Is there a God?

[mockney piers]

If that's how you feel.

I'm not angry at all, no idea where you are getting that from and I certainly don't feel this is simply my platform. Feel free fisk away, I'll be amazed if you could offer me answers I haven't already considered but believe it or not I'm actually quite open minded.

I was simply trying to address the idea that noone has been debating for 11 pages or that lack of religion is some default position through no thought or an absence of previous and careful consideration.

My previous point was simply stating the obvious that we've been round in circles a number of times and noone is in any danger of persuading anyone else thus far. It was a tongue in cheek post but m not about to supress debate (like I could if I tried) in a debating forum.

Please go ahead and engage too.

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not angry at all, no idea where you are

> getting that from ...

BB100 may have been referring to:

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Religion is imperialist, totalitarian and so, so very angry.

BTW, you two are front runners for this year's How to Win Friends and Influence People prize - Good Luck! :)

[Huguenot]

"If religion is angry what's your excuse? I could pick through all your comments but you're not looking for an answer to the question. This is just a forum to promote your own ideas. Bon chance!"

It seems to be a forum to promote your ideas too, BB100, since you've expressed them and publicised them - which is no more than I have.

You have also argued against my own position and I have against yours. There is an equality here, not a persecution. It's a shameful trick to claim to be a victim of a grand conspiracy.

Anyway, I've already told you what makes me angry - religion is an expansionist, totalitarian regime run by autocrats to dictate the social and moral context of our lives without consideration for our own views or needs. It's both oppressive and unnecessary.

If I thought there was a rational foundation for this dogma I could be appeased, but to base it on superstitious beliefs and medieval practices is beyond the pale.

[BB100]

I put forward an idea to discuss which I acknowledged was not an idea of my own but was also not based on superstition or medieval practice. I did not claim a conspiracy but realised from your responses that some of you have already decided the answer and have no desire to explore the question - maybe the reason for the circles and 11 pages. You also assume I put God and religion together. I hope you never do jury service, lol!

[mockney piers]

I think people are willing to engage, you really should stop suggesting people aren't.

But in fairness most people probably have made up their minds, and as I have been at pains to point out this has probably invoved alot more consideration, whichever side of the fence one alighted upon, than a bit of banter on a forum.

Your suggestion for discussion was that a speech therapist friend thought they had found an apparent paradox and that the answer might be the design of a supernatural being. Most people seem to think this unlikely and as use of critical faculties and applied scientific rigour go, it's not really much cop let's face it.

Humans have an amazing ability to both create and to learn. Language has evolved over tens of thousands of years, when you consider a mere thousand years seperated French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian, even less for Spanish, Portugese and Catalan, then you can see how quickly it does evolve.

That's assuming noone subscribes to a young earth theory of course, from no language at all (or that babelly thing) to today's state of affairs might be a push in 5,000 years.

[Huguenot]

BB100, I don't conflate 'God' and 'religion'. If you look just a couple of posts above this one, I conceded that a 'creator' has perfectly rational reasons to be included as a 'reason for being here'.

Your 'God' however, was decidedly human - to the point of being responsible for language. At that point you're in the self-regarding 'religion' hole.

I suspect that my contribution to jury service, such as it was, was both appropriate and compassionate. Your own, given that you indulge in judgmental non-sequitors, may be only of your own devising.

I see no sense in 'exploring' an assertion that the sky is green and that things we don't understand are magic. I hope you'll indulge my impatience.

My worldview is full of effort and responsibility, yours is full of capitulation and passive acceptance. Yours is very attractive, I can understand why you're there.

[Y'man]

Can anyone enlighten me? I read the bible, many years ago when I had time on my hands and it was the only book available to me! I had many questions afterwards, who wouldn't it's an extremely contradictory tome. I decided that I would give the book some credibility if I could find believable answers to my questions. I started with the first question that came up as I read, that was 30 years ago and I still haven't got the answer to that so I can't move on until I do.

So, who was Cain's wife, what was her name and where on Earth did she come from?

[mockney piers]

I think literal interpretations of the bible got ditched by all sides of the argument quite a while back, and a bit like the language thing, it's bad science to conclude that there is no God because an ancient text written and edited over hundreds of years by people with different agendas is both inconsistent and incomplete.

But yes, that was one of the questions I asked when I was about 6 that noone would answer satisfactorily, and metaphors aren't very satisfying to the childs mind I suppose.

[Brendan]

I don?t once get sent out of Bible Ed class for insisting that if the bible held all the answers it would be able to explain time and consequently if my teacher was so knowledgeable of the bible she would be able to satisfactorily explain what time is using biblical references.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Cripes - is prison that boring? Incest not outlawed until time of Moses. See Leviticus.

[HAL9000]

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, who was Cain's wife, what was her name and

> where on Earth did she come from?

The two principal explanations are:

1. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters whose names are not recorded in the Bible (Gen, 5:4 reads, "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years and he begat sons and daughters.") Cain's wife was one of those daughters - a sister. The Talmud says that Cain and Able were born with twin sisters and that each took the other's twin for a wife.

2. More controversially, the Talmud says that Adam and Eve were created in God's image but that other people were created earlier along with the animals in general. When Cain was banished, he took a wife from amongst those peoples.

(The Talmud contains many levels of exegesis.)

[Y'man]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Y'man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So, who was Cain's wife, what was her name and

> > where on Earth did she come from?

>

> The two principal explanations are:

>

> 1. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters whose names

> are not recorded in the Bible (Gen, 5:4 reads,

> "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth

> were eight hundred years and he begat sons and

> daughters.") Cain's wife was one of those

> daughters - a sister. The Talmud says that Cain

> and Able were born with twin sisters and that each

> took the other's twin for a wife.

>

> 2. More controversially, the Talmud says that Adam

> and Eve were created in God's image but that other

> people were created earlier along with the animals

> in general. When Cain was banished, he took a wife

> from amongst those peoples.

>

> (The Talmud contains many levels of exegesis.)

Yes, I'm sure it does but this tells me nothing plausible. 800 years they lived? And it was incestuous? So we're all, supposedly, derived from an incestuous relationship? Just a tad far fetched don't you think? I'm looking for something reasonable, not controversial. Sounds like the Talmud is basically a proof reader, dots the I's and crosses the T's.

[Brendan]

Wife?

So we?re assuming that the second generation of humanity, ever, had already invented the institution of marriage.

So who presided over the ceremony and under whose authority were they ordained? Who were the witnesses? Considering only a few of the pages of genesis had happened and almost certainly weren?t written down yet, where the fuck did the reading come from?

Asking who his wife was is only tip of the iceberg.

[HAL9000]

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So we're all, supposedly, derived

> from an incestuous relationship? Just a tad far

> fetched don't you think? I'm looking for something

> reasonable, not controversial.

It's not that far fetched, actually. If God were smart enough to have created the entire universe then it would be reasonable to assume that Adam's and Eve's ova and sperm were sufficiently heterozygous to account for the observed genetic diversity of the human race, surely?

Indeed, modern science has identified a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-Line Adam amongst our genetic ancestors.

[HAL9000]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wife?

Surely, we are talking here about the common trait amongst many animals to form mating pairs?

[Curly]

The bible is only inconsistent and incomplete and contradictory if you don't understand it. There are different interpretations because either people misunderstand it, read it out of context or misuse for their own ends or they don't understand the background and the culture of the people at the time. There are also problems caused by the meaning of words being 'lost in translation' so it sometimes helpful to go back to the original text or for those that can't read the ancient greek or hebrew compare different translations.

Cain married his sister when incest was permitted in order to extend humanity. Genesis 5:4 says Adam had sons and daughters. We don't know her name because it doesn't say.

[Curly]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The first marriage between Adam and Eve provides insight to these questions:>

So who presided over the ceremony

GOD

and under whose authority were they ordained?

God

Who were the witnesses?

The angels

Considering only a few of the pages of genesis had happened and almost certainly weren?t written down yet, where the @#$%& did the reading come from?

Gen 2:22-23 is a record of the marriage ceremony. It looks like Adam composed his own words.

So it would not have been difficult for Adam to have done the marriage ceremony himself since he already had experience of marriage cermonies. There must have been plenty of people about by then for witnesses at weddings anyway as in Gen 4:17 says Cain built a city.

[Brendan]

Well that?s all of my theological questions answered. How are you on Sports?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Always have a member of the Nephilim on your basketball team.

[Curly]

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > -----

> > Y'man Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > 800 years they lived? And it was

> incestuous? So we're all, supposedly, derived

> from an incestuous relationship? Just a tad far

> fetched don't you think? I'm looking for something

> reasonable, not controversial. Sounds like the

> Talmud is basically a proof reader, dots the I's

> and crosses the T's.

According to the bible everyone at that time lived for many years. Genesis 6:3 says God decided to limit the days of humans.

As to whether that is far fetched to you depends on your faith. I find the mathmatical probability of life evolving far- fetched - more chance of me winning the lottery and never buying a ticket (no comments about that please before you all start on me, lol) - so you have to make a personal decision as to what you will believe after a careful search.

[Curly]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well that?s all of my theological questions

> answered. How are you on Sports?

RUBBISH!

[Y'man]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Indeed, modern science has identified a

> mitochondrial Eve and a Y-Line Adam amongst our

> genetic ancestors.

Your source please Hal.

[mockney piers]

On that one HAL is quite right, but they are just names given to Genetc markers present in all human beings.

Try Stephen Oppenheimer for starters as he has written very clearly and accessibly on this.

Basically mitochondrial DNA passes unchanged from mother to daughter in an unbroken line with occasional mutations which will follow down as markers until a further subset is identifiable by a new mutation.

Likewise father to son unbroken lines are identifiable by DNA markers on the y chromosome.

Using this technique we've discovered 7(ish off the top of my head) women that most Europeans are descended from, given names like ursula and so on by working out where they are likely to have lived n thousand years ago (number of submutations times 2000 or something) by seeig where the greatest concentrations o their descendents now lived.

Across the world about 43 of these identified common ancestors.

These people definitely existed but wouldn't actually have had these names and it's guess work as to roughly when and where they lived.

They went on to find genetc markers common to all ancestors common to all humans. This means that we are all

descended from them, though that doesn't in any way suggest that they knew each other of course or even lived within hundreds (though definitely within thousands of years of each other) or that we are descended from a literal Adam and eve.

But they went for those names for rather obvious reasons.

[mockney piers]

Curly, while i do of course defer to your understanding of the bible thanks to your strong grasp of aramaic and ancient Greek, and despite europe's best minds for a thousand years having dedicated their lives to theology and yet still came up with many many differences in interpretation, I'm glad you've sorted all that out.

But I can't help but suspect your surety comes from begging the question a fair bit but that's another matter.

You say the bible isn't incomplete and any interpetation is only there for those who want to twist it's meaning for their own ends, but in the following sentence you go on to interpret why there is an implicit acceptance of incest until Leviticus outlaws it.

If it wasn't incomplete wouldn't the bible have had a few more begats to fill in the gaps and said 'yes they were related but I bestowed them with genetic diversity, and once there were enough of you I stopped interfering and made incest rather unhealthy to your genetic disposition'?

I can't find those bits in the complete bible, clearly I don't understand it ;)

[HAL9000]

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HAL9000 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Indeed, modern science has identified a

> > mitochondrial Eve and a Y-Line Adam amongst our

> > genetic ancestors.

> Your source please Hal.

I've added links above that identify the principal sources in this field of study.