:00 -0000

Yikes! M is the classic example of why the medieval catholic church thought it unwise to allow the bible to be read by the common man. I thought Luther and Calvin were disturbed, but this?!?

Proof once again that xtianity and the bible are whatever you want them to be, and all you need do is surround yourself with fellow travelers so your opinion can appear as unassailable logic and, dare I say it, TRUTH (always hated that one...)

My reflections post-deconversion on xtianity:

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!!!! All about fear of god and fear of the fiery pit of hell.

Fear of being caught 'red-handed' by the big guy.

Fear of the opinion of other believers.

Fear of letting Jesus down.

Fear of losing relatives and friends on Judgement Day.

Fear of thinking.

Fear of Life.

Yup, that about sums it up.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:15:00 -0000

Gregg, yes the difficulty of proving man with and without a conscience is almost impossible. Today's man is searing his conscience by the moral code of political correctness, whereby being judgemental is a sin, because it prevents you from discerning between right and wrong. But, man has only advanced in the last 6000 years of his 200000 year history, before Adam all we know is men were Cavemen. The most rationale conclusion is God's Scriptures are correct in that He took Adam from them and made him different. God let the universe naturally change over time, He even wiped out the dinosaurs so that mammals could come in the 6th day of creation. Everything was perfectly planned so that Man would eventually take his place on center stage.

Concerning Noah:

The word ‘erets in Hebrew can can be translated as land, ground, area, territory, or earth. It was a local flood, still on a grand scale, but not a global flood. Christians deny the obvious. In this case the correct translation should be "in the region" not "all of the earth." The asteroid caused tsunamis to flood the Middle-East basin as well as torrential rain from the incredible amount of water thrown into the air. It would've caused any mountains in area to be covered with snow, and due to the shape of the earth if Noah was situated in the middle he wouldn't be able to see any coasts or mountains. In Genesis 7:11 water came from all directions, Scripture was right and science as well.

Was Noah to bring two, seven, or fourteen of each species into the ship? "From (min) all (kol) the clean (taher - pure) domesticated animals (bahemah - non human creatures) take (laqah - select and grasp) for yourself, seven (seba’) males (‘iysh) and seven (seba) females (‘iyssah) and two (sanayim - a pair of) related (‘asher) animals (bahemah) which are not (lo’) clean (taher), a male and female." (Genesis 7:2) The keyword being bahemah meaning domesticated, like farm animals, not hard to get actually. English translations rarely have it right!

Gregg, concerning your "The biblical dimensions of 450 feet long by 75 feet wide give 33,750 square feet." The U.S.S. Nimitz was designed to retrieve, carry, and launch aircraft. It is considered to be one of the most stable and stout ships ever built. The aircraft carrier has an overall length of 1,092 feet and features a beam of 134 feet below a flight deck which is 252 feet wide. The ratio of average width to her length is therefore 0.17. The Ark’s ratio of width to length is also 0.17, making it look like Yahweh aced His classes at the Naval Academy. By analyzing the Ark’s engineering specifications, and comparing them to those mankind has only recently been able to understand and achieve, it is evident that the Ark’s proportions were nearly five-thousand years ahead of her time. The most logical explanation for this reality is that these words were inspired by someone with foreknowledge. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Scriptures are more than 2200 years old and have not changed.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

godsfavoritecolor — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:03:00 -0000

To all of you ex-christians in this thread and similar ones,
Why do you bother with these seriously disturbed religious people like M? They are making it up out of their twisted imaginations as they go. These intensely religious people are mentally ill. That is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the late eminent psychotherapist, Dr. Albert Ellis.
See http://www.geocities.com/bo...

Of course if you are enjoying yourselves demonstrating how ignorant and irrational these people are, then have at it. If, however, you think you might bring them around to rationality, I believe the odds of your success are slim. On the other hand, you might bring the occasional moderately religious reader to rationality.

I believe a better expenditure of your energies would be to spend more time encouraging and helping those who come to this site trying to escape from a religious pit.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

greggsewell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:43:00 -0000

M said:

God didn't need to go into detail about the first humans as it is besides the point.

Really? Then why did you mention this?

. . .the nomandic hunterers (without a conscience, cavemen if you like) of the day, something archaeology confirms.

Archaeology confirms that there were humans without a conscience? Please provide your source. I'd be most interested in reading about that.

Then came along Noah's Ark which was a local flood,. . .

Genesis 6:17: I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life . . . Everything on earth will perish.

How did a local flood cause all life on the globe to perish?

If science did not confirm Scripture I too wouldn't read it or bother with it.

The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million.

Noah took two (or seven) of each on an arc?

If you assume only the 2 million species we have identified and give each individual one square foot, then Noah's arc needed 4 million square feet minimum. The biblical dimensions of 450 feet long by 75 feet wide give 33,750 square feet.

How does science confirm this (or anything else in scripture, for that matter)?

Why the Bible? Because His Word is proven to be true.

Who says?

By what standard do you make that assertion?

Sorry if I didn't answer all your questions.

No problem, M. I look forward to your response to the above.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

boomSLANG — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:28:00 -0000

"M", attempts....God[biblegod] didn't need to go into detail about the first humans as it is besides the point

Yes, of course! I mean, why on earth would the "Creator of the Universe" need to go into detail about the "creation" of the first human beings? Why bother with frivilous details, when trying to impart the One Universal Truth to humankind?

continues....His Book is about our redemption.

Yes, "redemption". It's all making sense, now----biblegod is saving the "important details" for getting his needs met, because....well, because biblegod is "Perfect", and needs man to worship him to feel adequate.

Good grief---thank you, "M", for the daily affirmations that Christianity is utter bullshit; that the bible is one gigantic, subjective grab-bag.

Re: Science vs. God - Letters to the Webmaster

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:07:00 -0000

Gregg, "Where do I find the information you have about humans before Adam?

That's not in the christian bible, is it?"

God didn't need to go into detail about the first humans as it is besides the point. His Book is about our redemption. When Cain got kicked out he was fearful of being killed by the other humans on earth, Christians try say that Adam and Eve had other children, which is absurd. He simply feared the nomandic hunterers (without a conscience, cavemen if you like) of the day, something archaeology confirms. Then there's a passage of Scripture that says "the sons of God slept with the daughters of men," what's that all about? Those with a conscience (descendants of Adam and Cain) were with the humans without a conscience, they were naturally gifted over the men without a conscience. And with time they became completely perverted and destructive because they abused choice, they had no communication with God nor did they have history books like we do. Then came along Noah's Ark which was a local flood, the entire Middle-East basin, caused by an asteroid landing in the Indian ocean. Read http://www.nytimes.com/2006... for more details. Visit www.wyattmuseum.com for proof of the ark. Plus in the 2nd day of creation God said He would separate by water in the 2nd millennium of man's history since the fall of Adam.

Christians ignore the obvious, they deny science in favour of blind faith. If science did not confirm Scripture I too wouldn't read it or bother with it.

Why the Bible? Because His Word is proven to be true.

Gregg, try read www.yadayahweh.com at least the first four chapters of the first volume titled Genesis.

Anti, in Matthew 13:38-42 the fiery furnace is the lake of fire, the Abyss, the eternal abode of Satan and those born of his spirit. The Greek word for "furnace" is kaminos. Its primary use was for smelting - a chemical change which reduces and separates metals. Weeping is klauthmos Greek. It just means crying. Gnashing is brugmos. It is used to "denote extreme anguish and utter despair." When someone is burnt alive, their mouths open, screaming and gasping for air. We gnash our teeth when the pain is emotional, not physical.

It's not my place to judge a person's fate but those who actively lead others astray will reap their rewards. Yes, shame on Christians. I agree, they have been leading millions astray and still do especially when completely ignoring science. God tested their faithfulness in 1033 CE in Jerusalem, according to the Numbers 5:11-29 (metaphors again, God is the judge, priest and husband and the wife His people) divorce decree, the waters under Mount Moriah became poisoned. Both Christians and Jews in the city were poisoned and found to be unfaithful. It was prophetic, not some crazy insane ritual. Every 1000 years God leaves markers of the times, we know the end of the 6th day is soon.

Sorry if I didn't answer all your questions.