Author
|
Topic: Cool Comic Booklets. (Read 91030 times)
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
Cain's wife. This is really not a problem in the Bible. It's not a conflicting idea. Who said it was? I mean, with the most literal interpretation possible, there was Adam, and there was Eve, and they had children, 'cause we know God told them to do that. Nowhere in Genesis is it hinted that Cain and Abel were their only two children, or even their only sons. More likely, they had lots of daughters, too,
So please answer my question, if Adam and Eve were the only ones that ate the fruit, then howcome everyone is guilty of original sin?
If they had lots of children while living in the garden, howcome everyone was banished?
This being said, I agree that the Bible is quite messy. I think it's a miracle we have anything at all that survives from those periods of time,
Miracle?
As a religous text that people found important, the Bible was constantly re-written, thanks to this there were hundreds of copies of it. It would be surprising if something didn't survive.
If you take into accout the amount of other fictional writings, letters and government documents that survived, which were written thousands of years ago, there is nothing surprising that something that wasn't even fully assembled until the 4'th century also survived.
and I'm quite grateful that it did. It has made a great impact on us for the better.
Now that is a bold statement which I'd like to see backed up.
How exactly did it impact us for the better?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
well, for one thing it gave us a moral code, in a time where there was relative immorality ( i'm talking about pre-greece).
O'Reily?
And who said there was a relative immorality at the time?
There were other civilizations then Greece and Rome.
Egypt would be the better known one, tough there were other empires before the Jewish people assembled into anything that resembled a nation.
They all needed a moral code to exist, because without it we're just a scattered pack of animals*.
By the way I really don't like it when people claim that any religion is a source of morality.
Most of the time your religion is a reflection of you own individual moral rules, not the other way around. Just look at the Christians that argue with one another, wheter it is ok to use a condom, to have an abortion, euthanasia.... for someone that claims they have a source of morality (often "absolute" morality, they claim) they are pretty confused.
edit:
*) Scattered pack - duh, that's a new invention.
A slight clarification: without a set of rules of some sort, we're not even a pack of animals. If you look at the animals that live in some sort of communities they all have some sort of rules, I don't think it's far-fetched to call it morality.
I think even the more lonely animals have some sort of code when interacting with other members of their species.
The exception would be swarm animals, but I don't think it's right to think of them as a group.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2006, 10:11:19 am by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
first off, i'd like to start by saying that i don't know my ancient history all that well, so any corrections will br happily accepted...
lukipela:
I think at the very least, both Chinese and Native Americans would liek to have a few words with you about that
i'm sorry to say i don't have any knowledge about their early societies, what were they like?
Vanoha:
O'Reily?
And who said there was a relative immorality at the time?
There were other civilizations then Greece and Rome.
Egypt would be the better known one, tough there were other empires before the Jewish people assembled into anything that resembled a nation.
They all needed a moral code to exist, because without it we're just a scattered pack of animals*.
By the way I really don't like it when people claim that any religion is a source of morality.
Most of the time your religion is a reflection of you own individual moral rules, not the other way around. Just look at the Christians that argue with one another, wheter it is ok to use a condom, to have an abortion, euthanasia.... for someone that claims they have a source of morality (often "absolute" morality, they claim) they are pretty confused.
i'm not sure what you meant by O'reiley?
i'll clarify: when i'm saying relative immorality, i'm talking in comparison to today's standards. you could say: any group of people who get together and agree to a comman law such as jumping up and down for an hour every morning is moral, but most people today woudn't agree to define it as moral, but as a law. and therefore i do not neccasarily equate civilization with morality.
now, as far as i understood, most of the ancient civilizations had law, but not an independant moral code, that is to say, the king could say "i hereby decree, he is a sinner!" and the sinner would die. while in judeo-christianity-islam the moral code was SUPPOSED (not often) to be separate and above the ruler. when i say relative immorality i mean that nobody is supposed to be exempt from the moral code and the moral code can't be changed simply by whim.
in addition a religion is not neccasary a source of morality, i just think in this case it was. i would think that a constitution, a set of laws that apply to everyone and aren't changed easily would meet the same requirements and therefore would be a source of morality as well.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2006, 11:53:53 am by distant watcher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
i'm not sure what you meant by O'reiley?
It's a childish word-game.
O'Reily sounds kind of like "oh really", doesn't it?
Sorry for the cofusion.
i'll clarify: when i'm saying relative immorality, i'm talking in comparison to today's standards.
Well, in comparison to todays moral standards the Bible is one of the most horrible things written by man. Especially the old testament, (which was the only part of the Bible that was around the times when Greeks and Romans showed up, and they are much younger then Eqyptians, Babylonians, Hyppites (wrong spelling, but I'll be damned if I find how they were called properply in English)).
you could say: any group of people who get together and agree to a comman law such as jumping up and down for an hour every morning is moral, but most people today woudn't agree to define it as moral, but as a law. and therefore i do not neccasarily equate civilization with morality.
Yes but laws come from our ideas of morality, or they would never be obeyed.
Would you follow a law that is immoral in your opinion?
Laws are simply an attempt to find common ground between different moralities of people in the given society.
while in judeo-christianity-islam the moral code was SUPPOSED (not often) to be separate and above the ruler.
Here lies the problem.
Everyone says morality is supposed to be above everyone and everything.
It never was, and it never will be.
Our moral codes are determined by our experiences and interactions with other life-forms. They are different with every individual. They aren't something that is beamed to you from outer space, they aren't something you read in a book.
If there is an external source of morals then why we all don't have the same moral codes. Why is it impossible to find a group of people that agreed on everything regarding morality (unless they have been heavily brainwashed to do so, I guess)?
when i say relative immorality i mean that nobody is supposed to be exempt from the moral code and the moral code can't be changed simply by whim.
So where did you get the idea morality was ever changed by someones whim?
Absolute rulers weren't as absolute as people imagine. They could decree a lot of silly things, but their subjects could only take so much before they revolted.
The rulers, no matter how powerful they were, always had to keep in mind the reaction of their people.
in addition a religion is not neccasary a source of morality, i just think in this case it was.
No it wasn't.
If there was no morality before this particular religion (at least in the region where it was born), the who do you think wrote the great book of rules in the first place, and how was it possible if that individual or group thereof lacked any kind of morality?
Not only that if you look at the history of Christian morality, you will see how much it changed over the years.
Back in the day slavery was OK, women were treated as inferior (by some Christians, they still are), these are the things that you can find directly in the Bible, there is no room for misinterpretation.
How in the world can this kind of moral code have the same source as the morality you follow now?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died (Gen. 5:4,5).
Adam was 130 years old at the time of Seth's birth. It was during the remaining 800 years of Adam's life that he had other children. Mr. Jones is claiming this reproduction of sons and daughters happened "after Cain and before Seth." This is a blatant distortion of what Scripture says on the matter. Mr. Jones is apparently trying to take the events of "F" and "G" on the Adamic time line, and move them over to just after "C" on the time line.
__ A________B________C_______D_________E_________F___________G_
Adam Expulsion Cain Cain Seth Adam's other Grand
created from Eden born kills Abel born Children Children
Gen. 2:7 Gen. 3:23 Gen. 4:1 Gen. 4:8 Gen. 4:25 Gen. 5:4 Gen. 5:6-9
Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve had no other children when Cain killed Abel. So who were the people Cain was afraid would kill him? Where did all the people come from that made up the city Cain established? The Christian humanists cannot explain these Biblical facts.
The defence here is that A&E had sons and daughters before Seth (E), but only Seth is mentioned by the Bible as he was a replacement for Abel, who Cain had killed, and thus of some kind of special importance.
Edit: Seems the same sentence structures is used many times:
Seth lived one hundred five years, and became the father of Enosh.
7 Seth lived after he became the father of Enosh eight hundred seven years, and became the father of sons and daughters.
8 All the days of Seth were nine hundred twelve years, then he died.
9 Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan.
10 Enosh lived after he became the father of Kenan, eight hundred fifteen years, and became the father of sons and daughters.
11 All the days of Enosh were nine hundred five years, then he died.
It seems like there's a lot of male firstborns, or daughters are ignored, or anyone of no importance are ignored. Having a firstborn after like a hundred years? Seems odd. The correct sentence structure for the bible to make any sense would be:
Bob lived to be 948 years. During that time he had many children. At the age of 92 he had a son of special importance which he named Stevie.
and not as it seems:
At the age of 92 Bob had a son which he named Stevie, then he lived for another 856 years and had tons of more kids.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2006, 06:37:44 pm by Arne »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 74
|
Heh. That got everybody all riled up. You should see yourselves.
The main point being "Judas dies" and the details being either "Judas is killed by an act of God" or "Judas kills himself"? Funny idea of "details" you have. Some "witness' testimony", where one fails to notice spontaneous gutting and the other fails to notice him hanging on a tree. Not the kind of "details" you'd expect to be left out in anything based on reality.
As I said, always good fun when people try to reconcile conflicting stories in the Bible. No, the main point is "Judas kills himself." The details are how he died. This is also exactly what I would expect from two people who are compiling the testimonies of multiple people years after the fact. Now, if they had both been present, I would expect the contradicting details to be smaller, but they weren't present. Neither of those authors, unless I am mistaken, saw what happened with their own eyes.
Now, this is the sort of contradiction that I would not expect of a fiction writer. I know, I write fiction. Fiction writers would loudly point out the differences between their world and ours, and explain lots of things that their audience wouldn't understand. There's a lot of explanations missing from the Bible.
I think at the very least, both Chinese and Native Americans would like to have a few words with you about that The Chinese were responsible for history's worst book-burning and have slaughtered their own intellectual class at least twice in the past two thousand years. And the Native Americans (those few groups who were not barbarians) had their own chats with God. Granted, they since misinterpreted the whole "broken heart and contrite spirit" thing to mean human sacrifice, and that's when their civilization went into decline.
By the way I really don't like it when people claim that any religion is a source of morality.
Most of the time your religion is a reflection of you own individual moral rules, not the other way around. Just look at the Christians that argue with one another, wheter it is ok to use a condom, to have an abortion, euthanasia.... for someone that claims they have a source of morality (often "absolute" morality, they claim) they are pretty confused. Religion may not be a source of morality for some people, but a strong religion like Christianity or Judaisim is essential to preventing moral decay. You talked about the Romans, the Greeks, etc. All right, what happened to those groups? They became decadent, they decided that chastity wasn't important anymore, and they fell. Coincidence? I can't make you think like I do, but I don't believe in coincidences anymore.
Arne: Thank you, that was rather what I was getting at.
So please answer my question, if Adam and Eve were the only ones that ate the fruit, then howcome everyone is guilty of original sin?
If they had lots of children while living in the garden, howcome everyone was banished? They didn't have any children in the garden. They couldn't, until they partook of the fruit. Before that they were innocent, knowing no good, no evil, and, like children, not knowing how to reproduce. Pretty boring life. When they did partake of the fruit (after some undetermined period of time in the garden), they started having kids. These kids were subject to the same laws that Adam and Eve were after the fall, not the laws that governed them in the garden. They were born mortal, but knew good from evil and could decide between the two.
God can't make anything imperfect. But in order to progress, we needed to know what evil was, what pain was, what sorrow and remorse were. That way we could also find goodness, pleasure, happiness and joy. Think of a rich man who doesn't want to have his kids grow up all spoiled, so he kicks them out of his house at a young age, and arranges for them to live much more poorly. When they grow up, if they're worthy, he'll gladly let them back in, and, having known what it's like to be poor, they'll appreciate it. Of course, a just God can't kick his kids out for no reason, so they had to disobey him. What's even worse, is that a good and just God can't entice anyone to do wrong, because then he'd be inconsistent, and that would REALLY confuse us. So, the sequence in Genesis happened.
Miracle?
As a religous text that people found important, the Bible was constantly re-written, thanks to this there were hundreds of copies of it. It would be surprising if something didn't survive.
If you take into accout the amount of other fictional writings, letters and government documents that survived, which were written thousands of years ago, there is nothing surprising that something that wasn't even fully assembled until the 4'th century also survived. I mean it's amazing that so many of the books that now form the Bible survived until the 4th century. They were only important to a very small group of people that nobody really liked (the Jews) until the Christians came around. Then there were two of these groups that nobody really liked. I'm also surprised at how accurately those 4th century bishops discerned between false books and real ones, but that's another topic that I don't feel like getting into right now.
Well, in comparison to todays moral standards the Bible is one of the most horrible things written by man. Especially the old testament, (which was the only part of the Bible that was around the times when Greeks and Romans showed up, and they are much younger then Eqyptians, Babylonians, Hyppites (wrong spelling, but I'll be damned if I find how they were called properply in English)). Yeah, 'cause the Greeks and Romans wrote about flowers and butterflies and rainbows and sunshine. And it's Hittites and properly. 
You're just talking about the narrative anyway. Did you even read any of the prophecy bits? Or any of the law of Moses?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
I'd argue that the Bible is well written, but only in terms of being a successfull meme (cultural gene). It's very aggressive against competing memes and spreads efficiently. Because it's also vague it can be made to appeal to anyone. There's plenty of 'cherries' to pick for: good people, soccermums, vapid celebrities, torturers, anti-semitites, anti-gays, warmongers, you name it. There's an action-justifying passage of 'wisdom' for everyone. That's why it's so powerful.
Very old cultures didn't have book printing to their favour. If a maya parchment was burned by say... catholics, it was lost forever. Christianity (and most religions) spreads the most effiently through morally despicable means, make no mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
Heh. That got everybody all riled up. You should see yourselves.
And you should listen to yourself... you frighten me, mate.
The Chinese were responsible for history's worst book-burning and have slaughtered their own intellectual class at least twice in the past two thousand years.
It's a very interesting accusation, from a one that is trying to defend Christianty.
And the Native Americans (those few groups who were not barbarians) had their own chats with God. Granted, they since misinterpreted the whole "broken heart and contrite spirit" thing to mean human sacrifice, and that's when their civilization went into decline.
And you are as arrogant to belive that they worshipped the same god you do, and it is only thanks to this that they build a succesful civilization.
You think that your religion is a pre-requisite for a suucesful society, while it could easily be argued that their succeses weren't of their own making, but stolen from others... scary.
Religion may not be a source of morality for some people, but a strong religion like Christianity or Judaisim is essential to preventing moral decay.
Moral decay?
As in burning heretics and witches? Prohibitng people from finding out how the world works by death threats? Holy wars? Violating the most private aspects of people's lifes?
That kind of moral decay?
You talked about the Romans, the Greeks, etc. All right, what happened to those groups? They became decadent, they decided that chastity wasn't important anymore, and they fell. Coincidence? I can't make you think like I do, but I don't believe in coincidences anymore.
Which history books are you reading?
The Greeks were conquered by the Romans and the Romans fell after they were divided by Christianity.
Coincidence? Surely by your line of thinking Christianity is to blame, not stagnation, both technological and economic, that made the empire unable to sustain itself, and territories too big the maintain by their scattered legions.
They didn't have any children in the garden. They couldn't, until they partook of the fruit. Before that they were innocent, knowing no good, no evil, and, like children, not knowing how to reproduce.
Didn't god command them (and every single living thing) to reproduce?
Not that god never gave orders that were impossible to accomplish... like for example - how in the world were Adam and Eve supposed to know that it's wrong to eat the fruit, before they had knowledge of good and evil.
And what exactly is it with Christian's obsession with sex?
What is so 'innocent' about virginity? I never could understand this.
God can't make anything imperfect.
Then he's not really omnipotent, is he?
Besides, thw hole Eden setup was far from perfect:
Let's see I'll put these 2 humans here and this tree over there.
I'll tell the humans it's wrong to eat from the tree, even tough they don't know what right or wrong is.
Oh and just for fun I'll put this serpant with a silver tongue, and a somewhat original sense of humour right next to the tree.
Gee... I wonder what will happen.
But in order to progress, we needed to know what evil was, what pain was, what sorrow and remorse were. That way we could also find goodness, pleasure, happiness and joy.
So why bother with the garden and everthing, and create everything as it is?
Keep in mind your "god can't create anything imperfect" argument just fell.
I mean it's amazing that so many of the books that now form the Bible survived until the 4th century. They were only important to a very small group of people that nobody really liked (the Jews) until the Christians came around. Then there were two of these groups that nobody really liked.
So I guess it's an equal miracle that we know of the religions of Egyptians and Babylonians as well. Bah! We know of the beliefs of ancient barbaric tribes, and they had no paper or the ability to write everything down, that must be a miracle!
I'm also surprised at how accurately those 4th century bishops discerned between false books and real ones, but that's another topic that I don't feel like getting into right now.
Oh please by all means do, I wonder what you can come up with about this.
Had it ever occured to you that you think they are the "real" ones only because these people decided that they are, and this belief was forced on countless people (including you) from the cradle?
Yeah, 'cause the Greeks and Romans wrote about flowers and butterflies and rainbows and sunshine.
Never said that.
But I also never claimed that the Greek and Roman writings are the source of Absolute Morality™.
[edit]That is why I find the Bible so horrible. To put such atrocieties in a book is one thing, I really have nothing against that, but to have the guts to claim these atrocieties are a source of morality... there are no words for such hypocrisy.[/edit]
And it's Hittites and properly.
Ah.. thanks
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2006, 08:53:27 pm by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
Vanoha:
Well, in comparison to today's moral standards the Bible is one of the most horrible things written by man.
you won't find any disagreements here. however, that was not my point, my point was that it was a step up from we had before, i.e. those two ideas i mentioned (a moral code that applies to everyone, a code that is not easily changed)
Yes but laws come from our ideas of morality, or they would never be obeyed.
Would you follow a law that is immoral in your opinion?
Laws are simply an attempt to find common ground between different moralities of people in the given society.
agreed. however, i did define relative immorality in comparison to our standards.
Here lies the problem.
Everyone says morality is supposed to be above everyone and everything.
It never was, and it never will be.
agreed once again, but it still shouldn't be something that can be changed on a drop of a dime. if you believe that your king is the son of god or has a mandate from heaven, you will agree to many things that we would find today immoral. And then you get a totally fluid moral code (the king is right...)
If there is an external source of morals then why we all don't have the same moral codes. Why is it impossible to find a group of people that agreed on everything regarding morality (unless they have been heavily brainwashed to do so, I guess)?
don't you think they agree on the most important things at least? :everyone should be subject to the law, thou shalt not kill, and so on? in my opinion the things that are in dispute are USUALLY minor things.
So where did you get the idea morality was ever changed by someone's whim?
Absolute rulers weren't as absolute as people imagine. They could decree a lot of silly things, but their subjects could only take so much before they revolted.
The rulers, no matter how powerful they were, always had to keep in mind the reaction of their people.
well it depends on the culture, if the king simply was from the strongest clan, then you are right. even then however as long as he was careful where he trod he could get away with most things....
on the other hand if he was the son of god / god he much more close to being unstoppable.
No it wasn't.
If there was no morality before this particular religion (at least in the region where it was born), the who do you think wrote the great book of rules in the first place, and how was it possible if that individual or group thereof lacked any kind of morality?
i think that's a strange way of looking at it. how come people came to believe the earth revolves around the sun before galileo? ( i may be wrong, but, but it's the principle) he started something and it changed the world. in this case as well there was some unknown catalyst which started it. (i think - be it man god or something else (the airilou perhaps ))
Not only that if you look at the history of Christian morality, you will see how much it changed over the years.
Back in the day slavery was OK, women were treated as inferior (by some Christians, they still are), these are the things that you can find directly in the Bible, there is no room for misinterpretation.
How in the world can this kind of moral code have the same source as the morality you follow now?
the appearance of those three religions was a step upwards. by no means was it the last step.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 74
|
And you should listen to yourself... you frighten me, mate. People are always afraid of what they don't understand...
It's a very interesting accusation, from a one that is trying to defend Christianty. It's not an accusation, it is an observation. Have you ever heard of Mao Tse-tung? Guy wrote the book on "How to SCREW Your Country's Economy and Set Their Technology Back by About a Thousand Years." Are you familiar with the Qin Dynasty? They got into power around the turn of the second century A.D. About 190 I think. They burned not only Confucian and Daoist books but also the Confucians and Daoists. Mao got some of his worst ideas from these guys, calling themselves the "legalists." It took China about a thousand years to partially recover from this attack. They achieved quite a bit of dominance around 16c, but lost it due to their own reclusiveness, which the evangelical attitude of Christianity would have diffused, had they been Christian.
Am I trying to prove that Christianity is true? Heck no. I'm proving that it is very successful and that it makes cultures and nations who adhere to it successful. Give me some counter-examples if you don't like my proof. What are some nations that got successful without Christianity or at least Judaism at their heart? Japan? Japan was bunch of fragmented, feudal, warring clans until they were contacted by the Christian world. Then, they copied Germany and the UK, and later got boosted by the U.S. after WWII. Much of their success they owe to Christian nations. Korea? Korea was pretty successful at staying right where it was, but again, it became a major player more by contact with Christian nations than anything else. The Aztecs? They couldn't stand up to Spain. Sub-Saharan Africa? You mean the guys who sold their brethren as slaves to the Westerners? Yeah, they did well up through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. How about some nations that stuck with Christianity, and now are doing poorly? Russia? Russia was doing fine until guys like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin tanked the economy and chased off the Christians. Ummm... Latin America? Latin America didn't really convert because they believed in any sort of Christianity, they converted because they didn't want the Spanish to kill them. And they're really starting to pick up, too.
Remember, in order for my point to be valid, it doesn't have to hold true with every single culture on earth. It has to hold true with a lot of them. There has to be a significant relationship, that's all. Look at the list of first-world countries. Which ones are Christian? Which ones aren't?
I'm also trying to say that the Bible is way more consistent than what people think. But no one's listening or talking intelligently to me about that because they haven't actually looked at it objectively. That's okay.
And you are as arrogant to belive that they worshipped the same god you do, and it is only thanks to this that they build a succesful civilization.
You think that your religion is a pre-requisite for a suucesful society, while it could easily be argued that their succeses weren't of their own making, but stolen from others... scary. I never said that. I know for a fact that it helps (U.S. history alone proves it), but I never claimed that it is necessary to be Christian in order to have a successful society. I believe the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Mayans worshipped the same God I do not because of their success, but for dozens of other reasons that I really can't share without a long, boring lecture on Mesoamerican history. Suffice it to say that I believe they did worship the same God, and when they apostacized from the commandments, they fell into a Dark Age. Hmm... where have we seen this before? Europe, maybe?
Moral decay?
As in burning heretics and witches? Prohibitng people from finding out how the world works by death threats? Holy wars? Violating the most private aspects of people's lifes?
That kind of moral decay? Yup. That kind. It would have gotten a lot worse, too, had Christianity not had a "back to it's roots" revival. Have you ever heard of names like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Calvin or Erasmus? You owe them for the society you live in. Big time. Show a little gratitude.
Which history books are you reading?
The Greeks were conquered by the Romans and the Romans fell after they were divided by Christianity.
Coincidence? Surely by your line of thinking Christianity is to blame, not stagnation, both technological and economic, that made the empire unable to sustain itself, and territories too big the maintain by their scattered legions. The Romans were not divided by Christianity. They would have had to really believe in Christianity for this to be the case. They were divided by Constantine. The point I was making is the one you have completely passed over. The moral decay of these people was precisely WHY they stagnanted economically and technologically. When people are placated by fornication and decadence, they tend to place less emphasis on important things like working and defending their realms against gobs of invading Goths and Vandals. Yes, the stagnation killed the Empire. But what caused the stagnation? I firmly believe that it was heavy moral decay, combined with apathy and complacency.
Didn't god command them (and every single living thing) to reproduce?
Not that god never gave orders that were impossible to accomplish... like for example - how in the world were Adam and Eve supposed to know that it's wrong to eat the fruit, before they had knowledge of good and evil. And what exactly is it with Christian's obsession with sex?
What is so 'innocent' about virginity? I never could understand this. God gave Adam and Eve a CHOICE. He's all about choices. The choice was to either reproduce, or not partake of the fruit. A very simple, yet elegant choice. It's amazing, when you think about it. Even if you think it came from the mind of some ancient hebrew storyteller. A&E, BTW, were not supposed to know it was wrong to eat the fruit, but that God had told them not to. There's a difference, in this case.
Then he's not really omnipotent, is he? I believe that omnipotence is defined as "being able to do anything that you want to do." In this sense, God is omnipotent. He can do anything He wills to do. He can't lie or cheat or steal or make imperfect things, not in the same way I am incapable of flight (that is, lacking the ability), but rather in the same way that I am incapable of participating in a State Lottery (that is, it goes against my nature so much that I will never do it). I also believe that it is God's obedience to higher laws that GRANTS Him such power. If you want an example of that, please try to imagine an engineer who ignores or defies the theory of gravity. He isn't nearly as powerful as the engineer who accepts gravity.
Besides, thw hole Eden setup was far from perfect:
Let's see I'll put these 2 humans here and this tree over there.
I'll tell the humans it's wrong to eat from the tree, even tough they don't know what right or wrong is.
Oh and just for fun I'll put this serpent with a silver tongue, and a somewhat original sense of humour right next to the tree.
Gee... I wonder what will happen. What, you don't think God knew what would happen? He's smarter than you give credit. And the situation perfectly accomplished what it was supposed to. I don't see why you're whining.
So why bother with the garden and everthing, and create everything as it is?
Keep in mind your "god can't create anything imperfect" argument just fell. How did it fall? God can't create things that are imperfect, but He DID create things that could EVOLVE into an imperfect state. Where's the hole?
So I guess it's an equal miracle that we know of the religions of Egyptians and Babylonians as well. Bah! We know of the beliefs of ancient barbaric tribes, and they had no paper or the ability to write everything down, that must be a miracle! Actually, we know very little of the beliefs of those groups at that time. Very precious little. The Hebrew record is by far the most complete. Also, the Hebrews were not comparable to the Egyptians. They were much more comparable to, say, the Hittites, or the Moabites, or the Canaanites.
quote]
Oh please by all means do, I wonder what you can come up with about this.
Had it ever occured to you that you think they are the "real" ones only because these people decided that they are, and this belief was forced on countless people (including you) from the cradle?[/quote]
Has the thought crossed your mind that I might be capable of independant research? Just asking.
Never said that.
But I also never claimed that the Greek and Roman writings are the source of Absolute Morality™.
[edit]That is why I find the Bible so horrible. To put such atrocieties in a book is one thing, I really have nothing against that, but to have the guts to claim these atrocieties are a source of morality... there are no words for such hypocrisy.[/edit] The Book of Genesis is narrative. Narrative means that it's just trying to tell us what happened. As far as they know, that's what happened. It's not saying "Do this!" or "This is a good idea!" In fact, books like Judges were written to show Israel how far they had fallen, and to call them back to repentance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
Vanoha:
Hm... now I'm confused 
Do you mind explaining how did you arrive at this modification of my nickname?
you won't find any disagreements here. however, that was not my point, my point was that it was a step up from we had before, i.e. those two ideas i mentioned (a moral code that applies to everyone, a code that is not easily changed)
Ok, but then you have to prove that before Judaism/Christianity moral codes actally were so prone to change and selectiviely applied.
It happened in one place but it didn't in another.
I think part of the diagreement may lie in the way you worded your original answer.
"It gave us a moral code"
Who do you mean by "us". Europeans? Well, we arrived at a quite nice moral code before Judaism even had the chance of reaching us and Christianity didn't even exist.
Do you mean mankind? If so, I suupose I could agree, but it could only be true in a small irrelevant part of the world.
The rest of the world discovered their moral codes independently, so saying things like "it gave us a moral code" is not really accurate, is it?
agreed once again, but it still shouldn't be something that can be changed on a drop of a dime. if you believe that your king is the son of god or has a mandate from heaven, you will agree to many things that we would find today immoral. And then you get a totally fluid moral code (the king is right...)
OK again, but now you have to prove that things actually were different under Christianity.
Emperors of Rome claimed they have regular chats with god himself, so what they said was automatically holy. Pretty much the same as your scenario with the god-king.
In such a case saying "it gave us a moral code" is wrong because it didn't. Nothing has really changed.
don't you think they agree on the most important things at least? :everyone should be subject to the law, thou shalt not kill, and so on? in my opinion the things that are in dispute are USUALLY minor things.
Well... yes and no.
You covered yourself with "usually" so there's no point in giving specific examples.
But the point is those moral codes bare some similarity because the things you (and most people) consider important are the ones that are critical for a stable functioning of a society.
For example, without at least a basic inhibition of killing people would scatter and the socety would die.
i think that's a strange way of looking at it. how come people came to believe the earth revolves around the sun before galileo? ( i may be wrong, but, but it's the principle)
Copernicus, actually.
Sorry but that's my pseudo-patriotism talking through me.
Tough truth be told some Greek philosophers got it more or less right in their time.
he started something and it changed the world. in this case as well there was some unknown catalyst which started it. (i think - be it man god or something else (the airilou perhaps ))
Ok, you're right, I did turn things upside-down a little, but I wasn't sure where you're comming from.
Anyway, my main point is that if you want to say that the Bible gave us moral rules you have to show that:
a) To moral code "we" had was inferior before the Bible.
b) The Bible was the thing that changed the moral code.
c) It couldn't change if it wasn't for the Bible.
a) is quite problematic.
b) is damn impossible to prove because it's pretty hard to tell if the Bible changed the morality, or was the writing of the Bible a symptom of an already changed moral code
c) pretty much speaks against your theory as there was a great number of civilizations that reached the moral level of the Bible (and sometimes above) without it's help.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 10:50:26 am by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Rtyp06:
Man has named Mosquitoes, tapeworms and liver flukes, has he not? I don't see that this makes the scripture any less valid, but rather reaffirms it.
But why would god make those animals? What is the purpose? Why would he make skin bacteria (Leprosy )as a scourge on mankind before they had antibiotics? Then instruct moses in the book of Leviticus to sacrifice animals in order to cure men from leprosy? Why didn't god tell him how to culture penicilin instead?
And if all animals ate plants and were instructed by god not to kill (until man's sin) why is the complete animal kingdom made up of prey / preadtor relationships? Did sharks really feed off seaweed? Did lions eat flowers as a dietary staple?
As for Job, I think it's a little easier to say that Satan doesn't understand loyalty, and needed God and Job to show him how powerful this is. Job may have needed to go through trials in order to find out something about himself that he couldn't have known otherwise. Remember also, the story of Job is a poetic work, and the dialogue between Satan and God is invented, as the writer wasn't there to talk about it intelligently.
Again, why? Why would god need to show satan... anything? If god loved Job why would he allow such horrible things? Would you allow sombody to abuse your Dog to prove a point of loyalty? Or does god not love Job, his faithful servant, as much as I care for my pets?
There are so many WHY questions in the bible it becomes almost absurd..
Why did it take an omnipotent being six days, (or any amount of time at all) to create the heavens and earth?
Why did god need to destroy life with a world wide flood which achieved absolutely nothing? Are there not just as many wicked people today as in Noah's day? And wouldn't god know ahead of time that he would have to eventually kill everyone and then allow the earth to repopulate? Why not just do it right the first time?
When Noah landed on mt. aararat did god really put his "hunting bow" into the clouds (rainbow) as a covenant to man, assuring that he will never destroy the earth again? Why would he put his hunting bow into the clouds? Is god not going to hunt ever again?
Why would god, capable of designing DNA and every creature on earth, ever need to have animals sacrificed to him? The book of leviticus is completetly about the lord's instructions on how to prepare animal sacrifices from many different species of animals for various sins and ailments.. I know that Leviticus is old testament and that Jesus is supposed to eliminate all need for animal sacrifice, but why would god ever need it for atonement of sin in the first place?
Perhaps we are looking at ancient mythic text, written by many fallible human authors who all contributed thier own spin on god rather than god's absolute word to us?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 04:12:14 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
