I tend to go more for evolution, as the main problem I have with creation is the idea of all humans desending from two humans (Adam and Eve), I mean you just wouldent have a big enough genetic base and with allt he inbreeding that would go on, eventually everyone would either become sterile or have so many horrible health problems that the species would die out.
Using a completely nonscientific and (somewhat) unbased opinion, I venture that God advanced life by changing the genetic base, allowing for greater variety and healty existences.
Actually The Eve theory dose theorize that all humans came from a single women. They examined Human tissue samples for this theory.
Chris Booton, in your post, you assume that Adam and Eve were created as flawed humans as we now are. God created them as perfect humans in every way. They had no genetic defects; therefore there was no problem with inbreeding. Disease and genetic defects were the result of sin being brought into the world. I know I'm using arguments from a completely Christian standpoint, but isn't that what this discussion is about? Secular Evolution vs. Christian Creation?
Of course, for there to be any argument, there needs to be a common ground on which the arguers can stand. That would be the physical universe we both see around us. You take something from nature and apply the rules of each viewpoint. If one fits and the other doesn't, you have some evidence. If they both fit, you have nothing. Your argument doesn't work because Creation, on its own terms, and evolution, on its own terms, both could fit the information.
Common genetics is the basis for this argument, though. In order for macro-evolution to occur, it must be possible for genetic information to be added to a gene pool. Most evolutionists claim that this is accomplished through genetic mutation. The problem with this is that there has never been any account of a genetic mutation ever adding any information to the gene pool, even when mutations have been induced in fruit flies by exposing them to radiation.
In fact, throughout many generations, organisms lose genetic information. When two parents donate a gamete each (half of their respective genetic information) to form a zygote (the new organism created by the joining of two gametes), half of the information carried by each parent has been lost. Much of this is usually recovered when the two parents have additional offspring, but, if these are the only two parents in a gene pool, what's left over is gone for good.
You could argue against this by looking at all the breeds of dogs that exist today. But when you breed down to a Chihuahua, you haven't added "small" genes, you've gotten rid of the "big" genes. When you breed around to a greyhound, you haven't added "skinny" genes, you've subtracted "stocky" genes. The original two dogs carried all the genetic information for every breed of dog, wolf, coyote, and every other animal that can be bred with a dog.
If we apply the theory of evolution to this information, we find a contradiction. If all life came from a very simple single-celled organism, life should have become simpler and simpler from then on, not more complex.
However, if we apply the doctrine of creation, there is no contradiction. Adam and Eve carried all the genetic information that is present today in humans, and then some. Why didn't they lose much of that information? They had dozens, if not hundreds of offspring. Adam lived to be 934 years old by the biblical account (it doesn't mention how old Eve got to be). That's a lot of time to have babies.
But wouldn't everyone have the same genetic pool? For example, if Adam and Eve were blue eyed blonds, how come the rest of the world isn't? If both had 'tall' genes, how come some of us are short? (I'm not looking for mutation as an answer, either).
Some genes are dominant, wheras others are recessive. If a dominant gene is present in a pair of chromosomes, it will mask its "partner" gene if that gene is recessive. That means that only the dominant trait will be seen. The recessive trait shows up only if both genes in a pair are recessive. Let's say Adam and Eve both have one "tall" gene and one "short" gene (height information is carried on more than one pair of genes, of course, but this will do for our purposes.) Let's say that the "tall" gene is dominant and the "short" gene is recessive. These are the possible combinations within those parameters (T=tall gene, t=short gene).
TT, Tt, tT, tt
The first combination would produce a tall person, and that person would only ever be able to contribute "tall" genes. The next two would be hybrids, but because the "tall" gene is dominant, they would be tall. However, they would be able to contribute either a "tall" gene or a "short" gene. The last combination is purebred short. With no dominant gene to mask the recessive genes, that person would be short and would only ever contribute "short" genes.
Adam and Eve would have had all the dominant genes and all the recessive genes that we have today (except for the defective genes which have appeared through genetic mutation. Note that the mutations were not beneficial, and they really didn't add anything; they took away some key bits of information, and that resulted in a genetic defect). You only would see the characteristics provided by the dominant genes, but the recessive genes are still there.
There's an easier way to produce the possible combinations, using a table. Permit me to demonstrate:
| T | t | |
| T | TT | Tt |
| t | tT | tt |
Yeah, I remember the Punnett squares, but I don't know how to do one of those tables on a discussion board. *shrug* It is simplistic, but I'm just demonstrating dominance and reccessivity.
I have never heard of a genetic mutation being beneficial. It may be possible. If it were, it would have to affect the germ cells (cells that produce gametes) and not the somatic cells (cells which make up the body of an organism). Otherwise, the mutation would not be passed on to the offspring.
Still, beneficial mutations would have to be few and far between. Many animals have too many complex structures to have come about by random mutation. A woodpecker, for example, has many things that enable it to extract insects from burrows in wood. Its feet have two toes facing front and two toes facing backward. It has stiff tails on which to brace itself while pecking. It has a strong bill especially designed for such motions. It has a durable skull and pads of muscle which act as shock absorbers for its brain. It has long, sticky tongues to catch insects. If any one of these were missing, the woodpecker would lose its grip on the tree, break its beak, beat its brains out (quite literally), or spend quite some time boring into an insect's burrow only to find that the insect doesn't feel like walking out into its mouth. If just one of these were provided through a genetic mutation, it would be a completely unnecessary apparatus and could hinder the proto-woodpecker's chances of competing. Even if it did acquire all these things, how does it figure out how to use them? Where does the instinct come from?
There are many other examples like this. The bombadier beetle would explode if it were incomplete. A cheetah couldn't run nearly as fast, and it would constantly lose prey to stronger predators.
But what if some random mutation actually proved in the animal's favor? For instance, Homer Simpson has an extra layer of fluid around his brain that allows him to withstand all but the most brutal beatings. And what if this were passed on, etc., until everyone had to go to a lot more effort to beat each others' brains out? That would be beneficial, if only the show weren't FICTION!
TO do a table, you do this: \table(cell1, cell2, cell3,
cell 4, cell5, cell6,
cell7, cell8, cell9,)
except replace () with {}
According to Genesis, "the sons of God" (possibly angels) fell in love with earthly women, and had children with them, creating giants and bizarre types, some of which were still running around in Israelite times. A far-out possibility, but still an explanation...?
Here's something I find hard to swallow. In Genesis, it tells of Cain going out to another land and marrying a woman. Huh?!? Where did she come from? Did A&E have more kids that they were unaware of? Did god create other people in other parts of the world in the same way A&E were? Someone please explain this to me.
Another point:
Evolution: Fact
Creationism: Fiction
Quite simple, isn't it?
Not necessarily. I don't believe that the world was created five thousand years ago any more than you do. However, I find it hard to believe that all of this came about in its own. I find it ridiculous that God would hang around on this planet all the time. To me, God is cosmic. He exists everywhere in the universe, maintaining it, etc. Evolution may be a fact, but exdactly what is there to keep me from saying that God decided to make life that way, according to the laws for the universe that He had prviously established?
Rodnberry, we seem to be running into each other quite a bit. :)
In response to your question: Yes, Adam and Eve had many more children.
"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." Genesis 5: 3, 4
That's where Cain got his wife. Of course, Cain was a lot older than his wife, but since people were living nearly 1,000 years anyway, it didn't make much difference.
Evolution: Fact? Evolution has never been proven. In fact, there have been many problems with the theory. If you're accepting evolution, you are accepting it by faith, no matter what you want to call it.
MPatterson, God is indeed cosmic. He has no problem hanging around this planet all the time, because "time" is nothing to him. "To Him a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (can't find the reference right now...) He can see everything that ever happens at once... kind of like a map of time. He can nudge a little something two hundred years ago to affect something two hundred years from now. And he can do it everywhere in the universe at once, if he wants to.
Why couldn't He have created life through evolution? There are many people who believe that He did. However, there are too many discrepancies between what we see around us today and the theory of Evolution. Sure, God could've helped it along, but I haven't seen any account of Him actually doing that. We do have the Creation account in the Bible, however, a book with such a fantastic story of its composition that it can't be glossed over as a mere collection of myths.
You have over forty authors from three continents and dozens of lifestyles and educations writing about the same controversial subject over a period of more than a thousand years. One would think that these people would end up writing severely contrasting opinions and accounts of the stories. Well, there isn't a single discrepancy in the Bible. For this to be possible, there would have to be someone who unifies all the authors and tells them what to write. Well, since after the flood, nobody has lived to be quite that old. So, we'd have to conclude that God was the One who inspired all these authors to write.
There isn't a single discrepancy in the Bible? I'm a Christian and even I know tha's not true! For starters, how about the one Rodnberry posted earlier, about there being another woman somewhere else when there wasn't supposed to be anyone else? You're just being naive.
You are acting exactly like Rodnberry expects you to act and in fact that type of attitude is a major reason why anti-religious people belittle religious people and slam religion. (Not that I'm any better sometimes, but I do at least acknowledge that there are a few discrepancies in the Bible. People remember things differently, so they will write them down differently. Simple as that.)
I've yet to find a real, unarguable discrepancy in the Bible. I'm open to being shown one! =)
I just explained Rodnberry's question in my post. Cain's wife was one of Adam's daughters. If you find something else specific, feel free to show it to me. If you're going to declare that there are discrepancies in the Bible, the burden of proof would be on you.
While I'm not buying the Bible-is-riddled-with-flaws idea, I do think that it doesn't really matter. What matters is Christ and the Cross. Scholars and theologians can come up with 200 ways to explain Cain's wife. They cannot change Christ's message.
Moving on, I suppose it could be possible that God created a wife for Cain? Or that Cain wandered so long that there were thousands of civilizations up by the time he met his wife?
Note to Jennifer: I didn't say that they were unarguable. Only that they were there. And with a little thought, they can be explained. But it's not strictly accurate to say that there are none.
Alot of posting about people living 900 years....I was told in Catholic school that in the days the bible was written there were several different ways to interpret years. Next thing you'll tell us is that the earth is 5000 years old. The bottom line is you can't argue with fossils and creation is bunk. If a god had a hand in the final outcome of humanity, fine, but there was much life on earth before humans. C'mon you don't really believe that garden of Eden or Noah stuff do you?
Yes, I do. Please do not mock my religion. I don't mock the fact that you poswt under a name of a person who died a long time ago because you are scared to use your real name, nor do I mock the fact that science has proven iteslf wrong before and will do so again. I can argue with anything I like, and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
Different ways of interpreting the Bible? Well, to a limited extent, but I subscribe to a quite litteral interpretation. The problem with allowing for multiple interpretations is that people can interpret the Bible as they want to fit their own agendas. This makes the Bible utterly useless. It isn't something that can be ammended, but it still applies to today just as well as it applied hundreds of years ago.
There are problems with the fossil record. Trilobite fossils have been found alongside mammal fossils. Mammals are found alongside "early" dinosaurs. Aquatic animals are found on top of mountains. Also, fossils are not formed by having a dead animal sit in the desert until it's covered with sediment and pressurized into the rock around it. If you leave a carcass out in the open, it's going to rot away, not fossilize. Fossils are formed by large amounts of sediment quickly covering the animal, like in a flash flood. Yes, I do believe in the worldwide flood and Noah's ark. The fossil record actually supports such a flood. How else would aquatic animals be fossilized on the peaks of mountains?
The fossil does not contradict the Bible at all. There were most certainly dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, and there were probably juvenile dinosaurs taken onto the ark.
Who cares where Cain's wife came from, she's only a female. No one would call themsleves Enoch, son of (cain's wife). :-)
I simply pass off all the fact errors as limited Human translators who though the world was flat. For an exmple read the second creation story. In that you get the image of God The mason building the Earth togheter.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God for the Word was God." Best creation story
Considering the ancestors of the Hebrews lived in Tigeris-Euphrates river valley, which could flood easily, and considering early people thought the world to made in one biome. I think a big engoth flood could be passed on overtime as a world flood.
I think if Thomas Aquanis was alive in 1900's we wouldn't having this conversation.
I thought they found Noah's ark? But despite this I don't buy the 'the entire world was flooded' and that hje brought two of every creature (male and female) on it, and after the flood ended those males and females began to repopulate the species. Consiering how many diffrent animals there are on this planet that would be physically impossible . I don't mean to mock people who believe in this, but I just don't see it relisitcally happening.
Also I thought that humans were already on the earth when adam and eve were supossed to be created and that they wree supossed to be perfect, but when they sinned they were banished to live with the other 'imperfect' humans?
We call evolution a theory becuase it is still just that a theory but you have to admit it does make sense.
I just cannot accept the idea of all humans comming from just one man and one woman. Tome it seems to eventually after all of the imbreeding, all of the resesive negative stuff would crop up and sooner or later everyone bron would be sterile and the population would die off.
But I know a lot of people believe in creation and I don't have a problem with that.
Also you do relaize that the big bang theory and evolution and just sciences version of creation. The only diffrence is that science explains it with natural forces and such.
Christ Booton, read my first post up there. That's why there wasn't inbreeding. If you're referring to the aftermath of the flood, however, there actually were eight people who survived: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives. That's still not a huge gene pool, but the human race hadn't lost enough genetic material yet for this to be too great a problem.
Noah would not have had a pair of wolves, a pair of dogs, and a pair of coyotes. He'd just have a pair of wolves or a pair of dogs, and those creatures would have carried all the genetic information for all the dogs, wolves, and coyotes that we have today. In the creation story, God commanded the animals to reproduce "after their own kind." These "kinds" of animals would include all the animals that can interbreed and have fertile offspring. That's how there are all the varieties of animals today. If you're commenting on the numerousness of animals, though, there was ample time for them to repopulate the earth.
No, Adam and Eve were the very first humans, and the only humans that have ever existed were/are their descendants.
I'd call evolution/the big bang atheism's version of creation. There are plenty of Christian scientists who believe in the Bible and the creation account. But, yeah, I know what you're saying.
Actually before the Big Bang Theory, science assumed the universe had no beginning. But the Big Bang wasn't realized as valildating religious beliefs until much later.
How else would aquatic animals be fossilized on the peaks of mountains?
Two words: Geological Shifts
Don't you think that the asteroid impact that killed the dinos might have cause some geological upheaval?
Probably so. In fact, the massive tidal waves that were almost certainly caused probably washed a large number of them on to the mountains (assuming they didn't get vaporized by the intense force.)
All those of you who believe in the bible and take all or most or quite a bit of it for literal truth should realize something very important: That just because you choose to believe that it's the truth doesn't mean that it is the truth at all. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally (nor should it be) for absolute truth (but if you wish to naively believe so, then be my guest), but figuratively, or perhaps even rhetorically, I guess. Humans never have, and never will live hundreds of years, individually. It's totally impossible.
Andrew, yes, people do interpret the bible to fit their own agendas, as I'd mentioned a time long, long ago on a board far, far away that was probably deleted along with the board trouble way back when. Hey, look! We agree on something! The Big Bang probably is an atheist's version of creationism, and though I'm open to the Big Bang I don't know for a fact that it's reality or not, but I know that the bible sure as hell isn't.
I do have faith in the reality of evolution and not in a religious sense, either, cuz evolution is reality, or at least much more of one than religion cuz evolution is occurring all around us every second but it just moves so slowly that we can't see it happening. That's why some call it a theory, which perhaps it is, and others call it bunk, which it isn't. Religion is something created by gullible, fallible men, therefore anything having to do with it is very fallible and full of discrepancies and untruths and to take too much of it for truth is totally ridiculous.
I do think that creationism (if in fact there's any basis of truth to it) should and could be reconsiled with evolution. The universe could've been created by whatever means and then nature developed eventually and all livings things came after that, also by whatever means. Is that acceptable to anyone else? Or at least is anyone open to that?
If you can't see evolution occuring, how can you tell that it is indeed occurring "every second"?
Are you declaring the Bible faulty simply because it is the Bible, or religion simply because it's religion? Do you have evidence to back your adamant declaration?
Yes, I know that the fact that we chose to believe it to be true doesn't make it true. Whether it's true makes it true. But if we believe it's true, we're not going to say that it's not really true, but we're just believing that way. The assumption that the Bible and its message are true has surfaced in my posts, just as the assumption that evolution and atheism are true has surfaced in yours. That's because we believe that way. We're not going to get anywhere by starting an "It's true!" "Is not!" argument.
The way I see it, unless you believe that matter can come from nowhere, you have to believe that something in\transcending the universe is self-existant. That is, it exists by itself and it requires no other entity to bring it into existance. For us Christians and many other religions, that's God. Nobody created Him. He has existed for eternity before and will exist for eternity afterward. If you are going to eliminate God from your philosophical equation, you'll have to believe in eternal matter and energy; that it all existed by itself without the help of anything. So, matter and energy take the place of God in your philosophy.
Let's see... you want us to decide that God did create the universe and set off evolution, then just walked away and let it run on its own? What would be the point of believing that? If God has just walked away, he might as well not even exist. So now we're atheists. Or do you mean that God just kept nudging evolution in the right direction until it produced man? In that case, why couldn't he have simply created it all in one shot? (Yes, Creation says that he created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. It wasn't because it tired Him out, or He couldn't go any faster, but He was demonstrating the week we use now. Sunday, the first day, became the day of rest and worship for the Christians after Jesus rose from the dead.) Sorry, but I believe it's all or nothing with the Bible. If you pick and choose your tidbits of wisdom, it's utterly meaningless.
Yes, Rodnberry, I can live with that.
Sorry, but I believe it's all or nothing with the Bible.
Fine, then don't eat pork or shellfish, go stone adulterers, etc etc..., and oh yes, please remove any and all graven images of Jesus from your church.
Thank you.
Rodnberry, once again, you can't prove that religion was created by people any more than you can prove what I'm wearing right now. I believe that I have been saying all along that I see no reason why science and religion cannot be reconciled and in fact I have been called a heathen or an atheist by several people who apparently do not see that if God created the world, then why couldn't he have chosen to do it this way?
Sorry, but I believe it's all or nothing with the Bible.
That's nice. Why then do you not, when you feel the need to evacuate your bowels, take a wooden paddle and go out the prescribed distance from the city and dig yourself a hole and do your business and cover it up again? SOme of this is simply not applicable!
"All" means all, meaning that the New Testament overrules most of the Old Testament laws. We (using the term in a Christian sense) CAN eat shellfish because all foods are clean, according to the New Testament. We shouldn't stone people, as Jesus said not to go into the world as conquering armies. And if you do not worship pictures of Christ, then they are not graven images.
Once again, the New Testament, while keeping the Lord's moral code, says that all foods are now clean, that sacrifices are unecessary, and that Jesus is what we should bring, not a good stoning.
Thoughts:
Why do creation and evolution have to be exclusive? A particular kind of English beetle in the 19th century was observed to change from white to black with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. (If anybody hasn't heard of this research, I'll explain in another post.) This was a clear example of natural selection at work. Umpteen thousand years ago? We weren't there, so we have to take something on faith. Why can't God have used some of what we call "evolution" to create the world?
Another thought:
The Lord created the "world" in seven "days" says the Bible. What's a "day"? Our "days" and "nights" are determined by the sun, which according to the Bible, was not even created until Day 4? God's idea of a "day" may be completely different from ours. And the creation story, couched in terms that the ancients would understand, may not be so different from this "evolution" biz. Try this translation out for size:
In the beginning there was void, chaos, etc. And the Lord said, "Let there be energy," and there was energy.... And the Lord made a distinction between energy and lack-of-energy, calling one "light" and the other "darkness." It was the-beginning-of-an-age, and the-ending-of-an-age, the first age.
And the Lord made fluid matter, making a distincion between the matter above and the matter below.... And the Lord called the matter above "heavens" and the matter below "seas." It was the-beginning-of-an-age, and the-ending-of-an-age, the second age.
The Lord solidified the fluid matter into planets, making a distinction between the seas and the dry land. And the Lord made basic life forms as complex as plants and made them fruitful to cover the dry lands. It was the-beginning-of-an-age, and the-ending-of-an-age, the third age.
And the Lord made our solar system with its planets, the star we call our sun, our moon, along with the starscape in this part of the galaxy. He decreed that the facing-towards-the-sun should characterize "daytime" and the visibility of the moon would characterize "nighttime." It was the-beginning-of-an-age, and the-ending-of-an-age, the fourth age.
The Lord made basic animal life, fish and aquatic life according to their kind and winged creature according to their kind, both great and small from mollusks to dinosaurs.... And he made them fruitful to cover the earth. It was the-beginning-of-an-age, and the-ending-of-an-age, the fifth age.
And finally the Lord made reptiles and mammals, beats of the field according to their kinds, primates too he created them.... And the Lord said, "Let us make Man into our image," and he took a specimen of the primate homo sapiens sapiens and breathed a soul and a spirit into him. And the Lord took this new spiritual being he had created and gave him dominion over the beasts of the land and the fish in the sea....
The Hebrew calendar would, according to this translation, not be counting from the 1st day of creation, but from the creation of Man as a spiritual being. So the Hebrew year 5759 (now) points to about 3800 B.C.E., which according to our archaelogists, is when the first civilizations began to develop. Makes a bit more sense?
In conclusion, I find creation and evolution working in concert according to this picture. What do you all think?
Not bad! I know right away that some people will argue with you, but if you take into account what we know now about the universe, it makes sense.
I've always said on these forums that Genesis is actually fairly accurate if one ignores the term "Day".
It would be supremely arrogant for me to state that I know exactly how God created the world and universe. And frankly, the most important point in Genesis is not how--it's who (God) and why.
I've heard the 'it wasn't a day' theory many times. My Study Bible addressed the question, talking about the Hebrew word for 'day,' how it's used, etc. It concluded that day is day, night night, and time is ti - never mind =) I agree with it, partly because of its arguments, partly because I doubt God would play such a strange joke on English speaking Christians, and finally because, like Mike said, it isn't ultimately important enough to agonize over - it's the stuff with Adam and Eve we're supposed to pay attention too =)
But the Bible wasn't meant for the sole use of English-speaking Christians, Jennifer. It started as the holy book of Hebrew-speaking ancient nomads who lived at least one millenium before the dawn of science; later it was tranlated into Greek for use by Greek-speaking ancient philosophers who thought there were only four elements and five planets; then again it was translated into Latin for use by priests whose scientific theory was "If Aristotle said it, that's good enough for me!"; the Germans got a hold of it around the time when some Italian nut named Galileo suggested science through experiment, and English came last of all. The languages don't matter, but what I'm saying is that this stuff had to be comprehensible to a bunch of desert nomads in about 2000 B.C.E., who wouldn't know a "hadron" or a "lepton" or a "big bang" if they saw one.
I agree with you however that it's not important enough to argue over. But I don't see that the questions of "who" (God, in my opinion) and "why" (varies between religion to religion and sect to sect) in any way negate the theory of evolution.
I know - I just meant that many of the English translations, especially non-recent ones, translate that word as 'day' - and if it wasn't true that God created everything in six of 'em, I don't think He'd have let the translators make that mistake.
You're right, asking 'who' and 'why' doesn't mess with evolution (in any religion I know). But then you get the 'how,' which most religions do address, and you've got problems =)
The words used in the Hebrew original are "Erev", "Boker", and "Yom", which literally translated are "Evening", "Morning", and "Day". But as Shira pointed out, this was for the benefit of a non-scientific nomadic people.
Wow, baby dinosaurs on the ark....I've heard it all now....that's a good one! As far as a 5369 year old earth goes...bah! How can you explain the age of recently discovered fossils which existed as the earth was still cooling off, or the Andromeda galaxy? What about the other holy books of the world, and their interpretations? Andrew and Matthew are going with their hearts, basing their "science" on a book written when men understood very little about things around them or in the universe. Why didn't God at least let them in on the little secret that the earth revolves around the sun? Have fun discussing your ark full of baby dinosaurs, I'm off to find some intellegence.
Darwin, we don't make fun of you. I see nothing wrong with science. I do find it a bit ludicrous that some people claim that dinosaurs were on the ark. If you assume that everything is correct and make it work together, then it makes a great deal of sense.
I also find it a bit ludicrous that you think that because we believe that God created the Earth, we're automatically "flat-Earthers" and such. As it happens, I am a great fan of science, I enjoy physics, and I think science has done many great things for the planet and it will only continue to improve. However, it's not everything.
Andrew, just because we can't see evolution happening every second doesn't mean it isn't, just as it doesn't mean it is, either but I prefer to believe it is, since it makes much more sense to me and is more proof than some unproven god(s) having anything to do with the creation of all we know, and don't know, of.
I don't think the bible is faulty just cuz it's the bible or that religion is just cuz it's religion. If you'll read my post again you'll see I said that they were created by men, who themselves are faulty and imperfect, therefore, anything they create is faulty and imperfect, too. We are all so totally faulty so it only follows that anything manmade will be, too. Being human: That's my evidence, plain as the nose on your face, or are you too blinded by your views to realize that? Seems possibly so to me.
Also, I never said I believed or assumed that atheism is true. I'm really agnostic, cuz I'm a freethinker and we need proof one way or the other of any deity's existence before committing to either view. If you'd like to think of me as an atheist, then fine. Let it be in that I don't believe in any individual's personal belief, cuz that's all it is, a personal belief, no more, no less. Everyone with a strong enough belief in their own personal god selfishly and arrogantly likes to think that their's is the one and only true god, which of course is completely bogus. And with 6 billion people on the planet now it's totally ridiculous for anyone to expect everyone else to believe just one way.
It's too bad that all people couldn't be freethinkers but that's ok. Like I said before, if they want to naively believe as they do that's fine with me, as long as they don't force it on me.
BTW, you do know what they say about why one should never assume, don't you?
What's wrong with matter and energy taking the place of god with me, when they're proven to exist and god isn't, or not yet, at least?
Why do you find it hard to believe that perhaps your god (and he is only your own personal god, and no one else's) did in fact start life in ways other than what you choose to believe he did, and that maybe evolution was in fact part of his plan? How do you know that's not what he wanted all along? I'll tell you. Because you choose to think that, but because you're human, again, what you choose to believe doesn't mean it is so. Even you admit that. Now, since you really don't know a goddamned thing about god, his, her, its or their plans, you really don't have much of a case on what's the real truth or really in store for us all, do you? No, you don't, and neither do I, nor anyone else for that matter.
Think about this, as well: If in fact god did have a plan to create life, not instaneously or over a few measly days, as is so erroneously believed, but over however long a period of time, allowing all living things to evolve at whatever rates, then to deny evolution at all, or at least its possibility, is to deny god and to deny god of course means that you're really an atheist, not me. I don't believe either way if he exists or not. I'm just openminded to it, and so I don't worry about it.
Ok, so now you're an atheist, which contradicts all you've believed in for as long as you have. Now what? Ironic, isn't it? Going your whole life, or again however long it's been, believing one thing and then to find out totally the opposite. Must be pretty frightening, huh? Just totally blows your mind, don't it?
Anyway, I guess we can still agree on one thing: to disagree with each other. I just want to say that despite what you or other readers here may think, I'm not ridiculing anyone personally. You're welcome to your views, as are we all. It's just that people seem so blinded by religion and aren't openminded to even the little things they should at least look into a tiny bit, and that's why I post the rants as I do. I'm just trying to express a different view that doesn't seem to be expressed too often. That's not my excuse for my rants, just my reasons. Perhaps something else we can all agree on is the fact that none of us were there at the time of creation so we don't really know the true facts, despite what we'd like to believe. Nor do we, any of us, know the truth about god and such, because we're not meant to know yet and probably won't for a long time, if ever, so why worry about it now? It's human nature to wonder, sure, but we really should have the facts first and not go off halfcocked otherwise, just cuz we think we know what we really don't know at all.
Now, one last question (I swear this is the end!): Can someone also please answer me this: Why is there only one god, believed to be male, if we don't know for sure? Why not a god and goddess, since there are male and female people, animals and even plants? Men could be made in god's image and women in the goddess's, right? I say let's go back to polytheism! Or even better, pantheism! How about it, people? Are you with me?
I think that if there was a "Mrs. God", wouldn't she request a little slot in the Holy Bible outlining her purpose and worship needs?
Of course, Martin Van Buren didn't mention HIS wife in his biography either. :)
How about it, people? Are you with me?
God no! (Slight pun intended.)
And aside from that, I believe that God was referred to as "mother" a couple times in the Bible, although I on't remember exactly where. And I don't se any reason why He has to be any one gender. We say He because it's more convenient than saying It and all of the androgynous pronouns sound silly.
Have fun discussing your ark full of baby dinosaurs, I'm off to find some intellegence.
And good riddance! Watch your mouth Darwin, we're writing about our personal religious beliefs here!
What about the other holy books of the world, and their interpretations?
As I said, we're talking personal faith here. Nobody's requiring us to believe religiously every holy book in the world. Our own religions we believe. Everybody else, we respect.
Can someone also please answer me this: Why is there only one god, believed to be male, if we don't know for sure? Why not a god and goddess, since there are male and female people, animals and even plants?
I'm sure Wiccans and Hindus will say there are! However, the people to whom you have been talking have all identified themselves as Judeo-Christians who glean all their information on the supernatural from a big ol' book called the Bible. Why one God, you ask? We answer, our Bible says so. Why male? Well, the Hebrew language has no androgynous case. Tables, charis, sonic screwdrivers are all "he" or "she" in Hebrew. It's the way the language works. And, given that our God is allegorized as an absolute monarch, a warrior hero, a stern disciplining parent, a guardian caring for a beautiful helpless foundling, and also given that in ancient times these roles were taken almost entirely by men, it is natural for the Bible to bestow upon God the pronoun "he." Is our God actually male? My religion says no, although Christians may be able to give you an argument for it.
It's too bad that all people couldn't be freethinkers but that's ok. Like I said before, if they want to naively believe as they do that's fine with me, as long as they don't force it on me.
This strikes me as a very egocentric thing to say, Rodnberry. You have just placed yourself in the exact same position as narrow-minded Bible-thumping conservatives, only as the advocate of doubt instead of faith. What you just said can be easily paraphrased, "It's too bad everybody can't be like me, but if they want to be dumb and not be just like me, they're free to be dumb as long as they don't infect me with their idiocy." That's not what you meant, is it?
Hmmm, I don't remember the Bible calling God 'mother,' but I'll look.
As for God being male - let's see if I can make this comprehensible =) God created males to be 'in charge' - strong, big, good at practical things. He gave them His attributes, since He is the ultimate One 'in charge.' So it's not really a case of God being like males, it's a case of males being like God =) It's in the NT that the more 'female' sides of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, appear.
I could swear that we had a lesson on names for God sometime. I'll check.
Or from a different perspective, in Judaism, the manifestation of God known as theShekhinah (rough trans. "the Divine Presence") is invariably described as female.
P.S. Jennifer, you may be shortly assaulted by a phalanx of spear-waving liberals for saying that God created men to be 'in charge.' No need to explain yourself to me, just warning you. ;)
i don't see it anywhere… but I don't have a very good concordance/index/dictionary in the back of my Bible (it tries to be all three at once), so I can't find anything. Might be there, might not be.
In fact, many languages other than English don't have an androgynous case. In Spanish and French, everything is either masculine or feminine, with the masculine being the one used if something can be either, or none.
Yeah, I know that humans aren't perfect. Far from it. It says that in the Bible. That is one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity: We as human beings are sinful and woefully inadequate to meet the standards of righteousness. It follows that we are indeed fallible and faulty. Why then do I hold to the Bible so completely? Because, as it says in the Bible, it is the inspired Word of God, not just the scribblings of a few philosiphers and nomads. Even if you will not believe that the Bible is without flaws, you must see how closely it fits together, much too closely for it to be a conglomeration of various authors from various lifestyles and areas. They were fallible human beings, but God spoke to them and told them what to write. I'd like to point out, though, that Evolution was created by equally fallible human beings. Yes, I'm sure you already knew that, but I'm just stating it to clear the waters for any spectators.
God is a much higher being than we are. Gender distinctions don't really apply. The male pronouns stem from the principle that the wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. Yes, I know that's going to offend a lot of people, but before you call me "male cheuvenist," let me clarify this. Men and women are equal before God, but wives are told to submit to their husbands. This is only in function. It's the same way an employee submits to a boss. The employee isn't less human that the boss, but the boss has been set in a position of greater authority. Now, that is the command given to the wife. However, the command given to the husband is to love his wife so much that he would gladly trade his life for her own. A man like that isn't likely to abuse his authority, now, is he?
So the male pronouns come from the fact that God is so much higher than us that we all need to submit to Him. Men, women, children, monarchs, paupers.
How do I claim to know about God? Because He's revealed Himself to us in the Bible. We can see both through the history of Israel and the psalms and parables what kind of being He is. He's also said many times in the Bible that He is the only living God, and He is the only Way to salvation. I didn't make this stuff up, and neither did the people who wrote it, though I'm sure you won't agree with that. If you're going to believe in God, you can believe that He has revealed Himself through the Bible, through the Koran, or through the Torah; or you could believe that he's just sort of "out there," and it's impossible to know anything about Him, so He might as well be non-existant.
I don't believe that God used evolution simply because there seem to be to many problems with it. Also, it would seem to me that He would explain it more thoroughly in the creation account if He did. If you'll say that the people of those times simply wouldn't be able to understand it, I'd point out that those people weren't stu*pid (sorry, just the •••••• censoring system). How the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids without modern technology confounds scholars today. Long before those, people built zigurrats, huge temples which are equally amazing in construction. God could've easily put it into terms they could understand. Yes, he wouldn't have had to, even if He did use evolution. The Bible wasn't meant to be a scientific textbook. He doesn't have to tell us everything.
So that's where I'm coming from with my arguments. How am I an atheist if I believe that God has revealed to us what He is in the Bible? As I said, if you believe that he never bothered to reveal Himself, He might as well not exist.
There is something you should think about, though, and I do mean no offense. You believe that everybody is entitled to believe as they believe, and that everyone's beliefs are equally valid. Yet you believe that everyone should believe that everyone's beliefs are equally valid. I believe that there are false beliefs and true beliefs. So do millions of Christians, and millions of other people of other religions. By trying to be tolerant of every belief system, you won't tolerate those belief systems which are intolerant. You have to believe something, and if you truely believe that, it must mean that whoever doesn't believe that is wrong. I'm not talking about your agnostic beliefs here, I'm talking about your tolerance. I'm not tolerant, so, by your beliefs, I'm wrong.
Please understand that I'm not trying to prove you wrong to win an argument. This is something you should seriously consider. BTW, I am sorry if I have labeled you falsely in the past.
Let's go back to polytheism and/or pantheism? What basis are you using to support that suggestion? Or are you joking?
Andrew,
You really lost on the part where you say God might as well not exist if he does not reveal himself. Please explain.
I'm not tolerant, so, by your beliefs, I'm wrong.
You sure are, my good man. But your beliefs, "right" or "wrong" as I may deem them, have no effect on how I relate to you as a person. If you want to call that "tolerance" on my part, go ahead.
Y'know people, on my Movies section I wrote a review of the film "The Langoliers" in the Sci-Fi section. I wrote if one tries to dope out the science in the film too long, one ends up screaming relentlessly in mind-boggleness.
Sometimes when I read all the messages one at a time on this board, and I stop and ponder them all one at a time, I get that way. :)
Cazbah, if God hasn't revealed Himself, there's no way for us to know who He is and what He's like. We can live petrified in helpless fear that we might be doing something that is upsetting Him, or we can assign any characteristics we want to him, making a personalized god who comes down to our standards as opposed to our having to rise to his. Either would make the existance of a God meaningless to us.
Shira, by tolerance, I'm talking about those who say that everyone's beliefs are equally valid and that it's impossible to call anyone's beliefs right or wrong. To those people I would raise the following issue: There are cultures around the world in which women are regarded as very inferior to men, so much that it is considered better to let a young girl die than perform an amputation which would save her life. The reasoning is that such an operation would make many chores of a wife impossible, so no man would want to marry an amputee.
God's Gender
First of all God is a spirit and has no gender.
Second God does not have male or female traits, remember we are made in his image not he in ours.
-YHYH is a masculine word.
- Jesus refers to the Father as Daddy.
-The Holy Spirit concieved Christ in Mary.
- Every time God took a Human disguise he took it as a male. Same thing when he was Incarnated as Christ
- Adam was created first and in the Image of God.
Eve was created when Adam became lonely.
- Most spirits are referred to as masculine (Save one or two demons)
- God Made The universe by commands, the Garden of Eden with his own hands and Adam out of dirt. Most female creators give birth.
Yeesh. Phil, please come back and limit some of these post lengths!
Oh, headache...I'm gone for one day and this is what happens?
Alright, then. Agnostic or no, Rodnberry, I honestly don't believe you have a right to insult everyone who does have a religion. I'm not going to demand you apologise for it, but it would be nice if you did. We all have our own beliefs, and yours is that there is no higher god of some sort. Some believe in God, some believe in the Triple Goddess and her Consort. You don't hear the rest of us insulting you on your beliefs. It's only common courtesy that you don't insult ours.
And about the polytheism part, I'm a step ahead of you!
No, Shira, I didn't quite mean it that way. I just wish that more people could be openminded or at least more tolerant of others' beliefs, lifestyles, views, etc., and not spout so much negativity towards those different than they themselves are. Besides, I'd hate to have everyone be like me. Imagine how boring the world would be! I really don't have a very big ego, and think men and women are equal.
And on that note, Jennifer, do you think men should be the dominant ones? Is that what you meant, or did I read you wrong? We all are equal and no one should dominate over anyone else. Sure, sometimes men could dominate in some things and women in others but not either over the other all the time. So, having said that, I'm not one Shira's "spear waving liberals". Well, not yet, at least. *S*
Andrew, the bible wasn't inspired by the word of god, just the strong belief that was prevalent back then. Men did make up their religions and the literature, laws, and so on that go with them, in order to control the populace, whether or not they think they did it cuz god really did tell them to do it or just cuz they were basically bullies. Religion has always been a power trip for those in its highest echelons. Perhaps not each and every single higher-up, sure, but quite a few.
So how exactly does the bible all fit together? I'm not clear on that, nor is this question asked in any negative way, so please don't take it that way. The bible wasn't always in the form you believe it to be now, you know. Over the centuries, it was written, rewritten, translated, retranslated, mistranslated, interpretted, reinterpretted, misinterpretted by so many men that it's bound to be full of flaws. Now, I admit it's got some good points to it, like the ten commandments, but they're only common sense, really.
Did god really talk to these men and tell what to write? Personally, I very much doubt it. I'm sure you know the saying, "When you talk to god, it's praying, but when god talks to you it's psychosis," or somesuch. I'm not saying those men were crazy cuz I wasn't there so I don't know for a fact. I just think they either had such an overwhelmingly strong belief in their views and were inspired by that, or else they may have in fact been somewhat crazy and delusional to think that a supreme being of their own making talked to them and told them what to do. But again, I wasn't there so what do I know?
I don't really care why the male pronoun is given to god, although it's true that Matthew said about it just being easier I guess. Perhaps people would have trouble using "it" in place of a pronoun to refer to god otherwise. That'd be like saying a robot or some machine created us and even I ain't gonna argue that worthless point.
An ideal husband/father would and should be willing to die for his wife and family if the unfortunate occasion arose. Nor would he abuse his authority with his family and likewise his wife. Now, how they want their marriage to be is their choice based on what they agree on, not some old outdated notion that only the male is the head of the household. Both parents are, in those homes with two parents.
BTW, why would god reveal himself and his purpose thru intermediaries and not directly to people himself? That's another problem I've got with religion.
Ancient people weren't necessarily any less intelligent than we are now. They were just not as enlightened as we are today. Not that we're better than they are, of course. It's just that back then people went by polytheism to explain nature and all it's wonders, until monotheism took over sometime later, which I guess made it easier to explain things. "Religion Lite. Less gods to believe in. More fulfillment for the soul."
Also, the ancient temple, pyramids and ziggurats were built with the help of UFO's. I thought everyone knew that. How else could they explain moving massive stone blocks weighing mucho tonnage? Unless someone went back in time (from our far future?) with big cranes, or antigrav loaders, perhaps? Ok, that's a joke, as was the poly-/pantheism thing, although it still has a bit of merit to me.
I wasn't offended by your remarks cuz I chose not to be. It was pretty obvious you didn't mean to be, so I wasn't. I can't comment on your personal beliefs since I don't know you. I just go by what you write, as you do with what I write. Likewise, people in general. I'm also not aware if you've mislabeled me before and if you did it may have been perhaps cuz I didn't express my agnostism sooner, although I did on other posts previously.
MikeC, I was just thinking the same thing the other day!
M. Jenkins, I don't apologize for my views. That would defeat the purpose of posting them in the first place. We all have the right to insult others, so I welcome anyone to insult me and my views all they want. Just make them intelligent insults, is all I ask. You may notice that I speak generally about religion. I know that not everyone fits this or that religious stereotype and often make that point in my rants. I really could be the best of friends with some religious people, as long as they knew not to force their views on me, as I'd grant them the same courtesy. I can get along with anyone that's willing. When I post my rants here (which tend to get longer than I mean them to be, like this nonrant is) it's just to release some anger towards some views I find objectionable. I don't mean to come off as antagonistic, if I do, but sometimes that's the only way to get my points across with some people. I'll try to be less so in the future. It'll be tough, but I think I just may be able to pull it off.
Being agnostic, I'm also openminded enough to think that it just may in fact be the right idea to believe in deities, but with people being what they are, it's just hard for me to believe in any human interpretation, idea, concept or views on such. I'm not sure if we're meant to know now, if ever, as living humans. I think that maybe we'll find out the real truth when we die. Or, if you believe in reincarnation, each time we die and are reminded what it's like.
Oh, and that thing by Anonymous about shorter posts......No! Please no! It'll ruin my best posts!
Rodnberry,
Ponder this: If you DID believe in a God/Higher Power/Diety, what would he/she/it be?
"And on that note, Jennifer, do you think men should be the dominant ones?"
'Dominant' and 'in charge' aren't the same thing in my way of thinking. I think the husband should be in charge of the family, but he shouldn't dominate - the wife should have power and influence. I think of unmarried women as 'in chargers' along with men.
"Andrew, the bible wasn't inspired by the word of god, just the strong belief that was prevalent back then...The bible wasn't always in the form you believe it to be now, you know...it's bound to be full of flaws."
These are just your beliefs. We believe differently. Stating your beliefs as proof that your beliefs are valid isn't going to convince us =)
"BTW, why would god reveal himself and his purpose thru intermediaries and not directly to people himself?"
I don't believe He just uses intermediaries.
These are just your beliefs. We believe differently. Stating your beliefs as proof that your beliefs are valid isn't going to convince us =)
At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate (and getting called a Satanist *grin*), isn't that just what you do?
Rodnberry: Ok about that...I was reading it at 330 this morning when I was tired. And in between a good mood and a bad mood. I honestly do understand, having been there myself.
ScottN: *LOL*
We all have the right to insult others, so I welcome anyone to insult me and my views all they want.
We most certainly do not have the right to insult others in this forum! (Back me up, Sir Moderator?) We have the right to criticize, which is an entirely different thing! I also believe it is the mark of higher thinking to restrict criticism to ideas and not to people.
These are just your beliefs. We believe differently. Stating your beliefs as proof that your beliefs are valid isn't going to convince us =)
I don't think the goal of "proof" is wise for anyone under these circumstances. Nobody here is going to convert or dissent because of something some unknown net-poster said to him or her. Isn't "understanding of the other" a more reasonable aim?
It's just that Rodnberry keeps telling us over and over that the Bible is faulty, not divinely inspired, etc., as if it is supposed to be some kind of wake up call. I don't go around saying repeatedly "The Bible is obviously God's word, anyone who doesn't think so is selfish, arrogant and their belief system is bogus."
I'm perfectly willing to discuss the different aspects of my faith and why I believe as I do; that's the whole point of my being here, not to pound repeatedly into your heads that I think you're unbelievably wrong. Also, you'll notice that I always try to say "I believe the Bible is true" not "The Bible is true." Phrasing things the latter way often comes across more as an insult than a statement of belief.
Actually, Jennifer, your latter statement "The Bible is true" (to use your example) I don't find as an insult. I rather find those sorts of statements to be narrow minded. And proof that the speaker is either too blinded by self importance to consider other view points, or too foolish to admit that there are other view points.
Another big board...yeesh.
I've said it once I'll say it again,
IF YOU DON'T BELIVE YOU'RE RELIGION IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST, WHY DO YOU FOLLOW IT?
Who says we don't? What does this have to do with the present conversation? Just because we don't shove Bibles in people's faces and strap them to chairs and force them to recite Hail Marys (just how *do* those go, anyway) doesn't mean that we don't think we're right, it just means that we have manners!
I second the yeesh. Rodnberry, will you *ever* learn to express yourself in shorter forms? And with less stinkin' arrogance?
And blaringly big fonts, too...my, aren't we on a roll? What's next, puce colored posts over 200k in size?
(Anyone going to third me? *Grins*)
Cazbah, I honestly couldn't say, since I very much doubt that I'll ever believe in any deity(ies), or what he/she/they/it would be like. But, hey, anything's possible, right?
'Dominant' and 'in charge' aren't the same thing in my way of thinking. I think the husband should be in charge of the family, but he shouldn't dominate - the wife should have power and influence. I think of unmarried women as 'in chargers' along with men.
Ok, I'll go along with these, to a certain extent. However, marriage is also partly compromise so I think that they should maybe switch roles now and then, depending on the situation.
I don't believe He just uses intermediaries.
No, he doesn't. They just put themselves in that role of their own accord.
It's just that Rodnberry keeps telling us over and over that the Bible is faulty, not divinely inspired, etc., as if it is supposed to be some kind of wake up call.
I never said the bible isn't divinely inspired. Just that it was inspired by the strong divine beliefs of all those who wrote it over the centuries. Please reread my last post and you'll see that.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss the different aspects of my faith and why I believe as I do; that's the whole point of my being here, not to pound repeatedly into your heads that I think you're unbelievably wrong.
Point taken, and agreed. I see that I do get carried away sometimes so I'll be careful from now on to be less critical in such a negative way while still trying to make my point.
M. Jenkins, I understand, too. I go online from about 1:30am or so till 5am and write most of my rants then (like the current ones here) and so I'm not always at my best then, but sometimes I am, too.
Anonymous, how's this one?
If you don't think there's a God, how can you believe the Bible is divinely inspired? I'm confused now.
It's perfectly clear. He said *HE* doesn't believe it's divinely inspired, but that those who wrote it did believe so.
He said "I never said the bible isn't divinely inspired." I took that to mean he believes the Bible was divinely inspired. 'Divinely inspired' means God inspired people to write it. But Rodnberry doesn't belive in a God! I'm still confused =)
IF YOU DON'T BELIVE YOU'RE RELIGION IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST, WHY DO YOU FOLLOW IT?
Ohhh my head.... No need to shout like that, you're giving me migraines.... We can all read your post just as well in small fonts...
Anyway, that depends on how you define "absolute best." I follow my religion because I believe it to be true and because my ancestors for 3500 years back have believed it true. I don't believe my religion is the "absolute best" in the sense that everybody else should "see the light" and convert to Judaism; God made the Jews to worship him on way and gentiles to worship him in other way, according to my beliefs. Any non-Jew (Christian, Muslim, Ba'hai, Buddhist, non-denominational spiritualist, you name it) who does justly, refrains from murder, theft, torture, etc., and walks humbly with god has just as big a halo in heaven as the most pious Jew. They have their role in the world, we have ours, nobody's "better" than anybody; whether I believe that my religion is "better" or "best" has no bearing whatsoever on my religious practices.
It's not an either/or. "If I don't say one thing, I mean the other."
He's not taking a position one way or the other.
OK, I was kind of forgetting Rodnberry's an agnostic, not an atheist. I'll amend my statement to "...Rodnberry keeps telling us over and over that the bible wasn't inspired by the word of god..
AAAAAAAAAAGH! Langolier-type headaches! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
O.K. I'm better. Took my Prozac. Cool, man.
Now, first of all:
1. Insults. Bad. Discussion. Good.
2. Long posts. Don't care.
3. Long chapter. Yes! Fix--soon.
Shira - I'm sure Matt Pesti wanted to make sure we heard him loud and clear. Even though we read all his other posts (minus big fonts) with no problem. But I'm certainly in agreeance with you there...refer to my previous post on his font size dealie.
Jennifer, I neither affirm, nor deny the existence of any gods, since I don't have proof either way. However, as I've said before, I don't believe in any individual human's idea, concept or perception of god. That means I don't believe in what you, or anyone, personally believe to be god, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to whether any gods at all exist or not, cuz I am. Does that help clear things up for you?
Some people think one can only believe or disbelieve in god, without there being a middle. I disagree since I, and many who share my views, am open to what the truth really is, but again we don't say either way without hard proof. You may indeed have the right idea to believe in a god, which is totally fine with me, cuz by golly you just may be right in that respect, but what your personal interpretation of your (or anyone else's) god is may not be the truth, as much as you believe it to be. That's not a slight against you or other believers. I'm just trying to clear up my views. I just hope this second paragraph hasn't confused you even more.
As for the bible's inspiration, the men who wrote it weren't inspired by the true word of god, but by the strong belief they had that he existed and spoke to them to write it. They may have been delusional to think that, but they may also have been actually inspired by some religious feeling or other. I wasn't there so I don't know for sure, but I'm just saying that with my agnostic views I very strongly doubt an actual deity really did speak to them, or does even to this day.
the men who wrote it weren't inspired by the true word of god
Can you prove that? I didn't think so.