Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

24 Pages V  « < 13 14 15 16 17 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
My feeble attempt at the explanation of Christianity., You ask questions, and I'll try to answer.
Rating 3 V
brooklyneast05
post Nov 16 2007, 09:08 AM
Post #351


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



QUOTE(Steven @ Nov 16 2007, 02:57 AM) *
Should God be real, I would see no problem in him materializing all of this.

same
i don't see how it can come to anything besides the fact that god just made everything work. then he made all geologic and other evidence of such an event disappear.
 
Uronacid
post Nov 16 2007, 10:45 AM
Post #352


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Nov 16 2007, 09:08 AM) *
same
i don't see how it can come to anything besides the fact that god just made everything work. then he made all geologic and other evidence of such an event disappear.


Yeah, exactly that's why it doesn't really phase me when people nick pick at the minute details of the Bible. As a Christian, what really matters is the core message.
 
brooklyneast05
post Nov 16 2007, 03:39 PM
Post #353


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



^ i understand, and agree. what i don't understand though, is that since the over all message is what's really important anyway, why is there such an insistence that the bible is the perfect and literal word? that claim seems to only make more problems for the believer. instead of just admitting that no, it might not be perfect and literal, but the message it's trying to give is.

i think one of the only reasons people pick at little details in the bible, is not because they really think it's important, but it's because for some reason the other person believes there's no way it could be wrong.

if i were christian, it wouldn't phase me either, i wouldn't take the bible as being perfect or absolutely true. i didn't take it that way before i was and atheist. i never, and still don't, see any reason to. i guess there are those who really don't see any problems with them, though.

it seems like some people claim it's literal, just to be claiming that. they themselves know how ridiculous and impossible the things are.
 
monster
post Nov 17 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #354


Senior Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,039
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 11,810



QUOTE(NoSex @ Nov 16 2007, 01:54 AM) *
The dimensions of the ship (often estimated at about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high) are, embarrassingly, both too small and far too large. Too large in that, historically, the longest wooden ship (and this is after the invention of steel) was the USS Dunderberg (a french vessle which had a fifty foot ram contributing to its 377 foot length.) Not even this ship, built in 1856, matches the 450 foot (137 meter) giant of the Ark. And, the USS Dunderberg, even with the structural supports of steel, was not a seaworthy ship - it only made one voyage (poorly, might I add). The architecture of the Ark (har har), without the aids of more modern technology, is impossible. The ship would be, in no way, seaworthy. It would sink if it even got the chance to get out to sea. Further, and worse of all, even with these fairy tale dimensions, the ship could have never carried two of every species living on this globe - let alone, carry them and still maintain its integrity. The ship is just too small.

Geologically, the evidence derived by observation of the Earth are contrary to the occurrence of a global flood - even water rising sixty feet for a day. Not only is it embarrassing to ponder the source and disappearance of such great quantities of water - you must also bear the reality that not a single respected and educated geologist has ever, in modern science, suggested a reality behind global flood stories (despite their mythological popularity). In the most fundamental sense: the sediment and fossil organization found upon our continents would be impossible in the case of a global flood.

And that's really just the beginning.


No idea. To be honest with you, the only answer I can give you is the one which would be thrown out immediately, "God provides." So I won't put that in there, since we're reasoning with logic and science. I don't know much on this topic, to be honest with you.
 
monster
post Nov 17 2007, 12:44 PM
Post #355


Senior Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,039
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 11,810



QUOTE(NoSex @ Nov 16 2007, 02:06 AM) *
Please, do not also forget the geologically contrary states of our earth and continents.
And, further, don't underestimate the continued absurdity we find within the story of Noah's ark. For instance, Noah was commanded also to gather food for all his passengers (where and how would one man gather and keep safe such food?). Note also, this food had to feed two of every species on earth (and then some) and the supply had to remain sufficient and appropriate for a "hundred and fifty days."

It's to my understanding that in Noah's time, the Earth was radically different, which may be able to explain much of the changes of the Earth now and why we don't have any solid idea on what happened. On the food theory as well, I don't know.
 
monster
post Nov 17 2007, 12:46 PM
Post #356


Senior Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,039
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 11,810



QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Nov 16 2007, 03:39 PM) *
^ i understand, and agree. what i don't understand though, is that since the over all message is what's really important anyway, why is there such an insistence that the bible is the perfect and literal word? that claim seems to only make more problems for the believer. instead of just admitting that no, it might not be perfect and literal, but the message it's trying to give is.

i think one of the only reasons people pick at little details in the bible, is not because they really think it's important, but it's because for some reason the other person believes there's no way it could be wrong.

if i were christian, it wouldn't phase me either, i wouldn't take the bible as being perfect or absolutely true. i didn't take it that way before i was and atheist. i never, and still don't, see any reason to. i guess there are those who really don't see any problems with them, though.

it seems like some people claim it's literal, just to be claiming that. they themselves know how ridiculous and impossible the things are.

I believe that the Bible was divinely inspired and that it was God-breathed, so personally, I take all the historic parts literally.
 
*Steven*
post Nov 17 2007, 03:19 PM
Post #357





Guest






QUOTE(Podomaht @ Nov 17 2007, 11:44 AM) *
It's to my understanding that in Noah's time, the Earth was radically different, which may be able to explain much of the changes of the Earth now and why we don't have any solid idea on what happened. On the food theory as well, I don't know.

The food came in stacks of one hundred, so instead of taking up one hundred slots in your bag, it only took up one.
 
monster
post Nov 17 2007, 04:51 PM
Post #358


Senior Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,039
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 11,810



QUOTE(Steven @ Nov 17 2007, 03:19 PM) *
The food came in stacks of one hundred, so instead of taking up one hundred slots in your bag, it only took up one.

Plus Noah probably had like, 6 bags.
 
*Steven*
post Nov 17 2007, 08:25 PM
Post #359





Guest






20 slots each, and by one food, I mean enough food to feed an aircraft carrier.
 
brooklyneast05
post Nov 17 2007, 08:28 PM
Post #360


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



it seems like some animals would require fresh food
 
*Steven*
post Nov 18 2007, 12:15 AM
Post #361





Guest






Well he had to kill someone. God forgave him.
 
Laughsalot
post Nov 18 2007, 10:13 AM
Post #362


look for the stars as the sun goes down
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Aug 2006
Member No: 453,963



dude the part where it said how he(was it noah or some other dude?) crossed the red sea. that was completely wrong translation. he didn't separate the red sea and cross it. it was the reed sea. as in a pond of reeds. explain that!
 
*Steven*
post Nov 18 2007, 11:23 AM
Post #363





Guest






^No u
 
brooklyneast05
post Nov 18 2007, 12:29 PM
Post #364


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



QUOTE(Laughsalot @ Nov 18 2007, 11:13 AM) *
dude the part where it said how he(was it noah or some other dude?) crossed the red sea. that was completely wrong translation. he didn't separate the red sea and cross it. it was the reed sea. as in a pond of reeds. explain that!

QUOTE(Steven @ Nov 18 2007, 12:23 PM) *
^No u

seriously, u should first.
i don't get how we're supposed to be convinced by someone who doesn't even know enough about the story to know which "dude" it was.

i definitely think there's a lot of mistranslations in the bible. however, i don't think this is one of them. there's various places where this sea is talked talked about. i remember one story about king soloman building a fleet of ships? or at least many ships, near the shore of the red sea. a pond of reeds is a strange place to build a fleet of ships. i duno, a pond of reeds just really makes no sense when u put it into any of these stories. if they were merely wading across a marshy pond of reeds, then i don't get why the bible would make this out to be something that needed an act of god, or why this would be significant at all.

maybe i'm wrong though, i'm not a bible expert. even if it isn't the red sea, i really don't think ur translation of a "pond of reeds" makes any sense.

maybe podo has more information on this though. i could be off about the stories as well
 
monster
post Nov 18 2007, 06:32 PM
Post #365


Senior Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,039
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 11,810



QUOTE(Laughsalot @ Nov 18 2007, 10:13 AM) *
dude the part where it said how he(was it noah or some other dude?) crossed the red sea. that was completely wrong translation. he didn't separate the red sea and cross it. it was the reed sea. as in a pond of reeds. explain that!

Wow...just. Wow.

If you are going to give me an example of an incorrect statement in the Bible, you had better back it up. Now, like JC said, there are other times the Red Sea is mentioned, and where King Solomon built a fleet of ships yes, on the Red Sea. Can you build a ship on a pond, let alone a fleet of them?

I'd like to see a credible source on this one. You yourself seemed to have translated wrong. How does a sea become pond?
 
kryogenix
post Nov 18 2007, 06:59 PM
Post #366


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



I have no idea of what's going on in this thread.

QUOTE(Laughsalot @ Nov 18 2007, 10:13 AM) *
dude the part where it said how he(was it noah or some other dude?) crossed the red sea. that was completely wrong translation. he didn't separate the red sea and cross it. it was the reed sea. as in a pond of reeds. explain that!


You're confusing Moses with Noah.

 
Laughsalot
post Nov 19 2007, 10:37 AM
Post #367


look for the stars as the sun goes down
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Aug 2006
Member No: 453,963



yeah moses. i heard it on national geographic. he didn't split a whole ocean. it's more like he split a whole bunch of reeds and crossed to the other side. well i don't know if national geographic could be wrong. haha. it could
 
brooklyneast05
post Nov 19 2007, 02:47 PM
Post #368


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556




i think
the hebrew word could be translated as reed or seaweed. seaweed would kinda indicate a sea, ya know? when it comes to translations like this, i don't think anyone really knows, u just have to consider which one works better in the story. like i said before, why would this even be significant if it was just a pond of reeds? we can obviously see the significance if it was a sea.

pond is still just way off and a bad choice of words. i think the scholars who deny it as being the red sea, think it's more of a big lake. there's a big difference between that and a pond
 
*Steven*
post Nov 19 2007, 04:52 PM
Post #369





Guest






QUOTE(Laughsalot @ Nov 19 2007, 09:37 AM) *
yeah moses. i heard it on national geographic. he didn't split a whole ocean. it's more like he split a whole bunch of reeds and crossed to the other side. well i don't know if national geographic could be wrong. haha. it could

No I saw the movies. He split the ocean and when the Egyptians came chasing after him, he let it fall and they all got wet and had to go back to dry their clothes off.
 
Laughsalot
post Nov 20 2007, 12:50 AM
Post #370


look for the stars as the sun goes down
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Aug 2006
Member No: 453,963



QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Nov 20 2007, 02:47 AM) *

i think
the hebrew word could be translated as reed or seaweed. seaweed would kinda indicate a sea, ya know? when it comes to translations like this, i don't think anyone really knows, u just have to consider which one works better in the story. like i said before, why would this even be significant if it was just a pond of reeds? we can obviously see the significance if it was a sea.

pond is still just way off and a bad choice of words. i think the scholars who deny it as being the red sea, think it's more of a big lake. there's a big difference between that and a pond

ok yea, pond is smaller than a lake. but a lake is loads smaller than an ocean. and if he did really split the whole ocean wouldn't it have taken miles to cross it? what do you think? an ocean or a lake?
 
monster
post Nov 20 2007, 12:53 AM
Post #371


Senior Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,039
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 11,810



QUOTE(Laughsalot @ Nov 20 2007, 12:50 AM) *
ok yea, pond is smaller than a lake. but a lake is loads smaller than an ocean. and if he did really split the whole ocean wouldn't it have taken miles to cross it? what do you think? an ocean or a lake?

Either way, it wouldn't really matter. Moses was leading well over a 100,000 Israelis out of Egypt. A lake is pretty deep regardless.

Oh. The Dead Sea isn't necessarily an ocean.
 
brooklyneast05
post Nov 20 2007, 01:06 AM
Post #372


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



^x2

QUOTE(Laughsalot @ Nov 20 2007, 01:50 AM) *
ok yea, pond is smaller than a lake. but a lake is loads smaller than an ocean. and if he did really split the whole ocean wouldn't it have taken miles to cross it? what do you think? an ocean or a lake?

i don't really think either, because i don't believe it happened in the first place. i just didn't think u made any sense.
 
MissFits
post Nov 20 2007, 02:05 AM
Post #373


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,586
Joined: Jun 2007
Member No: 531,256



QUOTE(Steven @ Nov 19 2007, 06:52 PM) *
No I saw the movies. He split the ocean and when the Egyptians came chasing after him, he let it fall and they all got wet and had to go back to dry their clothes off.

rofl1.gif

I didn't mean to interrupt the serious discussion, but that was hilarious.
 
Sandraaa
post Nov 20 2007, 09:03 AM
Post #374


Senior Member
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,223
Joined: Dec 2006
Member No: 485,356



So, what's up with God hiding Moses' body? blink.gif
 
aesthetic
post Nov 20 2007, 12:23 PM
Post #375


Lover
***

Group: Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Mar 2005
Member No: 117,184



Think about this, even if there isn't a good, it's not a bad thing to believe in, it teaches you to be a good person with good standards, and if there is a good then when you die then your fine, so if your a person who doesn't believe in god when there is then oh shit you go to hell...so there's really nothing to lose if you believe in him. Thats the way I see it, better safe then sorry :)

Also, there's alot of metaphors in the bible, so did he REALLY split the ocean or was it a metaphor? We don't know, evidence would suggest both answers are correct.

I also think how our body works and how perfect it is, how perfect the world is and how everything goes together is to complex to not be a good, it didn't just happen by accident.

Theory of evolution is bullshit, if we descended from monkey's then why are there still monkey's?

Theory of the big bang...I think is stupid.
 

24 Pages V  « < 13 14 15 16 17 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: