Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
I don't understand your point. But covering all the land with water is doable depending on much land it is. Covering all the land between the mountains in Mesopotamia is certainly possible given the two gigantic rivers flowing through there.
I think it important that man viewed the world as flat at the insistence of the RCC (regardless of what the Greeks published hundreds of years before the Church).
The Catholic Church never claimed that the world was flat. The Church insisted on the (Greek) Ptolemaic view that the earth was round and the centre of the universe.
You are confusing the joke about the flat earth with the conflict between the Church who insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe and the Galilean crowd who proved that the sun was the centre of the universe (actually the solar system).
Please do not treat parodies as facts.
God may have known better ... but he sure forgot to impart that fact to his flock. How does one flood a flat Earth ... why with an endless supply of water of course and this was supposed to cover the land (only) without spilling over the edge is another of those imponderables hahaha.
I don't know how to flood a "flat earth". A "flat earth" has nothing to do with Noah's story. The word "earth" as in "the planet" does not appear in the story. I explained how it came up after translations into other languages. The original Hebrew text says "land", not "earth, the planet". The Latin translations speak of "terra", which means "land", not "earth". Where are you getting "earth"?
You failed to mention the logistics concerning the ark in your list … care to go over this stuff?
There is not much to say about it. Noah according to the story brought two to fourteen head of each animal of the land onto the ark. Assuming that the people there bred cattle and sheep and a few goats the total number of animals wouldn't have been that spectacular.
Since Mesopotamia is not in the middle of the ocean building the actual (huge) boat cannot have been that difficult. There wouldn't have been any waves.
It was still a tremendous task but nothing a Mesopotamian tribal lord couldn't have done. The Sumerians and Akkadians built huge trading vessels to travel on the river system for hundreds of years before Noah's time. Noah just build a particular big private boat.
Try imagining a farmer family with all their animals and you get a clearer idea of how big the boat would have to be. It's big, but it's doable.
Ararat is the mountains, not the land that was flooded. It doesn't speak of "mountains" that were covered, it speaks of hills. "harim" means both "mountains" and "hills", but there are no mountains in the riverland.
You are confusing Ararat (where Noah lands) with the land that was flooded (where Noah started). Ararat wasn't flooded, Mesopotamia was. And Mesopotamia is strictly the land around the rivers, not the surrounding mountains.
(How do I know that? Because the alternative is physically impossible and completely unnecessary for the story. I don't see much sense in adding assumptions to the story that make it impossible.)
Propaganda all over the place about this issue. Read and watch some Norman Finklestein for starters. Long ago I used to believe whatever side I'm always on is righteous and the other side was full of crap. I then discovered modern democratic propaganda (read Edward Bernays' Propaganda for some good insights) and realized how we are all manipulated via daily programming that turns complex problems into simple "they hate us because of our freedoms" or "the other side is a bunch of nutjobs" etc. This is used in warfare, left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, etc. and with the Palestinian issue. The truth is out there - and it's rarely in the form of Kool-Aid offered to us peons. The cool thing is almost all of it is just a Google search away - just need to use the old noggin to sift through the bullcrap, misinformation, and outright crap to find the gems.
One thing about Noah's age and all time spans given before Exodus:
I have no idea how the Akkadians measured time and distance and whether those words translate exactly into Hebrew. It is quite possible that Moses wrote down the stories using Hebrew cognates of the original Akkadian words but which really meant a different thing by then.
For example, if you assume that the Hebrews counted years and the Akkadians counted months (which they might have done, I don't know), and you therefor divide every Akkadian number appearing in the Bible (i.e. those used before Exodus) by 12, you get very realistic numbers for almost everything.
(Akkadians = Semitic Mesopotamians and ancestors of the Hebrews. Biblical Hebrew shows an Akkadian substrate.)
I guess it's up to you whether you want to believe in anybody's claim that they are prophets. But I have heard of literally dozens modern prophets including more serious ones like the Mormon prophet or the guy who founded the Bahaii religion and some weird sect leaders like "Reverend" Moon and "David Koresh".
There are always prophets around, but whether they were sent by G-d or not I cannot tell.
Why there is no God intervention to human life? I mean, why God never show himself to us, the people and life with us?
You mean, why does He not show Himself to you.
Maybe others have seen Him. I wouldn't know. I have never seen Him either. But I can feel His presence, if maybe only Saturdays, given that I am not very religious or spiritual.
(dupe)
You're entitled to your opinion what is necessary or not, but the story is what it is. Genesis 7 is the Biblical account of it. I would further point out that not just every living thing that walked the earth died, but every BIRD. How would local flooding in a region kill every bird? Like I said, if you want to write your own account of the Flood, have at it, but it's not the Bible's.
P.S. Also, the Hebrew is not just "harim", it's "Kal-H'Hariym". That's coming straight from the Masoretic text. The Hebrew specifically qualifies the hariym as not just itty bitty hills, but high ones.
Genesis 7 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
I am simply read the Genesis text here. I did not "write [my] own account of the flood". I am sorry if the Bible does not tell the story you want it to tell.
You seem to assume that whatever people read into the story must be the true intent of the story. I just read the words.
How did the birds die? They probably didn't. They just went away. If you flood a big enough land, birds will fly to the mountains and those that don't will eventually die of exhaustion if they cannot land anywhere.
Kal-HaHarim simply means "all the mountains/hills". (There is no "iy" (as in two Yuds) in the word either.)
You have to understand that there are no "high mountains" in the land in question, assuming "high" is read as "as tall as the mountains of Kurdistan". A "high mountain" in the flat land surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates is _not that high_. Can you understand that?
Why do you insist that the story must be read in a way that is physically impossible? Harim can be read as big mountains and as small mounts. Why choose the one that is physically impossible and then claim that the story doesn't make sense.
The harim gavahim mentioned cannot have been particularly high, since they were located in the land and the land was flat. You can verify this using Google Earth if you want. The _high_ mountaisn (in the Alps sense of high mountains) are further away from the rivers and certainly were not flooded (and neither were they part of the land Noah lived in).
If somebody told me they jumped very high yesterday, I could read that as "jumped a few metres high" or "jumped over a house high". But I wouldn't choose the latter and then claim that he must have been lying about jumping high. And neither would I accuse anyone correcting my false assumption of inventing his own story about the event.
I think everyone has a choice to how he or she chooses to believe in god. Science tells us god has been falsified by man thus is existence is a mystery or an un-known or assumed variable prior to the big-bang theory.
Religion tells us to choose the right religion to follow the path god wants us to follow. In a way science is the modern religion and science explains a lot about god in a physical sense.
If you go beyond the science then religion tells you god created the universe but science also asks who created god, and who created the person who created god etc etc etc.
Science can't neglect the existence of god and religion cant neglect science to explaining his existence. Its both super natural and science. The quest to answering the existence of god is too complex because we can't even explain why we exist in the first place and why god exists and decided to create the universe.
Science and God- one and the same? Yes there the same thing.
.
@Riddleking :
Well, no one know the reason why God decided to create the universe. My logic can't tell why God create the universe. Curiously, if God create the universe, then God doesn't need the universe to exist. So where is God place? Another Dimension, or what? I can only say, well, with my limited and stupid logic and as a human, maybe God create the universe just because God was bored. who know, sometimes we play "the Sims" when we bored too.
But then, if God create the Universe, then who's create God? You know, looking at what Stephen Hawking said that there is always Alpha and Omega (there is always the beginning and the end, I read his book in the 90'ed, I think the title was "the Brief History of Time" and in the introduction chapter, he said that there is the beginning and the end, that's, include the time.) So, if God was the one who start the time, then God must has the beginning of his existence too. Well... this question is crazy... so maybe we should forget it and move on).
Noah's Ark is in Genesis. Genesis was written by Moses. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the old testament also known as the "torah" by Jews.
Netanyahu is perpetuating the settlement problem and his party are perpetual saber rattlers. Likud policies attack Isaeli Arabs economically and politically (that appalling echo of Apartheid that includes that ugly, evil wall) while their foreign policy is aggressively unilateral and backed by a known but unacknowledged nuclear arsenal. If nobody believed that Israel would ever attack a majority-Muslim state, why are the threats to strike at Iran's nuclear infrastructure taken so seriously in the region and around the world? Likud claims to govern from a center-right position, but their connections with the hardliners leave many of us in the U.S. worried that they are paying lip service only to the peace process and that their real intent is to drive out every last Palestinian living within the current borders of Israel.
Modern Israel is a radical project because it began as the product of U.S. and European guilt about the Holocaust combined with what amounts to an 'imperialism hangover' and developed into an aggressively Zionist state in response to predictable violence from the Arab communities.
The cycle of violence began in antiquity, before the Romans came; ancient Israel was shaped by war among Jews themselves. In modern terms, it began when Arab authorities in the expiring British Mandate territory rejected the original two-state solution and Arab militants began attacking Jewish people and property. In short order (a couple of decades), Israel had a large enough population and enough military support from the U.S. that it was able to attack and seize the territories it lost in the 1948 war. With its borders relatively stable since the Six Day War, the current phase of the cycle of violence is exchanges between Palestinian and Arab militants and the Israeli military and security forces. These two groups of factions have steadily murdered their opponents and innocent civilians (so-called collateral damage) because they are unable to let go of past grievances and commit to finding a way to live together in peace.
Not that the season has me thinking a lot about peace or anything.
I concur about Israel, except for the part about the cycle of violence beginning in antiquity. Palestine remained in relative peace for almost a millennium after the Crusades were over. Jews, Christians, and Muslims worshipped freely in peace in Jerusalem the whole time. There might have been a few minor hiccups to the peace, such as World War I, but the violence didn't really pick up again until 1948.
Anyway, it's good to see that multiple on this forum have not drunk the Israeli kool-aid.
Oh, and I might add, that the Crusades were pure and simple Christian zionism. Most people attribute radical zionist dogma to Theo Herzl in 1898, but I disagree. Herzl only evolved zionist thought in a slightly different direction. It has always been around, since BC times. Just look at the "Roman occupation". Palestina was a province of the Roman Empire. But no, that's not how it was portrayed: instead it's israel, and they were "occupied" by the Romans. That's like saying Texas is a country, that's occupied by the United States. I think it's generally accepted that Texas nationalists who take it that far would be considered radicals, and are treated as radicals by the FBI.
I read about Adam who dead at 900 years old in the Genesis, and if we divided it by 12, it goes to 75. Hmm..., is it true?
And why our discussion goes into politic? I thought we talk about whatever God is exist or not, and religion. Not politic.
JcRabbit #702, we are supposed to be talking the one God here, not some miserable city, state or country … GOD. God didn’t seem to have difficulties cleaning out His Heavenly House, although one would have to ask why it was necessary. ‘Free will’ was the culprit huh … do you know the definition of insanity? All free will is … is the ability to think for oneself without being told how to or why. Free will allows people to question their selves and their environment, again without being told how to or why. Free will teaches man that there is more than one book in the world … and that sex is good hahaha.
It seems that this God unabashed by his angelic mistake (#1), decided to do it all over again with His newest creations (#2, same mistake) mankind. Do you know why the evil came from the ‘Tree of Knowledge’? Could have been any bush or tree as I understand, it is reputed to have been lush. So because this one God is (was) just and merciful … he cursed all His creations and all their offspring and made them all evil with His ‘breath of life’ … forever more … it sounds counterproductive but that is just me.
When the inevitable came to be, God didn’t have any problems cleaning our House for us either … I wonder what they learned from the experiences while they were holding their breaths. He just used His old stock to perpetuate the new flock … (#3, same mistake) … is there any wonder why we are in this mess … because it sure isn’t our fault. I think this is a fair description for insanity … same mistake over and over waiting for better results.
Let’s assume God was The Original Messenger (reasonable). He was never fully believed by anything He created. It is difficult enough already for us to try and not to act like human beings. But from His compassion, He took His cursed ‘angels’ and sent them here to test our metal … which we have never possessed from their Heaven to their ‘Garden of Eden’ to today … it’s in the genes folks. It is a design ‘error’ (hahaha) that has existed from the dawn of time … take your pick. What part of this design is INTELLIGENT? (I know I left out a couple of things, hehehe).
Leauki #726, It was just a poke in the eye sorry. You went through your land/terra/Earth comment then made a point of telling me (us), “the entire land was flooded"? So I am thinking, it doesn’t matter if the Earth is flat or round … if God covered the land with water then he covered the whole world by default … be it called whatever. I am not at all ready to stipulate to “The Catholic Church never claimed that the world was flat.” … but for a moment let’s consider it so. So what, they didn’t traipse around the world telling any who would listen about it … and even more significant … biblical lore comes from superstitions that predate the Greeks at their prime by over a thousand years … about the time when the Proto-Greeks were forming their own lore and superstitions. No confusion on my part. I just said I like the example of Galileo better because it is easier to demonstrate RCC “tolerance” of Earthly knowledge. If you are looking for something literal from me, don’t waste your time. It really seems like a moot point so feel free to call it whatever you like hahaha. Everything was covered in water ok!!! I don’t know where this came from; “Assuming that the people there bred cattle and sheep and a few goats the total number of animals wouldn't have been that spectacular.” but it wasn’t from the bible for sure. Noah was charged to collect two to seven of ALL His creatures depending of course on their cleanliness hehehe. For example, the Mayflower was 100 foot long … less than ¼ of the arks length of 471 feet. As to the ark and logistics: I meant something like … 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, and has three decks; 471 feet long * 78.5 feet wide * 47 feet high … yup a couple of cows, goats and sheep, plenty of room no doubt, hahaha. I’ll bet that was a sight … seeing it being built there alright.
I have a simple take on why creation is flawed and how that can be even if there is a Creator who is perfect.
If man was created for fellowship with his Creator and was intended to have his own individuality--not be a robot or clone--then in order to be different from the perfection of his Creator he would have to be different than "perfect"...i.e. "less than"..."imperfect"...flawed.
That a God might have allowed the existence of flawed beings doesn't point to "failure" on its part--it just points to the fact that man is "less than". Human evil, trouble, wickedness and the like come from that source.
If this is true, the fact that we haven't been erased from existence shows that even in this state we have some value and importance to the Creator.
So it comes down to, "If lack of perfection brought in sin, should you have been erased from existence before you ever were or given a chance to live?". Would this be "evil" on the part of a Creator?
Everything God - or as you say, the "Creator - has done has been to prove his love to his children, humanity. Many people ask, "If God knows everything, why didn't he stop Adam and Eve? If he is all powerful, why doesn't he just remove sin?"
As I just said, God wants to prove his love to us, which he has. He knows we are not perfect and that there is no possible way for us to obey his Laws. In the Christian faith, Jesus died to take away sin and bridge the gap between humans and the Father.
Some might say that this sounds like a fictional story. Creating life, life rebelling, dying for the creation, and just look at Revelation. But just ask yourself this:
"If God is real, who do you think invented imagination and fiction?"
The entire validation of Christian belief is being able to have an actual experience with God. This is the thing that Jesus is attributed in the bible as having said would cause people to hate believers for their belief in Him.
It's the foolishness of the cross and preaching, the scales over blind eyes, division in one's own household, etc. etc. He wasn't talking about "over religion", He was talking about believers saying they were witness to His reality--that "He is"...present tense, today.
This is the thing Christ said would cause people to mock and disbelieve and to reject those who follow him...the thing he said the world would say was mad and ridiculous. It's the testimony of those who have had experience with him that will cause it.
You can attend--or not attend--church all your life. You can do good works or be a drunk or go to foreign counties to help the poor or laugh at them--none of these things are an experience with Christ. They are just "you". You can't testify to what you haven't seen--not with any semblance of credibility anyway. You can memorize the bible--to prove or disprove it and still not have the experience that the message in it promises.
There is a supernatural element that defines the line between a student or seeker of Christ from one who has encountered Him.
Yep--sounds crazy--trust me I get it. But when you take shots at religion and lump everything in a pile that has any hint of religion or bible or a Jesus in it onto the garbage mound with no consideration, you miss the opportunity to talk to individuals about an experience they may have had and you may have not. A lot of people claim a lot of experiences, but within that mixed-multitude you can find some straight-forward, non-dogmatic people who will simply tell you "what" happened to them.
It's simply, "I was blind, now I can see."
It’s difficult to prove the fallacy of believing in God literally ... when I am not allowed any tools so to speak. You disallow me the use of common sense, reason, science, actual knowledge, actual history or any manmade source for this stuff ... and we are supposed to have a meaningful discussion ... HOW? Within these limitations there is but one argument left for me to make: You guys are out on a permanent lunch break hahaha. Give me a call when you realize there is more than one book in the world worth reading … geeze … Personally, I don't have any desire to chat with those people ... what they could possibly convey to me that would make any sense at all, I cannot imagine. Superstition is nothing but magic in the truest sense of the word ... and I see no relevance in what mystical believers think about what they think may have happened to them ... save that for the choir or the Sunday school lessons. Do you really want to discuss this hypothetical nonsense in terms of reality?
I understand your starting point there Boobz but then you turn it back into a circular argument.
There is a way to "test" core Christian belief--just as you would perform any scientific test...you establish the conditions that are purported to bring about an effect or result and see if it produces what is claimed.
When you say, "Well, I am not willing to test this or that by the conditions required so I will just test it the way I want to." you are in the same position as a biased researcher and will always end up with a biased result in your own "test". You want a test that agrees with what you already think and are unwilling to perform any other. What can anyone possibly say to that? What it really comes down to is that you are happy with your view and opinion and aren't interested enough or see enough value in the other to make any serious effort to investigate it.
That's your prerogative--but because that's how you have decided to approach it doesn't make everyone who believes otherwise "on a permanent lunch break", "superstitious" or "limited".
My experience isn't hypothetical nonsense--your hypothetical opinion of my experience--which you haven't heard, couldn't know and have never investigated--is actually a lot more nonsensical.
For your point to be valid, you have to assume you already know what I am going to say, understand the experience I have had and how I feel about it and know whether or not it happened. You can't know anything about these things where you stand and you summed it up best when you said, "I cannot imagine."
My actual experiences aren't "hypothetical" and my observations and conclusions regarding them aren't "superstitious" or even subjective. Quite a few of them were shared experiences with other people.
I'm not disallowing the discussion of history and the like. If we did, I'd think you would find that history and science aren't in conflict with what I believe in any way--though they are in the way for many religious people.
Sinperium, this is back-ass-ward as are most things religious. First as to religion (IMO): The only people that pester me are Christians and as such all my comments are 'directed' at them ... I feel the same for all religions based on superstitions alone (pretty inclusive list I might add) ... so Judaism, Islam and all the others are included here too, just not mentioned by name. That being said, you Christian folk are the only ones here with any options. You guys are free to believe whatever nonsense you want to as evidenced by what you preach ... you already believe in magic, call it what you want ... I do not. You cannot possibly feel justified in asking me to put aside my reason, science and knowledge just so you can make a mystical point? I live in the real world and I live by established laws of physics, math and reason and I can make no exceptions for them without proof ... I have no option here. You can believe what your own senses tell you is factual or you can continue to take a literal interpretation of the Bible as your source of all knowledge, no skin off my nose either way.
The religious community has had their chance like the last several thousand years to make their case … and it is still “you have to have faith” FIRST … This religious doctrine by far outdates Methuselah who lived to the ripe old age of 969. As far back in history (actual) as we can yet penetrate, there is little that doesn’t describe in some way how the (their) gods were used to control people in as many faucets of their lives as possible … and the Christians are no different. Religion (and thus God) is purely a geological creation at best. Let’s take you (Sinperium) on a different magical trip and rewind time to your birth. Now we whisk you to a good and faithful couple of devout Islamists living in the Middle East. Fast forward to the present and what do you think you would think of Christianity … it is really that simple and it has nothing to do with God.
I haven't asked you to put aside your reasoning at all or in any way.
I'm also not asking you to "believe what I believe". Just responded to the "all you people are crazy comments" that were here. You also immediately lumped me in to the "religious side" of the argument with "all of them" about your second breath into this last.
Everything you said is assumption and presupposition and has nothing to do with anything I would have said...and that's really what I was addressing--you're assuming and not listening.
"All of them" is something you see based on a smear of people that you have met, talked to or heard from--and probably most in passing or indirectly. Individuals are not, "all of them" and you might be surprised if you ever took the time to stop and look. Your viewpoint is entirely a presupposition not based on fact but emotion. Your emotion has turned it into "the truth". I'm not seeing anyone with religious beliefs as being any more extreme in their thinking than you are.
When I see a Muslim or a Hindu, I don't think for a second they are "all the same". If you ever meet some you'll find out they are not.
Everyone has "options". People take them for a variety of reasons and often for wrong reasons. In the end, the cosy picture we create for ourselves isn't going to matter as much as the actual truth.
Turn it around and listen to me post from a real religious viewpoint about how all non-believer's are blinded by their inability to see spiritually and how they are incapable of knowing truth and all of them are caught up in arrogance and ego because they don't want to accept the truth. How would that strike you? Might you not post in response to it as well?
Judicious use of words but no pass. I don't care what you think about my sciences and you don't seem to care what I think about them either. If religious folk had dined to be honest and upfront they might get more respect. Science is what it is and is always subject to reasonable modifications (proofs) and updates as our knowledge expands. Science can always be discussed but it is a self-correcting entity. Theology is also always open to discussions but there is a difference. Theology cannot be questioned or queried in any other manor ... it can only be supported. Anything that doesn't do this is blasphemous and therefore meaningless ... hog wash I say. Got to love the American language; for me it is "assumption and presupposition" but from you it is just "a real religious viewpoint". If you could point out where I said "all you people are crazy comments", please point them out ... or quit using talking points. Well when whoever decided for you folk that our science was hocus-pocus and that their hocus-pocus was science did you guys a very grave disservice indeed.
That's it. They figured it out. Magic. It's so obvious. But really, if God is real, who do you think made reason, science, knowledge, physics, and math?
It seems the more advanced a civilization gets, the more they view themselves as gods. Hypocrites.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
