• 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!

Come on, Creationists!

robocop (actually)

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
I have a different read on the purpose of the Old Testament. It was not about a deity, but about explaining the human condition in terms of a deity that is proclaimed to be tri-omni. Human misfortune is defined as punishment for sin. Why does man walk the scorched earth in search of food only to die, often from childbirth? Why not immortality in paradise? Sin. God hates it.

Look at the flood story. Why is that in there? Floods aren't known to cover mountaintops. The story depicts a hapless and immoral deity, one that fails to make man as it wants him, blames man, destroys most terrestrial life in a particularly cruel way rather than just download new software into man alone, and then repopulates the earth using the same breeding stock. Who writes a story like that about a deity and includes it in a holy book? I suggest that it is people who found marine fossils on the highest mountain tops. The rest follows - all land must have been submerged, and since God did that, and God is good, it must have been deserved. And the deity's character is filled in a little more, complete with a promise to never do that again if man will just conform to a covenant. Why else would we have that story?

Other phenomena are also explained in terms of sin - the diaspora, and Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm assuming that two neighboring towns were destroyed by some natural phenomenon, and this needed explaining. So, the character of this all-powerful and good God evolves to account for what man sees.

Why is there a creation story in which a tri-omni deity needs six days to create everything, and then a day of rest? Again, not as flattering as one who creates all at once in an act of will, and needs no rest. Why is that story in there? One answer jumps out at us. Once, all able-bodied people were expected to work every day, and failing to do so was deemed sloth. Eventually, man settled in towns and grew to larger political units than tribes. The holy man was no longer always always close at hand as he had been in the tribal days, and permanent temples were established that might be a few hours away and require a few hours in the temple, taking up much of a day. This was essential for the priesthood, who now needed tithes to survive rather than a share of the kill as had been the case in hunter-gatherer days. So, the work week was born complete with the weekend. God took six days to work and then off work, and it became a sin to work on that day where once it had been antisocial not to work every day. Why else do we have such a story?

The story of Job is another such story that depicts the deity rather unflatteringly. It toys with a good man's life for no good reason - something about demonstrating something to Satan. Why is that there? I don't have a good answer for that one. I suppose it is to explain why bad things happen to good people even when they are upright, even with a tri-omni deity in control, but I don't find that as compelling an argument as the global flood and week of creation stories.

So, the character of the deity conforms to whatever is needed to account for daily life in the Old Testament, and an angry and jealous yet loving God is created. He's angry because He loves us, and we disappoint Him, but like a good and loving parent, corrects us when we need it, so much does He love us.

By the time of the New Testament, this is no longer true, and the central character there is now no longer need to explain to explain life as we see it, but as we hope it to be after death.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting take.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Policy said:
It was not an irrelevant jab. It was a pointed jab. With tiny little barbs.

Your question was irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Lol. So you dont know about it. The question is absolutely relevant to your irrelevant jab at a Quranic verse.

Just that you didnt know anything about it. It was just a needed remark for you.

Try to make comments about things you know about. If you have no clue about something, admit it.

How do you understand Nuthfah? Is it Semen or a small portion of many or is it speaking of an Amshaj? Please explain. ...
 
ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
Thanks for that. Maybe you like random comments that make you feel good. Good for you.
Click to expand...
I do like random comments that make me feel good. A stranger at lunch today complimented my hat. It's a nice hat. Very cunning.

But that is irrelevant, because Audie's statement was neither random, nor irrelevant. It was a direct and intentional response to the words that you wrote in the post to which she responded. Try to keep up.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
Lol. So you dont know about it. The question is absolutely relevant to your irrelevant jab at a Quranic verse.

Just that you didnt know anything about it. It was just a needed remark for you.

Try to make comments about things you know about. If you have no clue about something, admit it.

How do you understand Nuthfah? Is it Semen or a small portion of many or is it speaking of an Amshaj? Please explain. ...
Click to expand...

Who cares?
The only things
I need to know about islam is, that the only real
thing is that its the enemy.

That some of its representatives are snide
And otherwise less than charming
is just a bonus
 
Last edited:
ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
The question is absolutely relevant
Click to expand...
So, you say. And yet, your word is inadequate currency. Moreover, your taunts are insufficient in quality or quantity to disguise that fact. Come back when (and if) you have more than hollow words and a playground jibes.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
Regardless any of that... where is the "hand" again? The observer? And who is the observer again? Isn't it just your average human being in the specific case you're citing? Or are the scientists claiming that they were able to summon God to the lab and get him to be the observer for them? Is that what you're claiming? It certainly sounds like it must be.
Click to expand...
No, but it should tell us first of all to question anything scientists think they know. If they actually don't know what's going on on the quantum level, then why assume they know how anything in the universe works? It's all connected.

And if our observation changes reality then we have a problem that so far is beyond science.
Yes the idea that God affects reality by observation is conjecture, but it's logical from what we know so far.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one's there too hear it...well you know...or rather it seems we don't know.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Policy said:
So, you say. And yet, your word is inadequate currency. Moreover, your taunts are insufficient in quality or quantity to disguise that fact. Come back when (and if) you have more than hollow words and a playground jibes.
Click to expand...

How do you understand Nuthfah? Is it Semen or a small portion of many or is it speaking of an Amshaj? Please explain. ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top