The existence of God - Page 57

Russ · 08-04-2009, 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Perhaps the 'tail' was meant metaphorically.

Or maybe it was meant literally?

Gary L · 08-04-2009, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Or maybe it was meant literally?

Probably didn't even have one.

danielf · 08-04-2009, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

The bible does mention great beasts . The 7 days are not literal 7 days in time as we know it its time in reference to God who is immortal.

Hypothetically speaking though. If there is a God and therefore Satan and Satan is trying to turn mankind away from God then what better trick than to plant the remains of animals in the earth to be descovered.

As I said before in different threads. The greatest trick Satan has performed is making us believe he does not exist

See, that's the problem (imo). There probably are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians. Some take the Bilble literally, some say it should be read in the context of the time. Some say the the earth is just a few thousand years old (and could claim those Dinosaur bones are the work of Satan), others may say that the Earth is far older, and humans evolved (according to God's plan/wishes). In fact, there's very little that is inconsistent with some reading of the Bible, which to some may be a great strength, but which also is a great weakness from a scientific point of view.

Russ · 08-04-2009, 23:16

I think 'probably' depends on which side of the fence you're on.

Gary L · 08-04-2009, 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

See, that's the problem (imo). There probably are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians. Some take the Bilble literally, some say it should be read in the context of the time.

That is my belief. a good way to test it is to do a sheet of say 20 extracts from the bible (ones that are not commonly known) and ask people to write what they think it means. the results would be varied interpretations. and would go some way to showing that some of it could have been interpreted/deciphered/translated wrong through the ages.

danielf · 08-04-2009, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

I think 'probably' depends on which side of the fence you're on.

Yes, that's fair enough. But on the subject of Evolution, I think it's fair enough to sat that interpretations differ? I know (well, that's my understanding anyway) that the Vatican endorses Evolution (I'm not sure how they reconcile this with Adam, Eve et al.), while many Protestants prefer a more literal interpretation?

DRZ400 · 09-04-2009, 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

What I was asked for, and what I posted was proof that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible.

No you didn't .... you quoted an ambiguous website which contained laughable so called evidence. Comparing a beetle to a fire breathing leviathan is a tad sad and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

There's a HUGE difference from a beetle squirting a chemical out its bum to A FIRE BREATHING LEVIATHAN!

---------- Post added at 01:00 ---------- Previous post was at 00:29 ----------

Tomorrows discussion will be 'Noah and the ark'.

Begin.

Gary L · 09-04-2009, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRZ400

Tomorrows discussion will be 'Noah and the ark'.

Begin.

Was the boat big enough to store all the food. as well as being big enough to carry all the animals?

DRZ400 · 09-04-2009, 00:29

Ah ... no .... but Russ B and his pedalow will beg to differ.

**Hugh** · 09-04-2009, 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRZ400

Ah ... no .... but Russ B and his pedalow will beg to differ.

For the alleged voice of reason, you don't seem very reasonable.

It would appear you are much more dogmatic and aggressive than most others posting on this thread, which is surprising, because most atheists/agnostics I know pride themselves on their "live and let live" attitude (neither side tries to "convert" people of different views).

Have a nice day.

Russ · 09-04-2009, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRZ400

No you didn't ....

Really? Let me point it out for you seeing as you have such a bad memory....

From this post...

Quote:

By the way the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs either

I replied 'yes it does'.

The response to that was this. ("link please")

I then linked to a site (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml) which I thought would be better than quoting directly from the bible.

So, just prove to you (yet again) that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, these are the direct passages..... Job 40:15-18 if you can be bothered to look for yourself..

Quote:

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

So yes, I have proven to you that going on that description, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

"But Russ, the words 'dinosaur' itself isn't actually mentioned LOL so the Bible must be fake LOL"

Well that's because the word 'dinosaur' wasn't invented until the 1800 but going on that description it matches many dinosaurs and no known creature of today.

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, that's fair enough. But on the subject of Evolution, I think it's fair enough to sat that interpretations differ? I know (well, that's my understanding anyway) that the Vatican endorses Evolution (I'm not sure how they reconcile this with Adam, Eve et al.), while many Protestants prefer a more literal interpretation?

If anything I'd say it's the other way around. Catholics tend to be more traditionalist. I don't know what the Vatican's stance is on evolution (it only speaks for Catholicism, it has nothing to do with the rest of us) but none of the Christians I know have much of a problem with evolution.

Stuart · 09-04-2009, 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

For the alleged voice of reason, you don't seem very reasonable.

It would appear you are much more dogmatic and aggressive than most others posting on this thread, which is surprising, because most atheists/agnostics I know pride themselves on their "live and let live" attitude (neither side tries to "convert" people of different views).

Have a nice day.

I suppose we all have our own definition of what's reasonable.

I have found (for some reason) on this forum that the atheists can be as bad as the religious people in dealing with people who's beliefs differ from theirs. Not saying that all the members are like this, or that any particular member is.

There are people on both sides like that. Take, for instance, the recent ads. The Atheist add said there *probably* isn't a God, so we should all enjoy our lives. A nice message that leaves open the possibility that they are wrong. One church's response? To say that God does exist (which I would expect) and everyone who believes otherwise is a fool, thus insulting anyone who believes different from them.

I personally don't believe God exists, but am willing to be proved wrong. I also respect people's right to believe otherwise.

danielf · 09-04-2009, 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

If anything I'd say it's the other way around. Catholics tend to be more traditionalist. I don't know what the Vatican's stance is on evolution (it only speaks for Catholicism, it has nothing to do with the rest of us) but none of the Christians I know have much of a problem with evolution.

The vatican's view

Am I right in thinking that Protestants tend to take the Bible more literally than Catholics though?

Russ · 09-04-2009, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

The vatican's view

Am I right in thinking that Protestants tend to take the Bible more literally than Catholics though?

That's being a bit simplistic but generally yes. It's not like we campaign for gays to be stoned to death or anything though. The general reason for the split between Catholics and Protestants was due to how Catholicism tends to change "the rules" (for lack of a better word) to suit itself. It has a lot of doctrine that is simply not compatible with scripture regardless of interpretation.

So in that respect we tend to follow what is written in the Bible a bit more.

Time is short for me this morning so what I've written in the post are broad generalisations but it gives you a basic idea.

**Hugh** · 09-04-2009, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I suppose we all have our own definition of what's reasonable.

I have found (for some reason) on this forum that the atheists can be as bad as the religious people in dealing with people who's beliefs differ from theirs. Not saying that all the members are like this, or that any particular member is.

There are people on both sides like that. Take, for instance, the recent ads. The Atheist add said there *probably* isn't a God, so we should all enjoy our lives. A nice message that leaves open the possibility that they are wrong. One church's response? To say that God does exist (which I would expect) and everyone who believes otherwise is a fool, thus insulting anyone who believes different from them.

I personally don't believe God exists, but am willing to be proved wrong. I also respect people's right to believe otherwise.

Absolutely agree with you - live and let live, believe or not believe, have faith or don't have faith, up to the individual; those on either side of the debate who don't think that way are equally wrong-headed (imho).