PDA

View Full Version : Is it a sin to seek knowledge?



Gnostic Bishop
13-06-2015, 04:27 AM
Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?

Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.

Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?

Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?

Regards
DL

MichaelBaron
13-06-2015, 12:59 PM
Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?

Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.

Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?

Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?

Regards
DL

So what is your point? :)

antichrist
13-06-2015, 01:04 PM
So what is your point? :)

I think GB must be on increment time, +30 secs per move

Johns
13-06-2015, 08:44 PM
Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?

Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.

Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?

Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?

Regards
DL

Mr Bishop, is to easy to find opposite commands in the Bible. Is a silly book.

You ask "Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?"
IS Sin because for powerful people who know God they must keep poor people in ignorant bliss or be killed by poor people.

Scripture is for controlling people.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2015, 03:44 AM
Mr Bishop, is to easy to find opposite commands in the Bible. Is a silly book.
A silly comment replying to a silly commenter.


Scripture is for controlling people.
What would you know? Indeed, Scripture does control people: would be thieves, murderers, tyrants, etc.

Rincewind
15-06-2015, 12:22 PM
Indeed, Scripture does control people: would be thieves, murderers, tyrants, etc.

Certainly there has been a lot of theft, murder and tyrannical regimes justified in the name of scripture.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2015, 12:30 PM
Certainly there has been a lot of theft, murder and tyrannical regimes justified in the name of scripture.
In reality, Scripture prohibits all three, but there are some like you who think that when it says "white" it can be validly interpreted as "black". If you really want tyrannical regimes, try the evolutiomnary Nazi regime or the overtly atheopathic communist regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Rincewind
15-06-2015, 12:32 PM
In reality, Scripture prohibits all three, but there are some like you who think that when it says "white" it can be validly interpreted as "black". If you really want tyrannical regimes, try the evolutiomnary Nazi regime or the overtly atheopathic communist regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Really??? Is that the case with the supposed campaign of Joshua against the Canaanites?

Gnostic Bishop
16-06-2015, 12:38 AM
So what is your point? :)

God is a prick.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
16-06-2015, 12:39 AM
Mr Bishop, is to easy to find opposite commands in the Bible. Is a silly book.

You ask "Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?"
IS Sin because for powerful people who know God they must keep poor people in ignorant bliss or be killed by poor people.

Scripture is for controlling people.

20/20.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
16-06-2015, 12:44 AM
In reality, Scripture prohibits all three, but there are some like you who think that when it says "white" it can be validly interpreted as "black". If you really want tyrannical regimes, try the evolutiomnary Nazi regime or the overtly atheopathic communist regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

What type of regime does God have in heaven if not a tyranny?

As I recall Satan as well as 1/3 of the angels wanted a crack at leadership but God did not allow a vote and just did what tyrants do and got rid of all who wanted a free vote. That is tyranny is it not?

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2015, 01:56 AM
Really??? Is that the case with the supposed campaign of Joshua against the Canaanites?

Of course. See How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html)

Redmond Barry
16-06-2015, 02:33 AM
Is it a sin to invent a chocolate and marshmallow stuffed burrito with caramel topping ? :D

Redmond Barry
16-06-2015, 02:34 AM
God is a prick.

Regards
DL

God is living in my rose bush ?

I will say hello to him next time I water the garden.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2015, 02:50 AM
Is it a sin to invent a chocolate and marshmallow stuffed burrito with caramel topping ? :D

No. :D

Gnostic Bishop
16-06-2015, 06:33 AM
Is it a sin to invent a chocolate and marshmallow stuffed burrito with caramel topping ? :D

Absolutely. I hate chocolate.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
16-06-2015, 06:35 AM
Of course. See How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html)


Have you ever found an argument that condones God torturing King David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it?

I have been looking for one of those but every time I ask, Christians run away.

Regards
DL

antichrist
16-06-2015, 07:19 AM
Of course. See How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html)

God only became the God of Love after the Beatles song All You Need is Love, before that he was the god of revenge and fire and brimstone. When fear no longer worked they changed his PR strategy.

Are you actually denying the Scriptures or only the Hebrew Scriptures - was God wrong back then in the first episode of the Bible?

Adamski
16-06-2015, 10:04 AM
The thread title question has a simple answer: "No." The same answer as IM Gary Lane received after asking a long-winded question to Magnus Carlsen - see Gary's twitter account profile.

antichrist
16-06-2015, 10:27 AM
The thread title question has a simple answer: "No." The same answer as IM Gary Lane received after asking a long-winded question to Magnus Carlsen - see Gary's twitter account profile.

If the answer is no then why did poor Adam and Eve cop a bashing for eating from the tree of knowledge? Did they make a glutton of themselves?

Rincewind
16-06-2015, 11:40 AM
Of course.

That is the biggest pile of baloney you have posted for some time. Historical scholars now know there is nothing historical in the whole book of Joshua but regardless it is scripture that teaches that god's chosen people have a right to displace, massacre and enslave the indigenous population for their own financial gain. If god says to kill thousands of people then you kill them and you are righteous in doing so. There is no clearer example of the potential danger of a ethical system derived from an unscientific worldview. If you believe good and evil is defined by an invented deity, you can be convinced to commit any evil in the name of that deity.

Adamski
16-06-2015, 01:06 PM
If the answer is no then why did poor Adam and Eve cop a bashing for eating from the tree of knowledge? Did they make a glutton of themselves?

Because they disobeyed a direct order from God.

antichrist
16-06-2015, 01:29 PM
Because they disobeyed a direct order from God.

But weren't they just seeking knowledge that you answered NO to they that were not sinning by seeking knowledge?

Adamski
16-06-2015, 01:59 PM
The thread question is general. But I see the initial post does refer to Adam and Eve. They sinned.

antichrist
16-06-2015, 02:17 PM
The thread question is general. But I see the initial post does refer to Adam and Eve. They sinned.

So God wanted us to stay ignorant?

Adamski
16-06-2015, 03:27 PM
So God wanted us to stay ignorant?Adam and Eve could eat of any tree in the Garden of Eden except the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Eating of that would make them like God. God wanted them to be people who would worship him freely, not because of any kind of super-human knowledge. He wanted people to obey His commands. A and E did not obey this command.

antichrist
16-06-2015, 04:35 PM
Adam and Eve could eat of any tree in the Garden of Eden except the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Eating of that would make them like God. God wanted them to be people who would worship him freely, not because of any kind of super-human knowledge. He wanted people to obey His commands. A and E did not obey this command.

I could hit this one for a sixer over the boundary but now busy, come on RW sort it out

Redmond Barry
16-06-2015, 05:44 PM
Adam and Eve could eat of any tree in the Garden of Eden except the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Eating of that would make them like God. God wanted them to be people who would worship him freely, not because of any kind of super-human knowledge. He wanted people to obey His commands. A and E did not obey this command.

So god didnt want Adam and Eve to be like him ? But they are required to obey his command ? :confused:

By the way, the term "Worshipping freely" appears to be an oxymoron.

Adamski
16-06-2015, 05:54 PM
So god didnt want Adam and Eve to be like him ? But they are required to obey his command ? :confused:

By the way, the term "Worshipping freely" appears to be an oxymoron.Why can't one "worship freely"? I do it every Sunday.

Redmond Barry
16-06-2015, 05:57 PM
Why can't one "worship freely"? I do it every Sunday.

Because you are relying on a finite interpretation to conduct you worship.

Rincewind
16-06-2015, 05:59 PM
When I was a child I kept mice in the hope they would obey my every command and worship me as a god. When they didn't I cast them out of mouse cage I had built for them and they had to fend for themselves. But I still required that they obey my commandments. When the original mice's children continued to disobey me I drowned them all in a massive flood.

Fortunately I am much more emotionally mature now. :)

Redmond Barry
16-06-2015, 06:20 PM
When I was a child I kept mice in the hope they would obey my every command and worship me as a god. When they didn't I cast them out of mouse cage I had built for them and they had to fend for themselves. But I still required that they obey my commandments. When the original mice's children continued to disobey me I drowned them all in a massive flood.

Fortunately I am much more emotionally mature now. :)

I had the same experience as a child with pet rocks.

When they didnt respond to my furious demands for their complete submission I crushed them all into dust.

It must be hard work being God, what with all the juvenile tantrums and low self esteem he has.

Gnostic Bishop
17-06-2015, 12:23 AM
The thread title question has a simple answer: "No." The same answer as IM Gary Lane received after asking a long-winded question to Magnus Carlsen - see Gary's twitter account profile.

If not a sin as you say, you should agree that God was out of line then in commanding A & E to not seek knowledge and that he should not have punished anyone in Eden.

Is that your position?

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
17-06-2015, 12:26 AM
Of course. See How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html)

Have you seen this rather well done movie?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

They end asking about a God who tortures babies.

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
17-06-2015, 12:32 AM
Because they disobeyed a direct order from God.

God's first order was way back in Gen 1. The order to reproduce.

You will note that A & E were too stupid yet in Gen 3 just before they ate of the tree of knowledge.

IOW, they could not follow the first command without breaking the second command.

That is quite the trap and catch 22 is it not?

They were damned if they did and damned if they did not.

Please explain a way out from that conundrum.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
17-06-2015, 12:36 AM
Because they disobeyed a direct order from God.

On another issue.

God orders that divorce not be allowed. Let no man put asunder.

60 odd % of Christians divorce and you do not see God particularly upset.

Can you explain his double standard.

Regards
DL

Adamski
17-06-2015, 01:27 PM
God's first order was way back in Gen 1. The order to reproduce.

You will note that A & E were too stupid yet in Gen 3 just before they ate of the tree of knowledge.

IOW, they could not follow the first command without breaking the second command.

That is quite the trap and catch 22 is it not?

They were damned if they did and damned if they did not.

Please explain a way out from that conundrum.

Regards
DLGen 2:16-17 (NKJV). "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree in the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

How does following that command mean they couldn't be fruitful and multiply? It doesn't. But Adam (and Eve) could not follow this command and sin entered the human world.

Adamski
17-06-2015, 01:28 PM
On another issue.

God orders that divorce not be allowed. Let no man put asunder.

60 odd % of Christians divorce and you do not see God particularly upset.

Can you explain his double standard.

Regards
DLHow do you know God is not upset when people divorce? I believe from Scripture that He is. Just as He is upset at all sin. And re gay marriage issue, check out Romans 1: 16- end of chapter.

Kevin Bonham
17-06-2015, 06:19 PM
How do you know God is not upset when people divorce? I believe from Scripture that He is. Just as He is upset at all sin. And re gay marriage issue, check out Romans 1: 16- end of chapter.

Hmmm. Starts with "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, , because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: " and then goes on to give extremely strong reasons why one should be ashamed of the gospel. Even if following the illogical bigotry in the remainder of Romans really was the only path to salvation then it would be more honorable by far not to follow it and not to be saved.

What is quite remarkable about the rest of Romans is that apart from its blatant homophobia, it actually rejects the homophobe theory that homosexuality is entirely chosen, by saying that God made people gay to punish them for not worshipping properly.

Gnostic Bishop
18-06-2015, 06:04 AM
Gen 2:16-17 (NKJV). "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree in the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

How does following that command mean they couldn't be fruitful and multiply? It doesn't. But Adam (and Eve) could not follow this command and sin entered the human world.

I did not say that by eating of the tree of knowledge they could not reproduce. I said that they could not reproduce till after eating of the tree of knowledge.

Before that they were too stupid to even know they were naked and that is why they had not followed God's first command to them. The one whose infraction he somehow ignored and instead exploded on them for not doing the second one.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
18-06-2015, 06:06 AM
How do you know God is not upset when people divorce? I believe from Scripture that He is. Just as He is upset at all sin. And re gay marriage issue, check out Romans 1: 16- end of chapter.

Shove your homophobia where you want a homo to be.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
18-06-2015, 06:08 AM
Hmmm. Starts with "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, , because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: " and then goes on to give extremely strong reasons why one should be ashamed of the gospel. Even if following the illogical bigotry in the remainder of Romans really was the only path to salvation then it would be more honorable by far not to follow it and not to be saved.

What is quite remarkable about the rest of Romans is that apart from its blatant homophobia, it actually rejects the homophobe theory that homosexuality is entirely chosen, by saying that God made people gay to punish them for not worshipping properly.

Our homophobic friend also forgets Christian history.

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2015, 06:41 AM
Hmmm. Starts with "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, , because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: " and then goes on to give extremely strong reasons why one should be ashamed of the gospel.
I haven't seen any reason. Shame is meaningless from an evolutionary perspective anyway unless it affects reproductive success.


Even if following the illogical bigotry in the remainder of Romans really was the only path to salvation then it would be more honorable by far not to follow it and not to be saved.
This allegedly "illogical bigotry" was followed by almost all cultures throughout all periods of history. Only in the last few decades has even the concept of "gay marriage" been entertained seriously. Before that, even gay activists claimed to have no interest in it.


What is quite remarkable about the rest of Romans is that apart from its blatant homophobia, it actually rejects the homophobe theory that homosexuality is entirely chosen,
You mean the theory held by many homosexuals, who claim that it's homophobic to say that they were born that way, because, as one lesbian in Wellington, NZ, said (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#f70), “because the underlying assertion is that if we weren’t born that way, we wouldn’t want to be like this.”


by saying that God made people gay to punish them for not worshipping properly.
You mean “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves”? God gives people rules for their benefit, but if people disobey, God often gives them just what they wish for, and lets them suffer the consequence. This is His right as sovereign Creator (Romans 9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=ESV)). E.g. Adam and Eve decided that they didn’t need God, so God gave them what they clearly wanted by their actions—separation from His presence (as well as keeping His word that they would now be subject to decay and death). And as the great apologist C.S. Lewis said, those who end up in hell are those who cannot stand to be in God’s Holy presence, so God says to them: ‘Thy will be done.’ The passages below are examples of those who persistently reject the truth and actively prefer lies, delusion and darkness, so God gives them just what they want (and from God’s standpoint, deserve).

Some modern bibliosceptics puff in righteous indignation at this, but why should this be a concern, especially to a soi-disant moral skeptic? :P

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2015, 06:46 AM
How do you know God is not upset when people divorce? I believe from Scripture that He is. Just as He is upset at all sin. And re gay marriage issue, check out Romans 1: 16- end of chapter.

It's also doubtful that the non-chessplayer above knows what he is talking about. Whence the alleged "60 odd % of Christians divorce"? This is reminiscent of the leftist fiction Fifty Percent of American Marriages End in Divorce (http://www.truthorfiction.com/divorce/). This comes from an elementary misreading of statistics:


A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics told me that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you’d find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.

Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.

It's also notable that Camille Paglia, an open lesbian long before it became fashionable, criticised the above's source, the openly gay academic, the late AIDS victim John Boswell:


Despite sporadic qualifications, Boswell repeatedly implies a genital subtext to intense spiritual alliances, even when his supporting manuscripts make clearly uncarnal invocations to martyred paired saints, who died in the service of Christ. …

Whatever medieval ceremonies of union may have been found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth. (‘Plighting Their Troth’, The Guardian Weekly, 11 Sept. 1994, p. 18.

MichaelBaron
18-06-2015, 11:52 AM
60 odd % of Christians divorce and you do not see God particularly upset.



Regards
DL

May I enquire where this figure happens to come from?

Gnostic Bishop
18-06-2015, 12:05 PM
May I enquire where this figure happens to come from?

http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

They indicate higher numbers for subsequent marriages and I had something on common law break up's which I was adding in but forget where it was.

Regards
DL

Adamski
18-06-2015, 01:01 PM
On another issue.

God orders that divorce not be allowed. Let no man put asunder.

60 odd % of Christians divorce and you do not see God particularly upset.

Can you explain his double standard.

Regards
DLThis percentage (or even just 50%) is a total fiction. It's not even 50% of all marriages. From Truthorfiction.com:

“A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics told me that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you’d find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.”

MichaelBaron
18-06-2015, 02:16 PM
http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

They indicate higher numbers for subsequent marriages and I had something on common law break up's which I was adding in but forget where it was.

Regards
DL

higher numbers...or 60%? also what is the survey sample :)

Rincewind
18-06-2015, 05:04 PM
“A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics told me that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you’d find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.”

That article seems to be a little confused. If you have a 2*x new marriages and x divorces then your best estimate for the instantaneous ratio of marriages ending in divorce is 50%. You're not saying that 50 percent of marriages have *already* ended in divorce. The comment that the majority of the existing 54 million marriages would not end in divorce is beside the point and if anything should be discounted since this statistic is usually used to council those considering marriage, not people who have been long-term spouses. Furthermore the comment that the majority of these 54 millian marriage would not end in divorce would seem to be a unsubstantiated forecast.

I think the take home message is beware of that website as a myth-busting site. It seems to have another agenda.

Desmond
18-06-2015, 05:09 PM
Is it a sin to seek knowledge?No, but if it contradicts the bible just pretend it's not there.

Johns
18-06-2015, 05:34 PM
A silly comment replying to a silly commenter.


What would you know?

This is abusive. I do not like it.

Johns
18-06-2015, 05:39 PM
Every where i go is Capablanca-Fan. Who are you Capa-fan? You seem to be fighting eevryone.

jammo
18-06-2015, 08:49 PM
Every where i go is Capablanca-Fan. Who are you Capa-fan? You seem to be fighting eevryone.

Not everyone. He has God on his side. If you want a good laugh ask him about his views on Noah's Ark.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2015, 09:22 PM
I haven't seen any reason. Shame is meaningless from an evolutionary perspective anyway unless it affects reproductive success.

Your biblical-belief axiom ensures that you cannot see any reason irrespective of its strength so your failure to see it is irrelevant. You're also grossly oversimplifying evolutionary theory (since a trait does not require a reproductive benefit to persist) but even ignoring that, it would not be hard to posit potential evolutionary benefits of a capacity for shame - especially where it was shame about believing something stupid that promoted harm to others of your own species. An individual capable of feeling shame when they are harming others is more likely to learn not to do it and less likely to be harmed in reprisal.


This allegedly "illogical bigotry" was followed by almost all cultures throughout all periods of history.

A dubious ipse dixit on any level but in any case the "illogical bigotry" I referred to wasn't just homophobia but the specific justification for it that might be extracted from Romans - which is that it is a good idea in God's name to persecute those who God has made the way they are.


Only in the last few decades has even the concept of "gay marriage" been entertained seriously. Before that, even gay activists claimed to have no interest in it.

It was rather difficult for gay marriage to be entertained seriously while gay sex was illegal.


You mean the theory held by many homosexuals, who claim that it's homophobic to say that they were born that way, because, as one lesbian in Wellington, NZ, said (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#f70), “because the underlying assertion is that if we weren’t born that way, we wouldn’t want to be like this.”

Hardly a widespread belief in the LGBTI community (indeed I've never seen it before) but there probably are some homophobes who treat same-sex attraction as a born (but curable) affliction rather than a choice, and I can understand the concern mentioned above on that basis. What I was commenting on is that Romans appears to posit a radical alternative to born-vs-chosen, specifically that people are made gay by God. They are supposedly given over to their desires by God, which implies they only act on them because of a deliberative action by God to cause them to do so. Without that action by God, it seems that while they would have that desire, they might not act on it. So really the religious homophobe who dislikes homosexuality should instead be a religious theophobe, because it is God's fault that there is actually gay sex rather than merely gay lust.

Incidentally, I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all solution to the sexual orientation issues. Some people legitimately change sexual orientations during their life, or might have easily ended up differently but for circumstances in their life, while others are so strongly of a particular orientation that it's unlikely they would change under any realistic circumstances.


Some modern bibliosceptics puff in righteous indignation at this, but why should this be a concern, especially to a soi-disant moral skeptic? :P

Moral scepticism isn't incompatible with declaring non-compliance with homophobic thug variants of the God concept honorable. It may not even be incompatible with making such a declaration objectively. All it entails is that there is no objective obligation arising from reason alone to behave honorably in that circumstance.

Gnostic Bishop
18-06-2015, 09:26 PM
This percentage (or even just 50%) is a total fiction. It's not even 50% of all marriages. From Truthorfiction.com:

“A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics told me that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you’d find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.”

I stand corrected.

That does not change what I said above about Christians not believing in a real God or a full half of them would not go against his dictates and knowingly condemn themselves to hell.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
18-06-2015, 09:28 PM
higher numbers...or 60%? also what is the survey sample :)

Don't know and don't particularly care for their exactness.

See my reply just above.

I like to discuss morals and the actual numbers while sometimes meaningful can, as you seem to know, be fudged up or down.

Regards
DL

antichrist
18-06-2015, 09:32 PM
..............
Incidentally, I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all solution to the sexual orientation issues. Some people legitimately change sexual orientations during their life, or might have easily ended up differently but for circumstances in their life, while others are so strongly of a particular orientation that it's unlikely they would change under any realistic circumstances.
..................

What I have noticed is that under the influence of alcohol many straights lose their rigidity and become bisexual for the night. Their suppressed or lesser urges come to the fore. And if you ask when they are sober and they will deny their other side.

I suppose knowledge just needs a bit of push in some circumstances

Gnostic Bishop
18-06-2015, 09:33 PM
No, but if it contradicts the bible just pretend it's not there.

Hard to do when that same little story has been used forever to promote the churches misogynistic policy.

Women who has and continue to be oppressed ignore it or pretend it is not there do so at their peril.

Men who ignore and do not challenge it are not moral or seekers of justice in my eyes.

Regards
DL

Johns
19-06-2015, 03:17 PM
Not everyone. He has God on his side. If you want a good laugh ask him about his views on Noah's Ark.

Thank you, I am afraid to because he questioned geology.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2015, 12:16 AM
Every where i go is Capablanca-Fan. Who are you Capa-fan? You seem to be fighting eevryone.
Well, at least I am a real chessplayer, with heaps of comments on chess-related subjects.


This is abusive. I do not like it.
As KB told you (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?10724-Moderation-questions-discussion-and-completely-pointless-whinging&p=397149#post397149) …


Thank you, I am afraid to because he questioned geology.
I don't question geology. I question its hijacking by the uniformitarian dogma. But anyway, see Refuting Noah’s ark critics (http://creation.com/refuting-noahs-ark-critics), which Adamski also supports.

Rincewind
27-06-2015, 04:22 AM
Noah's ark is easy to believe if you think God will interfere and provide miraculous solutions to the multitudes of logistically impossible problems that have to be overcome.

Too many animals? No matter just collect two to every "kind" where kind is a vague and poorly defined term invented by creationists. God will miraculously employ micro evolution to get all species we know of today.

How did Noah collect koalas from Australia and giant sloths from South America? No matter, either these animals (miraculously) lived in the middle east at the time or else travelled to the middle east (perhaps following a star).

How did the koalas and giant sloths get back to Australia and South America? No matter, god can teleport them back without leaving any trace of them ever living in the middle east.

How did they all fit in a giant wooden shoebox for a year? No matter, god can shrink all the ark's inhabitants down by a ratio of 5 to 1 for the period of the voyage to ensure there is space for all.

How did the ark not break up under the action of the weather and ocean waves? No matter, god made sure the unstable and ludicrously oversized vessel for the technology available remained intact and upright for the whole year.

What did all these animals eat for a year? Fodder turtles! :lol:

See. Jono doesn't just deny geology. He denies rationality.

Gnostic Bishop
27-06-2015, 05:00 AM
The myth of Noah says more about a man who will be a traitor to his people even when he could have told God to go screw himself.

Any man who would bow to such a genocidal God is not worthy of his title of man.

That God would be quite the prick and so would Noah and the present Christians who follow a God who would use genocide on those he supposedly loves.

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2015, 05:24 AM
Noah's ark is easy to believe if you think God will interfere and provide miraculous solutions to the multitudes of logistically impossible problems that have to be overcome.
Ipse dixit.


Too many animals? No matter just collect two to every "kind" where kind is a vague and poorly defined term invented by creationists. God will miraculously employ micro evolution to get all species we know of today.
If the kind were usually equivalent to the modern taxonomic rank of genus, there would be at most 16,000 land vertebrate animals needed. If it were as high as the family, indicated by many inter-generic hybridizations producing fertile offspring, then only about 2,000. They would have the genetic information to produce the many varieties we have today, by adaptation and natural selection, which are part of the biblical creationist model. (http://creation.com/bears-across-the-world#box)


How did Noah collect koalas from Australia and giant sloths from South America? No matter, either these animals (miraculously) lived in the middle east at the time or else travelled to the middle east (perhaps following a star).
The above old chestnut presupposes that continent distribution pre-Flood was the same as after a globe-covering flood. Also, Noah didn't have to collect them; God brought them.


How did the koalas and giant sloths get back to Australia and South America? No matter, god can teleport them back without leaving any trace of them ever living in the middle east.
Over many generations, and since fossilization is a very rare event, we would not necessarily expect fossil traces.


How did they all fit in a giant wooden shoebox for a year? No matter, god can shrink all the ark's inhabitants down by a ratio of 5 to 1 for the period of the voyage to ensure there is space for all.
More imbecility from ChessChat's resident atheopathic loudmouth. The Ark had the volume of about 340 semi-trailer cabins, each of which can carry about 37 1,200-pound slaughter steers, 90 500-pound feeder calves, 180 250-pound hogs, or 300 125-pound sheep.


How did the ark not break up under the action of the weather and ocean waves? No matter, god made sure the unstable and ludicrously oversized vessel for the technology available remained intact and upright for the whole year.
Easy: as Korean naval architects have shown (http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway), the Ark was ideally designed for stability, and could withstand tsunamis 30 m high, about three times the average tsunami. Also, pitch, which has historically made from pine resin poiled with charcoal, would add to impact resistance. As MythBusters demonstrated, a resinous coating on both sides of a rigid wall provides very strong impact resistance. Experiments with an explosive charge near both wood and concrete walls with and without resin treatment showed that the untreated walls were badly damaged and caused much debris to be thrown on a crash dummy behind the wall, while the treated walls were undamaged and protected the dummy


What did all these animals eat for a year? Fodder turtles! :lol:
You mean like whalers in relatively recent history using Galápagos tortoises that way? And this applies for hypercarnivores; others could be fed on reconstituted dried meat.


See. Jono doesn't just deny geology. He denies rationality.
Unlike you, I have a basis for rationality: created in the image of the Logos. You on the other hand believe your brain is an evolved monkey brain selected for survival advantage.

Rincewind
27-06-2015, 06:52 AM
Formidable!

Agent Smith
28-06-2015, 03:27 PM
The Ark had the volume of about 340 semi-trailer cabins, each of which can carry about 37 1,200-pound slaughter steers, 90 500-pound feeder calves, 180 250-pound hogs, or 300 125-pound sheep.
!!

MichaelBaron
06-07-2015, 11:57 AM
When reading about the ark, never did I think about its size and number of compounds etc...Also, how many animals existed at the time? if as many as today then fitting all in must have been a difficult task. Also, how to collect them all at one place?

Adamski
06-07-2015, 12:32 PM
When reading about the ark, never did I think about its size and number of compounds etc...Also, how many animals existed at the time? if as many as today then fitting all in must have been a difficult task. Also, how to collect them all at one place?In horrendous, never before seen rain, it would be natural for the animals to congregate somewhere where there was much shelter available- namely, the ark.

antichrist
06-07-2015, 12:34 PM
When reading about the ark, never did I think about its size and number of compounds etc...Also, how many animals existed at the time? if as many as today then fitting all in must have been a difficult task. Also, how to collect them all at one place?

Well welcome to thinking outside the box or should I say outside the arc. In chess I think outside Theory all the time, that is why KB hates me.

jammo
06-07-2015, 08:06 PM
In horrendous, never before seen rain, it would be natural for the animals to congregate somewhere where there was much shelter available- namely, the ark.

Adamski, this is without doubt the most moronic statement you have made in this forum. Think about it. Are you saying that in those days there was only one mountain with the ark on top so the animals congregated there? If there were even two mountains they would congregate on the top of each and the ark can only be on one mountain. I know you are a nice guy but even a total religious nutter can't believe such nonsense. (Jono excepted).

antichrist
06-07-2015, 11:54 PM
Adamski, this is without doubt the most moronic statement you have made in this forum. Think about it. Are you saying that in those days there was only one mountain with the ark on top so the animals congregated there? If there were even two mountains they would congregate on the top of each and the ark can only be on one mountain. I know you are a nice guy but even a total religious nutter can't believe such nonsense. (Jono excepted).

Don't be so harsh, in those days there were giant dinosaurs that stretched from one mountain top to another, Barney and Freddie Flintstone showed how to slide down the neck and up the tail. They were end to end around the whole planet to Arafat.

MichaelBaron
07-07-2015, 01:05 AM
In horrendous, never before seen rain, it would be natural for the animals to congregate somewhere where there was much shelter available- namely, the ark.

But what should be the size of the ark? Also how can you select a pair of each animals while not taking extra's and not forgetting anyone?

MichaelBaron
07-07-2015, 01:21 AM
And what if a particular animal turns out to be gay? And what if there are only 2 of them and one is impotent or assexual?

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2015, 01:50 AM
But what should be the size of the ark?

Answered above:

The Ark had the volume of about 340 semi-trailer cabins, each of which can carry about 37 1,200-pound slaughter steers, 90 500-pound feeder calves, 180 250-pound hogs, or 300 125-pound sheep.


Also how can you select a pair of each animals while not taking extra's and not forgetting anyone?
According to the biblical account, God selected the animals and brought them to Noah. If anyone is going to criticise this account, at least criticise what it teaches.

Redmond Barry
07-07-2015, 01:58 AM
The lions must have been really well behaved to not have lunched on the other animals.

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2015, 02:33 AM
The lions must have been really well behaved to not have lunched on the other animals.

There were no lions, just two felids. Lions and tigers and other inter-hybridizing members of the felid kind arose after the post-Flood dispersion as small populations became isolated by the mountainous terrain. Allopatric speciation is an important part of the creation model.

And the felid pair were caged on the Ark. After they got out, they found it far easier to catch fish trapped in pools left behind by the retreating Flood waters, or exhuming the ample buried carrion, than to expend energy on hunting.

Gnostic Bishop
07-07-2015, 04:37 AM
The lions must have been really well behaved to not have lunched on the other animals.

Most of the time except for the one mishap when he could not resist the unicorn.

Nice that you remembered them with your avatar.

The Irish Rovers lied as to the cause so that we would not all hate lions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4bc9UwZsYs

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
07-07-2015, 04:39 AM
But what should be the size of the ark? Also how can you select a pair of each animals while not taking extra's and not forgetting anyone?

They did. See above.

Regards
DL

antichrist
07-07-2015, 06:33 AM
Is it a sin to waste our precious God-given time debating the obvious that God wanted us to have knowledge and sin so the Pervert could watch Adam and Eve - well if you follow Jono's story that is the set up

Gnostic Bishop
07-07-2015, 09:25 AM
Is it a sin to waste our precious God-given time debating the obvious that God wanted us to have knowledge and sin so the Pervert could watch Adam and Eve - well if you follow Jono's story that is the set up

He wanted to watch but only with Adam on top. That is why he got rid of Lilith.
He has a think about men's bums flexing.

Regards
DL

Desmond
07-07-2015, 11:28 AM
Speaking of "humpty back camels", do humpback whales also head to the shore looking for a boat to get into when it rains? Really really heavy rain, obviously.

MichaelBaron
07-07-2015, 12:02 PM
Several people have been claiming at different points in time that the remains of the Ark have been found in Armenia but I still have not seen any evidence.

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2015, 12:08 PM
Speaking of "humpty back camels", do humpback whales also head to the shore looking for a boat to get into when it rains? Really really heavy rain, obviously.

No need. They have superbly designed flippers with bumps that are very hydrodynamically efficient (http://creation.com/flighty-flippers). They sometimes hunt by making a bubble net:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvfjiCTvq4

Rincewind
07-07-2015, 12:18 PM
Several people have been claiming at different points in time that the remains of the Ark have been found in Armenia but I still have not seen any evidence.

A lot of ark searcher are dishonest and/or gullible and anything vaguely ark sized in the vague vicinity of some mountains is claimed to be the remains of the Ark. However, the leck of physical evidence is not a good argument for the non-historicity of the Ark. There may have been a large wooden structure built thousands of years ago and one day we might discover incontrovertible physical evidence of the existence of this structure. Such a discovery would not make the Noah Ark story any more believable. Likewise never discovering any physical evidence is not proof that such a structure never existed.

In summary, the existence or otherwise of evidence of a physical structure is not the best argument either for or against the historicity of the flood. There is ample geological evidence that the flood as described in the bible never happened. Localised flooding happens all the time and stories become legends leading to stories like Noah's flood occurring a number of mythical settings, including the traditional Israeli/Judean mythology.

Adamski
07-07-2015, 12:51 PM
Adamski, this is without doubt the most moronic statement you have made in this forum. Think about it. Are you saying that in those days there was only one mountain with the ark on top so the animals congregated there? If there were even two mountains they would congregate on the top of each and the ark can only be on one mountain. I know you are a nice guy but even a total religious nutter can't believe such nonsense. (Jono excepted).The ark did not start out on a mountain. It only ended up there. It would have been accessible for animals.

antichrist
07-07-2015, 04:02 PM
I seen on an anatomy show on SBS how whales have redundant cow legs from when they were on land - maybe they missed a marine diet

antichrist
07-07-2015, 04:05 PM
A lot of ark searcher are dishonest and/or gullible and anything vaguely ark sized in the vague vicinity of some mountains is claimed to be the remains of the Ark. However, the leck of physical evidence is not a good argument for the non-historicity of the Ark. There may have been a large wooden structure built thousands of years ago and one day we might discover incontrovertible physical evidence of the existence of this structure. Such a discovery would not make the Noah Ark story any more believable. Likewise never discovering any physical evidence is not proof that such a structure never existed.

In summary, the existence or otherwise of evidence of a physical structure is not the best argument either for or against the historicity of the flood. There is ample geological evidence that the flood as described in the bible never happened. Localised flooding happens all the time and stories become legends leading to stories like Noah's flood occurring a number of mythical settings, including the traditional Israeli/Judean mythology.

I witnessed Professor Ian Plimer in court waste a fortune in legal fees attempting to prove that the Ark was not top of some mountain in Turkey. Felt sorry for the guy.

MichaelBaron
08-07-2015, 12:08 AM
The ark did not start out on a mountain. It only ended up there. It would have been accessible for animals.

Amazing! So all animals came, but only 2 of each were taken...or only 2 animals came one male one female? :)

Gnostic Bishop
08-07-2015, 01:42 AM
Several people have been claiming at different points in time that the remains of the Ark have been found in Armenia but I still have not seen any evidence.

There is no evidence for any of the thing shown in scriptures. If there was then that God should be hated and not loved.

Any God who would use genocide against all of the world deserves to be shunned and destroyed, not loved and adored.

Who is more likely to kill when they can just as easily cure?

Satan or God?

Correct. Satan.

Seems that Christians are the Satanists.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
08-07-2015, 01:47 AM
Amazing! So all animals came, but only 2 of each were taken...or only 2 animals came one male one female? :)

Not two. Seven if I recall the other Arc story. There are two of them with different details don't forget.

But of course, both are true. To fools.

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2015, 01:55 AM
Several people have been claiming at different points in time that the remains of the Ark have been found in Armenia but I still have not seen any evidence.

I don't care about that. Even RW agrees that it is not proof either way. There is no reason to believe that it still exists. After all, the post-Flood forests would have taken some time to re-grow. So the only practical source for lumber and firewood would have been the Ark’s building materials, having outlived their other usefulness.

From an apologetics perspective, finding the Ark is unnecessary, especially since the biblical and geological evidence for the Flood is so plain (2 Peter 3:3–8; cf. Ch. 18). Also, would God really want a relic that might become a substitute for Him? This happened with the bronze serpent that God commanded Moses to make (Numbers 21:8–9) and lift up (John 3:14). Originally, people would look at this if they were bitten by a snake, and God would heal them. But centuries later, people worshiped the serpent itself, so godly King Hezekiah broke it into pieces (2 Kings 18:1–6).

Finally, the absence of the Ark proves nothing about the reality of the Flood. For example, if we never find the Mayflower, would it prove that the Pilgrim voyage to America never happened in 1620? Actually, it’s likely that her timbers were recycled to build a barn in Buckinghamshire, similar to the likely fate of the Ark timbers.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2015, 01:58 AM
Amazing! So all animals came, but only 2 of each were taken...or only 2 animals came one male one female? :)
Since God brought the animals, he probably selected the Ark specimens. There was a general rule for taking a pair, male and female, to repopulate the species. Then for the few clean land creatures and birds, there was a specific rule about taking 7 pairs (http://creation.com/ark-birds-clean-unclean). It's common in the Bible and elsewhere to state a general rule then some specifics.

Redmond Barry
08-07-2015, 02:42 AM
Since God brought the animals, he probably selected the Ark specimens. There was a general rule for taking a pair, male and female, to repopulate the species. Then for the few clean land creatures and birds, there was a specific rule about taking 7 pairs (http://creation.com/ark-birds-clean-unclean). It's common in the Bible and elsewhere to state a general rule then some specifics.

Did God conduct some sort of veterinarian procedure to ensure that all the lady animals could produce a litter ?

Was Doctor Harry consulted before God took all those animals onto that big barge ?

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2015, 06:41 AM
Did God conduct some sort of veterinarian procedure to ensure that all the lady animals could produce a litter ?
No need since God knows everything.


Was Doctor Harry consulted before God took all those animals onto that big barge ?
Fortunately He didn't have to content with the modern bureaucratic nanny state either:


If Noah Built the Ark Today

God said to Noah, "I'm going to make it rain until the earth is covered with water and all the evil is destroyed. I want you to build an ark and save two of each animal species. Here are the blueprints for the ark."
Many years passed, and the skies began to cloud and rain began to fall. Noah sat in his front yard, weeping. "Why haven't you built the ark?" asked the Lord. "I did my best," replied Noah, "but so many things kept happening!"

"The blueprints you gave me for the Ark didn't meet the city's code, so I had to change them. Then the city said I was violating zoning ordinances by building the ark in my front yard. So, I had to get a variance. Then the Forest Service required tree-cutting permits! Then the EPA requested an environmental impact statement concerning the flood. And the Army Corps of engineers wanted a map of the proposed flood plain! Then I got into a big fight over whether or not the Ark needed a fire sprinkler system.

"Then I had a big problem getting enough wood for the Ark because there was a ban on cutting trees to save the Spotted Owl. I had to convince U.S. Fish and Wildlife that I needed the wood to save the owls. But they wouldn’t let me catch any owls. So no owls. Then the carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National labor Relations Board before anyone would pick up a saw or a hammer. Now we have 16 carpenters going on the boat, and still no owls.

"An animal rights group sued me when I tried to gather up all the animals by two, followed closely by the Gays Rights Group who were upset because I was only taking male and female! Then the state fined me because the animals didn't get their vaccination shots. Then the Humane Society took all the animals because they weren't licensed and registered.

"Of course, the Equal Opportunity Commission jumped in claiming I wasn't hiring enough minorities. The Coast Guard refused to let me on the waters because the Ark was not marked by an identification number. And, to top it all off, the IRS decided to seize all my assets, claiming I was trying to avoid paying my taxes by leaving the country, and I just got a notice from the state about owing some kind of use tax. I'm sorry, Lord, but I can't finish the ark for at least five more years!"

Suddenly the rain stopped, the skies cleared and the sun began to shine. "Lord, does this mean you're not going to devastate the earth?" "Why should I?" said the Lord, "Seems to me the state and federal governments are doing a great job of it already."

Gnostic Bishop
08-07-2015, 10:01 AM
A question to all on Noah, morality and criminality.

Do you consider him a traitor to mankind for not telling God where to shove his construction plans?

Can it be said that he colluded in genocide against mankind and should be considered a traitor?

Regards
DL

Desmond
08-07-2015, 05:54 PM
Yes and yes.

MichaelBaron
08-07-2015, 07:12 PM
A question to all on Noah, morality and criminality.

Do you consider him a traitor to mankind for not telling God where to shove his construction plans?

Can it be said that he colluded in genocide against mankind and should be considered a traitor?

Regards
DL

LOL. One issue is though: if we consider Noah to be a ''traitor'' we therefore agree that the Ark journey did take place.

antichrist
08-07-2015, 09:58 PM
LOL. One issue is though: if we consider Noah to be a ''traitor'' we therefore agree that the Ark journey did take place.

I think it is recorded in another (non Judaic) culture that there was a bit flood - only without the main actors of the Bible and naming rights.

Gnostic Bishop
08-07-2015, 11:34 PM
Yes and yes.

All should be so clear and concise and right.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
08-07-2015, 11:37 PM
LOL. One issue is though: if we consider Noah to be a ''traitor'' we therefore agree that the Ark journey did take place.

Not so.

It has been said that intelligent people can discuss issues they do not believe happened. Scenarios are often used to make points.

That is what the bible does unless you are foolish enough to believe in all kinds of miracles and the supernatural.

And if you do, you have already compromised your intelligence.

Regards

DL