Raf

Another modern example of "how convenient is that" ties into the post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy (forgive any misspelling). How many people can cite a miracle that goes something like this: So-and-so got a diagnosis of severe fatal cornitearjerkititis. So we prayed for So-and-so. Next time So-and-so visited the hospital, all traces of the disease were gone! It's a miracle! The implication is that the prayer triggered action from God that led to the curing of the disease. Indeed, no other explanation is even entertained. To God be the glory, right? But what happens if you reverse the results? When my friend's wife was knocked down by a stroke, so many of us prayed for her. Prayed and prayed and prayed. And she died. Using the same logic as the previous example, I should be able to say that the prayers triggered God's intervention resulting in the woman's premature death, right? Oh, no? NOW it's a fallacy? NOW we seek alternative explanations? How convenient is that?

Going from memory, so might be slightly off: "I'm gonna play this city like a harp from hell!"

Oh. Ok. "Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it." "A kiss can be deadlier, if you mean it."

Why did God command genocide?

I could see removing tax exempt status from churches IF those statuses are allowed to remain for particular good things the churches do. For example, a church that runs a food bank should be taxed, but the food bank itself should not. But I'm MORE inclined to leave it alone. *** Incidentally, I am sensitive to how easy it would be to become a one-note poster, and I'm trying not to do that. But on this thread with this topic, I think the following observation has a place: As long as we're in a country that is religiously free, cults cannot be prevented from forming. Not by law, anyway. As long as people believe in a god, they are susceptible to abuse from anyone believed to speak for that god. This is not to say atheists are not susceptible to abuse. It just wouldn't come from a religious cult, per se.

Genesis 9 gives the distinct impression that prior to the Flood, mankind did not eat meat. In reality, mankind has been eating meat for at least 1.5 million years (including man's ancestors: by the time we get to cro magnons about 35,000 years ago, meat is a major part of man's diet. Am I wrong about what Genesis says? If I'm right, this is a fairly obvious error.

I find it interesting that the interest in discussing the issue stops once it becomes clear that staying on topic will be enforced.

Wow.

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

Anna Paquin X-Men Hugh Jackman

What does Christine Hayes have to say that is of value to the Archaeology discussion? Are you actually going to answer a question and engage in a discussion this time? Interesting article by Christine Hayes regarding the Bible.

"When he comes through your door, unless you just-a want some more..."

Is this mashup or name that flick?

I pulled a "you guys" and listed the second movie first. So George, you actually have the FIRST movie title in mind.

You're up.

Cleaning Up The Town Saving the Day In the Name of Love

"I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time." "But there are things we *can* control: I can control when the fruit will fall, I can control where to plant the seed: that is no illusion, Master!" "Ah, yes. But no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach." *** "The secret ingredient is... nothing!" "Huh?" "You heard me. Nothing! There is no secret ingredient." "Wait, wait... it's just plain old noodle soup? You don't add some kind of special sauce or something?" "Don't have to. To make something special you just have to believe it's special." "There is no secret ingredient..."

The Hunt for Red October ?

A student at a historically black college tries to get into a popular fraternity, tapping into an ongoing feud between lighter-skinned and darker-skinned students. One day, a millionaire businessman trying to show his son how important it is to get a formal education decides to enrol, causing a big splash.

On what basis do you declare/discern/judge/conclude God to be moral?

I didn't post for six days. I did not expect no one else to post for six days! For those "guests" who posted while I was taking a break, please check your email. You're welcome to rejoin us, provided you were really you. :)

Ender's Game of Thrones I'm baaa-aaack. As me, I mean.

Ok, guys, I just got in trouble with my fellow mods myself, so I'm really not in a position to get all preachy... But come on! I'm not calling mod attention to this thread because no one has reported it. You guys want to settle it by yourselves, then settle it. That does not mean continuing it publicly until one or both of you get tired. I'm suspending judgment on WordWolf because there have been no complaints. I see that he interacts with JohnIAm A LOT, and to be honest, I don't read all his posts to John in detail. It sometimes requires an interest in the subject matter I don't have. I did read JohnIAm's comment to ME in this thread, so I see he is perfectly capable of expressing disagreement without getting out of line. Post 30 is so far out of line... you can't even SEE the line from post 30. I could have moderated it. I could have asked someone else to moderate it. I left it alone. So John, if you think WordWolf is harassing you, report it. But don't step into the gutter. Post 30 practically invited rebuke. I respect your intelligence enough that I don't think I have to spell it out for you. This is an interesting topic of discussion. Let's try to stick to it.

Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. It doesn’t say how old Eve was. How long did Adam live without Eve? A year? 90 years? Because we don’t know how old Eve was when she gave birth to Seth. Also 130? Do you believe that? Really? Adam goes on to live another 800 years. Eve went on to live another [who gives a crap. She’s just a woman, so the Bible doesn’t bother telling you, because it’s not like she was an important figure in the history of mankind]. Seth was 105 years old when he became father of Enosh. Enosh was born when Adam was 235 years old. That’s the Bible talking, not me. Seth goes on to live another 807 years. Enosh is 90 years old when his son, Kenan, was born. If Enosh was 90, Seth was 195. Adam was 325. Kenan was born 325 years after the creation of Adam. 70 years later, 395 years after the creation of Adam, Mahalalel is born. 65 years later, 460 years after the creation of Adam, Jared is born. No indication of where he buys his lunch. 162 years later, 622 years after the creation of Adam, Enoch is born. 65 years later, 687 years after the creation of Adam, Methuselah is born. What happened to Enoch? To say Genesis is a little vague is an understatement. You guys can keep arguing about it all you want. I think the same thing happened to Enoch that happened to Frodo at the end of Lord of the Rings – nothing. It’s just a story. But it’s the Bible’s story! Adam is 687 years old when Methuselah is born. Adam is 874 when Lamech is born. When Lamech is 56 years old, Adam, the first man, dies. Now it gets interesting. 1,056 years after the creation of Adam, Noah is born. A couple of other calculations will make life interesting. Lamech dies at age 777. He was 182 when Noah was born. Methuselah was 369 years old when Noah was born. And Methuselah, we all know, died at the age of 969. Well played, Genesis writer! Because you later write that Noah was 600 years old when there was this rainstorm. So Methuselah either died in the Flood or on Floodmas Eve. The movie got it right! Anthony Hopkins' character DID belong in the story. Anyone see the movie? Did it mention that Metuselah was Noah's grandfather? The Flood was 1,656 years after the creation of Adam. [Caveat: months are not part of this calculation, so we COULD have a variance of up to 8 or nine years (for example, if Adam were 130 years and 11 months and 27 days old when Seth was born, etc).] By being SO precise about how old this person was when that person was born, Genesis undercuts the "it's not a complete genealogy" argument. It's either 1,656 years between the first man and the Great Flood, or Genesis is in actual error. Spoiler alert: it's B. Okay, but what about the women? Oh yeah, that’s right, who cares. Aside from fiction and legend, I don’t think you’re ever going to find any evidence that people lived to be these fantastic ages. Legends are not evidence. If legends are evidence of people living for centuries, they have to be allowed as evidence for all sorts of magic and nonsense. Nine hundred and 69 years. Please.

In Genesis 5, we begin some detailed chronological information. Earlier, there seemed to be some confusion about time, and I wanted to make my position clear. I do not believe Genesis presents a historically accurate account of things that actually happened. There may have been murders, but Cain never killed Abel because both are fictional characters (that’s my position). Cain never married his sister or an animal because Cain is a fictional character (that’s my position). Cain never built a city because… you get the idea. However, just because I don’t believe something does not mean I won’t acknowledge the Bible says it. For some reason, this was not clear earlier. T-Bone wrote about some scholars who tried to get an accurate date for the creation of Adam and Eve (post 86). I responded that those scholars were justified in treating the Genesis genealogies as complete specifically because of Genesis 5. In other words, I believe the Bible presents those genealogies as complete (post 90). My answer confused T-Bone, who wrote: “your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number… I don't follow your reasoning – if it's not history, in other words a myth then how can you say the genealogy lists are complete and fixes the time? And in post # 97 you go back to saying it's history… so is it history or myth?” Answer: It’s myth. That’s my position. And I am most certainly not saying that the accounts of Genesis are true. I am simply saying what I believe Genesis says and means. If you can understand my posts and accurately convey my opinions, without agreeing with me, then I can understand the Bible and accurately convey what it says without agreeing with it. We may disagree on how particular verses should be interpreted. But it should not be difficult at all to agree on what it SAYS. What it says is not a matter of opinion. Genesis 5 gives us names and ages that permit us to construct a timeline and calculate the “creation of Adam.” The ages in Genesis 5 are either accurate or they are not. If they are accurate, then we can date the creation of the first man (assuming Adam was the first man). If they are not accurate, then it is an error. Honest people can disagree, as T-Bone did earlier, but that’s where we stand. And with that, we look at Genesis 5.