PZ Myers has unearthed maybe the nine trillionth bad attempt in the history of Christian apologetics to try to reconcile the two differently sequenced accounts of Biblical creation, a task logically equivalent to trying to demonstrate that for certain positive values of A, the equations “A + B = 0″ and “A < B" are both true. (You know that when the basis for virtually all of your beliefs requires a branch all its own called "apologetics," you're in serious trouble.)
The contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 — the existence of which are not surprising given that the Biblical creation myths are borrowed from multiple cultures and, like much of the Bible, do not appear intended to be taken literally — are unambiguous. Equally evident is that the Bible has the earth itself being older than the stars and light itself, something a half-alert child could perceive as unruly.
If the total number of this brand of ghastly abandonments of human reason is not really nine trillion, it doesn’t matter, because I’ve pegged it regardless. The value of this number and of every other number is entirely subjective. This is true not only for numbers, but for everything in the world. No, I’m not nuts — welcome to the world of tirelessly trying to fit a square goofy Bible into a round logical hole, of ignoring the Bible’s obviously non-literal composition in favor of generating lie after screamingly insane lie to make everything…still not mesh.
One cannot simultaneously claim that the Bible quite clearly says this or that about gays or adultery or arks, but leaves passages inimical to inerrancy magically open to various interpretations. After all, this would ring loudly of feeble-minded desperation, nothing more than force-fitting, and certainly no believers wold want to be accused of that.
Sane people do not need these things explained, and they should no more be an issue than pointing out that women’s visitation by what some of them colloquially “a monthly friend” does not in fact involve a human guest at all. But religion is proudly insane, and despite its ever-more-ramshackle appearance with each passing decade, it attempts to muscle wild-eyed stupidity into as many crannies of modern society as it can.
Still, for purposes of wry self-amusement I have given passing thought to the maths at work (or not) in Genesis
Most people know that the Bible (in the eyes of those who view it as truth rather than parable) wastes no time in breaking out the nuts, explaining in the first verses that the universe was created in six days. Cosmologists, operating from a somewhat less apocalyptic tradition, place the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years and the age of the earth at around five billion years. While 6 and 5,000,000,000 are not especially close in numerical value, if you cheat a little and round up scientists’ estimate to six billion, you have a neat scheme in which the Bible is off by about exactly a factor of a billion, which could only happen if it were actually dead on. So, Christians merrily claim, one “day” as described in the Bible actually represents a billion or so years on the nose.
Let’s pretend this isn’t just ad hoc claptrap designed to rescue the beliefs of innerrantists from their rightful grave. Eve though the rest of the Bible contains passages that clearly indicate that the authors of scripture understood well what a day was, and what a year was, and used calendars to keep track of such quantities and to mark historical events (the most significant of which didn’t, well, happen), let’s just assume that a God day is a billion Earth years. We’re good to go.
But then we quickly run into a different problem. We read of all of these amazing mens with some sort of (apparently familiar) disorder that causes them to live more than ten times long as people in industrialized societies do today. Genesis 5:5 doesn’t mess around:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
So Adam lived to be 930 — this despite the earlier assurance (Gen. 2:17) that he would die on the very day he ate the forbidden fruit, which turned out to be off by, you guessed it, 930 years. Several other men are noted to have lived absurdly long life spans as well.
What do inerrantists say about this? Well many things, all of which are naturally mindless. Either wildly different calendars were used to track in the days of Adam, or people simply had access to better health and dental plans in days of yore. Whatever the excuse, it’s clear that a year, in Edenspeak, is much closer to a month in astronomical time.
But now look at what’s on the table. We’ve already decided that when the Bible says “day” it really means “billion years,” at least in this chapter, or portion of a chapter. This would make a Biblical year — 365 1/4 days, for those keeping track — equivalent to 365.25 billion astronomical years. And Adam, therefore, would have lived to a robust age of almost 340 trillion years! Given that Strom Thurmond was a racist senator for only half that long, I am not buying it.
Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a divinely inspired book. One would expect that an amalgam of sixty-plus books kept between a single pair of covers — much like a collection of, um, sixty-plus blogs housed in the same domain — generated over a period of hundreds of years would be both inaccurate and many places as well as self-contradicting. The ancients can be forgiven for this, but neither an intelligent LORD not its twenty-first-century followers can. Both should know better.
All of this introduces what for most people would be major credibility problems. But this is the point at which angry sheep rise up and start shouting about context, that these criticisms were long ago answered by far greater intellects than some atheist with an axe to grind, etc. At some level it would be humorous to watch these tantrums — to see supposedly intact people screaming that round squares exist in the proper context and that “before” and “after” as used in Genesis are freely interchangeable — were it not for what it implies about the allegedly advanced human mind. People trained to believe the Bible will make any necessary adjustment to sensible thought in order to”preserve the theory.” It’s uproarious, yes, and pitiful, and when it extends to waging battles against education and good science, it’s unforgivable.
I am convinced it is possible to get a child to believe anything if his or her mind is seized early enough by brute force. It seems plausible that someone could be conditioned to wake up every day and immediately begin snapping and biting at his own genitalia if he were somehow convinced that this is obligatory for good health, the pain and bleeding and flapping skin caused by these assaults on self be damned.
kemibe
docbushwell
jim
#1 by Tony P on August 28, 2007 - 11:29 am
It isn’t the Catholics doing this. Sure they bleat about gay marriage, etc. but I cam up through 12 years of Catholic schools.
We had no qualms with the age of the universe being in terms of tens of billions of years.
The biggest screamers are the fundamentalists. Those are people who abdicated their responsibility to think for themselves.
#2 by JimFiore on August 28, 2007 - 11:57 am
a task logically equivalent to trying to demonstrate that for certain positive values of A, the equations “A + B = 0″ and “A (less than) B” are both true.
Sure, that’s easy. You can solve that by having those certain positive values be less than zero. They’re not negative, they’re just positive values that are less than zero. You see, god works in (very) mysterious ways. It’s YOUR thinking that is limiting. There can be positive values that are less than zero just like atheism is a form of religion.
Now, regarding the 1 day = 1 billion years bit, the problem is neatly solved by having each “day” be worth a variable amount of years. Hey, he’s god, he can do whatever he wants. Think of it as a sort of “cosmic time exchange rate” that varies the way currencies do. First day, 2 billion years, second day, 500 million. Easy.
As far as Adam is concerned, because he had not “eaten of the tree of knowledge” yet, it is safe to assume that he wasn’t very smart (and consequently, I don’t know how he could be held accountable for his “sins”, I mean, we don’t hold the incapable accountable for crimes these days, at least not outside of Texas anyway). So, if he wasn’t too bright, it is plausible that he counted each lunar cycle as a “year”, and thus, 930 “years” would yield a pretty normal life span.
#3 by Bill from Dover on August 28, 2007 - 12:34 pm
I can’t see a problem here with ANYTHING if one just takes into account the fact that for all negative integers > 0 (pregarden, that is), God was simply working with inversely logarithmic logic.
BINGO!
#4 by Brian on August 28, 2007 - 3:38 pm
Kev your not one to get hung up on dates are you? How is your moral compass steering you theses days anyhow?
#5 by Tex on August 28, 2007 - 3:40 pm
When the Bible says the world was created in six days, it clearly means six 24-hour days. Even the YEC crowd gets this right.
Some ‘scholars’ point out that the Hebrew word for ‘day’ can have many different meanings, including very long times (such as in ‘days of yore’). This is correct, but the best way to decide which of the multiple meanings is intended is to look at the context. Genesis 1 ends each ‘day’ with the statement that night fell, morning came, and that was the end of the day. ‘Days’ that are separated by night and morning are clearly 24-hour days, not billion-year long days, or days of yore.
The length of the days really doesn’t matter, though, since the order of creation in Genesis 1 is wrong (and much worse in Genesis 2), no matter how long each day was.
#6 by hoary puccoon on August 29, 2007 - 3:28 am
Tex says, “‘Days’ that are separated by night and morning are clearly 24-hour days….”
Yeah, except that on a globe, it’s always night and morning, and 5:00 somewhere. This particular (repeated) line in the bible is a pretty clear indicator that Genesis was written by people who thought the earth was flat.
As I understand it, the first five books of the bible were written down because the Hebrews had writing for the first time and wanted to save their oral tradition before it was lost. Whether it was scientifically accurate was no more important than whether Homer’s Iliad was historically accurate. It’s only the nineteenth-century (a.d.) fundamentalist idea that the bible must be literally true that makes it look ridiculous.
#7 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 29, 2007 - 9:05 am
Um, well no, there’s plenty more that makes it look ridiculous. The creation story, Adam and Eve and the fall, Noah and his merry little boat full of animals, contradictions, Leviticus, the supernatural claims it makes, π = 3 etc.. etc…
Those kinda help the ridiculousness along as well.
#8 by JimFiore on August 29, 2007 - 10:13 am
OK, six 24 hour days it is. It’s just that each “hour” could be millions of years. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I always wondered how there could be days and nights on Earth when god didn’t make the sun (and other stars) until the third day. I assume that perhaps he had a really big reading lamp at the time.
#9 by Brian on August 29, 2007 - 10:24 am
Yeah you guys got it right. Reading lamp now there’s a novel idea. Trying to put ancient times into modern terms makes one think you guys don’t even need to wipe.
#10 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 29, 2007 - 10:41 am
Way to jump in and make a totally incoherent point.
#11 by Brian on August 29, 2007 - 12:16 pm
Way to jump in and make a totally incoherent point
yes and how do you walk around all fours? Oh wait I’m still a rev big dumb chump or chimp.
#12 by mg on August 29, 2007 - 1:05 pm
I thought that all the high schools had already started. Where are all the kids finding time to troll?
I know. Brian must be a home-schooler and this is their version of debate class.
#13 by JimFiore on August 29, 2007 - 1:12 pm
OTOH, Brian may simply be sarcasm-challenged.
#14 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 29, 2007 - 1:23 pm
ahh yes good one. /eyeroll
Now how about trying to explain your comment above?
#15 by Kevin Beck on August 29, 2007 - 2:00 pm
“It’s only the nineteenth-century (a.d.) fundamentalist idea that the bible must be literally true that makes it look ridiculous.”
Yes, this is often overlooked in light of how today’s fundopaths behave. The ancients who wrote the gospels were playing games to give the false appearance of fulfilled prophecies here and there, but can’t be faulted for their ignorance, and only if one decides that they meant everything they wrote about Noah’s ark, Eden, creation and so on do they look genuinely hammer-headed.
H.G. Wells comes across as something of a racist in today’s climate, which is good (for us, not for him). Aside from that, though, while regarded as supremely creative by science-fiction fans, he’d be quickly viewed as a nut by 95% of the population if was discovered that Wells fully believed he was writing a historical account of undocumented events in the year 300 B.C.
Fittingly, it’s the fundaroos who are making the whole enterprise look stupid. By babbling about Biblical inerrancy that was never intended to be, they’ve caused their own problems. Plenty of theologians and theist scholars recognize this, but they no more want to enrage their “base” by admitting what they really think (except for Catholic leaders) than do secretly pro-choice Republicans.
#16 by Brian on August 29, 2007 - 3:26 pm
I thought that all the high schools had already started. Where are all the kids finding time to troll?
I know. Brian must be a home-schooler and this is their version of debate class.
mg is that short for my god your stupid. Oops, I’m sorry I used the god word. Let me re-phrase that….
mg is that short for my (scientifically created version of a lamp shaded wearing nit wit) goodness you guys are seriously hung up on issues. Time to troll? Who let you out of songs in the woods?
#17 by Brian on August 29, 2007 - 3:29 pm
I know I know I’m not being consistent.
The Biblical conversion factor, it not consistent
Kevin, it not…come on your better than that are you not? Well…after reading your blogs it appears it not consistent.
#18 by Kevin Beck on August 29, 2007 - 3:51 pm
Tony, that’s been my experience as well. I grew up in New England, and practically every one I knew that went to Church was Catholic. I don’t remember any of them deriding biological or physical science, and even if most who did were inclined to keep quiet about their ideas, I would have picked up on it. This is what made being steeped in the intoxicated lunacy of the Baptist-fundie South so strange: Before this I knew that religious ideas were goofy, but didn’t have to confront the fact that the people who held them were goofy too.
Some of the parents seemed awfully hell-bent on reminding us all how wrong it was to fornicate or cohabitate, but no one cared. All of my friends would give up this or that for Lent, and for the hell of it I would too, and then I’d systematically get them to try to cheat and conversely.
#19 by Brian on August 29, 2007 - 3:54 pm
Hey ya’ll just remember the following:
We all are the light of the world while we’re on this planet. That goes for you Kev, Jim even you Rev big dumb chump. So light your candles and be the light.
Just as long as I’m in this world
I am the light of this world
You don’t believe in Jesus
And not a word he say
When he come all way down to Lazarus’ grave
And raised him from the dead
Just as long as I’m in this world
I am the light of this world
I’ve got fiery fingers
I’ve got fiery hands
And when I get up in heaven
Gonna join that fiery band
Just as long as I’m in this world
I am the light of this world
Shout around all that you wanna
For I ain’t gonna be here long
‘Cause my soul is anchored in Jesus
And the world can’t do me no harm
Just as long as I’m in this world
I am the light of this world
Prayer is the key of heaven
And faith unlock the door
That’s why my god give me the key
And he told me to carry it everywhere I go
Just as long as I’m in this world
I am the light of this world
I know I been converted
I know I ain’t ashamed
For the holy ghost is my witness
And the angels done signed my name
Just as long as I’m in this world
I am the light of this world.
Ahmen and praise God almighty!
#20 by Kevin Beck on August 29, 2007 - 4:10 pm
“The Biblical conversion factor, it not consistent
Kevin, it not…come on your better than that are you not?”
This comes from “The stupid, it burns,” and variations on this, which all the kids are saying these days. I took liberties with subject-verb agreement, but the general structure conforms to the requirements as I see them.
Also, posting that song was blasphemous. Why not just post the lyrics to “Runnin’ With The Devil” or “Devil Woman” and speed up your inevitable rocket ride to Satan’s realm?
#21 by JimFiore on August 29, 2007 - 5:03 pm
And the angels done signed my name
Geez Louise, where did this come from, The Ig’nant Hayseed Holy Song Book?
Brian, you’re not “the light of this world”, you’re not even “the lite of this world”. But that’s OK. We love you anyway and hope that one day you’ll open yourself to the beauty and truth that is around you. Now be gone my son, for we have much to do here and you’re bedtime draws nigh.
#22 by David Marjanović on August 29, 2007 - 6:22 pm
ROTFL! Saved my day when it only was 11 minutes after midnight. :-)
On another note, though, are you capable of biting your own genitalia? ~:-|
#23 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 29, 2007 - 10:12 pm
big fat YAWN
#24 by David Ratnasabapathy on August 29, 2007 - 11:52 pm
JimFiore #8#:
Genesis 1:3-5
The sky glows blue even when the sun is below the horizon. The Hebrews thought that that light, the light of day, existed independently of the sun.
It’s fun, when you appreciate the myth, to look at the dawn sky and see the very first thing that God created. Even if, like me, you don’t think the guy exists.
#25 by Jonathan Vos Post on August 30, 2007 - 2:33 am
Thu, 30 Aug 07
arXiv:0708.3916
Title: Pattern collapse as a mechanism for the formation of solitary structures
Authors: U. Bortolozzo, M.G. Clerc, C. Falcon, S. Residori
Comments: 4 pages, 5 figures
Subjects: Pattern Formation and Solitons (nlin.PS); Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems (nlin.AO)
We report a new mechanism for the formation of localized states, which takes place without front propagation. Correspondingly, localized structures appear as solitary states, displaying a behavior of single independent cells. The phenomenon is observed in the liquid crystal light-valve experiment and is described by a one-dimensional normal form model. We show that such solitary structures exist when a pattern solution collapses and its ghost remains to influence the phase portrait.
===========
Okay, so the religious conclusion is: when you die, your ghost remains to influence the phase portrait of the cosmos. There, that’s Theophysics…
#26 by hoary puccoon on August 30, 2007 - 4:48 am
Rev. BigDumbChimp–
Knowing farmers, I always thought the Noah story was originally an account of a family who had the presence of mind to save the breeding stock of their domestic animals, when their valley flooded. This is precisely the kind of practical message farmers remember and pass on.
It’s the fundies, tarting it up with dinosaurs on the ark and tectonic plates zipping along at miles per year to get the ‘roos back to Australia, who made it into something ridiculous.
#27 by Jud on August 30, 2007 - 7:37 am
“passages inimical to inerrancy” – What a nice 4-word phrase for “wrong.”
David Marjanović (#22) wrote: “On another note, though, are you capable of biting your own genitalia?”
If you could reach your own genitalia orally, it would sure save on dating costs.
#28 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 8:34 am
Ok fine, if I accept that premise (which is perfectly reasonable on it’s own) that it is but a parable used to “teach” or to give some moral message how then does one choose which parts to take literally and which parts are open to interpretation? This is the problem that exists for both casual believers and ultra strict fundamentalists.
Who is the ultimate arbiter of what parts are to be followed to the t and what parts can be handwaved off as merely a nice story that leaves us with a moral lesson (God is not the answer because you have to trust some human interpreter again)?
We can take any story and try and glean some message from it if we try hard enough. And if that’s the case with the bible there is no ultimate truth in it. In fact it’s nothing more than nice (and not so nice) stories that are open for anyone to interpret as they choose. Who’s to say who has the correct interpretation? And following that, why did they decide that that particular portion wasn’t to be taken literally (a question that obviously is what is at the root here)?
#29 by hoary puccoon on August 30, 2007 - 9:39 am
Rev. BigDumbChimp asks, “how then does one choose which parts (of the bible) to take literally?”
Definitely, take the part about saving your breeding stock literally. Also, releasing birds to find land if you’re lost at sea. It was a very good trick to know, pre-GPS.
Seriously, I don’t take any of the bible literally. I think it’s an interesting collection of ancient writings, some of them undoubtedly based on historical events– which is not really the same thing as being ‘literally’ true (whatever that would mean, about stories that were passed down orally for centuries, and then hand-copied for more centuries.) When I read that the sun stood still during some battle, I don’t think, ‘how ridiculous.’ I think, ‘Aha, ancient people without accurate watches apparently experienced the psychological phenomenon of time dilatation in a traumatic situation.’
If that doesn’t do anything for you, I’m cool with that. We all have different tastes. I just don’t like the idea of ancient writings being made ridiculous by being forced into a modern mind set their authors knew nothiing about.
#30 by hoary puccoon on August 30, 2007 - 9:39 am
Rev. BigDumbChimp asks, “how then does one choose which parts (of the bible) to take literally?”
Definitely, take the part about saving your breeding stock literally. Also, releasing birds to find land if you’re lost at sea. It was a very good trick to know, pre-GPS.
Seriously, I don’t take any of the bible literally. I think it’s an interesting collection of ancient writings, some of them undoubtedly based on historical events– which is not really the same thing as being ‘literally’ true (whatever that would mean, about stories that were passed down orally for centuries, and then hand-copied for more centuries.) When I read that the sun stood still during some battle, I don’t think, ‘how ridiculous.’ I think, ‘Aha, ancient people without accurate watches apparently experienced the psychological phenomenon of time dilatation in a traumatic situation.’
If that doesn’t do anything for you, I’m cool with that. We all have different tastes. I just don’t like the idea of ancient writings being made ridiculous by being forced into a modern mind set their authors knew nothiing about.
#31 by Jonathan Vos Post on August 30, 2007 - 11:35 am
As a (former) Math professor, I like the book of the Bible which most people find most boring: the Book of Numbers. Notice that the number given for each army is rounded to the nearest 10? I’ve made some effort to deduce the nearest prime number to each, which is unpublishable both in Math venues and Biblical venues, as is my explanation of John 21 in terms of triangular numbers, to explain the exact number of fish miraculously caught in the Sea of Tiberius.
Oh, wait a minim. “I just don’t like the idea of ancient writings being made ridiculous by being forced into a modern mind set their authors knew nothiing [sic] about.”
The authors whose translated anthologized works are the nonapocryphal Bible did know some Math, but had their own way to estimate “Pi.” And they did know some astronomy. But that’s hardly the point, is it?
#32 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 12:24 pm
Geez Louise, where did this come from, The Ig’nant Hayseed Holy Song Book?
OMG! You don’t know your music now do you. Rev. Gary Davis a classic and I highly reccommend Kelly Joe Phelps version as he’ll get you to get your bible out for his version.
Brian, you’re not “the light of this world”, you’re not even “the lite of this world”. But that’s OK. We love you anyway and hope that one day you’ll open yourself to the beauty and truth that is around you. Now be gone my son, for we have much to do here and you’re bedtime draws nigh.
Yes because your soooooooo educated and I’m sooooooo ig’norant. All a matter of opinion (which so many here are full of) and perception. And you KNOW what they say about perception don’t you. Whatever you percieve to be true is your “reality” whether it’s true or not is not for us to judge but “I” will be the light and you can have your light and of course do what you wish with it.
#33 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 12:27 pm
I took liberties with subject-verb agreement
This does not surprize me. But how do you feel when others do the same?
#34 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 12:45 pm
Also, posting that song was blasphemous. Why not just post the lyrics to “Runnin’ With The Devil” or “Devil Woman” and speed up your inevitable rocket ride to Satan’s realm
Blasphemous? come come now isn’t that a non-existent biblical term. You can’t use that cuz god don’t exist.
Devil? Have you gone stupid or the way of the rev big dumb chump? No god no devil. However with Van Halen re-united go to the concert to hear Running with the devil as that son ROCKS!
I’m really disappointed that you flunked your own test. Maybe some grade schooler could give ya some help. Or a Sunday school teacher. Blasphemous really.
#35 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 1:42 pm
I’ll admit ignorance on Rev. Gary Davis, but I know my music just fine and it stretches across the spectrum (well mostly). I doubt any version will have me getting my bible out (I happen to own a few, one is my great great grandfathers) other unless it’s just to reference.
It’s the context in which you are using the lyrics that causes the reaction. We weren’t discussing blues guitarists.
#36 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 1:56 pm
that’s a renegade “other” up there. Please disregard.
Brian you’re losing a grip in that last comment. Pull yourself together man.
@ hoary puccoon
I agree with you that trying to cram 2000 year old writings to fit into what we know today is an exercise in futility. But it’s not us (including you) that want to try and do that. It’s all believers of the book on some level or another. If you don’t have to take some of it literally how can you take any of it literally? And if you can’t take any of it literally, how can you even pretend to claim it is the inerrant word of god. Wouldn’t he be pretty specific about what he wants you to do? I mean, if I happen to go to the Baptist church and all along its the Methodists that have it right, I’m fucked. I can plan on spending the rest of eternity watching dancing with the stars while Lucifer does his best Lumberg “O” face behind me. If not, that sure doesn’t seem like the loving caring god I hear so much about. A simple slip up such as being born closer to the local Baptist church could spell out an eternal corn-holing. Doesn’t it lose it’s trustworthiness if you can so casually toss out the parts you don’t want to or don’t feel should be taken exactly as they are written? If interpretations are important instead of literal translations? And if all interpretations are ok then again we get back to the validity issue.
As as story book, it’s “ok”, as a guide for your eternal life, it blows.
#37 by JimFiore on August 30, 2007 - 1:57 pm
Whatever you percieve (sic) to be true is your “reality” whether it’s true or not
Well at least it’s good that you recognize that your so-called “reality” may not be true (i.e., may not be real, that you are deluding yourself). Now kindly consider the ramifications of that idea in the broader context of day-to-day objective experience and the existence of a supposed supernatural agent.
#38 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 2:33 pm
Now kindly consider the ramifications of that idea in the broader context of day-to-day objective experience and the existence of a supposed supernatural agent.
Is this a James Bond 007 question? Cuz you know me I’m a dumb motherfucker. But the bigger question is how this supernatural agent works. Does he have eyes? You questioned his ability to work in the dark so I assumed that you knew he had eyes. What color are they?
It’s the context in which you are using the lyrics that causes the reaction. We weren’t discussing blues guitarists.
And neither was I. Also how about the context of the words your using compared to those oh so offensive lyrics?
Wouldn’t he be pretty specific about what he wants you to do?
Free will dude, free will.
#39 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 2:43 pm
I never said they were offensive. Tighten up brian.
I guess you aren’t grasping what i am saying. If you choose to follow catholicism over being a baptist is that really free will. You are still choosing to believe the Preacher (be he a catholic or a baptist)who says that only THEY are the correct church. How is one to know who is wrong? That’s not free will “dude”, that’s plain gamesmanship and trickery.
Plus how is it free will if God is all knowing and therefor already knows all that has ever happened and all that will ever happen. He knows what you are going to do yet he lets you do it anyway and get sent to hell.
Loving God for the win!
#40 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 2:58 pm
That’s not free will “dude”, that’s plain gamesmanship and trickery
Agreed 100% here ya big dumb chump. But now your talking church and that’s a whole lotta enchilada. Don’t have enough space to write all those thoughts.
Plus how is it free will if God is all knowing and therefor already knows all that has ever happened and all that will ever happen. He knows what you are going to do yet he lets you do it anyway and get sent to hell.
that’s free will!
#41 by JimFiore on August 30, 2007 - 3:47 pm
No. In modern legal terms we’d call that entrapment.
Finally, something we can agree on.
#42 by JimFiore on August 30, 2007 - 3:47 pm
No. In modern legal terms we’d call that entrapment.
Finally, something we can agree on.
#43 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 3:56 pm
In modern legal terms
Jim don’t talk dirty. I can’t handle that.
Finally, something we can agree on.
I thought I’d get ya with that one.
#44 by hoary puccoon on August 30, 2007 - 6:03 pm
For what it’s worth, Rev. BigDumbChimp, I got what you were saying about Baptists vs. Methodists.
I actually think the pi=3 thing is kind of interesting. They were aware of the concept that the circumference of a circle always has the same ratio to its diameter, but irrational numbers baffled them. I get that, too. It’s how I feel about Brian.
#45 by Rev. bigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 7:22 pm
Brian that’s not free will if he knows it’s going to happen. That’s predestined.
Your god is an asshole.
#46 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 7:46 pm
No ownership here.
#47 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 31, 2007 - 2:47 pm
Oh please.
#48 by Brian on August 31, 2007 - 4:19 pm
It’s how I feel about Brian Posted by: hoary puccoon
Look I made hoary have an emotion.
Oh please. Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
Now if a senator can get in trouble in a bathroom surely you need to watch what you beg for in this blog. The rev made a homosexual advance on me!
#49 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on September 1, 2007 - 7:09 pm
Well you’ve gone and lost any credibility you might have had (which was minimal).
grow up.
#50 by Christian on October 4, 2007 - 11:49 pm
Dawkins’ school of atheist pseudoscience always turn fundamentalist when criticizing religion, oblivious to any concept of figure or even subjective point of view.
You all understand point of view. For example, if someone tells you that they watched the sun rise, you don’t lecture them about the earth going around the sun. My guess is that you only turn off that part of your common sense when you’re talking about religious subjects.
Does it even occur to you that Genesis offers a subjective point of view of the creation, and that these “contradictions” you speak of are nothing more than defects in the fundamentalist interpretation that you’re using as a straw man?
In the Bible, God doesn’t talk like Bob Dole, in third person. In the Bible, God consistently speaks in first person. Therefore when Genesis starts out in third person, that’s a pretty obvious clue that it’s not God speaking, no omniscient I AM voice. It’s a human voice.
The voice talks of “days,” but what are those? How could there be day or night before God created the sun? You don’t need modern science to see that the “day” does not refer to God’s time, but rather to the time from the point of reference of the human narrator.
The first day of the narrator’s vision (real or imagined or made up, it doesn’t matter here, we’re just reading what the book says here), the narrator sees God creating the heavens and the earth. Etc. If the stars appear later, that could be the skies clearing.
The stories of the Bible never posit themselves to be more than human accounts of their experiences with God. The fact that some Christians ignore how the Bible protrays itself, and instead act as if God personally dictated every word of the Bible, is no excuse for Kevin and his ilk to pretend that you’ve rebutted the Bible when all that you’ve done partially address the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
#51 by Christian on October 4, 2007 - 11:57 pm
Once you recognize that the creation in Genesis is a human vision, it’s not even clear that the creation is fait accompli. A great deal of the Bible makes more sense if you regard us presently as somewhere in the sixth “day” of creation. That God’s not done with us yet.
What’s this got to do with science, anyway?