Christianity; How it really was.

[Amade]

I gave you one which you obviously chose to ignore. Go look for it, I'm sure you'll find it.

If you mean this:
"Amade, a valid point you made, but it states 'in the beginning' It never said 'In the beginning, which was about 6 days, God created the Heavens and the Earth.' Everything he did with the Earth is what conspired in those '6 days' which on a eternal deity scale can go, can easily equal 6 billion years in comparison. But that's just a personal opinion and is always subject to debate."
I did not ignore it and replied with
"Convenient for you, isn't it? A very frustrating thing about being on this end of the argument is that many parts of the bible appear to be written purposefully vague so that evidence would be unable to disprove it. However, that very sentence strongly implies no gap."
And backed up this claim with various similar sentences with much smaller gaps that I'm sure we can both agree present no gap.

You're acting awfully arrogant.

[Ad Bot]

[Rughugger]

How is it arrogant to state one's view on a perfectly possible reason for such a gap.

Humans go by time because for some reason they are constantly obsessed with their own mortality and finding ways to prevent it for as long as possible.

Humans become jealous of a being whom for all they can perceive is always there and base human standards on an obviously advanced being. That's like a dog expecting us to eat our stuff simply because that's a normal thing they do.

God does not need a concept of time based on what humans go by for if he is long lived, why would he base his schedule of creation on a being he hasn't even invented yet? It never specifically stated that 6 days was based in human standards or in God's standards. This and a lot of other facts are vague in the bible, I don't deny this at all, however, human arrogance assumes itself to be the most important thing in the universe simply because nothing has come along to prove them wrong.

As a given, human beings in general are arrogant by nature. So stating that I am arrogant is only stating the obvious and therefore a null point in the overall argument. You're sidestepping the issue which is I gave an explanation and you simply ignored it. You didn't bother to try to think about it in an open minded manner, you just simply dismissed it because a religious person stated it.

That is why I didn't bother to answer further because anything I would have replied with would have simply fallen on deaf ears. A fruitless endeavor to be sure.

[Amade]

"How is it arrogant to state one's view on a perfectly possible reason for such a gap."
I was talking about the fact that you said that I ignored it despite the fact that I didn't as well as your posts directed at Inv3rted.

"It never specifically stated that 6 days was based in human standards or in God's standard"
A day is 24 hours and I don't give a stuff where it says day. The bible was written in human language so it's going to have been using human measurements.

"why would he base his schedule of creation on a being he hasn't even invented yet?"
He need not invent any measurement but when he told whoever wrote genesis about it (as he surely did otherwise the author is clearly spewing bullstuff) and he was actually omniscient he would've known that it was 6 days.

"As a given, human beings in general are arrogant by nature. So stating that I am arrogant is only stating the obvious and therefore a null point in the overall argument."
In any civilized debate arrogance and personal attacks are strongly discouraged.

"You didn't bother to try to think about it in an open minded manner, you just simply dismissed it because a religious person stated it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI

"anything I would have replied with would have simply fallen on deaf ears"
Weren't you accusing Inv3rted of mudslinging just a few pages back?

[*Magick* Mage]

"It never specifically stated that 6 days was based in human standards or in God's standard"
A day is 24 hours and I don't give a stuff where it says day. The bible was written in human language so it's going to have been using human measurements. Actually, the Bible was written initially in Latin. Using the word "Day" could have merely been a placeholder. :o

"why would he base his schedule of creation on a being he hasn't even invented yet?"
He need not invent any measurement but when he told whoever wrote genesis about it (as he surely did otherwise the author is clearly spewing bullstuff) and he was actually omniscient he would've known that it was 6 days. The 6 days + 1 day of rest was probably used symbolically or allusively, seeing as 7 has always been a number of significant in the Christian religion, as well as with others

"As a given, human beings in general are arrogant by nature. So stating that I am arrogant is only stating the obvious and therefore a null point in the overall argument."
In any civilized debate arrogance and personal attacks are strongly discouraged. Quite.

Not sure completely how the argument formed, I'm just saying these points. Both of you hold relevant points.

[Oasis]

Not sure completely how the argument formed, I'm just saying these points. Both of you hold relevant points.

You so silly.

[Skele]

What I don't understand is that Christians are so quick to accept what the bible says, even though there is no proof of what is written in it. Yet, as soon as someone brings up evidence that contradicts the bible, they immediately demand proof to support the claim. What kind of double standard is that?

[Rughugger]

"How is it arrogant to state one's view on a perfectly possible reason for such a gap."
I was talking about the fact that you said that I ignored it despite the fact that I didn't as well as your posts directed at Inv3rted.
You did as I explained in my post. And since I see that you didn't bother to deny it, then I can only assume it's true.

"It never specifically stated that 6 days was based in human standards or in God's standard"
A day is 24 hours and I don't give a stuff where it says day. The bible was written in human language so it's going to have been using human measurements.
If you don't give a stuff about how long it is, why give a stuff and bother replying to the topic period? You obviously care or you wouldn't have such a stick up your ass about it.

"why would he base his schedule of creation on a being he hasn't even invented yet?"
He need not invent any measurement but when he told whoever wrote genesis about it (as he surely did otherwise the author is clearly spewing bullstuff) and he was actually omniscient he would've known that it was 6 days.
6 days on God's time or Human time?

"As a given, human beings in general are arrogant by nature. So stating that I am arrogant is only stating the obvious and therefore a null point in the overall argument."
In any civilized debate arrogance and personal attacks are strongly discouraged.
And yet both sides seem to do nothing but in these threads so there's no point in continuing them.

"You didn't bother to try to think about it in an open minded manner, you just simply dismissed it because a religious person stated it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI
That's not your opinion, that's someone else's opinion. Make your own video with your own facts and reasons and maybe I'll pay more attention to it. you're a big boy, you can argue things for yourself without the help of youtube and google.

"anything I would have replied with would have simply fallen on deaf ears"
Weren't you accusing Inv3rted of mudslinging just a few pages back?
No, I said both sides are guilty of it.

[*Magick* Mage]

What I don't understand is that Christians are so quick to accept what the bible says, even though there is no proof of what is written in it. Yet, as soon as someone brings up evidence that contradicts the bible, they immediately demand proof to support the claim. What kind of double standard is that?

Hm. I never really thought of that, but it is true (and apparent, at that) in many situations. Very interesting point. :)

[Rughugger]

Hm. I never really thought of that, but it is true (and apparent, at that) in many situations. Very interesting point. :)

Because despite being a work of fiction/moral guideline, it is also considered a valid historical document simply because it chronicled events real or imagined from a time that has very little to no recorded history. Scientists even agree to this.

[Amade]

"Actually, the Bible was written initially in Latin. Using the word 'Day' could have merely been a placeholder."
First, it was Hebrew, not Latin. Second, in pretty much every language there will be a word meaning the rising and setting of a sun similar to the word day and having the same meaning for nearly all cases. I don't know much about Hebrew but I'm certain that it has a word for day.

"then I can only assume it's true."
of course

"You did as I explained in my post"
No I didn't and no you didn't?

"If you don't give a stuff about how long it is, why give a stuff and bother replying to the topic period? You obviously care or you wouldn't have such a stick up your ass about it."
Hurrdedurrhurrdurr obviously I was talking about not caring about where the word "day" is said and not this entire topic. If your best defense in a religious debate is the ol' stick in the ass I'd say you're getting desperate.

"6 days on God's time or Human time?"
Any competent god would use human measurements when talking to a human. Besides, if god did create the earth, surely he could've controlled the speed at which it rotates and therefore the length of a day. You tell me.

"And yet both sides seem to do nothing but in these threads so there's no point in continuing them."
At the very least you should attempt to avoid it in order to be taken seriously.

"That's not your opinion, that's someone else's opinion. Make your own video with your own facts and reasons and maybe I'll pay more attention to it. you're a big boy, you can argue things for yourself without the help of youtube and google."
Considering you derived the entirety of your beliefs from a book I don't think you have much room to talk. Additionally, I do in fact agree with everything in that video and so I see no reason to recreate the video if I already agree with it just to please you.

[Skele]

Because despite being a work of fiction/moral guideline, it is also considered a valid historical document simply because it chronicled events real or imagined from a time that has very little to no recorded history. Scientists even agree to this.

Yeah but everything written by man should still be questioned, not blindly followed.

[*Magick* Mage]

Because despite being a work of fiction/moral guideline, it is also considered a valid historical document simply because it chronicled events real or imagined from a time that has very little to no recorded history. Scientists even agree to this.

Certainly it carries important records and ideas, and certainly it is a great work of literature, however many are quick to presume it is true above any facts placed against it or it's points of view.

I believe the Bible to be symbolic and a helper. It can not guide you through life completely, however it certainly can provide great insight at times.

"Actually, the Bible was written initially in Latin. Using the word 'Day' could have merely been a placeholder."
First, it was Hebrew, not Latin. Second, in pretty much every language there will be a word meaning the rising and setting of a sun similar to the word day and having the same meaning for nearly all cases. I don't know much about Hebrew but I'm certain that it has a word for day.

I know the Old Testament was written initially in Hebrew, though the New Testament I believe was written in Latin. However, when I look back, we're talking about Genesis. So the New Testament is kind of irrelevant in this matter. :P

Though, once again, the word "day" could be just a placeholder, a symbol or sorts, as opposed to an actual measurement. 

Yeah but everything written by man should still be questioned, not blindly followed.

Quite.

[Rughugger]

"If you don't give a stuff about how long it is, why give a stuff and bother replying to the topic period? You obviously care or you wouldn't have such a stick up your ass about it."
Hurrdedurrhurrdurr obviously I was talking about not caring about where the word "day" is said and not this entire topic. If your best defense in a religious debate is the ol' stick in the ass I'd say you're getting desperate.
It's the same principle. If you don't care if one word is used, why make a big deal over it like you are? You're avoiding my question.

"6 days on God's time or Human time?"
Any competent god would use human measurements when talking to a human. Besides, if god did create the earth, surely he could've controlled the speed at which it rotates and therefore the length of a day. You tell me.
Which means that at any time he could have easily changed it after he created humans making 6 days easily equal 6 billion years.

"And yet both sides seem to do nothing but in these threads so there's no point in continuing them."
At the very least you should attempt to avoid it in order to be taken seriously.
In some cases, it's the only way some people seem to pay attention to you at all. James Kirk proved it multiple times in Star Trek IV

"That's not your opinion, that's someone else's opinion. Make your own video with your own facts and reasons and maybe I'll pay more attention to it. you're a big boy, you can argue things for yourself without the help of youtube and google."
Considering you derived the entirety of your beliefs from a book I don't think you have much room to talk. Additionally, I do in fact agree with everything in that video and so I see no reason to recreate the video if I already agree with it just to please you.
Where did I directly use information from the Bible? You used the references to begin with so I'm basing my replies from your own words.

Yeah but everything written by man should still be questioned, not blindly followed.

Including any and all scientific books because science is always changing always evolving.

[Amade]

"It's the same principle. If you don't care if one word is used, why make a big deal over it like you are? You're avoiding my question."
My point was that the placement of the word does not change its meaning.

"Which means that at any time he could have easily changed it after he created humans making 6 days easily equal 6 billion years."
But why? This is obviously a dodge on your part. Additionally, isn't the exact age of the earth stated somewhere in the bible?

"In some cases, it's the only way some people seem to pay attention to you at all. James Kirk proved it multiple times in Star Trek IV"
Your point don't seem to be attention deprived here so it would be best to avoid it.

"Where did I directly use information from the Bible? You used the references to begin with so I'm basing my replies from your own words."
Considering that you seem to be siding with Christianity I would assume that you are yourself a christian. Additionally, I don't know what you expect to be able to argue about if I'm not allowed to cite works not published by myself.

"Including any and all scientific books because science is always changing always evolving."
There are absolutely no credible scientists that will read something and blindly accept it. Scientific papers are subjected to peer review.

[Inv3rted]

Including any and all scientific books because science is always changing always evolving.

The difference between your type of questioning and scientific skepticism is that you question without enough knowledge in the subject.