How Did They Survive?

[Chris Parr]

So I started reading my Bible thinking "I'm really going to try to believe this, 'cause I don't want to go to Hell" but immediately I ran into a little snag—Genesis 1:29-30.

29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat
30:And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything tat creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

So did you spot the problem? Well, I'll tell you—there are no predators! So what stopped all those herbivores from overgrazing and turning the whole planet into a barren wasteland? Magic?

Oh, to hell with it. There's no way I can believe this when it's so full of shit. Guess I'll just have to admit to myself that I am an atheist.

An evil atheist? No? So then where will my morality come from, if not the Bible? Comic books? The morality there seems to beat Biblical "morality" so I would have to say "yes", I am going with comic book morality.

Oh look at that, I went off topic. Sorry about that.

[Tribble]

Wow, it's been awhile since I've had to crank this out!

http://www.creationtheory.org/

As this is on the main site, I think Darth Wong wrote it? At any rate, feel free to give it a read, it goes into far more detail than any of us could in a single post. You'll see just how full of shit the Bible really is, especially when it comes to morality. Believe me when I say that what you've read so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

[General Zod]

So I started reading my Bible thinking "I'm really going to try to believe this, 'cause I don't want to go to Hell" but immediately I ran into a little snag—Genesis 1:29-30.

Are you referring to Pascal's Wager? Because that's a dumb reason to start believing in something. Look at it this way; how many religions out there have clauses that include sending non-believers to hell? If you believe in one religion but not another religion with the same clause, you're pretty much fucked if the other religion turns out to be the right one.

To compound the problem most religions have a clause that make worshiping other Gods at the same time a capital offense, so that rules out that escape route. So basically you better hope that the Bible is right or you could be fucked if another religion out there is the one true religion.

[Tribble]

So I started reading my Bible thinking "I'm really going to try to believe this, 'cause I don't want to go to Hell" but immediately I ran into a little snag—Genesis 1:29-30.

Are you referring to Pascal's Wager? Because that's a dumb reason to start believing in something. Look at it this way; how many religions out there have clauses that include sending non-believers to hell? If you believe in one religion but not another religion with the same clause, you're pretty much fucked if the other religion turns out to be the right one.

To compound the problem most religions have a clause that make worshiping other Gods at the same time a capital offense, so that rules out that escape route. So basically you better hope that the Bible is right or you could be fucked if another religion out there is the one true religion.

Well, it did work for this guy, at least for a bit:

[youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDWR5RkWRTY [/youtube]

Edit: Damnit why can I never get the youtube links to work properly?

[Chris Parr]

Well, I'm pretty much fucked anyway since I've rejected the Bible in favor of superhero comics. Sounds silly, I know, but at least it's not as silly as some of the stuff found in the Bible!

[General Zod]

Also don't make fun of bald guys that God likes, or he'll send a couple of bears to eat you.

[Borgholio]

The thing is that the Bible didn't even come first. Many of the stories and morality lessons from the Old Testament are collected from other religions. Noah, for instance. He never existed. He was a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh from over 600 years prior! Even the very idea of God changed between the Testaments. In the Old Testament, he was a physical being who you could actually hide from. In the New Testament, he was the spirit in the sky that we are familiar with today.

Basically the best way to look at the Bible is a collection of stories, morality tales, parables, and religious texts from many cultures and time periods. It's not one solid narrative and should not be interpreted as such. That's one excuse people use when they pick and choose which sins to ignore and which ones are worth condemning. They point out that many parts of the Bible are different points of view and it's a matter of opinion. And in that regard, they're correct.

[Elheru Aran]

The Old Testament version of God (El/Yahweh) is a bit more complicated than that. There is a notion of him as a physical being early on (Genesis) but later on he's a little more ethereal, the classic 'voice/fire from the sky' version. The Hebrew used at several points in the text is plural (Elohim), suggesting that the historical recorders may be picking and choosing as they like-- there are also several indications that household deities were commonplace, and in the archaeological record there are indications of a feminine counterpart to El, possibly suppressed later on by a patriarchal priesthood (controversial, though, so I wouldn't sit on it anytime soon).

The fact of the matter is that for the Bronze Age, monotheism is a fairly unusual concept, and it's far more likely that the modern concept of a single God of the Old Testament is the result of careful work and editing by Jewish priests and scribes in order to help hold together the Jewish identity after the various conquests of Palestine by presenting a more unified message of their faith. You can even see this demonstrated in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra-- they 'discover' the books of the Law in the ruins of Jerusalem after the Persians allow the Jewish diaspora to return to Palestine, and publicly read the Law to the people over the course of several days in order to 'bring them closer to God' or whatever. Essentially a form of cultural indoctrination-- "you spent all this time with the Babylonians and Persians and now you're shit Jews, here's what you need to do to be good Jews".

[Tribble]

The thing is that the Bible didn't even come first. Many of the stories and morality lessons from the Old Testament are collected from other religions. Noah, for instance. He never existed. He was a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh from over 600 years prior! Even the very idea of God changed between the Testaments. In the Old Testament, he was a physical being who you could actually hide from. In the New Testament, he was the spirit in the sky that we are familiar with today.

Basically the best way to look at the Bible is a collection of stories, morality tales, parables, and religious texts from many cultures and time periods. It's not one solid narrative and should not be interpreted as such. That's one excuse people use when they pick and choose which sins to ignore and which ones are worth condemning. They point out that many parts of the Bible are different points of view and it's a matter of opinion. And in that regard, they're correct.

And that's only the stories that were permitted to be lumped in the Bible. There were many other stories (such as the gospels of Mary, Thomas, and yes even Judas) which were rejected. I think there was a congress which decided which stories were canon and which weren't, but I can't remember the name of it atm.

[Elheru Aran]

And that's only the stories that were permitted to be lumped in the Bible. There were many other stories (such as the gospels of Mary, Thomas, and yes even Judas) which were rejected. I think there was a congress which decided which stories were canon and which weren't, but I can't remember the name of it atm.

First Nicene Council.

A big part of the issues with the NT Apocrypha is that the early Christians were a mess. Constantine finally got fed up with all the bickering and decided to lay down the law (more or less literally). Some early church fathers had already started devising a canon, notably Irenaeus and Origen. These were books that had been circulating at the time including the major Gospels and the Pauline epistles, and pretty much everybody could agree on them. The rest of the various Gospels and Epistles, not so much. It's sort of like the Star Wars EU-- pretty much everybody can agree that the Thrawn Trilogy and Wraith Squadron books are great, but opinions vary widely on the rest of them.

[salm]

I find it strange that overgrazing would be somebodies... erm.. apple of discord with the bible when there are so many things in it that are orders of maginitude dumber.

[Borgholio]

I find it strange that overgrazing would be somebodies... erm.. apple of discord with the bible when there are so many things in it that are orders of maginitude dumber.

First thing that comes to mind is where Cain's wife came from.

[K. A. Pital]

Adam's daughters were not important enough to be listed as humans, misogyny.

[Chris Parr]

I find it strange that overgrazing would be somebodies... erm.. apple of discord with the bible when there are so many things in it that are orders of maginitude dumber.

It was the first thing I ran across that made my brain hurt.

[Borgholio]

It was the first thing I ran across that made my brain hurt.

What, not the idea that an all-powerful and all-mighty God has to rest after creating the universe? Does that mean his powers really are limited to an extent?

How about this...could God create a rock so heavy that even He could not move it?

Edit - And no side-stepping the question by using the classic answer, "He would create a bulldozer that could move the rock."

[madd0ct0r]

I'm actually fairly sure competition between herbivores could be enough to balance a predator-less ecosystem. There's a few islands where I believe there were no natural predators, and there's certainly species that have no natural predators.

Disease, old age ect are also limiters on herbivore popualtions

[Borgholio]

Disease, old age ect are also limiters on herbivore popualtions

Wasn't there no disease or old age in Eden? Or was that only for Adam and EVE?

[salm]

So did you spot the problem? Well, I'll tell you—there are no predators! So what stopped all those herbivores from overgrazing and turning the whole planet into a barren wasteland? Magic?

Yes magic. It happens in the Bible all the time. It´s not surprising.
Wondering about wierd stuff happening in the Bible is like wondering about Darth Vaders Sith tricks or whatever it is Harry Potter does. There is no problem. The biblical world is a magical realm in which pretty much anything can happen.

[Simon_Jester]

I find it strange that overgrazing would be somebodies... erm.. apple of discord with the bible when there are so many things in it that are orders of maginitude dumber.

You need to read more Chris Parr threads.

So I started reading my Bible thinking "I'm really going to try to believe this, 'cause I don't want to go to Hell" but immediately I ran into a little snag—Genesis 1:29-30.

29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat
30:And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything tat creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

It was the first thing I ran across that made my brain hurt.

If you're reading the Bible with that mindset, I'm surprised you got that far.

I mean, Genesis 1:2 has the universe being full of water before anything has been created. And yet this water somehow has a 'face,' implying a surface.

Genesis 1:7 has "Heaven" dividing the waters of the Earth from, presumably, water in the sky.

Genesis 1:14-16 make it very clear that plants were living and thriving on the third day of Creation, prior to the existence of the sun. More impressively, there were clearly delineated periods of light and darkness (Genesis 1:4-5) before the creation of the sun and the stars.

By comparison, I'm honestly not even sure that Genesis 1:29-30 is so much as a speed bump, being as how I'm not sure it's correct to interpret the passage as saying "there were no carnivores at this time in the Genesis creation story."

There is basically no point in trying to subject Genesis to a coherent logical analysis based on what we now know about science and ethics.

An evil atheist? No? So then where will my morality come from, if not the Bible? Comic books? The morality there seems to beat Biblical "morality" so I would have to say "yes", I am going with comic book morality.

Mm. I'd suggest picking up a few introductory/basic college philosophy textbooks. About, oh... two, three, maybe four.

Also, buy a Super Soaker.

Then find a trusted friend or loved one, and give them the following directions. "I am going to read these books over the next couple of months. If you hear me saying anything that violates the principles of basic common sense, or basic decency, shoot me with this Super Soaker and go "NO! BAD SOPHOMORE PHILOSOPHY STUDENT! BAD!" "

This combination will probably result in you having a reasonably healthy system of moral philosophy.

A lot of actual philosophy students screw this process up, of course. Usually by forgetting the Super Soaker, without which they have no way of knowing when they've made a serious mistake.

[Elheru Aran]

I was just thinking about that. Basing your life philosophy upon comic books is somewhat... weak. Good if you want to be shallow and outrageous, but not so much if you want to have actual depth to how you handle life. This is one area that admittedly religion in general does a decent job with (to a certain degree of 'decent' anyway)-- that is, the overall religion, not so much the texts by themselves. The cultures within those religions, the more aberrant aspects aside, do tend to promote a certain growth in personal development and philosophy (as long as it aligns with its own belief system anyway). Coming up with a secular philosophy can be a little trickier as there's a little less structure to it and it's a bit more haphazard. But, it does have the advantage in that it's not going to restrict you too terribly one way or another. You are more free to choose your beliefs, with the consequences thereof.

[Iroscato]

Random question, is anyone here a member of athiestforums.org? I see threads like this many times a day, so I can't really be bothered to engage in this one, but just curious.

[Solauren]

There are two explanations I can think of
1) - There wasn't enough time before Adam and Eve were kicked out and God created predators for them to do serious damage to the ecosystem
2) - Predators were introduced shortly after the start of creation, and prevented from attacking Adam and Eve and their children for a while by literal Act of God.

[Simon_Jester]

I was just thinking about that. Basing your life philosophy upon comic books is somewhat... weak. Good if you want to be shallow and outrageous...

I do sometimes suspect Parr is trolling us by attempting to be too perfect a silly adolescent debater... does he ever actually post on anything except issues that push the board's buttons, like 'harsh dismissal of religion' or 'someone just suggested Star Trek can handle itself effectively in a crossover?'

Coming up with a secular philosophy can be a little trickier as there's a little less structure to it and it's a bit more haphazard...

That's what I was talking about when I say most philosophy students forget the Super Soaker. It's an important step, and it's very risky to attempt your personal growth through becoming a learned philosopher without the Super Soaker.

[Chris Parr]

Hey, I'm just a guy asking questions. Just because I'm a moron is no reason to get personal.

[Channel72]

'harsh dismissal of religion' or 'someone just suggested Star Trek can handle itself effectively in a crossover?

I keep forgetting this board is basically founded around an urge to accumulate evidence (mostly from shitty VHS footage of shitty 80s special effects) that Gene Roddenberry's make-believe technology is inferior to whatever arbitrary Flash Gordan silliness George Lucas thought would look awesome on LaserDisc.

Crap...

... well, back to N&P for more SERIOUS discussion.