The Faith & Religion mega Thread

@sundialsvcs: For someone who read the Bible, you're getting more things wrong than right. If you had half as much knowledge of the Scriptures as you have about networking, you'd work out the things that don't add up much better than you are doing. You can solve a networking puzzle, but not scriptural misconceptions.Let me correct the more egregious ones:

• B a'el is tacking a Hebrew ending onto what I believe to be an Akkadian word. 'Nuff said.
• Baal means similar to 'dominus' in Latin, Lord, owner. Gods were called 'Baal of <somewhere>'. Israel got mixed up with Baal of Pe'or during the Exodus. Pe'or was a place name. Jezebel was Sidonian Princess and brought with her the Sidonian Baal.
• Sure, the Israelites did child sacrifice, but never with God's approval

  Originally Posted by Jeremiah 7:31 They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart.

• From the Scripture above, we see that child sacrifice had never come into Jehovah's heart. But he had already foretold that his son would come to earth to save humans. Armed with these facts, you might now understand this:

  Originally Posted by Matthew 20:28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.

  He wasn't sacrificed - he was a volunteer. He paid a ransom price to redeem all humanity willing to accept it.

Interestingly, one real convincing possibility is that Jezebel & Israel worshipped Baal Melchart. Baal Melchart was a weather God who brought the rains in Spring & Autumn. But he went asleep annually, and had to be woken by his consort. This consort godess was worshipped at a sacred pole. Then Baal appeared as fire in a bowl of oil. There was an annual ceremony of waking up Baal.

So (at Jehovah's direction) Elijah prophesied a drought by Jehovah's word, which occured. 3 years into the drought, Baal's weather credentials were seriously undermined. Elijah then proposed a fire test in front of all 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom. The Baal prophets readily agreed. If there was one thing Baal could do, it was fire from heaven. But not that day! The 450 prophets of Baal & 400 prophets of the sacred pole could do nothing, despite trying all day.

That explains Elijah slagging them off, which you can read in 1 Kings 18. Then Jehovah convincingly answered the fire challenge in answer to Elijah's humble prayer. Then at Elijah's order, all Israel slaughtered the false prophets, leaving their bodies in the Kish'on. The Kishon is a wadi or torrent valley. It only flows in the wet season. The issue settled, Elijah prayed for rain, which came an hour or two later. The 850 dead prophets would have been flushed out into the Meditarranean sea.

Of course none of that will be accepted by those who value their own opinions above God's word, those who are not humble. I haven't posted this yet, but I've the distinct impression I've wasted my time.

Thank you, everyone. I stand corrected.

@business_kid: No one here is "wasting their time." We're all just standing around the same water cooler, wasting a little time. 11,582 posts and counting ... that must be some kind of Internet record.

Originally Posted by business_kid If you had half as much knowledge of the Scriptures as you have about networking, you'd work out the things that don't add up much better than you are doing.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Thank you, everyone. I stand corrected.

If only you could stand corrected regarding the existence of UDP ports...

"Humble", what an interesting concept and word. It has many meanings and some are quite contradictory and while some meanings align with a kind of deference and selflessness, assuming that is a good thing, others are rather negative even to someone who appears to (or thinks they) practice humility.

Here's a short list of synonyms -

Originally Posted by Mirriam Websters Dictionary - Humility Synonyms & Similar Words meekness humbleness lowliness modesty demureness quietness directness down-to-earthness submissiveness deference passivity naïveté naiveté acquiescence compliance submission timidity ingenuousness timidness naivete diffidence plainness bashfulness sheepishness reserve resignedness reservedness shyness simpleness mousiness

and antonyms

Originally Posted by Mirriam Websters Dictionary - Humility Antonyms & Near Antonyms arrogance pride haughtiness egotism egoism pretence assumption superiority loftiness conceit pomposity attitude imperiousness superciliousness presumptuousness hauteur pompousness pridefulness pretense assertiveness pretension pretentiousness lordliness boldness peremptoriness aggressiveness bumptiousness huffiness swagger cockiness brashness overconfidence forwardness cocksureness temerity audaciousness toploftiness cheekiness insolence impudence cheek nerve impertinence boastfulness vanity sauciness brassiness condescension disdain swash self-satisfaction self-importance self-conceit self-complacency self-centeredness scorn self-glorification

The odd thing is I submit each of us have some varying degree of ALL those traits, both synonym and antonym. From my POV there is very little I find more humble than recognizing I am but one lifeform among many billions just on one planet among many, many trillions to possibly an infinite number of other planets and my 100 years (if I'm very lucky) compared to billions of years isn't even spitting in one of Earth's oceans so I am incredibly lucky to have ever experienced anything and my little brain struggles to grasp what teeny little bits I can about the world around me in an extremely limited time frame.


OTOH there is very little I find more arrogant, self-righteous and pompous than asserting "I know the mind of the Creator of all of this, Everything, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, doomed, and wasting my time for I am one of the Chosen People".


So which is more humble, Science or Organized Religion?

If only you could stand corrected regarding the existence of UDP ports...

I am perfectly aware that UDP is a datagram protocol which does not have "ports."

OTOH there is very little I find more arrogant, self-righteous and pompous than asserting "I know the mind of the Creator of all of this, Everything, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, doomed, and wasting my time for I am one of the Chosen People."

It frankly terrified me with author Tim LaHey came out with an entire "Left Behind Series," and churches were given "sermon notes" to publicize it. It certainly seemed to me that a lot of people wanted to believe that they were special, that they would be the ones not "left behind," and(!) that they would then be given a celestial stadium seat to watch the rest of humanity "get their comeuppance." What the author described was positively sadistic. And, gloating. It was horrible.

But, then again, I'm one who believes that "The Book of Revelation" should never have been accepted into the canon. It ranks among the most brutally violent "apocalypses" out there – and, for whatever reason, there are a great many examples which survived.

Sundial, if you had seen your friends and loved ones being tortured to death for the public entertainment of a baying crowd, you would probably feel rather vindictive yourself. It's easy to take up a "civilised" and disapproving stance when you are not at the sharp end.

There's a Native American saying about not judging someone until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.

As to the "Left Behind" series, that's nothing to do with the Bible. It's all about this weird American notion, which you won't find anywhere in the New Testament, that Christians (or American Christians at any rate) are going to be "raptured" out of this world before things get really bad for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by enorbet So which is more humble, Science or Organized Religion?

Personally, I would say neither are examples of humility. Religions that claim to be God's tool for instructing humanity and then do what they think is politically expedient certainly are not examples of humility. Neither are scientists who claim to know what happened billions of years ago and now also know that God doesn't even exist, because he doesn't fit into their current revision of events.

Times of struggle when legal requirements may conflict with religious convictions are good times to observe which religion is prepared to suffer for it's principles.

Originally Posted by Voltaire It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. --Voltaire

Using that yardstick, you can thin them down very quickly. Where does it mention trumpets (or bugles) in "You must not murder?"

Originally Posted by hazel As to the "Left Behind" series, that's nothing to do with the Bible. It's all about this weird American notion, which you won't find anywhere in the New Testament, that Christians (or American Christians at any rate) are going to be "raptured" out of this world before things get really bad for the rest of us.

I fully agree, Hazel, and this is precisely what frightened me so very much about all of it. Which is why I used the various adjectives that I used in the preceding posts.

I will very candidly say that Revelations 14:10 is precisely why I chose to reject the entire book. The latter half reads as follows:

They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of(!) the holy angels and of the Lamb.

There is basically nothing about this entire chapter – and the several which immediately follow it – which is less than sadistic. Therefore, I reject them all, and wit them the entire book. There is absolutely nothing about "at most, seventy-odd years of screw-ups" which possibly deserves this. I refuse to ascribe this to a God who once said: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." These very-poisonous words are "not my 'canon.'"

Originally Posted by business_kid <snip> (religions that bend to) politically expedient certainly are not examples of humility. Neither are scientists who claim to know what happened billions of years ago and now also know that God doesn't even exist, because he doesn't fit into their current revision of events.

I don't suppose to know you well but it appears to me you prefer absolutes, pat final answers all wrapped up in a bow. That's not how Science, and I contend, the World, works. Thanks to the fact that the speed of light is finite we see things as they happened in the past with distance. Perhaps you have witnessed this in nature by some experience like watching a distant lineman or tree surgeon hammering and wondered why the sound of the hammer striking wood or metal coincided with the moment near when his arm was cocked back in the air.

Similarly with a set of binoculars we can see far greater distances in both Space and Time. Looking through major telescopes, like Hubble, we can see events unfolding from many billions of years ago. Because the Universe is expanding light gets shifted to longer and longer wavelengths with Time and Distance so we need to "view" longer wavelengths to look farther into Distance and Time and now we can see back to over 13.6 billion years with the JWST.

We don't understand all of it by any stretch of imagination and our understanding gets upgraded repeatedly over time but we do have more than just an inkling and certainly far more than mere imagination. We have photos. So yes, scientists think we have a decent idea of what happened many billions of years ago but no real scientist asserts that he "knows that God doesn't even exist" and certainly not because of any revision without evidence.

Most importantly and exactly why real scientists don't think they know such things is because there can be no observation, no evidence, for anything prior to Big Bang. The only so-called evidence that you allude to is some ancient persons' word in a book of words that exhibit exactly zero knowledge of anything that any reasonable educated person circa 2000 years ago would think they knew, complete with contradictions, utter impossibilities, and simply wrong concepts of the nature of our Universe common to Bronze Age Man.

To see that as any kind of valid evidence takes a leap of Faith and there is no room for such leaps in Logic, Law, or Science. Other's words alone is not evidence. It is literally hearsay. Furthermore the very fact that there are thousands of interpretations of that book seems to point to the extreme possibility that Believers assume God either can not or perhaps worse, chooses not to be clear and resistant to interpretation.

So the scientists who are also atheists, merely bet with the odds that the God of scripture is at best extremely inaccurate and unklikely and if such a creature does exist, our puny minds cannot begin to comprehend such a thing.

In short, what you are seeing as arrogance is quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I refuse to ascribe this to a God who once said: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." These very-poisonous words are "not my 'canon.'"

Better English commandment 6 translations use the word murder rather than kill. Obviously killing of animals for sacrifice and food was not a violation.

Originally Posted by enorbet now we can see back to over 13.6 billion years with

You see what you think you see....

In short, what you are seeing as arrogance is quite the opposite.

You seem to forget there is more than one world view. The 13.6 billion year view discards any possibility of the God of the Bible and miracles as real, thus shutting out multitudes of explanations for observations. In the Biblical view, God spoke light into existence, created it, like everything else, around 6,000 years ago, and did so 3 days before creating the sun and stars. Therefore, light initially didn't need to travel any distance, or arrive.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I am perfectly aware that UDP is a datagram protocol which does not have "ports."

Yes, I know you think that. You're wrong. Which is why business_kid favourably comparing your networking knowledge to your scriptural knowledge is quite the joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_D...Protocol#Ports

Originally Posted by mrmazda You see what you think you see....You seem to forget there is more than one world view.

Actually I'm not at all forgetting there is more than one world view. I just only pay serious attention to the multitudes of modern experts with actual evidence, not hearsay that doesn't "hold water" against the most basic of tests.

Originally Posted by mrmazda The 13.6 billion year view discards any possibility of the God of the Bible and miracles as real, thus shutting out multitudes of explanations for observations. In the Biblical view, God spoke light into existence, created it, like everything else, around 6,000 years ago, and did so 3 days before creating the sun and stars. Therefore, light initially didn't need to travel any distance, or arrive.

Please do also note that the 13.6 billion year view does NOT discard the possibility of God, just the one described 2000+ years ago, before a fairly amazing bit of progress in measuring and testing world views.

I have to ask you something about how you perceive God. Currently light in the universe comes from stars, including our own Sun. So do you think God created light before he created stars? If so doesn't that imply God can create rules that he can disobey? and isn't that the same basic conundrum of the age old paradoxes like "Can God create an immovable object or an irresistible force that He can neither move nor resist?" or "Can God commit suicide?". At the most fundamental it can be posed as "Can God create a rule he cannot break?". No matter the answer it is evidence against "All Powerful".

It seems to me either we have to accept that while it is at least conceivable that our Universe was created by some fantastic creature, the ideas of "All Knowing, All Powerful, Immortal" can't possibly make any sense at the very least in our Universe.

Originally Posted by enorbet Currently light in the universe comes from stars, including our own Sun.

Keyword: "currently". A universe that didn't exist wouldn't have had any rules. He started creation with light. Stars to produce light came 3 days later. God has infinite power. That power is what makes miracles happen. They're not dependent on any rules of physics that we are aware of, though they may facilitate them.

So do you think God created light before he created stars? If so doesn't that imply God can create rules that he can disobey?

It doesn't matter what I think. It's in God's Word, right at the beginning of the creation account, the beginning of The Truth. What we perceive as rules, He is not bound by. After Eden, men have been destined to die, yet, Enoch and Elijah didn't, and Lazarus and Jesus didn't remain dead. Life is an ongoing miracle. Nothing less than an infinite power could have created all we observe out of nothing, or life destined to multiply itself from dust and water. The universe didn't create itself from random nothingness. The bang required a creator, a designer, to put Earth the right distances from neighboring planets of the right size, kept habitable by a star at the right size and distance, kept stable by a moon of the right mass and distance, protected by the right distance from other solar systems, in a galaxy the right distance and configuration from others to keep it safe enough to sustain the life He created.

Originally Posted by enorbet So do you think God created light before he created stars?

No, I believe that the auhor of the "Genesis poem" (a human being inspired by God) divided up the wonders of creation into sets corresponding to the days of the week. In ancient thought a day is not simply a period of 24 hours. It has properties and something like a soul.The Babylonians (who also used a seven-day week) assigned an astrological god to each day, and 1 Genesis was written deliberately and carefully as a counter to that view. What is assigned to each day is symbolically appropriate to the ruling planet, but in each case the true God replaces the planetary deity as the source and meaning of it. So light belongs to the first day, the day of the Sun, but the Sun and Moon as calendar regulators ("Let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years") belong to the fourth day, the day of the planet Mercury. This planet in the Babylonian system belonged to Nabu, the god of priestly learning.

If so doesn't that imply God can create rules that he can disobey? and isn't that the same basic conundrum of the age old paradoxes like "Can God create an immovable object or an irresistible force that He can neither move nor resist?" or "Can God commit suicide?". At the most fundamental it can be posed as "Can God create a rule he cannot break?". No matter the answer it is evidence against "All Powerful".

This old chestnut was answered by C S Lewis when I was a child. God's omnipotence is the power to do all possible things. A logical contradiction is not a description of a possible thing. And, as Lewis inimitably put it, nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when we preface it with the words "God can".