Bible question

Subject: Bible question
From: GUEST,Emily Harrison
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:30 PM

I have a question for someone familar with the Book of Genessis from the Bible.

According to the narrative, God created Adam and then created Eve as his wife. I know that they had sons, Cain and Abel.

My question is, did Cain and Abel have wives? If so, where dod they find them? Who were their parents?

If not, how does the bible explain the continuity of the human species?

Thank you.

Emily [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Murrayb Macleod
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:36 PM

What I would like to know is, when God created Adam in his own likeness, did he equip him with a belly-button?

Murray

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:40 PM

Emily, a good resource is the bible gateway

As for Cain and Abel, poor old Abel was killed by Cain and I think that Cain was sent to the Land Of Nod. Adam and Eve did have a third child to replace Abel. He was called Seth.

Jon

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:42 PM

As for the whys and wherefores, the whole creation bit and early history is IMO very dubious...

Jon

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:55 PM

"And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

He just knew her, ok?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Clinton Hammond2
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM

I guess it's up to a pagan to answer your question...

Gen 1 verse 27, God creats man, the species, in his own image, "male and female created he them"...
Gen 2, verse 7, is taken by most to be the actual creation of the man Adam, himself... that when verse 5 says "There was not a man to till the earth" the inferance is that there was no one in Eden... Which places the creation of Adam on the 8th day...

Clear as mud?

{~`

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM

You present a very good argument for not taking the Bible too literally, Emily. If one really took it literally, all men would be blind.

DougR

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Gern
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:03 PM

As to Cain's wife, Clarence Darrow quipped "I'll leave the agnostics to look for her."

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Gern
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:05 PM

Sorry, that was William Jennings Bryant, responding to the question posed by Clarence Darrow ("Inherit the Wind.")

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Gary T
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:09 PM

At the risk of lighting a fire under some fundamentalists, I will attempt to shed a bit of light here.

The Bible is regarded as spiritual truth. It depicts and explains (to various degrees of success) God's relationship to Man, and teaches Man how to relate to God. It also teaches how to relate to the world and other humans. For those of faith who accept it as spiritual truth, there is really no argument to be made to the contraty.

The Bible is not historical or scientific truth as we understand such things. It is not meant to be an absolutely accurate historical narrative, filled with incontrovertible facts. Those who try to see it as such are, I'm sorry to say, failing to understand what the Bible really means.

In your specific example, the Bible is not intending to, nor should it be expected to, give us a complete accounting of the development of the human species. We can use our God-given brains to learn that (this is what scientists do). The Bible is telling us that mankind in toto (physical, mental, spiritual) is a creation of God, and that we have had an evolving relationship with God through the ages. It is not telling us, nor attempting to tell us, exactly how this creation was accomplished. Look to science for our best understanding of how humans physically came to be; look to the Bible for the meaning behind it all.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:09 PM

There are actually two stories of creation in Genesis. I'll ask Hardiman to come online tonight to discuss this. After he watches the Simpsons and King of the Hill, unless football pre-empts. After all it is Sunday.

Then later on when everyone [exaggeration for effect] is all pissed off about the Bible being discussed at the Mudcat, I'll write that nifty post I've been thinking about since early spring, to settle down the chaos. It's about how one lives the Bible without taking it literally while taking it literally. Oh yeah. Not kidding. Two Mudcatters made comments about this awhile back that got me started thinking how to say, here, what I already say about this with Christian and non-Christian 3D friends, so like it or not, it's coming, and a comment in this thread makes it topical as... heck!

We'll also e-mail the lady in case she doesn't come back to post, and ask her to please do so.

Can't wait to see everyone else's thoughts on this! Go for it!

~S~

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:12 PM

Tradition has it that the land was peopled by a race of giants, and that Adam had a first wife, Lilith, by whom the human race was propagated, thus creating people for Cain to marry.

Hence the name of Frasiers' monolithic wife......

LTS

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: RWilhelm
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:12 PM

The Bible, like the I Ching, has survived for centuries because it will tell you anything you want to hear.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:27 PM

PS, to my Christian pals here at the Mudcat-- let's not get nuts over what people say about the Book, OK? Thread creep can be interesting, and I know that the topic will creep past the lady's question, but let's not add our own upset to any upset that starts, huh?

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Hardiman the Fiddler
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 06:15 PM

Well, even though it is Sunday, Praise talked me into adding my two cents worth to this thread. Probably will pi** a lot of folks off, but here goes.

Scholars all generally concede that the Book Genesis is prehistory, and they generally regard it using a ten-dollar theological term: Genesis is an etiological mythology. An example of this treatment of Genesis can be found by a foremost scholar in the field. Gerhardt von Rad wrote what many consider the definitive word in the study of Genesis.

The gist of it, boiled down into layman's terms, is that there are powerful truths conveyed in the mythos of the stories of Genesis, but we would do well not to try to tax the thread of the storytellers by insisting on the total historical accuracy of their stories. And there are four definitive strains of storytellers to be found in Genesis: the Yahwistic, the Elohistic, the priestly, and the Deuteronomic. Sometimes their stories agree, and sometimes there are differences in their stories.

It was the Deuteronomists who redacted (or edited) the stories into one seamless narrative. So we tend not to notice right off that there are two creation stories, Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis Chapter two. We tend to get confused because there are also two versions of the stories of Noah and the Ark, and we don't tend to know enough about the epic of Gilgamesh to fully appreciate them anyway. Instead, we go looking for some silly old ark remains somewhere!

The gist of the idea is that the story of Cain and Abel is meant to answer the question about hatred for one's brother and murder. It addresses the issue about the quality of the sacrifice that each brother offered to God. It does not address the issue of their wives. (Sorry, ladies, the wives are not mentioned because they are unimportant to the story.) There is finally the idea that God does punish sin and murder, and so the story is an etiological mythology explaining that:

1. hatred between siblings exists in the world,

2. even if you hate your brother, murdering him is not a good idea,

3. there is an element of retributive justice before God who expects that we answer before him for what we have done, and

4. that we are indeed our brother's keeper---in that we do not live in splendid isolation, but we are intimately connected with one another in the family of man. (Kind of akin to John Donne's famous meditation, number 10 I think it was, "ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

So in summary, there is much of value in Genesis, even if it is not generally regarded as history, as we regard history these days. And I don't mean to dismiss it as "well it is only a myth," unless of course you mean myth as Gerhardt von Rad defines myth, or Joseph Campbell does.

Cheerio,

Greg

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 06:29 PM

A reply to Murray Macleod:

As an interesting footnote to the history of creationism vs. evolution, there was a book called "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot," written by Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888) in 1857. Omphalos is the Greek word for navel.

Gosse was both a serious biologist and a conservative Christian who took the Bible literally, a member of the Plymouth Brethren. His book was meant to reconcile evolution theory and creationism. He believed in both, in a manner of speaking.

He believed that God created the earth roughly 6,000 years ago, and that God also intended evolution to proceed from that point. Furthermore, God deliberately designed the earth to look exactly AS IF it were millions of years old, and designed living organisms to look AS IF they had arisen by evolution. He did this because He wanted people to study fossils, rocks, and living organisms, and thereby come to understand how evolution works, so that we can use that knowledge to our advantage in the future.

Therefore, according to this theory, Adam and Eve DID have navels, the trees in the Garden of Eden had growth rings, rocks had strata, and fossils already existed.

I haven't read "Omphalos" but I have read "Father and Son: A Study of Two Temperaments," a very interesting memoir by Edmund Gosse (1849-1928), his son, written in 1907. It was recently reprinted as a Penguin paperback.

According to Edmund Gosse, his father seriously hoped both evolutionists and creationists would accept his theory, and that it would put an end to all disputation between them. He was shocked and devastated by the fact those critics on both sides rejected his ideas and even ridiculed them. Scientists didn't like his theory because it was untestable; religious people didn't like it because (in their eyes) it made God appear to be a liar.

Here is an article called The Rejection of Omphalos: A Note on Shifts in the Intellectual Hierarchy of Mid-Nineteenth Century Britain.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Zebedee
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 06:46 PM

Greg,

Interesting stuff. In a way I hate getting drawn into this because it is a recipe for endless sqabbles.

But a couple of points.

Jesus, (if the gospels are to be believed) took Genesis in the literal sense. Are we therefore not to take them literally?

Would you honestly be saying this if a huge amount of evidennce didn't force you to? - ie if evidence that further parts of the bible were historically incorrectcame to light, would you stop believing them?

Sure, there may be 'much of value' in Genesis. There's also much of value in Shakespeare. Is it the 'word of God' or not?

Finally, could you please define the way your using the word 'etiological' I'm not familiar with the term and the definitions in my dictionary don't really fit with what you are saying. I'd be grateful if you could explain what you mean.

Many thanks

Zeb

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Thyme2dream
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 07:21 PM

Praise, I haven't really mentioned this before, but as a general rule, something you post here blesses me almost daily, from the practical to the downright deep and spiritual. thanks:-)! Hardiman, thanks for adding your scholarly insight as well. Zeb, JimD, Liz, Clinton, Gary and all, everyone's thoughtful and interesting comments have made what could have turned quicky into a melee quite a cool thread!!

Even tho I have seen a few squabbles here an there when the religion question pops up , overall Mudcatters seem to be fair and respectful about things---I like being able to read all sides of the issues without strife! It makes sense to me that these things should be discussed here, people who love folk music are by nature spiritual folks of some sort and are certainly not the type of people to avoid issues!

Thanks all for your input,what a wonderful place:-)!

Karla

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Guest still
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:28 PM

For those of us who believe in reincarnation, there are 3 booklets by Eula Allen, based on the readings of Edgar Cayce, titled, "Before the Beginning", "River of Time", and "You Are Forever". They will knock your socks off with what is revealed about who we are, where we came from, and where we're going. I will not comment any more on the subject as I think every person has the right to their own beliefs. (I bought my copies about 25 years ago at the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach.) Regards, Guest still

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:45 PM

Zeb,

Hardi will have to wrestle me away from the cookie to get back into this one. Your question also goes to the piece I am working on. Please be patient. We aren't ducking.

Jim Dixon, I love the idea you advance in that book's description, and I am going to look into it further. I always seem to head for the middle to help two warring sides see each other's essential humanness. This could be a great help to me in that, thank very much.

T2D-- thanks! I used to be quite a bull in the china shop!

G-g-s, I found it really interesting that you chose to post that in a thread that didn't really have to do with reincarnation. I'm not complaining or taking you to task. But if I did that in a thread about reincarnation or pagan holidays-- used it as an opportunity to promote my faith-- I think I'd be sorry I'd done it in short order, and not just because I don't like flames any more than the next person. I do post openly as a Christian whenever I do post, in whateever way seems to be on the topic at hand, but I would not head into a thread on others' beliefs to do it. Should I? Do you think maybe I have been too timid in the name of restraint, respect, and reality? Just curious what you think, and since you wrote in such a reasoned tone I think we could talk about it effectively. Maybe this is not the place. But as a guest, you can't PM. Feel free to say more to me though in e-mail, OK? I'd welcome hearing from you.

~Susan

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Charcloth
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:55 PM

you will find your answer in Gen. 5:4 "and he begat sons & daughters" Adam & Eve had other children besides Cain Able & Seth. Therefore Cain married his sister, this is before the genepool was poluted & it wasn't until The law of Moses came to be that is was forbidden to wed your near relative. For a further study you could try contacting www.answersingenesis.org they even have a booklit that goes into detail about it. Best wishes, Charcloth

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 09:43 PM

Zeb, I'm going to throw in a definition of etiological which I hope Praise will feel more than free to edit. ( It's from Winters&Griffin in an EFM Year One Hebrew Scriptures)
"A story that explains how a word came about is called by scholars an etymological legend or myth.... A story that explains the origins of a thing, a place, a custom, or almost anything else, is called an aetiological (or etiological) legend or myth."
When I first examined Genisis I found myself VERY concerned and upset over the jumpy nature of the point of view, and the gaps in story line, and historical, well... uncertainty. For me going back to read the Hebrew scholars who currently study the material was an enormous help. Looking at the Hebrew tradition of Midrash... Interpretive stories to explain scripture by learned Rabbis ( correct me if this isn't quite right someone). Gives a great understanding of where the Parables come in context.
For me this was an area that the deeper I studied the more facinating it got and the "sticky" details took on less and less importance in the light of the greater mythological? insights that seemed to keep coming and coming.
Whoops I'm going on way too long.....Sorry, but I really love this stuff.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 09:49 PM

Tink, I would not dream of editing you. If I weren't so wore out I'd pick up where you left off. You go on ahead. I love seeing how you think... share what you know, please!

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Hardiman the Fiddler
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 10:02 PM

Hi everyone,

I see that Tinker did a handsome job in answering the question of what is meant by "etiological" for Zeb, so I'm going to answer some of Zeb's questions as briefly as I am able. First, I do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I do believe that men (and women) were the vehicles through which that word was proclaimed. That's probably a lengthy discussion for another quite long thread!

Secondly, there is the issue of whether my belief would be changed if parts of the Bible were to be challenged. The premise of this argument is that old song, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so..." Now, I've got nothing against that as a song for children. It is just that as one matures in faith, there is a liklihood that the grounding of one's belief is apt to become more complex. Maybe it is because life as an adult becomes more complex. The grounding of my faith is not really based on the Bible, but is more existentially grounded. The short course might be to say that the overwhelming evidence leads me to a life of faith, and I am glad to read in the Bible about those others who struggled with and tried to live that life of faith. Again, this could be the subject of an entire book, but I'm not going to go on more about it here. I figure 'nuff said!

Greg

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Troll
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 10:20 PM

I just want to say that I think you need to be very careful when you go inquiring about another man's wife.

troll ***BG***

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: BigDaddy
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 12:29 AM

Praise, you remind me of the best of my Christian forebears. And that's a h*ll of a compliment. Emily Harrison, I used to ask my Sunday school teachers the same question. Also, how could God destroy entire cities that must have contained innocent women, children and pets, why don't we hear more about Jesus' siblings (yes, they are there in the Bible), if God is omniscient, how can He hold it against us what we do, allow airline crashes, wars, child abuse, etc. Now, years after much study and soul-searching, life is beginning to make sense (or, as Hemingway characters are prone to say, "I was really learning fast there towards the end"). Anyway, don't look for literal truths and facts in written texts. Read between the lines and find nuggets of truth and wisdom. Live the golden rule as best you can. Know that God is love (really). And bless you for seeking and caring.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 01:45 AM

Of course if we follow the history as in the bible, most of the offspring were wiped out and we have to follow Noah's line as everbody else was killed in the flood...

Jon

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 01:51 AM

Well golly BD, thanks! Say, those ARE the tough questions, aren't they? What answers did you come up with for some of those? For me they fall into the general category of, "God is not responsible to us, we are responsible to Him." Because He gave us the greatest gift, the quality of His that is the most powerful-- FREE WILL. I believe it is even more powerful than love, although using it in and for love is amazing... Without free will, we don't count for much in anything, but with it-- !!!! And because we have that, He is not responsible for us; rather we are responsible for ourselves.

I am party to a situation now that helps me begin to see God's love in action, in correction. It's a hard one. Yet I can see, if I step back from my own feelings about it, that His correction in a specific situation I know of, one of amazing stubbornness and pride and using the will to harm, on purpose-- that for Him to correct the people involved rather than let them do MORE harm, is love not only for those they would harm but for those bent on doing harm, as well.

I see it because I can see all the power I have in that situation, and how the use of it would not really change the root problems, which are the hearts of the people involved. So it is in great love and sorrow that I hold back the hand that could change the thing, and with equally great love and sorrow that I stop interceding for them with God and stand back to bless His work to correct them.

You see, they have been loved as far as this woman is capable, and prayed for, and interceded for with God and with earthly powers that should have great influence over them. And yet they have organized their wills to harm, and only when they are stopped from doing this will they be able to look inside themselves to begin changing their hearts humbly.

I used to worry about why God had not stopped Hitler early, and personally. Now I see the decisions people made that led to his formation and rise, and all the people who were in a position to stop all of that, and didn't, and didn't ask God's help to do it. A lot of people suffered not because God would not lift His finger, and instead left us to our own devices and wills. They suffered because PEOPLE people would not lift their voices.

It makes me think twice before getting all riled up about the Old Testament corrections. If we wrote a testament now, looking back on WWII, might we say God had destroyed Germany, meaning that His correction had come at the hands of the Allies but had been His purpose? If we think of bombed out Dresden, does it sound like the OT?

I try to live the parts of the Bible I do understand, and I find that doing this helps me understand the parts that are hard to understand.

I also think it's like this. Imagine you came to Mudcat and spent a lot of time here and read everything and tried to understand it. Then imagine that you actually got to know Max, real well. Worked with him. Had lunch with him a couple of times a week. Sat with him while he dreamed up new things. Helped dream them up. Had him love your ideas and make them part of this place. Once you did that, it would change your whole perception of the place, and especially everything Max wrote here and why it is all organized like it is.

Don't you find that when you meet other Catters, your perception of their Cat-posts shifts to another level? It's like that with the Bible. When you live in relationship with Jesus, it all makes sense in a different way. Not all at once. But it unfolds.

There is more to say. I think this is enough for now. I know it is already more than some good people I love dearly will be able to tolerate. But if this is not the thread to speak openly in, I'm in the wrong forum. Max? Thanks for leaving us all our freedom here at the Mudcat. Lunch sometime?

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 08:52 AM

Time for a reminder that there is a folk tie in to this. The early books of the Old Testament, especially Genesis are a codified version of Oral Tradition that was passed among the people with only a rare and precious written record. Hardiman mentioned the Four Storytellers, but more importantly (In my opinion) is the fact that over thousands of years they edited each other until it was distilled to the message that remains today. Unfortunately (in my mind) the last of the editors were the Deutoronimist who were desperately trying to bring the people back to the law and to God. My problem?? well sometimes I just envision a committee of lawyers deciding what was important and it doesn't engender confidence.
But the old testament coming from the oral tradition is a place where the folk music tradition has come again and again for song stories. Noah and Moeses clearly have more than their share of songs.Adam and Eve have several here in the DT. It's important to remember that humor runs throughout the old testament and even though we loose most of the puns and word plays in translation they seem to reappear in the music. Perhaps it has something to do with the work of that Cosmic Muse?
In the interest of study, reading through the "Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten books of Eden " can be fascinating. These are text from the first 4-5 centuries which were rejected by the various church councils as official scripture for a varied of reasons. Many may be novels written around the historic personages of the Bible, others lack the verification of multiple copies or simply espouse ideas that were unpopular. I'm pretty sure Barnes and Noble has a copy. But there are stories of great detail that fill in the gaps. If not with historical accuracy, in a way that met the understandings of their times.
Well Praise you said to go on... but now the mundane and housecleaning goes on.
Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 08:58 AM

Hello again.
Susan, I am not attempting to "promote" my faith, and I am a Christian. I thought all were welcome to answer your post and it is not my intention to fill the Mudcat with my personal opinions. The reason I addressed those who believe in reincarnation is that I did not want to end up writing chapters here on what is already available in books. As to your request in your first post, all the answers for us who believe in reincarnation are within the Allen booklets.
As for the Bible, I believe it is inspired by God and can be taken literally, or interpreted at another level, using the symbology to bring an even broader meaning to it. I was an atheist who grew up in the pits of misery. I had no reason to believe in an all loving God, at least, that is what I thought. It was by learning about reincarnation and the law of Cause and Effect that I came to God.
I am sorry for taking up space in your post but I just wanted to share what I found to be most profound information with fellow members who share my beliefs in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
God bless. Gs

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 09:49 AM

A remarkably well-behaved thread.

Anyway...Just a reminder and for the record. The literal interpretation the beginning of Genesis is a relatively modern phenomenon. It is one of the legacies of the Reformation. For most of the history if Genesis it has not been taken literally by either Jews or Christians. The first big name in non-literal interpretation was probably Philo of Alexandra, AKA Philo Judaeus (ca 50 BCE to ca 50 CE). He didn't invent non-literal interpretation, he was simply the most prolific writer of the "mainstream" approach of that time. He mentions literal interpretation as a possibility but dismisses it as naive and dangerous. His example was followed by all the major figures of the Christian theological tradition until after the Reformation.

Literalists are definitely the new kids on the block.

Russ (no axes to grind here folks)

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 09:54 AM

Ya' know, we can't even tell a story the same way twice so why would anyone think they'd find historical accuracy in a book that has gone through all the editings, versions, revisions, and translations that the Bible has over all these many years? Overall, iots a pretty fine book of stories and parables expressing a moral code of conduct that has some merit. I'd find it pleasant if folks would consider and take action in their lives by using the stories to figure out some ways that we might all get along and treat each other with some modicum of empathy, compassion, and truth. A little more time living the parables and finding the truths they hold would make for a lot friendlier and loving world than delving into a story whose accuracy as history just don't hold water.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 09:59 AM

I appreciate the uncommon wisdom in what Susan has shared.

As my seminary experience was with a creationist/young earth seminary, I thought I might share my $0.02. I don't claim to speak for all young earth/creationist types, just address some of the questions raised here from a different perspective.

1. It is clear from numerous threads that the majority of mudcatters have no problem believing things that cannot be explained by the current understanding of natural law. We just differ on which supernatural phenomena we believe and who or what is(was) the cause. The doubts we may or may not have about the veracity of the Bible therefore, usually are not rooted in its scientific accuracy.

2. Familiarity breeds contempt. Those of us who were raised in a society with a high degree of protestant influence are also familiar with its practitioners and its (their) foibles. On the other hand, we tend to be very gracious, even fascinated with religions we find to be more exotic because they are not humanized (we don't know the practitioners personally).

3. A specific Creationism is not a "Fundamental" as in "Fundamentalist". It is not part of any of the creeds with which I am familiar. Incidentally, fundamentalist is almost meaningless now except as a broad-brush perjorative with which to paint any religious group who dares actually BELIEVE what it says it does. It's easier to use the "fundy" tag than to actually discuss differences. For their (Fundy's) part there is lots of broad-brush painting going on on their canvases too--it's always easier to learn your beliefs by contrasting them against other's--problem is, you probably aren't a very objective describer of another's beliefs.

4. If you accept, as a starting point, an evolutionary model of an intellectually improving mankind, then much of the early Genesis taken literally will create a problem. But technology is not the same thing as intellect. On the surface we seem to keep getting smarter, and we do seem to have a better handle on understanding some of our natural world than we did even 100 years ago. But with each technological leap we make we also lose knowledge previously gained. An incomplete example of this is that we are probably the last generation to know how to use a slide rule. I have had a car for transportaion all my life and know nothing of the care of horses. Sometimes new technologies even replace good older technologies--note the resurrection of alternative medicines. To date, we still cannot accurately descibe how the pyramids were built. All this to say that the young earthers accept a model of a humanitity and an earth vastly different from the world of the twentieth century (and not necessarily primitive as we think of primitive).

5. Rather than accepting as fact that because there is a universal flood "mythology" and that the writers of the Bible must therefore have borrowed the story, they would contend that it's easier to believe that there WAS a flood, accurately described in the Bible, and referred to universally in other's mythology. They believe in a world vastly different pre-flood. For example; a. Mankind regularly survived to ages in excess of 500 years. In the earliest generations he suvived past 900 years--Methusela, though the oldest, was by no means the only one to survive past 900 years--Adam himself did. b. Supernatural phenomenon were a matter of course. Seraphim guarded the entrance to the post-fall Garden of Eden. Adam and Noah talked verbally with God. The sons of god took the daughters of man and generated giants (thought by some to referrence supernatural bonding with angels). c. Natural phenomenon was vastly different. Dinosaurs were on the earth. There was a more universally even climate because there was a different atmosphere. Even geography was different--post flood there is no evidence of an Eden.

The shorter answer to the original question is(may be) Adam and Eve lived to 900 years reproducing all the while. Their offspring of age intermarried and, living 900+ years themselves and reproducing all the while, and their offspring, once of age reproduced their 800+ years, the world was being populated at a pace with which are not familiar today. We are given no chronology that would lead us to believe that the Cain/Able story occured in the first, second, third, of fourth hundred years of their existence.

Clearly, this doesn't change anything about the "where we are now" addressed by Hardiman's post. It's just my hope that some of you be made aware that the young earth folk are not the inferior intellects that some of you seem to think of them. Besides, they have some interesting food for thought in their theories.

John

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:44 AM

I agree this has been a thread notable for its free and respectful discussion. And Gs, your reply was SO illuminating; I hope you did not feel attacked by my post because I really was very curious and tried to express that foremost. You can see that a certain defensiveness I have unfortunately developed here at the Mudcat had influenced my view of your reason for writing. I need to work on that even more than I already do.

This is great. I will remember the tenor of this thread for a long, long time.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:53 AM

Yeah, well Praise its great you remember the tenor, but who sang the alto part?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: bydand
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:54 AM

This has be a remarkably well-behhaved thread.
And like so many of these discussions; the purpose, I believe, is to have a discussion - not to prove anything conclusively to anyone, nor to push a personal point
What I have learned about the Bible in these issues is this:
It is neither a scientific treatise, nor a book that explains the how.
What it claims to be is a book about Who started everything, and explains some of the reasons for Gods relationship with his creation.
Thank you Gary T or your comments; we really do need to use our minds to get at the hows, doing the best that we can in that area.
One final comment: in Romans chapter 14, there is a impassioned plea to let God do the judging, and man be understanding and accepting.
That is what drew me to join the Mudcat in the first place; and still keeps me here.
Thanks, Charles

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Emily Harrison
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 11:23 AM

Thank you all so very much. This has been a most amazing experience for me and it all happened so quickly, thanks to all of you.

I am the daughter of a Jewish mother and Catholic father, although neither is at all religious. I grew up celebrating the major holidays of both religions but with no real grounding in the faith of either.

In the last several weeks, I've felt a need in my life to find belief. But certain things bothered me, such as the question that I asked. I needed explanation.

All through yesterday I read your responses to my questions and followed the internet links that some of you supplied. The answers filled in many of the blanks for me.

I went to bed last night thinking about all of this. In my dream, I began to understand ny faith and the truth it holds. Jesus himself was revealed in my dream.

When I woke up this morning I realized that I've been born again in the faith of our Lord. Until now, I had never understood what being "born again" meant.

I now know that I was drawn to Mudact to ask the question that would draw me to the Lord. All of you who answered helped the Lord in pointing me to the fold. I thank you all of you.

Emily [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 02:22 PM

Emily, if I can be any help or a companion on your way, please let me know.

~Susan

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM

I think we can be certain that Abel's wife wasn't a mail-order bride, since postal systems hadn't been invented yet at that time.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM

Aw geez, another convert to the opposition.......and I helped. Damn, makes me feel like I voted for Nader and helped Bush get elected. Okay Praise....She's all yours.

And Emily........Whatever you believe and for whatever reason, be happy and take strength from it. Any belief that leaves you with less is a burden to yourself and everyone else. May happiness and security always be yours.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:12 PM

Spaw, yer startin' tuh scare me now.

~S~

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:22 PM

I am? Geez Praise, I don't even have my Halloween costume on yet or anything..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:37 PM

What I'm about to say is not a sarcastic/snide comment... Emily, I wish I had a belief like that, really, all or at least in part written down in a book, but I haven't found it yet. Maybe I'm a little jealous, but things just seem so complicated to me. Seems like whenever I start believing is something, something else comes along and says, "hey, what about this..." and I start all over. I guess I'm wishywashy. I've always been a bit envious of hardcore "believers".

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:39 PM

PS, this thread got me to pick up the old Bible, haven't looked at in years. hehe

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: bydand
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 03:53 PM

You know, LG, I don't know about hardcore believers, but here is something I have learned: The God of the Bible really likes honesty. If you will just tell Him that you just aren't sure, (in a simple conversational way), and ask Him to make Himself real to you in a manner that you can understand and relate to, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Since we all come from different perspectives and life experiences, there really is no one single "revelation" that will make sense to everyone; no "one size fits all".
-charles

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 04:09 PM

Spaw... there are so many sensible people posting in this thread now, that ummm... I dunno, but I feel an urge to get silly and lighten it all up! What do I do NOW??? I don't DO that schtick, I always muff it up when I try!!!

I appreciate you as never before! Scary!!!

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Murray Macleod
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 05:40 PM

Tinker, having spent every Sunday of my childhood and early adolescence attending church three times, and being forced to spend the remaining hours of the day doing nothing but reading the Bible, I have, I think, a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the Old Testament, so your assertion that "it is important to remember that humor runs through the Old Testament" leaves me perplexed. I don't remember breaking out into a smile once, let alone laughing. ( And I LOVE Jewish humor !) I would be grateful if you would elucidate with one or two examples of the humorous bits.

Murray

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: bydand
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 06:37 PM

Aw come on, Murray, haven't you heard that the first baseball game is mentioned in Genesis 1: "In the big inning"; and in Job we find the shortest man alive: "Bildad the shuhite (shoe height)"
As for the Jewish humor, most of the prophets used irony frequently in their writings. The problem is that we miss it for having to read translations that do not translate the funnies.
Since none of us will probably learn Hebrew, we'll just have to miss the best laughs. But they are there.
Oh, and somewhere in the Psalms it says of God that He laughs. One reference that comes to mind is this verse: "He who sets in the heavens laughs".God has to have a sense of humor; I notice whenever I look in a mirror.
charles

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 07:08 PM

Well, I will have to take your word for it, I suppose. What about the New Testament, any humor there? Again, not to my recollection. And let's face it why should there be any humor in the Bible anyway? Sacrificing your only begotten son must have been a fairly depressing experience, I would have thought.

Murray

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 07:37 PM

Murr, I think since you addressed your question to Tinker it may be that others will await her reply before wading in too far to answer your question on humor. Personally I am eager to hear what she has to say. But I know Hardiman probably has some good stuff to share. Only problem, he's conducting a bereavement workshop this evening!

~S~

Subject: RE: Bible question
From:
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 08:24 PM

Yes he had a belly button. When you come out of the oven, the angels test you to see if you are done Thats what leaves the dent.

I dont think Adam had one..or eve.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 08:37 PM

So in that case the "Outties" would be what? A "Pop-Up Timer"???????

Spaw

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 08:47 PM

Murray MacLeod,

1Sam 15:12-16 is seen by many to be a rather humorous interchange between Sam and Saul about the nature of rationalization and "doing God's will". If you read it as such you can hear the humor in Sam's "So...uh...what is that bleating in my ears?"

The interchange between Jesus and the pharisees who caught the "woman in sin" is also seen by many to be the same wry humor, as is Jesus' description of "remove the beam (2x4) from your own eye before removing the speck from someone else's".

If you find this of help I'll try to come up with more.

regards,

John

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: pict
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 09:13 PM

The Bible has as many interpretations as it has readers same for the Koran etc.Scholars argue about the actual translations of these texts so what we get to read after it's been through ancient Hebrew,ancient Greek,Sanskrit,Aramaic,Latin,Gaelic,English,Spanish etc etc etc may not be what the original author actually wrote.If we spent our time trying to deal with the problems that face mankind with intelligence and foresight instead of with ready made dubiously translated moral codes handed down from radically different times and cultures to our own,we would probably get on a whole lot better as a species.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:12 PM

Okay, after over four hours in the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and then finding that my computer could not figure out to connect to either server for hours and hours I can finally come back and try to answer your question. Oh, Yes the God of the Old Testament and the New(let's not forget it's the same one ) can dance and sing and laugh. And I do comiserate, the wonderfully mystical God of my Roman Catholic childhood seemed a pretty sober guy.
But let's look at Jonah, it's one of the few places where you don't need to go back to the original Hebrew to get the humor. If you're familiar with Jewish humor try just reading it out loud. (It's only two pages so it's not a big thing) Here is a "Hero" who says the right words and then runs in the opposite direction
We've got God giving Jonah a job that he refuses and runs away. So God sends a storm and in the end the sailors send him overboard to save themselves. So God sends a fish to swallow him up please recite Jonah's Prayer from the belly of the great fish with a tad of irony... think of where he is coming from and where he is...Oh, and spewed is a really polite translation , he was vomited.
Now the petulant prophet finally goes to prophesise to the people of Ninevah that they need to repent and when they listen to him he goes off to pout because God didn't destroy the city. Read 4:1-4 . And really think about the voice tones going on here. There is a bit of attitude. Imagine telling this in a campfire story. God grants him shade, and withers it away. Jonah is pissed again. God is clearly playing with him trying to get him back to where he needs to be. The closing line...
" And should I not be sorry for the great city of Nineveh, with its hundred and twenty thousand who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and cattle without number."
You're sorry for a plant and I shouldn't care for the stupid people and thier cattle.... Brings me up a bit short everytime.
Unfortunately when it gets preached in the Christian tradition it often gets slanted into a Yes Jesus Loves me moral and the Cattle are totally forgotten, and we start seeing a viscious God chasing him all over the place shouting How dare you defy me. When we taught this a camp this summer I had a huge late night battle with the ordained amongst us that we couldn't present it as new testament. In the end we had sailors rocking a boat, tossing Jonah into a great fish water slide and a Godly choir singing"I changed my mind I won't destroy to ...."(Sippin Cider tune) And God's response to Jonah's pout...read 4:11 and add "Hey ain't that Funky now".
Did it work? Well, later in the week one of the kids summed up the story as "God is kinda like a Godfather sometimes, you can run but you can't hide." For a kid from 'Jersey I don't think that's too bad.
The Torah is traditionally brought out in dance. An old proverb teaches that they who dance are thought mad by those who do not hear the music. We hear the music. We can dance with God.
Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Marion
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:57 PM

As for New Testament humour... I've always liked the part where Jesus appears to his disciples in a locked room after the resurrection, and they're all shocked and staring and speechless, and Jesus says: "Do you have anything here to eat?"

(Luke 24:41)

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 12:11 AM

Personally I always thought that a plague of frogs was pretty funny, and of course don't forget the locusts (a hilarious insect). Had I been ol' Pharoah though, I'd have told those Israelites to get their asses out of the country after the first warning. (wasn't it the staff into a snake trick?) That would have scared the Beejeezues out of me......but I guess that's why people like me don't become Pharoahs.

Rick

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Matt_R
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 12:18 AM

Cain! Nod! I GET IIIIIIT!!!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 01:05 AM

Guest Still, thanks for your postings. I am a firm believer in reincarnation and have enjoyed the writings of Edgar Cayce quite a lot.

I might also add that I prefer to think of a diety as a dual being, i.e. Mother-Father God, and occassionaly speak of She. There are several Christian churches which use this wording now.

katthepaganbuddhistrosicruciannativeamericanmetaphysicalmix

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 03:30 AM

Did you know they had automobiles in the time of the New Testament? Uh huh. And very large ones, I think. In one place it says that 3,000 gathered in one Accord.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 07:08 AM

Kat-- Until Exodus 6:2-4 when God gives Moses the name YAHWEH. The Hebrew word used is EL Shaddai. The Hebrew word shad means "breast", when God is refered to as El Shaddai the feminine attributes are formost. Wisdom is referred to as Sophia-- Lady Wisdom. There are others as well. Somehow when the guys were translating they didn't think it was important to keep the genderS straight.
Bet the guys here can do better than that.
Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: bydand
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 07:08 AM

Tinker, thanks for your posting! I'd forgotten about Jonah.Would have liked to see your camp presentation.
Ebbie, that was great. But 3,000? that kind of reminds me of the VW stuffing that was so popular back in the 60's.
charles

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Guest still
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 07:57 AM

Kat, I agree. I just didn't want to get into a dissertation of what I believe. I only wanted to convey that the booklets by Eula Allen are profound to the likes of you and me.
May Jesus, the Christ, bless our journey, and be a constant companion of all. Gs

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Emily Harrison
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 09:25 AM

I'm sorry, but I'm now very confused and unsure as to whether or not I was born again.

I went to bed last night feeling very good and thinking about just how much Jesus loves me. Again, Jesus came to me in my dream. But this was very different.

In this dream, Jesus came as a man and made sexual love to me.

When I woke up this morning, I was in a state of confusion. Why would Jesus do such a thing?

Yesterday, I was so happy in my belief. Now after only one day, I don't know if I can believe.

Emily [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 11:56 AM

Emily, if I can be any help or a companion on your way, please let me know. I'd love to talk to you on the phone, if only to thank you for sparking off this great thread.

No one who has been born again into the Risen Lord would confuse Him with a man coming to you in a dream making love to you.

Jesus is all Truth.

~Susan

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 12:29 PM

Jonah is the first comic short story in history. There is a pun in it if you write it in cuneiform (or akkadian or something -- this was in college and it was a long time ago). Anyway, the word "Ninevah" (the city Jonah goes to) and the word "vomit" (what the fish does to Jonah) are a pun in some ancient language from the middle east (learned this in my Hebrew class in college).

You have to have a good imagination. Here is this guy who's been in the belly of a fish (or whale - the ancient Hebrews, being hydrophobic, didn't distinguish between fish and marine mammals -- it was all "stuff that swims" as far as they were concerned) for 3 days. He's got seaweed in his hair. His hair is probably half-bleached from the digestive juices of the fish. His clothes ditto. He staggers into Ninevah and says, "Repent!"

Wouldn't you?

More humor in the Bible: the best story in the bible too. Don't know why this hasn't been turned into a made-for-television movie. Judges 3:15-26, the story of Ehud the Left-Handed and Eglon the Fat. (parentheticals in italics are my explinations; again learned in my Hebrew class).

15 Again the Israelites cried out to the LORD, and he gave them a deliverer--Ehud, a left-handed man, the son of Gera the Benjamite. The Israelites sent him with tribute to Eglon king of Moab.

16 Now Ehud had made a double-edged sword about a foot and a half [5] long, which he strapped to his right thigh under his clothing. (Note: generally a right-handed man straps the sword to his LEFT thigh; this is how he gets through the metal detectors and into the king's presence with a sword)

17 He presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab, who was a very fat man.

18 After Ehud had presented the tribute, he sent on their way the men who had carried it.

19 At the idols near Gilgal he himself turned back and said, "I have a secret message for you, O king." The king said, "Quiet!" And all his attendants left him.

20 Ehud then approached him while he was sitting alone in the upper room of his summer palace and said, "I have a message from God for you." As the king rose from his seat,

21 Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh and plunged it into the king's belly.

22 Even the handle sank in after the blade, which came out his back. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it.

23 Then Ehud went out to the porch [8] ; he shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them.

24 After he had gone, the servants came and found the doors of the upper room locked. They said, "He must be relieving himself in the inner room of the house." (They hear his dying groans and think he's dumping a load! If this isn't humor, I don't know what is!)

25 They waited to the point of embarrassment, but when he did not open the doors of the room, they took a key and unlocked them. There they saw their lord fallen to the floor, dead.

26 While they waited, Ehud got away. He passed by the idols and escaped to Seirah.

---

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Kim C
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 12:42 PM

I always thought the story about Balaam and the ass was kinda funny.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Davewilkes
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 12:44 PM

I think Emily was pulling all your legs. If she really was born again, I feel sorry for her -and her mother.

Just so you know the answer to her question:

The Hebrews did not consider non-Hebrews to be human. It was a mind set among a lot of people at the time and continues to the present day. Thus Cain married a non-human, or lesser creature.

By the way, the commandment usually rendered as, "Thou shalt not kill", actually reads, "Thou shalt not commit murder". It was not murder to kill someone of another tribe. This explains why their god could command the Hebrews to do all the killing they did.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 03:11 PM

Spaw, I'm still giggling about the pop-up timer. Gotta use that somewhere.

A Mexican man told me that when God made people, he baked the first batch too long and they came out too dark; that was the black people. So he was more careful with the next batch - and they were too light; that's the white people. One more batch- and they came out just right; that, he told me smugly, is the Mexican people.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 03:21 PM

REGARDING THE PULLING OF LEGS

There have been a number of hijinks around the Cafe for a long time. Earlier in my life, I found that sort of thing way fascinating. (In fact a whole year was spent working out a murder that had been listed as a suicide, but the eventual clear solution turned out to be unprovable and so what did that year gain me or anyone else?)

One day I met a man whose spirituality impressed me as a towering force, and he said something that arrowed into my heart and has guided me ever since (on a good day!). We were talking about some really nasty stuff at the time. He smiled with sad irony and twinkling wisdom, at the same time, and said, "Well I find it always works best to take people at face value, and respond honestly to what they say. The truth has a way of coming through, you know, in its own time. If you just do this, you might be surprised what happens as it plays out."

Thus my post just previous as well as the post inviting Emily to contact me earlier after the recounting of a born-again experience. (And thus some recent posts to people who seem to have disappeared once addressed openly and truthfully.)

Whatever or whoever is this thing with an Emily, truth is truth is truth, and Truth draws truth to it as much as it draws lies to assail it.

There is also a Holy Spirit gift called "Discernment of the Spirits" that, in use, reveals clearly what is of God and what is not of God, for instance what is "of us" ourselves or is of "unGodly" spiritual source. This is a useful gift to have if you have been so blessed which, when used humbly, can lead straight to truth through the most lovely and wondrously fascinating crap.

REGARDING THIS THREAD

This remains one of my alltime favorite discussions, at Mudcat or anywhere else. And I would really love to talk with the originator of this thread.

My suggestion would be that we continue on the great topics raised, and leave any concerns to prayer and PMs.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Emily Harrison
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 04:04 PM

I'm sorry that some of you think that I've been pulling your legs. I'm just an ordinary woman in conflict over whether I do, or can, believe.

I'm feeling a great deal of spiritual pain and it has not helped that I've received several hateful e-mail messages from people at Mudcat. Some of you are not at all nice people.

Emily [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 04:33 PM

Okay, you un-nice people, lay off Emily. Go practice your skepticism and nastiness in the political threads or something.

Em, you just ignore the jerks and listen to the nice ones. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

"And by this shall all people know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." -Jesus

Chin up, Em. Sunday's comin'.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 05:06 PM

Emily, will I be hearing from you? I'm right here.

~Susan

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 08:20 PM

Emily, at this time in history mystics and dreamers tend to meet with skepticism. But the amazing thing about this topic is that certainty of understanding most probably means you're wrong. By definition we cannot comprehend ! But hope and the vision of the future requires us to hold fast. Christian tradition has some wonderful women to guide a quest for knowledge. Juliana of Norwich, Hildegard of Bingen -- try just a quote or two to savor. There are wonderful glimpses of mystery.
God Speaks to the Soul
And God said to the soul:
I desired you before the world began.
I desire you now
As you desire me.
And where the desires of two come together
There love is perfected.
Mechthild of Madeburg
Keep searching
Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 08:45 PM

Thanks Tinker and GS.

A book I would highly recommend is The Metaphysical Bible Dictionary written by Charles Filmore and available at any Unity Church or by mail from their bookstore. It gives the literal and metaphysical meaning of pertinent words and names, based on the orginal Aramaic language. It also goes a bit beyond in how to use each word in a positive way in affirmations and such. It is a great reference volume to have around.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: little john cameron
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 09:21 PM

25yrs ago me an the wife came across this book.Ah'm no gaun tae try an explain it as it is a mind blower.As ye aw know it awfy hard tae put thoughts intae words withoot bein misunder stood,so ah'll jist leave ye wi the url.Take it fae me it is worth a look.
http://www.knox.net/knox/social/gfp/ILT_Excerpt.htm

As faur as ah'm concerned the answer tae aw yer quetions are in there. ljc

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Mbo's Uncle
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:03 AM

Hey Emily...

Any good dreams last night?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:11 AM

Hi Uncle, I'd love to hear from you, too.

~S~

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:20 AM

For those of you still searching and trying to figure out how Jesus might best look in your life....CLICK HERE.

Work it out for yourself.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:36 AM

...with the utmost politeness let me say that this discussion belongs eleswhere on the web. Also, I would venture the opinion that this is a windup. Kind people, don't bother telling me not to read the thread. I don't even want to see this kind of title on the forum and I am highly offended by it. Once again, TAKE YOUR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS TO A FORUM ON RELIGION. politely, harpgirl

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:54 AM

Um, harpgirl, dearest, you have a right to be offended, but we also have a right to be offensive. Some people are doubtless offended when I see threads about condoms and such, but they don't try to play Topic Police about it.

The mudcat is a wonderful place for people to talk about all sorts of things. Sex, history, politics, SOAP fergoshsakes. Except extreme prejudice, it's hard to see what reason can be given to exclude religion from that list.

Swat my 'hind with a melon rind
But that's my penguin state-of-mind
--Berke Brethed (as Opus the Penguin)

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:58 AM

When I see this kind of post, harp, I always wonder. Do you go to all of the threads about spirituality to say that?

I also wonder, would you walk up to people discussing these topics at a folk venue of any sort, and tell them to take their discussion elsewhere? Would you have said this out under a tree late at night at the FSGW? If you did, what response do you think you might have gotten? I think if you had said it to me any anyone I'd have been talking with, we'd have laughed ourselves silly, but pulled you closer to laugh with us. I think our faces would have let you see how really silly your remark is, and it would have made for a fond memory.

Do you make this kind of remark in the workplace, when people who do the kind of work you do let loose a little to retain their humanity-- break it up guys, this is not the place to be human, here at the water cooler! Screw that coffee break, or if you must have coffee breaks, NO TALKING-- and do not bring your life issues into the place, get back to work now dammit!

Do you actually set yourself above Max, who has said over and over that this is a place where people decide for themselves what to discuss? Do you come into a thread like this instead of railing at Max for the decisions he has made, that allow you to be here also?

Asking politely. Because really, harp, I don't get you, and I would like to understand how this works in your head, I really would. I don't understand how the voice of an angel comes through such negativity, and I just have gotten to the point where I'd like to ask you these things openly. You can do so much good!!! Why do you tear down good things? Why would someone with your talent and skill and heart waste the time to do it when there is so much good needed, that you can do?

Regarding taking the discussion to a religious forum. Funny, I don't recall running into many Mudcatters there when I visit. Guess what-- I like the way Mudcatters, folkies, see, think about this topic. I want to know what they think. That's why I want to know what YOU think, too.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:02 PM

Calling me "Topic Police" is offensive, sir. I have a right to my opinion and I think this forum has been over run by evangelical christian fanatics. It's a topic I don't want to see on this forum and I can express myself as I see fit. People who use derisive terms such as the above intend to intimidate me into not expressing myself. Why is that approach more righteous?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:08 PM

This was a cool thread, it was only a matter of time before this crap started.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: little john cameron
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:13 PM

Oh my!! here we go again.Ah wis wonderin how lang this niceness wid last.
Praise,dinnae fash yersel aboot it.Check oot Hamlet,he wis the boy,wis he no. ljc

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:14 PM

...Susan, I think you don't get me because you think you are more right because you are a christian! This kind of dogma couched as it is in "Christian niceness" is what has kept us in religious wars for thousands of years. I am a Mudcatter and I don't want to see religious discussion on the forum. Calling my disagreement with your pushing your relgion on the forum negativity, is an underhanded way of negating my opinion because it doesn't agree with yours. I am not going to defend myself against your attacks on my charcter. You don't know me or anything about me. Don't assume you do just because I don't want to see religion discussed on this forum.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:15 PM

It's funny that the posts in this thread were anything but evangelistic. I did not see anyone trying to "save" Emily. Instead people's questions were answered and more questions came up and were answered, just like a discussion over music lore, and it even touched on folk themes such as the oral tradition.

It is still a cool thread. I think when I save it to my word processor I will leave all of it in. Even the part that looks so ugly.

Remember, friends, there is no need to get upset. One option is just to give thanks for the chance to have had the discussion.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:30 PM

Harp, remember when I wrote to you long ago pointing out that you don't know me, either? When I invited you to get to know me? When I said that I'd be glad to keep talking as long as it took to address your thoughts about religion, as long as it would be a two-way discussion and you would listen to me as well?

Have you not seen me address many forms of negativity at this forum, not just about Christianity?

You say I don't know you. I want to. Do you want to be known?

And can you please tell me how I have pushed anything on anyone? Have I ever started a thread, for instance, titled "How 'bout that Jesus?" "Let's all go to church" "What an idiot you are for not knowing my God"??? Cuz my sense is that I respond, not push. About this topic. Oh I can be real pushy about people believing in themselves, and taking risks, and being more open and close, but that's not from religion, that's from a host of other expereinces in my life, things you don't know about me.

I don't think I'm more right than you, but I do think I discuss more honorably. Because I am willing to go as far as it needs to go for people to get to the bottom of the stuff that looks like nonsense on the top. Underneath there is REAL SENSE. I count on that when I address you. I want to get to the REAL SENSE. I just want to know if you will put in the time and effort to communicate in a two-way fashion, that's all. Because to come into a discussion that is not causing any harm, and complain at it, and run off leaving the people in an uproar-- that IS negativity, whether you're upset that we're talking about God, sheepskins, or anything else on the mind of a fellow member of this community.

Positivity would be to find something you DO like or would like to support, and go say something nice or encouraging about it with the same clarity and energy you bring to comlaining and blaming. That's not Christian behavior, that's being part of a community in such a way that you contribute rather than tear down. It's easy to come knock over someone's blocks. I want to see you BUILD.

This is not a time-sensitive offer. You know how to find me. Or we can discuss it here. You brought it up. It's great to finally talk with you about it, in fact. Made my day. You. You did. You made my day.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:35 PM

Well, it did take three days for the thread to begin unraveling....Big Sigh..... Thanks guys this thread was alot of fun... as long as there are related songs in the DT no need for apologies. At Getaway one of the large informal song circles did Ol' Time Religion versifying every god/godess and sect past and present that anyone could think of. It was folk, it was fun, and with no apparent hurt feelings. Some of just are what we are. Life still goes on...

Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Emily Harrison
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:38 PM

Susan,

You are not being truthful when you say that no one has been trying to "save" me. You certainly have.

I've also received some very hateful e-mails since posting here.

I now think it was a big mistake to post here.

Thanks to all who replied with openness and honesty.

Goodbye.

Emily [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM

Just so you know, harp, I have to go offline for a bit. (I remember you got real mad once when we had a musunderstanding about my being on or offline when you thought you knew which it would be.) But I hope to see your response here so I can talk with you some more later.

This is not a time-sensitive offer.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:44 PM

Emily is not being truthful.

~S~

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Wang Chung
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:51 PM

I though this harpgirl person worked in the health care profession? I would have though that someone who is used to helping people wouldn't be so mean to others.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:00 PM

Susan, Here is my response. Go elsewhere to discuss your religious beliefs. This is a music forum. And no matter what you or anyone else says about my opinion, I am sticking to it. I don't want to read this stuff here. Period. I'm not mad. I just don't want to see it here. Why can't you accept this and stop trying to berate, intimidate,love-bomb, evangelize or otherwise manipulate me into thinking like you do? I am simply expressing my opinion. Refusing to discuss or to accept discussions of religion is not unGodly. That is all I have to say about this matter.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: little john cameron
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:12 PM

awfy strange that there wis aboot 90 post tae this subject afore the doodoo hit the fan.Dis that no tell ye somethin.
Ah also notice that the c/swallowin thread never went very far.That also tells ye somethin. ljc

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:25 PM

I don't have a problem with specific threads like this one, which are plainly named, but I do have to agree with harpgirl that lately it has seemed pretty evangelical christian around here, with some people bringing their religion into almost every post, no matter the type of thread.

Praise, I would ask you to please remember that we do not ALL have to "make nice and be friends." This is what it seems you've been trying to do whenever there is any kind of slightly rancorous discussion. It just feels as though you've gotten off balance and gone a little overboard.

Relax a little and don't try to be the One and Only who serves everyone, literally. You're going to get burnt out doing that and we don't want that to happen, plus we don't all need that service, esp. in the threads.

To everyone else, I would say, just as those of us who tried to start the Healing Circle and went through a holy war over it, please remember there are many who are not religious, who do not need to hear all about your religious experiences, in non-specific threads. If there is a specific request, such as this thread or the help for a friend type threads, fine, but otherwise, I personally would like to see less religious *testifying*.

Thank you,

kat

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:28 PM

I'm not a Christian myself, but I certainly don't have a problem with Christianity, or any other belief system, being discussed on this forum. Christianity has also informed a great deal of folk and blues music, so it seems to me that there's enough of a tie-in there to "legitimize" this discussion, if such is needed at all. Praise, I have always found you to be positive and encouraging to everyone you connect with on this forum, whatever the topic. Hang in there.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:48 PM

Various replies:

Hard to see how someone who says "do not discuss this topic here" is anything BUT a topic policeman. If you don't like the label, don't act like it. Religion is just as reasonable a topic for Mudcat as sex and politics and soap. Okay, Harpgirl, so you've made your opinion known. But the final call is Max's and he allows it. If you want to stop religion being discussed here, I suggest you take it up with Max. Any more about it in the threads and we'll have to consider it whining. Or worse.

By the way, I am NOT an evangelical Christian, thank you very much.

Kat, your point is well taken. Nevertheless, I fail to see what is so offensive about talking about one's beliefs, even in a thread that is not belief-o-centric. If your beliefs inform your opinions about a certain topic, then they are germane to a discussion of opinions about that topic. I was not here when the flame war erupted about healing circles (I'm not even sure what that means -- can somebody PM me and fill me in?) but if I were, I would be firmly on the side of free speech, even for people I disagree with or whose beliefs I don't share.

Praise, you keep being you, hon. I see no reason for you to edit who you are in order to make others happy.

The preceding is the personal opinion of the author and is not necessarily the position of Mudcat, Max, the Orthodox Church, or Mrs. Sergius Smedmeyer of Kamloops, British Columbia, if such a person exists.

I'm sorry this thread has disintegrated so badly. It was for the most part so pleasant. Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men aft gang agley.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:07 PM

People who know me know what I stand for, and are quite helpfully accurate in offering help and guidance. People who have avoided knowing me because of self-admitted prejudices invariably miss the mark. There is still no subsititute for really getting to know another human being.

In a way I am sorry that discussions about important matters end up being about "Praise at the Mudcat." (My ego is pretty big and I know I do it to myself as often as not. This time though I did not start this.) But in another way, it seems clear to me that it is handy to have a member of the group you have problems with handy for bouncing yourself off of, someone who will not go away mad when your prejudices eclipse your otherwise fine way of being with people. I don't mind this too much, because when you miss the mark so completely in estimating me you make it so simple to see that your feelings have little if anything to do with me.

One of these days I am going to find a way to help people see that you ALL wear your beliefs on your sleeve all the time, whether you name a deity, a belief structure, or any kind of ethos-- or don't. To say that Christians are so different in this that we deserve to be muzzled-- and that's what you ask us to do to ourselves-- is to lack this awareness at all. I've written about it before and you did not hear me. I chose the wrong way or the wrong day to say it-- either you could not or would not hear me-- but I believe that we will reach greater understanding if we persist in the attempt.

I've offered to leave this forum before. The day Max takes me up on it, I'm out of here. Till then I am a member of this community as much as your next door neighbor is a member of your 3D landscape. It's up to each person here how we deal with that reality about each other. I want you to remember the next time you accuse me of proselytizing and evangelization that I have not engaged anyone here who did not agree to be engaged.

Kat, you know that when you indicated you did not care to be friends, that was fine. And it has been the same with Harpgirl, and anyone else to whom I have extended the hand of human friendship. That's fine. It is fine with me to be friends with people who want to be friends, and there's no shortage there. How surprised you would be to learn that my agenda there is not people's salvation, but just they themselves as people. Maybe there are such good friends because their agenda is the same-- they look at me, not the banner they insist I must be waving overhead.

But you have undertaken to address me on this in an open thread. Don't expect me to indulge it in PMs with you from now on. If it is going to be open, thus it will be. You chose to open the door. Don't expect to wave your censoriuous placards in my face and me just stand there like an idiot. I am not an idiot, and I will keep expecting you to think at your best if it is to be openly discussed.

Yes, I actually expect people to make sense, and pulling off an attack or a rant, no matter how politely stated, is not discussion. It's opining. This is a place to discuss one's opinions, not just hang them up on the wall. (It's the cafe, not the toilet.) So if you want to hail Mudcat as a DISCUSSION forum, then discuss. If you don't like a topic, don't discuss it. If you want to espouse a viewpoint and have that discussed, open up a thread. Just like you tell people to do, Kat, when they complain about BS threads and want all-music topics. You can't turn around then and say only SOME kinds of non-music are OK, and expect to be taken seriously.

It isn't just thread-creep to hijack a thread where people are expressing and exploring a number of very diverse viewpoints, to complain that the thread or the discussion in it is not what YOU find appropriate. It's bitching, plain and simple, and how that serves this community you have not made me see.

I suspect what you are really pissed off about is that twice in this thread I urged Christian friends to excercise restraint to keep this a productive discussion. You don't mind if others do this, when flaming is at hand. But you set us apart. Just because we are Christians and you see your own fears instead if the neighbors we are. Well I do not live bound by your fear. That is yours to deal with yourself.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Matt_R
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:49 PM

The other night on HearMe, Max himself asked me if I knew what Mudcat was about. I said "Yeah, music." And Max said "No, Mudcat is about LOVE." So, I post my favorite song by the Oak Ridge Boys.

A smile never goes out of style
So brighten up the one that you wear
Let it shine
And you just might find
You'll lighten up the load that you bear.

You know with all the trouble and sorrow in the world
It seems like the least we can do
Just take that smile into the street
And share it with everybody you meet.

Everyday I want to shake somebody's hand
Everyday I want make somebody know that they can
Yes they can
Everyday I want to try
To show my brothers and sisters that I want to help them
Along the way
Everyday, Everyday.

You know a kind word
Never goes unheard
But too often goes unsaid
And on the tongue
Of the old and the young
Gets swallowed up with pride instead.

You know with all the trouble and sorrow in the world
It seems like the least we can do
Just take that kind word into the street
If they're lost I want to show them the sunshine
If they look tossed I want to throw them a lifeline
I want the reach out my hand a hand to hold
Oh yeah, and let 'em know there's a light
Down at the end of the road.

--Matt

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:51 PM

I did not hijack this thread, as you say. In fact I posted support of this thread, when I said I didn't have a problem with a thread like this, because it was specific in its title.

I am also not pissed off as you claim, esp. that you asked people for restraint. I actually was surprised and pleased that you did. It gave me some hope that you understood how several of us have been feeling lately.

Sounds to me like you've been harbouring some resentment and paranoia towards me because I won't get into it with you in PM's or email.

What you see and read on the Forum is what you get with me, Susan. No hidden agendas, no innuendos, pretty much an open book.

Mousethief, was my trust in you was misplaced? I wondered why you didn't answer my reply to your first PM in which I told you how to research the healing circle flaming.

kat

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 04:16 PM

Kat, I apologize for not being clearer which of my comments were addressed to you personally, which to Harpgirl personally, and which to you both. I see that you took most if not all of them all as directed at you. I am sorry my frustration made that so easy to do. I was sloppy.

I am harboring some resentment, and I appreciate you pointing it out. I raised an issue with you in a PM that you ducked, declining further communication about it rather than apologizing or acknowledging that you may have done a wrong. It has precluded additional discssion about the feelings you say people have here. It leaves me in the dark when I am trying to understand. It affects the Mudcat you love. I think it's regrettable. So I will work on that resentment. But I'm not paranoid when I assume that you feel as you have told me you feel, and take that into account when I write to you.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:07 PM

mousebrain:You are the opinion police! Very dangerous to endorse an atmosphere in which only some opinions have merit. We had a thread about this recently, I recall!

Wang Chung: clever choice of name for a yellow coward!! I am not Susan's mental health professional. I am here as a musician! What is this stereotype that health care professionals must always be saintly and nice to everyone! How many Dr.s like that do you know?

kat's mental health advice to Susan does nail it! Stop trying to play mother Teresa! No wonder you are burned out!!!! Besides, it makes me want to barf! Call Dr. Cohen!!!Oh no..he's out singing shanties!!!I'm going to die from ostracism!!!!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library)
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:53 PM

Harpgirl: Oooh, insults now. How mature.

There's a difference between expressing an opinion and telling other people what to do. I did the former. You did the latter. Thus, you can accurately be dubbed "thread police" and I cannot.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:02 PM

...wrong mousebrain!!! I rendered my opinion. I don't want to see or read threads on religion! If you were a smarter man you would understand that I am meta-commenting! Any family that doesn't allow comments on content and process is bound to be dysfunctional! Why can we comment on christian religion but not on the need to not commdent on christian religion???? You aren't too bright!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,mousethief
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:07 PM

Grow up, harpgirl. I have no time for such childishness.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:09 PM

methinks the gentleman doth protest too much!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: little john cameron
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:09 PM

How dae ye comment aboot not commenting?
Jist wonderin ljc

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: pict
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:28 PM

What a load of mince.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Matt_R
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:39 PM

I hate people arguing on Mudcat! I don't want to read arguments on this forum! Joe, isn't there some HTML mistake I can make so the thread locks up, so we can quit this insanity???

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,First Time Visitor
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:53 PM

All of you have it wrong. It actually took me 12 1/2 days

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Matt_R
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:56 PM

Yep, and on the 8th day, God made sweet tea!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:14 PM

Harpgirl, use the damn filter and get all the threads you want without religion. Max made it that way for BS, so I'd assume it'd work for that, too.

You use an imperious tone in saying that you don't want to see or read threads on religion. This is not your exclusive forum.

You've gone overboard and become vitriolic and that will serve no purpose and you know this from past experience here.

I understand your frustration and that is partly why I posted before, but attacks like yours above will serve no purpose, except perhaps to raise the blood pressure of those you attack and maybe your own.

There needs to be some balance, but we won't get it by going to extremes.

kat

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:07 PM

"I hate people arguing on Mudcat! I don't want to read arguments on this forum! Joe, isn't there some HTML mistake I can make so the thread locks up, so we can quit this insanity???"

durn!...thought I'd never find myself in SERIOUS sympathy with Matt!..*grin*....

which reminds me of a paraphrase of a quote:

"No matter what your politics, culture, religion, or hobby, there will always be someone in your group whom you wish were on the OTHER side."

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:27 PM

Although the five-fold world is aperiodic, its constituent polyhedra are still amenable to modularization. Various schemes exist, among which one of the most ingenious is Koski's. Koski's mods derive from the golden cuboid, a brick with edges phi, 1 and 1/phi. These 3 edges plus distinct face and body diagonals give a set of 7 lengths, any six of which may be used in a tetrahedron. Given these base measuring cups, Koski allows each to grow or shrink by powers of phi, and finds the five-fold shapes have both algebraic and geometric equivalence to sums of such modules.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:30 PM

So then that'd be like a meta-comment there Lonesome or what?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:34 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to send that to my mother...

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:34 PM

Okay Matt,your song post was wonderful,appropriate and potentially calming. A reality check and then comentary, on target with just a slight touch of defusing humor.... Wow, I'm impressed,are things on campus moving this wonderfully too? Thanks

Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Matt_R
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:40 PM

Actually, things on campus are 10 times worse than how this thread ended up! I think Lonesome's math problem would be easier to solve than doing what I'm doing at school!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:47 PM

I'm impressed that Lonesome even got it posted. Though I sometimes wish we could just decypher the equation and come up with the answer. I'm not that good at thinking inside the box.

Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:57 PM

What do you mean Tinker?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Tinker
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:10 PM

Amongst my greatest desires is a spell check in the land of Mudcat. No matter how hard i work at it,there is some sort of genetic foul up in my coding process. It would take me a week to post that with out impossible typos and glaring errors even if I understood it. And I confess that I don't really, but it tickles the edges of my understanding just enough that it seems facinating. I'm also very tired, and my thoughts sometimes babble. Re-reading, perhaps part of me were wishing that people problems could occaisionally be pluggged into an equations so that solutions could be derived in an orderly manner. But since I don't normally think in an orderly way... Oh Well

Tinker

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: pict
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:13 PM

etiology:The philosophical study of causation

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,John D
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:53 AM

Faarrrrrrrrrrrrrr OUT!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:43 AM

...kat...this thread was not filtered out with a BS label. Why is it that people insist on the unspoken rule that we can't comment on the direction the forum goes? Think about that? Mousebrain started this argument by insulting me! And why do people think it isn't okay for people (read women) to be cranky and argumentative? Except once a month when it isn't their fault? Why do men get to be this way and women are chastized for it? No one commented on Pat's link!!!

No one got the irony that someone came to Mudcat to get religious advice? What's worse people took this seriously! Just tell me the rules for women, kat and then let me decide if I agree!
With evangelical christianity a very tiny minority in the wider religious world, why can't I protest that this international forum shouldn't look like a bible study group?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:01 AM

Hey, Harpgirl, I commented right along with you. The only thing I am saying is that we won't get very far by attacking with personal insults. Personally, when I have gotten cranky on here, it wasn't the men I had to worry about and there was never any mention of it being moontime or any other time, it was a woman or two who came after me. "Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!"

On another subject, sort of, I said this in a PM to someone and I'd like to share it here: I think the important thing is that there is plenty of room for differences in belief and opinions, if we can all just respect that and not come off as a know-all-to-end-all on any subject.:-)

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lonesome Gillette
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:13 AM

"I don't want to see religion discussed on this forum."
I'm one of the least religious people I know but I was just wondering how you can discuss 'Blues and Folk Music' without religion. What kind of folk music are you talking about?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:24 PM

Tinker---lacking a spellchecker built right in, the next best thing is one you can access easily...if you go to this freeware site and scroll down, you'll find two free spellcheckers...the 2nd is really great, though it is 16 bit..(still runs fine on WIN9x)...just before you hit 'submit message', you tell it to check what you have written...now if you have a MAC, I'm not sure....

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: bydand
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:06 PM

FORUM: An "open" meeting for the presentation, exchange and discussion of:
Facts & information
Ideas
Opinions - personal & global
Preferences
Most of this seems to happen regularly here among mudcatters
This is just a plea to not get drawn into personal insults. -charles

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:24 PM

Folks, this is how this thread began, typos and all, and IMHO it is still a viable topic-- I think much more interesting (IMNSHO) than the nasty (IMHO) stuff.

Let's either discuss this or let the thread fall off the page.

~S~



Subject: Bible question
From: GUEST,Emily Harrison
Date: 29-Oct-00 - 01:30 PM

I have a question for someone familar with the Book of Genessis from the Bible.

According to the narrative, God created Adam and then created Eve as his wife. I know that they had sons, Cain and Abel.

My question is, did Cain and Abel have wives? If so, where dod they find them? Who were their parents?

If not, how does the bible explain the continuity of the human species?

Thank you.

Emily [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Another Bible question
From: Mr Happy
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:18 AM

In the creation story, there's no mention of religion.

The created man & woman are not designated as having any particular faith.

Were they religious?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 12:28 PM

I imagine they were Theists. :)

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:12 PM

Gee, Mr. Happy, are you one of those literalists who won't do anything not specified in the Bible? I always wonder how those people rationalize automobiles.

If them's the rules, only the Amish follow them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:28 PM

"I imagine they were Theists. :)"

The obvious meaning being, they believed in "The".

Which leads to the question, what do you believe the meaning of "The" is?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:37 PM

"Were they religious? "

Well... upon careful analysis of the narrative the evidence available suggests the following....

They certainly believed in God. But it didn't require any particular faith. They had conversations with God.

On the other hand...

I guess if they were deeply religious they wouldn't have eaten the apple.

Question answered?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 05:24 PM

What apple?????

GfS

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:56 PM

What I would like to know is, when God created Adam in his own likeness, did he equip him with a belly-button?

Heheh. That vaguely reminds me of that well-made point about Alexander Graham Bell being a genius because he invented the first telephone. On the contrary, the true genius was the man who invented the second telephone. :-)

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:12 PM

Yes to belly button,

Bell invented both 1st & 2nd phone because he was an intelligent designer

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:32 PM

I've heard fundamentalists say a lot of...interesting?...things over the years. A few months ago I heard one that was new to me:

"I've always wondered if, when God created Adam out of mud, He created him lying down, or standing up".

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM

I doubt that the passage "in his own image" was referring to the shape and characteristics of a physical body at all. More likely it was referrring allegorically to the particular form of consciousness that animates us and makes us human.

Likewise, I think Adam is symbolic of the appearance/development of an entire new race of humans rather than being a literal tale about a single man. And Eve is probably symbolic of a new emotional/mental component developing in the consciousness OF that race, not of a single woman.

Not saying I am sure about it. Just saying it seems far more probable than any literal interpretation of the story. I think the story is a parable about the evolution of the human race, and not intended to be taken literally.

It's very ancient. People repeated it and repeated it, and eventually most of them started just taking it literally, because that is the easiest conclusion for most people to come to. It demands no extra thought.

It also delights the skeptics and opponents of religion, being enormously unlikely if taken literally, so they'd rather it wasn't a parable...then they can easily reject it without a moment's hesitation.

The shortest route to anything is the route of least thought about it. The route of instant reaction...either for or against...and no further analysis whatsoever. This is equally true for the literal-minded fundamentalist and the literal-minded skeptic. They have no patience to give consideration to symbols, parables or allegory in ancient religious writings. They don't want to think about it. They just want to declare it "truth" or "falsehood"...and make it their absolute dogma, one way or the other.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 09:03 PM

I think Adam is symbolic of the appearance/development of an entire new race of humans rather than being a literal tale about a single man. And Eve is probably symbolic of a new emotional/mental component...

Hmm.I see that sexism started early.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Mr Happy
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:33 AM

Joe,

'Gee, Mr. Happy, are you one of those literalists who won't do anything not specified in the Bible?

Certainly not - I don't believe fantasies, but I'm curious as to the origins of religion

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Mark
Date: 23 Apr 13 - 05:46 PM

Let's bring back some humor to this thread.

Adam was the world's first accountant - he turned a leaf and made an entry.

Pharaoh's daughter was the world's first woman financier - she took a prophet from a rush on the bank.

(the first financier was Noah - he floated stock, while the rest of the world was in liquidation).

Noah said: "Go forth and multiply!". The snakes said: "We can't - we're adders!"

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 05:59 AM

Well, for a more serious answer to your question, Mr. Happy, the Bible is a product of religion. I suppose you could define religion as "the organized practice of a relationship with the divine." The Bible depicts Adam, Eve, and their descendants as interacting with God, so I'd suppose that's religion. I think the Bible is a very valuable and sacred and inspiring document, but it's dangerous if it's taken literally and without reference to scholarly research.

Karen Armstrong (1944 - ), has written a number of very readable books on the origins of religion. My favorite is The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006). Armstrong says most of the great religions began during the Axial Age, a period from 800 to 200 BC. Armstrong notes the similarities that exist among the various religions, particularly the fact that all are based on some sort of Golden Rule concept (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Armstrong takes a very positive view of the origins of almost all major religions, and sees them as altruistic in their origins - as do I. And while I think most religions have good roots, most are in dire need of reform.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 06:32 AM

To convert good roots into high quality blooms, hard pruning at the right time is essential.

Works for me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 06:42 AM

" I think the Bible is a very valuable and sacred and inspiring document, but it's dangerous if it's taken literally and without reference to scholarly research."

I don't think research makes it less dangerous. The people who abuse it are often the ones who spend the most effort on research.

It is what is in the reader's heart that makes it good or bad.



"I'm curious as to the origins of religion " Mr Happy.

I find Joseph Campbell to be a good source on that.

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.
Joseph Campbell

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:01 AM

> "It is true when understood metaphorically." -Joseph Campbell

So he's saying it's true when it really means something else.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:21 AM

"> "It is true when understood metaphorically." -Joseph Campbell

So he's saying it's true when it really means something else. "

met·a·phor (mt-fôr, -fr)
n.
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: "Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven" (Neal Gabler).

In the most simple terms I can think of the eating of the fruit of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" is not referring to an actual bite taken from an actual fruit but is a metaphor for taking responsibility for our own actions as adults. True as a metaphor but not an actual recorded event.

Or thunder is the work of an angry God so beware of the thunder.

Or men like Zeus can be deceitful and can leave a baby in your belly. but don't count on the baby growing up to be Hercules.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:24 AM

"Or men like Zeus can be deceitful"

Should be men can be deceitful as Zeus was.

If you like, you can interpret Campbell as having said "there is wisdom in all religions."

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:40 AM

> "there is wisdom in all religions."

A more defensible statement, though I have my doubt about the Aztecs.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 09:30 AM

I am sure that Campbell would have studied them.

this excerpt from Wiki indicates that civilization a order were among their religious ideals.

Large parts of the Aztec pantheon were inherited from previous Mesoamerican civilizations and others, such as Tlaloc, Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, were venerated by different names in most cultures throughout the history of Mesoamerica. For the Aztecs especially important deities were Tlaloc the god of rain, Huitzilopochtli the patron god of the Mexica tribe, Quetzalcoatl the culture hero and god of civilization and order, and Tezcatlipoca the god of destiny and fortune, connected with war and sorcery. Each of these gods had their own temples within the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan—Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli were both worshipped at the Templo Mayor. A common Aztec religious practice was the recreation of the divine: Mythological events would be ritually recreated and living persons would impersonate specific deities and be revered as a god—and often ritually sacrificed.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Mr Happy
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:20 AM

Joe,

Thanks for your explanation.

Q2.

Does your bible mention a description about the shade of complexion of the man & woman that the god is alleged to have created?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:47 AM

just if happily that was a serious question,maybe? -
the conplexion of adam and eve is not described in the bible.i,m sure they were not hollywood white though!
and BTW i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:52 AM

no mention of skin color

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:54 AM

>> i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either. <<

Nor I hope, does my interpretation of them as no specific stereotypical metaphors. :-)

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 07:46 PM

the conplexion of adam and eve is not described in the bible.i,m sure they were not hollywood white though!

If you don't know you can't be sure, can you. Or have you got faith in the assumption they were not Hollywood white?

and BTW i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either.

No. It says plenty about the state of your intellectual prowess, though.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 09:02 PM

jack - i was saying no such thing.certain atheists somehow seem to think that those like myself who hold to a historico/grammatical view of the bible are dangerous.they dont however seem to react much better to those like yourself who dont accept historical narrative at face value

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 13 - 06:25 AM

a historico/grammatical view

What the hell is this when it's at 'ome?

And since when has the Bible been a "historical narrative?" Can we have the credentials of the "historians" who penned it, please?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Les from Hull
Date: 26 Apr 13 - 09:05 AM

The biblical Adam was presumably dust coloured.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Apr 13 - 09:20 AM

Yes because having made a living human being from clay, an omnipotent creator presumably would not have the skills to get the color right.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Edthefolkie
Date: 26 Apr 13 - 12:20 PM

When I last saw Adam and Eve, they were definitely white, had belly buttons, also Rice Krispies in strategic areas. But that was at the National Theatre, and they were created by Brian Glover.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 26 Apr 13 - 01:45 PM

Brian Glover eh?

Now that takes me back. Saw him knock seven bells of shit out of Jackie Pallow.

Only it wasn't real of course. But that didn't stop the crowd shouting encouragement. I'm looking for a metaphor for enjoying made up things literally but can't quite find one to use with my wrestling memory. ...

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 13 - 03:29 PM

i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either.

Pete... the 'danger' involved is not about a person. It is about holding out a 'concept' for others that confuses two types of thinking. The problem is that accepting a literal view of Genesis as historical fact also requires you to adjust other facts to fit....(age of the Earth, specific things about geology, physics, paleontology, etc.)... that are pretty clear and scientifically corroborated when not discussing biblical interpretation.

As I have tried to stress before, there are ways to retain a belief in a Supreme Being that do not require ignoring and redefining tested scientific theories (and "theories" does NOT mean unproven... )

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Les from Hull
Date: 26 Apr 13 - 05:30 PM

Brian Glover playing God, eh? Somehow it just seemed right that God had a Yorkshire accent!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Apr 13 - 04:47 AM

bill-we have been down this road many times before .just because evolutionists assert that their interpretation of the data is fact,dont make it so.i am almost sure that even your greater learning does not encapsulate every discipline involved in origins theory.
neither do i accept that creationism is dangerous- other than to darwin dogma!
in fact science flourished under a christian and creationist worldview.i have yet to hear how evolutionism has been useful to operational science and i,m sure i can provide quotes to that end and instances of darwinian theory hindering science.maybe you can provide instances of creationist belief being detrimental to USEFUL science?.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 27 Apr 13 - 10:59 AM

Pallo. Thought it seemed wrong and I have been thinking about it and returned to the theme.

Jackie Pallo, not Pallow.

That's better.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 13 - 01:34 PM

"i have yet to hear how evolutionism has been useful to operational science

"maybe you can provide instances of creationist belief being detrimental to USEFUL science?."


Wow, Pete.... I'm not sure I can type fast enough with my two-fingered technique to do those justice. Let me just say that because **creationist belief** requires one to interpret all data as a part of a previously defined set of immutable ideas. This can lead to faulty conclusions. You would probably say that science seems to be progressing just fine and doing 'useful' things every day.... and I would reply that this is mostly because most scientists do NOT subscribe to creationist beliefs and are free to take the evidence where it leads them and revise the details when necessary. Then, I suppose, we would both shake our heads and start over and just agree to disagree.

That attitude (most scientists) has led to understanding that the earth is VERY old and led most theologians to interpret biblical writings in a non-literal way. They still believe the 'concepts' of the bible were inspired, but no longer bother to calculate age by a long list of names in Genesis... most of whom we have nothing of except a name, with no idea who might have kept such a list.

Your beliefs are what they are, and you can be a good man and sing songs and be kind to others, even knowing that you are part of a dwindling minority in the world.

I realize we have been down this road before, and I and others have presented all the points we can think of to show what we feel are problems with your basic assumptions. In the last analysis, it is not 'important' that we convince you.... it is just important to make sure that all the arguments are clear.

take care
Bill D

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Apr 13 - 03:14 PM

thanks bill.
"most scientists" have often been wrong before.
"most theologians"-i note that you infer that they just followed the concensus of the "most scientists".i think it sad that theologians feel the need to impose secular theories on scripture but they obviously felt the need to accomodate.
i did not follow the idea that useful science is done because scientists follow the "evidence".by useful science i meant things like the MRI scanner co-invented by damidian,a creationist.
dwindling minority? i thought it was far from that in your country,though here it probably is as far as church membership is concerned.in many places churches are growing and those are largely ones that believe the bible.in any case as i am sure you know, the good shepherd goes after the one lost sheep,and there "is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents"
one thing i am sure we will agree on is that if we met it would not only be heads shaking, but hands also. blessings   pete.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Apr 13 - 05:11 PM

Skin colour - the name Adam is related, I understand, to words implying red-coloured.

Penny

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 13 - 05:36 PM

Pete...no one said that those who believe in creationism and a young earth cannot do good science. But, as I have said several times, it was not their religious beliefs that made their science useful. While the fellow was working on the MRI, he was thinking as a scientist, not as a creationist. I am a pretty good woodworker, but it is not my lack of religious beliefs that made me so. I am sure 'some' woodworkers who are also fundamentalist Christians also believe God gave them their talent... besides providing the wood... but doing good woodwork does not require that belief. So it is with science....


"dwindling minority? i thought it was far from that in your country,.."

No... there are actually recent studies showing that fewer Americans identify themselves as fundamentalist Christians. What IS true currently is that there are still many around, and in a larger % than in the UK and Europe generally.
   There is no shortage of churches of all types here... and certain groups have been.... well... to put it clearly, been making a lot of noise & headlines as they attempt to insert various religious principles directly into social and political areas. (Abortion is a prime example.)
We have this thing in our Constitution that says that endorsing and/or favoring specific religions is not allowed.... although practicing religion IS permitted and defended. As should be evident, this has led to a lot of disputes in recent years.

It's not easy.......

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 13 - 05:51 PM

I think Bill that worldwide, Pete is correct. The number of religious people may be dwindling in the affluent west, but it is growing in the rest of the world, most notably Russia and China.

http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

1.         Christianity         25,210,195
2.         Islam                22,588,676
3.         Hinduism         12,533,734
4.         Chinese folk-religions         3,715,548
5.         Buddhism         3,687,527

More than 1/5 of the population of the USA every year.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 28 Apr 13 - 02:52 AM

Which says a lot regarding tools to control people. Easier to control in emerging markets than where your false promises are seen for what they are. Ever noticed a link between knowledge, intelligence and questioning bollocks?

Nice of Sailor boy to provide the facts that deny the thrust of most of his arguments.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 13 - 10:24 AM

I had somewhere a link to an article about a decline in those who identify themselves as church members. I can't find that one, but these make similar points.

http://www.christianchronicle.org/article2158685~Church_in_America_marked_by_decline

http://beta.effinghamherald.net/section/2/article/19783/

Then, this one says that 'mainstream' Protestant churches are declining, while evangelical churches are growing. (Catholicism had about a 1% gain)Even the Southern Baptists are declining.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/report-us-churches-contin_n_823701.html

Because the total membership of the evangelicals is much smaller, I'd guess that its % gain is not enough to offset the % decline in the larger denominations. It would take some careful analysis to be sure exactly.

It does reflect what I have noticed about the higher visibility of many fundamentalist churches as they promote their ideas more 'forcefully'.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Apr 13 - 12:32 PM

"It does reflect what I have noticed about the higher visibility of many fundamentalist churches as they promote their ideas more 'forcefully'."

I've noticed it too. The more you make a point of convincing, the less convincing your argument. But there again, rational people are aware of that, and don't need me saying it or God botherers decrying it.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Apr 13 - 05:16 PM

maybe i misconstrued your previous post bill,,,but it appeared to be implying that good science was done because the work was done well by thinking evolutionary.presumably that was not your intent as it is obvious that you dont have to be an evolutionist to do good.infact as i said before evolutionary thought has hindered science.

BTW i have just finished watching the latest BBC 2 evolution propaganda.this time thogh it was alfred wallce[bill bailys jungle hero]it was interesting despite the usual equivocation of natural selection with evolutionism.lovely filming and shots of wierd and wonderful creatures.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 13 - 05:33 PM

i said before evolutionary thought has hindered science.

DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 13 - 09:44 PM

Pete... the difference is subtle. There is no blanket, absolute statement that covers all scientific inquiry.

**IF** one accepts evolution, a lot of other science... especially in certain disciplines... follows logically and naturally.

*IF* one does NOT accept evolution, there are certain bits of evidence that cannot be taken at face value, and MUST be explained and rationalized to 'conform' with the Bible. I'm not sure how they explain carbon dating, but it must require a lot of wriggling. Carbon atoms follow very clear and regular rules... and they tell us important things.

SOME science does not require any particular belief system, as it is possible, as you note, to design an MRI without worrying about religion.
Same goes with many aspects of physics (though not all). Botany however , and endocrinology get into areas where DNA and fossils must be considered as having evolved, or some stuff just makes no sense.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 29 Apr 13 - 04:30 AM

1. Christianity 25,210,195
2. Islam 22,588,676
3. Hinduism 12,533,734
4. Chinese folk-religions 3,715,548
5. Buddhism 3,687,527


Those are extremely specific numbers. Nobody asked me, so the number for Chinese folk-religions could be 3,715,549 – or is someone just making them up?


DC

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Apr 13 - 04:57 PM

yes jack
evolutionism posited vestigual organs as useless leftovers of evolution.just about all of them are now known to serve a purpose.
so called junk dna - same story.
dawkins and probably other darwin devotees waxed lyrical about the eye being backward wired turned out wrong.it is the best design for the purpose.

bill- i,m sure we could discuss again whether carbon dating methods are anywhere near accurate or not.often it is just the presence of c14 when it should be all but gone that demonstrates the weaknesses.
however my original point was evolution does nothing for useful science[bear in mind that the more fundier atheists claim creationism is anti science,whish is in flat contradiction of the science that flourished under a biblical worldview]

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 30 Apr 13 - 06:14 PM

The Bible and the many similar handbooks on life that existed over the years were the science of their day.

The difference now is the acceptance that a hypothesis is best challenged than accepted blindly. As nobody who had anything to do with the Bible etc had visited The Galipagos Islands, finch evolution didn't enter into it. However, eating of foods that go off in hot countries such as pork and shellfish, or circumcision were good sound public health measures.

Nowadays we have more sophisticated public health measures including monitoring flu in China in the summer of this year to concoct the flu jab given 18 months from now here in The UK. The Bible couldn't comprehend such logistics.

In fact, compared with the wonders of reality, the Bible must be so limiting, so parochial.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 May 13 - 07:25 AM

Q3.

Given that there's somewhat controversy over the 'belly button' question, it follows to ask; did the created man have nipples?

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 May 13 - 03:35 PM

seems musket that you are misunderstanding my meaning again.certainly many of the mosaic laws were of health benefit but i was thinking of the many scientists that believed the bible and found there the inspiration for research.they viewed science as a creation mandate and sought to recover what they believed was the encyclopaedic knowledge of adam.
your "finch evolution" is not evolution as in microbes to man pathway.there were variations in the finches beaks that were advantageous for different food sources,as i understand it.adaption in animal types is no evidence for their developing into other types of animal,however much deep time is posited.

i am happy to suppose that adam did have nipples,but as the bible does not specify i can not be certain.but as eve was fashioned from adams side i suppose the similar design detail could have been transferred from him to her.

while adam was in dreamland
anasthenic rest
God removed a rib from him
he never could have guessed
that from this was being formed
a perfect suited mate
to live with him in eden
in a joyous state.
God introduced the woman
to the only male
and it would come as no surprise
if his first word was "wow"
it was as God intended
for God invented sex
and as a result of that
we know what happens next.

just thought i,d throw that in for fun!

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 01 May 13 - 08:17 PM

"adaption in animal types is no evidence for their developing into other types of animal."

Pete... that is a total misunderstanding and mis-statement of what evolutionary theory is about. You persist in using that argument (clams don't turn into tigers..or whatever) to debunk evolution. No...they don't. Nothing exactly "turns into" something entirely different.

However--- certain types of adaptation DO demonstrate the basic process of evolution. Finches have genes for different beak configuration from WAY back, and changing conditions favor certain ones. That process over thousands or millions of years allows organisms to gradually (VERY gradually) adapt to new conditions..
(even 'adapt' is not the proper term, because most serious adaptation requires some sort of mutation... and some mutations are NOT favorable... which many fossils have no modern link. The ones which survived have many, many...many... stages. As I have said before, IF we had all the missing links, no museum could house them all.)

"i was thinking of the many scientists that believed the bible and found there the inspiration for research."

Which proves nothing at all... a scientist could be 'inspired' by the Harry Potter books and 'discover' stuff about magic... and no doubt convince others. Of course, we have direct evidence of the source of Harry Potter..... but no clear evidence of the original source of biblical manuscripts.

Pete, I can only repeat that you keep returning to arguments that do NOT represent what the various ideas in evolutionary theory assert. You try to simplify a concept of great complexity and you regularly use circular reasoning to defend your own premises. You nod and admit that some of 'us' have more education and have read more, yet you don't seem to have much respect for education that doesn't support YOUR beliefs.

I honor your basic belief that Creation must have had a Creator... but I cannot deal with your denial of the evidence about reality that 99% of scientists use every day.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 May 13 - 12:56 AM

"Like" Bill D's Post

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 May 13 - 06:10 AM

bill [and joe likes] -i should have thought that my mentioning of deep time demonstates that i am not claiming you believe that one creature turns into another overnight.my contention is that their is their are limits to adaption and that new information would need to be somehow taken into the creature[s.s.s.s ad nauseum]and so far as i know that has not been demonstrated
"some"is it not true that MOST mutations are not beneficial,and that the ones that are have not been shown to confer the new information required to advance beyond the confines of the animal in question.
what is interesting is the more or less exactness of fossils alledgedly MYO with modern creatures,and "lazarus taxa" ,those thoght to have gone extinct in deep time appearing looking much like the fossil specimens.
" 99%"
a- does that mean that nearly all scientists are involved in origins research.i thought we had already agreed that useful,operational science is done whatever the beliefs of the scientist.
b- if evolution does have imput into useful science,i invite you again to demonstrate such.i have already demonstrated how it has hindered it.or maybe how the great creationist scientists of yesteryear [or today] have hindered useful science ?.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: Bill D
Date: 02 May 13 - 11:15 AM

".. i am not claiming you believe that one creature turns into another overnight."

*sigh* Who said ANYTHING about overnight? We do NOT believe that, and have NOT asserted that YOU claimed we did.

"...and that the ones that are have not been shown to confer the new information required to advance beyond the confines of the animal in question."

What a convoluted way to say something that simply is not accurate. "conferring new information" is not exactly a technical way of describing the process. Mutations that ARE beneficial have been proven to be the major mechanism by which organisms are able to adapt and cope. Those which did not adapt are known only as fossils.... and we don't even have most of them.

Pete.... you are still using phrasing that is not even answerable directly.

"what is interesting is the more or less exactness of fossils alledgedly MYO with modern creatures,and "lazarus taxa" ,those thoght to have gone extinct in deep time appearing looking much like the fossil specimens."

If MYO means "many years old", that statement is flatly incorrect in its implications. Old fossils are NOT 'exact'... they are less, not more. Over a few hundred thousand years, a bird or a monkey might not 'seem' to have changed much, but the experts can see the changes. And over several million years, even non-experts can see the differences. You cannot wipe away that data by suggesting that they are just 'different' animals or species, and that not having all intermediate steps invalidates the logical connections! We can't GET all the intermediate steps!
Basing your entire defense on a literal reading of Genesis requires, it seems, constructing arguments and phrasing that mis-states what science claims, then criticizing your own mis-statements. This, in logic, is similar to the "straw man" fallacy. If you wish to debate science, it is only fair to use the actual claims & language.


Now... tomorrow I will be away for several days, so I will not have time to look at this thread till maybe Tuesday.

Subject: RE: Bible question
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 May 13 - 12:30 PM

bill- i say things as i understand them and i am sorry if that is imprecise or muddled.that may be why you did not adress my challenges- maybe?!.
i am aware that beneficial mutations help an organism adapt and cope.what i do not believe is that the mutations lead to any increase in information.reshuffling and loss but not gain,even while benefial to an organism.no new,novel information == no evolutionary pathway.
the observations of natural selection is not evidence of microbes to man evolution. if you say it is you will need to demonstrate this without appeal to complex processes that are not demonstable.

i too am away over the weekend.   pete.