Hi,

Id like to question Jere, Stopandthink, Sal and others at just how the Dinosaurs came about if God made the world and Adam & Eve in his 7 days etc?

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Hi,

Id like to question Jere, Stopandthink, Sal and others at just how the Dinosaurs came about if God made the world and Adam & Eve in his 7 days etc?

I've never been a proponent for 7 magical days. They evolved just like we did... Then they got freeze dried. Brrrrrrr... I hate the cold.

Loki, the Christian Bible makes a reference to giants being in the land and mating with humans but that is all that I have ever noticed in reference to large creatures.
Most of the lore of Greek Myth was probably from finding giant bones(fossils) that led to tales of unicorns, giants, etc.
The 7 day myth of creation was probably some ignorant trying to explain creation to an uninformed population.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Loki, the Christian Bible makes a reference to giants being in the land and mating with humans but that is all that I have ever noticed in reference to large creatures.

dinosaurs mating with humans? wow, i mean, uh...wow. how would that even work?

Thats not the kind of "birds and the bees" story i want to be telling to my kids thankyou :)

Also Jere, Stopandthink, not going to comment?

Id like to question Jere, Stopandthink, Sal and others at just how the Dinosaurs came about if God made the world and Adam & Eve in his 7 days etc?

I've always wondered this myself. We know that dinosaurs existed before humans, right? Where do they come into the Bible?

Sorry, I just got to this post.
Genesis 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures..."
Genesis 1:24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature..."
Does that answer you question? Or did you expect Moses to write a report on all the animals that were created in the beginning?
Also, we need to understand that by days, Moses doesn't acutally mean 24 hours, but periods of time. And when God creates something, it doesn't necesserily puffs out of nowhere, it might very well evolve.

Just how big would Moses' ark be? Did he put fish and whales on it?

Lol. I am sure all dinosaurs were extinct by then. In fact, I think they all died way before any human stepped on the earth. Makes sense from scientific stand point and Biblical.

MATING? Ok sorry buddy but I don't see myself getting it on with a T-Rex...youch...

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Lol. I am sure all dinosaurs were extinct by then. In fact, I think they all died way before any human stepped on the earth. Makes sense from scientific stand point and Biblical.

How??? God made the earth and then put adam and eve on it, not dinosaurs. There was no earth before hand for the dinosaurs to have been on if we are to believe genesis in any way.

You are not making sense. God created animals....then He created humans. Do you see that? We don't know how long it was between the two events, we just have certain periods of time that Moses calls days.
Also when God created animals, what makes you think He didn't created dinosaurs first, then let them evolve, then killed some of them. All of this could have happened in a "day".

So these huge creatures walked the earth for way longer then us humans and all the mention they get is God made animal? Maybe a better answer would be that those who wrote the Bible didn't have a clue about the past so they just threw a few sentences in that could be interpretated any which way. Maybe the Bible is a learning/teaching tool and is just a thought of how God might want things? Maybe what has happened through the years is the true meaning has been lost, with all the different interpretations, fires, thieves, etc.....

Originally posted by STOpandthink
You are not making sense. God created animals....then He created humans. Do you see that? We don't know how long it was between the two events, we just have certain periods of time that Moses calls days.
Also when God created animals, what makes you think He didn't created dinosaurs first, then let them evolve, then killed some of them. All of this could have happened in a "day".

Fair enough, StopandThink for my benefit right now, I want you to confirm that the entire first passage of the bible is wrong.

"3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day"

So now either your saying that these days are millions of years long or your not. It clearly defines what our representation of a day is to a point that even i understand. and after each day he makes sure to point out "And there was evening and there was morning" so that we know that its a day that has passed.

It isnt untill the 6th day that Animals turn up, and one day later so does man.

So i want you to say and agree that Genesis 1 is completely wrong and that (with a really great post by you in another thread about the car) the creation by God was a long expanding billion year long venture if indeed it was actually by GOD at all.

I'll admit it is wrong.

The first part of Genesis wrong? I’d say that God knows exactly what happened, and made sure it was written that way.
Did creation happen in a literal six days? Every indication in the creation account suggest that God intendeds man to believe it did, and why not, if God can create, can’t He create in six days?
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, check out Job 40:15-19 notice the bit where behemoths tail is like a cedar, or hangs like a cedar. Hmmm like a cedar…very thick at the base, and very narrow at the tip. Can anyone think of an animal that has a description and tail as described in Job? I can. A dinosaur.
I also suspect the ancient descriptions of dragons are just embellished dinosaur encounters. There are stories out of ancient Italy that describes a dinosaur.
At one time man and dinosaurs existed together.

By the way the Bible speaks of Giants, yet people are quick to discount the existence of Giants in reality. Tell me, how tall is a giant? The Bible doesn’t speak of men that are thirty feet high, it doesn’t give a measurement at all, so maybe we are talking 7 feet tall or 8 feet tall, and yes maybe more.
Oh and about Noah’s ark and the difficulty of a dinosaur fitting into it. Well how big is a very young dinosaur? Do you think Noah would have loaded a fully grown T-Rex?

Loki I hope that answers your question. Now let me ask you a question... Why don't you believe God exists?

Oh, please, stark, don't aks this question here, make another post. :)
I don't understand you, Loki. Day is a period of time, like a phase. Would it make it better if the Bible used the word phase. In the first phase God did this, in the second He did that. See? It's just like that.
And why would I want to CONFIRM that the passage from the Bible is false? Just because it says morning and night?
Oh, oh, but didn't you see that during the first day there was NO sun or moon to mark the time. How was there morning and evening then? This morning and evening is simply like saying "beginning and the end".
Phase 1: it began and it ended.
Phase 2: it began and it ended...
See? But who wants to read that?
If you are still not satisfied with the "morning and evening" I can point you to where St. Augustine spends several pages explaining it to people like you.
Also, I agree that it wasn't actual days (as in 24 hours), but extended periods of time.

The overwhelming evidence that proves otherwise, because nearly every single point in the OT can be proved wrong and because the concept sickens me to the point that if God suddenly revealed himself along with the Devil, Id side with the Devil regardless of Heaven.

But then its clear to me now that if God did exist, there was no Devil. God made man in his image and look how we are...

Also lets face some harsh reality facts here, if man walked with dinosaurs dont you think there would have been some evidence found by now... o but wait... there is evidence if only i have faith.

I hope with all my heart and mind that we find a way to leave this planet, because then, and finally then, we can rid ourselves of this disease that is Religion.

When i die im going into a hole in the ground to rot, but im ok with that, It honestly doesnt bother me one bit.

The overwhelming evidence that proves otherwise, because nearly every single point in the OT can be proved wrong and because the concept sickens me to...
What evidence? Show this evidence.
God made man in his image and look how we are...
Yeah, we are stupid retards who sinned and fell away from God. Thankfully, now, some of us are trying to get back and God provided a way through Christ.
if man walked with dinosaurs dont you think there would have been some evidence found by now
Please! We just started to found the "evidence" several decades ago. You expect too much. Also, I don't think man was with dinosaurs, I don't know why stark says that.
I hope with all my heart and mind that we find a way to leave this planet, because then, and finally then, we can rid ourselves of this disease that is Religion.
Why? What makes you say that? Even if right now we find aliens and are able to launch colonies to Saturn, I will still believe in God. Why not? What's new that should change my mind?
When i die im going into a hole in the ground to rot, but im ok with that, It honestly doesnt bother me one bit.
And when I die, I will go to heaven. Mmmmmm...nice. :D

From what I was taught, heaven is a place with no strife, no challenges, no decisions, no work. Everyone has a healthy body/essence. There is no pain or sickness or sadness. No one grows old.

Sounds boring to me. To exist for eternity, with out changeing, with no chalenges, is the wrost thing that could happen to an intellegent being.

No thank you. I'll pass.

We could never learn to be brave and patient, if there were only joy in the world.
-Helen Keller-

The first part of Genesis wrong? I’d say that God knows exactly what happened, and made sure it was written that way.
Did creation happen in a literal six days? Every indication in the creation account suggest that God intendeds man to believe it did, and why not, if God can create, can’t He create in six days?

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, check out Job 40:15-19 notice the bit where behemoths tail is like a cedar, or hangs like a cedar. Hmmm like a cedar…very thick at the base, and very narrow at the tip. Can anyone think of an animal that has a description and tail as described in Job? I can. A dinosaur.


Stark, you just helped prove Loki's point. If creaton took place in 6 literal days and creating humans was one of the things he did in those first six days, then how do you explain the scietific evidence that shows dinosaurs existing millions of years before humans?

Echo2: Sounds boring to me. To exist for eternity, with out changeing, with no chalenges, is the wrost thing that could happen to an intellegent being. No thank you. I'll pass.
It's being with God, that's what it is all about. How can I explain it to you...
It's like when something suddenly makes sense and things just connect together...
It's like falling in love...
It's like knowing that you are right and everything is well...
It's like being loved by the one you love...
It's like the best feeling you ever felt...
I would say it's like getting high, but that's not exactly it.
You see? That is heaven. It is being with God, whom we (and that is why WE are going to be there) love with all our hears, souls, and minds and He loves us. That "God may be all in all." You could in heaven and "walk in a park," but there is no time. You just feel great because you finally received what you wanted. There is NO need for anything more. Science? Ha! Who needs that? Philosophy? Psh! Everything is clear. Literature? Why? To praise God, ceirtainly.
It's not going to be boring to me because I will be with people I love and with God I love. If it's boring for you and you don't want to go there...there is always the other path.

Stark? Sometimes I don't get you? Why are you confusing people? Ceirtainly God could have created everything in 6 days or 1 second, but let's accept the scientific facts (otherwise we will look like idiots) and the fact that Bible does use the words in a general ambigous sense sometimes.

Loki are you saying that God doesn’t exist because nearly every single point in the Old Testament can be proved wrong? Are you sure there aren’t any other reasons you refuse to believe in God?
Let’s broaden these points you speak of to large fields and see if you can come up with a proven falsehood in any of the categories. 1) Where is the OT wrong Archaeologically? 2) Where is the OT wrong Historically? 3) Where is the OT wrong scientifically? 4) Where does the OT contradict itself doctrinally?
Next you said:
“if God suddenly revealed himself along with the Devil, Id side with the Devil regardless of Heaven.”

God gives us that choice, but your post makes a good point, I don’t think that it’s because men have not seen enough evidence of God that keeps them from believing, I think they just don’t want to believe, for what ever reason.
Next you said:
“But then its clear to me now that if God did exist, there was no Devil. God made man in his image and look how we are…”

I guess I don’t understand how is it that if God exists there is no devil; how does that work? Yes, God made man in His image; like God we are reasonable, emotional, creative and we can choose. Sadly many times we choose to do wrong, we choose to be evil.
Next you said:
“Also lets face some harsh reality facts here, if man walked with dinosaurs dont you think there would have been some evidence found by now…”

Apart from what I listed, there is also an ancient American Indian cave drawing that resembles the dinosaur Edmontosaurus. Every ancient society has its dragon stories, an old European science book called Historia Animalium, lists several animals that we would know as dinosaurs. A naturalist of that time called, Ulysses Aldrovandus, wrote of an encounter between a man called Baptista and a “dragon” whose description fits that of a dinosaur called Tanystropheus, the date of the encounter was May 13, 1572. Recently there have been a finding of stones with dinosaurs painted on them, but their authenticity is still in question.
Next you wrote:
“o but wait... there is evidence if only i have faith.”

Oh, you have faith, your faith hopes there is no God, it’s a powerful, blind faith, but faith is like that in a lot of people.
Next you said:
“I hope with all my heart and mind that we find a way to leave this planet, because then, and finally then, we can rid ourselves of this disease that is Religion.”

Let me ask; before you board the rocket, what will you do with your religion? You do have a religion. You have faith, in this case it’s that God doesn’t exist. You have a hope in the after life, and that hope is that when you die, you will just rot away. Your religion is exclusive in that there is no room for any other religions. This is so strong in you that you hope to leave this planet and not let any other religions go with you. You also come in here telling people that their religion is wrong, you challenge them to prove their religion right, it sounds like your witnessing. Don’t worry, all people have a religious need in their heart, you're just filling yours in the way you think is most fulfilling.

Echo you said:
“From what I was taught, heaven is a place with no strife, no challenges, no decisions, no work. Everyone has a healthy body/essence. There is no pain or sickness or sadness. No one grows old.
Sounds boring to me.”

Wow, sounds boring to me too. I don’t know who taught you about heaven, but they didn’t use the Bible to get the description. God, made us to be creatures that explore, learn, and be exited about discovery, God isn’t going to take that away from us, if He did we wouldn’t be the creatures He intended. We’ll just be better, and complete in our abilities.

dnamertz you said
“If creaton took place in 6 literal days and creating humans was one of the things he did in those first six days, then how do you explain the scietific evidence that shows dinosaurs existing millions of years before humans?”

As you may have already gathered from my earlier post to Loki, I don’t believe dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. All the methods used to determine age are questionable. Carbon14. The problem with C14 dating is that we can only assume what the C14 to C12 ratio was to begin with and we can only assume what the decay rate was thousands of years ago, this makes C14 dating unreliable. Check out some of the scientific feuds over this system, like when “Lucy” was discovered, they had all kinds of ages for her using this system, they finally decided to pick an age that best fit their agenda. The strata that determines age was thought to take millions of years to lay down, until Mount Saint Helens blew up, then scientist watched the same type of strata form in days.

As you may have already gathered from my earlier post to Loki, I don’t believe dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. All the methods used to determine age are questionable. Carbon14. The problem with C14 dating is that we can only assume what the C14 to C12 ratio was to begin with and we can only assume what the decay rate was thousands of years ago, this makes C14 dating unreliable. Check out some of the scientific feuds over this system, like when “Lucy” was discovered, they had all kinds of ages for her using this system, they finally decided to pick an age that best fit their agenda. The strata that determines age was thought to take millions of years to lay down, until Mount Saint Helens blew up, then scientist watched the same type of strata form in days.

Sounds no more accurate that the Bible. People keep coming up with different interpretations of the Bible, and even completely different interpretations of creation when you look at other religions. The same way we can't get accurate info from carbon dating, we can't get accurate info from stories retold over and over again from thousands, or millions, of years ago.

I have a question for you...how old do you think the earth is? How long ago did these so called 6 days of creation take place in your opinion? Was it thousands of years ago, millions?

You might have something there, stark. Keep on it.

dnamertz, just because some stupid people can't seem to get the Bible straight, doesn't mean it is its fault. The Bible is right, some people are messed up, just as the science is sometimes. Whatever is, the Bible is right. :) Whether is was days, centuries, milleniums, or more.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
You might have something there, stark. Keep on it.

dnamertz, just because some stupid people can't seem to get the Bible straight, doesn't mean it is its fault. The Bible is right, some people are messed up, just as the science is sometimes. Whatever is, the Bible is right. :) Whether is was days, centuries, milleniums, or more.

Its your ignorance that will see you fall

Originally posted by stark
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, check out Job 40:15-19 notice the bit where behemoths tail is like a cedar, or hangs like a cedar.

The Bible also mentions dragons, satyrs, unicorns, and cockatrices...do you believe these creatures are real?

Hmmm like a cedar…very thick at the base, and very narrow at the tip. Can anyone think of an animal that has a description and tail as described in Job? I can. A dinosaur.

Can I think of a creature that has a tail that's thick at the base and narrow at the tip? Sure...any creature with a tail. :rolleyes:

I also suspect the ancient descriptions of dragons are just embellished dinosaur encounters.

So why have no unfossilized dinosaur bones been found?
At one time man and dinosaurs existed together.

Sheesh Stark...you're not serious.

The Bible doesn’t speak of men that are thirty feet high, it doesn’t give a measurement at all, so maybe we are talking 7 feet tall or 8 feet tall, and yes maybe more.

Actually the Bible says that Goliath was ten feet tall.

Samuel
17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The Bible also mentions dragons, satyrs, unicorns, and cockatrices...do you believe these creatures are real?
Do you believe they are not? Do we have any evidence for or against? It's the Bible vs. lack of fossils. Both are questionable by some people.
Also, I am all for fitting the science into the Bible (not the other way around). I don't think humans lived with dinosaurs. They might have seen the bones and assumed that the creatures still lived somewhere.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Do you believe they are not?

Yes, I believe they are not real.

Do we have any evidence for or against? It's the Bible vs. lack of fossils. Both are questionable by some people.

Well...some people will question everything, and others will believe everything...what's your point?

Also, I am all for fitting the science into the Bible (not the other way around). I don't think humans lived with dinosaurs.

Apparently Stark does.

They might have seen the bones and assumed that the creatures still lived somewhere.

Very likely it was fossils that were the at the root of many mythological creatures. That doesn't change the fact that these creatures are mentioned in the Bible, and that the writers of the Bible believed they were real. This makes it very difficult for people like Stark since he's convinced that every single thing in the Bible is the absolute truth...if it's mentioned in that book, it must be real.

I think so too. If it's in the Bible, I will defend it.
So they believed that those creatures existed? So what? They were wrong. They were only people and the Bible portraits their silliness. Does the Bible itself says that those creatures existed? If yes, then give me the verse.

Stopandthink about creation you wrote:
“Stark? Sometimes I don't get you? Why are you confusing people? Ceirtainly God could have created everything in 6 days or 1 second, but let's accept the scientific facts (otherwise we will look like idiots) and the fact that Bible does use the words in a general ambigous sense sometimes.”

What are those “facts”? You may want to be cautious about that which people call science, but is really a philosophy. A long time ago “science” pulled a fast one on us, and it’s been thrown into the Christians face ever since. It was when “science” convinced the Pope that the world was the center of the Solar system, the Pope buys it hook, line, and sinker, and decrees it a fact. Well, along comes Galileo, he discovers that the sun is the center of the Solar system, tries to get the church leaders to look through a telescope, the church says no, because the Pope has already decreed a geocentric solar system. Mean while the scientist are ticked off at Galileo because he dared question the scientific community, but no one really notices because the Church is creating such a huge fuss over Galileo’s slight against an “infallible Pope.” Now, hundreds of years later, Christianity still suffers insults from this incident, all because the Pope trusted the scientist. This brings us to the creation event, science tells us that the earth and life on earth is hundreds of millions of years old, but the tests are full of assumptions, and untrustworthy. Now you and I seem to have a bit of a disagreement about what the Bible is saying. You are suggesting that the word “day” is really best translated “phase”, and I say that “day” is a 24 hour period. Let me explain why I believe the way I do. First the Bible clearly presents a chronology of a 24 hour period by saying “there was evening and there was morning--”. You mentioned in another of your post the problem that there was not a sun until the fourth day while plants were created on the third day. This is not a problem, God created light on the first day, granted the sun and moon were not in existence until later, but could there have been another source of light? Look at Revelation 21:22-23
“I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.”
I suggest that before the sun, moon, and stars, the glory of God Himself was the provider of light. I think God waited on purpose to create the sun and moon on the fourth day, to demonstrate that the only being that is truly needed is God.
If you don’t mind me taking up space there are a couple more reasons for a literal six day creation event. Another reason is the creation of Man himself. Look at the personal detail, it appears as though God wants us to read about Him personally, and lovingly, creating man, and personally lovingly breathing life into him. It’s amazing that the God of creation, would take the time to work with man like that when all that He really had to do was to speak, and man would have existed. If the evolutionary process of mans arrival on earth is true, then God didn’t really create man as the Bible says He did.
One final reason is that if the evolutionary process is true, then death has always been in the world, way before man was here, and the world was in a fallen state before man arrived, but look at these two verses:
Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--”
And there’s this:
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
In the Bible, man brought sin, which brings death. In evolution, death brings man.

See, perfect evidence that the Bible is no more reliable than any science....Stopandthink and Stark can't even agree on what the Bible is saying.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
I think so too. If it's in the Bible, I will defend it.
So they believed that those creatures existed? So what? They were wrong. They were only people and the Bible portraits their silliness. Does the Bible itself says that those creatures existed? If yes, then give me the verse.

Isaiah 43
20The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Isaiah 34
7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Isaiah 13
22But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Jeremiah 8
17 For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD.

Be careful of the cockatrices...they bite :)

dnamertz, you said:
“Sounds no more accurate that the Bible.”

Of course you have a list of these Biblical inaccuracies…right? Well, bring out the first inaccuracy and let’s look at it.
Next you said:
“People keep coming up with different interpretations of the Bible, and even completely different interpretations of creation when you look at other religions.”

I think the key phrase is “people keep coming up with.” People keep coming up with ideas about who Jesus is also, and they’re wrong about him too.
Next you said:
“The same way we can't get accurate info from carbon dating, we can't get accurate info from stories retold over and over again from thousands, or millions, of years ago.”

This suggests that people made up the story in the first place, or that God gave us the story and was powerless to keep it accurate. If God wants a story to hold its accuracy it will.
Next you asked:
“...how old do you think the earth is? How long ago did these so called 6 days of creation take place in your opinion? Was it thousands of years ago, millions?”

I believe that the creation event took place thousands of years ago. How many? I don’t know.

presents a chronology of a 24 hour period by saying “there was evening and there was morning--”.
Morning means: the appearing of the sun (or light), evening means the dissapearing of the sun (or light). Are you suggesting that the glory of God (or the Light of God) dissapreared or appeared. I think it was always.
If the evolutionary process of mans arrival on earth is true, then God didn’t really create man as the Bible says He did.
The Bible says He create the man out of the dust of Earth. What is the dust? Get to the atoms--it's carbon, the basic element of life. God created man out of carbon. Ceirtainly He could just take a piece of dust and make it a man, but He chose to follow conventional means, so that unbelievers can say "oh,look,look! We have science!! There is no God!"
In the Bible, man brought sin, which brings death. In evolution, death brings man
This death is a spiritual death. When Adam and Eve sinned, they died because they fell away from God. As St. Augustine says, if they didn't, they would have lived forever.
The fact that there was no death, means there was only life, and what is life, but the belief in God? Everything believed and followed God upto the point of sin. That's when death entered by sin.

I feel sorry arguing with you. It's just, unbelievers will ridicule us if we say that everything was created in 6 days. I am not afraid of their ridicule, but just to gain their trust, so that they may accept Christ and the Bible, I say that those were 6 periods. This way, it's easier for them to accept.

The Bible uses many words in a loose meaning. Also, how do you explain the 7th day??? It ceirtainly didn't last 24 hours, because it lasts to this day and will last forever. What makes that day so special?

Here is St. Augustine's point of view:
Chapter 7.-Of the Nature of the First Days, Which are Said to Have Had Morning and Evening, Before There Was a Sun.
We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and .yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, "Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven;"15 and in another place, "For ye are all the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness."16 Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a morning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the praise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is not forsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture, when it would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night. It never says, "Night was," but "The evening and the morning were the first day." So of the second and the rest. And, indeed, the knowledge of created things contemplated by themselves is, so to speak, more colorless than when they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitable figure than night; and yet, as I said, morning returns when the creature returns to the praise and love of the Creator. When it does so in the knowledge of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which is the name given to the sky between the waters above and those beneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge of the earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of the earth, that is the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and less luminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that swim in the waters and that fly in the air, that is the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that live on the earth, and of man himself, that is the sixth day.17

Isaiah 43:20
Some versions say "the jackals and the ostriches"
Isaiah 34:7
NKJV says "wild oxen...young bulls..."
Isaiah 13:22
"The hyenas will howl in their citadels, And jackals in their pleasant palaces. Her time is near to come, And her days will not be prolonged."
Jeremiah 8:17
It says nothing about cockatrices.
Obviously the versions are different. I think only King James Version uses those mystical creatures translations. Other versions do not. Unfortunately, I can't find out for sure which one is right.

Vilepagan you said:
“The Bible also mentions dragons, satyrs, unicorns, and cockatrices...do you believe these creatures are real?”

Wow, it sure does seem as though we’ve done this debate before. Oh well I’m fine with doing it again. Tell me what verses did you find these in? Let’s look at them. I myself don’t have satyrs, unicorns, or cockatrices, in my New International Version.
Next you said:
“Can I think of a creature that has a tail that's thick at the base and narrow at the tip? Sure...any creature with a tail.”

Now, think big cedar tree.
Next you asked:
“So why have no unfossilized dinosaur bones been found?”

If I was suggesting that a dinosaur was hit by a Chevy a week ago you’d have a good point, what wasn’t fossilized went the way of all bone that aren’t fossilized it was eaten or rotted over time?
Hmmm was that a test for ol’ stark or did you really not know?
Next I had said:
“At one time man and dinosaurs existed together.”
And you said:
“Sheesh Stark...you're not serious.”

Show me the evidence that I’m wrong, and we can test it to see how it holds up.

Good call about Goliath, the NIV says that Goliath was over nine feet tall, and Ten feet is over nine so you may be right, but I was speaking of the Giants mentioned in Genesis.

Of course you have a list of these Biblical inaccuracies…right? Well, bring out the first inaccuracy and let’s look at it.

Hello? We are discussing one of the innacuracies right here...dinosaurs.

People keep coming up with ideas about who Jesus is also, and they’re wrong about him too.

Yep, people are wrong about who Jesus is.

I myself don’t have satyrs, unicorns, or cockatrices, in my New International Version.

The fact that there are different versions raised doubt all by itself. Different versions is another example of innacuracies.

STARK wrote:
Show me the evidence that I’m wrong, and we can test it to see how it holds up.

How about no human fossils being found from the same time as dinosaur fossils? Its not absolute proof, but it leads to the theory that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist more than it leads to the theory that they did. But, since you are claiming they DID exist together, how about showing us the evidence of this and we can test it to see how it holds up?

Originally posted by stark
Tell me what verses did you find these in? Let’s look at them.

See previous post.

I myself don’t have satyrs, unicorns, or cockatrices, in my New International Version.

That's because those references were deleted or changed in your version by men.

Is the KJV or the NIV the "true word of God"? I mean, either dragons existed or they did not...which is it? When did God inspire the NIV?

Show me the evidence that I’m wrong, and we can test it to see how it holds up.

How will you test a lack of evidence?

dnamertz makes an excellent point...you are the one making extraordinary claims stark, you should provide the evidence for those claims.

The fact that there are different versions raised doubt all by itself. Different versions is another example of innacuracies
How many languages do you know? I think only one. If you knew two, then you would know that translating is a hard job, and can NOT be done perfectly. Sometimes the words are just ambiguous. That's no inaccuracy, that's just life.
Vilepagan:
That's because those references were deleted or changed in your version by men.
You may have something there. Sometimes the translators are afraid to translate the truth because people will say :"Say what?! Dragons?"
So they change the word to something similar.

Stark, you expect them to come to you so you can defeat them, but this doesn't work that way. They are willing to acknowledge their lack of scientific knowledge and there is nothing we can do against it.

To All: Ok, so let's assume dragons and all other creatures did exist. So what's the problem? We didn't dig everywhere, it is likely we might have not found them yet. Do you know how MANY new creatures were discovered after tsunami? Tons. Creatures you didn't even think existed! That is what I am talking about, we just don't know enough. So the Bible holds true in either case.
I think this should conclude this topic.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Sometimes the words are just ambiguous. That's no inaccuracy, that's just life.

I'd have a hard time describing something ambiguous as being "accurate".

Vilepagan:

You may have something there. Sometimes the translators are afraid to translate the truth because people will say :"Say what?! Dragons?"
So they change the word to something similar.

I think you're right about that. :)

To All: Ok, so let's assume dragons and all other creatures did exist. So what's the problem? We didn't dig everywhere, it is likely we might have not found them yet.

If you find a cockatrice watch out...they bite, oh and I forgot to mention that they also turn you to stone :rolleyes:

Do you know how MANY new creatures were discovered after tsunami? Tons.

How many is that?

Creatures you didn't even think existed! That is what I am talking about, we just don't know enough. So the Bible holds true in either case.

Erm...it does?

I think this should conclude this topic.

Stop and think again, oh self-righteous one...

How many languages do you know? I think only one. If you knew two, then you would know that translating is a hard job, and can NOT be done perfectly. Sometimes the words are just ambiguous. That's no inaccuracy, that's just life.

Sorry, there are more than just translation issues between the OT and the NT.

So they change the word to something similar.

What else have they changed?

So what's the problem? We didn't dig everywhere, it is likely we might have not found them yet. Do you know how MANY new creatures were discovered after tsunami? Tons. Creatures you didn't even think existed! That is what I am talking about, we just don't know enough. So the Bible holds true in either case.

"we might have not found them yet?"..."we just don't know enough?". These are your arguments for why "the Bible holds true"? Sounds more like arguments for why the Bible is not provable. If we do dig them up, then maybe you can say "the Bible holds true".

Ok, ok. I am just saying that the argument that you brought up against the Bible--namely the dinosaurs and other creatures, is not a very valid one. That is why I say that the Bible holds true. I mean that it is not proved wrong by this argument.

Sorry, there are more than just translation issues between the OT and the NT.
Really? Like what?

Vilepagan:
I'd have a hard time describing something ambiguous as being "accurate".
Ok, let me explain this. The Bible says that God created the world in six days. This is accurate. Now whether it was six Days or six Periods, that's ambiguous, but in either case God did create the world. See?

If you find a cockatrice watch out...they bite, oh and I forgot to mention that they also turn you to stone
Did the Bible say that? Or are you drawing from some other sources? (Yes.) Watch out.
Plus there are some really interesting creatures in the world. The probably won't turn you into stone literally, but they certainly can immobilize you.

http://gould.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000497028787/
Nice photos of the "tons of bizarre creatures."

Originally posted by STOpandthink
http://gould.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000497028787/
Nice photos of the "tons of bizarre creatures."

uuuummm........... those pictures although amazing are all fake

www.snopes.com/photos/tsunami/creature.asp (http://snopes.com/photos/tsunami/creature.asp)

Ok, ok. I am just saying that the argument that you brought up against the Bible--namely the dinosaurs and other creatures, is not a very valid one. That is why I say that the Bible holds true. I mean that it is not proved wrong by this argument.
Uh no, you're not following him. There is no proof that they either existed or didn't exist. That does not mean that the bible is right. That is the most idiotic conclusion jumping I have seen in a very long time.

Ok, let me explain this. The Bible says that God created the world in six days. This is accurate. Now whether it was six Days or six Periods, that's ambiguous, but in either case God did create the world. See?
So you're agreeing with vile that the bible is ambiguous, okay. So what exactly is good about it being ambigious. How can we trust the bible if it can't even be specific?

Did the Bible say that? Or are you drawing from some other sources? (Yes.) Watch out.
Plus there are some really interesting creatures in the world. The probably won't turn you into stone literally, but they certainly can immobilize you.
What are you blabbering about?



uuuummm........... those pictures although amazing are all fake
They aren't "fake" per say. The snopes article clearly states that they were not found due to the tsunami but they are real. Some I do recognize.

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b]They aren't "fake" per say. The snopes article clearly states that they were not found due to the tsunami but they are real. Some I do recognize.

I should have caught that...sorry...my post was misleading.

Well, you got me Sal. I guess my source was misleading. I admit my mistake, but my I still hold to my claim that to this day we discover many new creatures, old and new, and it's illogical to say that some creatures do not exist.

Blibblob:Uh no, you're not following him. There is no proof that they either existed or didn't exist. That does not mean that the bible is right. That is the most idiotic conclusion jumping I have seen in a very long time.
Why can't you read?!?! I never said the Bible was right. Ah!!! I am merely saying that this argument fails and cannot be used to disprove the Bible. How can I say it can prove the Bible??? I do not have any evidence either!

So what exactly is good about it being ambigious. How can we trust the bible if it can't even be specific?
I never said it was good that it is ambiguous. How can we trust it? Well, you don't trust it at all so why do you care? Also, go back and read my post. Does it really matter if God created everything in 6 days or 6 periods? No. If we accept either, we accept God and that's the end of it. If we accept neither, then the ambiguity plays no role.

Why can't you read?!?! I never said the Bible was right. Ah!!! I am merely saying that this argument fails and cannot be used to disprove the Bible. How can I say it can prove the Bible??? I do not have any evidence either!

He can read. At least it appears he could read when you said "So the Bible holds true in either case." or when you said "That is why I say that the Bible holds true."

"Holds true", meaning holds true against the argument. You need to read the phrase in context.

To those that would say that the Bible is correct on a subject merely because it has not been proven wrong yet, I would have to compare that statement to the times that the earth was considered flat. I am sure someone argued the point,quite strongly, that the earth is flat because you cannot prove it otherwise. This never-the-less did not make the theory any more correct. The faith of one ship's captain, using logic, changed the theory forever.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
Why can't you read?!?! I never said the Bible was right. Ah!!! I am merely saying that this argument fails and cannot be used to disprove the Bible. How can I say it can prove the Bible??? I do not have any evidence either!
I submit your own words to you:

"The Bible is holy because in it is the word of God."

So if the Bible is the word of God, it's perfect, yes? And thus right?

"Holds true", meaning holds true against the argument. You need to read the phrase in context.
You're saying that the bible is right regarding that argument! You're still saying that the bible is right.

I never said it was good that it is ambiguous. How can we trust it? Well, you don't trust it at all so why do you care? Also, go back and read my post. Does it really matter if God created everything in 6 days or 6 periods? No. If we accept either, we accept God and that's the end of it. If we accept neither, then the ambiguity plays no role.
What?! That's still stupid. You're saying that a story in the bible is true, and you can only say that using information in the bible. If the bible is not specific enough in that story, not to mention not specific enough in countless places, then how can we trust anything out of it, including the statement in the bible that it is god's word. If that can't be trusted then any interpretation of the story is wrong, in that context.

"Holds true", meaning holds true against the argument. You need to read the phrase in context.

Then I think you should have said "the Bible is not disproved by this agrument"...not "holds true".

Well, Dan Fussell, when you will prove that Christ doesn't exist, then I will bow down before you and thank you.
Borg Hunter:
So if the Bible is the word of God, it's perfect, yes? And thus right
I sense trickery...The Bible is a written account of history written by men with the Holy Spirit. Since they were only men, nonetheless, the Bible is not perfect. As I said before, there are several discrepancies. But I believe that on the big scale it is absolutely right and perfect.
Blibblob:
You're saying that the bible is right regarding that argument! You're still saying that the bible is right.
Ok, I think that the Bible is right, yes. The argument didn't disprove it, so I still think that Bible is right. It "holds true" for me. I am sorry if I was unclear.
What?! That's still stupid. You're saying that a story in the bible is true, and you can only say that using information in the bible. If the bible is not specific enough in that story, not to mention not specific enough in countless places, then how can we trust anything out of it, including the statement in the bible that it is god's word. If that can't be trusted then any interpretation of the story is wrong, in that context.
I do not think that some ambiguity prevent the Bible from being correct. Also, most ambiguity has been removed by many written works and people who studied the Bible.
I beg all of you to note, that this ambiguity does not exist on a major scale, but only the small one. God created the world in 6 periods, there is no ambiguity there. Was is days or simply periods, that's ambiguous, but that doesn't let us question whether God created it or not.

heres what i think
Dinosaurs were before adam and eve. they were gods first little *expirement* but they didnt work so he decided to get rid of them, and whats the best way to do that?? send a big meteor. then after than he decides hes gonna try something different. here comes adam and eve....yea thats what i think bout that.
i believe the traditional 7 days thing. why wouldnt god have the ability to make things happen in an instant. he has almighty power. i think that if he wanted to we could dissapear in a flash.
:D

Stopandthink I’d like to thank you for getting back to me so quickly, and sorry I haven’t responded in the same manner…I got rather busy, but I’m here now and would like to respond to your post. I’ll start where you said:
“Morning means: the appearing of the sun (or light), evening means the dissapearing of the sun (or light). Are you suggesting that the glory of God (or the Light of God) dissapreared or appeared. I think it was always.”

I disagree, evening and morning suggests the rotation of the earth, not the appearing and disappearing of the sun or in this case light. I think it’s very possible that God was stationary above the earth during the creation week, after all He wouldn’t have needed to get up and stretch His legs.
Next you said:
“The Bible says He create the man out of the dust of Earth. What is the dust? Get to the atoms--it's carbon, the basic element of life. God created man out of carbon. Ceirtainly He could just take a piece of dust and make it a man, but He chose to follow conventional means, so that unbelievers can say "oh,look,look! We have science!! There is no God!"

You didn’t catch my point on this, I was pointing out that God personally formed man, and if the evolutionary process of man forming gradually over time is true then the Bible’s account of the creatiion of man is wrong.
Next I had said:
“In the Bible, man brought sin, which brings death. In evolution, death brings man”
And you responded:
“This death is a spiritual death. When Adam and Eve sinned, they died because they fell away from God. As St. Augustine says, if they didn't, they would have lived forever.”

True, but remember that all of creation suffered because of the fall of man, and a sign of that fall is physical death. When Christ returns the promise is that those who love him will be given new bodies, bodies that will not die. Why? Because when Christ returns he will set all things right, spiritually and physically.
Next you said:
“I feel sorry arguing with you. It's just, unbelievers will ridicule us if we say that everything was created in 6 days. I am not afraid of their ridicule, but just to gain their trust, so that they may accept Christ and the Bible, I say that those were 6 periods. This way, it's easier for them to accept.”

I don’t see it as so much arguing as it is an exchange of ideas. By the way, unbelievers will ridicule us as long as we claim Christ, it doesn’t matter how much we sound like them. Also, it’s not a matter of us saying the right thing to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept, it’s a matter of them opening up their hearts to the urging of the Holy Spirit.
Next you said:
“The Bible uses many words in a loose meaning. Also, how do you explain the 7th day??? It ceirtainly didn't last 24 hours, because it lasts to this day and will last forever. What makes that day so special?”

I don’t see, in the Bible, where it says that day seven will last forever, maybe I’m missing something. God rested on the seventh day, and declared basically that all should take the seventh day of the week for rest. But I don’t see anywhere that God is still resting as your day age theory would suggest. Matter of fact John 5:17 says: “Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." God rested on the seventh day, but now is working.

dnamertz I had asked you to point out some discrepancies in the Bible and you responded
“Hello? We are discussing one of the innacuracies right here...dinosaurs.”

No, this is not a discrepancy, I believe that at one point dinosaurs and man shared the earth, for evidence I gave you a description of a dinosaur from the book of Job, the only way that this could be a biblical discrepancy is if men and dinosaurs did not live together. Your view that dinosaurs and men lived hundreds of millions of years apart is the discrepancy…unless of course the Bible’s account of creation is wrong. The thing is you have faith in your religious beliefs, and I have faith in my religious beliefs.
Next I had said that people come up with their own ideas about who Jesus is and are wrong, and you said:
“Yep, people are wrong about who Jesus is.”

The Bible, however, is not wrong about who Jesus is.
Next you said:
“The fact that there are different versions raised doubt all by itself. Different versions is another example of innacuracies.”

No, not at all. Different versions only suggests greater understanding of the original text, but it doesn’t suggest the Bible is inaccurate.
Next, about evidence that man and dinosaurs existed together you said:
“How about no human fossils being found from the same time as dinosaur fossils? Its not absolute proof, but it leads to the theory that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist more than it leads to the theory that they did.”

You‘re right, the lack of human and dinosaur bones being found together only points out that so far human and dinosaur bones have not been found together. Now this brings us to where you said:
“But, since you are claiming they DID exist together, how about showing us the evidence of this and we can test it to see how it holds up?”

I suppose you didn’t read my post where I presented the evidence, did you? Go back, check it out, and tell me what you think.

Now, about satyrs, unicorns, or cockatrices, and their not being mentioned in the NIV you said:
“That's because those references were deleted or changed in your version by men.”

The words in the original language are still the same, the meaning has been researched and studied and the translation has changed.
Next you said:
“Is the KJV or the NIV the "true word of God"? I mean, either dragons existed or they did not...which is it? When did God inspire the NIV?”

The original is the Word of God, the NIV and KJV are English translation of the original. Now about the existence of dragons, you’re only possible picture of a dragon is the kind on T.V. but could it be that dragons are dinosaurs? Another point is that satan is called dragon.
Next you said:
“dnamertz makes an excellent point...you are the one making extraordinary claims stark, you should provide the evidence for those claims.”

dnamertz is going to check out what I gave for evidence, I’d like to have you read what I presented as evidence also.

Dan you said:
“To those that would say that the Bible is correct on a subject merely because it has not been proven wrong yet, I would have to compare that statement to the times that the earth was considered flat. I am sure someone argued the point,quite strongly, that the earth is flat because you cannot prove it otherwise.”

What you’ve demonstrated here is that people and their untested ideas are often wrong. I agree with you. What we have in the case of the Bible is a book that has been tested historically, archaeologically, scientifically, and prophetically, and has been found correct. For years archaeologist said that the Bibles mention of different tribes of people was wrong, that those people and cities never existed, (such as the Hittites). The problem is that they made a claim, but never tested it. In every case the people and cities were found by archaeologists. See, back then the Bible was “wrong” and many mocked the notion of the existence of a large nation such as the Hittites, until they discovered that the Hittites did exist and that they ruled, at one time, the fertile crescent. You mention that some believe the Bible correct “merely because it has not been proven wrong yet.” Well doesn’t that count for something? Take a look at evolution. The theory of evolution has gone through many changes because true scientific testing is always proving different claims of evolution wrong, yet the evolution fundamentalist will still cling to it. In the same breath they claim it’s ridiculous that the Christian believe the Bible merely because it hasn’t been proved wrong. Who is making the unreasonable claim?

All this talk of the Bible being inaccurate, yet when it comes down to actually demonstrating inaccuracies no one actually comes up with one. Of course they bring “inaccuracies” and “discrepancies” that people or a website has said were inaccuracies or discrepancies, but upon examination there is a reasonable explanation. Look at the resurrection of Christ, the unbeliever cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for the missing body of Christ, the rise of the early Church, and the conduct of the Apostles, yet they continue to ridicule those who believe in it. Why? I suggest because the resurrection is contrary to their faith, whether it’s an Agnostic or an Atheist, or an Anti-theist.
Let me add that one can find discrepancies in numbers within the Bible, but that is because a tiny dot may be missing or added where it shouldn’t have been, but the original remains true. What I’m looking for is discrepancies in doctrine or thought. Maybe after all the debating I’ve done there lurks a Biblical problem that there is no explanation for that I’ve not seen, I’m sure one of you will be kind enough to bring it up, so that we can examine it.

Stark, thank you for your comments.
You know, from my previous posts, that I believe in a supreme force (God). I am sure most of the historical information in the Bible is true because these writers were living in the times they used as a background. The centuries would have obscured some of the cities and peoples they wrote about, that does not mean they did not exist. Also, I am sure that cities and peoples also existed in other parts of the world that they did not write about because of lack of communication and travel possibilities at the time. Parts of the world were simply unknown to each other at the time.

I also believe that Jesus lived. A very advanced man for his time.

What I am not so sure about is that all the miracles and many things contributed to Jesus were not just an attempt to glorify a religion. To get peoples attention, sometimes people feel that they must greatly exagerate happenings to make something seem larger than life. Not many would have followed a new religion speaking only of peace and love- for the far east already had such teachings.
In the long run proving or disproving does not really matter. People have the freedom to choose to believe as they wish. I for one care little how another believes. I just enjoy the conversations.
Who knows maybe some one will come up with proof. I am ready to listen to any intelligent arguement.

I think it’s very possible that God was stationary above the earth during the creation week, after all He wouldn’t have needed to get up and stretch His legs.

When I first read this I assumed you were just kidding, but hearing the other ridiculous logic you use to reach your conclusions, you are probably actually serious about this one too.

Your view that dinosaurs and men lived hundreds of millions of years apart is the discrepancy…unless of course the Bible’s account of creation is wrong.

You are exactly right...about that last part anyway.

I suppose you didn’t I suppose you didn’t read my post where I presented the evidence, did you? Go back, check it out, and tell me what you think.

This is a trick question right? I read all your posts in this thread and not one had evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together so I could not have "read your post where you presented the evidence" because such a post doesn't exist. I did however read where you stated that the Bible claimed that Job described an animal that has a vague resemblence, at best, to a dinosaur...and that other people have claimed to see dragon/dinosaur type creatures, and stone drawings. These are things you've chosen to believe are true but are no more evidence than peoples claims that they've seen UFOs or been ubducted, or have taken pictures of UFOs.

If dinosaurs lived with humans, and even as recently as the 1500s as you say is possible, then what happened to them? Where are they now?

Dan, you said:
“You know, from my previous posts, that I believe in a supreme force (God).”

Yes, I suspected you believed in some form of God or supreme being, and that you weren’t keen on accepting any established “religion.” I hope that what you get from my posts is that my belief in the Bible, the Biblical description of Jesus, and his resurrection, is not some blind leap of faith, and it’s not an unreasonable faith.
Next you said:
“I am sure most of the historical information in the Bible is true because these writers were living in the times they used as a background.”

That’s just my point, except that I believe not most, but all of the historical information found in the Bible is true. That is why I invite people to test for themselves the historicity of the Bible. Now, there is a small problem, take a look at the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, archaeologist have found no mention of this mass exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt. I suspect the answer can be found in that Egypt didn’t record it’s losses in battle, including battle with God. An interesting note; archaeologists have found many of the bricks in the buildings of ancient Egypt have the same content as described in the Bible. Some bricks with straw, some with rubble, and some with nothing.
Next you said:
“The centuries would have obscured some of the cities and peoples they wrote about, that does not mean they did not exist.”

I agree with you, but there were many that did not take that into account, and rushed into claiming the Bible wrong instead of saying that the cities have not been found yet.
Next you wrote:
“Also, I am sure that cities and peoples also existed in other parts of the world that they did not write about because of lack of communication and travel possibilities at the time. Parts of the world were simply unknown to each other at the time.”

I also agree with you there, I’ve always said that the Bible is not a history of the world, but a history of God’s redemptive purpose in the world.
Next you said:
“What I am not so sure about is that all the miracles and many things contributed to Jesus were not just an attempt to glorify a religion. To get peoples attention, sometimes people feel that they must greatly exagerate happenings to make something seem larger than life. Not many would have followed a new religion speaking only of peace and love…”

Here’s the question I have for you, and you‘ve probably read where I‘ve asked this question before but here it is: To what end? What I mean is why would the disciples, the followers of Jesus make up a bunch of miracles to convince people that this Jesus was the way to salvation? They didn’t get rich, they didn’t get powerful, but they did get beat up, whipped, and cursed where ever they went. What gain was there for them? If their goal was to get people to love each other, they could have done just as well spreading the news with out getting the Jewish and Roman leaders trying to kill them. All they would have had to do is deny the resurrection, that would have satisfied the Jewish leaders, and offering just a pinch of incense and whispering; “Caesar is lord,” would have satisfied the Roman leaders. But the disciples and the other followers of Christ would not budge. They saw something that changed there lives and made life on earth just the waiting room. I say (and so do they) that it was the resurrected Jesus.
Finally you said:
“In the long run proving or disproving does not really matter. People have the freedom to choose to believe as they wish.”

If the Bible is true, I would have to say that in the long run proving the Bible true to an unbeliever who may then change their mind really does matter. Biblically it’s a matter of life or death.
Next you said:
“I just enjoy the conversations.”

I agree with you there. I also enjoy the conversations, and another thing I get out of this is that in this type of arena there will not be a bunch of Christians sitting around nodding their head in agreement. What I have here is a group of unbelievers examining everything I bring up, looking to find any flaw, and to tear apart what I say. This allows me to find the part of my faith that I can’t explain, and on the flip side of that, it allows me to take apart what the unbeliever says and gives me an opportunity to see where its weak points are. In a nutshell, we learn from debate.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stark


Here’s the question I have for you, and you‘ve probably read where I‘ve asked this question before but here it is: To what end? What I mean is why would the disciples, the followers of Jesus make up a bunch of miracles to convince people that this Jesus was the way to salvation? They didn’t get rich, they didn’t get powerful, but they did get beat up, whipped, and cursed where ever they went. What gain was there for them? If their goal was to get people to love each other, they could have done just as well spreading the news with out getting the Jewish and Roman leaders trying to kill them. All they would have had to do is deny the resurrection, that would have satisfied the Jewish leaders, and offering just a pinch of incense and whispering; “Caesar is lord,” would have satisfied the Roman leaders. But the disciples and the other followers of Christ would not budge. They saw something that changed there lives and made life on earth just the waiting room. I say (and so do they) that it was the resurrected Jesus.
--------------------------------------------

Stark this could be one reason.
There might be others. Even in our times we have seen people from the same region quite willing to be killed or commit suicide bombings for the things they so strongly believe in. Today it seems to be to protect their religious ideals and from foreign invaders. An almost political thing.
During the time of the beginning of the New Testament originations the area was occupied by the Roman armies and many were dissatisfied with the political power of the Jewish priests and their relationship with the Romans.
To break away and establish a new religion was a form of political rebellion since the religion was the law.
Followers of the new religious rebellion would not view death as anything but an assurance of reward after death, the same way it is viewed today by the fanatical followers of Allah.
What I see today in the area is what I base my possibility upon.
I can in no way know what occured in actuality.

Originally posted by stark
The words in the original language are still the same, the meaning has been researched and studied and the translation has changed.


Are we to believe that this final translation is the accurate one? After 2000+ years have we finally figured out what God really meant to say?

dnamertz is going to check out what I gave for evidence, I’d like to have you read what I presented as evidence also.

I'd love to. Where did you post this "evidence"?

Originally posted by stark
All this talk of the Bible being inaccurate, yet when it comes down to actually demonstrating inaccuracies no one actually comes up with one. Of course they bring “inaccuracies” and “discrepancies” that people or a website has said were inaccuracies or discrepancies, but upon examination there is a reasonable explanation.

Stark, there have been many innaccuracies pointed out to you, but if you want to convince yourself that bats are birds, that Noah built a boat big enough to hold two of every kind of animal, or that the cure for leprosy that is presented in the Bible will actually cure that affliction, go right ahead and believe. You obviously convinced yourself that the Bible is infallible a long time ago. The truth is that you are completely unwilling to admit even the possibility that the Bible might be wrong on some point or another. With this preconcieved notion blinding you, I'm not surprised you can't see very clearly.

Look at the resurrection of Christ, the unbeliever cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for the missing body of Christ, the rise of the early Church, and the conduct of the Apostles, yet they continue to ridicule those who believe in it.

I can come up with a reasonable explanation...it never happened. As a matter of fact, that's the only reasonable explanation. Your explanation is a marked departure from the reasonable.

If you base your beliefs on the unreasonable, how can anyone explain them reasonably? Can you reasonably explain to me why so many people are abducted by aliens without calling into question the very fact that they are abducted by aliens?

Why? I suggest because the resurrection is contrary to their faith, whether it’s an Agnostic or an Atheist, or an Anti-theist.

Ahh yes, the old attempt to describe atheism as a religion. Hogwash.

Let me add that one can find discrepancies in numbers within the Bible, but that is because a tiny dot may be missing or added where it shouldn’t have been, but the original remains true.

Why are these great truths consistently misinterpreted or mistranslated?

What I’m looking for is discrepancies in doctrine or thought. Maybe after all the debating I’ve done there lurks a Biblical problem that there is no explanation for that I’ve not seen, I’m sure one of you will be kind enough to bring it up, so that we can examine it.

Try explaining the cure for leprosy. (I see that in the NIV, leprosy is trsanslated as infectious skin disease :))

Is the ritual described in Leviticus 14 effective for treating infectious skin diseases?

dnamertz you seem unsatisfied with my post…let’s take a look at it, I had said:
“I think it’s very possible that God was stationary above the earth during the creation week, after all He wouldn’t have needed to get up and stretch His legs.”
And you responded:
“When I first read this I assumed you were just kidding, but hearing the other ridiculous logic you use to reach your conclusions, you are probably actually serious about this one too.”

I wonder if this is actually a problem with logic? Tell me, what is the logical problem with this part of my post? Oh and feel free to bring up any other logical problems that I’ve run up against in my past posts. Before you start your list, you might want to review your laws of logic.
Next I had said:
“Your view that dinosaurs and men lived hundreds of millions of years apart is the discrepancy…unless of course the Bible’s account of creation is wrong.”
And you responded:
“You are exactly right...about that last part anyway.”

The last part? You mean the Bible’s account of creation is wrong? Let’s talk this over, where does it go wrong?
Next I had said:
“I suppose you didn’t I suppose you didn’t read my post where I presented the evidence, did you? Go back, check it out, and tell me what you think.”
And you responded:
“This is a trick question right? I read all your posts in this thread and not one had evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together so I could not have "read your post where you presented the evidence" because such a post doesn't exist. I did however read where you stated that the Bible claimed that Job described an animal that has a vague resemblence, at best, to a dinosaur...and that other people have claimed to see dragon/dinosaur type creatures, and stone drawings. These are things you've chosen to believe are true but are no more evidence than peoples claims that they've seen UFOs or been ubducted, or have taken pictures of UFOs.”

Let me work backwards, many of the claims of UFO’s being sited may be true, but the letters to underline are U.F.O., what the people are seeing is just that Unidentified Flying Objects, what these objects are is up for debate, I personally believe they are government projects, but mostly I don’t care. Next, you appear to discount the evidence I brought to the table, well what can I say, through out ancient history there have been recordings of creatures with the descriptions that sound like dinosaurs. If you don’t want to accept that as some form of evidence…well I can’t force you to, all I can do is present the evidence.
Next you said:
“If dinosaurs lived with humans, and even as recently as the 1500s as you say is possible, then what happened to them? Where are they now?”

Where are they now? Are you suggesting that since an animal, as a species, isn’t alive now that means they didn’t exist 600 years from now? Hmmm I’d never thought of extinction that way. By the way I’m not suggesting that dinosaurs were roaming the earth in giant herds in the 1500s, I suspect that the appearance of a dinosaur back then was very rare, which is why legends built up around their appearances.

Vilepagan about the translations of the Bible you said:
“Are we to believe that this final translation is the accurate one? After 2000+ years have we finally figured out what God really meant to say?”

No, actually the original is the accurate one, but as the science of translating from the Hebrew and Greek is refined we better understand the language. I would like to point out that even after all these years the doctrine remains the same, and it’s people who don’t understand the Bible, or rather don’t want to understand the Bible that come up with discrepancies, as an example I’ll bring up your Leviticus 14 problem. Just a hint, it’s almost as if you didn’t read the chapter, but I’ll talk about that later.
Next you said:
“Stark, there have been many innaccuracies pointed out to you, but if you want to convince yourself that bats are birds,…”

Wow, here comes the bat problem again, almost as if we’ve never discussed it. I’ll try to make this quick: Here in the 21st century we have deemed the bat an order of flying mammalia, or simply a flying rodent. This has been done because the scientist chose the mammal characteristics of the bat to put it in its classification. I hope I’m using the right terminology. God, however seems to have classified the bat as a bird probably because of it’s flying ability. Doesn’t God have the right to classify the bat as he wants to? Your bat difficulty is a difference in classification choice, not a scientific error.
Next you seem to indicate a problem with Noah’s ark, you said:
“…that Noah built a boat big enough to hold two of every kind of animal,…”

Answer some questions for me would you; 1. how big was Noah’s boat? 2. How many animals did Noah have on the boat? 3. Were there as many animals during Noah’s time as there are now? 4. How big were the animals that he had on the boat? 5. Would Noah have brought full grown elephants and hippos on the boat, or for that matter any other animal, or would he have chosen smaller not fully mature elephants and hippos? I don’t know about you, but for me there are to many variables in this equation to suggest that Noah’s boat couldn’t handle all the animals that were on it?
Next you said:
“…or that the cure for leprosy that is presented in the Bible will actually cure that affliction, go right ahead and believe.

Yes, we’ll get to this “problem” later in my post when you bring up the book and chapter.
Just to cut down post length, I’ll end this here and start another post.

Vilepagan finishing up on your post I’ll start with your accusation against me, you said:
“You obviously convinced yourself that the Bible is infallible a long time ago.”

Actually the unbelievers and their list of “Biblical inaccuracies” did a lot to convince me. It’s amazing to go on these websites and check out what they claim as problems with the Bible. My favorite is where they claim that the account of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 2:11 contradicts the account of Jesus’ birth in Luke 2:7-20. Those who claim this as proof that the Bible is full of contradictions, are giddy with glee that Matthew has Jesus born in a house, yet Luke says he is born in a manger or stable. The problem is they are getting the Christmas plays confused with the actual Biblical account. Luke records where Jesus was born, where only the shepherds visited him, and Matthew mentions where Jesus was living when the Magi finally got to him. The Magi were never at the manger no matter how many Christmas plays have them there. Big hint: Herod wanted all the baby boys two and under killed.
Next you said:
“The truth is that you are completely unwilling to admit even the possibility that the Bible might be wrong on some point or another.”

Well, I at least won’t admit it until someone actually demonstrates where it is wrong on a point.
Next you said:
“With this preconcieved notion blinding you, I'm not surprised you can't see very clearly.”

I wonder if I’m the one blinded by a preconceived notion?
Next I had mentioned that the unbeliever does not come up with a reasonable explanation for the resurrection of Christ, and you responded:
“I can come up with a reasonable explanation...it never happened. As a matter of fact, that's the only reasonable explanation. Your explanation is a marked departure from the reasonable.’

It never happened? The Church was formed, gained converts, and grew at an amazing rate, with the foundation of a risen Savior. A tradition of remembering the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was started (communion), and Jesus’ disciples went from town to town being beaten and whipped, never gaining power or riches, and all the while they claimed that they saw, not knew someone that saw, but they themselves saw the resurrected Jesus. And the reason all this, plus more I didn’t mention, happened your saying, was because Jesus never resurrected?
This is reasonable? Please.
Next, I had mentioned the religion of atheism and you responded:
“Ahh yes, the old attempt to describe atheism as a religion. Hogwash.”

Why “hogwash”? The Atheist have faith.
They have their religious leaders, such as Carl Sagan.
They go out to convince people that other religions are wrong, and that Atheism is right, which is proselytizing.
And they seek and hope for the promise of heaven, which to them is a place where there is no other religion, and where man believes only in a naturalistic way.
They even have their hymns of faith, with titles like “Evolution is the Great Creator,” “Onward Free Thinking Soldiers,” and the classical favorite: “Christians are Unreasonable Unthinking, Mindless, Suckers Who Need to Get a Life and Stop Believing Everything Someone Tells Them.”
Not only that but Atheists are very committed to their beliefs.
Sounds like a religion.
Next I had mentioned that in some of the Biblical manuscripts, in regards to numbers, there were some dots missing which changed the number, you responded:
“Why are these great truths consistently misinterpreted or mistranslated?”

I never said great truths, these were numbers that told how many men attacked a city, or had died in warfare. In some translations the numbers contradict what is said in say Leviticus compared to the book of Numbers. No great truth, just a contradictory count of men.
I’m going to break this off again and start a new post.

Vilepagan this will be short, let’s look at your Biblical problem, you said:
“Try explaining the cure for leprosy. (I see that in the NIV, leprosy is trsanslated as infectious skin disease)
Is the ritual described in Leviticus 14 effective for treating infectious skin diseases?”

I’m glad you brought this up, it’s a perfect example of an unbeliever so intent on proving the Bible wrong that they will throw out anything, often not checking the scripture. Leviticus chapter 14 is the ritual for ceremonial cleansing. The explanation is right at the beginning, check it out:
Leviticus 14:1-4 “The LORD said to Moses, "These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the priest: The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, the priest shall order that…” From here it goes into the ritual.
Look at the text, before the ceremonial cleansing is to occur the priest has to make sure that the man has already been healed of his infectious disease.
So often people bring me contradictions, when a simple reading of the text would have answered their own accusations. But what’s odd, many times after the explanation these same people will say I’m unreasonable because I claim that the Bible does not contradict itself, yet they don’t produce a contradiction.
But who am I, there could possibly be a Biblical contradiction out there that someone is just waiting to slap me with that doesn’t have an answer, or that at least I don’t have an answer…hmmm, well while I’m waiting I’ll just answer a few more posts.

The Atheist have faith.
Horay!

Stark just implied faith is belief in falshoods! I agree!

Afterall, as a bible literalist, Stark clearly considers atheism to be a falshood. And how does he express this? By labelling it a faith of course!

Using "faith" as a derrogatory term indeed. Very christian!

They have their religious leaders, such as Carl Sagan.
Now he's bashing the religious! Let me safely assume stark considers Carl Sagan to be generally wrong in his outlook. How does he express this? By labelling him as religious of course! So "religious" as well as "faith" is a derrogatory term in christian eyes.

They go out to convince people that other religions are wrong, and that Atheism is right, which is proselytizing.
Now proselytizing is used as a criticism! It must be to proselytize is a bad thing in stark's mind. Oh dear, christians around the globe! You better stop that preaching then.

And they seek and hope for the promise of heaven, which to them is a place where there is no other religion, and where man believes only in a naturalistic way.
Now heaven's getting a kicking! Why does this christian have only disdian for the pillars of his own belief system?!

They even have their hymns of faith, with titles like...
Oh no! Even the word "hymn" can be used to criticise! Stark, is nothing sacred in your mind?

Not only that but Atheists are very committed to their beliefs.
Commitment as a derrogatory term now!

Sounds like a religion.
And he saves this biggest put down for last: "you have a.... [drum roll].... RELIGION!".


lol. Oh dear sweet little theologians!
Forgive them lord for they rarely know what they say.

Originally posted by stark
I’m glad you brought this up, it’s a perfect example of an unbeliever so intent on proving the Bible wrong that they will throw out anything, often not checking the scripture. Leviticus chapter 14 is the ritual for ceremonial cleansing. The explanation is right at the beginning, check it out:


I read it thanks Stark...I'll ask again since you didn't answer the question. Is the ritual described in Leviticus 14 effective for treating infectious skin diseases?

If you are suggesting that this ritual was ceremonial, and had no medicinal function, then what was the purpose of the ritual? What do the references to "cleansing" mean?

Tell me, what is the logical problem with this part of my post?

Nothing is wrong with the logic, but as usual, you seem to have made up your mind that this was the most likely scenario based on nothing. But I'll admit you are correct...its possible God hovered above the Earth when he created it so he could stretch. Its also possible he was sitting next to it, maybe on Uranus or something. Its also possible that he was no where near it and didn't create it at all because he doesn't exist. Its all possible.

Let me work backwards, many of the claims of UFO’s being sited may be true, but the letters to underline are U.F.O., what the people are seeing is just that Unidentified Flying Objects, what these objects are is up for debate,

You know what I meant by UFOs. Well, maybe you didn't since you seemed to have missed the part about all those who have claimed to be abducted. Could that have happened if they are just unidentified government crafts? The point was that there are PLENTY of stories of encounters with aliens that hold as much weight as these stories of dinosaurs.

Where are they now? Are you suggesting that since an animal, as a species, isn’t alive now that means they didn’t exist 600 years from now? Hmmm I’d never thought of extinction that way. By the way I’m not suggesting that dinosaurs were roaming the earth in giant herds in the 1500s, I suspect that the appearance of a dinosaur back then was very rare, which is why legends built up around their appearances.

How could you think I was "suggesting" anything when all I did was ask the question “If dinosaurs lived with humans, and even as recently as the 1500s as you say is possible, then what happened to them? Where are they now?”? Either you know what happened to them or not, and you seem to be sure of things that happened long before you claim dinosuars became extinct, so I figured you might have a theory on how they became extinct. How did creatures so large completely disappear? I assume you don't believe in the theory of them being wiped out by a meteor if they existed so recently and with humans.

You keep claiming that the scientific evidence that says dinosaurs died-out 65 million years ago is faulty because carbon dating is innacurate. But to believe this, wouldn't it have to be so accurately innacurate to consistently place the age of dinosaur fossils so far ahead of human fossils? If it was so innacurate then wouldn't the tests on some dinosaur fossils show they were from 100 million years ago and some show they were from maybe thousands of years ago? Or the innacurate tests would sometimes show human fossils to be form 100 million years ago and some to be more recent. But for it to be so consistently inconsistent as to always place dinosaurs and humans in different time frames just doesn't make sense.

Blob, your post is very interesting, I’ve been trying to get my mind to think the way you displayed in your post. Let’s look at it; first you said:
“Stark just implied faith is belief in falshoods! I agree!
Afterall, as a bible literalist, Stark clearly considers atheism to be a falshood. And how does he express this? By labelling it a faith of course!
Using "faith" as a derrogatory term indeed. Very christian!”

Okay, let’s see if I get this right, in your mind I’m saying that atheism is a false belief, atheism takes faith, therefore since I apply faith to atheism I’m using faith in a derogatory manner.
Hmmmm, I don’t quite get it. Let’s look at some more. Next I had said that Carl Sagan was a religious leader and you responded:
“Now he's bashing the religious!

Now, in your mind I’m saying Carl Sagan is a religious leader, and Carl Sagan is wrong, therefore I don’t like the religious.
Wait, I think I’m getting something here…let’s try some more, I had said that atheism proselytizes others, and you said:
“Now proselytizing is used as a criticism! It must be to proselytize is a bad thing in stark's mind. Oh dear, christians around the globe! You better stop that preaching then.”

Oh, I’m beginning to see the patter here; Atheism proselytizes, I don’t like atheism, therefore, proselytizing is bad. Hmmm, I couldn’t have got it that quick, let’s double check my findings. I had mentioned the heaven of the atheist, and you said:
“Now heaven's getting a kicking! Why does this christian have only disdian for the pillars of his own belief system?!”

It appears that Christians aren’t the only ones with a disdain for others belief system… oh sorry, I strayed from my investigation. So let’s see if I can still follow your thought pattern; Atheism has a type of heaven, I don’t like Atheism, therefore I now don’t like heaven. Really I’ve got to try this one more time, I’ll see if I can handle a double. I had said:
“Not only that but Atheists are very committed to their beliefs.
And you responded:
“Commitment as a derrogatory term now!”
And I also said:
“Sounds like a religion.”
And you said:
“And he saves this biggest put down for last: "you have a.... [drum roll].... RELIGION!".

Here’s the test: Atheists are committed to their beliefs, and Atheism is a religion, I don’t like Atheism, therefore…[drum roll]…I don’t like commitment and I don’t like religion. I get it now! It is amazing that you got this from reading my post… It’s wrong, but amazing never the less. Just for fun let’s see if I can bring this line of thinking into my everyday life, here it goes:
I love Pepsi, I don’t like Coke.
Coke has water in it, therefore I don’t like water.

I love Burger King cheeseburgers, I don’t like McDonalds Cheeseburgers.
McDonalds Cheeseburgers contain meat, therefore I don’t like meat.

I love the movie “Army of Darkness,” I don’t like the movie “Places in the Heart.”
“Places in the Heart” uses the English language, therefore, I don’t like the English language.

This logic is really amusing, and I could go on and on with others…well, like this one:

I used to have a TR-8, I loved that TR-8, I don’t like a Yugo.
A Yugo has tires, therefore I don’t like tires.

This is like eating chips, you can’t just do one you have to keep going… Chips?

I love my dog, I don’t like the dog owned by the guy down the street.
The dog owned by the guy down the street eats potato chips, therefore I don’t like potato Chips.

Finally something to do on a boring Saturday afternoon.

Really this has been fun but I must move on to the next post.

I’m saying that atheism is a false belief, atheism takes faith, therefore since I apply faith to atheism I’m using faith in a derogatory manner.

Well put! Thanks for trying to understand me. I see in the rest of your post you are still trying to wriggle out of it but in fact you are over a barrel here stark. You have not one inch of wiggle room. You are bang to rights. You are painted in the corner with never-dry emulsion.


My point is perhaps most simply put as:

When a religious person describes something as religious should that not be a complement?

Of course it should! And yet we all know that in practice theists do this to put atheism down. This is because words like "faith" are meant as a compliment when said of another christian, but a put down when said of a non-believer. It's simple double standards on your part.

(BTW The late, great George Orwell coined a term for this in his novel 1984: "doublethink (http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~smf7/175/chapp.html. ) ". Doublethink means holding two meanings for a concept that are opposite and contradictory, assuming the appropriate meaning as required; and, crucially, not being aware you are doing it.)

If I converted to biblical literlism then you would complement my beliefs, not attack them, using these very same words.

Imagine an atheist using words he values, such as "logic", "science" and "critical thought" in an attack on theism! "Christianity is a science. They have their great thinkers, like Jesus Christ...." and so on. Just doesn't work as a damning critique, does it? That's because doublethink is not hardwired into our vocabulary (unlike theists!).

I have not yet fired all my guns on this and have plenty more examples to illustrate the point should you still be unaware of the semantic hypocrisy you commit.

I suggest you concede the point. You can still save face by saying "while I acknowledge it is a double standard to use complimentary words to criticise other points of view, this has no bearing on the literal truth of the bible". You can then return to defending your absurdity-ridden book of dreary fairytales.

Originally posted by stark
I love the movie “Army of Darkness,” I don’t like the movie “Places in the Heart.”
“Places in the Heart” uses the English language, therefore, I don’t like the English language.

Err...what language does "Army of Darkness" use? :@@:

This logic is really amusing, and I could go on and on

No it's not, and you already have. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Err...what language does "Army of Darkness" use? :@@:

I wasn't going to bother addressing stark's analogies. But that leaves him open to declare "you couldn't answer that could you?"

The error is they don't address my argument. Indeed, he just reiterates his assertion and falls further into the trap. I'll at least do the first.

"I love Pepsi, I don’t like Coke.
Coke has water in it, therefore I don’t like water."

First let's try to work out what's what in this analogy. Stark didn't explicitly say so he'll have to correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems Pepsi is theism, Coke is atheism and water is faith.

That is:
"I love theism, I don't lke atheism.
Atheism has faith in it, therefore I don't like faith"

Are you saying you like faith (or at least don't dislike it)?

Then surely "atheists have faith" is a complement. A belief system that includes this wonderful "faith" of yours must be preferable to one that doesn't.

Why then do you use it to annoy people and put them on the backfoot?

Could it be double standards? Could it be atheists have the wrong type of faith? Could it be you more specifically mean "atheists have faith but that's a bad thing unless it's the same as my type of faith".

"Athesits have faith" is indeed a derrogatory statement and the word "faith" provides the negativity.


BTW Stark, if you are genuinely interested in a sensible debate on possible parallels between religion and atheism I suggest you start another thread.

Blob I want to respond to your post, but I just have to answer Vilepagan first.

Vilepagan you said:
“Err...what language does "Army of Darkness" use?”

That was my point, “Army of Darkness” is in English, and so is “Places in the Heart” it would be rather odd for me to say I don’t like the English language just because a movie I don’t like uses it. The same with Pepsi vs. Coke they both have water, and the TR-8 also has wheels. Where Blob got confused in my demonstrating how Atheism is a religion, is that he is assuming that because a belief system that I don’t agree with has many of the characteristics of another belief system that I do believe in doesn’t mean I’m rejecting those characteristics, just as I’m not rejecting water because Coke has water in it, or the English language because “Places in the Heart” uses the English language. By giving those examples I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.
Now tell me if you would; do you think I was pointing out that atheism is a religion as a cut down to atheism, or to point out that what atheist accuse Christians of practicing, they (atheists) themselves practice.

Okay, now Blob I’m back to you, and I’ll start where you said:
“I see in the rest of your post you are still trying to wriggle out of it but in fact you are over a barrel here stark. You have not one inch of wiggle room. You are bang to rights. You are painted in the corner with never-dry emulsion.”

I’ll brace myself and maybe I’ll make it through this crisis.
Next you said:
“When a religious person describes something as religious should that not be a complement?
Of course it should!”

See the problem? Your implying that because someone is religious, then they would think that all religious things are good. That’s not the case, religious is just that religious. If one person is religious about worshipping Jesus Christ, that doesn’t mean that they would all religions are good. No more then someone being religious about Atheism, would think that someone being religious about worshipping God is Good.
Next you said:
“And yet we all know that in practice theists do this to put atheism down.”

No, in fact theists tell atheists that they also have a religious belief, not to “put atheism down,” but to demonstrate that even those who condemn religions themselves are often religious. The problem is that when some Atheist are accused of being religious they only feel as if they are being put down because they see religion as bad.
Next you said:
[B] “This is because words like "faith" are meant as a compliment when said of another christian, but a put down when said of a non-believer. It's simple double standards on your part.”

Again you misunderstand my point. Faith is just that faith. I was pointing out that Atheist have faith, not as a put down, but as a demonstration of the characteristics of a religion. The compliment or put down comes when the focus is on the object of ones faith. For example if someone has faith that the airplane they are boarding is going to make it to their destination that’s fine, but it someone has faith that a rug they just bought will get them to their destination, well that’s misplaced faith. Look at the Atheist vs. Christian debate, the Atheist has faith that there is no God, and they think that the Christians faith, that there is a God, is a misplaced faith and, of course ,vice versa.
Next you said:
“Imagine an atheist using words he values, such as "logic", "science" and "critical thought" in an attack on theism!”

This thought of yours is workable only if I had intend my description of Atheism as a religion, as an attack against Atheism. In fact my point was that what atheism accuses Christianity of being and having, that is a religion and faith, they themselves are and have, again atheism is religious and has faith.
Next you said:
“ I have not yet fired all my guns on this and have plenty more examples to illustrate the point should you still be unaware of the semantic hypocrisy you commit.”

You seem almost desperate, to prove that I’ve committed some great logical or hypocritical blunder. I wonder why? Tell me do you agree that Atheist have faith?
Next you said:
“I suggest you concede the point.”

I bet you do.
Next:
“You can still save face by saying "while I acknowledge it is a double standard to use complimentary words to criticise other points of view,…

Now, I’m betting that at this point of my post you are still not willing to see that I was not criticizing Atheism by pointing out it’s religious characteristics, but was merely pointing out that Atheism is also a religion. Now, maybe I’ll lose that bet, so let’s see, do you still think that I was using words such as religion, faith, hymns, and proselytize as a cut down aimed at Atheism, or could it be I was just demonstrating that Atheism has many of the same Characteristics as other religions, only aimed differently?
Next you said:
“You can then return to defending your absurdity-ridden book of dreary fairytales.”

Now back to defending the Bible…are you absolutely positive that the Bible is full of “fairytales”, or do you just have “faith” that it’s full of fairytales.
I suggest that if there is no God, or that the Bible is not the Word of God, then yes, one would have to conclude that the Bible is full of fairytales, but If there is a God, and the Bible is His Word, then the stories contained in the Bible are true. To help us in this investigation, tell us, which stories in the Bible are you absolutely sure are fairytales?

Originally posted by stark
Now tell me if you would; do you think I was pointing out that atheism is a religion as a cut down to atheism, or to point out that what atheist accuse Christians of practicing, they (atheists) themselves practice.


I can't begin to guess at your motives for posting it, but I think your premise that atheism is a religion is erroneous.

Oh christian soldier, so righteous and pious! Why is it that even when ensnared in your own mess you still march onward, all joyful and triumphant?

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10058/fundy_debate.jpg


I have put you in a pit, yet you grab a shovel and dig!

Originally posted by stark
do you think I was pointing out that atheism is a religion as a cut down to atheism, or to point out that what atheist accuse Christians of practicing, they (atheists) themselves practice.

"Accuse"?? Are you saying atheists "accuse" christians of something christians themselves deny? lol. You are misrepresenting the situation here.

Originally posted by stark
I’ll brace myself and maybe I’ll make it through this crisis.
Doubtless your wonderful faith will allow you to believe in falsehood and thereby carry you through.

Originally posted by stark
Your implying that because someone is religious, then they would think that all religious things are good.

Precisely! I wonder why you leave statements like "atheism is a religion" hanging? Is it because in the doublethink of theistic minds the fact that religion can be a negative is assumed?


Originally posted by stark
No, in fact theists tell atheists that they also have a religious belief, not to “put atheism down,” but to demonstrate that even those who condemn religions themselves are often religious. The problem is that when some Atheist are accused of being religious they only feel as if they are being put down because they see religion as bad.

Daw! Ain't that cute! Poor little diddums. He was just making an objective point, he didn't mean to be put us down. Oh Stark! has your faith given you such thick skin? If you know atheists "see religion as bad" then slapping the religious label on them is of course putting them down. If you knew this when you typed "atheism is a religion" (or whatever your exact words) then you knew it would cause bad feeling and irritation - and this was your true motivation.

Originally posted by stark
I was pointing out that Atheist have faith, not as a put down, but as a demonstration of the characteristics of a religion.
Repeating it won't make it true.

Originally posted by stark
the Atheist has faith that there is no God, and they think that the Christians faith, that there is a God, is a misplaced faith and, of course ,vice versa.
Deeper and deeper you dig! Again you paint faith as a bad thing leading to belief in falsehoods. Again it is only doublethink that allows you to type hanging assertions such as "atheists have faith" - leaving it implicit that it must be the wrong type of faith.

Originally posted by stark
In fact my point was that what atheism accuses Christianity of being and having, that is a religion and faith, they themselves are and have, again atheism is religious and has faith.
You're repeating again. As I said christians accept themselves to be faithful and religious, so it is hardly an accusation. It is when theists say it to atheists though, because we tend to deny faith and religion.

Originally posted by stark
You seem almost desperate, to prove that I’ve committed some great logical or hypocritical blunder. I wonder why?
It needed pointing out. You have used a dishonorable debating strategy - putting others on the back foot by insisting on using labels they define themselves against.

Originally posted by stark
Tell me do you agree that Atheist have faith?
Whether parallels exist between adopting a religion and denying religion is not the topic here. I have suggested you start another thread if you wish to discuss it. The point here is the widespread theist habit of attaching words like "faith" to those who reject faith in order to annoy them. It is a rotten debating technique.

Originally posted by stark
Now, I’m betting that at this point of my post you are still not willing to see that I was not criticizing Atheism by pointing out it’s religious characteristics, but was merely pointing out that Atheism is also a religion. Now, maybe I’ll lose that bet, so let’s see, do you still think that I was using words such as religion, faith, hymns, and proselytize as a cut down aimed at Atheism, or could it be I was just demonstrating that Atheism has many of the same Characteristics as other religions, only aimed differently?
I have answered that. I have also demonstrated the kind of language you could easily use to raise the topic without your sneering insuations of "faith" and "religion". I suggest a topic title such as "Parallels between theism and atheism". That said, there are genuine semantic difficulties of saying "atheists are relgious" because it's tantamount to saying "the non-religious are religious" - a contradiction in terms. You may get more miliage out of a title such as "Parallels between evolution and religion". Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by stark
Now back to defending the Bible…are you absolutely positive that the Bible is full of “fairytales”, or do you just have “faith” that it’s full of fairytales.
Alas! You continue still! You consider my opinion on the bible to be wrong. SO much so you label it faith!


One more point - apart from the satisfaction of irritating atheists on forums, why would theists want to label atheism as a religion? Surely you would be in a stronger position to say "atheists have no faith and so are unenlightened and lost" etc. If I ever converted to bible literalism that's what I'd do. I'd then try and make them feel that any discontent in their lives is due to this void.

I mean, if we already have religion, and you convinced us this was so, why the hell should we feel any need to convert to another one?

Stark the only way you can say Atheism is a Religion is if you change the meaning of Religion. Since if you did that we would all just stop listening to you i doubt you will so heres the current description of it

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Atheism clearly isnt represented in No.1 Ill hope you'll agree nor in two mainly for the part about worship. No.3 is out on the basis of it using itself to explain itself. No.4 is out since Atheism last time i looked didnt have some appointed leader and he/she certainly wouldnt be spirtual if it did.

So it comes to number 5 which is where things get slightly tricky in that if you look at Blob its kind of obvious he has to adhere to this one. Unfortunatly its a bit vague since according to this An activity pursued with Zeal happens so often in my day that Im creating religions left right and center. So for the point of your argument the only way you can say Atheism is a Religion is if you invoke No.5

I always though that atheism was defined as "lack of religion." Christians have faith, they sort of jumped over the barrier, where as, atheists did not and are not willing to jump because they don't have enough evidence.
Sorry, that was a bad description.

Well, Well, I’ve been at work here trying to figure out why Blob would be so intent on the claim that I’m just trying to cut down Atheism, when it’s clear that I wasn’t trying to cut it down. After all, would it be wise to cut down Atheism using the very same characteristics that make up the religious part of Christianity? Hmmm, so I’m trying to figure it out as I shovel snow, I take a small