Nation of Israel and God

Page 6 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

13 Nov 2011, 5:45 pm

I was hoping one of you theological heavyweights would weigh in on my post regarding human origins. What's your thought on what I suggested? (except ruveyn, unless he then posts a picture of himself contemplating the Torah while eating a vegi pizza and wearing a Kinks shirt...)

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 Nov 2011, 5:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Here is a little scripture question for you where in Torah does it say the Torah is true?
"

No where.

The only place you find declarations of the truth of Torah are in Rabiniical comentary. Midrash.

In the T'hlim (Psalms) 14:1 it declares: The fool say in his heart there is no God. Of course! Anyone believing he can prove a positive absolute by negating a non-absolute statement is a fool.

ruveyn

Where have either of you said your posts are true? It is uncommon for a person to tell or write something to someone else, and also explicitly state, "This is the truth". The cases in which that is done are when hard-to-believe things are being stated, and the Torah is not hard to believe.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Nov 2011, 5:53 pm

shrox wrote:

Contemplating? Most likely not. I read Torah in Hebrew including the tropes so I can function as a Torah reader (Ba'al Koreh) in my congregation. I know it thoroughly and I am familiar with much of the Rabinnical Commentary. I take Torah for what it is: Bronze age Jewish literature. Not a source of fact, only coincidentally a source of history (much of that must be taken con grano salus). It is the root and source of Jewish culture along with the Oral Tradition. I do not confuse rabinnic comentary for fact.

You are right about the pizza. I like veggie pizza with green pepper, mushrooms and onions.

ruveyn

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Nov 2011, 5:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:

shrox wrote:

GKKKKKK!
I need meat on my pizza!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

13 Nov 2011, 5:55 pm

Ragtime wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Here is a little scripture question for you where in Torah does it say the Torah is true?
"

The truth is sometimes I do explicitly express that I am telling the truth.
and the Torah is a little hard to believe at times, as is my wife it does not make me love either of them less.
Do the math on Ark does it work for you?
Do all the animals fit?
I would sincerely appreciate Dave Berlinski's Proof is you have it
mathematical biology is one of professional interests.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

13 Nov 2011, 6:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Here is a little scripture question for you where in Torah does it say the Torah is true?
"

This is way I am a Aptheist/Weak agnostic I do not find the question of the existence of God interesting.
I don't find it offense when people believe although I find it confusing when people say it is obvious that he does.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Nov 2011, 6:01 pm

Ragtime wrote:

You judge the truth (or non-truth) of what we say. A con man will tell you right up front how bright, true and wonderful he is. He is trying to get a blank check from you on the matter of belief.

I do not expect an affidavit from someone when they speak or write. If they turn out to speak falsely they will earn distrust and disregard.

As to scripture, there is the matter of distortion. Over three thousand years errors creep in. It can not be helped.

ruveyn

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

13 Nov 2011, 6:07 pm

Ragtime wrote:

As you can see in an earlier post, I was posting these in response to Lecks' question. I never seriously believed you had any interest. I mean, when you write pretty much every post in a mockish tone, it's pretty obvious you're just here to snipe. And that's okay -- such people put the "dis" in "discussion forum". I only reply for the benefit of the silent observers and the clearly interested, even when I reply to a close-minded person's post.

I'm sorry to say but I'm not able to maintain focus on a video over 30 minutes long (give or take) and I'd much preffer the documentation that the people you linked base their arguements on.

I don't know if you're reffering to JakobVirgil or myself when you say "close-minded person" but considering you've called me this in a previous thread I'm going to assume this is directed, at least partially, to me.
I'm not sure if I've said this in the other thread but the reason I and people like me find it difficult to accept your claims is because we require different kinds of proof than you. I won't presume to know what would sway you but I need something much more than scripture, anecdotes or philosophical gibberish. I need testable proof, I need to "see it to believe it" I suppose.
To be honest, my question was half in jest, the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution will never be refuted, only amended. Even if what we know now turns out to be incorrect, it's only our interpretation that's flawed, the evidence remains the same and the story they tell will not change much. Transitional fossils have been discovered, we may be wrong about their exact place in taxonomy but for the majority we know exactly which species they connect.

_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

13 Nov 2011, 6:43 pm

Ragtime wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

It is simply an application of Occam's Razor.

Why assume the existence of entities that are not necessary to assume to produce the desired explanation?

ruveyn

Because no believable theory has shown how He wouldn't be necessary

This is false.

_________________
.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Nov 2011, 7:48 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

We concur. I find disputes and arguments concerning the existence of God to be a waste of time and a futility. Neither the proposition nor its negative can be settled by empirical means. If one does not assume too much of God, then the proposition God exist does not lead to a logical contradiction which means it is possible to be true, but not shown to be true. It is also possible for it to be (in fact) false.

possible(p) ( <>p in modal logic) does not exclude ~p nor does it prove p.

ruveyn

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 Nov 2011, 8:31 pm

shrox wrote:

I believe that our universe was created as the evidence suggests, and is billions of years old. Life did start from "nothing", although I would say all the raw materials and energy around was hardly nothing.

Well, the way I see it, either there was always something -- in which case, why would that unconscious something, being eternal, suddenly decide to pull itself out of its static state and morph into something more -- or, there was literally nothing and then there was something, which only raises questions.

shrox wrote:

I believe that a special place was defined on an already existing Earth, and Adam and Eve were created whole and adult in that specially prepared place.

Already existing through what original cause? I agree with the rest.

shrox wrote:

I have no idea how long they were there; hours, days, months, perhaps years. At some point they sinned, and were cast out. They had children, and those children married evolved humans. Why? If something is wrong, it is always wrong. Incest was not OK for a while, oh but then you gotta stop.

Well, Abraham's wife, Sarah, was his half-sister (Gen 20:11-12), and God obviously greatly blessed them and their progeny to this day, and Scripture shows only favor from God toward Abraham. I don't remember any disfavor, at least -- certainly not for marrying her.
Then, at a later date, the Levitical laws prohibit that very same marital union -- that which is between half-siblings:

Quote:

Lev 18:11
"Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister."

shrox wrote:

Their children married humans of whom a fossil ancestry can be traced back to Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and beyond

I believe Lucy was found to be a fake -- a composite of different creatures.

Here's a link to lots of evolutionary fakes, and there is a link there in the list to "Lucy's Fraudulent Fame":
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

Last edited by Ragtime on 13 Nov 2011, 8:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

13 Nov 2011, 8:36 pm

Ragtime wrote:

I believe Lucy was found to be a fake -- a composite of different creatures.

very nice that word makes the statement true.
It does not mean Johansen is a Liar is just means you think he is.
:lol:

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Nov 2011, 8:37 pm

Ragtime wrote:

shrox wrote:

I believe that a special place was defined on an already existing Earth, and Adam and Eve were created whole and adult in that specially prepared place.

Already existing through what original cause? I agree with the rest.

shrox wrote:

Well, Abraham's wife, Sarah, was his half-sister, and God obviously greatly blessed them and their progeny to this day, and Scripture shows only favor from God toward Abraham. I don't remember any disfavor, at least. But now, of course, marrying half-siblings is considered incest.
Then, at a later date, the Levitical laws prohibit that very same marital union -- that which is between half-siblings.

Lev 18:11

Quote:

"Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister."

shrox wrote:

Their children married humans of whom a fossil ancestry can be traced back to Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and beyond

I believe Lucy was found to be a fake -- a composite of different creatures.

Here's a link to lots of evolutionary fakes, and there is a link there in the list to "Lucy's Fraudulent Fame".

If you have a source saying that Lucy was a fake, then that is an opinion of one. Every anthropological source of any repute consider Australopithecus to have been a human ancestor. The only legitimate argument that could be made against Lucy as an ancestor would be that she was rather an evolutionary dead end, and that our line could be traced to another hominid.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 Nov 2011, 8:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Why are you getting mad?

Anyway, no, it's not an opinion of one. (I don't suppose you actually meant that.)

Quote:

Evolutionists are a sad bunch. They've been desperately searching for centuries for any valid evidence to support the myth of evolution. One concocted theory after another have been disproved, utterly, time and time again. Now it's "Lucy," the alleged prehistoric skeletal remains of a woman, most of which is plaster of Paris. I mean, 'com on, is that the best you've got? The ongoing futile search by evolutionists to find the "missing link" is about is worthless as the ongoing search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The truth is that "if" evolution were true, then there should be a large supply of such skeletal remains in the earth; but there is not. "Lucy" is nothing more than a stretch-of-the-imagination. There is NO recorded human civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. Egypt was the first around 2,000 B.C. The remains of "Lucy" (photod to the right) prove NOTHING!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/lucy.htm

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 Nov 2011, 8:53 pm

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

I'm sorry to say but I'm not able to maintain focus on a video over 30 minutes long (give or take) and I'd much preffer the documentation that the people you linked base their arguements on.

I already mentioned one excellent source (book) where to find such documentation.

Quote:

I don't know if you're reffering to JakobVirgil or myself when you say "close-minded person" but considering you've called me this in a previous thread I'm going to assume this is directed, at least partially, to me.

I was referring to JakobVirgil specifically, and, in the general, anyone else who is close-minded.

Lecks wrote:

I'm not sure if I've said this in the other thread but the reason I and people like me find it difficult to accept your claims is because we require different kinds of proof than you. I won't presume to know what would sway you but I need something much more than scripture, anecdotes or philosophical gibberish. I need testable proof, I need to "see it to believe it" I suppose.

Really? Have you seen evolution happen?

Quote:

Transitional fossils have been discovered, we may be wrong about their exact place in taxonomy but for the majority we know exactly which species they connect.

I find that profoundly unpersuasive. Not nearly enough fossils have been found to support a theory of life evolving upward to the degree necessary to turn an ancient lizard into a human today. And "not nearly" is putting it mildly. You know this is true.

And please don't ask questions you don't want answers to, without making that clear in the way you phrase the question or comments.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Nov 2011, 8:59 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Why are you getting mad?

Anyway, no, it's not an opinion of one. (I don't suppose you actually meant that.)

Quote:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/lucy.htm

I had not intended to sound as if I was losing my temper, so I apologize if I seem to have been. By opinion of one, I was referring to your source.
But again, legitimate anthropologists have never questioned Lucy's place in our lineage. And to answer the assertion of the author you quoted that no other Australopithecus remains had ever been found - yes, as a matter of fact, a number have been. Only a few years ago, the remains of an eleven year old Australopithicine had been recovered by the eleven year old son of an anthropologist. And as I had mentioned in an earlier post today, few carcasses are fossilized, as most aren't fortunate enough to die under the proper conditions where the remains are buried. It should be remembered, few if any bodies of deer, bear, or other wild animals are found in North American woods, as decomposition and predation by scavengers quickly destroy the remains.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Page 6 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Jump to:

Nation of Israel and God Post Reply New Topic

Nation of Israel and God