Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Yanoda]

jk. I'd like to clarify a few things before starting though. First, using the bible to claim that something from the bible that could be true is completely reliable. If one was arguing a detail in a movie, you can't say it's not true because the movie is fiction. Saying things about the bible doesn't necessarily make it true in the real world, but it sure does in regards to the bible. The bible is the primary source of the flood, ain't it?

I have no problem with the Bible on its contents but if people try to impose the contents of the Bible on the real world as a means to replace science, that is when it crosses the line. The problem with the concept of the Flood (as you also addressed it) is that for the past several thousand years, there was no evidence that anything happened in that context. I was well aware of the regional flood that could have been considered a world Flood for the people at the time (the same discussion has been previously made in the Topic).
The problem is that before the discovery, religious individuals believed the Flood was a global occurrence based on the Bible (some still advocate it). As science/research advanced and discovered that a 'Flood' did occur, but at a much smaller scale than previously assumed by the Bible advocates or stated by the Bible. So the question arises, how reliable is the Bible in terms of real world evidence? There are those that ignore the fact that the Flood had no global implications yet emphasize that it occurred in a country/region. It arises the point, that even if the Bible can be considered a primary source, the contents do not necessarily mean it is true (or have factual evidence). That is what I'm trying to emphasize.
I am unsure if anyone even looked at the book/video summary I posted earlier on the history of God/religion... as to why the Bible cannot be used as a source for evidence or fact.

Reciting verses from the Bible does not provide a solid argument. The contents of the Bible can be true in regard to the Bible, but not what is going on in the real world. Every mention on God, what its goal is, what it imposes on the people has no evidence supporting it apart from being mentioned in the Bible.
So I ask another question, why should we have faith said God? Why do others not have faith in mythical creatures like Leprechauns, Fairies or Titans (Greek mythology)? Just like the concept of God, they cannot be proven of their existence yet many consider them 'mythical' but why not the concept of God? Faith requires belief in something without evidence, why should one have faith in something that may not exist?
Would you have faith in a car dealer saying they have car X but the dealer won't show it to you? The dealer shows you 'historical evidence' such as tax forms, warranty info, driver's manual etc. but doesn't show you the car. The dealer demands x amount of dollars for the car you haven't seen, would you have faith and still buy the car?

@ Panama: Again with the argument that there is no evidence that disproves God? Simple ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) fallacy. This is not a valid argument.
The previous posts about the validity of the Bible are also fallacies, namely petito principii (begging the question) fallacy. Example in the previous arguments "God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God."

To start remember, you started the thread asking about some ones view point on the 10 commandments and how they interpret it along with God’s actions. You cannot tell me that my views are wrong anymore then I can tell you that you are wrong. As you say many religions emphasize that God is the parent, I do feel that as the bible says he is our heavenly Father, so to me the analogy fits perfectly.

True, but that begs the question; who is right in the interpretation of the Bible? We have countless religions that have their views and emphasize them in their own way. None of our arguments can be validated without evidence concerning the subject. If God intended to have exceptions on the rule: 'one must not kill', why wasn't it addressed/mentioned?

Here you are operating under the incorrect assumption that God is responsible for everything bad that happens to mankind. This is typical as many “religious” leaders teach this very thing. It’s sad that many blindly follow what is told to them instead of learning for themselves from the bible truly who God is and what we mean to him.

I based the assumption since many claim that God created everything, that includes the problems in the world we have. So everything good is done by God and everything bad is automatically pushed on something/someone else?

I am going to respond to this and the other statements using scripture from the bible. Yes I am going to use the bible. You ask a question on a biblical subject but you don’t want my answers to come from the bible? Really? I don’t pose a question on evolution to you and expect you not to use science to try to explain it. If you don’t like my answers because I don’t use an internet link or a youtube video, (because everyone know that EVERYTHING on the internet is COMPLETELY reliable) that’s not my fault. BTW please don’t think I am angry, I’m not in the least mad, I am though astonished that you would criticize my use of the bible in my arguments. To me I feel that whatever you believe in God, should come 100% from the bible. But now I am repeating myself so on with the response

As I mentioned before, keeping the contents of the Bible strictly to the Bible is fine, but using it to validate your arguments on real world events, research and/or evidence is not. The internet isn't 100% reliable, but I also gave several different sources from different papers, websites, videos etc. You on the other-hand only provide one source; the Bible. I base my arguments and conclusions on different studies/research and do some background checks to see the validity of the sources. The same cannot be easily done with the Bible... A proper scientific paper never has one source, but many. Saying that God exists because the Bible said so, isn't a convincing argument to me.

Concerning the other arguments from what I gather (or come to a general conclusion).
If you do not follow what God wants or don't believe in it, you get punished or not worthy of being his people. Talk about letting people of having free will...
If God was loving, why would killing people be a viable way? Wouldn't that contradict itself?
The difference between the sun and God is that the sun can be observed and its existence validated. If God was able to show itself to other humans (prophets), why can't it show itself to others. The few that did see him had no problems.
Again with the ad ignorantiam fallacy. "God exists because the Bible said so, and the bible is true since it is the word of god".
If you did a little reading on the book I mentioned (or watched the video) you would understand why I consider the Bible unreliable.
Saying God exists because of creation is another petito principii fallacy. There is no standalone argument that connects the 'existence' to 'God's creation' except the conclusion. Using this as evidence of God's existence must assume he exists in the first place.

Cheers

Yanoda

[FaiL.?]

These threads are officially the longest in the world. Mein Gott.

[Yanoda]

These threads are officially the longest in the world. Mein Gott.

Still 4 more pages until 50! Woohoo!

Cheers

Yanoda

[FaiL.?]

These threads are officially the longest in the world. Mein Gott.

Still 4 more pages until 50! Woohoo!

Cheers

Yanoda

Oh god...

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

These threads are officially the longest in the world. Mein Gott.

Still 4 more pages until 50! Woohoo!

Cheers

Yanoda

Haha, all opposition has been vanquished by you Yanoda! =)

[Yanoda]

Haha, all opposition has been vanquished by you Yanoda! =)

Noooo! Then I have to debate/argue with myself!?
The horror...

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Haha, all opposition has been vanquished by you Yanoda! =)

Noooo! Then I have to debate/argue with myself!?
The horror...

Cheers

Yanoda

=) It's okay, if it came to that, I would debate you, but I don't stand a chance!

[Hobo]

Atm I'm studying the Enuma Elish. I'll back in fighting shape soon enough. That video is really tough to argue, Yannie! I'll be back.

[THEWULFMAN]

These threads are officially the longest on SWGO. Mein Gott.

Fixed.


Anyway
@God being a terrible parent.

Coming from someone who is a Christian who doesn't take the bible word for word (not even close) and who puts all stock in science and all that good stuff:

God doesn't interfere with human life on a day-to-day basis. I don't want him to either, why should he pamper all of us, make life perfect? That makes no sense. If we don't take care of ourselves, what's the point? Why are we even here? To be God's pets? No, that's not why we are here. In my mind, we evolved, with or without God's hand in it, and he came to us when we gained sentience. I don't want him curing cancer, or saving starving children on Africa. That's our job, not his. If we don't do it ourselves, we are a failure as a species. When I pray, I only ask for strength to accomplish things, but not to have it done for me. I pray my mom has the strength to recover, and such.

Anyway, that's just how I see it.


Offtopic: In the bible, it mentions Moses living for like 400 years (or something like that). I consider that crap, and that he lived for 400 moons. Which if it's 400 moons, that's (very roughly) 33 years or so, which sounds about right for the time period. Probably longer than most people at that time.

Anyway, just thought I'd put those two cents out there.

Ta.

[Hobo]

So over the past few days I looked at some stuff. And compared some stuff. Here's what found:

This is the order in which the world was made according to Genesis (The Bible):

1. A formless void exists.

2. God creates the elements out of which heaven and earth created.

3. God creates light.

4. God seperates light from dark.

5. God creates celestial bodies.

6. God imparts movements to celestial bodies.

7. God creates our sun and solar system.

And here's the Sumarian and Babylonian version:

Sumarian:

1. Primeval sea.

2. Sea spews cosmic mountain.

3. Mountain joins heaven and Earth. An was the male god, and Ki the female god of earth.

4. Enlil, god of air is born.

5. Enlil seperates heacen from earth and carries off Ki, his mother.

6. The union of Enlil and his mother creates and organizes the Universe.

Babylonian:

1. Only Apsu and Tiamat exist.

2. They give forth generations of gods, called iggigi warriors, creating a divine assembly.

3. Apsu becomes annoyed by the iggigi warriors, and plots to kill them.

4. Ea, an Iggigi warrior, kills Apsu, and takes the crown.

5. A new generation is born, the strongest being Marduk.

6. Tiamat revolts against Ea, and makes an army of serpents to help her.

7. Marduk offers to be the divine warrior to fight Tiamat if he is made king of the assembly. Ea agrees.

8. Marduk defeats Tiamat in an epic battle.

9. Marduk makes a new world by cutting tiamat in half, which makes the heaven and the earth.

10. Marduk is crowned king of the assembly.

What I found is that the bible does not relate to the sumarian or Babylonian interpretation of the creation of the world. Therefore, it is not possible that the bible derived from the ancient texts of the Sumarians or Babylonians, as your video, based off of Karen Armstrong's book suggests.

Here's the most accepted theory of modern sciences understanding of the creation of the universe:

1. A void without time, space or er exists.

2. Big bang followed by cosmic inflation creates the universe.

3. A sustained light of luminous fog appears.

4. Clear space and dark appears.

5. First elements created.

6. Hydrogen and helium gas forms galaxies and stars.

7. Stars create planets and 89 elements.

What you can see here is that, If you look back to Genesis, they closely resemble each other. This must mean that what the bible said about Genesis had to have been true, based off of modern science.