See other Activism Articles
Title: One More Hate Letter
Source:
Davidduke.com
URL Source: http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=309#more-309
Published: Jun 16, 2005
Author: David Duke
Post Date: 2005-06-16 12:43:15 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Letter, More, Hate
Views: 2601
Comments: 129
6/14/2005 One More Hate Letter Posted under: General— @ 8:51 am Hate Letters Department The following is an excerpt from another Hate Letter from one of my obviously not-so-enamored admirers. I thought you might enjoy my response so I will share it with you. Dear Mr. Duke: I commend to you the article by Paul Johnson, the prominent historian, in the June issue of Commentary magazine concerning Anti-Semitism being a persistent mental disease. This confirms what I wrote you several years ago, concerning getting help from a psychiatrist. Incidentally,while you are in the Ukraine, I suggest you visit Babi Yar. I am sure you are making a lot of money from your skinhead and anti-semitic followers, but you evidently do not believe in the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of men. How sad. R. Ginson Your letter is typical of the absolute blind sightedness of the Jewish supremacism mental illness that YOU are infected with. Why do you mention Babi Yar in Ukraine, why no mention of the 7 million men, women and children murdered by the Jewish Bolshevik Kaganovich and his other Bolshevik henchmen. You obviously only value Jewish lives. To you only the Jews who died at Babi Yar are even worth mentioning, the 7 million Gentiles are just goyim to you! Don’t tell me about supremacism and racial hatred, go tell that to the NPR and Likud Party and the mass murderer Ariel Sharon and all of you damned Jewish supremacist accessories to his and Israel’s ethnic cleansing, torture and murder. If anti-Semitism is a disease, then what is anti-Gentilism, what is the Chosen People (master race) genocide boasted about in the Torah and Talmud? ( “and they killed every man, women, child, and spared not a thing that breathes") In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians; Purim, the slaughter of Haman and 75,000 persians; and Hannakuk, the bloody massacre of the Greeks and the capture of the temple in Jerusalem. It seems your whole favored religion is rooted in genocide while Christianity is based on love and forgiveness. Not to even understand this tells me that you may well be the sick one, and you are the one who needs some help. Give your canned “Brotherhood of Man” speech to Jewish supremacists that you dare not oppose. I believe all people deserve respect and all people have a right to exist and have societies based on their own values and heritage. But, I really don’t take kindly to Jewish supremacists and their defenders who are trying to destroy my own heritage and freedom as well as every other people on the planet. If you want an example of the “Brotherhood of Man” launched by those wonderful supremacists such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Crystal and Wurmser take a look at our 1700 dead American patriots in Iraq, and 20,000 maimed Americans there as well as the 100,000 Iraqis who died and the hundreds of thousands who have been maimed and hurt in this bloody, insane war for Israel. Are you so stupid as not to know that this was a war created by the Jewish supremacists for Israel’s benefit? As for your suggestion about me making money opposing the Jewish extremists. Nothing is more costly and hard than going against the Jewish supremacist powers. As one Jewish observer said, “There is no business like Shoah business!” Holocaust mania and praising the Jewish supremacists can land you the media appearances and publishing contracts and the really big bucks. Opposing them causes a constant struggle to financially survive. As for going to a psychiatrist, remember that the father of psychiatry, Freud himself, was a vicious hater of Gentiles who wrote of his desire to destroy Europeans (see the quotations of Freud cited and fully footnoted in my book). I am sure a Jewish psychiatrist will pronounce anyone who opposes Jewish hatred to be mentally ill. Maybe you should go see your Jewish psychiatrist, pay him a few shekels and I am sure he will tell how you how loving and wonderful you are to worship the Jewish supremacists and blind your eyes to the oceans of blood found in their wake. Sincerely, David Duke
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: Zoroaster (#17)
"testament of God's favoritism of Jews" is obviously someone else's quote as you'll never find in my post #6, will you. What I did say was God chose them to fulfill God's purposes. God had chosen responsibilities (not favoritism) in mind for Israel: If your boss hands you a big assignment, did your boss 'play favorites' or did your boss set you apart for an important task? You also conveniently overlooked my statement and quote of Romans 10:12: (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I'm sorry I don't believe God actually did it. I believe that he allowed it to happen. Just like he allowed the devil to afflict Job.
God is always good!
The prevailing theory in Israel today is that the ancient Israelites never left Egypt but probably emerged out of Canaan. They took on a new identity as Israelites, and were perhaps joined or led by a small group of kinfolk from Egypt – so there might be a kernel of truth according to some scholars. In a book called "The Bible Unearthed," the Israeli archaeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and the archaeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman (no relation) raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. They argue that it was written during the time of King Josiah of Judah in the 7th century BCE, 600 years after the Exodus. Many serious scholars doubt Moses ever existed.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
The narrative in Ex 11 & 12 (and earlier) makes it quite clear the LORD (the tetragrammaton for God's personal sacred name) claims personal responsibility and authority for killing the firstborn (as well as bringing about the former plagues). The LORD also claimed He personally would pass over those homes covered under the blood of the paschel lamb. That is a theological issue as well in that it is God who has the sovereignty to judge or 'pass over' anyone covered in the blood of Jesus (or the paschel lamb) and such sovereignty to so judge or pass over is not delegated by God (well, other than to God the Son). I'd be interested in any cites to the contrary. Further one of the points in Exodus (unlike Job) is God is making it clear to Egypt and the Israelites that God was Egypts adversary, not Moses or magicians or spirits . God was also making the point that He was bringing about what He declared He would do.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I seldom quote the Bible. "Favoritism" is my word. As I wrote previously, "The Prefect God does not play favorites." I am neither a Zionist, Christian Zionist, nor a Noahide. Nothing is more dangerous to freedom than fanatics claiming divine authority for some unholy cause.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
So were you just making statements against interest and using my post as a foil, or do you actually have some specific issue with what I wrote? Moses was the only human to have been favored by God to have seen God face to face. Dan 9:23 "At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." Somehow I suspect you're neither surprised nor disappointed.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
They planted the seeds of fabrication and thousands of permutations have since sprouted by opportunists that wish to wield a moral Damacles sword. You seem to be well versed in the scripture, if you'll allow me to digress a moment then maybe you can solve a question that's been nagging me lately. The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct? God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will? Or launch satellites, capsules and people into space? Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament and doesn't mind airplane noise interfering with the fanfare of his angle's chorus. There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?
Well.. the tower is only mentioned in Genesis chapter 11:1 - 9.. thats it.. and
it wasn't because of where they were building the tower and how high it was..
the scripture says.. 3 They said to each other, "Come, let us make
oven-fired bricks." They had brick for stone and asphalt for mortar. 4 And they
said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky.
Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face
of the whole earth." Genesis 11:5 Then the Lord came down to look over the
city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The Lord said, "If, as one
people all having the same language, they have begun to do this, then nothing
they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let Us go down there and
confuse their language so that they will not understand one another's speech." 8
So the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth, and they
stopped building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babylon, for there the
Lord confused the language of the whole earth, and from there the Lord scattered
them over the face of the whole earth. It has more to do with the people's
attitude.. that they would be equal to God.. not that it was going to be in the
skies..
I should add that this attitude also has more to do with 'getting to God' or
seeking God (going to heaven) by their own means rather than by God's plan..
man's idea vs God's plan.. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
The KVJ says "whose top may reach unto heaven". Which is a specific locational reference. If the tower was a physical manifestation of their attitudes, surely space flight rivals any ambitions of biblical people, so are some types of transgressions no longer unpleasant to the Lord? How about laboring on the Sabbath which is said to be punishable by death (Exodus 35:2), or the abomination of eating shellfish Lev. 11:10, or contact with women during their period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24).
Well the KJV is not a very good translation.. #1.. the OT is the new concealed
and the NT is the Old revealed. The OT although the things did physically
happen..they are allegory for spiritual things.. the plan of salvation started
in Genesis at the beginning. All that happened was to point us to God's plan..
Those Levitical laws..had to do with what were considered unclean and were an
allegory for sin.. (most had to do with health issues which were in the best
interests of the people.. such as shellfish.. bottom feeders.. could cause the
people illness... ) Jesus said he is the fulfillment of the Law.. so if we
accept Him we are no longer under the Law.. for if He is in us.. all are
kept in us through Him..
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
Jesus said he is the fulfillment of the Law.. so if we accept Him we are no longer under the Law.. for if He is in us.. all are kept in us Necessity is a fine selling point, informercials were smart to follow religion on that feature. If a salesman told me "Hey, you are inherently evil and need my redemption serum" I would probably assault him. Damnation is not a part of my system of beliefs which preempts the need for a savior. That point is irreconcilable with the faithful who won't deny themselves and others the prospect of divine punishment. Nietzsche summed it up best for me "Fellow creators the creator seeks, not corpses or herds or believers." Aspiring to be a "fellow creator" is diametrically opposed to Christianity as I understand it and I make it a point to never ever handicap my spiritual potential.
You have to actually understand the bible (even if you don't agree with it) to know what it intended as history, as doctrine, as spiritual, as physical, as literal, or symbolic. There are differing views among theologians regarding interpretive systems, and they would disagree in their personal interpretive views, but they would agree on the need for correctly interpreting the different kinds of passages. To be fair in any question or criticism you might care to raise, you must first be 'in the right ballpark' insofar as knowing what God intended to be conveyed. For example, just because the bible records slaughter in historical accounts does mean the bible "teaches" God expects one to go out and likewise slaughter. Genesis 1 is one of those "biblical stories" as you put it, that is literal and physical and even supported by modern science. Consider The Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in which he describes a possible reconciliation of the scientifically measured age of the universe (some 15B years) with the Genesis account of six days. Not "farcical" but a trustworthy physical literal account that can be disected and studied and aligned with what science measures and understands (albeit imperfectly as yet). If the article at all interests you, I further recommend Dr. Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" for an intriguing elucidation of how the original Hebrew text conveyed to the ancient sages what cosmologists are now begining to understand about how the universe began. Not quite. The builders were essentially guilty of pride and a desire to obtain or reach God's domain on their own effort or merit, by their own hand. Human hubris being what it is, anything they imagined they could achieve they assumed they would in fact achieve - that is overreaching ego, not confidence. God destroyed it not because God was threatened by their civil engineering skill, but to put an end to their collective pride. A false premise. God's kingdom is also infinite. Where has man been able to traverse God's Kingdom? If by Kingdom you mean "heaven", clearly no aircraft has traversed it (well, outside of the Bermuda triangle anyway - lol). If by "kingdom" you really meant "creation", well then man has traversed the earth, moon and nearby planets, not nearly so much as the infinite extent of God's entire creation, no? A kingdom is also the domain of a King - where the King reigns or lives. Jesus would live and reign in our hearts, spiritually, and likewise no aircraft has traversed our "hearts" either. And most often in the bible "heart" does not mean the blood pumping organ, but the place from which love, feeling and belief emanate - clearly more a mental concept but not purely intellectual either as feeling and instinct are involved as well. The key to understanding the bible is properly interpreting it and such rules of interpretation are known as a "hermeneutic", the benefit of a consistently applied hermeneutic is to always correctly differentiate between what is history, doctrine, spiritual, physical, literal, or symbolic. A few more examples: Before you presume the bible is farcical, ask yourself, if it were true, if God is real and wanted to prepare His creation for an eternal life in His presence or outside of His presence, what does God accomplish by nuturing and cultivating humanity as He did and thus writing the bible the way it is? Or asked another way, assume it is correct and then seek to understand and verify it, reserving your own judgement to dismiss it after you've 'mastered' it all. And bring your brain. God delights in sincere questions and sincere truth seekers. (ping to others who may have an interest)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I dont quite follow.. you had asked what the OT references where.. not sure how it went to Nietzsche.. Seems you are seeing the negative and I see it as positive.. All I can say is each of us has to come to an understanding ourselves.. I didnt become a Christian out of fear of damnation.. not at all.. it was quite the opposite..
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
Yikes! Correction: For example, just because the bible records slaughter in historical accounts does not mean the bible "teaches" God expects one to go out and likewise slaughter. (Sheesh... I proof and proof and proof, and still screw up, big time)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Agreed.. just as the difference in Cain and Abel's sacrifices..
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
The Kingdom of God is within you.
That's cool.
what does God accomplish by nuturing and cultivating humanity as He did and thus writing the bible the way it is? Ah, He wrote it? With a word processor? And bring your brain. That's the problem. I do. And the scripture doesn't reconcile with the natural world. Animals don't talk for instance. People can't live in the belly of a whale. Weather patterns are not such that they can encompass the entire world in a flood. And the one remaining family, biologically speaking cannot replenish the whole population. We know from the fossil record, there were bipedal hominids, which were never accounted for in the creation story (that I'm aware of). We are told Man was made in God's image, but what about Homo Erectus? We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer. An entire molecular world which science didn't know about is now unmitigated fact. And nothing about this essential universe was alluded to in the scripture. Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them. Why would God go to the painstaking effort of creating such balance only to make a mockery of it to amaze us with miracles? God delights in sincere questions and sincere truth seekers. He might, but his dogma doesn't seem to.
Did you even try to read and understand the one link I provided? Did you actually bring your brain as you claim or did you just bring presumption and attitude? And why should it? The bible is the story of what God did and why. God has left it to us (using the brains He gave us) to figure out how He did it. Your complaint is that the bible isn't believable, and your argument is because in spite it's having provided the accurate cosmological answer, 3000 years before science even knew there was a question, it is silent (not wrong, just merely silent) on the subject of molecular physics. Instead of investigating for accuracy what the bible does say, you have dismissed it because of something it did not say. Is that the standard of truth you would want applied to what you write in your posts? Would you want to be judged not on the accuracy of what you did write, but your failure to include mention of every topic in which every lurker has some interest? To be believable the bible merely has to be truthful on everything it does say. And neither archeology nor science have sufficiently advanced to have full grasp of every subject the bible does cover. That is precisely the 'Tower of Babel' kind of hubris that God detests. To presume that you know all that can be known not only about water, its phases, surface tension, molecular forces, gravity, bouyancy, etc but also whether Jesus was supported by water tension, bouyancy, null-gravity field, tractor beams, or whatever, and to further presume that God is limited to the same extent as your understanding, ie, that God can only do what you understand is possible, is unscientific. Even science allows for what it doesn't yet understand, but not you? Because we need the balance for our physical survival and existance , and the miraclulous is provided as demonstrable evidence that God does not. That God is in fact beyond it all and in control of it all. God is not a prisoner of His creation and the miracluous reveals to us (well, to anyone with eyes to see) that He is in fact "God".
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Amen and well stated...
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
Sorry I'm just getting around to this now. You're right: Purim is a minor holiday. Chanukah is too: both shrink to comparative insignificance behind the High Holidays, of which the major two are Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. But I'm afraid you're not right about the number of Persian deaths involved with Purim. Read Esther 9. Sorry...
Instead of investigating for accuracy what the bible does say, you have dismissed it because of something it did not say. I did. It says animals used to talk and people used to live to be several hundred years old. Along with many other stretches of the imagination that the faithful gloss over or claim those can't be read literally. did you just bring presumption and attitude? I'm not grilling anyone or trying to be an asshole. I'm on a search for faith too, but I insist on a docrtine that jibes with the world as it presents itself. Not a compendium of Asiatic fairy tales. And neither archeology nor science have sufficiently advanced to have full grasp of every subject the bible does cover. Because they're at odds. For God to have made the Earth and humanity his special project, it used to be believed that we were at the very center of the universe. As we've learned that's not remotely the case, we've dragged religion with us kicking and screaming. When it comes to critical questions abour creation, Religion is inflexible. It insists on not being questioned (and this excercise seems to irritate you - not my intention) because the answers show it in a bad light or make it look downright ridiculous. Science thrives on "heresy" towards it's subjects. More questions and more doubts lead it's students further toward real truths about our structural makeup. Others are always stuck on ancient and irrelevant "Begats, begets and begones". I notice you glossed over my sentence about "We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer." We have (or had ;) tails for crying out loud, like animals. So it God a comedian? I would buy that explanation. Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them. That is precisely the 'Tower of Babel' kind of hubris that God detests. Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts. They don't like explaining why the Earth is strewn with the fossils of creatures never mentioned in the creation account. Our how the immortal soul can be captured and tortured relentlessly when the central nervous system, a necessity for feeling pain remains here on terra firma to rot after death. Or how human beings, with a physical makeup we know a lot about can live to be 700 years old. Joints, cartilage, eyesight, the respiratory and circulatory systems; these things give out after 70 years or so on average. How did they used to last hundreds as repeatedly stated in the Bible? Did God at some point start making budget humans? Yeah, I know what you're going to say. That I should take it on faith that every mind boggling impossibility happened and it's our science that is lacking here. Bullfeathers!
Great posts, Dude, but there is no arguing with fanatics who believe they have divine knowlegd and are on a divine mission. "At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytzing zeal on behalf of religions or political idols." Aldous Huxley (1956)
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
And yet, I did not ask you to take on faith the earth is 6 days old, did I. No, in fact I actually offered you a scientific article based on relativity and an expanding universe which establishes an agreement between the biblical account and modern cosmology: The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years. The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years. The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years. The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years. The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years. The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years. When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance? Actually, you were offered one above, but what you have insisted on is ignoring it and shifting to new targets. And should you be offered answers to those too, will you ignore them as well and shift yet again to other targets? You're the one that seems so inflexibile as to be incapable of acknowledging answers and questions posed back to you. But what is irritating about this exchange is your hypocrisy in ignoring those answers and questions while complaining that a couple questions were "glossed over" out of the dozen that were in fact answered with detail and clarity - enough so that you ducked them. And incidently, I do in fact believe it is your intention to provoke and irritate. Your first post to me alluded to the "big sky deity" and deliberate fraud in the biblical account, and every post since has been strewn with sarcasm and derision, but oddly, no acknowledgements or response to answers given. I didn't gloss over it. It didn't even exist in your first question to me about the 'Tower of babel' which I did answer fully. Here then is your post #24 to me in it's entirety: You seem to be well versed in the scripture, if you'll allow me to digress a moment then maybe you can solve a question that's been nagging me lately. The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct? God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will? Or launch satellites, capsules and people into space? Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament and doesn't mind airplane noise interfering with the fanfare of his angle's chorus. There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right? And here in your post #35 you (not I) "glossed over" every answer I gave you, and instead shifted targets and asked about the human tailbone, wisdom teeth, the bible being silent on molecular physics, and God's ability and purpose in the miraculous. In response, in my post #36, I asked if you had read the link I provided and pointed out the illogic in criticising the bible for being silent on molecular physics and explained why God does miracles. Did you acknowledge or respond to any of that? No. You instead have shifted targets yet again and complain I glossed over one of your questions, when you have glossed over every answer you have been previously given. But I didn't gloss over it so much as I didn't address it at all, wasting my time (apparently) instead on a what I thought you'd appreciate was a bigger biblical/cosmological issue. While I reserve judgement on your premise that an "evolutionary past" is the only explanation for a "human tailbone", I don't have an explanation. [BTW, that's what honesty looks like.] And if on the basis of one person not having one explanation you wish to declare victory, then by all means do so. Likewise, if your "trump card" is always going to be the bible didn't discuss every scientific topic you imagined, then declare victory and walk away. Question all you like, but at least have the common intellectual courtesy to respond to the answers you are given. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you clearly understood that the answer you were given exposed a false presumption that Jesus' weight had to be supported by molecular surface tension and that science understands perfectly all the physics involved, and all required information and data is known and there are and never will be any other mechanism, thus the only conclusion is that God can not walk on water. You clearly understood that science has no explanation for the miraculous (as yet anyway). But rather, for the sake of your argument, you instead take the position that science is at present sufficiently all-knowing to declare any not-understood biblical account as false. There was a time (about 40 years ago) when science "knew" the universe had no beginning that it always was, and the Genesis account of a universe created from nothing was patently absurd. Well, the biblical account hasn't changed, but science matured to the point it now understands something it did not understand previously. That maturation will continue. Perhaps likewise there will be a day when science will understand how God might be able to walk on water. But for you to pretend you weren't offered a solid explanation showing alignment between the world as it presents itself (15 3/4 Billion years old) and the biblical account (6 days old) is simply dishonest. Perhaps when you acknowledge and respond to the points made in the answers you have been given, we can move on to whatever you believe to have been glossed over. Otherwise we're just sucking up bandwidth without communicating, with no chance to intelligently agree or disagree. The Prefect God does not play favorites. Those who quote the Bible as a "testament of God's favoritism of Jews" are merely admiring it as a momument over the grave of Christianity.
1) To be a living testimony to God
2) To bear the messiah Further, God's choosing was not to establish a master race (Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;)
"not to establish a master race"
Now just how, pray tell, do you construe "God's favoritism of Jews" from what I actually wrote?
"no distinction between Jew and Greek"
"all [or any] who call on Him"
#19. To: Starwind (#6)
The Israelites didn't cause the deaths, God did.
#20. To: RickyJ (#4)
In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians; Ah, Jews had nothing to do with the passover, God did. He was punishing the people of Egypt for not letting the Jews be free and leave Egypt.
#21. To: RickyJ (#19)
I'm sorry I don't believe God actually did it. I believe that he allowed it to happen. Just like he allowed the devil to afflict Job.
#22. To: Starwind (#18)
#23. To: Zoroaster (#22)
"The Prefect God does not play favorites."
"play" favorites, no, but "have" favorites, most certainly.
#24. To: Starwind (#10)
How can they be in control of all the fabrication parts and still get their own complete fabrication all wrong?
#25. To: Dude Lebowski (#24)
#26. To: Zipporah (#25)
They had brick for stone and asphalt for mortar. 4 And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
#27. To: Dude Lebowski (#26)
#28. To: Zipporah (#27)
the plan of salvation started in Genesis at the beginning ...
#29. To: Dude Lebowski, Diana, Zipporah, fatidic, Barak (#24)
There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?
The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct?
God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will?
#30. To: Dude Lebowski (#28)
#31. To: All (#29)
#32. To: Starwind (#29)
The builders were essentially guilty of pride and a desire to obtain or reach God's domain on their own effort or merit, by their own hand. Human hubris being what it is, anything they imagined they could achieve they assumed they would in fact achieve - that is overreaching ego, not confidence. God destroyed it not because God was threatened by their civil engineering skill, but to put an end to their collective pride.
#33. To: Diana, Eoghan, Bayonne (#16)
On 30 March the Heretical Press was raided by Metropolitan Police (Special Branch) and Humberside Police and almost all book stock, including scientific papers and material which has been published without hint of difficulty for several years, was taken away. Three computers were impounded. The arrest was on "Suspicion of Incitement to Racial Hatred," particularly in respect of TALES OF THE HOLOHOAX. After being further interviewed by West Yorkshire Police Sheppard was released, the renegade government's evident aim being to harass their political opponents and copy their hard drives. All titles except THE TYRANNY OF AMBIGUITY are currently unavailable. Your patience is requested while normal operations are restored.
#34. To: Zipporah (#30)
All I can say is each of us has to come to an understanding ourselves.. I didnt become a Christian out of fear of damnation.. not at all.. it was quite the opposite..
#35. To: Starwind (#29)
#36. To: Dude Lebowski (#35)
And the scripture doesn't reconcile with the natural world.
An entire molecular world which science didn't know about is now unmitigated fact. And nothing about this essential universe was alluded to in the scripture.
Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them.
Why would God go to the painstaking effort of creating such balance only to make a mockery of it to amaze us with miracles?
#37. To: Starwind (#36)
God is not a prisoner of His creation and the miracluous reveals to us (well, to anyone with eyes to see) that He is in fact "God".
#38. To: Starwind (#6)
But a celebration that God through Esther and King Ahasuerus had saved the Jews whom Haman was trying to kill. No persian deaths (othr than just Haman's himself) were involved in either this 'episode' or the celebration.
#39. To: Starwind (#36)
#40. To: Dude Lebowski (#39)
#41. To: Dude Lebowski (#39)
Yeah, I know what you're going to say. That I should take it on faith that every mind boggling impossibility happened and it's our science that is lacking here. Bullfeathers!
The calculations come out to be as follows:
I'm on a search for faith too, but I insist on a docrtine that jibes with the world as it presents itself.
Religion is inflexible. It insists on not being questioned (and this excercise seems to irritate you - not my intention) because the answers show it in a bad light or make it look downright ridiculous.
I notice you glossed over my sentence about "We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer." We have (or had ;) tails for crying out loud, like animals. So it God a comedian? I would buy that explanation.
They planted the seeds of fabrication and thousands of permutations have since sprouted by opportunists that wish to wield a moral Damacles sword.
I answered it entriely in my post #29, glossing over or omitting nothing, as you well know. Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#42. To: Barak (#38)
I'll concede I had forgotten that when King Ahasuerus declared that what Haman had planned for Mordecai and the Jews was reversed and wrought (by the King's decree) upon Haman and the enemies of the Jews, that included Haman's 10 sons and 75,000 existing enemies. Mea culpa.
But I'm afraid you're not right about the number of Persian deaths involved with Purim. Read Esther 9. Sorry...
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#43. To: Zipporah (#37)
Thanks very much.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#44. To: Zoroaster (#40)
Thanks my man. You're right of course, but I insist on futile endeavors I guess.
Great posts, Dude, but there is no arguing with fanatics who believe they have divine knowlegd and are on a divine mission.
#45. To: Dude Lebowski (#44)
Yours are not exactly futile endeavors. Religious fanaticisn should be confronted whenever encountered. Many freethinkers on this forum appreicate your posts. Folks who know they are right because God tells them so do the greatest damage in the world.
Thanks my man. You're right of course, but I insist on futile endeavors I guess.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#46. To: Starwind (#41)
The answers you've given are basically "nothing is impossible if God wills it". That's conjecture and frankly an insult to my intelligence. God hasn't willed anything for the entire world's amazement in a very long time (2 millenia maybe?), barring the occasional appearance of the savior's countenance in various potato chips. He altogether stopped communicating through burning bushes which don't get consumed by the fire (as SCIENCE WOULD DICTATE!), nor does he seem to revel in the pleasant odor of a bull burned on the altar of sacrifice (Lev. 1:9). He's relaxed now man, to the point of almost complete withdrawl compared to his persona way back when. No more fanfare these days. That's uncharacteristic of a tribal Deity addicted to worship and acknowledgement. Wouldn't you say? What's happening here is common. When you subscribe in totality to a doctrine as 100% truth, you're left defending it tooth and nail no matter how opposed it is to the natural world. For instance, if the scriptures had stated that verily Moses broke a mighty wind and thereby filled a passenger balloon with its contents and yea he flew his people to safety in the first ever trans-sea balloon flight, the faithful wouldn't bat an eye. Religious scholars would be calculating the trajetory of his flight path, artists would paint their renditions and the faithful would be making pilgramages and attempting recreations. The rest of us would be shaking our heads in incredulity. But that's what is happening. I like you SW. You punked Badeye on LP like I've never seen done on a forum. And I don't want for us to have a sour acquaintance here. Again, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I understand your defensive posturing. But you're right, nothing is getting done. If presented with sincere questions such as how Noah's Arc could hold a pair of every animal in existence, millions of species including those native to far away regions which none of the biblical authors even knew about or how people used to live to be several hundred years old or snakes and donkeys used to talk with human voices, you would casually brush it off as a matter of faith or link to god-knows-what. That doesn't go very far for legitimacy or the burden of proof, which is on you, not me. Arguing religion is one of the most futile things possible because faith preempts common sense, so I'll likely leave it at this and whatever last words you want to say.
Perhaps when you acknowledge and respond to the points made in the answers you have been given
#47. To: Starwind (#41)
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years. The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years. The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years. The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years. The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years. The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years. When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance? No it's not by chance. Science and nothing else determined the age of the Earth. With core sampling, calculations of tectonic plate and glacier movements, fossil deposits. And heck, this wasn't even pinpointed to a very accurate age until the 20th century. So how long did religion fumble around without the answer? Thousands of years. Once religion knew the truth, I'm sure it didn't take long to break down your day 1 was x millions years calculation. But it doesn't add to legitimacy of the creation story because somebody simply extrapolated data provided by science into a neat little matrix. The bigger problem for you is during those billions of years, things happened that the biblical authors weren't wise to. Giant animals were the undisputed stewards of the land, not man as the bible states. After their extinction simple hominids came to being, then intermediate hominids, then advanced hominids. Which one's were created in God's image? The Neanderthal? The Erectus? The Sapiens? If the latter represent God's image, what were the former? Beta tests? Or as some of the religious folks claim, the fossils were planted by Satan in order to test people's faith. Of course that's ridiculous, but it's more of any explanation you've provided which are along the lines of "Science just doesn't understand God's awesome work yet". That's no kind of answer for an honest inquiring brain.
The calculations come out to be as follows:
#48. To: Dude Lebowski (#46)
You're still evading the first answer I gave you, and you know it. So, show me some of that common sense and critique Schroeder's explanation. I'm not big on people smiling in my face while they evade my question. As do you, I don't appreciate when they're glossed over. But, unlike you, I did answer your question(s) didn't I, and since you've still not answered mine (as you're very much aware), kindly go back and read The Age of the Universe and if you disagee that Schroeder provided an explanation that reconciles the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years with the biblical account of 6 days, then please explain what Schroeder got wrong. Otherwise, if you do agree it is a plausible reconciliation, at least then have the intellectual honesty to say so.
The answers you've given are basically "nothing is impossible if God wills it".
Arguing religion is one of the most futile things possible because faith preempts common sense, so I'll likely leave it at this and whatever last words you want to say.
I like you SW.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#49. To: Dude Lebowski (#47)
Schroeder: When you add up the Six Days you get the age of the universe You have again ignored what the facts presented were. They dealt with the age of the universe (not the earth), and a reconciliation of them to the biblical account of the 6 days of creation (the heavens & the earth, etc). Schroeder's article and the biblical six-days creation account address the age of the universe, of all creation, not just the earth. Please, reread the article and offer a critque of what Schroeder got wrong if you disagree with his work.
Lebowski: Science and nothing else determined the age of the Earth.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#50. To: Dude Lebowski, Starwind (#46)
Hey, fellers, this is getting essentially nowhere. Dude, you're running into the fact that a man with an experience is not susceptible to a man with an argument. Starwind, you're running into the fact that you don't argue folks into the Kingdom of Heaven. I think there are better arguments that can be made on both sides. Dude, if you sat down and read Genesis 1 and 2, you could pretty easily come up with absolutely irrefutable arguments that evolution and Biblical creation cannot be reconciled, period. Starwind, if you thought about it a little more you could come up with a couple more historical examples of the scientist spending centuries struggling painfully up the mountain and reaching the summit only to find the theologian already there. But better arguments will neither create faith where it does not exist nor destroy it where it does. It's experience that brings faith. The Bible says that God has created the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; that's what's happening here. God is not going to allow assertions about him to be objectively proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, because he's after living faith, not dead, boring scientific certainty. Starwind, keep in mind that God's major objective here is not helping people win arguments, it's changing people's lives. Dude, keep in mind that you're dabbling in an area in which objective proof does not and cannot exist, but subjective proof is available for the asking in whatever quantities you're capable of tolerating. (Suppose, for example, that you wanted to prove to Starwind that you either are or are not married, and he was determined to contradict you. He could throw all sorts of attacks at whatever "evidence" you provided (Marriage certificate? Forged. Witnesses? Lying--etc.) and you would in the end be reduced simply to the fact that you know what you're saying is true because you were there when it happened (or didn't), even if he wasn't.) If you want to have a productive discussion, it can certainly be done; but you won't get there by arguing about the scientific accuracy of the Bible. The Bible posits an omnipotent God--that is, one beyond science (at least as we understand it). If that's true, arguing about his nature or even his existence using science is a fool's errand.
#51. To: Starwind (#48)
Just to get something straight. I'm talking about the age of the Earth. The creation story doesn't mention that hundreds of millions of other individual suns exist and God's pet project is dedicated to a microcosmic area in the Universe. The creation story centers around Earth. So don't throw the Earth vs. Universe obfuscation into this. That article is dated 1/30/2005. So Mr.Schroeder has the benefit of knowing, courtesy of science, how old the Earth is. From there, he can break that number down six ways. That's not so impressive. But you keep pointing to it, saying "see there I gave you an answer, didn't I?" The article starts out with "The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators' description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option." In other words abstract bullshit. But he has to keep it abstract, that way you won't get pinned down with embarrasing evidence. I'm not big on people smiling in my face while they evade my question. As do you, I don't appreciate when they're glossed over. Forget you then, I'm trying to be reasonable. You're getting hot under the collar and turning this around. You've evaded every point. Why does our physical structure resemble animals? What does the fossil record mean relative to the creation story? What aren't the times of other hominids accounted for? Why doesn't God talk through burning bushes anymore? How could Homo Sapiens live for hundreds of years each? How could animals talk? How could a massive flood encompass the whole world and then mysteriously disappear? How was every species in creation saved (do you even understand what this would entail?) How did one family replenish the entire planet? Your responses: "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". And you have the audacity to say that I should bring my brain????? It doesn't matter what you are presented with, because you're on a divine mission and completely oblivious to fact. Who is weak minded, the questioners or believers?
The Age of the Universe and if you disagee that Schroeder provided an explanation that reconciles the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years with the biblical account of 6 days, then please explain what Schroeder got wrong.
#52. To: Starwind (#49)
You have again ignored what the facts presented were. They dealt with the age of the universe (not the earth), and a reconciliation of them to the biblical account of the 6 days of creation (the heavens & the earth, etc). In fact no one knows the age of the universe because there's not enough evidence for conclusive proof. We can, however, reasonably tell how old the Earth is. Mr. Schroeder is making an assumption that the Earth was created at the same time as the universe which has zero basis in FACT, which you've implied this nonesense is.
Schroeder: When you add up the Six Days you get the age of the universe Lebowski: Science and nothing else determined the age of the Earth.
#53. To: Barak (#50)
Dude, you're running into the fact that a man with an experience is not susceptible to a man with an argument. That's fine. When my experience in this world shows some signs of correlating with the world of centuries-old Mid-Eastern mystics then I'll sign on as it's most devout student. Until then I'll ask questions, and apparently piss some people off. Dude, keep in mind that you're dabbling in an area in which objective proof does not and cannot exist, but subjective proof is available So I should lend credence to anyone wielding subjective proof? Wouldn't that make me a great big tool? The guy downtown wearing the sandwich board has subjective proof that we are all to be relegated to a 8'x10' cell in the afterlife and he preaches the gospel as he understand it in the loudest tone he can muster. But heck, he's chalk full of subjective proof. arguing about his nature or even his existence using science is a fool's errand. Then how should we ascertain his nature? The texts that claim to know are so pathetically ridiculous when held up to scrutiny, they cannot adjust themselves before the heresy scientific breakthroughs. What it requires is blind faith, pretty the same mind control method cults use. I rage against that sort of handicapping of my spiritual ability. But I'm glad we can disagree in a cordial manner, I thought SW would be up to task on that.
#54. To: Dude Lebowski (#51)
Just to get something straight. I'm talking about the age of the Earth. (sigh) I'm painfully aware that you are. The creation story doesn't mention that hundreds of millions of other individual suns exist and God's pet project is dedicated to a microcosmic area in the Universe. The creation story centers around Earth. The first 8 verses of Genesis describes the creation of the heavens and earth (space-time and matter) and light separating from darkness (matter condenses out and order proceeds from chaos) and then subsequent verses discuss the (planet) earth, seas, birds, fish, animals etc. The creation story doesn't " center" on anything except man, but the preponderance of the time elapsed during creation prior to and including man, covers the creation of the universe - just as science has observed. Further, "hundreds of millions of other individual suns" are in fact part of that creation account - the heavens. I never said the " six days" of creation accommodated the earth only. That seems to be your presupposition. I in fact gave you an article which explains how, enough time elapsed during the "six days" of creation for the formation of the entire universe as well as those stars and the earth. So don't throw the Earth vs. Universe obfuscation into this. LOL! That "obfuscation" as you call it has been included since my first post #29 to you. You had stated: There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right? And so I gave you an answer that, no, there are some biblical stories which are to be interpreted literally and not farcically in the face of modern science. I gave as an example the fact that what the Bible states was six days of creation can be reconciled with the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years. I wrote exactly: Genesis 1 is one of those "biblical stories" as you put it, that is literal and physical and even supported by modern science. Consider The Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in which he describes a possible reconciliation of the scientifically measured age of the universe (some 15B years) with the Genesis account of six days. Not " farcical" but a trustworthy physical literal account that can be disected and studied and aligned with what science measures and understands (albeit imperfectly as yet). If the article at all interests you, I further recommend Dr. Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" for an intriguing elucidation of how the original Hebrew text conveyed to the ancient sages what cosmologists are now begining to understand about how the universe began. Somehow wherever I wrote "age of the universe" you instead read "earth". I can't do much about that except try to highlight where the disconnects are. The point of all this is that depending on what relativistic time frame is used to observe the creation, it can be observed as six days or 15 3/4 billion years. The article I linked elaborates for you on relativistic time dilation and reference frames and how, given the expansion of the universe, 6 days in one reference frame can equate to 15 3/4 billion years in another. Consequently, there is no conflict between the cosmological age of the universe and the biblical age of the creation. Consequently there is ample time for the development of the geologically and biologically old specimens that we observe on the earth. Do I agree we (humans) evolved from apes, no. But I do agree speciation took place over millions of years. Do I agree we (humans) are as old as Neanderthals and other hominids (Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesensis)? No. But science hasn't yet proven that we are their genetic evolutionary descendants, either. But the point I've been making is the billions of years required for all that is not irreconcilable. Science and the bible can be reconciled on the age of the universe (which obviously includes stars and the earth). So this obfuscation as you call it of my introducing the age of universe has been at the core of my answers to you since my first post and I did it then to demonstrate an example of science reconciling with a literal "bible story". How did you miss that? The article starts out with "The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators' description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option." In other words abstract bullshit. But he has to keep it abstract, that way you won't get pinned down with embarrasing evidence. That demonstrates to me, you still haven't read it, and are probably assuming what you think it says. Rather than post the entire article, I have below excerpted portions. Please explain how they are "abstract bullshit": We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks. Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text. Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" -- but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet -- the root of "erev" -- is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" -- "boker" -- is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement. Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos Bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts. Science has shown that there's only one "substance-less substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold. Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there were six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, How old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is approximately 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in on earth. That's Einstein's view of relativity. But what would those billions of years be as perceived from near the beginning looking forward? The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time. Light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that does not mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by its own space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of traveling, the universe and space are stretching. As space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world. (In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.) The calculations come out to be as follows: The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years. The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years. The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years. The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years. The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years. The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years. When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance? [now back to your points] Forget you then, I'm trying to be reasonable. You're getting hot under the collar and turning this around. You've evaded every point. Sincerely, reasonable would be for you to have acknowledged the article and my point (even if you disagreed with it) back in your first response to my posting of the article. But you didn't. Reasonable would be to have acknowledged that I originated the topic of reconciling the age of the universe between cosmology and the bible (it wasn't a recent "obfuscation" - it has been there all along). But you didn't. Reasonable would have been to at least once have explained what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement. But you didn't. Evaded every point? Every? LOL! Go back and count how many of your questions I painstakingly already answered. My refusal at this point to play more " bible-story whack-a-mole" with you is not evasion. I offered to resume and address every one if you would first explain what Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement. But instead you dismissed it based on the 2nd paragraph as "abstract bullshit". Your responses: "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". And you have the audacity to say that I should bring my brain?? ??? And your brain has been ... where? I first offered a cosmologist's scientific reconciliation of the six days of creation with the 15B year age of the universe in my first response to you. I answered your questions about the Tower of Babel and then also explained further what biblical hermeneutics were. Then you asked about tail bones, wisdom teeth and Jesus walking on water and why did God create balance and then do miracles. I explained the illogic of criticizing the bible (or your posts for that matter) on what they did not say and then - only then - in answer to your question about miracles did I state the obvious - that God can do miracles - and why He would do them. But from that you distort my typical responses as "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". You've conveniently overlooked everything underlined in the above paragraph and reversed the order and then misapplied it to every response I've given you. Any casual examination of my responses shows I've addressed the substance of your questions every time, in far more detail and accuracy than you have yet to extend me the same intellectual courtesy. Picking up now with your post #52: Mr. Schroeder is making an assumption that the Earth was created at the same time as the universe which has zero basis in FACT, which you've implied this nonesense is. You really haven't read or understood Dr. Schroeder's article, have you? Here is an excerpt: Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was God. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" -- very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance -- so thin that it has no essence -- turned into matter as we know it. Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos Bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts. I trust you recognize the obvious? Schroeder does not assume the earth was created at the same time as the universe. Schroeder describes Nachmanides realization that the physical universe started as a 'big bang' from a singularity (size of a mustard seed), space-time expanded and matter coalesced, then the six days starts, not completes, but starts. Schroeder is an MIT PhD cosmologist and physicist and he is merely aligning standard big bang theory with Nachmanides commentaries. Schroeder knows (and the above demonstrates) the earth did not form until billions of years after the big bang. The whole point of his article is that the billions of years theorized for formation of the earth via stellar, galactic and planetary formation processes fits within the estimated 15 3/4 billion year age of the universe, which in turn reconciles (from a different relativistic time frame) with the six day biblical creation account. So, the question yet remains: please explain what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#55. To: Dude Lebowski (#53)
That's pretty much the way it works for most of us. That's not how subjective proof works. In fact, subjective proof is very much like liberty: you can't get it from somebody else; instead, you have to produce it yourself. We get to know him. Personally. The Bible can clarify things, but it can't create a relationship any more than an issue of People magazine can create a relationship between you and, say, Lindsey Lohan.
That's fine. When my experience in this world shows some signs of correlating with the world of centuries-old Mid-Eastern mystics then I'll sign on as it's most devout student.
So I should lend credence to anyone wielding subjective proof?
Then how should we ascertain his nature?
#56. To: Barak, Zipporah, tom007, dakmar, the rest of THEM, Arete (#50)
Or bully and insult them either. That attitude coupled with arrogance tends to turn a lot of people off to the whole biblical issue.
Starwind, you're running into the fact that you don't argue folks into the Kingdom of Heaven.
#57. To: Starwind (#54)
My 2 cents.. the bible is not a scientific record #1 and #2 it is not a book of politics.. for as the bible says '1,000 years as a day is to God'.. therefore time is not recorded in the bible as to be taken in a literal sense when certain numbers are used, large numbers in the bible are always used figuratively. Just as the scripture that says God owns the cattle on a 1,000 hills. So then should we conclude that God ONLY owns part of the cattle on 1,000 hills only? As well as the # 144,000 which is 12 X 12 X 12 X 1,000.. not to be thought as a literal number..a huge mulitude of those "called out" those promised to Abraham as his descendents through his 'seed' which is Christ " 4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky... " A figure of speech meaning a huge multitude.
#58. To: Dude Lebowski (#24)
Yes, he loosens up quite a bit, guess he gets mellow in his old age!!
Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament
.
.
.
Comments (59 - 129) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest