Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

originally posted by: undo
the idea of nerfing our dna so we age and die (the fall narrative) seems like a particularly evil thing to do to your creation

Death is not an evil, it's a necessity. Without death there is nothing but multiplication until everyone dies from overpopulation. It's called cancer.

Death is the cure to the cancer of immortality.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cultural Marxism isn't Marxism. It's a conspiracy theory popular among conservatives.

Krazysh0t

Man can't walk on water, nor heal the sick by just touching them.

we also can't fly in the sky or talk to people on the other side of the world. oh, and the earth is the center of the universe and flat as a pancake.

God doesn't destroy cities

here you go, right off the bat, quoting someone else's interpretation of the destruction of sodom and gomorrah. the people who went to sodom and gomorrah to destroy it, don't sound like god to me, as the first thing one of them says to abraham is, that he's on his way to sodom and gomorrah to find out if the rumors are true about the state of the cities. would god need to come down to the planet, take on a human form and travel there to find out? things that make you go hmm, hmm, hmm. nope, i think not. sounds more like pharaoh with a couple of his buds. the only thing left to answer is: how'd he blow it up then, if he was just a normal pharaoh guy? /spock eyebrow raise. your problem is you don't give the texts a chance to talk to you and if you did, you'd probably have more than a few "whoa" moments. but you don't, and that's a shame.

and a global flood is downright impossible with the amount of water on the planet (plus the diversity of life on the planet disproves it as well).

and here you go again, quoting someone else's interpretation of it. noah's flood account is 2 catastrophes mixed together: a global catastrophe that spawned the ice age and the less catastrophic but still devastating black sea flood, thousands of years later. see the second verse in the whole bible doesn't say the earth WAS void and without form, no, it actually says the earth BECAME void and without form. why the english translators used the wrong word, is beyond me, but they did. this changes the whole meaning of the opening verses. verse 1, universe is created. verse 2, the earth became a void wasteland. ya see, i read it and came to my own conclusions. you're just quoting someone else's stuff. easy targets too. (there's more but explaining it all would take thread incredibly off topic)

do you think it logical that as technology improves, that somehow waste production disappears?

i think once a civilization is significantly advanced technologically, they create nature friendly forms of energy production, so friendly perhaps that what you think is just a rock or a chunk of iron, is actually much more than that. the less impact on the environment, technologically, the more advanced they would be, i'm guessing.

Another problem with Sumerian texts is that most of their dogma applies to the immediate area that Sumer existed in (Mesopotamia). These gods had little to no influence in say China or the Americas.

i'm thinking that's not quite what it says, but generally speaking, the mainstream texts of the time, only addressed the cultures they were written in. cross cultural hints are all over the place, but until you read the texts as if they are telling the truth, they won't reveal this to you. ancient egypt supports ancient mesopotamia and both of them support ancient china. although i have yet to find evidence of either of them supporting ancient americas, that doesn't mean there hasn't been some unusual clues suggesting they might.

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
the idea of nerfing our dna so we age and die (the fall narrative) seems like a particularly evil thing to do to your creation

Death is not an evil, it's a necessity. Without death there is nothing but multiplication until everyone dies from overpopulation. It's called cancer.

Death is the cure to the cancer of immortality.

immortality was not a problem till there was procreation (the fall narrative). killing the patient, not a very good solution.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
the idea of nerfing our dna so we age and die (the fall narrative) seems like a particularly evil thing to do to your creation

Death is not an evil, it's a necessity. Without death there is nothing but multiplication until everyone dies from overpopulation. It's called cancer.

Death is the cure to the cancer of immortality.

immortality was not a problem till there was procreation (the fall narrative). killing the patient, not a very good solution.

It's funny how you equate eating from the tree of knowledge with procreation.

Funny also how you assume procreation did not exist before the fall

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it

“Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

God even asks Adam and Eve to multiply

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

Mankind wasn't immortal before the fall. The fall is simply them being expelled from Eden so they don't eat from the tree of life and become immortal because it seems they can't obey. God prevents mankind from being immortal.

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

If you want to be faithful to the text, at least do it right. Selective memory is a classical bias from people with cognitive dissonance


Procreation existed before the fall. There would thus inevitably be a space problem...

Death isn't evil. Death is simply a transition.


I understand you think it's evil because you fear it. Yet it is not.

originally posted by: undo
we also can't fly in the sky or talk to people on the other side of the world. oh, and the earth is the center of the universe and flat as a pancake.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was aided by technology beyond his time?

here you go, right off the bat, quoting someone else's interpretation of the destruction of sodom and gomorrah. the people who went to sodom and gomorrah to destroy it, don't sound like god to me, as the first thing one of them says to abraham is, that he's on his way to sodom and gomorrah to find out if the rumors are true about the state of the cities. would god need to come down to the planet, take on a human form and travel there to find out? things that make you go hmm, hmm, hmm. nope, i think not. sounds more like pharaoh with a couple of his buds. the only thing left to answer is: how'd he blow it up then, if he was just a normal pharaoh guy? /spock eyebrow raise. your problem is you don't give the texts a chance to talk to you and if you did, you'd probably have more than a few "whoa" moments. but you don't, and that's a shame.

Ok let's run with this idea for a minute since you are the first person I've seen to suggest such a possibility. How did these people blow up the cities? Where did they get the explosives to do this? Bombs of that caliber didn't exist back then. Heck dynamite wasn't even invented until the 1800's. The best explosives that people in that era had were people who used small amounts of gunpowder to create small grenade like bombs. China had rockets, but nothing that could annihilate a city. Not to mention, why were these weapons only used twice and never again? Your account sounds just as unbelievable as the god account. You know what account DOES sound believable? That the cities were destroyed by some act of nature like a storm or volcanic activity and the Hebrews just attributed god to it because they didn't like those cities.

And furthermore, you mention interpretation. That is the crux of why I don't like the bible. Reality isn't open to interpretation. Reality just is regardless of what you believe about it. The bible is WAY too vague to explain reality. If everyone has their own unique interpretation of what the bible says, then it doesn't really SAY anything. If you want to define reality or speak about it, then you have to be exact with what you are saying. You can't leave your words open to interpretation. There is only ONE true reality and it doesn't vary by individual.

and here you go again, quoting someone else's interpretation of it. noah's flood account is 2 catastrophes mixed together: a global catastrophe that spawned the ice age and the less catastrophic but still devastating black sea flood, thousands of years later. see the second verse in the whole bible doesn't say the earth WAS void and without form, no, it actually says the earth BECAME void and without form. why the english translators used the wrong word, is beyond me, but they did. this changes the whole meaning of the opening verses. verse 1, universe is created. verse 2, the earth became a void wasteland. ya see, i read it and came to my own conclusions. you're just quoting someone else's stuff. easy targets too. (there's more but explaining it all would take thread incredibly off topic)

Great. Glad you found an interpretation that you liked and gelled with your confirmation biases. If you want to make the bible work for you. I really don't care, but at no point are you being intellectually honest in believing a book written by MANY different people over the ages that often contradicts itself and is open to whatever interpretation you feel like giving it.

i think once a civilization is significantly advanced technologically, they create nature friendly forms of energy production, so friendly perhaps that what you think is just a rock or a chunk of iron, is actually much more than that. the less impact on the environment, technologically, the more advanced they would be, i'm guessing.

What is nature friendly exactly? Once you leave the safety of our planet, 99.9999% of the universe is hostile to all of nature. Why would a space faring race concern itself with its technology being nature friendly on a planet that they didn't originate from? Especially if the atmosphere of the foreign world is hostile to the alien race.

Heck humans spend their whole lives trying to get as far away from nature as possible. If other intelligent races develop technology like we do, what makes you think that a race would cherish nature MORE once they don't have to live in it anymore?

i'm thinking that's not quite what it says, but generally speaking, the mainstream texts of the time, only addressed the cultures they were written in. cross cultural hints are all over the place, but until you read the texts as if they are telling the truth, they won't reveal this to you. ancient egypt supports ancient mesopotamia and both of them support ancient china. although i have yet to find evidence of either of them supporting ancient americas, that doesn't mean there hasn't been some unusual clues suggesting they might.

For one, I am not questioning ancient trading routes and cross-cultural exchanges. Also, obviously religion is one of those things that travels to other lands. It still doesn't answer why the gods of Sumer only cared about Mesopotamia, while the gods of China only cared about China. Also, AGAIN where did these gods go? Why aren't they here anymore?

Question, how can you believe in the bible, but at the same time believe in Pagan religions like the Annunaki or the Egyptian Pantheon? The bible literally says that those religions aren't true. So believing in both is a contradiction. Though we ARE talking about the bible here, I'm sure you've settled on an interpretation that says that you can believe in both.

a reply to: Develo

there you go again, using other people's interpretations (i'll get you to read the text for yourself, someday lol. oh oops. you're not krazyshot)
it wasn't adam and eve he told that to. it was the first adam race he created, who were copies of elohim (males and females). whereas eve was a copy of an adam male and not a direct copy of an elohim. two different creations. also the word for "man" there, was not originally man, it was adam. by putting the word man there, they 1) make the assumption it's homo sapiens being created when in fact, it's not, it's copies of elohim, meaning the first adam males and females were of the elohim race, not the human race. they don't become homo sapiens, till they are given procreation.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

there you go again, using other people's interpretations (i'll get you to read the text for yourself, someday lol. oh oops. you're not krazyshot)
it wasn't adam and eve he told that to. it was the first adam race he created, who were copies of elohim (males and females). whereas eve was a copy of an adam male and not a direct copy of an elohim. two different creations. also the word for "man" there, was not originally man, it was adam. by putting the word man there, they 1) make the assumption it's homo sapiens being created when in fact, it's not, it's copies of elohim, meaning the first adam males and females were of the elohim race, not the human race. they don't become homo sapiens, till they are given procreation.

I made no interpretation and only quoted the texts.

It's you who made interpretations.

The text themselves are clear, sorry they don't fit your beliefs.

Procreation existed since the beginning:

“Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

Mankind never was immortal

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

a reply to: Krazysh0t

if this planet suddenly underwent a global catastrophe, only leaving a few people alive, spread out over the globe, and some of our knowledge managed to survive and was found one day, they'd have all the same questions, beliefs and problems, we do today. just because it's old, doesn't mean it's wrong. it's just our view of the ancient world that's biased because we make certain assumptions about it.

for example, the idea humans couldn't be created by copying, has been proven wrong - we call that cloning, today, and know it's quite possible. that women couldn't be impregnated without intercourse, we know is wrong as well - we call that artificial insemination today. that angels couldn't fly in the sky nor jesus go up in the sky or angels come down from the sky, is wrong because we can do the same thing today. science has proven that pretty much everything except for a few miracles are completely and totally possible. and that's a pretty good track record that makes me think the rest are also possible.

now i'm not saying science can explain the truly unknowable data, as there may be areas of learning that we haven't even fathomed yet, much less designed a course of study for, but since i think math is the language of god and science is attempting to explain what that language is doing or has done in the past, i don't have a problem using it as evidence that the histories of the ancient world are not a bunch of fairy tales, and are in fact, quite science friendly. (have you read the verses in the book of enoch where he is witnessing a super massive black hole in active phase? oh yeah, some big things were going on back then, and may still be going on, it's just nowadays, the people who run the place have decided most uf us don't have a high enough clearance to be let into the loop. it's a shame really, that i have to research the ancient world to find out what's going on today)

the nature friendly bit is about things like old megalithic structures. they just look like big chunks of stone, stood around in circles or stacked upon each other, or fitted together like interlocking puzzle pieces, but a sufficiently advanced culture might see that molecularly/atomically, they can be employed to generate non-invasive energy, that literally, leaves no biologically hazardous footprint.

my beliefs about the egyptian pantheon are not what you think they are. you believe whatever someone else tells you about egypt, and don't read for yourself, so you assume my comments are to be understood thru someone else's interpretation. i don't think so. i has me own brain pan. i know you don't think it's working very well (my brain, that is), and you're entitled to that opinion, but i assure you, what i'm saying is the result of actual study

the reason i brought up cross cultural data was you said they don't talk about other cultures, only their own. and i don't think that's entirely correct. for example, i think there's evidence that the story of the egyptian god of creation, Atum, creating the world/humans/etc, is actually the same story as the biblical account and the sumerian account.

as regards the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, well let's just suffice it to say that i think something really odd was going on in ancient egypt

you realize, of course, that at one point, abraham actually gave his wife sarah to the pharaoh for his harem, by pretending sarah was his sister, not his wife, out of fear that something bad would happen if he didn't? any chance sarah may have had a child or two with said pharaoh?

did you know the word for god in the old testament (elohim) was also applied to angels, judges, kings, and the dearly departed? seems god words were interchangeably used.

as far as "where are the gods now"? that is a very good question that i am a bit hesitant to try to answer at this point.

a reply to: Develo

elohim in those verses is god, correct? and god is eternal, correct? and the adam race (males and females) were copied from elohim, correct?
the barring of the tree of life was necessary when before that, it wasn't barred. why not? cause it's genetic. the tree of life is inheritable dna for full body regen.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

elohim in those verses is god, correct? and god is eternal, correct? and the adam race (males and females) were copied from elohim, correct?
the barring of the tree of life was necessary when before that, it wasn't barred. why not? cause it's genetic. the tree of life is inheritable dna for full body regen.

Who's making interpretations now?


Admit it. As early as the first animals were created they started to multiply.

So death already existed.

Hence death isn't evil. It's a necessity.

I'm sorry you are unable to get that.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Krazysh0t

if this planet suddenly underwent a global catastrophe, only leaving a few people alive, spread out over the globe, and some of our knowledge managed to survive and was found one day, they'd have all the same questions, beliefs and problems, we do today. just because it's old, doesn't mean it's wrong. it's just our view of the ancient world that's biased because we make certain assumptions about it.

The ancient world didn't undergo any global catastrophes either. If it did, where is the evidence in the geologic record? There are CLEAR indicators of the K-T boundary (dinosaur extinction event) anywhere in the world. Yet no markers are present at ANY point throughout human history except once (global human population was reduced to around 10,000 people). But that point predates written history by thousands of years.

for example, the idea humans couldn't be created by copying, has been proven wrong - we call that cloning, today, and know it's quite possible. that women couldn't be impregnated without intercourse, we know is wrong as well - we call that artificial insemination today. that angels couldn't fly in the sky nor jesus go up in the sky or angels come down from the sky, is wrong because we can do the same thing today. science has proven that pretty much everything except for a few miracles are completely and totally possible. and that's a pretty good track record that makes me think the rest are also possible.

Just because we can do it now, doesn't mean that it was possible back then. All those things are all done through technology. Technology which didn't exist back then. If it did, produce the evidence that it existed then. All that technology creates waste and even the technology itself would become waste as it ran the course of its technological life. We should have evidence of this technology.

now i'm not saying science can explain the truly unknowable data, as there may be areas of learning that we haven't even fathomed yet, much less designed a course of study for, but since i think math is the language of god and science is attempting to explain what that language is doing or has done in the past, i don't have a problem using it as evidence that the histories of the ancient world are not a bunch of fairy tales, and are in fact, quite science friendly. (have you read the verses in the book of enoch where he is witnessing a super massive black hole in active phase? oh yeah, some big things were going on back then, and may still be going on, it's just nowadays, the people who run the place have decided most uf us don't have a high enough clearance to be let into the loop. it's a shame really, that i have to research the ancient world to find out what's going on today)

Here's the problem with ancient texts. They are wrong and scientifically incorrect on so many accounts that even if they get something right, it really doesn't matter. I shouldn't have to spend my time picking through a text to determine what is true and what isn't. All of it should be true. But like I said originally, there is nothing wrong with studying them as a means to understand the cultures that they existed in. But they certainly aren't reality.

There is nothing shameful about researching history to get a grasp on the goings on of today. I research history quite extensively to get an idea for the patterns that humanity exhibits throughout the ages. I use it to cut through political rhetoric and fearmongering. If more people studied history like I did, maybe we wouldn't repeat it so often.

the nature friendly bit is about things like old megalithic structures. they just look like big chunks of stone, stood around in circles or stacked upon each other, or fitted together like interlocking puzzle pieces, but a sufficiently advanced culture might see that molecularly/atomically, they can be employed to generate non-invasive energy, that literally, leaves no biologically hazardous footprint.

Pseudo-science.

my beliefs about the egyptian pantheon are not what you think they are. you believe whatever someone else tells you about egypt, and don't read for yourself, so you assume my comments are to be understood thru someone else's interpretation. i don't think so. i has me own brain pan. i know you don't think it's working very well (my brain, that is), and you're entitled to that opinion, but i assure you, what i'm saying is the result of actual study

So many assumptions about me in this paragraph. All of them wrong.

the reason i brought up cross cultural data was you said they don't talk about other cultures, only their own. and i don't think that's entirely correct. for example, i think there's evidence that the story of the egyptian god of creation, Atum, creating the world/humans/etc, is actually the same story as the biblical account and the sumerian account.

Oh I very much agree that different cultures stole religious ideas from other cultures. That I don't discount at all. Christianity is just amalgamation of all the ancient religions (mostly Zoroastrianism).

as regards the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, well let's just suffice it to say that i think something really odd was going on in ancient egypt

Occam's Razor says that it was just a natural disaster.

you realize, of course, that at one point, abraham actually gave his wife sarah to the pharaoh for his harem, by pretending sarah was his sister, not his wife, out of fear that something bad would happen if he didn't? any chance sarah may have had a child or two with said pharaoh?

Sure. I guess. Why does it matter?

did you know the word for god in the old testament (elohim) was also applied to angels, judges, kings, and the dearly departed? seems god words were interchangeably used.

as far as "where are the gods now"? that is a very good question that i am a bit hesitant to try to answer at this point.

Well I deal in evidence. I don't believe something without evidence. It is just a waste of time, plus it makes you hostile to opposing viewpoints. Especially if that opposing viewpoint contradicts your beliefs. If you just follow the evidence then you have no problem being wrong when newer evidence comes to light.

Your entire belief structure hinges on that there is truth in all religion. I say that since all religion is a guess that they are all mostly wrong and not worth believing in. That isn't to say that spirituality doesn't exist, just that no human religion has any idea what it really is. Science is the tool to discovering and understanding it if it does exist.

a reply to: Develo

yes, i'm making my own interpretations based off my own reading of it. isn't that what you do?

well sure, he told the first adam race to go forth, be fruitful and multiply. so why was it a sin to multiply in the fall narrative, when it wasn't before that? you can tell that's what's happening, that they were suddenly attracted to each other sexually and noticed they were naked, when before that, naked was irrelevant. why'd they feel guilty? eve=first procreative female, not first female, that's why her name means "mother of all"

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo
so why was it a sin to multiply in the fall narrative

It's not. You keep making assumptions and creating false memories. Nowhere in the texts it is said procreating is a sin.

Procreation always existed and death always existed.

They are part of life and not evil.


You can't wrap your head about this because in your mind death is evil, so you invent (not consciously) interpretations to support your beliefs. That's how delusion always work. And you will keep trying to convince me your reasoning is valid when everyone can see it's not. Deluded people are incapable of admitting they were wrong when presented with the fact. It's the very definition of delusion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

The ancient world didn't undergo any global catastrophes either. If it did, where is the evidence in the geologic record? There are CLEAR indicators of the K-T boundary (dinosaur extinction event) anywhere in the world. Yet no markers are present at ANY point throughout human history except once (global human population was reduced to around 10,000 people). But that point predates written history by thousands of years.

ice age. black sea flood. they never happened?

Just because we can do it now, doesn't mean that it was possible back then.

but it does mean that they aren't impossible. and if they aren't impossible, they are no longer under the definition of "not possible."

Pseudo-science.

how? rocks have molecular and atomic properties - many containing crystals, and crystals are used in technology today. so are metals, and they had access to metals as well. heck even the book of genesis talks about there being "good gold" in the land of havilah.

So many assumptions about me in this paragraph. All of them wrong.

well you're the one that assumed that ancient egypt was to be understood as anti-biblical, and that i was embracing pagan egypt.

Sure. I guess. Why does it matter?

oh boy. lol

Your entire belief structure hinges on that there is truth in all religion.

your belief structure hinges on the idea that ancient history is entirely religious, when i think it's historical, which also includes, among other things, descriptions of their religious activities.

a reply to: Develo

adam KNEW his wife and she begat. back then, knowledge meant to have sex with. so the tree of knowledge (they got in trouble for that) is procreative dna. not a delusion just a careful reading of the text.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

The ancient world didn't undergo any global catastrophes either.

That's a very bad argument because the ancient world faced many global changes and catastrophes like the rising of the sea that created the Mediterranean sea and submerged the Doggerland, the eruption of Thira creating a tsunami, the Storegga Slide and many other events easily impressing the humans from the late paleolithic. These civilizations, though without a written culture, had very developed oral cultures and used epics and poems to remember and transmit their knowledge and stories.


Actually most people studying myths and religions agree that almost all myths from all cultures and religions can be traced back to 2 original myths, one from Africa and one from Oceania if I remember correctly (I can check later if anyone is interested).

Passages like the flood are also very common and most likely refer to real events like a tidal wave in or the people living in Doggerland being forced to leave their lands because of the rising of the sea.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

adam KNEW his wife and she begat. back then, knowledge meant to have sex with. so the tree of knowledge (they got in trouble for that) is procreative dna. not a delusion just a careful reading of the text.

I'm not even talking about humans. I'm talking about animals and your mind is blocking that fact. It's delusion.


Animals started to multiply from the start. Hence they needed to die otherwise earth would be crowded. Hence death is part of creation.

a reply to: Develo

i'm talking about the first adam race and procreative humans. why do you keep talking about animals and then claiming i'm delusional because i'm actually addressing the topic we were talking about to begin with?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

i'm talking about the first adam race and procreative humans. why do you keep talking about animals and then claiming i'm delusional because i'm actually addressing the topic we were talking about to begin with?

This is the exact illustration of delusion. Thank you.

You were saying death is evil. I keep explaining how death isn't evil and was part of creation since the beginning (animals multiplied and thus had to die too), even before the fall, and you keep bringing everything back to your elohim DNA thing because it's the thing you are obsessed with.

Nothing you posted changes the fact that animals were mortal from the start, and thus that death isn't the result of a sin, but a part of the original creation plan.


I get it you are afraid of death and consider it evil. It doesn't change the fact the Bible never says death is evil.