Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 510111213141516 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 313
  1. #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by fubka View Post
    Do you know what a light is? A light is an objects which atoms have excited electrons which jump up and down energy levels releasing photons. If the photons are within the visible spectrum, we see them as light. Sorry creationists, this does not happen on the moon. Sorry creationists, the moon is not a "light." Again, that was the forth day of "creation" too.
    Yeah, sorry fubjka, but now you're being as much a literalist as a Creationist, and in the wrong language.

    The Ancient Hebrew isn't calling it a light source. It's saying it "casts" light. Which is not scientifically correct, but observationally correct - moonlight is reflected sunlight, but it does act as a "light source", albeit secondary.

    Quote Originally Posted by boyo3221 View Post
    typo lad : No offense to any of the Jews whom i have the utmost respect, they were keepers of the scriptures throughout the decades. however to see the old testament without viewing it through the lense of Jesus Christ is to not see it in the whole perspective.
    None taken, as long as you don't take offense when I disagree. I don't discount the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, nor all of his followers. However, in my eyes he is a "retcon".

    i do not have time or care enough to get into a theolgical debate
    Then why are you in this thread?

    and prove you scriptually.

    I can prove myself without scripture. Cogito ergo sum, after all. If you mean prove the validity of your faith by picking bits of scripture - I'm sure you can. And I can disprove it. Or we can accept that you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, and as long as neither of us force our belief on anyone else, then all's good.

    because the point is this . We all NEED Jesus
    I disagree.

    and God has made a way through him as a free gift, did u hear a FREE gift, no rules to follow, no religion to try to adhere to . He simply asks that we accept him as our substitute and love him and learn how much he loves us. THATS IT! thats the Gospel, that GOD SOOOOOO loved the world that he sent Jesus to save us.
    Yes, no rules. Except, you know, accept Jesus or suffer eternal torment. Yeah, no catch there.

    Frankly, I prefer my system of rules, and my G-d who we believe has promised that all men and women of every faith, color, and creed can share in Whatever Comes Next, even if they don't believe in Him.

    So while i can debate about biblical theology and show my creds in this area its all not that important, because if you are looking for God you will find him, if you are trying to PROVE that God exists than you will spend alot of wasted time, because its all about FAITH. But the GAP theory is correct and not an apolegtics theory!!!!!!!!!
    You're contradicting yourself. If faith is all you need, then you don't need GAP.

    And yeah, GAP is apologetic. For centuries, Jewish scholars understood that the "Yom" in the tale of creation meant "period of time" (with the exception of Kaarites and Samaritans). It was only after the translation of the Torah that ignorant people could insist that it meant a literal day, because they were reading it devoid of context. GAP is a way to take an ignorant concept and wrap it around oneself like a blanket.

    Faith is not an either/or thing. You can have Faith and not be blind to the world around you. Indeed, if one really believes that a Higher Power put us here, then it's just rude to wear blinders and ignore what's going on in the world around you and simply go "a wizard did it".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Is it odd that people so often say "no offense" right before they do so?
    It's a "free gift"
  2. #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    I don't discount the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, nor all of his followers. However, in my eyes he is a "retcon".
    hmm.. I had to google that one, then remember you saying that you love comics . I'm curious about how that works for you...?
  3. #283  
    How liking comics works, hor retcons work, or how Jesus being a retcon works?
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    How liking comics works, hor retcons work, or how Jesus being a retcon works?
    Actually, I'm interested in that too. Can I ask, what facts changed retroactively? Or, are you saying the facts didn't change but the interpretation of the facts changed (retrospectively)? Or are you saying there are no facts at all?
  5. #285  
    Okay, off the top of my head:

    Things that changed:

    The concept of a Resurrected Moshiach. Classic Judaism does have two Moshiachs, one who dies and another who lives, but they are defined as two different people. Early Christianity rolled Ben Yosef and Ben David into one roll.

    The concept of G-d having a son is a pretty big change, and one in line with the culture that was persecuting the Jews at the time, so that's an interesting note.

    The immaculate conception - woman born without original sin - is a biggie, since there's no concept of "original sin" as an ongoing taint in classical Judaism.

    Then there's the bits in the Jesus "origin" that are taken from the story of Shimshon (Samson), the Navi's lament of the Battle of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_%28609_BC%29]Megido [/quote] being re-purposed as a good chunk of the book of Revelation (Egypt and Bablyon become Gog and Magog, and Yoshiya Hamelech, the man who could have been Moshiach, becomes a fallen Messiah), and a bunch of other goodies.

    At my most cynical, I see it this way: It's said in each generation someone is born who could be Moshiach. Maybe Jesus even was that guy. Maybe Bar Kochva was. Maybe the Lubavitcher Rebe was. But once they pass? All bets are off.

    Hope that came out inoffensively.
  6. #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    The immaculate conception - woman born without original sin - is a biggie, since there's no concept of "original sin" as an ongoing taint in classical Judaism.
    while most of your points can be attributed to interpretation and/or perspective; I'd clarify that the greek scriptures do NOT teach, or even mention, "immaculate conception", "perpetual virgin" etc. about Mary. She was a normal person.

    now I'm confused though...if no inherited sin, why the sacrifices and purifications of the Law? Even for childbirth? Or am I misunderstanding you...
  7. #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    while most of your points can be attributed to interpretation and/or perspective; I'd clarify that the greek scriptures do NOT teach, or even mention, "immaculate conception", "perpetual virgin" etc. about Mary. She was a normal person.
    I'm always willing to be corrected.

    now I'm confused though...if no inherited sin, why the sacrifices and purifications of the Law? Even for childbirth? Or am I misunderstanding you...
    Sacrifices were given for multiple reasons. In the case of child-birth, it is a celebratory offering, not a "sin" offering. The concept of Original Sin - that Adam & Chava sinned and we are all tainted by it - is not an Ancient Jewish concept.

    I mentioned this way, way back on the thread, but "sinning" in Judaism is acting in a way that either violates a negative commandment (thou shalt not) or transgresses a positive one (thou shalt). It's not a "condition", and we're not "born with it". The closest Jewish thought comes to that is the concept that we are born with a Yetzer Harah (lose translation, Evil Inclination), but don't get a Yetzer Tov ("good inclination" again, weak translation) until we come of age, and until then we're shaped by society and our choices. Think of it as a more primitive concept of Id, Ego, and Superego.

    As fur "purity", the concept of Taharah (ritual purity) is another concept that doesn't translate. In a ritual-based society, it was important to note what made you able/not able to participate in those rituals. So we get detailed rules about what renders you unfit (Tum'ai, or "ritually impure"), what can transfer it, and what limits it gives you. Ritual impurity doesn't make you a social pariah, and we're not born with a status of Tumah.

    Am I making sense?
  8. #288  
    I think I follow... My reply would be that I agree about what a "sin" is but add that humans are "sinners", that is, we have an imperfect inclination to err from birth...or before, as David said in Psalm 51:5, "in sin my mother conceived me"

    incidentally, this idea is mentioned by God in Noah account, in Genesis 6, man's "heart" being geared toward bad.
  9. #289  
    Well, that gets back to the Yetzer Harah/id concept, and even the idea of the first two commandments.

    Mankind is a sensual creature. Babies and kids are walking Ids. It's the job of society, with or without a framework of religion, to create a sense of right or wrong.

    In the framework of religion, that's the first two commandments to Adam: "Enjoy creation, but limit yourself". Adam failed. So as a result, 7 laws. That didn't work out. Etc, etc. But the issue isn't "sin" as much as it is "giving in oto the wrong potential".
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    since there's no concept of "original sin" as an ongoing taint in classical Judaism.
    I apologize if I've taken the above out of context...

    So your understanding on Adam's sin is what?

    What was God's will for Adam?

    Was he to live forever? Why did he die?

    Believe me, I'm not here to try and drag you into an aggressive debate.
    I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts.

    Note:
    Thanks to all for keeping this civil. - I'm really impressed.
    This is the second or third religious thread recently that has demonstrated these things can be discussed kindly and respectively.
    Just call me Berd.
  11. #291  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I apologize if I've taken the above out of context...
    You've not, although my statement does come off odd I guess: Adam sinned, it's just not some "inherited" sin. Makes more sense now, I hope.

    So your understanding on Adam's sin is what?
    G-d gave Adam two commandments: (1) Eat all the fruits of my garden (2) except this one. Adam "sinned" by not controlling/limiting himself, so that was his sin - violating a negative commandment.

    What was God's will for Adam?
    I don't pretend to know His will. It sometimes seems to me like it was an experiment of some kind, like "teach the rat to read, then label a thing poison, and see what it does." Basically G-d set two paths, and Adam chose one... and it all comes from there. G-d, we all assume, has a Plan and Reason for this.

    Was he to live forever? Why did he die?
    Ah, referring to the "you will surely die" aspect implying Adam would otherwise be immortal? Yeah, I don't get that. "You will surely die" is used several other times in the Torah as some sort of expression for "you'll be in deep you-know-what", but it is a bit troubling. I don't think he could have been meant to be immortal, as our bodies just aren't designed for it.

    Believe me, I'm not here to try and drag you into an aggressive debate.
    No aggression detected at all, sir or madam.

    I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts.
    Yay for attention.

    Note:
    Thanks to all for keeping this civil. - I'm really impressed.
    This is the second or third religious thread recently that has demonstrated these things can be discussed kindly and respectively.
    Is it usually a problem here? This is the first time I've ventured away from the tech areas. I couldn't resist the title.
  12. #292  
    Thanks,
    I don't have time to reply to all, but I will at least give my thoughts on this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    I don't pretend to know His will. It sometimes seems to me like it was an experiment of some kind, like "teach the rat to read, then label a thing poison, and see what it does." Basically G-d set two paths, and Adam chose one... and it all comes from there. G-d, we all assume, has a Plan and Reason for this.

    I don't think I'm presuming too much when I look at the opening account.

    God Created Man and said 'Be Fruitful... Become Many... Fill the Earth...' and at the same time, warned them to not eat from a certain tree or they would die.
    It sounds pretty obvious that; He didn't want them to eat from the tree, and as a result die. I would say that was 'His Will' for man.

    Let me put it another way; He told them what he didn't want them to do.
    Anything other than that would have been to be untruthful - deceitful.
    He held a prospect before the first couple that they could have been loyal to.
    If it wasn't within their capability, it would have been unjust to pronounce judgment on them.

    So if we accept that for the simple fact it is, the rest will then fall in place.
    Just call me Berd.
  13. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #293  
    Sounds like an incompetent creator to me, not so "all knowing." Nor "all powerful" in that he constantly fails at curing amputees.
  14. #294  
    Quote Originally Posted by fubka View Post
    Sounds like an incompetent creator to me, not so "all knowing." Nor "all powerful" in that he constantly fails at curing amputees.
    to first part; If he used forsight in every case and then used omnipotence to force his desired outcome in every case, that would nullify free will and certainly would not be loving. Would you like to be a robot? The Bible never indicates that God is omniscient in a complete and arbitrary way... I've shown scriptures on this previously.

    on Second point, are you referring to literally restoring amputated limbs? If so, please don't link every person who claims to represent God with God himself. Modern faith healing is a sham, scriptures easily show that to be true. However, God has done much greater things in the past, and promises to do so in the future. Or do you mean something else?
  15. #295  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    T
    God Created Man and said 'Be Fruitful... Become Many... Fill the Earth...' and at the same time, warned them to not eat from a certain tree or they would die.
    It sounds pretty obvious that; He didn't want them to eat from the tree, and as a result die. I would say that was 'His Will' for man.
    It's certainly a possible interpretation.

    Let me put it another way; He told them what he didn't want them to do.
    Anything other than that would have been to be untruthful - deceitful.
    He held a prospect before the first couple that they could have been loyal to.
    If it wasn't within their capability, it would have been unjust to pronounce judgment on them.

    So if we accept that for the simple fact it is, the rest will then fall in place.
    While I see your point, acceptance of "the simple fact" is predicated on side-stepping the fact that "death" in the Torah refers to both physical death (Misah) and spiritual (blanking on the term, sorry). Surely expulsion from Gan Eden and the retraction of a one-on-one relationship with a First Cause is a form of spiritual death? Then there's the cultural context mentioned by Rashi and others later, that one who is destitute is like he is dead - Adam and Chava had lost everything, so again, from a colloquial aspect, that fits too.

    I'm not dismissing your interpretation, mind. I'm just saying that there's still wiggle-room there.

    Quote Originally Posted by fubka View Post
    Sounds like an incompetent creator to me, not so "all knowing." Nor "all powerful" in that he constantly fails at curing amputees.
    What is this in response to? Feels like drive-by-snark.

    You seem very hung up on the idea of an Invisible Sky Father, interventionist and interactive. Most of us are discussing G-d as First Cause, etc. You seem hung up primitive man's terms in how they try to explain this concept. It feels very similar to the Biblical Literalism Creationists use, who you say one should "laugh at" (which we don't disagree with for the most part).

    All-Knowing and All-Powerful are terms that we can argue about this till we're blue in the face, but they're man's terms. Plus, there's the idea that just because G-d knows and can do something, doesn't mean He "has" to. As others point out, this kinda makes G-d seem like a **** at times..

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    to first part; If he used forsight in every case and then used omnipotence to force his desired outcome in every case, that would nullify free will and certainly would not be loving. Would you like to be a robot? The Bible never indicates that God is omniscient in a complete and arbitrary way... I've shown scriptures on this previously.
    It's actually one of the reasons I think of Creation as some kind of experiment, one that has already completed from G-d's perspective. He gave us Free Will for some reason, and then set up a world with certain parameters. It just "feels" right.

    on Second point, are you referring to literally restoring amputated limbs? If so, please don't link every person who claims to represent God with God himself. Modern faith healing is a sham, scriptures easily show that to be true. However, God has done much greater things in the past, and promises to do so in the future. Or do you mean something else?
    Indeed, I'd argue that the lack of sudden faith healing is a disproof of faith healers, not the existence of G-d. Just like you don't need G-d to be a good person, you don't need G-d to be a cheating, lying bungus either.
  16. #296  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    While I see your point, acceptance of "the simple fact" is predicated on side-stepping the fact that "death" in the Torah refers to both physical death (Misah) and spiritual (blanking on the term, sorry). Surely expulsion from Gan Eden and the retraction of a one-on-one relationship with a First Cause is a form of spiritual death? Then there's the cultural context mentioned by Rashi and others later, that one who is destitute is like he is dead - Adam and Chava had lost everything, so again, from a colloquial aspect, that fits too.
    Yes, I'm following you. Certainly the spiritual death is found in scriptures. Adam didn't die physically upon eating. (although with "yom" it could still be physical death, after all he lived less than 1000 years, with God 1000 years is as a day, etc.)

    I'd proceed like this... Human's physical existence depends on spiritual life. Spiritual death will lead to physical death. God made Adam and in Gen 2:7 put in him "nishmath haiyim", breath of life. Gen 6:17 refers to "ruach haiyim", or the life-force. Gen 7:22 links them all together as one thing (with the maqqef) to get "breath of the force of life". God is the source of life, so being cut off from him will cut us off from the ruach haiyim, and all the nephesh in the world won't do any good without that spark. Like pulling a plug on a fan... keeps turning for a while and then finally stops.

    I feel that Genesis shows that God meant for humans to live on earth eternally, him always providing ultimately the source of life. After all, no one still understands why we grow old and die; body and cells reproduce and recover just fine up to a point and then something happens. Kinda fits this model.
  17. #297  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Y
    I'd proceed like this... Human's physical existence depends on spiritual life. Spiritual death will lead to physical death. God made Adam and in Gen 2:7 put in him "nishmath haiyim", breath of life. Gen 6:17 refers to "ruach haiyim", or the life-force. Gen 7:22 links them all together as one thing (with the maqqef) to get "breath of the force of life". God is the source of life, so being cut off from him will cut us off from the ruach haiyim, and all the nephesh in the world won't do any good without that spark. Like pulling a plug on a fan... keeps turning for a while and then finally stops.
    That's certainly an interesting way to put it....

    I feel that Genesis shows that God meant for humans to live on earth eternally, him always providing ultimately the source of life. After all, no one still understands why we grow old and die; body and cells reproduce and recover just fine up to a point and then something happens. Kinda fits this model.
    Forgive me, but I'm unsure as to the scientific validity of this statement (more than the theological, which is theory and just fun to talk about). While we don't know when the finite existence of a cell is set to go, we do know how to track, measure, and otherwise quantify "personal entropy".
  18. #298  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    That's certainly an interesting way to put it....



    Forgive me, but I'm unsure as to the scientific validity of this statement (more than the theological, which is theory and just fun to talk about). While we don't know when the finite existence of a cell is set to go, we do know how to track, measure, and otherwise quantify "personal entropy".
    I can track, measure, and quantify my wife's cycle...but that doesn't help me understand it's effects
    I meant more at the WHY of aging; human brain, heart, etc. SEEM to be set up for more than 100 years. if it's evolution, it sure is a waste, certainly not necessary. I think Genesis 1-4 explains the why.
  19. #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    I can track, measure, and quantify my wife's cycle...but that doesn't help me understand it's effects
    But it does, though. That's something very much measurable. Especially if you throw some chemistry into the mix.

    I meant more at the WHY of aging; human brain, heart, etc. SEEM to be set up for more than 100 years. if it's evolution, it sure is a waste, certainly not necessary. I think Genesis 1-4 explains the why.
    I'm not dismissing it, I'm just saying I don't know if I agree.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #300  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    After all, no one still understands why we grow old and die; body and cells reproduce and recover just fine up to a point and then something happens. Kinda fits this model.
    Not sure why you say "no one still understands". Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

    Unless you're talking about the understanding of exactly how the process of dying happens? There has been quite a bit of research in that area and we've learned much about the process.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions