Hi again Zino,
Okay, I knew I called it a day earlier. . . after this one, yeah?
To be frank, i am disappointed with your responses. I have gone through most of your last posts and i see you know your bible well and would be a formidable opponet but i wasn't expecting you to follow davidylan's style of posting by dodging issues and trying to rephrase questions with rhetorical questions.
I apologise if my style came across in a disappointing manner, although I should remark that I well respect everyone's style in replying posts.
I expected you to reply back with authorities to substantiate your claims. It is just point blank, I said god is a monsterous killing monster who kills babies and i quote passages to show that it is true. What i expect from you is to say "No god did not kill babies in that passage, in fact i am reading the wrong bible and that verse actually states blah blah blah'
Well, the reason why I dismally failed (initially) to recommend any authority was simply because I wanted to maintain a challenge to my own ability to engage fellow discussants. Initially, you may recall that I shied away from merely reproducing other peoples' arguements - it has always been my personal convictions to offer answers that I could truly discuss should the need arise to question what I post at any level. Please forgive my detour to have been unable to follow your expectations there.
However, people are free to hold their own persuasions and interpretations about what they read - the "monsterous killing monster" a case in point. Actually, this often seems to be the default position and attitude by many atheistically inclined. Unfortunately again, they tend to be implosive statements that have a hard task reconciling the position of what
is not and what actually
exists. What this means is that the atheistic argument that "God
IS" anything by any label simply refutes the atheistic belief that "God
is NOT" (ie., the same person who cries that
God does not exist is yet stating that
He "is" thus and thus). It is the classic irrational attitude assumed by people like Prof. Richard Dawkins in his "God Delusion", and who has been simply written off by several atheists as rascally and hardly sensible or persuasive.
For this and akin reasons, I often try to refrain from unnecessary polarizations so that I don't lose the kernel of the gist, and so be yet able to offer reasoned discussions with others.
.
You don't have to merry go round and dodge issues if you even choose to answer them back.
I honestly hope you could see that my repostes have not being dudgy - as in the Genesis 11 case.
For example:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Well, I don't see what the problem would be here. Please bear in mind that the sun was not mentioned in verses 3-5; infact, verse 5 states that it was the light that was called the "day" as distinct from the night. The mistake here seems to be that people deliberately refer to the light as "sun", whereas verse 5 simply calls it the "day" ["God called the light Day"].
How is this possible because the sun separates night from day
I understand that the sun separates night from day; but as pointed out just above we understand that v.5 calls it "day" and not "sun".
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
In simple terms, the point is that many people see a chronology between chapters 1 and 2, whereas it is not so. Chapter 1 gives a simple summary of events, while chapter 2 gives the details of the events. For example, Genesis 1:26-27 does not say that God created man and woman "at the same time", rather it simply states that man (the generic term for humans) were created male and female. It is when we get to chapter 2 that the detail is given.
In other words, chapter 1 points out
what was done; while chapter 2 points out
how it occured. To miss this is the reason why many assume the contradiction, to say the least.
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
Between ch. 1 and 6 we have the issues of what led to sad state man found himself. We understand that man was not created as "evil" - and indeed, in his God-given innocence, man was a delight to God's heart. However, Gen. 6:5 underscores the problem in the latter - "the wickedness of man was great in the earth". Compare this with what another reference where both sides are brought out in one line:
"Lo, this only have I found, that (A)God hath made man upright; (B)but they have sought out many inventions" -- Eccl. 7:29
Such a state of affairs would definitely not please God's heart, would it?
All these contradictions and confusion is bewildering to say the least and instead you of you to put it in a proper perspective and refute the obvious, you choose to follow davidylan's style or are you no longer dogmatic to the faith and turning into a freethinker to align with whatever doctrine or reasoning you choose to answer your questions?
I'm always willing to address issues. What is a put-off to me is when my fellow discussants assume the default position of throwing away reason in exchange for dogmatic irrationality. Coincidentally, not many atheistically inclined thinkers are irrational - and some have been swift to rebuff such attitudes epitomized in Dawkins.
Please even if you don't want to answer them for me, imagine a person who intends to choose a religion to follow and is hoping you can convert him, please don't disappoint him
I could well imagine.
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
ok we have a new man Zino ben, great posts I can certainly feel the anger pouring lol, as usual the ever formidable mazaje. I have to agree ave got respect for david if I were a Christian it would have to be his school of thought, a little rough around the edges but he is quite an opponent.
