Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11705955)

Genesis 1 and 2 are mythological and in the same genre as other near eastern literature of the time.

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11705955)

Genesis 1 and 2 are mythological and in the same genre as other near eastern literature of the time. Whilst it contains theological truths (CS Lewis calls it 'true mythology') Adam and Eve are archetypal and not, in my view, historical. I need to leave work now, but will give you my interpretation of the rib story later.

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy (Post 11706039)

Is this a joke? Religion is THE worst thing that humanity ever invented. It is the ultimate cancer of the human race. It is the root of more suffering, the cause of more wars than anything else. Always has been since its inception, always will be.



This I find deeply worrying. Do you really think we should use the Bible, or any religious text, as a 'moral compass'. Religious scripture contains some of the most evil, barbaric concepts ever created by man. I, like millions of others, have an extremely strong moral compass, but have no religious affiliations whatsoever. And then there are millions of people who claim to be deeply religious but commit the most heinous acts. Morality doesn't come from religion. Morality that good, caring people follow today has come from reasoned argument, sober discourse and the general consensus of an evolutionary society. If we all strictly followed absolute morality as dictated to us by religion, the world would be a truly horrific place to live. To need religion as a moral compass shows weakness and, to an extent, a lack of an innate, personal moral code.



I have looked around me. I watch the news every day; it's extremely depressing. Organised religion has been around for a couple of thousand years. Approximately 85% of Earth's population - adults and children - claims to have a religious affiliation. The result? The world is a sick, sick place! Only an insane person could claim the world would not be a far nicer, significantly more peaceful place without religion.

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11705737)

Are there any Christians on S'net? I can't be the only one!

Originally Posted by Tony Harrington (Post 11706146)

You are not a voice in the wilderness Mr T, now there are two!

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy (Post 11706039)

Is this a joke? Religion is THE worst thing that humanity ever invented. It is the ultimate cancer of the human race. It is the root of more suffering, the cause of more wars than anything else. Always has been since its inception, always will be.

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy (Post 11706039)

This I find deeply worrying. Do you really think we should use the Bible, or any religious text, as a 'moral compass'. Religious scripture contains some of the most evil, barbaric concepts ever created by man. I, like millions of others, have an extremely strong moral compass, but have no religious affiliations whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy (Post 11706039)

And then there are millions of people who claim to be deeply religious but commit the most heinous acts. Morality doesn't come from religion. Morality that good, caring people follow today has come from reasoned argument, sober discourse and the general consensus of an evolutionary society. If we all strictly followed absolute morality as dictated to us by religion, the world would be a truly horrific place to live. To need religion as a moral compass shows weakness and, to an extent, a lack of an innate, personal moral code.

I have looked around me. I watch the news every day; it's extremely depressing. Organised religion has been around for a couple of thousand years. Approximately 85% of Earth's population - adults and children - claims to have a religious affiliation. The result? The world is a sick, sick place! Only an insane person could claim the world would not be a far nicer, significantly more peaceful place without religion.

Originally Posted by markjmd (Post 11706174)

Like it or not though, it's extremely unlikely that man's organization into large, ordered societies would have ever occurred or taken off the way it did without religion, and without that organization into large, ordered societies, it's extremely unlikely that the development of science, culture and civilization would have progressed at the rate they have in the past few millenia.


That might well be true, but like it or not you've grown up in a country and culture that's been profoundly shaped and influenced by religion over the course of many centuries. Can you or any of those other millions of people honestly and objectively say that your/their 'in-built' moral compass doesn't owe something to the legacy of that influence? I highly doubt it.



Humanity endured two of the most murderous and barbaric societal models in its history less than a century ago, in the Nazis and Soviet communism, neither of which laid claim to any particular religious inspiration or influence. You shouldn't need any more proof than this that it's religion's close relationship with civilization in general which is at the root of any of the extremist or authoritarian horrors you associate it with. It's all too easy to wish those horrors away from the end of pen or a computer keyboard, but in doing so you'd inevitably be wishing away much of civilization itself into the bargain, or at the very least wishing away among the most important parts of its history. You might be surprised at how few of even the most determined and convinced atheists would be prepared to make that trade-off, if they realized it's what they were asking for.

Originally Posted by Maz (Post 11706176)

Hitler was a catholic.

Originally Posted by Maz (Post 11706176)

Hitler was a catholic.

Originally Posted by markjmd (Post 11706184)

He was supposedly also vegetarian. Does this mean that every lentil-munching hippy you or I have ever encountered is a closet genocidal megalomaniac?

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11706186)

He wasn't a Catholic though.

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11706116)

Ok, first, a bit more context:



God used Adam’s rib to form Eve to demonstrate that they were the same created being, two halves of a whole. Eve was not created as a separate being, second to the male. She was formed as part of the initial man and Eve was brought into being to strengthen and powerfully help Adam; she was made from the same material and she was every bit as perfect a creation as man and as patterned after God’s image and likeness.

Elmer Towns says that the woman made of Adam’s rib was designed to be a “suitable helper” for Adam and that the Hebrew phrase is translated “help meet” in the KJV and “companion who corresponded” in the NET. It is not synonymous with assistant, servant, minion, or subordinate.

Again, according to Elmer Towns the Hebrew word translated “suitable,” k'negdo, carries much more meaning than simply “fit” or “appropriate.” This word also means “opposite or contrasting.” This implies that the two beings were designed to work and fit together perfectly, not just physically but in all ways. The strengths of each compensated for the weaknesses of the other. It was “not good” for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18), but, together, Adam and Eve were something far stronger and more magnificent than either of them could have been alone. Adam had to lose a rib, but he gained so much more.

In creating Eve from Adam’s rib, God accomplished the act in such a way that showed the woman was to complement and complete man in the integral union of marriage. Woman was created to be beside man, not beneath or above him. In salvation, man is no more worthy and woman is no less a citizen of God’s kingdom. “There is neither . . . male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They stand side-by-side as fellow “heirs . . . of the gracious gift of life” (1 Peter 3:7).

I find much truth in this, despite my calling it a myth. It is a true-myth. As the God-breathed Word it can be accessed and understood by all cultures and by people of all ages and IQs. God hadn't revealed His workings when the creation stories were given, so humanity had to receive an account that was compatible with the setting all those thousands of years ago.

I think it's beautiful.

Originally Posted by madscoob (Post 11706190)

heres a challenge find me a picture/ painting of adam and eve WITHOUT THEIR BELLY BUTTONS SHOWING, work out the irony afterwards

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11706181)

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11706116)

Ok, first, a bit more context:



God used Adam’s rib to form Eve to demonstrate that they were the same created being, two halves of a whole. Eve was not created as a separate being, second to the male. She was formed as part of the initial man and Eve was brought into being to strengthen and powerfully help Adam; she was made from the same material and she was every bit as perfect a creation as man and as patterned after God’s image and likeness.

Elmer Towns says that the woman made of Adam’s rib was designed to be a “suitable helper” for Adam and that the Hebrew phrase is translated “help meet” in the KJV and “companion who corresponded” in the NET. It is not synonymous with assistant, servant, minion, or subordinate.

Again, according to Elmer Towns the Hebrew word translated “suitable,” k'negdo, carries much more meaning than simply “fit” or “appropriate.” This word also means “opposite or contrasting.” This implies that the two beings were designed to work and fit together perfectly, not just physically but in all ways. The strengths of each compensated for the weaknesses of the other. It was “not good” for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18), but, together, Adam and Eve were something far stronger and more magnificent than either of them could have been alone. Adam had to lose a rib, but he gained so much more.

In creating Eve from Adam’s rib, God accomplished the act in such a way that showed the woman was to complement and complete man in the integral union of marriage. Woman was created to be beside man, not beneath or above him. In salvation, man is no more worthy and woman is no less a citizen of God’s kingdom. “There is neither . . . male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They stand side-by-side as fellow “heirs . . . of the gracious gift of life” (1 Peter 3:7).

I find much truth in this, despite my calling it a myth. It is a true-myth. As the God-breathed Word it can be accessed and understood by all cultures and by people of all ages and IQs. God hadn't revealed His workings when the creation stories were given, so humanity had to receive an account that was compatible with the setting all those thousands of years ago.

I think it's beautiful.

Originally Posted by markjmd (Post 11706188)

I was prepared to give Maz a pass, on the basis that like virtually everyone (except the Jews, obviously) growing up in the part of the world he did at that time, he was raised Catholic. For that very reason though it's a demonstrable irrelevance, much like pointing out that he had two arms and two legs and breathed air.

Originally Posted by markjmd (Post 11706174)

Like it or not though, it's extremely unlikely that man's organization into large, ordered societies would have ever occurred or taken off the way it did without religion, and without that organization into large, ordered societies, it's extremely unlikely that the development of science, culture and civilization would have progressed at the rate they have in the past few millenia.


That might well be true, but like it or not you've grown up in a country and culture that's been profoundly shaped and influenced by religion over the course of many centuries. Can you or any of those other millions of people honestly and objectively say that your/their 'in-built' moral compass doesn't owe something to the legacy of that influence? I highly doubt it.



Humanity endured two of the most murderous and barbaric societal models in its history less than a century ago, in the Nazis and Soviet communism, neither of which laid claim to any particular religious inspiration or influence. You shouldn't need any more proof than this that it's religion's close relationship with civilization in general which is at the root of any of the extremist or authoritarian horrors you associate it with. It's all too easy to wish those horrors away from the end of pen or a computer keyboard, but in doing so you'd inevitably be wishing away much of civilization itself into the bargain, or at the very least wishing away among the most important parts of its history. You might be surprised at how few of even the most determined and convinced atheists would be prepared to make that trade-off, if they realized it's what they were asking for.

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2 (Post 11706209)

Nazism and Stalinism bore all the hallmarks of religion, chiefly, unquestioning blind faith

Originally Posted by Dingdongler (Post 11706415)

JT, how do your beliefs fit with other world religions? In other words do you feel that Christianity is the only path to god and that Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims etc are all worshipping false prophets and heading for damnation?

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11706426)

In John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That's explicit. In Matthew 7:15 Jesus warns of false prophets.

As a fairly young (in terms of my faith), liberal Christian and as somebody that used to be a cultural relativist and a proponent of integral theory, I do harbour and suffer a certain cognitive dissonance. Nonetheless, as a committed Christian, for my belief to be authentic and cogent, I have to accept the truth of John 14:6. It is my reality.

Originally Posted by Dingdongler (Post 11706430)

You're a nice guy so I say this with a heavy heart but your reasoning set out above is exactly why I think most religious types are bellends.

Originally Posted by JTaylor (Post 11706426)

In John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That's explicit. In Matthew 7:15 Jesus warns of false prophets.

As a fairly young (in terms of my faith), liberal Christian and as somebody that used to be a cultural relativist and a proponent of integral theory, I do harbour and suffer a certain cognitive dissonance. Nonetheless, as a committed Christian, for my belief to be authentic and cogent, I have to accept the truth of John 14:6. It is my reality.

Originally Posted by Turbohot (Post 11705445)

What do you mean 'faint'?? I do believe in God as well, you know. :mad:

I mean,

They say "You must believe in God"
I say "No need to Must anything because He believes in you, anyway".

Originally Posted by DYK (Post 11706559)

But does that mean you should turn your back on God and not have belief in return.

Originally Posted by Turbohot (Post 11706571)

There's no room for 'should' and 'should not' when it comes to God. God is the only one who expects nothing in return. There's no transaction with God.

You can turn your face to God or show your backside to God, God believes in you.

Depends upon how one perceives God.