Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Explain 3

bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2014 8:50:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you explain what you consider this passage means?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 1:38:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/20/2014 8:50:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can you explain what you consider this passage means?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The traditions of life teach us that light is metaphorical for understanding, revelation, enlightenment.
This verse is basically saying let understanding exist or let there be understanding. Let there be enlightenment.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 2:17:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 1:38:55 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/20/2014 8:50:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can you explain what you consider this passage means?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The traditions of life teach us that light is metaphorical for understanding, revelation, enlightenment.
This verse is basically saying let understanding exist or let there be understanding. Let there be enlightenment.

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 2:44:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 2:17:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 1:38:55 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/20/2014 8:50:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can you explain what you consider this passage means?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The traditions of life teach us that light is metaphorical for understanding, revelation, enlightenment.
This verse is basically saying let understanding exist or let there be understanding. Let there be enlightenment.

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 3:23:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 2:44:20 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 2:17:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 1:38:55 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/20/2014 8:50:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can you explain what you consider this passage means?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The traditions of life teach us that light is metaphorical for understanding, revelation, enlightenment.
This verse is basically saying let understanding exist or let there be understanding. Let there be enlightenment.

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:23:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 2:44:20 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 2:17:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 1:38:55 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/20/2014 8:50:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can you explain what you consider this passage means?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The traditions of life teach us that light is metaphorical for understanding, revelation, enlightenment.
This verse is basically saying let understanding exist or let there be understanding. Let there be enlightenment.

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 8:34:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 3:23:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 2:44:20 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 2:17:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 1:38:55 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/20/2014 8:50:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can you explain what you consider this passage means?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The traditions of life teach us that light is metaphorical for understanding, revelation, enlightenment.
This verse is basically saying let understanding exist or let there be understanding. Let there be enlightenment.

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.

Well, I would tend to agree it is about imaginary characters. What are your thoughts about Christians who claim Jesus and the early church fathers believed the Genesis story to be literal - Are they less enlightened than the author?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 9:50:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:34:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.

Well, I would tend to agree it is about imaginary characters. What are your thoughts about Christians who claim Jesus and the early church fathers believed the Genesis story to be literal - Are they less enlightened than the author?

The early church fathers also believed the world was flat. If the early church fathers were gullible and in error, does that mean all of todays Christians should believe the same as they did and also be just as gullible and follow the same errors?
Bible believers will believe whatever they are taught and very rarely question their own teachings. It makes no difference if they are todays believers or ancient believers. The gullible exist in every generation on this planet. Those who take the bible literally are like gullible children. They need to grow up and understand the character God is nothing but a personification of life itself.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 10:28:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 9:50:05 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:34:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.

Well, I would tend to agree it is about imaginary characters. What are your thoughts about Christians who claim Jesus and the early church fathers believed the Genesis story to be literal - Are they less enlightened than the author?

The early church fathers also believed the world was flat. If the early church fathers were gullible and in error, does that mean all of todays Christians should believe the same as they did and also be just as gullible and follow the same errors?
Bible believers will believe whatever they are taught and very rarely question their own teachings. It makes no difference if they are todays believers or ancient believers. The gullible exist in every generation on this planet. Those who take the bible literally are like gullible children. They need to grow up and understand the character God is nothing but a personification of life itself.

The early church just about every one of them believed earth was flat. Science corrected this. I think it is just dishonest to edit religion using scientific knowledge of today. Why does God need knowledge of scientists. This shows Bible is not the word of God.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 10:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:28:25 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/22/2014 9:50:05 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:34:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.

Well, I would tend to agree it is about imaginary characters. What are your thoughts about Christians who claim Jesus and the early church fathers believed the Genesis story to be literal - Are they less enlightened than the author?

The early church fathers also believed the world was flat. If the early church fathers were gullible and in error, does that mean all of todays Christians should believe the same as they did and also be just as gullible and follow the same errors?
Bible believers will believe whatever they are taught and very rarely question their own teachings. It makes no difference if they are todays believers or ancient believers. The gullible exist in every generation on this planet. Those who take the bible literally are like gullible children. They need to grow up and understand the character God is nothing but a personification of life itself.

The early church just about every one of them believed earth was flat. Science corrected this. I think it is just dishonest to edit religion using scientific knowledge of today. Why does God need knowledge of scientists. This shows Bible is not the word of God.

I think it is sheer stupidity to treat the bible as some kind of history or science book in the first place. It is utter foolishness to compare it with any science books. It is like comparing fantasy with reality and expecting the fantasy to be realistic.
Intelligent people will not take the bible literally as some kind of historical record of the creation of the universe or the historical creation of humans.
Imaginary characters and their actions are created through the imaginations of the authors not through the scientific method.
When scientifically minded people demand that fictional literature be scientifically correct, they are missing the whole point of the fictional stories. Fictional literature is not intended to teach history or science. Its intention is to teach philosophy, morals and principles to mankind.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:49:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:28:25 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/22/2014 9:50:05 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:34:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.

Well, I would tend to agree it is about imaginary characters. What are your thoughts about Christians who claim Jesus and the early church fathers believed the Genesis story to be literal - Are they less enlightened than the author?

The early church fathers also believed the world was flat. If the early church fathers were gullible and in error, does that mean all of todays Christians should believe the same as they did and also be just as gullible and follow the same errors?
Bible believers will believe whatever they are taught and very rarely question their own teachings. It makes no difference if they are todays believers or ancient believers. The gullible exist in every generation on this planet. Those who take the bible literally are like gullible children. They need to grow up and understand the character God is nothing but a personification of life itself.

The early church just about every one of them believed earth was flat. Science corrected this. I think it is just dishonest to edit religion using scientific knowledge of today. Why does God need knowledge of scientists. This shows Bible is not the word of God.

I think it is sheer stupidity to treat the bible as some kind of history or science book in the first place. It is utter foolishness to compare it with any science books. It is like comparing fantasy with reality and expecting the fantasy to be realistic.
Intelligent people will not take the bible literally as some kind of historical record of the creation of the universe or the historical creation of humans.
Imaginary characters and their actions are created through the imaginations of the authors not through the scientific method.
When scientifically minded people demand that fictional literature be scientifically correct, they are missing the whole point of the fictional stories. Fictional literature is not intended to teach history or science. Its intention is to teach philosophy, morals and principles to mankind.

If the bible is the word of god then surely anything scientific or historical that it claims must be true. Allegedly god doesn't make mistakes.
If the science and history in the bible are not true then the bible can't be the words of an all knowing god.
It is the quintessential dilemma of the christian, the reason for apologetics.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:49:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:28:25 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/22/2014 9:50:05 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:34:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.

Well, I would tend to agree it is about imaginary characters. What are your thoughts about Christians who claim Jesus and the early church fathers believed the Genesis story to be literal - Are they less enlightened than the author?

The early church fathers also believed the world was flat. If the early church fathers were gullible and in error, does that mean all of todays Christians should believe the same as they did and also be just as gullible and follow the same errors?
Bible believers will believe whatever they are taught and very rarely question their own teachings. It makes no difference if they are todays believers or ancient believers. The gullible exist in every generation on this planet. Those who take the bible literally are like gullible children. They need to grow up and understand the character God is nothing but a personification of life itself.

The early church just about every one of them believed earth was flat. Science corrected this. I think it is just dishonest to edit religion using scientific knowledge of today. Why does God need knowledge of scientists. This shows Bible is not the word of God.

I think it is sheer stupidity to treat the bible as some kind of history or science book in the first place. It is utter foolishness to compare it with any science books. It is like comparing fantasy with reality and expecting the fantasy to be realistic.
Intelligent people will not take the bible literally as some kind of historical record of the creation of the universe or the historical creation of humans.
Imaginary characters and their actions are created through the imaginations of the authors not through the scientific method.
When scientifically minded people demand that fictional literature be scientifically correct, they are missing the whole point of the fictional stories. Fictional literature is not intended to teach history or science. Its intention is to teach philosophy, morals and principles to mankind.

If the Bible is the word of God then any scientific or historical knowledge it is giving must be accurate.

The morals the Bible allegedly teaches are not moral behaviours. See the following example

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It is clear that God doesn't care about the rape victim.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:00:16 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:49:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:28:25 PM, debateuser wrote:

The early church just about every one of them believed earth was flat. Science corrected this. I think it is just dishonest to edit religion using scientific knowledge of today. Why does God need knowledge of scientists. This shows Bible is not the word of God.

I think it is sheer stupidity to treat the bible as some kind of history or science book in the first place. It is utter foolishness to compare it with any science books. It is like comparing fantasy with reality and expecting the fantasy to be realistic.
Intelligent people will not take the bible literally as some kind of historical record of the creation of the universe or the historical creation of humans.
Imaginary characters and their actions are created through the imaginations of the authors not through the scientific method.
When scientifically minded people demand that fictional literature be scientifically correct, they are missing the whole point of the fictional stories. Fictional literature is not intended to teach history or science. Its intention is to teach philosophy, morals and principles to mankind.

If the bible is the word of god then surely anything scientific or historical that it claims must be true. Allegedly god doesn't make mistakes.

If God is merely an imaginary character, you can always imagine that the character makes no mistakes and you are free to believe that everything it claims in the story is true.
If an imaginary character created an imaginary Earth and imaginary Heavens and everything in them in 6 imaginary days, what is not true about that? Do you have some scientific problem with the imagination of ancient authors?

If the science and history in the bible are not true then the bible can't be the words of an all knowing god.
Please provide examples of any science or history you might find in the bible. The all knowing God is an imaginary character who does imaginary things.

It is the quintessential dilemma of the christian, the reason for apologetics.

The dilemma of all humans is that they cannot resolve the question of lifes origins due to it being a paradox. Therefore they need to invent religious doctrines or scientific theories to attempt to answer the question of where did "X" come from.
However, stories are only stories regardless of whether they are considered to be scientific or religious.
The FACT is that no one can prove what came "first".
The origin of Life is an eternal paradox.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:33:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:19:02 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:49:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:28:25 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/22/2014 9:50:05 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:34:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2014 5:57:46 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Skyangel, I take it your "traditions of life" means modern interpretation. There is evidence the ancients believed this actually meant: Let there be light (the kind we can see). The Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish historian Josephus believed this was actually light, and not 'understanding or enlightenment'. Who would god have been giving understanding/enlightenment to?

The unenlightened obviously.

Lol, was he talking to himself?!

Imaginary characters don't really talk. However, unenlightened readers of the allegory tend to take it all literally.

Well, I would tend to agree it is about imaginary characters. What are your thoughts about Christians who claim Jesus and the early church fathers believed the Genesis story to be literal - Are they less enlightened than the author?

The early church fathers also believed the world was flat. If the early church fathers were gullible and in error, does that mean all of todays Christians should believe the same as they did and also be just as gullible and follow the same errors?
Bible believers will believe whatever they are taught and very rarely question their own teachings. It makes no difference if they are todays believers or ancient believers. The gullible exist in every generation on this planet. Those who take the bible literally are like gullible children. They need to grow up and understand the character God is nothing but a personification of life itself.

The early church just about every one of them believed earth was flat. Science corrected this. I think it is just dishonest to edit religion using scientific knowledge of today. Why does God need knowledge of scientists. This shows Bible is not the word of God.

I think it is sheer stupidity to treat the bible as some kind of history or science book in the first place. It is utter foolishness to compare it with any science books. It is like comparing fantasy with reality and expecting the fantasy to be realistic.
Intelligent people will not take the bible literally as some kind of historical record of the creation of the universe or the historical creation of humans.
Imaginary characters and their actions are created through the imaginations of the authors not through the scientific method.
When scientifically minded people demand that fictional literature be scientifically correct, they are missing the whole point of the fictional stories. Fictional literature is not intended to teach history or science. Its intention is to teach philosophy, morals and principles to mankind.

If the Bible is the word of God then any scientific or historical knowledge it is giving must be accurate.

Really? If the bible is the word of an imaginary character, why must any information it provides be accurate? If the character is imaginary then any information it provides is also imaginary.

The morals the Bible allegedly teaches are not moral behaviours. See the following example

If they are not to your moral standard don't follow them.
If they are, feel free to follow them.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

The imaginary one in the bible stories.