Posts by sabastious

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

Sab: Sam harris has a blog post on the future of books, and how to publish:

When I publish my stuff it will be a blog and will be free for anybody who wants to read it. I am content making my money selling my body on the street.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

In science nobody is interested in opinions.

I tend to disagree simply because science never says it has the answer, but only the best one while factoring in all known evidence. Therefore, any concrete answer is going to exist side by side with a bunch of ideas that could be the actual answer, but lack the evidence. Scientific opinion is actually more valuable to the public than scientific fact, because in order to call something a scientific opinion it has to follow at least some sort of loose scientific standard. Otherwise it's just called opinion. For example a geologist's opinion on some rock theory will be more scientific than someone who doesn't know anything about geology. This is because the geologist will still be able to apply the scientific method when generating opinion and will know which ideas don't work at all as opposed to the layperson. Therefore it's in the best interests of the layperson to consult the expert's opinion while considering the factors. The problem right now is that that relationship goes through too many analog methods which makes it expensive and hinders the educative process. Without the middle men (publishing firms) the relationship between expert and layperson will be much more effective in regards to education. The internet fixes this problem, but the problem of greed is a brick wall.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

Sorry, it need to be said - if you think michael Crichton is the worlds greatest science fiction author -- you might be good, but you wouldnt know it.

You seem to have a temporary reading comprehension issue. I said Crichton was one of the greats in scifi, not THE greatest. It really isn't debatable outside of a drunken bar argument. He was a great and unique scifi writer. His synergy between fast paced action story telling and believable science set him apart from the pack. His books often had sizable bibliographies. I agree that his characters were a bit shallow, but that's a style issue, not a competency issue. He never set out to create rich and memorable characters, but ideas that provided unmatched entertainment that tantalize the scientific mind. If you want character development he's not your author. If you want an exhilarating ride based in science he's your man.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

A legend in your own mind, I see. Not even the satanic publishers of this stuff understands you. Read a novel by Andre Norton and get back to me.

Really, jgnat? I could get a publishing deal pretty easily. I abstain because they are devils (1 Tim 6:10).

Copyright law. It is tragic that people believe a film or web site takes the place of academic scholarship. Altho a gem, such as Liincoln, might emerge, the content is dumbed down for the masses.

You seem to be confused. I am not against academic scholarship, I am against social/political agenda's using academic scholarship to make money by stiring up public opinion in vain. Such as Armstrong's In the Beginning propaganda created by a devilish publisher. Scholarship is changing along with everything else in the universe at the moment. Publishing houses will become a thing of the past. The internet will house all scientific opinion eventually. Right now information is being delegated by the wrong entities and the lack of quality shows. It's despicable to me that I have to pay money to read details I need to know in order to make an informed decision. It can all be free and available to the people, but greed gets in the way, like usual.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

Crichton was at best an average writer, his famale characters was entirely 1 dimensional.

Crichton was a scientist first and a writer second. His characters were written specifically to be adapted for action movies. What makes him one of the greatest of all time are his scientific themes and their realism, not his characters. The characters were actually given more life when they were adapted to flim which I suspect was by design.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

Oh, sab. You are talking to a sci-fi affectionado. You are wrong. There's hard sci-fi based on hard science, and then there's soft sci-fi, like the works of Andre Norton.

This is just semantics from a connoisseur of literature. I AM a sci fi writer btw (unpublished because publishing houses are the devil). Science fiction has been so incredibly successful that it has broken up into many subtypes. All in all you need to consult science on your major story elements or else you are not going to sell many books in the genre. Which is what it's all about in the end.

Isn't it just sab when people have to resort to using fiction as a bedrock for proving their ideas rights? Like, "something in sci fi could be real, therefore my ideas are right", completely ignoring the fact that made up up stuff is in no way proof of other made up stuff?

When did I say my ideas were right? I think they are and I use myself as an authority.

Or, apparently, caring that his followers end up looking like chumps when they claim special insight and the suddenly have performance issues.

No, that's not the way it works at all. You see, God does what he wants and no one dictates to Him (not even me!). You can make an honest request, but it has to have the right intentions. If you get snubbed by God it's always because of something inside YOU rather than the other way around. Isaiah 40 comes to mind:

13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord ,
or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge,
or showed him the path of understanding?

Which connects with Genesis 4:

In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord . 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Each and every time we get snubbed by God, whether it be me trying to prove your shirt, or you asking for your shirt to be proven the answer is always the same. God is right and we are wrong and we must rule over whatever it is inside us that directs us away from the truth which is always REVEALED by God.

So, no, you've failed. Got it. (PS, genetics are not the origin of humanity).

Right, the Big Bang is the origin of humanity. That's why I said Genesis is about all origins which includes genetics. You don't believe genetics isn't an origin, right? I mean the "gene" is right there for both of us to see.

Look man, all I am saying is the you claim the Torah talks about genetics and that word isn't there. I am saying the serpent literally is a penis and there are tons of verses about wangs and weiners there.

A penis is not a wild animal no matter how much you want to spin it.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

There's science fiction that is plausible, and there is science fiction that is not. For instance, faster-than-light travel had to be invented in order to allow dramatic tension and interaction between solar systems.

There is no such thing as science fiction purposefully designed to be implausible. It would then just be fiction instead of scifi. Take the great scifi writer Michael Crichton for example who wrote the story Jurassic Park. He was a scientist who would do serious research for every novel he produced. His book Andromeda Strain played on the science of microorganisms, Jurrasic Park the same only with genetics. He wrote a book called Timeline which played on quantum uncertainty. The whole POINT of science fiction is to tantalize the reader into believing it could happen so that's why science is consulted for every story element. If it isn't you call that just fiction, not scifi.

But if you WANT to go with science fiction, we can certainly introduce science into it. Your invisible god could always step up to the shirt challenge. It's science and a ficticious god, so it fits!

I personally would love to meet this challenge, but I don't have enough faith that God gives a hoot about your shirt.

Have you found the word "genetics" in there yet since you claim it talks about it?

No, but the first book is named Genesis which contains the root word meaning "origin." Genetics are the origin of humanity. Therefore the Torah is about genetics, and more than genetics, before genetics existed. This is off topic however.

No, it LITERALLY is a penis.

I personally don't subscribe to literal interpretations of anything in the Torah besides Genesis 1:1.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

In fiction, anything is possible, therefore, your conclusion does not follow.

Science fiction is a specialized type of fiction that projects a plausible future scenario. It's still fiction, but you are just circumventing the specialization in order to provide an argument that meets a loose logical standard. Essentially it's being argumentative which means argument just for the sake of it; opposition. My point still stands even with your rain sprinkles. I suggest using a tempest if you want to blow it down.

sabastious, I just have to ask; do you believe in talking toasters? I think I am mixing up my science fiction, hitching the hitchikers to the Red Dwarf.

It didn't take any doing to steer this conversation towards my usual subject. The words "Genesis", "Adam", "Eve" and "Noah" in the title provides the setting of the Torah in general, which is what I specialize in (first 8 chapters specifically). Ms Armstrong, manifesting through Band on the Run's book club, is trying to divorce the marriage between Christianity and Judaism. While their attempt may be very clever it's ultimately in vain because the marriage of Christianity and Judaism is eternal. Attaching her credentials to a conclusion as outrageous as "the Torah was never about morality" is a shameless sellout with an obvious agenda. It's simply impossible to have a Christ without a Torah just as it's impossible to have America without a Constitution or theater without Shakespeare.

THE SERPENT WAS A PENIS!

It's remarkable to me that you would bring this up. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Serpent is, in part, a phallic symbol. It gives "Whore of Babylon" a whole new meaning.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

There used to be this radio show called "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Gallaxy." The story was turned into a book series by Douglas Adams and a motion picture was done in his honor more recently. Interestingly, that particular universe had intelligent designers. According to Lester Del Rey in his book World of Science Fiction: "Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures." Therefore, the Hitchhiker's universe was based on a plausible future projection starting from the time of 1978. The morality for these designers was based on the idea that they could return all of existence back into working order from any catastrophe possible. This created the whimsical story element of Earth being destroyed by an alien race putting in a space highway. It creates the "perfect story" going from total destruction to total redemption which is the total human experience.

That's what the Torah, and the whole Bible, says that our existence is. Humanity is the "perfect story" and we just so happen to be smack dab in the middle of it. Yet, even with all that we've went through, if everything could be made right, what we previously called suffering will no longer be that at all. To me the Torah most certainly concerns itself with morality. To say otherwise is madness.

-Sab

133

GENESIS- Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. and Original Sin

by Band on the Run in

there was a distressing thread concerning this topic recently.

there is no way i can believe these stories as literal truth or even use them as any signpost to the nt jesus/god.

these scriptures make judaism and christianity look silly.

sabastious

Amen and Hallelujah to "No shit."

My breakdown trumps Armstrong's tripe and your overtly basic review. She basically tells us in her book that the Torah is ridden with inconsistencies. This is laughable as it disregards the extreme meticulousness of the writers of the book. To assume they just missed these is a modern elitist view. The truth on this matter is that this woman has no understanding of the Torah as she is trying to study it through a secular lens. Like I said the Torah is a spiritual book and without a spiritual approach no understanding can be had. You and Armstrong serve as perfect examples of this. That's why Genesis 1:1 asks for faith, because that's what opens the gate to the treasure house of truth: the Torah. You and Armstrong have no faith and it's plainly obvious.

These nonsense comments are messing up my Karen Armstrong thread. Karen Armstrong, a woman who is capable of reading and writing books.

I'm not sure if you noticed, being learned and all, but I am capable of those feats as well. Except, I would never lower myself to any publishing company. They are all from the depths of hell. The internet is the new frontier and books are for the dark ages.

Reviewing the surrounding cultures and Judaism itself, Armstrong said the authors had no intention for it to be a literal account.

Reform Jews and others have been saying this for quite some time now, nothing new. However it does pose the question as to how a document originally intended to be symbolic became literal. This would mean that whole lines of thought would need to be wiped out by disease, wars or something else. Because of this factor and many others Armstrong's breakdown becomes merely speculation. You are more attracted to her credentials I would presume which helps your secular confirmation bias grow stronger like a drug. You trust her professionalism which is useless when trying to read a spiritual document. It's actually hilarious because the book is about walking by faith rather than sight, yet you and Armstrong ignore that credential (the only one that maters) and soldier on as if you are going to discover truth. When in fact you need "the Spirit" to aid with spiritual documents (who would have thought!). I'll say it again, without faith you cannot understand the book, period. Faith is the spiritual "activation protocol" as the Torah is a piece of technology not completely understood even in modern times. It will take our civilization much longer to completely understand it, but this is because not enough people walk by faith, which is what the document asks for off the get go.

The account contradicts itself literally.

No it doesn't, we just think it does when we read it wrong. Like YOU said we don't know the original writers and we also know that the intention of the document has essentially been lost. We are left to decode it in the distant future with cultures who are as speculative as anyone else. To be so arrogant as to assume it contradicts itself is simply remarkably pretentious. Such a flawed notion operates on the idea that we actually can parse this document with Science, logic and reason. Such an assumption is preposterous even from a secular perspective. Clearly, Armstrong is just trying to make her and a publishing company some money by getting "ooos and ahhs" from people like you who just eat it up.

Armstrong believes no moral message was intended. Rather, humans wanted a practical guide for living to the fullest extent possible.

The Torah means "Law" and law is always tied to morality because it attempts to bring order to chaos. Armstrong misses the basics, as modern interpretors do and she obviously is catering this book to a secular crowd. It's borderline propaganda that uses a respected mind to propagate into learned circles.

-Sab