-
It is better to teach both, but understand that there is an empiricism to evolution and parochialism to creationism
creationism is nothing but a machination of judaeo-christian mythos as opposed to, perhaps, the Greeks who considered the universe to have come out of a giant egg.
what I ask myself is this: which of the two schools of thought will bring about the most clarity to the origin and development of species? naturally, darwin was wrong in many respects (physiognomy, punctuated equilibrium, and his penchant for Malthus); but at the end of the day, the opponents of evolution must be able to use the theories and findings of Darwinists in order to validly dismiss them.
conversely, creationism cannot be disproved; it is impossibly ingrained into semitic culture, and, much as the semitic religions, is not exportable but only may only superimpose itself upon other cultures. what I wonder, is if any of these fundamentalists would insist with the same sagacity that students learn the works of St. Augustinus, who maintained that Christians should learn up on all theories of science that they not appear stupid to those they wish to proselytize.
Yes, there is St. Augustine, who maintained that there is an inherent undecided nature to genesis in that the world could not have taken six days to create if the sun (the sole measure of time until the discovery of radioactive decay) was not created until sufficiently late. if so, I would go to the school board in full force and viturperate, much as Luther the Augustinian himself:
"I am a proud Augustinian, and will not have these protestant heretics, these schismatic and faithless challengers to God's bishop on earth, these heathen dogs to educate my child in the manner of a false God. Here I stand, I can do no other - God help me."
when one is to educate pupils, who are conditioned in every other class to think based on evidence, reason, discussion and dialogue (with the exception of theology, philosophy and literature) these students will have far less to gain from creationism than from darwinism. If creationism must have its place, I would place it in literature class, but it does not belong in the science room unless it can be placed in a Petri Dish. -
how about in a world history class?
-
-
I do see the benefit of mentioning Creationism in world history, as in the Western world it was the dominant belief for a long period of time. You're learning history aren't you?
So tell the kids:
Top thinkers used to think the world was created in 7 days, and people and animals were always how they are now. Dinosaur bones are either giants or a test from God. Carbon dating works up until the years it goes passed where Creationists think the world started.
Modern scientists believe the world was created over billions of years and creatures evolved, and are still evolving, into what they are today. They think dinosaurs did exist and are as old as carbon dating say they are.
-
-
On an interesting note...
I saw a painting of the ark that had come aground, and the animals walking off two by two and Noah, Japheth, Ham, and Shem, and the women standing there. In the background were large dinosaurs. WHA?! lol Tell me, how do you fit a stegosaurus on an ark? -
-
well currently we are testing howlong ago were the dinasours completely gone... cause some have been known to servive... dragons
-
-
WHAT?
-
-
-
Doesn't the theory suggest that the dinosaurs got wiped out because they could not fit on the ark? Even if not, an analysis of the dimensions of the ark given in the Bible compared to dinosaur size may give you the answer you were looking for; yes, or no.
-
I am always shocked to see how short-sighted God's plans are.
"Okay, so I'm gonna flood the world, but...uh...YOU. Noah. Yeah, the guy who got totally drunk, passed out naked, and then when your son saw you, you cursed HIS son and all the sons after to slavery. I want YOU, to build a big BOAT! BIG BOAT. Then. Then I want you to put 2 of each animal on the boat (YOU KNOW WHY! EH? EH???). When the flood's over, you and the animals are gonna get off the big boat (in the same remote location of Earth), screw like crazy, and repopulate the Earth."
*1 giant flood later*
"Alright boys, looking good. Nice rainbow, huh? Ha! Anyway, you marsupials have a long hop and swim to Aulstralia, so HOP ALONG! HA! Alright now, I want the dinosaurs....where are the dinosaurs? ....OH. Right. 450 feet...every animal in the world...dinosaurs wouldn't really fit...nor would...every...animal...Well! At least I stopped all the evil in the world by killing everyone! MAN these trees grew back fast. Anyways, get on with the bang-bang fellas. Whole world to repopulate here." -
-
The dinosaurs were extinct by the time of the flood. Genesis 1:1 the earth was (became) without form and void. The creation in the next verse is actually a recreation. If you read the first two chapters of Genesis you will see where the command is to REplenish the earth.
-
-
I have studied Genesis a thousand times over. None of the church leaders ever mentioned this SECOND creation of Earth to me.
Just another example of denominations interpretting the infallible word to have a different meaning. -
-
Sorry that my scripture quote was off (never go from memory).
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The word “was” (without form and void) is Strongs #1961. hâyâh (haw-yaw')
Means “to become” or “became”. So the earth “became” with out form and void (waste and ruin). We know that this was not the natural state that God creates in. (1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion………..). How did the earth get that way? (Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, ……
We see in Isa 14:12 that this refers to Lucifer. And by implication, we see that this extends to the entire universe (Rom 8:21 Because the creature (creation) itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
So now we see in (Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ) , that God commanded that they “replenish” the earth. Why would it be necessary to Refill the earth unless it had been previously filled and destroyed? This same word (replenish) is used in Gen 9:1 where God commanded Noah to do the same after the destruction of the flood.
Summarily, we note that at the time of the REcreation, all previous life forms (plants and animals), had been destroyed by either omission or commission of Satan. We know they existed because we have the evidence of bones and fossils. We also know that this happened way before the flood, so there would not have been any dinosaurs roaming the earth from Adam to Noah.
Do yourself a favor. Prove all things, don’t leave it to the church leaders. My ministers are very knowledgeable and by and large correct in their teaching, but never, ever unquestioned. We are responsible to know that what we are taught is the truth.
-
-
"The word “was” (without form and void)"
I guess as long as we're making up meanings for the word "was", interpretting the word "literal" loosely isn't all that crazy when making a literal translation that is not literal at all.
"Do yourself a favor. Prove all things, don’t leave it to the church leaders."
I don't know how to make it anymore obvious that I've denied the official facets of my religion, and therefore my church leaders as well. Point is, RELIGIOUS LEADERS, and "myself" and yourself all interpret this infallible text differently. This is not a valid source for the end-all facts. -
-
Pearls before swine.
-
-
Condescending instead of rationale.
-
-
Those who will not see are worse off than those who cannot see. You cannot see God's truth because you don't want to believe God's truth and it is God Himself that makes you believe lies.
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish (are perishing); because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
-
-
"Those who will not see are worse off than those who cannot see"
I can say the same to you, DUH!!!!! I mean, were you even thinking there? You have a point, I have a point. I don't see yours, you don't see mine. I have points you won't address, you have passages from a book that I've pointed out is capable of error and not trustworthy.Yet for some reason, I WON'T see and am worse than the blind, while your 100% right.
Your response to my pointing out your condescending refusal to address my points of the Bible's validity, is to condescendingly tell me I am stubborn and ignorant and then quote the very book I have disproved.
Unbelievable. -
Misplaced Anaphora
"And for this cause [their imagined] God shall send [these religious people] strong delusion[s], that they should believe [many] lie[s]."
You believe the Noah's arch story? Two of every animal? Bacterium? Ones on different continents? Plants too? Seriously, this is some bad thinking. I don't even want to pollute my mind by reading these bad ideas. It's better not to know than to be this wrong.
-
-
Jesus believed it. Thats good enogh for me.
-
-
Jesus also believed in parables, which by definition AND implication are not literally. They're like fables without the talking animals. Yet you've previously established you think fables were true but incomprehnsible to people that weren't the Jesus and the apostles for some reason.
-
-
Let ask Jesus why He taught in parables.
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
----------------------- ALSO
-----------------------
Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
-----------------------
He spoke in parables so that His people would understand. He purposely spoke in parables so that the average person could not understand. You could understand if you believed Him and didn't just believe in Him. -
-
I'm not having thios debate again. You're reading that wrong. Parables, by DEFINITION, are stories that represent a hidden lesson. Told so that a moral can easily be attained. When I was in 3rd grade, just like everyone else, I knew exactly what Jesus was talking about with the Good Samaritan and the like. Jesus was a Man who embraced the common people. This was--oddly enough!--not done by telling obscure stories that made no sense except for His elite 12. The stories were simplified for simple people, to be easily retold since not many people read or wrote. Additionally, a story that helps you see the point is far more effective than a wandering man merely claiming He's God and then telling you what to do. Parables illustrate a point--not secretly, but purposefully out in the open.
-
-
Obviously, Jesus believes otherwise.
-
-
Nope.
-
-
Amazing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Weydon, were you trying to make God sound dumb? Why not try and simply state it as it is? I don't ever remember seeing this quoted from the Word of God, neither did I ever sign up for this piece of literature as being part of my religion. I was trying to explain a prevailing thought among popular thinkers, and not my own, I think I did indicate this in my post. Also, I am slightly disturbed by your use of quotation marks. Doesn't this mean you had to get the quote from another source, and you were implying this source to be God? This seems like blasphemy to me. Quoting something that I said when I didn't actually say it, I would find that kind of wrong. Why permiss it for another stereotyped religion base or even diety?
-
Oh, and since you are a drinker yourself, I don't see how you are in any position to criticize Noah. I mean, if you think yourself a christian and believer in God, and accepted by Him, then I see a conflict in your critique of Noah and your prevailing attitude towards binge drinking. The idea also was, I do believe, that Noah's son was taking the piss out of his father and disrespecting him, when he had friggin saved him by building an ark for him when the world was going to flood and he didn't even trust his dad. That's called being an asshole, and that's why he got cursed.
-
-
"Weydon, were you trying to make God sound dumb?"
I'm trying (and succeeding) to make taking that scripture literally sound dumb.
"I don't ever remember seeing this quoted from the Word of God, neither did I ever sign up for this piece of literature as being part of my religion. I was trying to explain a prevailing thought among popular thinkers, and not my own, I think I did indicate this in my post"
The topic of Noah was brought up, and it has always been something that baffled me for people to take literally. It seems nonsensical to take it as anything more than symbolic. It wasn't really directed at you, unless you take it literally of course.
"Also, I am slightly disturbed by your use of quotation marks. Doesn't this mean you had to get the quote from another source, and you were implying this source to be God?"
When I say a horse walks into a bar, and the bartender asks "Why the long face?", I am not quoting an actual bartender saying something that happened. The horse never walked into the bar for real, so the bartender never said that to the horse. I am using quotation marks to indicate the beginings and endings of speech in the standards of writing.
"This seems like blasphemy to me."
Neat.
"Oh, and since you are a drinker yourself, I don't see how you are in any position to criticize Noah. I mean, if you think yourself a christian and believer in God, and accepted by Him, then I see a conflict in your critique of Noah and your prevailing attitude towards binge drinking"
Nope. I have never been such a heavy drinker that I take off all my clothes and pass out in plain sight of everyone. I take advantage of the effects of alcohol, the effects of alcohol don't take advantage of me.
"The idea also was, I do believe, that Noah's son was taking the piss out of his father and disrespecting him, when he had friggin saved him by building an ark for him when the world was going to flood"
The flood didn't happen yet, and all Ham did was find his father passed out naked in the field and cover him up with a cloth.
"and he didn't even trust his dad. That's called being an asshole, and that's why he got cursed."
Trust his dad to do what? Fall over and sleep in the nude?
And Ham didn't get cursed. Noah got pissed that his son "disrepsected" him by putting a blanket over him, so Noah cursed Ham's SONS and ALL descendents to SLAVERY. These people had nothing to do with Ham's heinous use of clothing. It was a pathetic excuse for enslaving the Caananites. -
Ad hominem you bullshit artist! Attacking the person is does not make the person's argument wrong. Same for evolution; as Auxilar eloquently described, just finding something wrong with a big theory does not disprove it in favor of another, more incredible theory. That is the process of science: reforumulate in the face of observed evidence. The Creationism theory is not testable, and-- from the original story-- far less believable than almost any alternative. Especially because it leaves the biggest questions unanswered: Who created god?
-
-
alrighty then, back on topic and away from the personal insults....
We cannot say which is right because, although there is evidence for evolution, it is not completely solid. now neither is creationism.
but maybe instead of arguing if one is right over the other, maybe you should consider the "smallest" possiblity that bother are right. who says our days are the same as a day for god? maybe 7 days is really a few billion years? in that case, we would be pretty close to accurate. -
-
The REcreation (the Genesis account), is measured at sundown to sundown. One literal 24 hour day for each day of the REcreation.
-
-
interesting, and in saying so, completely distroys your chance at having scientists like your theory.
-
-
Uh oh ( Hey, how do you make the border around your posts? )
-
-
it just means its a new post. well relative to the last time you logged on...
-
-
Oh. Thanks.
-
-
-
-
-
-
No that wasn't literal, that was more like listening to a discussion take place on red vs. blue, and was highly sensationalised. If you're mind interprets things like that, man that is a bummer.
When you are referring to such an example of speech, you should use apostrophes. This is referential rather than a direct quote, or people with half a brain will read your 'quotation' and try and find evidence for it in the indicated source, only to find, oh dear, it doesn't exist. And that Weydon, is a crime. So yeah, when you commit a crime against the Word of God, I would call that blasphemy. Not to say that it was in this case, I'm not going to be the judge of that, but if you aren't careful you will bog yourself down in unhealthy practices. People in debates who misquote something, particularly serious debates, often find themselves discredited, and should it display itself in a thesis, you can go to jail for that kind of stuff.
"Nope. I have never been such a heavy drinker that I take off all my clothes and pass out in plain sight of everyone. I take advantage of the effects of alcohol, the effects of alcohol don't take advantage of me."
Good to hear you are a responsible 21 year old drinker. Most people I have seen on the piss, however, tend not to have this super-human control that you talk about. In fact, most of them can't even get into their own beds, let alone notice whether or not their apparel looks nice. I think in Noah's days it may have been hard to distinguish between responsible drinking during celebrations after a huge flood, considering they probably didn't have sized cups and a standard drinks handout.
"The flood didn't happen yet, and all Ham did was find his father passed out naked in the field and cover him up with a cloth."
I am pretty sure it was after the flood, but I will check it out for clarity's sake. I think here is where it takes a turn that you consider 'non-literal'. It is not that we are to interpret this as symbolic, but rather to understand the culture of the time. It may have been a very disrespectful act or ritual, a lot like walking through a door before the elderly lady beside you. In those days I would wager it would be disrespectful for the woman to walk in first, due to the understanding of a man's dominant role. As a son, it was most probably highly innapropriate to look at his father naked. Whether or not Noah was right in being as harsh as he was to his son, Noah is not God, and the culture denotes his actions.
"Trust his dad to do what? Fall over and sleep in the nude?"
As far as I can tell, although I should be checking out the chronology of all these events right about now, but Noah's sons were among those who, if not mocked and ridiculed Noah for his faith and warnings, but at least did not even support their father.
"And Ham didn't get cursed. Noah got pissed that his son "disrepsected" him by putting a blanket over him, so Noah cursed Ham's SONS and ALL descendents to SLAVERY. These people had nothing to do with Ham's heinous use of clothing. It was a pathetic excuse for enslaving the Caananites."
No, it is a little example of that fallen world I was talking to you about. What Adam and Eve did (everyone's ancestors) has reprecussions on all of humanity, their descendants. What Ham does, or even what happens to Ham, unfortunately, has reprecussions on all of his lineage. This was during a time when God's interference in world affairs was blocked by free will and sin. What decisions were made were made and incurable. As a Gentile I don't go to heaven, that's incurable. Except for one thing, the ultimate sacrifice, which was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Understanding this is the basis of everything for being a redeemed Christian. For if you did nothing, why would one need to be redeemed? You ARE your brother's keeper, and this is where social humanist doctrine fails in its understanding of blame. -
"No that wasn't literal, that was more like listening to a discussion take place on red vs. blue, and was highly sensationalised"
I'm talking about the stuff about Noah in the Bible being taken literally. What are you talking about?
"If you're mind interprets things like that, man that is a bummer."
Yeah, dude. Totally. Anyway, my take on it was a humorous exageration to some of the oddities I see in the Noah situation.
"When you are referring to such an example of speech, you should use apostrophes."
I am American. Americans use quotation marks to separate speech from narration.
"Good to hear you are a responsible 21 year old drinker. Most people I have seen on the piss, however, tend not to have this super-human control that you talk about. In fact, most of them can't even get into their own beds, let alone notice whether or not their apparel looks nice."
The only drinkers you know are the ones on after school specials and episodes of Saved By The Bell who have had one wine cooler and suddenly are sleeping with everyone or doing insane stunts. You got a party or bar and "there's always one..." who is making ascene because they can't control their liquor. Everyone else is having a good time. How the hell do you think bars stay open? If every drinker in the world was wetting themselves while drooling and stumbling naked through the streets, they'd all die very quickly and alcohol would be illegal.
"I think in Noah's days it may have been hard to distinguish between responsible drinking during celebrations after a huge flood, considering they probably didn't have sized cups and a standard drinks handout."
Again, I'm pretty sure this happened BEFORE the flood. Regardless, how many thousand years do we need exactly to realize how to control your drinking? Unless that was the very first instance of alcohol in existence, it seems unlikely that Noah had no idea what it could do to him.
What are sized cups?
"As a son, it was most probably highly innapropriate to look at his father naked. Whether or not Noah was right in being as harsh as he was to his son, Noah is not God, and the culture denotes his actions."
It's disrespectful TODAY to look at your dad naked. Ham didn't have a choice in the matter though. He didn't drill a hole in the showers. He didn't barge into his bedroom without knocking. He was outside of where he lived and his dad was there naked.
Noah is not God. You're right. Good catch. But, as I have pointed out, he is the one God chose as the savior of Earth for being the best man on Earth apparently.
"if not mocked and ridiculed Noah for his faith and warnings, but at least did not even support their father. "
Even if this was after the flood, he didn't say "Ham! You didn't believe in me! For this, your descendents are my SLAVES", he was mad that he saw him naked.
"What Ham does, or even what happens to Ham, unfortunately, has reprecussions on all of his lineage."
Yeah, that makes sense. Coincidence of birth means you're a SLAVE because your grandfather saw your great-grandfather naked. What was I thinking? I can be so narrow-minded sometimes.
"Except for one thing, the ultimate sacrifice, which was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Strange how God changed His mind like that. Maybe the Bible is wrong sometimes.
"You ARE your brother's keeper,"
Unless of course my brother is lying naked in a gutter. Than I should do my best not too look at him, or the next thing I know my descendents will be put into slavery!
-
-
"The only drinkers you know are the ones on after school specials and episodes of Saved By The Bell who have had one wine cooler and suddenly are sleeping with everyone or doing insane stunts. You got a party or bar and "there's always one..." who is making ascene because they can't control their liquor. Everyone else is having a good time. How the hell do you think bars stay open? If every drinker in the world was wetting themselves while drooling and stumbling naked through the streets, they'd all die very quickly and alcohol would be illegal."
And you would know that how? I know plenty of drinkers, it's probably harder to find someone who isn't. And I wasn't talking about pubs. You are 21. You just hit the pubs. Pubs have less incidents because the people there are generally responsible drinkers because of their age. People who are young are very rarely ever responsible drinkers. And people who are really young don't usually get into pubs, unless they have got a fake ID. So parties away from pubs, they don't have responsible drinkers. And I would wager, considering beer was a new thing back then, that Noah didn't even know what responsible drinking was. Those rules had not yet been enforced by God. It is only later in the Bible that it mentions abstaining from getting blind drunk.
"Again, I'm pretty sure this happened BEFORE the flood. Regardless, how many thousand years do we need exactly to realize how to control your drinking? Unless that was the very first instance of alcohol in existence, it seems unlikely that Noah had no idea what it could do to him."
I checked. You're wrong. The flood occurs in chapter 6 of Genesis, while the whole drunk thing occurs in chapter 9. It also appears that chapter 9 is the first record of alcohol production and consumption, after Noah planted a vineyard.
"What are sized cups?"
Pints, midis, as well as taking into account strong and mild etc. There is a classification table for all instances of a standard drink. What I meant by sized cup was merely their ability to even measure accurately how big a cup was, let alone determine how much was needed to get you drunk.
"It's disrespectful TODAY to look at your dad naked. Ham didn't have a choice in the matter though. He didn't drill a hole in the showers. He didn't barge into his bedroom without knocking. He was outside of where he lived and his dad was there naked.
Noah is not God. You're right. Good catch. But, as I have pointed out, he is the one God chose as the savior of Earth for being the best man on Earth apparently."
This does not make Noah perfect. He was merely only worthy enough to LIVE. Seems far from perfection, although I do agree a level of trust was needed in him to ensure the survival of the human race. I don't applaud Noah's conduct with the whole naked drunk thing, but then again by world standards this seems to be no biggy anyway. I think there was more to it than stumbling across his dad naked. I believe his son was mocking him. The other two sons were discreet and covered him, in respect of their father despite his escapades.
"Even if this was after the flood, he didn't say "Ham! You didn't believe in me! For this, your descendents are my SLAVES", he was mad that he saw him naked."
True.
"Yeah, that makes sense. Coincidence of birth means you're a SLAVE because your grandfather saw your great-grandfather naked. What was I thinking? I can be so narrow-minded sometimes."
If I was born to a poor family wouldn't that make me poor too? Its just how it is. You suffer for your parents' misfortunes. It is all apart of the fall. We are bound to the fate of our fathers, though we don't need be, as we can be freed from such chains, it is an unfortunate result for many. This doesn't just include physical things. It includes the soul as well. The Bible talks of generational sin and we still see it today, through genes. The son of a man who was a raving alcoholic has a greater chance of becoming one himself than others, regardless of whether or not he even grew up with his father. He is susceptible through gene lineage, and this has been shown through science. I'm not one for the whole 'you're dad's sin is your own' as their is a verse in the Bible that contradict this thought; more so, it is that you are merely affected by your father's sin. I didn't get your whole argument we had about this earlier. One could argue that misfortune is merely by chance, but I argue this to, because sin is everywhere in the world, however we can see various patterns and trends emanating from genes and environment (exposure). This is the passing down of the effects of sin. And curses, I believe, also follow this trend. Whether mental or spiritual, the effect of a curse lingers on through generations. If Noah's son was convinced of his status as cursed, and he did little to better his situation and remained under that curse, then he raises his children in such and environment and opportunities a cut off henceforth. It is a simple concept, I would think.
"Strange how God changed His mind like that. Maybe the Bible is wrong sometimes."
Maybe it is, but I am defending the infallible Bible point of view for now, and a point of view that I actually do align my beliefs with. I don't think God changed His mind. Christ had been planned, and His sacrifice was alotted to all throughout time, not just the present and future, but also the past. Those confined to Sheol were released from it. God did not change His mind. There is simply a new force at work.
"Unless of course my brother is lying naked in a gutter. Than I should do my best not too look at him, or the next thing I know my descendents will be put into slavery!"
If you were to ridicule your brother while he was lying helplessly in the gutter, then it wouldn't come as a great shock if it did occur. -
-
"nd you would know that how? I know plenty of drinkers, it's probably harder to find someone who isn't."
And yet you think it requires "superhuman control" to NOT collapse in the gutter naked because you drink.
"You are 21."
I am 22.
"You just hit the pubs."
I have been going to bars fairly regularly since I was 18, and rather regularly since I was 20. I drank before that though.
"People who are young are very rarely ever responsible drinkers."
The bars I go to are generally a younger crowd, except for the ones I may stop at on the way home. Most everyone certainly drinks more than needed to attain a mild buzz, but the floors aren't lined in puke and naked unconsciousness.
"So parties away from pubs, they don't have responsible drinkers."
Neither were the high school parties, or the current parties (Also of people around my age group).
"And I would wager, considering beer was a new thing back then,"
It was wine.
"that Noah didn't even know what responsible drinking was. Those rules had not yet been enforced by God."
I guess God was busy playing horseshoes before he realized wine was invented and he never made the rules about it.
"I checked. You're wrong. The flood occurs in chapter 6 of Genesis, while the whole drunk thing occurs in chapter 9."
The Bible is largely out of order, but you could very well be right. I don't really care so much, as even if someone DID save me from a flood, I'd still feel wronged if they cursed my descendents to slavery because I accidentally saw them naked.
"It also appears that chapter 9 is the first record of alcohol production and consumption, after Noah planted a vineyard."
Well, there is evidence of alcohol existing 9,000 years ago in many parts of the world, particularly Asia (one of the many forgotten continents of Creationism). Mead was pretty popular in the western world before wine, and then wine--especially in Greece, in about 2000 BC or so. But I'm going on historical timelines, not Taking-The-Bible-Too-Literally timelines.
"This does not make Noah perfect. He was merely only worthy enough to LIVE."
The type of person willing to enslave a group of people for seeing him naked (his grandchildren on one side) was the only guy worthy enough to LIVE. No one else was even a little better than this.
"I believe his son was mocking him"
So we can take liberties of interpretation in the Bible when trying to make sense of nonsensical issues, but not in ANY other issue like "DID God hate gays?" or "Did Noah invent wine before documented evidence outside of literal-Creationism?". Neat.
"If I was born to a poor family wouldn't that make me poor too? Its just how it is. You suffer for your parents' misfortunes."
S - L - A - V - E - R - Y
-
-
-
a few minor corrections
the sons of ham supposedly moved south and became the forerunners of the black Africans this was used as an excuse for slavery in this country
canaanites were the sons of cane who was a son of Adam. this presents a small problem if the account of Noah is to be taken literally than the sons of cane should have been fish food.
btw, i for one loved your story weydon can you do Jonah and the whale next!!!! -
a little crow for christmas
I stand corrected Canaan was a son of ham. a bow and withdrawal to weydon. i still wanna hear about Jonah
-
lol
You mean people take JONAH AND THE WHALE literally?
Well, it's been a long time since I even read that one, but as I recall it was something about a guy who was in stormy water. So he thought that if he jumped (or was thrown into?) the water, the storm would stop. And boy was he right! Sadly he was later eaten by a giant fish (or whale, which is technically a mammal, but I guess the Bible can't always be right, right?). Happily, he did not die. He LIVED INSIDE OF THE WHALE/FISH for THREE DAYS.
The purpose of this story was uh...to get swallowed up by whales or fish if it is God's will. I think it was, supposedly, somehow related to how Jesus would do 3 days of dying and raising. -
can i hear about Sampson & Delilah daddy or do i have to go to bed now.
-
HAHA
Wellll....I believe Sampson had super powers, bestowed upon from long hair. Then Delilah, being a woman, deceptively cut it off.
That's the long and short of it, I think. I haven't really gone over these types of stories since around 1st or 2nd grade--I guess even my Catholic teachings knew better.
The moral of the story is never trust women, and that God and couldn't wait for us to start writing comic books, so he gave as an idea of what one could be like maybe. -
a bit of salt and leave sodom & gomorrah out of it.
the point is kidding aside that these are all morality stories to be told to an mostly illiterate population or are we to believe that the tower of babel really happened? if it did where is it something that massive should be visible. or at least the wreckage? -
lol
Exactly. Even as a child it was common sense that these were clever stories to help teach us lessons. Maybe it was all the cartoons that did the same thing? Either way, I can and WILL never understand how Christians can get so fervently wrapped up in taking and preaching the stories literally, becoming appalled when someone suggests otherwise. The very book they're defending, they're ignoring the intention of. Teaching us stuff. -
depends on what part of the BOOK your talking about. lol
-
i really dont think anyone here really knows what evolution is...
-
emperical - evidence already found
parochial - from parish.
wow, i might as well smash my head against a wall. it would definately accomplish more than trying to explain something to someone who doesnt want to hear it.
this is, unless someone really wants to know what evolution really is and the evidence for it. if that is the case, i would be happy to explain. just IM me and i will post it. -
if the garden of Edin did not happen than eating the forbidden fruit did not happen therefor no original sin no need for catholic baptism.
also no curse on women. and Adam and Steve can live happily ever after. -
The problem with philosophers
Philosophers try to find the truth but truth evades them because they challenge everything and even if truth stared them in the face they still would not recognise it for what it is. May I suggest you look to mathematics to find your answers. You can begin with Dr Ivan Panin and Dr E Bullingerm (see Internet).
Emperical evidence only becomes emperical when it is ratified and not assumed - because the originator of the evidence is a credible person does not make the evidence emperical.
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
Forums /
Controversial /
| |
|
|
ForumsSign up for FREEA free allpoetry.com account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free! 
Already a member?Advertising |
|
Logout
Help
Terms of Use
Contact Us
Content Complaint
Our other sites: Poetry, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Stories, Quotations. © Social Design | |
Adding your reply:
December 3, 2006
Reply