Abra,

The Bible is a complex book. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense that G-d gave us something that has deeper levels of understanding and won't be a simplistic kindergarten book. The Bible speaks to all people even if they are very different levels of personal development and understanding of life. Real people have different levels of sophistication. What is really amazing is that the Bible can be understood even at various levels.

The two main keepers and studiers of the Bible are the Jews and the Christians. I think Spider and I are good examples. We may respectfully differ on a number of key issues but we agree on the vast majority of issues within the Bible. I greatly respect Spiders views and he has an honest and open approach to his beliefs.

So yes there is nuance and enlightened understanding within the text. Two crucial points to remember.

1. The vast majority agree on most things that are very direct and open in the Bible.
2. The Bible was designed to connect to you on the level you are.

You are very quick to dismiss the conversation when you ask a question. For example, you state that there are different interpretations to the Bible so therefore you can dismiss the Bible as a book written by G-d. (You have done this in many previous discussions as well.)

I would respectfully ask you to ask questions and then ponder or wait for a response before repeatedly coming to a conclusion. Can you imagine investigating anything with this method? Each time you have a question, don't immediately come to a conclusion. Otherwise you can't really investigate anything. Questions are great! Quick conclusions are not.

Fair enough?

Jeannie,

Whats arrogant is to pass judgment on a situation that you have very little understanding about. This is an event that happened 3,000 years ago and you have no idea who the Cannanites were. Try explaining to people 3,000 years from now who the NAZIS were. Oh yeah, we don't have video and newspapers from 3,000 years ago. So to pass judgement and call it genocide is arrogant.

Why is it hard to believe that G-d communicated with man? Do you think an Omnipotent Being is not capable of making sure a person knows that he is communicating with G-d? Before you respond about people "who hear voices" etc, it wasn't JUST G-d speaking to the leaders of Israel, it also was backed up by constant miracles that went along with everything G-d said. Miracles that were public to ALL the people on a daily basis. (Manna from heaven, splitting of the sea in Egypt and Jordan, constant victories against far superior forces (except when they violated G-d's word) etc.)

I understand that you don't believe these things. As I was saying before, you can't honestly investigate or ridicule a story if you don't believe the motivation and content of what was happening at the time. If you remove all the aspects that you don't believe of course the story makes no sense.

Its like saying that I don't believe the NAZIS were cruel. The Americans just wanted to dominate the world that's why they attacked and obliterated the Germans. Americans are genocidal conquerors that just want to plunder for oil, money, and power. That's what you are saying and that's why I said it sounds arrogant and faulty when you skip half the details of a story and then try to pass judgment.

No investigator can come to a situations with a bias. You can't honestly investigate the Bible when you start with an attitude of not believing that G-d exists. In fact in any type of investigation you would have to recuse yourself if you had a bias against the principle issue that you are investigating.

That's why I say that you can't believe half a story. Lets say you were agnostic - then you can investigate because you are open to both possibilities. If you are not open to both possibilities then how can you call yourself an investigator?

Why doesn't it matter? Of course truth matters.

To a person of faith believing in G-d feels with all his or her senses as true and connects with all of his or her life experiences. (In fact, I have discovered that by far the majority of atheists and agnostics have emotional issues (anger, hurt, negative experiences with people etc.) with religion and G-d - not logical ones.)

That is the reason why a person of faith believes with all his heart and mind. We never said we can prove it scientifically, so we don't have that burden of proof.

However when people start throwing around that the age of the earth has been PROVEN scientifically and that is simply not true, then the burden is on anyone who says it was PROVEN to actually do so and shoe me FACTUAL proof. Again I love and respect science but there is a huge difference between PROOF and theory that keeps on being discarded years later for new theory's. That's fine, because that's the scientific method - but please lets be accurate and not say something is FACTUAL when its not.

Jeannie,

Nobody is telling you that you have to believe anything, but your logical arguments just don’t make any sense if you are going to disbelieve half of a book and then say that the book doesn’t make sense according to you.

Take any book that you read and remove one character because you don’t believe he exists and then make fun of the story how it doesn’t make sense. It’s illogical.

If you read the cat in the hat but don’t believe that the hat exists, you can really attack the story and show how it doesn’t make sense. But the story is based on both characters the cat and the hat, so you can’t question one if you don’t accept the other.

If you have issues within the Bible that is very fair to question and ask how one is to understand what seemingly appears cruel. That fine and I would (and did) be happy to answer.

Otherwise this isn’t a logic discussion – it’s just a rant. What’s the point of those?

SPQR,

You wrote:

"Unlike carbon-14, the decay was slow enough so there was still enough left to measure after hundreds of thousands of years. "

Hundreds of thousands of years? I thought you guys like putting earths number in the millions or hundreds of millions of years.

You wrote:

"At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, Broecker announced that "The Milankovitch hypothesis can no longer be considered just an interesting curiosity."(20) People at the conference began to speculate on how the calculated changes in sunlight, although they seemed insignificantly small, might somehow trigger ice ages. That could happen if the climate system were so delicately balanced that a small push could prompt it to switch between different states."

You prove my point. 1. that he says that the HYPOTHESIS is no longer a curiosity. That still doesn't make it more then a HYPOTHESIS which is not the same thing as FACT.

2. Look at that paragraph again and notice how sensitive all the data is to a slight variation in sunlight or other weather phenomenon's. All the HYPOTHESIS are based on all outside factors being completely equal through its entire history. How likely is that????

Your last paragraph completely proves my point. What was "accepted by generations of geologists" this guy is saying is untrue. Would you have considered something that was "accepted by generations of geologists" as FACT? Oops, that would have been a big mistake, wouldn't it?

Then to top it off, even the new guy who feels that NOW he really has it all figured out still has "Many other scientists found his chronology dubious". While I respect scientist and think its great that they are exploring If I were you I really wouldn't be so quick to say that anything is PROVEN FACT. There is lots of speculation, HYPOTHESIS, and theory's - not FACTS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

"Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years."

Issue #1 - it only works up to 60,000 years.

"...For approximate analysis it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time; thus carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate and the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant."

Issue #2 - "it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time" This has not been proven. It is an ASSUMPTION. This materials are very heat and weather sensitive. We have no way of proving it or knowing if some atmospheric event (extreme cold weathers, natural disasters, etc) effected these materials over thousands of years.

To prove my point please read the next paragraph from Wikipedia:

"The need for calibration

A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations in the earth's magnetosphere caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been lowered by the admixture of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources relatively depleted in 14C —the combustion products of fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect."

This paragraph clearly states that cosmic ray intensity, solar storms and changing climate "disrupt the carbon flow". In fact - "it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s"

Like I said its all nice theories based on lots of assumptions and unknowns. I don't see how anyone can call this "fact."

Jeannie,

You’re very funny. You can’t believe half a story and then say that the story doesn’t make sense. If you remove G-d from the picture then I agree the story doesn’t make any sense. However the story over and over is based on the fact that G-d was clearly in the picture and EVERYONE was aware of it at the time.

Either don’t accept the WHOLE story or do. You can’t pick and choose what you accept and then say – look how mean they were.

For those of us who believe in G-d the story of Joshua is very powerful. There is no cruelty here only justice. G-d is a Lord of mercy. If He deems people irredeemable they must have been pretty bad. It’s kind of arrogant for you to pass judgment, when you weren’t there and have no idea who or what was involved. It’s not people who are making this judgment, but G-d. You might not like the notion – doesn’t make it less true.

Its one thing to say that you are an atheist or agnostic. It’s another thing to belittle other people’s religion. Have a little decency. If you want to ask questions, great. But don’t belittle and ridicule people for their beliefs. I think even pantheists and atheists are supposed to have common decency.

“Joshua 11:19 – There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel except for the Hivvite inhabitants of Gibeon…

The Canaanites lose the chance to repent and survive. Verse 19 implies that if a city had wished to make peace with Israel, its offer would have been accepted, provided it agreed to abide by the Seven Noahide Laws and to perform national service (Ralbag).”

They all had a choice to repent and be spared. But they were not worthy so G-d hardened the hearts of the majority of Canaanites to wage war and be destroyed.

Why is it so hard to imagine nations that were so corrupt beyond redemption. This was G-d’s judgment not mans. G-d knows how and when to show mercy and who is deserving of it. Imagine there were nation after nation of Nazis. How much mercy do they deserve? Can their sins be redeemed?

Does it bother you that G-d destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Do you think there were innocent people there? Abraham pleaded with G-d that if there are even a handful of innocent people He should spare Sodom and Gomorrah. G-d told Abraham that there were no innocent people there and destroyed those cities.

Evil is bad and has severe punishment. This is not innocent people. Keep in mind that this wasn’t a choice for Joshua. Clearly all the battles they won were miracles in nature and were directly by the command of G-d. (They were vastly outnumbered with a far greater arsenal of chariots and armies of the enemies.) Nobody but G-d knows who is evil and who is redeemable. No man can make that judgment but G-d.

So you can’t compare it to any situation today. You can’t think about that time period with all its blatant miracles and clear guidance from G-d with today’s confusing world.

You should try to make new friends this way you are not settling while you wait for your soulmate. Your friends will help you not be lonely.

YAYA 10 ;-)

SPQR,

Not all sciences are equal. Many have proven theories like Gravity and Photosynthesis. However other sciences are theory’s based on extrapolation and the notion that it’s the best theory that we currently have. That does not mean it’s proven. All it means that it’s the best current theory according to science.

Most people have no idea about this. They assume that all science is equal. Its not. Honestly, how many people have actually studied the details behind the “proof” of evolution or the age of the universe? Most folks just accept the notion without actually investigating for themselves.

Is it for digital cable?

"Call your mom, call your date, call all you want, from state to state. 877 - 4something something ate, ate , ate , ate!"

Is it that one?

I must have seen it a million times on TV! I dream it at night! ;-)

Abra,

There are levels of good and bad. Just because many of us are civilized and won’t intentionally harm others doesn’t mean our work here is done. We are responsible for continued personal growth.

Even many of us who are civilized still hurt others. Sometimes we gossip about others. Sometimes in a thread on the forums we hurt or insult others in the heat of making our point. The greater you are the more responsibilities you have to yourself and to others.

Come on Abra. I consider myself a good and kind person, but I know that I still have much work to do to improve myself. Have we forgiven those that have harmed us? Have we accepted that while they may have been wrong, they were doing the best they can with the tools that they have? That they may have had limited capacity to understand what they were doing or the harm it caused? Have we asked forgiveness from those that are angry with us? Are we sometimes not humble enough? Do we let pride get to us and allow our ego to grow? If you are honest with yourself (another trait that we ALL have to work on) you know that there are areas that you can improve on yourself.

There is no such thing as a person is done and has no more work to do here on earth to improve himself and the world. There is pleeeeeenty to do.

Call Him whatever you want to. We are talking about the Supreme Being who Created the Universe. It doesn't matter what Religion you practice, that is the One G-d of all that is.

My point is that majority of religions recognize this. We don't have to all be of the same religion to all agree that this is true.

Hee hee, Abra ;-)

Many people love G-d (Including myself). However many people aren't Christians and still love G-d. You don't have to be any particular religion to love G-d. (Nobody said that you did but there seemed to be that correlation.)

If you have an open heart and are humble how can you not love our Creator who has given us so much and truly loves us?

Spider,

Again it seems that you agree that according to your beliefs sexuality is inherently a negative thing. However since the majority of humans need it then the proper way to do it is through marriage. But clearly Christianity is seeing it as inherently negative and marriage as the lesser of two evils if you have to have sex. Would you agree with that?

My only point is that there is a very clear distinction with attitudes about sex between Christianity (negative towards higher spirtuality) and Judaism (sacred and positive towards higher spirtuality).

Abra,

Physical contact between a man and a woman creates an intrinsic sense of hope for the woman in particular. Regardless if the man and woman have a discussion that their relationship is not serious; the physical contact causes the woman to start feeling that, “Maybe he will love me.”

When you kiss someone, touch them tenderly, or more – you are saying something very powerful. You are sending a very strong message without words. You are sending the message that, I care for you, I think your special, I can see your uniqueness, I value your heart and soul, and I love you.

This message is an eternal one. That physical contact is saying that you are so valued and loved; it has no expiration or time limit. Regardless of any words spoken between you to the contrary, that physical contact is creating a willingness to be vulnerable and give completely of yourself because you want and believe the message that the physical contact is sending to every nerve ending in your body.

That is why when a physical relationship ends there is such devastation and crushed feelings particularly for women. The unspoken promise has been shattered. The powerful loving eternal message has been a big fat lie. No wonder it creates so much pain and devastation.

If you think I am exaggerating check out this link about the devastation of a broken heart:

http://www.simpleromance.com/articles/brokenheart.htm

Or this excerpt from an article:

"I had talked to hundreds of single women in their 20s and 30s for a book, and most expressed a profound and ineffable sadness about the discrepancy in what they wanted to believe about sexual opportunities available to them, and what they actually found to be real. One disillusioned woman told me bluntly: "Junk sex is no better than junk food.''

My interviews coincided with the publication of The Cosmo Report -- a compilation of experiences of women who had been encouraged by Cosmopolitan magazine to believe that for hip, with-it women, good sexual experiences were possible without even a glance toward love. More than a 106,000 women who answered a questionnaire said they were lonely and depressed and felt they had bought the rewards of the sexual revolution at an exorbitant price.

The conclusion of a 24-year-old school teacher was typical: "Men never wanted to form commitments, but in the past they had to in order to obtain sex. Now that we women are no longer afraid of one-night stands, they don't have to commit themselves.''

Are such findings dated? Well, the language has changed. One-night stands have become "hook-ups.'' Last week in the same Washington Post, Patricia Dalton, a clinical psychologist who works in the nation's capital, rediscovered the psycho-sexual wheel. "If there is a disease of our time,'' she writes, "it's got to be loneliness.''

She sees women patients in their 20s and 30s who, according to their laments, bought a faulty sexual blueprint for life, overlooking the relentless urgency of the biological clock and the truism, however unfair, that unmarried men continue to seek mates who are younger and fairer. They ignore the corollary that male mating possibilities expand with age while female mating potential shrinks.

The woman who once waited for a knight on a white horse to sweep her off her feet finds herself waiting for the perfect mate she won't divorce like her mother did. As a result women marry later and so do men. The initial passion that once motivated men and women to marry dissipates when they live together.

One 31-year old female patient, who became discouraged in a sexual relationship that had gone on too long, told her therapist: "I've been acting like a wife, and he's been acting like a boyfriend.''

Chef, here is the rock I live under:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

"Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years."

Issue #1 - it only works up to 60,000 years.

"...For approximate analysis it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time; thus carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate and the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant."

Issue #2 - "it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time" This has not been proven. It is an ASSUMPTION. This materials are very heat and weather sensitive. We have no way of proving it or knowing if some atmospheric event (extreme cold weathers, natural disasters, etc) effected these materials over thousands of years.

To prove my point please read the next paragraph from Wikipedia:

"The need for calibration

A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations in the earth's magnetosphere caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been lowered by the admixture of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources relatively depleted in 14C —the combustion products of fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect."

This paragraph clearly states that cosmic ray intensity, solar storms and changing climate "disrupt the carbon flow". In fact - "it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s"

Like I said its all nice theories based on lots of assumptions and unknowns. I don't see how anyone can call this "fact."