Religion

[Fengari]

For what it's worth, as I don't know if you're starting at the beginning and going through or not...don't start at the beginning and go through to the end. Unless you are very determined, as parts of Numbers and Chronicles are really, really hard to read. Getting past the begots takes some effort.

Yep, I once started reading it front to end and I remember these 'begots' you talk about. I think it was the last bit I read

 

Now I'm content to read specific parts that people bring up when discussing certain topics. I find that much more interesting and understandable...

[philpot123]

Same thing with creationism vs evolution. Who said there can't be both? I don't see any part of the Bible that says God just wiggled his middle finger and POOF, the world happened. Maybe he used the Big Bang and the first "week" isn't really supposed to be days, but several thousand if not million years. That's plenty of room for evolution to happen. I'm not a part of any particular denomination, but most of the Christians in my area don't think the first week was truly just seven days as we know them. I'm not sure if other denominations have other beliefs, but around here we have mostly non-denom, Amish, and Mennonites floating around.

There's plenty of arguments against that. If it happened chronologically, like it is laid out in scripture, if there were really thousands or millions or billions of years between the events as they are said to have happened, plants would have had no external pollination sources for some odd millions of years. The sun was created the day after plants, so sticking to the timeline plants would have had to survive for millions of years with no photosynthesis. Etc etc etc. So, if you are going to say that the days described were actually millions of years, then the order would need to be messed with for that to work out, thus making it not really fit with scripture at all.

 

As for the word meaning extended period of time, Shiny or someone else will fill us in on this/correct me I'm sure, but I believe the Hebrew word used in Genesis is "yom." From what I understand, the word CAN be translated as "age" or something similar meaning an extended period of time, but every time it is used in the context of number (40 days) or time span (evening and morning), it means a literal 24 hour day. Quick google search shows a 24 hour day translation is used 1109 times in the OT, "age" translation about 9. Every time it pops up with numbers or time scale, it means 24 hour day. So the writer at least intended it to mean literal days if you translate the word the same as the rest of the OT (Hebrew scholars feel free to correct me at any time).

 

 

Also, the same word is used in the Ten Commandments in the Sabbath/work command. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, the seventh is the Sabbath to honor the Lord your God (paraphrased obviously). The explanation given? "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." Exodus 21:11. So are we to work for 6 "periods of time"/million years, then rest for 1?

 

If you're taking scripture at face value, the day-age theory doesn't really fit. If you decide to not take scripture at face value, then why try to cram evolution into a belief system you don't agree with?

 

 

Yep, I once started reading it front to end and I remember these 'begots' you talk about. I think it was the last bit I read Now I'm content to read specific parts that people bring up when discussing certain topics. I find that much more interesting and understandable...

 

 

If you're trying to get the gist of the Bible, skipping genealogies is perfectly acceptable

Edited November 29, 2011 by philpot123

[Princess Artemis]

 

I see no chariot.

I see pixels on my monitor, and last I checked, Apollo wasn't supposed to have driven those around in a chariot : )

 

Jazi got it in one.

[potterwolf]

Has science proven that Apollo doesn't carry the Sun in his chariot? Tell me how science has proven this. The rotation of the Earth bears little effect on the movement of the Sun, and showing that the Earth spins does not show the spiritual causes of the Sun's movement.

No. But science has proven that the sun doesn't need Apollo to pull it around in his chariot. There's a better explanation that requires no spiritual element. So, if no spiritual element is needed, and there is no evidence that such a spiritual element exists, why suppose that it does?

 

 

[Princess Artemis]

No. But science has proven that the sun doesn't need Apollo to pull it around in his chariot. There's a better explanation that requires no spiritual element. So, if no spiritual element is needed, and there is no evidence that such a spiritual element exists, why suppose that it does?

What science has shown is there is a mechanical explanation that satisfies the material. Science is a method of knowing the material world, it does not opine on whether or not there is an immaterial world. You say that there is no evidence that such a spiritual element exists; I ask, how are you looking for it? Why are you saying there is no evidence?

[potterwolf]

What science has shown is there is a mechanical explanation that satisfies the material. Science is a method of knowing the material world, it does not opine on whether or not there is an immaterial world. You say that there is no evidence that such a spiritual element exists; I ask, how are you looking for it? Why are you saying there is no evidence?

Exactly. The sun exists and affects the material world in a way that we can observe and demonstrate.

 

I know of no evidence for a spiritual force behind the movement of the sun. How am I looking for it? Well, there's a problem with that, because the only way I know how to look for evidence is by using the material world. If you somehow want me to look for "spiritual evidence", I can't, because I don't even recognize that spiritual evidence exists. I have no reason to believe that anything "spiritual" exists.

 

Also, the idea of a spiritual element in the movement of the sun seems so ridiculous to me, that I have not looked for evidence on it specifically. And if I wanted to, I wouldn't know where to begin. But I'm not the one claiming that there is a spiritual element. If you believe there is, then show me why. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase, searching for imaginary magical evidence.

[|| Silentcry ||]

Heya guys I'm a Witch. Thought it was pretty cool to make a topic about peoples religions and let them explain it and what not. I find it really interesting to see how many different religions there are on here and to see the different beliefs everyone has. Anywayyyyssss, yeah .

[ShinyTomato]

As for the word meaning extended period of time, Shiny or someone else will fill us in on this/correct me I'm sure, but I believe the Hebrew word used in Genesis is "yom." From what I understand, the word CAN be translated as "age" or something similar meaning an extended period of time, but every time it is used in the context of number (40 days) or time span (evening and morning), it means a literal 24 hour day. Quick google search shows a 24 hour day translation is used 1109 times in the OT, "age" translation about 9. Every time it pops up with numbers or time scale, it means 24 hour day. So the writer at least intended it to mean literal days if you translate the word the same as the rest of the OT (Hebrew scholars feel free to correct me at any time).

 

Not quite accurate. The context of Genesis, from a Jewish perspective, is actually the "age" concept, because of the way it's written. The idea of it being a literal 24 hours is only accepted by the Haredi and some more conservative traditional Orthodox circles. There is no time scale of yom in much of the Talmud, and that's always taken as an age. The idea of it being a literal 24 hours is a modern idea.

 

Also, the same word is used in the Ten Commandments in the Sabbath/work command. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, the seventh is the Sabbath to honor the Lord your God (paraphrased obviously). The explanation given? "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." Exodus 21:11. So are we to work for 6 "periods of time"/million years, then rest for 1?

 

But in that case, the letters are formed solid and connected, not large and disconnected, meaning literal days, not the "disconnect" definition.

 

If you're taking scripture at face value, the day-age theory doesn't really fit. If you decide to not take scripture at face value, then why try to cram evolution into a belief system you don't agree with?

 

Why take a translation at face value without an understanding of the source?

Edited November 29, 2011 by ShinyTomato

[Princess Artemis]

I know of no evidence for a spiritual force behind the movement of the sun.

Again, I'd ask you how you looked.

 

How am I looking for it? Well, there's a problem with that, because the only way I know how to look for evidence is by using the material world.

 

Indeed, this is problematic, which is my point.

 

If you somehow want me to look for "spiritual evidence", I can't, because I don't even recognize that spiritual evidence exists. I have no reason to believe that anything "spiritual" exists.

 

I'm not here to change your worldview : ) Just pointing out that just because the tools of your knowing don't work on things outside of the material doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

Also, the idea of a spiritual element in the movement of the sun seems so ridiculous to me, that I have not looked for evidence on it specifically. And if I wanted to, I wouldn't know where to begin.

 

Of course not, not with material tools.

 

But I'm not the one claiming that there is a spiritual element.

 

Neither am I. I am not the one who was claiming there categorically wasn't, either, that science proved Apollo doesn't pull the Sun with his chariot.

 

If you believe there is, then show me why. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase, searching for imaginary magical evidence.

 

Again, not here to change your worldview. If it doesn't admit to the existence of a spiritual element, then what would be the point? Worldviews don't change that easily. Still, do you need to call it imaginary just because it would be outside the pervue of science? Do you need to call it magical, when no one said anything about a magic tradition? (Though IIRC, Apollo was more than a bit involved in magic, so, maybe magical evidence is appropriate for this example.)

Edited November 29, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[potterwolf]

@Princess Artemis:

 

I see what you're saying, I think. That we shouldn't dismiss the notion of spiritual events just because we are not able to demonstrate them.

 

Well, I disagree. If it is not possible to gain evidence of spiritual events, then they must not have a demonstrable impact on the world. If they were affecting the world in a meaningful way, we'd be able to notice. Could a spiritual Apollo be causing the forces of nature to move the cosmos in a way that creates the movement of the sun across the sky? Sure. But since we can understand and predict the movements of the sun without knowing of Apollo's possible existence, he doesn't really matter at all.

 

Basically, no, I can't demonstrate with absolute certainty that spiritual events do not occur. But it doesn't matter. If you can't demonstrate that they do exist, if they have no meaningful impact on the world that we experience, and if the world functions in an understandable and predictable way without the presupposition of spiritual events, then it is reasonable to discard their existence as irrelevant. Might Apollo exist? Sure. But it wouldn't matter, so why entertain the idea in the first place. It's equally useful to just say that he doesn't.

[Obscure_Trash]

I think the point is - what's wrong if people do believe there is some spiritual element, especially if it's not something that harms you or even argues with science? You don't have to believe in it, but is there something wrong if someone else does? :3

[potterwolf]

I think the point is - what's wrong if people do believe there is some spiritual element, especially if it's not something that harms you or even argues with science? You don't have to believe in it, but is there something wrong if someone else does? :3

Well, yes and no. I don't mind if people believe useless things, as long as they're harmless. But that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

 

And sometimes, believing incorrect things leads people to behaving badly, which is detrimental to society. However, if you would like to believe in Apollo for no reason, and you don't take any harmful actions based on that belief, then you're perfectly entitled to. I don't really care. But I still think that you're delusional for doing so.

[MellaBella]

That's rather.. rude and condescending, don't you think? Calling it useless and delusional and all. :/

[Princess Artemis]

I see what you're saying, I think. That we shouldn't dismiss the notion of spiritual events just because we are not able to demonstrate them.

To an extent that's what I'm saying. What is spiritual is outside the ken of science and by its nature cannot be scientifically demonstrated; neither proven nor dis-proven. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It also does not mean they are impossible to evidence, they are just not possible to evidence scientifically. Turning water into wine is a perfectly natural process : )

 

Well, I disagree. If it is not possible to gain evidence of spiritual events, then they must not have a demonstrable impact on the world. If they were affecting the world in a meaningful way, we'd be able to notice.

 

I quite firmly believe that spiritual events impact my life in a meaningful way. I am part of the world. I notice the impact. However, I will never pretend I can demonstrate such to someone who does not admit the possibility into their world, as I know that nothing I could offer would be accepted as 'real' in a worldview that has already defined it as 'unreal'.

[KageSora]

That's rather.. rude and condescending, don't you think? Calling it useless and delusional and all. :/

^This. It really comes off as rude to say "Hey, you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't hurt me. It doesn't matter to me one way or another, and has no bearing on my life. However, becasue I don't share this belief, you are delusional."

 

 

That claim is a two-edged sword, you know. People can, and do, believe that people who follow science are delusional and are being led astray by an evil entity. They, like you, are certain that they're right and the others who don't share their beliefs are delusional.

[JaziandCo]

There's plenty of arguments against that. If it happened chronologically, like it is laid out in scripture, if there were really thousands or millions or billions of years between the events as they are said to have happened, plants would have had no external pollination sources for some odd millions of years. The sun was created the day after plants, so sticking to the timeline plants would have had to survive for millions of years with no photosynthesis. Etc etc etc. So, if you are going to say that the days described were actually millions of years, then the order would need to be messed with for that to work out, thus making it not really fit with scripture at all.

Light was the first thing to be created. First the earth was a dark void, covered in water. Light came in, and then land/sky/vegetation came later, and then sun. While the first lightsource is unknown, it could have been something capable of feeding plants the same as the sun.

 

If you're taking scripture at face value, the day-age theory doesn't really fit. If you decide to not take scripture at face value, then why try to cram evolution into a belief system you don't agree with?

Again, while I'm considered a "non-denominational Christian", most people around here share the idea that most of the things in the Bible aren't literal events when it comes to talking about God/angels/heaven but something symbolic.

 

Well, I disagree. If it is not possible to gain evidence of spiritual events, then they must not have a demonstrable impact on the world. If they were affecting the world in a meaningful way, we'd be able to notice. Could a spiritual Apollo be causing the forces of nature to move the cosmos in a way that creates the movement of the sun across the sky? Sure. But since we can understand and predict the movements of the sun without knowing of Apollo's possible existence, he doesn't really matter at all.

I've had more than enough spiritual experiences to say that another realm has definitely impact on me and my life. They are, however, difficult to share with those who refuse to believe that they could be real or anything more than wishful thinking/mob psychology/hallucinations however.

 

Perhaps it cannot be proven because all of the evidence science relies on is physical, and the spiritual tends to not be physical.

 

Well, yes and no. I don't mind if people believe useless things, as long as they're harmless. But that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

 

And sometimes, believing incorrect things leads people to behaving badly, which is detrimental to society. However, if you would like to believe in Apollo for no reason, and you don't take any harmful actions based on that belief, then you're perfectly entitled to. I don't really care. But I still think that you're delusional for doing so.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if this were me saying that to you, I would be labeled as a fundie/extremist/Westboro Baptist member. No where in this topic have I tried to convert anyone, no where have I said that one belief or the other is wrong/useless/delusional or that because someone has X belief, they will behave badly or be detrimental to society. But it's okay for someone who does not belief in any religion to say it, apparently.

 

I'm not offended; this is more me raising an eyebrow than anything else. I've seen people on this board get jumped on for saying something like "religion is required for people to behave correctly" or "anyone who doesn't believe in something has got to be kidding themselves". If followers of one system has to watch what they say, so should the followers of another.

[Rosedamai]

I'm not offended; this is more me raising an eyebrow than anything else. I've seen people on this board get jumped on for saying something like "religion is required for people to behave correctly" or "anyone who doesn't believe in something has got to be kidding themselves". If followers of one system has to watch what they say, so should the followers of another.

This.

 

I am an atheist myself, in that I do not think there are supreme beungs that rule over us, but no way would I go and tell other people they were delusional-unless they were a religious fundie. I see no fundies in this debate.

 

Edit: to clarify, by fundies I mean fundamentalists who go so far as to allow discrimimation of a group of people for whatever they are-gender, skin color, sexual orientation etc-and actively go out of their way to violently enforce them. Thought people would like a clarafication.

Edited November 30, 2011 by ylangylang

[PlutoIsHades]

The thing is, there would be physical evidence for spiritual things. If Apollo is using his chariot to pull the sun around, his chariot would be physical, right?

[Princess Artemis]

The thing is, there would be physical evidence for spiritual things.  If Apollo is using his chariot to pull the sun around, his chariot would be physical, right?

Why is it necessary that a spiritual thing be a physical thing? If they were, they could be studied scientifically. There's no reason that, if Apollo's chariot exists, it is a chariot that can be touched.

 

Here's an example a little closer to my religion. Jesus allowed an unclean spirit he was casting out of a man to go into some pigs. What physical evidence would you expect to find if this really happened? Incontrovertible, scientific evidence that said this happened because of an unclean spirit that was cast out? I'll tell you now: you wouldn't find any. That doesn't mean there wasn't an unclean spirit in attendance.

 

Also, thirding Jazi's last paragraph.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[Dr. Paine]

Why is it necessary that a spiritual thing be a physical thing? If they were, they could be studied scientifically. There's no reason that, if Apollo's chariot exists, it is a chariot that can be touched.

 

Here's an example a little closer to my religion. Jesus allowed an unclean spirit he was casting out of a man to go into some pigs. What physical evidence would you expect to find if this really happened? Incontrovertible, scientific evidence that said this happened because of an unclean spirit that was cast out? I'll tell you now: you wouldn't find any. That doesn't mean there wasn't an unclean spirit in attendance.

 

Also, thirding Jazi's last paragraph.

The pigs running over a cliff was a pretty good physical sign that something had gone on. /shot

[JaziandCo]

The pigs running over a cliff was a pretty good physical sign that something had gone on. /shot

They could have just been startled by the man yelling because he was crazy and began running away from the perceived danger. Several people also question whether that even happened at all, or whether the guy was just insane and acting oddly due to a mental condition, or if the pigs themselves had a neurological condition (or virus such as rabies) that made them react violently/out of sorts.

 

Any evidence of such an event is long gone, and there was no technology or science to discover if the man/pigs had something physically wrong with them, or if something spiritual was going on. Aside from written accounts, there's nothing to go on, so neither one can be proven or disproven.

[philpot123]

Light was the first thing to be created. First the earth was a dark void, covered in water. Light came in, and then land/sky/vegetation came later, and then sun. While the first lightsource is unknown, it could have been something capable of feeding plants the same as the sun.

 

 

Again, while I'm considered a "non-denominational Christian", most people around here share the idea that most of the things in the Bible aren't literal events when it comes to talking about God/angels/heaven but something symbolic.

Excuse me for my confusion. Here's the part I was referencing...

 

 

I don't see any part of the Bible that says God just wiggled his middle finger and POOF, the world happened.

 

This is what I was referencing. Despite your refutation of the argument about light, the fact remains that there ARE things in the Bible that do not fit with evolution and the day-age theory.

 

 

How do you choose what you believe is figurative or metaphoric in the Bible and what is literal?

[ShinyTomato]

Excuse me for my confusion. Here's the part I was referencing...

 

 

I don't see any part of the Bible that says God just wiggled his middle finger and POOF, the world happened.

 

This is what I was referencing. Despite your refutation of the argument about light, the fact remains that there ARE things in the Bible that do not fit with evolution and the day-age theory.

 

 

How do you choose what you believe is figurative or metaphoric in the Bible and what is literal?

Hebrew has different text for what is literal and what is figurative. You don't decide, it's there in how the text is styled -- smaller connected letters, or larger disconnected ones.

[Alpha1]

Not quite accurate. The context of Genesis, from a Jewish perspective, is actually the "age" concept, because of the way it's written. The idea of it being a literal 24 hours is only accepted by the Haredi and some more conservative traditional Orthodox circles. There is no time scale of yom in much of the Talmud, and that's always taken as an age. The idea of it being a literal 24 hours is a modern idea.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...sevolution.html

 

"Classical Rabbinic Teachings

 

The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis."

 

Hebrew has different text for what is literal and what is figurative. You don't decide, it's there in how the text is styled -- smaller connected letters, or larger disconnected ones.

 

Noble said you can find this in any basic Jewish alphabet or whatever. However, is there someone that has argued this? I've never seen any source indicating this when they mention people who have argued for a non-literal interpretation.

 

Why is it necessary that a spiritual thing be a physical thing? If they were, they could be studied scientifically. There's no reason that, if Apollo's chariot exists, it is a chariot that can be touched.

 

Well, it's interacting with the sun....

 

 

Whoa! Punctured right through the chariot and caused a coronal mass ejection!

 

Movement of the sun doesn't indicate intelligence either. It takes it 200+ million years to orbit around the Milky Way. Galaxies orbit around other bodies. Those orbit around other clusters. Relative to each, the expansion of the universe explains why they're moving away from each other. Nothing indicates that ours is special.

[ShinyTomato]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...sevolution.html

 

"Classical Rabbinic Teachings

 

The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis."

 

 

 

Noble said you can find this in any basic Jewish alphabet or whatever. However, is there someone that has argued this? I've never seen any source indicating this when they mention people who have argued for a non-literal interpretation.

 

 

 

Well, it's interacting with the sun....

 

 

Whoa! Punctured right through the chariot and caused a coronal mass ejection!

 

Movement of the sun doesn't indicate intelligence either. It takes it 200+ million years to orbit around the Milky Way. Galaxies orbit around other bodies. Those orbit around other clusters. Relative to each, the expansion of the universe explains why they're moving away from each other. Nothing indicates that ours is special.

The Jewish Virtual Library is run by trad. Orthodox donations, and thus a biased source.

 

Chaya 7 of the Talmud clearly states that creation did not happen in 24 hr periods.