Oh, ok.

Idk why we're arguing about this.

poor zelaron.

You know, alcohol is mentioned plenty in the bible. Getting drunk is a sin, drinking is not. As far as marijuana goes, both sides of the debate spout a lot of BS, but at the end of the day the legalization side is more right; marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol and should be treated the same way.

Statistics show that if a woman is going to get an abortion, she's going to do so regardless of the legality. Statistics also show that the chances of dying from an illegal abortion are significantly higher. Especially self-inflicted abortion has staggering risk of hemorage or sepsis. You might say that the murderer is worthy of death, but so is everyone else for various other sins. Where's the compassion? Abortion is gruesome and morally wrong, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Too many blind followers following blind guides in today's "Christianity". Blindly following anyone is foolish. Study the bible yourself, do your own research, pray, and make your own decisions as the Spirit leads.

...Did that just happen?

WetWired does exist.

I actually feel like I've legit'ly been "School'd, sucka". I like WetWired.

WetWired is an anomaly.

He is the only person on this forum that I don't mind being religious. Simply because He is intelligent enough to make His own decisions.

The bible says a lot of crazy shit like how women were made out of a rib, stories of a single man having 400 children, and the ark nonsense. The bible is meant to guide people's lives in the right direction, and those who make it into a literal interpretation need to holy-roll bitch smack themselves.

No, that's a Dr. Phil book. The Torah, Bible, Koran are all ment to be literal. Genesis kind of makes this... one could say, "obvious"?

Skurai, are you saying you take everything in the bible to be fact as written, literally? I'm really curious about this.

Not sure. Depends what comes to mind, when I read the story at the time. I guess not word-for-word-literal, but it should all be taken as seriousness, not just "some story, to make people act nice". Honestly, idk. You've got me.

So you believe that humans at one time lived for hundreds of years? You believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, even though science tells us that is completely incorrect? You believe a human was swallowed by a large fish and survived for days inside of the fish?

I can see arguments for reading between the lines and taking things from the bible, but unless you completely throw logic and facts out of the window I don't see how you can think the bible is a true story.

Aging is related to telomeres. It's entirely possible that in the distant past they were longer or better preserved. As for the age of the Earth, if God created Adam as a man (rather than an infant), why is it a stretch to assume that God also created the Earth with age? Alternately, the creation story is a poem shown to be full of alternate meaning; perhaps it is better to take it not-so-literally. Even so, I believe that Adam was the first man and the geneology is accurate. You find it hard to believe that a God capable of creating both time and space is capable of sustaining a single man's life for 3 days in a fish?

I find it hard to believe that such a God exists in the first place, the extension of that fact is not the issue.

Sounds like a check mate. K_A's only reaction being "But it's not, so ha!", more-or-less.

Yes, I do believe that. I also believe the story of "giant beasts" being "slain by angels". Also known as Dinosaurs going extinct.

Call it what you want, kid.

I've never actually heard of, or thought about this analogy before and it's quite interesting. It's kind of like the holy trinity being referred to as water given that is has three states: gas, liquid and a solid. Clever, but accurate? Who knows.

What genealogy could you find to trace Adam throughout time to I suppose, Jesus that isn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author? I mean, if you want to read the bible it gives no actual chronological times to specifically pinpoint what has taken place. You honestly can't say the genealogy is correct, when stating your source is as credible as Wikipedia.

Unless you claim that God created all of the different races 6000 years ago, the ideas that Adam and Eve are the "first generation" and that the Earth is only 6000 years old are mutually exclusive. It is not possible for all of the different races to have developed over the course of 6000 years, and we've got fossil proof of humans having existed more than 6000 years ago, before Adam and Eve were supposedly manifested. It isn't as if the only human fossils we find are 6000 or less years old. Hell, the word "fossil" generally refers to things older than 10,000 years, which according to the Bible is before God created mankind.

It's a ridiculous argument, which is why I'm not really bothering to argue against it. There's no "check mate" here, it's more like "if you accept these absurd things to be true then no rational argument will persuade you anyway so whatever." Science and the Bible conflict severely when it comes to the age of the Earth. The only way you can claim that the Bible is correct (by literal interpretation) is if you claim that Science is wrong, and vice versa. The only way people have been able to reconcile the two in any rational way is by not taking the Bible literally as fact.

Well, a few thousand years of incest will likely make people look different (different "races" per-say), and the Tower of Babel could have easily separated people by looks. Thus, races were created.

Also, I believe there was a man in the bible who had four children, all a different color, all from the same mother.