Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by Hutch

That's why it's prefaced with an if. The church has chosen for you what makes up the New Testament, there are books that were and are not included. If the church had wanted they could have included the Gospel of the Brothers Grimm.

Is Jack and the Beanstalk or Alice In Wonderland any more unrealistic than the stories of Jonah and the Whale (or big fish), or Noah and the Arc?

uhm...yes.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

uhm...yes.

Why?
How are e.g. walking on water or a parting sea different from a giant bean stalk?

Btw offtopic from my point, but I have always believed that the 'walking on water' was a misinterpretation in the translation of one of the original texts which could also have indicated 'standing above water' and thus mean an overhang.
There is evidence that suggests this is indeed a possibility. 't would make a lot of sense imo.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Btw offtopic from my point, but I have always believed that the 'walking on water' was a misinterpretation in the translation of one of the original texts which could also have indicated 'standing above water' and thus mean an overhang.
There is evidence that suggests this is indeed a possibility. 't would make a lot of sense imo.

Why try to make it a natural event? To me, the story begs to stretch what is believable. check it out:

"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

uhm...yes.

How are they different?

I'm not really planning to go into the whole spiel but here's why:

1 Jesus was not a mythological character, historians have plenty of reasons to accept that he believes as a fact.
2 so was Moses
3 almost every event in the scriptures indicates that God works through a knowledge of the laws of nature (often one that we didn't or even don't have at that/this time) The parting of the Red Sea could have been a natural phenomenon. (Quite a few scientists believe this to be the case) if so the miracle wasn't that it parted....but that it parted right when moses lifted his arms.
4 If the Bible would have said there was a giant beanstalk at this time...maybe I'd have believed it....on the other hand if it said that there was a giant living on the clouds above us.....that's a whole lot less likely.

I'd probably be able to keep naming reasons for a while...but I've had this discussion often with people and I tire of it.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm not really planning to go into the whole spiel but here's why:


4 If the Bible would have said there was a giant beanstalk at this time...maybe I'd have believed it....on the other hand if it said that there was a giant living on the clouds above us.....that's a whole lot less likely.

Perhaps if the beanstalk were burning, yet not consumed???

Originally Posted by ScottS

Perhaps if the beanstalk were burning, yet not consumed???

as they say where i'm from...
OH SNAP!

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm not really planning to go into the whole spiel but here's why:

1 Jesus was not a mythological character, historians have plenty of reasons to accept that he believes as a fact.
2 so was Moses
3 almost every event in the scriptures indicates that God works through a knowledge of the laws of nature (often one that we didn't or even don't have at that/this time) The parting of the Red Sea could have been a natural phenomenon. (Quite a few scientists believe this to be the case) if so the miracle wasn't that it parted....but that it parted right when moses lifted his arms.
4 If the Bible would have said there was a giant beanstalk at this time...maybe I'd have believed it....on the other hand if it said that there was a giant living on the clouds above us.....that's a whole lot less likely.

I'd probably be able to keep naming reasons for a while...but I've had this discussion often with people and I tire of it.

Aw, c'mon Alex. You don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.
My rebuttal;
1. Only by popularity and with not a shred of actual evidence at all.
2. see 1.
3. Poppyc0ck
4. Here's your error. you've placed all your stock in hearsay, that's all that book and all the other supernatural myths are is hearsay.

Again, the only reasonable response from the faithful is, "Faith is not reasonable and irrational by definition, but I still believe".

X

Ok let's assume for a moment that JC and Moses existed. I have no specific reason to doubt that.

Moses leads his people away, there has been a drought and the river is partially dry. Dry enough to make it across. Sometime later the pharaoh decides he wants those escapees back, and -having a substantial distance to make up- mounts horses and chariots, and sets off.
Horses and chariots get stuck in the swamp/mud, some people die in the ensuing chaos.
They decide to call it a day and return home, determined to come back when they are better prepared.
Meanwhile, the water is coming back so after 2 weeks, the pharaoh decides to cut his losses.

Have you ever doen the experiment where 10 persons sit in a circle, and the first one whispers something to the second, the second to the third, and by the time the tenth person says out loud what he heard, it has nothing to do with what the first person said?
Do you also know that eye witness reports are the most unreliable in a court case as solid proof?

Now lets inject 50 years of telling the previous story by the campfire before it is written down. It then gets transcribed and translated at least a dozen times before the story finally finds its way to the texts that the OT as we know it was compiled from.

From a rather bland story we end up with magic. The bible (OT and NT) are books, compiled by people with a strong bias, including texts that have been based on decades or centuries of hearsay and several translations and transcriptions. And the texts that didn't meet the bias were discarded and destroyed, further coloring the final story.

So assuming that the bible is a factual description of events is unrealistic, and there is not real reason to believe that the sea parted the exact moment Moses raised his arms, and that the water subsequently rushed back to swallow the pharaoh like that scene in Lord of the Rings where the nazgul are wiped away when Arwen summons the water.

Originally Posted by xman

Aw, c'mon Alex. You don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.
My rebuttal;
1. Only by popularity and with not a shred of actual evidence at all.
2. see 1.
3. Poppyc0ck
4. Here's your error. you've placed all your stock in hearsay, that's all that book and all the other supernatural myths are is hearsay.

Again, the only reasonable response from the faithful is, "Faith is not reasonable and irrational by definition, but I still believe".

X

And this kind of behaviour is why I don't like discussion these things with people anymore.

Same with Jockey's and ScottS's comments. You want to discuss God in a gentlemanly fashion? then leave the sarcastic comments at home. This thread went great for all those pages but just then it went sour.

I'm pulling out.