the bible is the greatest concoction of bullshit ever created.
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
Quote from gms:
Well, that's what the reference books say. Platonian philosophy crept into late Hebrew and late Christian theology. The leading religious sects at the time of Jesus were being hyper-criticized by Jesus, so I think the Bible paints a picture that these religious leaders were on the wrong side of the market, so to speak
The Hebrew scriptures are quiet about an afterlife, as you've pointed out, because it wasn't their belief that people survived death at all. But the question you raise is if the passages you cited teach that there is an afterlife, esp. is there a surviving-death immortal soul that travels to heaven at the time of the person's death? Let's look at those passages.
In Ecc 12:7, the Hebrew word translated as "spirit" is "ruach", not the same as the Hebrew word used for "soul". The spirit is not the soul. It's a different thing. You'll note that other passages refer to both spirit and soul, obviously inferring a distinction between the two (Heb 4:12, for example). In Hebrew, "Ruach" means air, breath, wind, power, animation. A different definition that that for soul, or "nephesh". "Ruach" is a force, not a bodiless person. It's what the Bible says God "breathed" into Adam to make Adam *become* a living soul (Gen 2:7). What it doesn't say is that God blew a "soul" into Adam's nostrils to create in him an embodied "spirit", which would have been more in harmony with the thought that man has an immortal soul, if that were what scripture taught.
The same word "ruach" is applied to both animals and people in Eccl 3:22, as you've noted. The distinction that passage makes however is that after death there is a prospect that does not apply to animals, who otherwise share this same ruach, this same life animation with mankind. But does that necessarily mean an immortal soul is at work and flies off to heaven? Consider other passages that speak of when a person dies and their ruach, such as Ps 146:4. "His spirit ("ruach") goes out... in that day his thoughts do perish (Ps 146:4). A person's thoughts, their likes, dislikes, memories, et al, these important things that make a person a person, perish, they do not continue in another realm. If the person's thoughts perish when he loses his spirit/ruach/life animation, then obviously if there were a bodiless spirit creature surviving the death, according to this scripture, it wouldn't be the person anymore, it would be a vegetable. This does not harmonize with an immortal soul concept.
What then is meant by declaring that the ruach "goes upward" if there is not a travelling immaterial soul? I'd suggest that rather than try to justify a premise that is not stated anywhere in scripture, consider instead the very plainly stated multiple scriptures that speak of the Judeo-Christian premise that God will remember the dead in the resurrection. This promise of a later renewal back to life (not a promise of surviving the death experience ) is not accorded to dead animals but only to mankind, and hence the distinction between the two eventualities ("upward and downward") even though both humans and animals share the same "one spirit" (Ecc 3:19). In fact, doesn't that same passage plainly state that "all are returning to the dust" when they die?
So then what can be meant by "his spirit ("ruach") returns to God who gave it?" When Christ was dying, it's written in Luke 23:46 that he cried out "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit, and when he had said this, he died." Well now, the bible plainly states that Jesus didn't go to heaven right then and there, in fact, that he was in "hell" for 3 days following his death, and resurrected only after that back to life on earth. Further, that he didn't ascend into the heavens until some 40 days later. So if his "spirit" didn't return to God at the time of his death, what did he mean? In complete accordance with the other scriptures mentioned herein, wasn't he saying that he entrusted his "ruach", his life animation, his opportunity to be resurrected and his only chance of life again, to be in the hands of his Father (God)? You quoted the passage that said God is the 'giver' of the spirit. It's evidently his to give. Likewise, its "return" to God also denotes that this life force belongs to him and Jesus' death cry underscores his hope and the theological point that the prospect of life returns to God who has promised to give this 'life breath' (as the Catholic New Amsterdam Bible translates 'ruach') to the dead, invigorating them with life again.
Man, I should've been a preacher. Open a little storefront church and ask for donations, lol. Now can I go back to trading?
PS "eternal home" is a reference about going to the grave ("sheol"), not to heaven. Compare Ecc 9:10.
Not bad!
A good summary of the arguments that the Pharisees and Saduccees must have gone through. My point was simply that there was room for debate and their culture was split over it with the dominant side being pro-afterlife. And for that reason, I can't imagine how the references you cited state that it's possible to say that the Greeks were responsible for transforming Jewish thought centuries later when they clearly were already at the time of Jesus.Shoeshine,
In typical theist fashion, the theists switch to attacking
evolution instead of guarding their position.
This is a complete dodge. This is not about evolution
but about god. Let's stick to the subject.
So lets make this all VERY simple and stay on track.
ALL atheists, for the sake of discussion, hypothetically
REJECT evolution on the basis of "weak" evidence.
There...thats done. Now lets discuss creationism and god.
If evolution doesn't have enough evidence to be considered
true, and evolution has far more supporting evidence than
creationism, we can only logically conclude that creationism
must also be dismissed.
If you wish to assert the there is MORE evidence for creationism
than evolution, be my guest and attempt to prove that.
We have a "bible" and philosophical theories on
creationism. We have literally TONS of evidence, as measured
by weight for evolution, which we now REJECT.
If the TONS of evidence, and thousands of scientists which
readily accept evolution as fact, and the thousands of books
and thousands of man-years of research, do NOT support
evolution, then SURELY a book and some philosophy cannot
even come close to supporting creationism.
Any way you cut it, christian creationism, is no different than
egyptian creationism, or any of the other mythological stories
fabricated by a multitude of cultures throughout time.
Now... this also begs the question.
Why should I accept christian creation stories over
egyptian or native american indian creation stores?
Read these:
http://www.sammustafa.com/WorldReadings/Creation.html
Then CLEARLY explain why the christian version is THE TRUE creation story.
Remember... every excuse you make to reject the other stories
I will use to reject the christian one.
peace
axeman
In typical theist fashion, the theists switch to attacking
evolution instead of guarding their position.
This is a complete dodge. This is not about evolution
but about god. Let's stick to the subject.
So lets make this all VERY simple and stay on track.
ALL atheists, for the sake of discussion, hypothetically
REJECT evolution on the basis of "weak" evidence.
There...thats done. Now lets discuss creationism and god.
If evolution doesn't have enough evidence to be considered
true, and evolution has far more supporting evidence than
creationism, we can only logically conclude that creationism
must also be dismissed.
If you wish to assert the there is MORE evidence for creationism
than evolution, be my guest and attempt to prove that.
We have a "bible" and philosophical theories on
creationism. We have literally TONS of evidence, as measured
by weight
for evolution, which we now REJECT. If the TONS of evidence, and thousands of scientists which
readily accept evolution as fact, and the thousands of books
and thousands of man-years of research, do NOT support
evolution, then SURELY a book and some philosophy cannot
even come close to supporting creationism.
Any way you cut it, christian creationism, is no different than
egyptian creationism, or any of the other mythological stories
fabricated by a multitude of cultures throughout time.
Now... this also begs the question.
Why should I accept christian creation stories over
egyptian or native american indian creation stores?
Read these:
http://www.sammustafa.com/WorldReadings/Creation.html
Then CLEARLY explain why the christian version is THE TRUE creation story.
Remember... every excuse you make to reject the other stories
I will use to reject the christian one.
peace
axeman
This is a good point. The great, great majority of Christian biologists believe in evolution and I don't mean to say that one can't be a theist and believe in Darwin. But I am saying that I personally don't think macroevolution is possible across the large fossil gaps in the time frames given. And, more importantly, I am saying that there is suspiciously little evidence for it.
I have the right to ask, "Why are there a significant # of fossils showing increasing size of the horse but none showing reptile to bird, reptile to turtle, mammal to whale, mammal to bat, dinosaur to flying dinosaur, etc., etc.?" I don't think the answer is as easy as, "Well, the Galapagos finches have changed, so of course why couldn't a reptile turn into a bird in a few million years!"
I am willing to admit problem areas in my faith and areas where I have to admit I believe simply by faith. I just don't understand why most non-theists can't admit the same: macroevolution must be "religion" to them is all I can figure...
"Gordon, if you short God, you just may get a margin call you can't handle."
Translation: I believe out of fear, not a rational reason.
"If you ask yourself these life questions and you come up with a solid answer before you are dead, you haven't thought enough about the subject."
Translation: If you dont agree with my position, you just haven't
thought about it enough to realize i'm right
Such nonsense
peace
axeman
Translation: I believe out of fear, not a rational reason.
"If you ask yourself these life questions and you come up with a solid answer before you are dead, you haven't thought enough about the subject."
Translation: If you dont agree with my position, you just haven't
thought about it enough to realize i'm right
Such nonsense
peace
axeman
Quote from axeman:
"If you ask yourself these life questions and you come up with a solid answer before you are dead, you haven't thought enough about the subject."
Translation: If you dont agree with my position, you just haven't
thought about it enough to realize i'm right
Such nonsense
peace
axeman
I'm just here to get you going axie
gooooooooooooooooooooo, axeman!!!!Quote from axeman:
Shoeshine,
In typical theist fashion, the theists switch to attacking
evolution instead of guarding their position.
This is a complete dodge. This is not about evolution
but about god. Let's stick to the subject.
So lets make this all VERY simple and stay on track.
ALL atheists, for the sake of discussion, hypothetically
REJECT evolution on the basis of "weak" evidence.
There...thats done. Now lets discuss creationism and god.
If evolution doesn't have enough evidence to be considered
true, and evolution has far more supporting evidence than
creationism, we can only logically conclude that creationism
must also be dismissed.
If you wish to assert the there is MORE evidence for creationism
than evolution, be my guest and attempt to prove that.
We have a "bible" and philosophical theories on
creationism. We have literally TONS of evidence, as measured
by weight
If the TONS of evidence, and thousands of scientists which
readily accept evolution as fact, and the thousands of books
and thousands of man-years of research, do NOT support
evolution, then SURELY a book and some philosophy cannot
even come close to supporting creationism.
Any way you cut it, christian creationism, is no different than
egyptian creationism, or any of the other mythological stories
fabricated by a multitude of cultures throughout time.
Now... this also begs the question.
Why should I accept christian creation stories over
egyptian or native american indian creation stores?
Read these:
http://www.sammustafa.com/WorldReadings/Creation.html
Then CLEARLY explain why the christian version is THE TRUE creation story.
Remember... every excuse you make to reject the other stories
I will use to reject the christian one.
peace
axeman
i will answer your question for them:
with VERY few exceptions, most religious people never even chose their own beliefs. they are brainwashed as children. what they are brainwashed with depends on where they are born and the culture there, or what their family/friends believe.
aphexcoil, would you believe the bible if you were born in syria? no!! it's sad your CORE beliefs were essentially determined by locality. :-/
i love knowing my beliefs are universal--they'd even work on an alien planet!
Thank you, axeman, for not slamming me every other sentence. I agree with you about moving on from evolution (but of course I respectfully disagree that there is tons of evidence for macroevolution).Quote from axeman:
Shoeshine,
In typical theist fashion, the theists switch to attacking
evolution instead of guarding their position.
This is a complete dodge. This is not about evolution
but about god. Let's stick to the subject.
So lets make this all VERY simple and stay on track.
ALL atheists, for the sake of discussion, hypothetically
REJECT evolution on the basis of "weak" evidence.
There...thats done. Now lets discuss creationism and god.
If evolution doesn't have enough evidence to be considered
true, and evolution has far more supporting evidence than
creationism, we can only logically conclude that creationism
must also be dismissed.
If you wish to assert the there is MORE evidence for creationism
than evolution, be my guest and attempt to prove that.
We have a "bible" and philosophical theories on
creationism. We have literally TONS of evidence, as measured
by weight
If the TONS of evidence, and thousands of scientists which
readily accept evolution as fact, and the thousands of books
and thousands of man-years of research, do NOT support
evolution, then SURELY a book and some philosophy cannot
even come close to supporting creationism.
Any way you cut it, christian creationism, is no different than
egyptian creationism, or any of the other mythological stories
fabricated by a multitude of cultures throughout time.
Now... this also begs the question.
Why should I accept christian creation stories over
egyptian or native american indian creation stores?
Read these:
http://www.sammustafa.com/WorldReadings/Creation.html
Then CLEARLY explain why the christian version is THE TRUE creation story.
Remember... every excuse you make to reject the other stories
I will use to reject the christian one.
peace
axeman
Here is what the Intelligent Design movement is all about. Secular scientists have noticed a fine tuning of the universe for life on planet earth that is unexplainable. What happened is that various astronomers and cosmologists independently discovered one or two characteristics of the universe that were tweaked into a very, low probability range for life in the universe. When you add up all these probabilites, well, you can draw your own conclusion. There are, I believe, around 50 of them right now, so I can't possibly put them all into a post, but here's a sampling:
1. Gravitational coupling constant. If this was slightly stronger, all stars in the universe would be significantly larger than our sun(with uneven luminosity making advanced life impossible). If this was slightly smaller, all stars in our universe would be significantly smaller than our sun and there would be no large elements in the universe (again making advanced life impossible).
2. Strong nuclear force. If this was slightly weaker, hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If this were slightly strong, there would be virtually no hydrogen in the universe.
3. Weak nuclear force. If this was slightly stonger, neutrons would decay more rapidly and there would be no helium which is necessary for stars to produce the heavy elements necessary for life. If this was slightly weaker, there would be an overabundance of helium which would lead to an overabundance of heavy elements. (Plus, neutrinos would be trapped within supernovae and unable to be expulsed into space.)
5. Expansion rate of the universe. According to Alan Guth, who is anything but a Christian, this must be tuned to 1 in 10 to the 55th.
The list goes on and on including the ratio of proto mass to electron mass, the ratio of total protons to total electrons, the electromagnetic coupling constant, molecular energy levels, etc. And they are discovering many more regarding the "tuning" of our solar system. The placement of Jupiter, the luminosity of our sun, etc., etc.
Again, I want to emphasize that the Intelligent Design movement just "happened". Non-theistic scientists all over the globe realized that when the whole picture together, life is an impossibly low probability even based on chance . (Imo that is why non-theists so desperately have to depend on theories such as multiple universes...)
Well, here's why I believe in the JudeoChristian version: it matches the astronomical and fossil record perfectly. Here is the order it gives in Genesis (keeping in mind that the vantage point of the observer/writer of Genesis is given in verse 1 as on the surface of the earth):Quote from axeman:
Shoeshine,
Any way you cut it, christian creationism, is no different than
egyptian creationism, or any of the other mythological stories
fabricated by a multitude of cultures throughout time.
Now... this also begs the question.
Why should I accept christian creation stories over
egyptian or native american indian creation stores?
Read these:
http://www.sammustafa.com/WorldReadings/Creation.html
Then CLEARLY explain why the christian version is THE TRUE creation story.
peace
axeman
1. Creation of the physical universe. (1:1)
2. Transformation of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent. (1:3)
3. Formation of a stable water cycle. (1:7)
4. Establishment of continents/oceans. (1:9)
5. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent, i.e. sun, moon and stars became visible on the earth for the first time. (1:14-16)
6. Production of small sea animals. (1:20)
7. Creation of sea mammals (nephesh as gms likes to point out). (1:21)
8. Creation of birds.
9. Making of land animals (nephesh). (1:24)
10. Creation of man. (1:26)
Coincidence? I think not...
if those values were different (and you still existed), then the universe would be a different place, and you'd still be saying, "well if this wasn't like this, then that wouldn't be like that."