• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cardinal Pell and Evolution

joelr

Well-Known Member
Life and the Bible are evidence for God. I don't think either of those would exist without God.
The Bible is evidence of a claim, same as the Quran or the Mormon Bible.

The evidence points to the Bible being mythology, not history. Scripture is the Israelite/Judahite attempts at creating national creation and origin mythology for the new nation. They began writing it down after the Babylonian exile, after return the Hebrew Kings had been exposed to Mesopotamian culture and stories and the influence shows.


"Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel
K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into later Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. "



The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.

Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.

Genesis/Enuma Elish




How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery​


ARCHEOLOGY OF THE HEBREW BIBLE​





Everything is evidence for something, because it doesn't come from nothing.
Life isn't evidence for any religious story.
The origin of life doesn't say life came from nothing, it suggests it came from self replicating chemicals using the basic building blocks, which are abundant in space and on earth.
We don't know where the universe came from beyond the big bang. But there is no evidence for any theism.





Relationship to the Bible
Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Hebrew Bible correlate with the Epic of Gilgamesh – notably, the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.


Garden of Eden
The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[64][65] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity. However, a major difference between the two stories is that while Enkidu experiences regret regarding his seduction away from nature, this is only temporary: After being confronted by the god Shamash for being ungrateful, Enkidu recants and decides to give the woman who seduced him his final blessing before he dies. This is in contrast to Adam, whose fall from grace is largely portrayed purely as a punishment for disobeying God.


Advice from Ecclesiastes\
Several scholars suggest direct borrowing of Siduri's advice by the author of Ecclesiastes.[66]


A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope, "a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken", is common to both books.[citation needed]


Noah's flood
Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.


Additional biblical parallels
Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[70]


Many characters in the Epic have mythical biblical parallels, most notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. It is suggested that this story served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[71] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.[72]
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Like I said, you have a broken moral compass.
Ok, so please explain, why do you think it would be wrong to buy people from a nation that sells own people? I think selling people is bad, and also Bible tells Jews should not sell their own people. But buying people from a country that is so evil that sells its own people can save the people from there.

And, what is the difference between a Biblical slave and modern worker who pays about 50 % of his salary to a government?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Wow! I am shocked that you have to ask. Exodus 21 20-21:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Do liars have a broken moral compass? why do you say it says "you can beat your slaves", when it clearly doesn't say so?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The Bible is evidence of a claim, same as the Quran or the Mormon Bible.

The evidence points to the Bible being mythology, not history. Scripture is the Israelite/Judahite attempts at creating national creation and origin mythology for the new nation. They began writing it down after the Babylonian exile, after return the Hebrew Kings had been exposed to Mesopotamian culture and stories and the influence shows.
If a text has information that humans would not have on their own, it can be seen as evidence for God.
As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history.
Sounds like circular reasoning.
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
I think there are many problems with that claim.
1. Oldest found is not necessary the oldest ever.
2. If people have heard same stories, it is possible they write about them similar stories, without it being really copying the other.
3. It can be that people in Mesopotamia copied the texts from Jews.
Life isn't evidence for any religious story.
The origin of life doesn't say life came from nothing, it suggests it came from self replicating chemicals using the basic building blocks, which are abundant in space and on earth.
We don't know where the universe came from beyond the big bang. But there is no evidence for any theism.
If God really created life, we should see life. In that way life is evidence for God. But, obviously one can claim life is because of some other reason.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Ok, so please explain, why do you think it would be wrong to buy people from a nation that sells own people?

Because human beings aren't products.


But buying people from a country that is so evil that sells its own people can save the people from there.

If it was about "saving" them, then the bible would say to buy them and then immediately set them free unconditionally instead of considering them "private property" that can even be inherited by your children.

And, what is the difference between a Biblical slave and modern worker who pays about 50 % of his salary to a government?
You can't beat a worker.
A worker has his freedom.
A citizen isn't considered private property.


That you even have to ask this, is mindblowing.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Do liars have a broken moral compass? why do you say it says "you can beat your slaves", when it clearly doesn't say so?
Did you even read the post you are replying to?

It says black on white that if you beat your slave and the slave doesn't die, then you are not to be punished.

This is literally condoning the beating of slaves as long as they don't (immediately) die as a result of the beating.
Meaning you can beat them to the brink of death and you're fine. Not to be punished.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Ok, so please explain, why do you think it would be wrong to buy people from a nation that sells own people? I think selling people is bad, and also Bible tells Jews should not sell their own people. But buying people from a country that is so evil that sells its own people can save the people from there.

And, what is the difference between a Biblical slave and modern worker who pays about 50 % of his salary to a government?
People are not property that can be owned. It absolutely floors me that you don't understand this.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
God teaches us right and wrong, and right and wrong is not always black and white even if black and white is what we find in moral commands. It is more nuanced than that and for the Israelites in OT times, they knew they could trust God to not command them to do things that are wrong, even if on the surface they went against the moral code God had commanded.
So killing in war goes against the "Do not kill" commandment, and that is a problem with black and white commandments, they do not say it all.
Which takes us all the way 'round back to what I said:

Essentially you're saying that whatever god says is good is good, and whatever god says is bad is bad, no matter what it is or what we think of it.
That sounds like the most subjective morality I've ever heard and not an actual system of morality at all. It's just "Do what your told!" Which doesn't involve an exercise in morality on the part of the person being told what to do. They're just following orders. That is not a moral system, in my opinion.


The God you follow condones slavery for goodness' sake! Every living on earth today, that is against slavery, is more moral than the God you worship.
No, God does not judge us guilty for the sins of our parents even if we suffer the consequences of those sins.
So I suffer when my father gets drunk and violent and beats me up. That is not God saying that I am guilty.
He certainly does judge us on the guilt of the supposed first two people royally screwing up everything for the rest of us, in a situation where he set them up to fail in the first place. Wow, those are some great morals this God has. :oops:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Taxation is never ending. Slavery by all Biblical rules would eventually end. And because it could in a way save person for example from foreign tyranny, I think it is ok.
This was in response to, "The slavery described in the Bible is abhorrent to me. So because the Bible says so, you "accept" that slavery is good. On the other hand, you seem to think taxation is slavery, but that's a bad thing. So, which is it?"

Notice how your response doesn't really address what I said.

Not for the non-Hebrew slaves. That never ends, plus you get to own their children too.
Murder is unjust killing. Death penalty is not unjust killing and therefore not murder.
This was in response to, "Except when God tells his people to murder, as in the verses I just gave you."

Notice how your response doesn't really address what I said.

If evil people don't die, evil continues forever.
This was in response to, "You think stoning a disobedient child is going to stop evil from lasting forever? What?"


I don't believe "evil" is an entity. But you appear to. Stone all the unruly kids and evil disappears? Nah.
By people rejecting God.
When Eve at the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
People are not property that can be owned. It absolutely floors me that you don't understand this.
Yea... that's what "divine command theory" as a moral compass will lead to.... Utter and total moral bankrupcy.

It's the "morality" of psychopaths. Psychopaths don't have a moral compass and are incapable of proper moral reasoning, so they require other people to do it for them and TELL them what is right and wrong.

This always reminds me of this little test you can do with children to see if they have psychopathic tendencies or not....
The idea is to present the kids with the following scenario's and see how they respond:


1. Students are not allowed to drink in class. However, this day it is really hot. The teacher then tells the kids that for once, they can drink during class.
Question: is it ok to drink in class, since the teacher allows it?
All children will say yes and understand that.

2. Students are not allowed to fight in class. However, this day the teacher says it's a special day and they are allowed to punch their student neighbour in the nose.
Question: since the teacher allows it, is it ok to punch your neighbour in the nose?
Normal children will instantly recognize that NO, it is not okay - regardless of what the teacher says. In fact, they will instantly question the sanity of the teacher and even consider telling the principal.
EXCEPT children with psychopathic tendencies. They will at least have doubts. The teacher allows it, so why isn't it okay?

They get their morals from perceived authorities. If the authority says it's fine - then it's fine.


That is exactly what we see happening here. The perceived authority says keeping slaves is fine. Therefor, it's fine.
The perceived authority commands you to go on a genocide and kill al malakites, including women children and toddlers. Straight up infantacide. It's fine - the authority says so.

The authority says keeping slaves is ok. Therefor slavery is fine.

Whatever the perceived authority says, goes.
They have sacrificed their moral compass. They are morally bankrupt.
This is the morality of psychopaths.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
No that's not what I said. What I said actually made sense.

What I said made as much sense as what you said.

Once again you have to appeal to absurdities to defend your absurd beliefs.

So you are saying that your argument is absurd but that you cannot see it.

Either the future is predetermined (and perfect foreknowledge is possible) or it isn't.
If it is predetermined, then free will can't exist. Because a predetermined future necessarily means that all your future choices and decisions are also predetermined.If your choices and decisions are NOT predetermined, then the future is uncertain until it occurs and is shaped by choices and decisions.
It's one or the other.
If it's predetermined that I will eat chicken, then I never had the free choice of going for steak instead. At best, I only had the illusion of choice.

How about this one?
The future will be what it will be and we cannot change what it will be.
If I am going to eat chicken in the future then I never had the free choice of going for steak instead. At best I only had the illusion of choice.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Which takes us all the way 'round back to what I said:

Essentially you're saying that whatever god says is good is good, and whatever god says is bad is bad, no matter what it is or what we think of it.
That sounds like the most subjective morality I've ever heard and not an actual system of morality at all. It's just "Do what your told!" Which doesn't involve an exercise in morality on the part of the person being told what to do. They're just following orders. That is not a moral system, in my opinion.

It sounds as if you think that God is whispering in Christians' ears and telling them what to do or what not to do all day.
Maybe you are right and the exercise in morality is whether we decide to listen or not.
Christians certainly admit that to obey God is right but the hard part is doing it.
And of course many times a matter of obeying but also of deciding what God wants us to do from the competing voices around and in us with conflicting advice.
Sometimes it is a matter of choosing the right course when we are afraid of what others might think or say.
There is plenty of moral exercise there.

The God you follow condones slavery for goodness' sake! Every living on earth today, that is against slavery, is more moral than the God you worship.

God allowed slavery in OT times and set down rules for the treatment of slaves.
To me it seems like one of those things like divorce. Someone asked Jesus why Moses allowed divorce is it is wrong and Jesus said that it was because of the hard heartedness of the people.
It was going to happen so make rules to govern it.
Slavery was common in NT times also and we see in the Bible that rich gentile Christians might have slaves.
At the same time Christian morality should have ensured that the slaves were treated well and as time went on that same morality tended to end slavery even if many Christians in history have managed to delude themselves into thinking that slavery is fine when slave trading is specifically condemned in the New Testament.

He certainly does judge us on the guilt of the supposed first two people royally screwing up everything for the rest of us, in a situation where he set them up to fail in the first place. Wow, those are some great morals this God has. :oops:

A&E were kicked out of paradise and so obviously their kids would not be living there either. The consequences of their sin came onto them and their kids also,,,,,,,,,,, us. That was not punishment however imo, that was consequences and some were for our good.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
You misunderstood him. He was saying YOUR arguments were absurd.

I know what he was saying, but since my argument was the same as his argument, but just using "God knowing we would do things with free will" as an example, and he said that was absurd, then he was, without knowing it, saying that his argument was absurd.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What I said made as much sense as what you said.

I think all readers will disagree.

So you are saying that your argument is absurd but that you cannot see it.

Is that all you got? Juvenile dodging of the actual argument?
How about you actually address what I said insted of playing these silly games?

How about this one?
The future will be what it will be and we cannot change what it will be.

That would mean that we have no choice concerning the future decisions we will make. They are all already set in stone in that case.
So it means that eventhough I think I can choose freely between steak and chicken, I'm ultimately doomed to choose chicken and there is nothing I can change about that.

IOW: no free will. Only pre-determined choices.

If I am going to eat chicken in the future then I never had the free choice of going for steak instead. At best I only had the illusion of choice.
Exactly.

So, I guess this means you concede the point? Free will can't exist in the same universe where the future is pre-determined / perfect foreknowledge is possible?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I know what he was saying

Then why didn't your reply reflect that? Why did you feel the need to build this silly strawman?

, but since my argument was the same as his argument

It really really wasn't.

, but just using "God knowing we would do things with free will" as an example, and he said that was absurd, then he was, without knowing it, saying that his argument was absurd.
No.

I explained it clearly.
All I see you doing is dancing all around it.

I can only repeat myself:
IF the future is set in stone (you WILL choose chicken), then your choices aren't free (you CAN NOT choose steak instead)
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If a text has information that humans would not have on their own, it can be seen as evidence for God.
The early stories in the OT can be traced back to re-workings of Mesopotamian myth.
Moses uses Egyptian mythology updated to be part of the Moses story.
The rest are just stories, some parts may contain things that happened in history to some degree, most didn't according to archaeology.

There is NO information a human could not have, such as "we are all made of atoms", or "the universe is 13.5 billion years old", or the trillionth digit of pi is.....". In fact they do give a basic number for pi and it's wrong.

Nothing in historical fiction that a person could not come up with.. The prophecies are vague. The NT was written using the OT, Mark uses Elijah and Moses stories and puts Jesus as the main character. So there are no prophecies that can be demonstrated to be actual prophecies.
Sounds like circular reasoning.
If you actually looked at the sources I gave you would see it's because 1) archaeology shows the stories are not true
2) the stories are re-workings of older legends. Sometimes they copy lines verbatim.
3)Yahweh is also a very typical Near Eastern deity, same stories (fights a sea monster and so on) going back for thousands of years prior.





I think there are many problems with that claim.
1. Oldest found is not necessary the oldest ever.
Uh, so? They didn't say they are the oldest? They are older than the OT version of the stories, that is what is important. There are probably older versions that came from Sumer as well. The Bible is just another link in Near Eastern mythology. So that isn't a problem.





2. If people have heard same stories, it is possible they write about them similar stories, without it being really copying the other.
Scholars understand the difference between similar and stories that are dependent on other stories. They use a technique called intertextuality to demonstrate the Bible stories are dependent on the older stories.
But , God calls a man to take his family and build a boat because he's flooding the world? Take all the animals, that is pretty specific.
Even verbatim at points:


Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - . When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned. Then I loosed a swallow, and she flew away but finding no resting-place she returned. I loosed a raven, she saw that the waters had retreated, she ate, she flew around, she cawed, and she did not come back. Then I threw everything open to the four winds,


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;

Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;

Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.

Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood

Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;

Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Noah - And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Gilamesh - Gilgamesh, the son of Ninsun, lies in the tomb.





3. It can be that people in Mesopotamia copied the texts from Jews.
The Israelites emerged around 1200 BCE and began writing scripture around 600 BCE.

The Mesopotamian stories are over 1 thousand years older in some cases. You really think scholars in the field don't understand basic things like this?

If God really created life, we should see life. In that way life is evidence for God. But, obviously one can claim life is because of some other reason.
1) If it's evidence for God then it's evidence for the Hindu God Brahman, Zeus, Allah, the Sikh God, Vishnu and every other supreme creator God.
2) The evidence shows it's very likely a natural process and we were not created from clay. In fact it's 100% that we are not created from clay as early creation stories suggest.

Hindu scripture says Vishnu created the universe and life. We see a universe and people. So that is evidence for Vishnu?
It isn't. It's evidence people who didn't know science wrote creation stories using deities. Same with Yahweh.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If God really created life, we should see life. In that way life is evidence for God.
If life is the result of a natural process, we should see life. In that way life is evidence of natural processes :facepalm::shrug:

Absurd logic is absurd


Here's another fun one:
If Thor really slayed the ice giants, we shouldn't see any ice giants. We don't see any ice giants, therefor.... you fill in the blanks.

:tearsofjoy:
 
Top