• 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

1213

Well-Known Member
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.....".
I think the information of original single continent is such information. But, if Bible would say 13.5 billion years, I would think it is a lie. :D
In fact they do give a basic number for pi and it's wrong.
That is a lie. Bible doesn't even have the word pi.
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.
Why should I believe anything you say, especially after that false claim about pi?
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,
Sorry, I have no intelligent reason to believe it was copied to Bible. More probably it was copied from Jews. And most probably I believe things went as told in Bible, which means, all cultures have ancestors that had the same story, for some it have been corrupted more than for others.
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?
Sorry, I have no reason to believe that.
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.
If it is evidence for God, it leas to question, who would most probably be the real creator. I think it is Bible God, because He shows greatness that others don't have.
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.
What evidence we have for life coming out of non organic material spontaneously, without any creator?
Hindu scripture says Vishnu created the universe and life. We see a universe and people. So that is evidence for Vishnu?
Yes it is, for life would be a sign of that. But, obviously I believe the creator is the Bible God.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Not for the non-Hebrew slaves. That never ends, plus you get to own their children too.
Do Jews still have slaves? I think, if people would follow all the rules God has given, slavery would end, because God's commandment is to love ones neighbor as oneself.
This was in response to, "You think stoning a disobedient child is going to stop evil from lasting forever? What?"
If evil people die, they can't continue doing evil. However, I think people should not kill anyone.
I don't believe "evil" is an entity. But you appear to.
In that case, what is evil? I think some people are evil.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
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.
I think you should read all the rules. Not condoning something is no the same as condoning it. If there is no punishment said, it doesn't mean it is then ok. Bible doesn't either tell a punishment for beating anyone else, if the person doesn't die in 3 days. But, there is for example the 2nd greatest rule that says, love your neighbor as yourself. How could you beat people, if you love them?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Because human beings aren't products.
Doesn't really answer to my question. But, it doesn't matter. I think the important thing is, don't sell people, as also the Bible tells. If someone would sell, I think buying is not the problem.
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.
If people would obey every rule in the Bible, they should become Jews and Jews should be freed.
You can't beat a worker.
A worker has his freedom.
A citizen isn't considered private property.
By what i see, government can beat people, for example by using police, or Gestapo like organizations (CIA, FBI...), lock them up and even torture, at least in U.S.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
You might have a problem with reading comprehension because it clearly does say that.
It says: “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". Not "you can beat your slaves". That is your interpretation that tells about ignorance of anything else said in the Bible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It says: “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". Not "you can beat your slaves". That is your interpretation that tells about ignorance of anything else said in the Bible.
That is some amazing poor reading comprehension on your part. It does tell people that it they can beat their slaves. It has nothing to do with interpretation.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I think the information of original single continent is such information. But, if Bible would say 13.5 billion years, I would think it is a lie. :D
No, it says there is a firmament, cosmic waters above heaven and the stars and planets are below, this is all in space above earth and we were created from clay and evolution didn't happen. It did, we have fossils of hominids and Genesis is a total mythology.

That is a lie. Bible doesn't even have the word pi.

A lie?

It did however approximate pi in 1 Kings 7:23, when describing that Solomon constructed in the Great Temple of Jerusalem “a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” (1 Kings 7:23).
Why should I believe anything you say, especially after that false claim about pi?

It did however approximate pi in 1 Kings 7:23, when describing that Solomon constructed in the Great Temple of Jerusalem “a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” (1 Kings 7:23).

I don't care if you believe me, you are free to study historicity for yourself and draw your own conclusion. Bart Ehrman, Carrier, Litwa, Richard Miller, Elaine Pagels
Sorry, I have no intelligent reason to believe it was copied to Bible. More probably it was copied from Jews. And most probably I believe things went as told in Bible, which means, all cultures have ancestors that had the same story, for some it have been corrupted more than for others.
That is the origin of the Revelation book myth. The Jesus story comes from Greek Hellenism, they invaded Israel in 167 BCE.
An overview of Hellenistic religion, hmmmm, sounds like Christianity, all mystery religions combined a local religion with Greek Hellenism, like christianity blends Hellenism with Judaism.



Changes that religions began taking from Hellenistic religions (this describes Judaism to Christianity exactly) - how many times is salvation mentioned.


-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.


-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme


-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.


-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)


-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century


- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries


Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions


 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I have no reason to believe that.

Again, I don't care what you believe. If you want to know true things about history, study PhD historical scholars. Dr Joel Baden, a Hebrew Bible specialist, PhD from Harvard, Yale Divinity lecturer, author of several books on the OT explains what I said here:






Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus




Prof. Joel Baden


1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.



6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.


No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.

18:18 Isaiah 1 is 8th century. Ch 40 is suddenly different. Cyrus shows up, enter end times, Persian influence. Messianic concepts.



The only reason one would not see this is if committed to the idea that it’s not written in separate parts.


If it is evidence for God, it leas to question, who would most probably be the real creator. I think it is Bible God, because He shows greatness that others don't have.


Not true, again, study history. This time Fransesca Stravrakopoulou, professor of Hebrew Bible, Exiter






Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD












9:00



The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.










9:44 - Biblical ideas are based on ideas that Yahweh was unique. Nothing unique, find examples in much earlier religions, Yahweh is a local iteration of common deities
















The meaning of the name `Yahweh' has been interpreted as “He Who Makes That Which Has Been Made” or “He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists”, though other interpretations have been offered by many scholars. In the late middle ages, `Yahweh' came to be changed to `Jehovah' by Christian monks, a name commonly in use today.










The character and power of Yahweh were codified following the Babylonian Captivity of the 6th century BCE and the Hebrew scriptures were canonized during the Second Temple Period (c. 515 BCE-70 CE) to include the concept of a messiah whom Yahweh would send to the Jewish people to lead and redeem them. Yahweh as the all-powerful creator, preserver, and redeemer of the universe was then later developed by the early Christians as their god who had sent his son Jesus as the promised messiah and Islam interpreted this same deity as Allah in their belief system.






Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.
What evidence we have for life coming out of non organic material spontaneously, without any creator?

Quite a bit, it's ongoing. We see self replicating chemicals that were pre-cursors of life in similar lab settings. Every year we see new discoveries. Be honest, you are not looking at the research. The building blocks of like, amino acids and such are everywhere.







Yes it is, for life would be a sign of that. But, obviously I believe the creator is the Bible God.

Like those who believe it's Vishnu, none of you have evidence. Those are folk tales that survived. Religious people also said God caused lightning, all illness, drought, weather, and much more. Science demonstrated they were wrong. Probably the same with abiogenesis.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I think you should read all the rules.

I did.

Not condoning something is no the same as condoning it. If there is no punishment said, it doesn't mean it is then ok.

:rolleyes:

Bible doesn't either tell a punishment for beating anyone else, if the person doesn't die in 3 days.

The difference is that in the case of slave beating, it says so explicitely.
If beating slaves wasn't ok, then it would just say "don't beat slaves, mmkay".
But it doesn't. Instead, it goes out of its way to explicitely inform the reader that if one beats a slave and the slave doesn't die within "a day or two" as a result of the beating, then they are not to be punished because the slave is his property.

That last part is important as well. That implies that slave beating is ok because the slave is property.

There is no way to argue yourself out of this. Sorry.
I understand that you would try to, but there is no way.

But, there is for example the 2nd greatest rule that says, love your neighbor as yourself. How could you beat people, if you love them?

Your slave is not your neighbour. Your slave is your property.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Doesn't really answer to my question.

It does, actually. But the fact that you think it doesn't, is a bit disturbing.


But, it doesn't matter.

It matters quite a lot, actually.

I think the important thing is, don't sell people, as also the Bible tells. If someone would sell, I think buying is not the problem.

Moral bankrupcy to boot.

If people would obey every rule in the Bible, they should become Jews and Jews should be freed.

Not necessarily. You forget about the loophole.

By what i see, government can beat people, for example by using police, or Gestapo like organizations (CIA, FBI...), lock them up and even torture, at least in U.S.

All these things are illegal.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It says: “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".


Let's review....


“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,

Note the bolded part.

but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two

Again note the bolded part.

since the slave is their property

And for no other reason!

Not "you can beat your slaves".

That is in fact exactly what it says, with as ONLY limitation that the slave can't die from the beating.
So you can't beat them to death. Any other type of beating is just fine, "since the slave is their property".

If beating slaves was never okay, why would it not just say "don't beat slaves". Why would it not include punishment then for ANY kind of beating?
Why go out of its way to make it clear that beatings are only to be punished of the slave is beaten to death?

Your reading comprehension is really appaling.

That is your interpretation that tells about ignorance of anything else said in the Bible.
It's not an "interpretation". It is in fact exactly what it says. Literally.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
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.


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?

At least you are consistent.
But you don't see that I presented that argument about the future being set because it is set.
You wrote what you did and I wrote what I did because that was the future that we could not change no matter how hard we tried. If you and I had written something else or written nothing then that would have been the future that we could not have changed.
I don't know if I can present it any more simply than that.
Even though the future is set, the future does not make us do what we do, we choose the future by our free will even though it is set.
In the same way God's knowing the future does not force us to do what we will do, we choose that by our free will.
The future is set and God knows that set future and neither take away our free will.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
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)

Yes that is all you can do, repeat yourself, and interestingly you are right except for one point.
BUT it seems that you cannot see that the future is actually set in stone and that it matters not to our free will,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because the set future is made by our free choices, and we cannot change what it is going to be.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
At least you are consistent.
But you don't see that I presented that argument about the future being set because it is set.
You wrote what you did and I wrote what I did because that was the future that we could not change no matter how hard we tried. If you and I had written something else or written nothing then that would have been the future that we could not have changed.
I don't know if I can present it any more simply than that.
Even though the future is set, the future does not make us do what we do, we choose the future by our free will even though it is set.
In the same way God's knowing the future does not force us to do what we will do, we choose that by our free will.
The future is set and God knows that set future and neither take away our free will.
You are not making any sense.

You want your pudding and also eat it.

If free will exists, then the future can't be set. It's that simple.
If free will exists, then the future is by definition uncertain and only known once it unfolds, shaped by the free choices we make.
If the future is set, then our choices are predetermined and then they weren't "choices" at all.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes that is all you can do, repeat yourself, and interestingly you are right except for one point.
BUT it seems that you cannot see that the future is actually set in stone and that it matters not to our free will,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because the set future is made by our free choices, and we cannot change what it is going to be.
If we can't change it, then it was never "free".

:shrug:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.
Why do you think that? That is actually what you seem to be describing here.
I'm the one asking YOU how YOU claim to detect things that YOU claim are undetectable.

I'm the one that has no idea what you're talking about and has been asking questions about it for I don't know how many pages now.
Maybe you are right and the exercise in morality is whether we decide to listen or not.
An exercise in morality would be assessing the consequences of our actions as to how they affect the well-being of ourselves and those around us.

You're stuck in a position where whatever the god you worships says is good, is good, and whatever that god says is bad, is bad. So whatever is moral or immoral depends on the opinion of this god. And it apparently has nothing to do with weighing out the consequences of our actions as to how they affect the well-being of ourselves and others. Just do what the god says. Or else.
Christians certainly admit that to obey God is right but the hard part is doing it.
I bet it's really hard when God wants you to go murder babies and take the virgins for yourself. Super moral stuff there.
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.
How do you determine anything that this god wants when you can't even show anyone that he actually exists in the first place? Do you condone slavery? God does.
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.
Following orders regardless of what other people think or say is not an exercise in morality, in my opinion. You're still just following orders. And it's worse, because you're not even considering how your decisions may affect others.

God allowed slavery in OT times and set down rules for the treatment of slaves.
And you think that's moral? God thinks it used to be okay to buy and sell human beings as property and to beat them as long as they don't die within a few days, but doesn't think it's moral anymore? When and where did this God say he changed his mind? Verses please.

What's obvious to me, is that ancient peoples couldn't even fathom the idea that slavery was wrong, because it was such an integral part of life. That's why we don't see anything anywhere in the Bible against it. Because humans wrote the Bible. And thankfully, human morality has progressed over time. Well past that of your God's, apparently.
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.
Is that supposed to make sense?
It was going to happen so make rules to govern it.
God is the supposed moral arbiter of the universe. We're really supposed to believe that he set down all kinds of commandments which we're forbidden to do, but forgot to mention not to own people because ... "it was going to happen" so why not just go with it? Seriously?
Why make commandments against murder and stealing, or anything at all then, since they're "going to happen" anyway?
Slavery was common in NT times also and we see in the Bible that rich gentile Christians might have slaves.
Yep. Weird how we recognize the immorality of slavery today, but your God couldn't seem to figure that out.
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.
Where?

Human beings exercising morality is what ended slavery. Your God has nothing at all to say about slavery being immoral.
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.
Exactly as I said. Thanks for the confirmation. Adam and Eve screwed up and everyone since then has supposedly been paying the price for those two making a decision they weren't informed enough to make in the first place. Another great set-up by this amazing God of yours.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Do Jews still have slaves? I think, if people would follow all the rules God has given, slavery would end, because God's commandment is to love ones neighbor as oneself.
This makes no sense. In the Bible, God supposedly says all kinds of stuff that condones the owning of human being as property, and absolutely nothing against it.
If evil people die, they can't continue doing evil. However,
So, disobedient children are "evil?"

Are you under the impression that people are either good or evil and there's no in-between? How many bad actions does it take to make some evil and and many good actions does it take to make someone good?
I think people should not kill anyone.

How do you reconcile this belief with the Bible verses we are talking about?

In that case, what is evil? I think some people are evil.
What makes someone evil? Does not doing what your parents tell you to do make you evil?
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I think you should read all the rules.
We have read all the rules.
Not condoning something is no the same as condoning it.
God condones slavery in the Bible. He says where to get them. How to treat them (not great). How says how much they cost. He lays out the conditions under which you can own them and how long, depending on whether they're Hebrews or not.

Gimme a break with this apologetics stuff. Slavery is wrong and immoral.
If there is no punishment said, it doesn't mean it is then ok. Bible doesn't either tell a punishment for beating anyone else, if the person doesn't die in 3 days. But, there is for example the 2nd greatest rule that says, love your neighbor as yourself. How could you beat people, if you love them?
If there "is no punishment" said, then there's no punishment. :shrug:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Doesn't really answer to my question. But, it doesn't matter. I think the important thing is, don't sell people, as also the Bible tells. If someone would sell, I think buying is not the problem.
Where does the Bible say "don't sell people?"
If people would obey every rule in the Bible, they should become Jews and Jews should be freed.
You mean the Old Testament.
By what i see, government can beat people, for example by using police, or Gestapo like organizations (CIA, FBI...), lock them up and even torture, at least in U.S.
That's immoral, right?
 
Top