Quote :

" 1. The creation of the world is not the most marvelous achievement imaginable 2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. 3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement 4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence. 5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing 6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable an incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.Ergo 7. God does not exist. "The doctrine that existence is perfection is remarkably queer. It makes sense and is true to say that my future house will be a better one if it is insulated that if it is not insulated; but what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if it exists than if it does not?" - Norman Malcolm, American Philosopher "

basically its logic towards those that believe in a supreme god. where did he come from? who created him? if he just came about with no creator then how do you know the world didn't? how do you know he wasn't created by an even higher God and so on (paradox). If you do a statistical analysis of the probability then the probability of no God at all would be the highest base on the logic. I believe in God but this is great food for thought.

9/10/2008 9:27:30 PM

how do you "blue" a mind? Is that what happens when you choke yourself?

9/10/2008 9:31:06 PM

I can't believe I just red all that

9/10/2008 9:31:36 PM

When I ask "Who created the Creator?" I'm usually accused of parroting 'bullshit' atheist talking points.

I know the question has been around for some time, but I've yet to personally meet anyone who was willing to answer it without getting all pissy about it.

9/10/2008 9:37:22 PM

I can't believe I just red all that

9/10/2008 9:43:40 PM

But if someone/something created the universe that was created by something else, then that entity would, by definition, not be God.

If we discover our society to be created by aliens, then all that does is add one more abstraction to our scientific empirical understanding of our origins and universe. The concept of God, itself, would be fairly unmoved by such a discovery - which has happened countless times throughout history.

Those who are faithful and not complete dumbshits believe that evolution created us without invalidating the concept of God. And no one equates evolution = God.

Then why would any given creator = God if we discovered such creator?

It wouldn't, God is by definition the level with none above it.

9/10/2008 9:47:39 PM

argument fails on point #5. We can conceive of a greater being, but that does not make such a being exist.

9/10/2008 9:48:44 PM

einstein believed in the still state of the universe.
it was a catholic priest who said it was created through a big bang.
since nobody knows shit about either topic, i'll refrain and leave it at that.

oh and I can't believe I just red all that

9/10/2008 9:58:17 PM

^^^ Thanks.

9/10/2008 10:02:37 PM

you guys are greyt

^^^^
that would falsify the bible completely though.

9/10/2008 10:07:20 PM

Orange you guys just arguing about nothing?

9/10/2008 10:12:08 PM

I disagree. all it would mean is that 'angels' are not mythical creatures but are in fact little green men from space.

9/10/2008 10:16:07 PM

^^^ no it wouldn't. We can conceive of God, but yes, that doesn't make Him exist. However, that it doesn't make Him exist doesn't make Him not exist. The conception is just that: a thought supposing the possibility. Nothing more, nothing less.

9/10/2008 10:16:26 PM

if aliens created humans how could any of genesis still be factual? (not saying it is but this would make it completely false.) hardcore christians will argue no bible=no god.

9/10/2008 10:21:01 PM

I think this explains it all

9/10/2008 10:22:51 PM

woops. sorry, one more arrow there than I originally saw. Ignore what I just posted...

And yes, I'd say that the current "literal interpretation of Genesis" would be invalidated if aliens from this universe created humans. Even still, though, I could come up with an interpretation that is every bit as literal which would not be invalidated by aliens creating humans. It really all depends on what you mean by "literal," as much as I hate to say it.

9/10/2008 10:25:13 PM

who is to say the creator isn't infinite

9/10/2008 11:24:21 PM

I can't believe I just red all that

Quote :

"Norman Malcolm, American Philosopher Sophist and Fantasist"

9/10/2008 11:47:28 PM

http://blued.ytmnd.com/

9/10/2008 11:49:24 PM

Argument from lack of imagination.

Simply because one cannot imagine a greater achievement than the creation of the world does not mean a greater achievement is necessarily impossible.

This cuts the legs out from pretty much the rest of the so-called "proof.

Furthermore, Premise 2b is fairly contentious, even if we accept Premise 1.

Premise 4 is also pretty contentious, as this is where the "proof" simply begins question-begging.

Does this guy actually get paid to write this kind of sophistry, or is it just some crank on the internet? My money's on the latter.

9/10/2008 11:52:03 PM

Chance, just go home

9/11/2008 1:08:39 AM

Quote :

"I can't believe I just red all that"

gg

9/11/2008 1:12:02 AM

9/11/2008 1:49:15 AM

Quote :

"And yes, I'd say that the current "literal interpretation of Genesis" would be invalidated if aliens from this universe created humans. Even still, though, I could come up with an interpretation that is every bit as literal which would not be invalidated by aliens creating humans. It really all depends on what you mean by "literal," as much as I hate to say it."

Didn't the sun-centric model of the solar system and evolution invalidate the book, or at least old Catholic interpretations? I'm just saying, none of this is anything new to civilization.

Quote :

"Simply because one cannot imagine a greater achievement than the creation of the world does not mean a greater achievement is necessarily impossible."

meh, just change the definition of 'world' and you're golden. See, churches will never go out of date! Yay, our great great grandchildren can still be handed small green bibles on college campuses.

YOU CAN'T GET BIGGER THAN A MULTIVERSE!

9/11/2008 7:06:51 AM

9/11/2008 8:42:18 AM

Quote :

"Didn't the sun-centric model of the solar system and evolution invalidate the book, or at least old Catholic interpretations? I'm just saying, none of this is anything new to civilization."

The discovery of the heliocentric solar system disproved the Roman Catholic church's opinion that the solar system was geocentric. But the geocentric view has no scriptural basis. It was based on Aristotelian philosophy. The public perception of this conflict has always been that science disproved religion. All it really proved is that the church leadership didn't know what they were talking about. The moral of the story is read primary sources for yourself before you jump to conclusions about them.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 8:47 AM. Reason : stupid bracket]

9/11/2008 8:47:15 AM

Why do people still respond to Earl threads?

9/11/2008 9:30:33 AM

Quote :

"Hi. You're probably new to the Wolf Web. In fact, I'm willing to bet you're new to college in general. It's an exciting time, isn't it? I'm sure that you have been exposed to many ideas and perspectives you'd never realized existed, and you're just bursting with enthusiasm at the thought of sharing a few ideas of your own with your peers now that you find yourself in an academic environment that seems perfectly suited to such an exchange. Why don't we go a little further? Odds are you consider yourself very intelligent. In fact, you're probably so intelligent that you've figured out all the quirks and kinks of organized religion--or at l east Christianity. Yeah, that's it, isn't it? You were probably raised in a Christian household and resent that upbringing for limiting your personal freedoms, so it's only natural that you'd seek to undermine Christ's teachings and save others from having such a faulty belief system for their own good. Pretty cool of you, isn't it? You've really got it together. FUCK YOU YOU STUPID FUCKING FAGGOT COLLEGE KID LET ME TELL YOU A SECRET NONE OF YOUR THOUGHTS ON RELIGION ARE RADICAL OR EVEN THOUGHT-PROVOKING IT'S NO SECRET YOU GOT THEM OFF A FUCKING WEBSITE WE'VE ALL READ THE PROSELYTIZER QUESTIONNAIRE TOO NOTHING YOU CAN SAY IS GOING TO LEND A FRESH OUTLOOK DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT FOR SEVERAL FUCKING CENTURIES NOW SOME OF THE MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE IN THE ANNALS OF HUMAN HISTORY HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIVES TO ANSWERING DEEPER THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS THAN YOUR PETTY BULLSHIT ABOUT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPELS? I MEAN HOLY FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE THE ONLY COCKSUCKER WHO EVER NOTICED THAT OR SOMETHING?! WAKE THE FUCK UP YOU'RE STILL JUST A STUPID KID AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS SHAMEFUL INCONSIDERATE AND DISRESPECTFUL BECAUSE MAYBE YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY TO LIVE ACCORDING TO A STRICT MORAL CODE AND MAYBE YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY TO ACTUALLY TRY AND DEVELOP A STRONG, HONORABLE CHARACTER BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU TO ATTACK MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF PEOPLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO PLAY THE VICTIM TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY "FORCE THEIR BELIEFS" ON YOU BY HANDING OUT A FUCKING PAMPHLET I MEAN HOLY FUCKING CHRIST WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS TEN TIMES WORSE GET OVER YOURSELF ALREADY THIS REBELLION AGAINST MOMMY AND DADDY ISN'T IMPRESSING ANYONE WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST YOU ARE NOT EVEN REMARKABLE STOP ARGUING WITH GARY HE IS MAKING A FOOL OF YOU I SWEAR UPON THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE PIERCED FUCKING JEW KING THAT IF YOU PULL THIS SALISBURYBOY, SYLVERSHADOW KIND OF SHIT ON ME YOU WORTHLESS WICCAN PANTYSTAIN I WILL SPLIT THE TENDER TISSUES OF YOUR WEEPING ASSHOLE WITH A HARDCOVER EDITION OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION OF THE HOLY FUCKING BIBLE YOU THINK YOU'RE SO FUCKING SMART I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU DO THE SAME SHIT WITH ANY RELIGION BESIDES CHRISTIANITY OR JUDAISM WITH SOME BOOK BESIDES THE BIBLE OR THE TORAH YOU AIDS-FELCHING CUM FLAKE SO PUT THAT IN YOUR FUCKING PIPE YOU JUST BOUGHT FROM BUDDHA'S BELLY THE FIRST WEEKEND YOU WERE UP HERE AND SMOKE IT YOU FUCKING FAGGOT COLLEGE KID and that's my word."

-FroshKiller

9/11/2008 9:43:46 AM

Quote :

"Simply because one cannot imagine a greater achievement than the creation of the world does not mean a greater achievement is necessarily impossible."

The destruction of the world/universe? Could that be considered a greater achievement?

9/11/2008 11:10:35 AM

[Old]

Thomas Aquinas.

Metaphysics.

15th century.

9/11/2008 11:30:29 AM

Quote :

"The discovery of the heliocentric solar system disproved the Roman Catholic church's opinion that the solar system was geocentric. But the geocentric view has no scriptural basis. It was based on Aristotelian philosophy. The public perception of this conflict has always been that science disproved religion. All it really proved is that the church leadership didn't know what they were talking about. The moral of the story is read primary sources for yourself before you jump to conclusions about them."

I can buy that no reading of the bible, whatsoever, should result in ridiculous claims about the solar system. But religion itself, and backbone of Christianity, has over and over again decreed that the physical universe must have certain characteristics, which naturally, will 99 times out of 100 be patently wrong.

The Catholic church has been wrong more times than just about any institution could possibly manage throughout history, but how can you maintain that these DO NOT constitute examples of science proving religion wrong. The only way you can even claim science has not proved the bible wrong is to pull the crap where you say nothing is literal, and basically the book says nothing to begin with. Then you fit what it says to what you think that you know - that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that is subject to be proved wrong later as well.

The fact that such physical models were even allowable under a bible-centric theocracy shows that to some extent science was proving Christianity wrong. And it continues to do so.

9/11/2008 1:24:34 PM

Quote :

"The fact that such physical models were even allowable under a bible-centric theocracy shows that to some extent science was proving Christianity wrong."

Let me get this straight.

1- Church leaders adopt heretical (non-biblical) teachings.
2- Heretical teachings are proven false.
3- Biblical Christianity is therefore disproven ("to some extent").

That looks like fun, let me try one.

1- A British Literature Professor still believes Pluto is considered a planet. This belief is permissible to avid readers of Shakespeare. None of the sonnets disagree with it.
2- Pluto is not a planet.
3- Shakespeare and the bulk of British Literature is nonsense and can't be trusted, since its adherents are ignorant of scientific happenings.

Logic is fun!

E: I just thought of a couple other points.

Quote :

"The Catholic church has been wrong more times than just about any institution could possibly manage throughout history, but how can you maintain that these DO NOT constitute examples of science proving religion wrong..."

I just made the argument that the Roman Catholic church was wrong. I'm not the first Christian to do so.

Quote :

"The fact that such physical models were even allowable under a bible-centric theocracy shows that to some extent science was proving Christianity wrong. And it continues to do so."

It wasn't Bible-centric to begin with. A Bible-centric theocracy is an oxymoron. The problem with Roman Catholicism was that it became institutionalized and bureaucratic. They strayed from everything the Bible teaches.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 2:32:40 PM

Why do people post that froshkiller quote as if it actually means anything?

9/11/2008 3:15:54 PM

^^^^^^MY GOD.....reading that never ever ever ever gets old...

EVER

9/11/2008 6:27:41 PM

This philosopher puts Malcolm to shame.





[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 6:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 6:42:08 PM

Quote :

"1- Church leaders adopt heretical (non-biblical) teachings. 2- Heretical teachings are proven false. 3- Biblical Christianity is therefore disproven ("to some extent")."

heretical teachings? wtf was Christianity before the Catholic church?

And how is it fair to talk about Christianity as if it means (what it should) only the teachings of Christ? What religion, Protestant, Catholic, or whatever actually goes by the teachings of Jesus alone? EVERY MODERN CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS HERETICAL.

No body even understands what the bible means or what Jesus meant to establish. So sure, we'll say that Biblical Christianity has not been disproved, and it has no bearing on our discussion.

Quote :

"It wasn't Bible-centric to begin with. A Bible-centric theocracy is an oxymoron. The problem with Roman Catholicism was that it became institutionalized and bureaucratic. They strayed from everything the Bible teaches."

Bottom line: religion is either vague or wrong.

9/12/2008 10:38:19 AM

Quote :

"And how is it fair to talk about Christianity as if it means (what it should) only the teachings of Christ? What religion, Protestant, Catholic, or whatever actually goes by the teachings of Jesus alone? EVERY MODERN CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS HERETICAL."

Where did I say Christianity was only based on the teachings of Christ? Orthodox (correct teaching/doctrines) Christianity is always in agreement with the entire Bible. Yes, there's more to the Bible than the teachings of Jesus. I never denied that.

Just FYI, heretical = contrary to scripture. Just because the pope says its heretical, doesn't make it so. In other words, Pope! = infallible word of god.

Quote :

"No body even understands what the bible means or what Jesus meant to establish. So sure, we'll say that Biblical Christianity has not been disproved, and it has no bearing on our discussion."

Quote :

"Bottom line: religion is either vague or wrong."

So Biblical Christianity, following the teachings of Christ ("what it should") "has not been disproved." But, "religion is either vague or wrong." Is Biblical Christianity vague? Or is it not a religion?

Maybe I could frame my position another way to help clarify the issue: You can prove people wrong, it happens every day. Plenty of people are wrong about God. But God is never wrong. The challenge then, is to discern which people are right about God. Inane arguments uttered by mortal men in the name of the almighty do not take away from God's perfection. They provide a smokescreen, giving people the illusion that God is impotent. The bottom line is that persuasive arguments have no effect on the reality of God's existence.

9/12/2008 12:29:34 PM

Quote :

"Maybe I could frame my position another way to help clarify the issue: You can prove people wrong, it happens every day. Plenty of people are wrong about God. But God is never wrong. The challenge then, is to discern which people are right about God. Inane arguments uttered by mortal men in the name of the almighty do not take away from God's perfection. They provide a smokescreen, giving people the illusion that God is impotent."

I still haven't exactly differed with your position, but what you propose here forms an odd conundrum.

I think this would be best described as a scientific approach. Characteristics of such an approach would include sustained skepticism, frequent revision of the established positions, and thus hopefully resulting in an evolution of thought that continues to approach the truth.

In my experience, none of these fit religion. Religion is not the fact that a God exists, it's a social institution, and it seems like we would conclude (from what you say) that the church itself is the smokescreen. I think that pretty much all religions would qualify, including Biblical Christianity. That doesn't mean the stuff written in the bible is junk, but faith is a heavy theme, which is worse than a persuasive argument for the existence of God, it just says "believe it and don't ask questions". Take the holy trinity - the entire concept is either vague or wrong. I mean, it says nothing about the world we live in. If it does claim anything novel and verifiable about the world, then such a thing will probably be proven wrong.

Quote :

"The bottom line is that persuasive arguments have no effect on the reality of God's existence."

How does this conclude with anything other than an agnostic stance?

9/12/2008 3:16:38 PM

Quote :

"I think this would be best described as a scientific approach. Characteristics of such an approach would include sustained skepticism, frequent revision of the established positions, and thus hopefully resulting in an evolution of thought that continues to approach the truth. In my experience, none of these fit religion. Religion is not the fact that a God exists, it's a social institution, and it seems like we would conclude (from what you say) that the church itself is the smokescreen. I think that pretty much all religions would qualify, including Biblical Christianity. That doesn't mean the stuff written in the bible is junk, but faith is a heavy theme, which is worse than a persuasive argument for the existence of God, it just says "believe it and don't ask questions". Take the holy trinity - the entire concept is either vague or wrong. I mean, it says nothing about the world we live in. If it does claim anything novel and verifiable about the world, then such a thing will probably be proven wrong."

I think sustained skepticism is a good thing, but revision for the sake of revision is pretty pointless. There are plenty of churches that reject sola scriptura and instead think that God constantly changes His mind, even commanding different things to different people. I bring this up to contrast it with my belief that all scripture is true and Christians should constantly question whether or not their traditions, lifestyle, etc are conformed to scripture. I don't agree with the folks who throw out traditions simply because they are traditions. But I don't hold on to traditions that are against Biblical doctrines.

There are plenty of examples of skepticism leading to positive reforms in Christianity. The Bible is full of leaders telling people to change their ways. Then there's the Council of Nicea, the Reformation, and countless smaller movements. I'm reluctant to describe it as an evolution, because reforms usually redirect the church back to basic foundations of belief that were discarded/disregarded over time.

Quote :

"...but faith is a heavy theme, which is worse than a persuasive argument for the existence of God, it just says "believe it and don't ask questions". "

...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. " Philippians 2:12-13

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:4-5

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened..." Matthew 7:7-8

There are plenty of places where the Bible encourages searching for the truth and working toward knowing it. The quest for truth shouldn't just end when you have a big spiritual epiphany. Its a lifelong journey.

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them..."

Jesus even warned people to be cautious of false teachings. You can't do that if you blindly follow what others tell you. I think it is a horrible tragedy that many so-called Christians today and in the past just went with the flow and conformed to hateful, illogical, ungodly ideologies. That is why I feel so strongly about questioning what you hear. Look at Jesus, he didn't sit down and listen to what the temple priests said. He called them evil for mistreating others and pointed out how far they strayed from the faith of their ancestors.

Quote :

"How does this conclude with anything other than an agnostic stance?"

I was trying to say that God's existence is not conditional upon the arguments we make for or against Him. Persuasive arguments against God do not make Him imaginary. I believe He is real and unchanging. If He is, we should be able to make reasonable arguments for His existence. That is why I find this type of discussion to be extremely valuable.

9/15/2008 1:02:45 PM

Quote :

"I think sustained skepticism is a good thing, but revision for the sake of revision is pretty pointless. There are plenty of churches that reject sola scriptura and instead think that God constantly changes His mind, even commanding different things to different people."

You know, I've heard a little bit of this kind of stuff from people who actually aren't crazy. Like the claim that there is one God, but he just felt like creating a bunch of religions that have all sorts of images of god(s).

Obviously, whatever religion you are, you must deal with reality. There exist different religions, and from an empirical approach, there would appear to be little reason to believe one's own over others. This isn't an argument of "change for change's sake" - it is verifiability a low probability that any one religion would be correct and the others wrong, and less likely that the one that is correct is your own. However, if perchance you have read the scripture of your own religion and happen to agree, that should logically result in a stance similar to what you've voiced.

Quote :

"There are plenty of examples of skepticism leading to positive reforms in Christianity."

I certainly agree. The product of the reformation was 100 times better than what Europe had before then. Weather it actually improves over time or is cyclical - who knows.

Quote :

"Look at Jesus, he didn't sit down and listen to what the temple priests said. He called them evil for mistreating others and pointed out how far they strayed from the faith of their ancestors."

Oh man, if people actually formed Christianity after the teaching of Jesus *gasp*, I think it would actually pretty much rock.

Personally...
I think that a 'back to roots' Christianity would tend strongly towards a more vague religion - which is the proper place for religion in our society.

Did Jesus ever even clearly specify that he was sent by God in any sense stronger than someone else could be? I'm not an expert on this, but before the Crucifixion he was asked this question, and to the best of my understanding he essentially would not say one way or the other.

So provided my interpretation is correct, we're back to square one. Sure there's something much greater beyond our existence and we'll call that "God". If you sampled all the scientists at the LHC, you would not find a consensus on a higher power (I'm sure). But for that same reason, the first post in this thread is retarded - no one is disproving God. Still, I'm also fairly sure God isn't trying to tell me what foods I should eat.

9/15/2008 11:22:30 PM

Quote :

"Did Jesus ever even clearly specify that he was sent by God in any sense stronger than someone else could be? I'm not an expert on this, but before the Crucifixion he was asked this question, and to the best of my understanding he essentially would not say one way or the other."

He said that He was sent by God. He said that He was God. "Before Abraham was, I Am"

Saying that He was YHWH. The eternally, self-existing, self-sustaining One. I AM = YHWH

Quote :

"Still, I'm also fairly sure God isn't trying to tell me what foods I should eat."

He would tell you what foods were good for you, and what were bad for your body because He loves you so much.

9/16/2008 12:17:37 AM

Quote :

"He would tell you what foods were good for you, and what were bad for your body because He loves you so much."

reference?

9/16/2008 1:54:25 AM

^reference = the scriptures

9/16/2008 5:01:07 AM

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0501/answers.html

Quote :

"Answers To "The Bible Diet Quiz" 1. What is God's opinion of vegetarians? Correct Answer: B. (They are weak heathens, worshipping other gods.) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils . . . commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:1-3). “For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs” (Romans 14:2). 2. What has God ordered evil people to consume? Correct Answer: C. (The flesh and blood of humans, including themselves.) "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine” (Isaiah 49:26). “I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another” (Zechariah 1:9). “Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm” (Isaiah 9:19-20). 3. What special ingredient has God required sinners to bake in their bread? Correct Answer: B. (Human excrement, though upon complaint He has allowed them to use cow dung instead.) "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man . . . Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith” (Ezekiel 4:12-15). 4. How did people wash down the special ingredient in Question 3? Correct Answer: B. (With their own urine.) “Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?” (2 Kings 18:27; see Isaiah 36:12). 5. Which of the following dishes were clean and therefore acceptable for God’s children to eat? Correct Answer: D. (None of the above) “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you” (Leviticus 11:6). “These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole” (Leviticus 11:29-30). 6. Which children has God ordered bad people to eat? Correct Answer: D. (Their sons, their daughters and even newborn infants.) “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat” (Leviticus 26:29). “And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters” (Deuteronomy 28:53). “And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them” (Deuteronomy 28:57). “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend” (Jeremiah 19:9). 7. Which bugs are clean and were therefore acceptable for God's children to eat? Correct Answer: C. (All of the above) “Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind” (Leviticus 11:22). 8. What lifestyle activities does God recommend? Correct Answer: D.(None of the above) “And ye shall eat fat till ye be full” (Ezekiel 39:19). “[Peter] became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him . . . Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat” (Acts 10:9-13). “For bodily exercise profiteth little . . .” (1 Timothy 4:8). 9. What did God say about consumption of wine? Correct Answer: D. (All of the above) “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Proverbs 31:6-7). “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities” (1 Timothy 5:23). “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1). 10. Which of the following birds were clean and were therefore acceptable for God's children to eat? Correct Answer: D. (None of the above) And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat” (Leviticus 11:13-19). "

I'm still not getting much of a clear direction here.

Maybe don't eat bird... and poop. Unless of course I'm evil. In which case I should eat poop.

9/16/2008 11:24:55 PM

lol. landoverbaptist.org.

get real.

9/17/2008 1:33:40 AM

Landover Baptist is so ridiculous that I can't tell if they're serious or joking. They make Gary Birdsong look sane.

9/17/2008 8:32:48 AM

lol. the bible.

get real.

9/17/2008 10:54:40 AM

Let's get black to the color puns.

9/17/2008 12:01:10 PM

You know what's frustrating about all this theological argument? We can't know which side is ultimately white.

9/17/2008 5:27:05 PM

The bible is an account of primitive human divination. Its underlying philosophy that man was caste in god's image is the reason why it will not stand the test of time. Slowly the evangelistics will die out generation after generation and the collective concious of culture will realize the essential truths of our nature. Those being that the creation of the Earth is totally seperate from our progenation and that both are a chance occurance dictated by the physical laws of the universe. Also that we as homo sapiens are in no way the pinnacle of evolution in of itself. Our brains are constantly evolving. This is not to say the bible is worthless text. It contains an important account of pre-history and host many moralistic guidlines that may or may not be applicable to a present day person. But as for the defining of god, it failed from the beginning.

9/17/2008 11:54:36 PM