A closer look at the creation story

[Hollie]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.


Who told the truth?

You're like fundamentalist Christians who read the story literally.

What was the fruit of the tree of life? (Hint: the Bible doesn't say apple.) What did it look like? What did it taste like? Has one ever been found and classified? And how does a tree grow in more than one place, such as on two different sides of a river (Rv 22:2)?

In the midst of the Garden was not a woody plant but rather the good things of God. And also idolatry, a knowledge of everything.

You're just like a fundamentalist who reads out of context. What is the earth? The globe? Did any kingdom ever rule over the whole earth, as we read in Daniel (2:39)? Genesis is not about the creation of the planet. The planet was never a disc covered by a dome bedazzled with stars, the sun, and the moon.

You and the fundies project your 21st-century worldviews onto the ancient manuscripts. It creates confusion.

The reason Christianity has splintered into dozens of sects and subdivisions has nothing to do with my interpretation. It is you adding your subjective interpretations and insisting it is correct. Others do the same thing by adding their subjective interpretations.

Because the gods are not going to put on their black and white striped shirts and referee the match, I'm left to conclude that all interpretations are equally subjective and equally wrong.

 

[ding]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.


Who told the truth?

You're like fundamentalist Christians who read the story literally.

What was the fruit of the tree of life? (Hint: the Bible doesn't say apple.) What did it look like? What did it taste like? Has one ever been found and classified? And how does a tree grow in more than one place, such as on two different sides of a river (Rv 22:2)?

In the midst of the Garden was not a woody plant but rather the good things of God. And also idolatry, a knowledge of everything.

You're just like a fundamentalist who reads out of context. What is the earth? The globe? Did any kingdom ever rule over the whole earth, as we read in Daniel (2:39)? Genesis is not about the creation of the planet. The planet was never a disc covered by a dome bedazzled with stars, the sun, and the moon.

You and the fundies project your 21st-century worldviews onto the ancient manuscripts. It creates confusion.

The reason Christianity has splintered into dozens of sects and subdivisions has nothing to do with my interpretation. It is you adding your subjective interpretations and insisting it is correct. Others do the same thing by adding their subjective interpretations.

Because the gods are not going to put on their black and white striped shirts and referee the match, I'm left to conclude that all interpretations are equally subjective and equally wrong.

Or it could be that diversity is the engine for how we progress. It’s perfectly natural.

 

[hobelim]

No, you cannot make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Sure you can. Amd you just did. And i can find 100 different christian sectarians and get 100 versions of what that part means. And there is no way to tell who is correct.. Which basically means all of you are full of it.

There is no way to tell who is correct? Nonsense. Thats like saying there is no way to know what the story of the three pigs is about, no way to arrive at the moral teaching of the story intended by the author to be understood by children.

Absurd.

Any given sentence in scripture has a finite number of words and a finite number of possible meanings literal or figurative.. The knowledge of science and well known literary techniques are just two constraints that dismiss out of hand many ridiculous assertions about the identity of a character or meaning of any given story.

In genesis a talking serpent described in great detail is introduced. There is exactly one explanation for a talking serpent in what you deride as a fairy tale that conforms to reality.

Now, you may find it impossible to decipher, and there can be many bizarre explanations that you can't differentiate between, but that doesn't mean that no one is right..

It could just mean that you are stupid ....


Or maybe the big bad wolf ate grandpa?

Who can say?

 

[norwegen]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.


Who told the truth?

You're like fundamentalist Christians who read the story literally.

What was the fruit of the tree of life? (Hint: the Bible doesn't say apple.) What did it look like? What did it taste like? Has one ever been found and classified? And how does a tree grow in more than one place, such as on two different sides of a river (Rv 22:2)?

In the midst of the Garden was not a woody plant but rather the good things of God. And also idolatry, a knowledge of everything.

You're just like a fundamentalist who reads out of context. What is the earth? The globe? Did any kingdom ever rule over the whole earth, as we read in Daniel (2:39)? Genesis is not about the creation of the planet. The planet was never a disc covered by a dome bedazzled with stars, the sun, and the moon.

You and the fundies project your 21st-century worldviews onto the ancient manuscripts. It creates confusion.

The reason Christianity has splintered into dozens of sects and subdivisions has nothing to do with my interpretation. It is you adding your subjective interpretations and insisting it is correct. Others do the same thing by adding their subjective interpretations.

Because the gods are not going to put on their black and white striped shirts and referee the match, I'm left to conclude that all interpretations are equally subjective and equally wrong.

Your interpretations are fundamentalist interpretations. They're literal. And so you're confused, just like the fundies.

 

[norwegen]

The ancients did not consider the earth a planet, a small orb circling the sun. The earth was a disc; the heavenly bodies moved about it. Why else would they have thought the earth was created before the sun was?

Genesis does not tell the story of the creation of a planet. It tells the story of the creation of covenant man. The earth was their land.

A few Christians understand that they cannot project their modern cultural and historical worldviews onto the ancient texts and expect to come to a consensus. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity does not understand this.

 

[Hollie]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.


Who told the truth?

You're like fundamentalist Christians who read the story literally.

What was the fruit of the tree of life? (Hint: the Bible doesn't say apple.) What did it look like? What did it taste like? Has one ever been found and classified? And how does a tree grow in more than one place, such as on two different sides of a river (Rv 22:2)?

In the midst of the Garden was not a woody plant but rather the good things of God. And also idolatry, a knowledge of everything.

You're just like a fundamentalist who reads out of context. What is the earth? The globe? Did any kingdom ever rule over the whole earth, as we read in Daniel (2:39)? Genesis is not about the creation of the planet. The planet was never a disc covered by a dome bedazzled with stars, the sun, and the moon.

You and the fundies project your 21st-century worldviews onto the ancient manuscripts. It creates confusion.

The reason Christianity has splintered into dozens of sects and subdivisions has nothing to do with my interpretation. It is you adding your subjective interpretations and insisting it is correct. Others do the same thing by adding their subjective interpretations.

Because the gods are not going to put on their black and white striped shirts and referee the match, I'm left to conclude that all interpretations are equally subjective and equally wrong.

Your interpretations are fundamentalist interpretations. They're literal. And so you're confused, just like the fundies.

My interpretations are not fundamentalist. I simply read the tales and fables and find a great deal of inconsistencies and errors. Biblical errors with regard to descriptions of the natural world are not surprising considering the timeline of the writing.

According to the very blueprint that introduces you to the idea of theism at all (let’s examine the bible) -- the only way to get to paradise according to the bible is you gotta accept Jesus. Everything else is revisionism and wishful thinking.

This doesn't mean I believe in any of this mythology as real (as an atheist I don't) it means it doesn't make sense to:

A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.

Although now, we may be edging into that really bizarre world of Theism where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.

 

[Hollie]

The ancients did not consider the earth a planet, a small orb circling the sun. The earth was a disc; the heavenly bodies moved about it. Why else would they have thought the earth was created before the sun was?

Genesis does not tell the story of the creation of a planet. It tells the story of the creation of covenant man. The earth was their land.

A few Christians understand that they cannot project their modern cultural and historical worldviews onto the ancient texts and expect to come to a consensus. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity does not understand this.

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

 

[norwegen]

The ancients did not consider the earth a planet, a small orb circling the sun. The earth was a disc; the heavenly bodies moved about it. Why else would they have thought the earth was created before the sun was?

Genesis does not tell the story of the creation of a planet. It tells the story of the creation of covenant man. The earth was their land.

A few Christians understand that they cannot project their modern cultural and historical worldviews onto the ancient texts and expect to come to a consensus. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity does not understand this.

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Hollie]

The ancients did not consider the earth a planet, a small orb circling the sun. The earth was a disc; the heavenly bodies moved about it. Why else would they have thought the earth was created before the sun was?

Genesis does not tell the story of the creation of a planet. It tells the story of the creation of covenant man. The earth was their land.

A few Christians understand that they cannot project their modern cultural and historical worldviews onto the ancient texts and expect to come to a consensus. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity does not understand this.

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

 

[norwegen]

The ancients did not consider the earth a planet, a small orb circling the sun. The earth was a disc; the heavenly bodies moved about it. Why else would they have thought the earth was created before the sun was?

Genesis does not tell the story of the creation of a planet. It tells the story of the creation of covenant man. The earth was their land.

A few Christians understand that they cannot project their modern cultural and historical worldviews onto the ancient texts and expect to come to a consensus. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity does not understand this.

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

 

[Hollie]

The ancients did not consider the earth a planet, a small orb circling the sun. The earth was a disc; the heavenly bodies moved about it. Why else would they have thought the earth was created before the sun was?

Genesis does not tell the story of the creation of a planet. It tells the story of the creation of covenant man. The earth was their land.

A few Christians understand that they cannot project their modern cultural and historical worldviews onto the ancient texts and expect to come to a consensus. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity does not understand this.

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

 

[hobelim]

The ancients did not consider the earth a planet, a small orb circling the sun. The earth was a disc; the heavenly bodies moved about it. Why else would they have thought the earth was created before the sun was?

Genesis does not tell the story of the creation of a planet. It tells the story of the creation of covenant man. The earth was their land.

A few Christians understand that they cannot project their modern cultural and historical worldviews onto the ancient texts and expect to come to a consensus. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity does not understand this.

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

 

[Hollie]

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

Super. Christendom can rely on you to make the definitive, authoritative determination as to what will be literal interpretation vs. what is silly, irrelevant and obsolete.

That will eliminate all those competing sects/ subdivisions of Christianity and the Christian world can come together holding hands in harmonious bliss.

Be sure to let us know when your revised Bible is published. I'm hoping the gods will step in and demand right of first refusal for edits, but if not, screw them. You are the final authority.

Thanks.

 

[hobelim]

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

Super. Christendom can rely on you to make the definitive, authoritative determination as to what will be literal interpretation vs. what is silly, irrelevant and obsolete.

That will eliminate all those competing sects/ subdivisions of Christianity and the Christian world can come together holding hands in harmonious bliss.

Be sure to let us know when your revised Bible is published. I'm hoping the gods will step in and demand right of first refusal for edits, but if not, screw them. You are the final authority.

Thanks.

Yes, they can rely on me. Books that have been closed have already been opened. No need for another book. The time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Meanie, and all who hear shall come to life. Satan, the false prophet, the antichrist, death, and hades will be tossed into the lake of fire in full view of believers and unbelievers alike, and all the children of the new age will live happily ever after...

You're welcome.

I will now take a bow!

 

[Hollie]

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

Super. Christendom can rely on you to make the definitive, authoritative determination as to what will be literal interpretation vs. what is silly, irrelevant and obsolete.

That will eliminate all those competing sects/ subdivisions of Christianity and the Christian world can come together holding hands in harmonious bliss.

Be sure to let us know when your revised Bible is published. I'm hoping the gods will step in and demand right of first refusal for edits, but if not, screw them. You are the final authority.

Thanks.

Yes, they can rely on me. Books that have been closed have already been opened. No need for another book. The time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Meanie, and all who hear shall come to life. Satan, the false prophet, the antichrist, death, and hades will be tossed into the lake of fire in full view of believers and unbelievers alike, and all the children of the new age will live happily ever after...

You're welcome.

I will now take a bow!

You can make light of the varying interpretations of your bibles but if you read through these threads, even the posters here can’t agree on what is to be taken as literal and what is mere fable. I hope you take some time to understand that the percentage of religionists who accept any particular foundational myth of religion is hardly a basis for deciding that myth is true or not. Of course, this ignores the very tenuous ground you stand on with the claims you make toward the veracity of your interpretations. The issues are coincident in that religionists dispute the content and they also dispute the interpretation of the content. And I suspect that even you would not be so naïve as to pretend there is no such conflict.

It’s also up to me to make judgments regarding your belief that you have some peculiar insight into what unknown authors have ascribed to the gods. I happen to live on the same planet as adherents to your belief system and your choices definitely affect me on an ongoing basis. Since I am not an adherent to your ideology, but to a large extent must cope with it, I certainly think this gives me solid reasons to address the veracity of your claims.

 

[ding]

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

Super. Christendom can rely on you to make the definitive, authoritative determination as to what will be literal interpretation vs. what is silly, irrelevant and obsolete.

That will eliminate all those competing sects/ subdivisions of Christianity and the Christian world can come together holding hands in harmonious bliss.

Be sure to let us know when your revised Bible is published. I'm hoping the gods will step in and demand right of first refusal for edits, but if not, screw them. You are the final authority.

Thanks.

Yes, they can rely on me. Books that have been closed have already been opened. No need for another book. The time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Meanie, and all who hear shall come to life. Satan, the false prophet, the antichrist, death, and hades will be tossed into the lake of fire in full view of believers and unbelievers alike, and all the children of the new age will live happily ever after...

You're welcome.

I will now take a bow!

You can make light of the varying interpretations of your bibles but if you read through these threads, even the posters here can’t agree on what is to be taken as literal and what is mere fable. I hope you take some time to understand that the percentage of religionists who accept any particular foundational myth of religion is hardly a basis for deciding that myth is true or not. Of course, this ignores the very tenuous ground you stand on with the claims you make toward the veracity of your interpretations. The issues are coincident in that religionists dispute the content and they also dispute the interpretation of the content. And I suspect that even you would not be so naïve as to pretend there is no such conflict.

It’s also up to me to make judgments regarding your belief that you have some peculiar insight into what unknown authors have ascribed to the gods. I happen to live on the same planet as adherents to your belief system and your choices definitely affect me on an ongoing basis. Since I am not an adherent to your ideology, but to a large extent must cope with it, I certainly think this gives me solid reasons to address the veracity of your claims.

Truth is discovered, my dear.

 

[ding]

I feel so lucky that you are here to lecture us on "real Christianity".

Hey everybody, mullah Norwegan will be holding a lecture series. Get your prayer rugs.

You're welcome.

Just please don't lecture us with your rehashed literal, fundy views, eh.

Thank you in advance.

What fundie views would those be? You make unsubstantiated claims.

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

You mean like the truth about the prodigal son or the storm on the sea?

God is waiting for you to make the first move and provide peace through the storm.

The best you and Hollie can hope for is to suffer without complaint. I don’t really see that happening.

 

[hobelim]

Go back and read your first post in this thread (#45). You compare Genesis to modern notions of "physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science."

There is no science in Genesis. Your comparisons are the same as those that fundamentalists make.

Projecting our 21st-century worldviews onto an ancient culture only distorts that culture. In the case of new-earth creation, it makes the creation story preposterous and cartoonish. No wonder unbelievers laugh at and deride Christians.

Adam and Eve and their sons were not the only people in the beginning. Cain took a wife. He was also afraid that if he left the Garden, others would kill him. He ended up settling in Nod nonetheless.

Adam (man) was a covenant creation.

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

Super. Christendom can rely on you to make the definitive, authoritative determination as to what will be literal interpretation vs. what is silly, irrelevant and obsolete.

That will eliminate all those competing sects/ subdivisions of Christianity and the Christian world can come together holding hands in harmonious bliss.

Be sure to let us know when your revised Bible is published. I'm hoping the gods will step in and demand right of first refusal for edits, but if not, screw them. You are the final authority.

Thanks.

Yes, they can rely on me. Books that have been closed have already been opened. No need for another book. The time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Meanie, and all who hear shall come to life. Satan, the false prophet, the antichrist, death, and hades will be tossed into the lake of fire in full view of believers and unbelievers alike, and all the children of the new age will live happily ever after...

You're welcome.

I will now take a bow!

You can make light of the varying interpretations of your bibles but if you read through these threads, even the posters here can’t agree on what is to be taken as literal and what is mere fable. I hope you take some time to understand that the percentage of religionists who accept any particular foundational myth of religion is hardly a basis for deciding that myth is true or not. Of course, this ignores the very tenuous ground you stand on with the claims you make toward the veracity of your interpretations. The issues are coincident in that religionists dispute the content and they also dispute the interpretation of the content. And I suspect that even you would not be so naïve as to pretend there is no such conflict.

It’s also up to me to make judgments regarding your belief that you have some peculiar insight into what unknown authors have ascribed to the gods. I happen to live on the same planet as adherents to your belief system and your choices definitely affect me on an ongoing basis. Since I am not an adherent to your ideology, but to a large extent must cope with it, I certainly think this gives me solid reasons to address the veracity of your claims.

Relax Holly. As far as I can tell no one adheres to my beliefs. I highly doubt that anyone even knows what they are. Atheists call me a religious nutter. Jews call me a christer. Christians call me an atheist, or even worse, a Jew.

That being said, if you are fed up, as I am, with all of the bullshit surrounding the issue of religious people claiming moral authority over you based on their professed adherence to biblical teaching then go on and address the veracity of my claims already.

You have heard it said that Jesus is God and believers claim thats what the bible is teaching. I am telling you that anyone who professes the belief that Jesus is God is dead according to biblical teaching. It is idolatry plain and simple, the way to death, not the way to eternal life.

You have heard it said that the subject of Kosher law, the way to holiness, is by eating or abstaining from certain food. I am telling you that the subject of Kosher law is teaching not food; standing guard over the purity of your own mind by differentiating between clean and unclean teaching, not dicking around over whats for dinner.

You have heard it said that it's impossible to know who is right or wrong.

I am telling you that all that you or anyone has to do is read the book and apply the least amount of energy and intelligence required to get dressed in the morning and you will see for yourself with your own eyes where right and wrong and judgment lie.


If a teacher told you to write a book report on the story of the pied piper and you handed in a paper that claimed the story was teaching that the pied piper was God, and everyone in society must play the flute, worship, and eat him, would the teacher give you an A or an F?

If you handed in a paper that said that its impossible to know what the story was about, would you pass or fail?

 

[ding]

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

Super. Christendom can rely on you to make the definitive, authoritative determination as to what will be literal interpretation vs. what is silly, irrelevant and obsolete.

That will eliminate all those competing sects/ subdivisions of Christianity and the Christian world can come together holding hands in harmonious bliss.

Be sure to let us know when your revised Bible is published. I'm hoping the gods will step in and demand right of first refusal for edits, but if not, screw them. You are the final authority.

Thanks.

Yes, they can rely on me. Books that have been closed have already been opened. No need for another book. The time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Meanie, and all who hear shall come to life. Satan, the false prophet, the antichrist, death, and hades will be tossed into the lake of fire in full view of believers and unbelievers alike, and all the children of the new age will live happily ever after...

You're welcome.

I will now take a bow!

You can make light of the varying interpretations of your bibles but if you read through these threads, even the posters here can’t agree on what is to be taken as literal and what is mere fable. I hope you take some time to understand that the percentage of religionists who accept any particular foundational myth of religion is hardly a basis for deciding that myth is true or not. Of course, this ignores the very tenuous ground you stand on with the claims you make toward the veracity of your interpretations. The issues are coincident in that religionists dispute the content and they also dispute the interpretation of the content. And I suspect that even you would not be so naïve as to pretend there is no such conflict.

It’s also up to me to make judgments regarding your belief that you have some peculiar insight into what unknown authors have ascribed to the gods. I happen to live on the same planet as adherents to your belief system and your choices definitely affect me on an ongoing basis. Since I am not an adherent to your ideology, but to a large extent must cope with it, I certainly think this gives me solid reasons to address the veracity of your claims.

Relax Holly. As far as I can tell no one adheres to my beliefs. I highly doubt that anyone even knows what they are. Atheists call me a religious nutter. Jews call me a christer. Christians call me an atheist, or even worse, a Jew.

That being said, if you are fed up, as I am, with all of the bullshit surrounding the issue of religious people claiming moral authority over you based on their professed adherence to biblical teaching then go on and address the veracity of my claims already.

You have heard it said that Jesus is God and believers claim thats what the bible is teaching. I am telling you that anyone who professes the belief that Jesus is God is dead according to biblical teaching. It is idolatry plain and simple, the way to death, not the way to eternal life.

You have heard it said that the subject of Kosher law, the way to holiness, is by eating or abstaining from certain food. I am telling you that the subject of Kosher law is teaching not food; standing guard over the purity of your own mind by differentiating between clean and unclean teaching, not dicking around over whats for dinner.

You have heard it said that it's impossible to know who is right or wrong.

I am telling you that all that you or anyone has to do is read the book and apply the least amount of energy and intelligence required to get dressed in the morning and you will see for yourself with your own eyes where right and wrong and judgment lie.


If a teacher told you to write a book report on the story of the pied piper and you handed in a paper that claimed the story was teaching that the pied piper was God, and everyone in society must play the flute, worship, and eat him, would the teacher give you an A or an F?

If you handed in a paper that said that its impossible to know what the story was about, would you pass or fail?

You are one of the worst at claiming moral high ground.

 

[ding]

You're preaching a rather fundie view. Your extremist view insists that your subjective interpretations are true and the interpretations of others is not.

All this fuss could be settled if the various gods could unionize and establish a hierarchy of holy books.

I can’t be held responsible for widely varying interpretation of tales and fables written in a book that I don’t use to shape my worldview. As we see with regularity, interpretation of these ancient relics is entirely subjective and open to the whims of the interpreter.

Just because there are many nutty ways to interpret the stories in the bible does not mean that there is no way to differentiate between what is ridiculous and plausible.

Most of these nutty interpretations can be dismissed out of hand by anyone who was paying attention in grade school.

Truth is one, falsehood many.

One rational interpretation of anything in scripture that conforms to reality renders thousands of irrational interpretations that contradict reality silly, irrelevant, and obsolete.

Super. Christendom can rely on you to make the definitive, authoritative determination as to what will be literal interpretation vs. what is silly, irrelevant and obsolete.

That will eliminate all those competing sects/ subdivisions of Christianity and the Christian world can come together holding hands in harmonious bliss.

Be sure to let us know when your revised Bible is published. I'm hoping the gods will step in and demand right of first refusal for edits, but if not, screw them. You are the final authority.

Thanks.

Yes, they can rely on me. Books that have been closed have already been opened. No need for another book. The time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Meanie, and all who hear shall come to life. Satan, the false prophet, the antichrist, death, and hades will be tossed into the lake of fire in full view of believers and unbelievers alike, and all the children of the new age will live happily ever after...

You're welcome.

I will now take a bow!

You can make light of the varying interpretations of your bibles but if you read through these threads, even the posters here can’t agree on what is to be taken as literal and what is mere fable. I hope you take some time to understand that the percentage of religionists who accept any particular foundational myth of religion is hardly a basis for deciding that myth is true or not. Of course, this ignores the very tenuous ground you stand on with the claims you make toward the veracity of your interpretations. The issues are coincident in that religionists dispute the content and they also dispute the interpretation of the content. And I suspect that even you would not be so naïve as to pretend there is no such conflict.

It’s also up to me to make judgments regarding your belief that you have some peculiar insight into what unknown authors have ascribed to the gods. I happen to live on the same planet as adherents to your belief system and your choices definitely affect me on an ongoing basis. Since I am not an adherent to your ideology, but to a large extent must cope with it, I certainly think this gives me solid reasons to address the veracity of your claims.

Relax Holly. As far as I can tell no one adheres to my beliefs. I highly doubt that anyone even knows what they are. Atheists call me a religious nutter. Jews call me a christer. Christians call me an atheist, or even worse, a Jew.

That being said, if you are fed up, as I am, with all of the bullshit surrounding the issue of religious people claiming moral authority over you based on their professed adherence to biblical teaching then go on and address the veracity of my claims already.

You have heard it said that Jesus is God and believers claim thats what the bible is teaching. I am telling you that anyone who professes the belief that Jesus is God is dead according to biblical teaching. It is idolatry plain and simple, the way to death, not the way to eternal life.

You have heard it said that the subject of Kosher law, the way to holiness, is by eating or abstaining from certain food. I am telling you that the subject of Kosher law is teaching not food; standing guard over the purity of your own mind by differentiating between clean and unclean teaching, not dicking around over whats for dinner.

You have heard it said that it's impossible to know who is right or wrong.

I am telling you that all that you or anyone has to do is read the book and apply the least amount of energy and intelligence required to get dressed in the morning and you will see for yourself with your own eyes where right and wrong and judgment lie.


If a teacher told you to write a book report on the story of the pied piper and you handed in a paper that claimed the story was teaching that the pied piper was God, and everyone in society must play the flute, worship, and eat him, would the teacher give you an A or an F?

If you handed in a paper that said that its impossible to know what the story was about, would you pass or fail?

Outcomes determine right and wrong because error cannot stand. Eventually error falls. Truth is discovered. So to argue one cannot know is patently false.