Shining_brow:

So... those who recall past lives?

I think your reasoning is flawed, and the conclusion inaccurate. Just because humans are currently at the stage they are, doesn't mean it ought to remain a mystery.

You've also seemed to have disregarded Buddhist and Hindu culture (and, perhaps fortunately, other cultures). Although we have the word 'belief', if people act as though they have knowing on this, is there much difference? Eg, those Muslim extremists who do suicide runs, do so because of their 'knowledge' that their soul will end up in heaven. Many have justified their actions based on this 'knowledge'.

I'm not so convinced that having the scientific community will have a lot of influence - other than make the religious groups more extreme, and convert a lot of atheists. (maybe have a few more religious wars.... unfortunately, while many will think otherwise, proof of a soul does not equal proof of a god - much less proof of their god!)

mArtiAn:

I don't think I reached any conclusion, I merely offered an opinion, which is that it's a blessing that such a thing is still a mystery. My reason for saying so is pretty clear, one's knowledge of their own mortality is precisely what spurs them on to great achievements, without the urgency of the grim reaper at our door and the possibility that our future beyond his arrival may include ourselves in no greater role than as a feast for worms, we might easily melt into a despondent, lazy rest in the face of such futility as marching down a road we know to be eternal.

Shining_brow:

Well, I was taking your  not knowing is a blessing as a conclusion.

mArtiAn:

Nope, just an opinion.

mArtiAn:

I asked my local priest, the reverent Rectum from The Parish of Our Souls, and he says that's the thing that will be banished to a Hell of burning torment and suffering if you don't give him money.

Shining_brow:

Actually, not really. I mean, I can give *my* concept of 'soul', but yours would be different. I suspect these differences would provide some differences to the answers.

Thus, you would supply *your* version of what defines a soul.

I do agree, though... if we're going to talk about something, it's good to all be on the same page.

So, if you have answers to some of those questions, go for it! In answering, perhaps you'd be incorporating your idea, your 'definition'.

Shining_brow:

But anyway - let's just work with the most basic of definitions (which is actually rather important) - is there a non-physical conscious entity that is capable of 'incarnating' into /connect to a physical body and take experience from that incarnation, and which will continue to exist after that physical body is no longer able to function as that body?

(yes, it's supposed to be vague - we talk of 'Gaia' - isn't that reference to a global soul for the planet?)

cub:

@coin, this was done over 75 years ago dont think people would remember let alone still be around that long ago!

Samsara:

I think a person who believes in something needs to have a working comprehension of what that thing is.

So I don't think the original poster needs to give the definition of a soul, which some people who believe in souls might disagree with.

Any person believing in any kind of soul needs to give the definition of what they believe in.

coineineagh:

If this study was real, and reproducible, don't you think it would be widely known? Such a thing would be huge.

philbravery:

creepy would get heavy as all the methane left its body

Shining_brow:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

TL:DR - proven NOT true/invalid. Of the 6 patients 'tested', ONLY ONE reported the 21 gram weight loss that, at that time, wasn't explained. Others gained weight, one lost 21g, then more weight. One lost weight, and then gained weight.

cub:

phil would lose 2/3rds his weight because all the manure he is full of just like dead bag of manure! @ shining, ok at least there was a test many years ago! Oh well!

berrycrusher66:

hahaha, you are a fucking retard. Derp, Gowd gave me a really big soul coz I is so good.

cub:

thats ok berry, because u will have t give a account of what life u lived words u said and rejecting God So u remember that on judgement day! go ahead waste your life because u are in charge of it because u are responsible where u go after u die whether u believe or not! and thanks for your kind words!

berrycrusher66:

Cool story bro but Allah is getting me a ton of virgins. I just hope you are not one of them.

philbravery:

wow you really got me with that witty reply

cub:

berry thats all u want is just 70 virgins after u die as a reward? then what after u are done with each deflowering them? They are not avirgin anymore right? thats equal to 2.5 months if having sex with a virgin each day So then what, the party and fun is over? eternity is forver it never ends eternity has no time ok? 70 virgins isnt much of a reward and it wont last very long

Shining_brow:

I, too, have my beliefs based on personal experience :)

mArtiAn:

I three do too.

Shining_brow:

So... a) how do you distinguish between a 'soul' and a 'mind'? What you've said doesn't really differentiate!

b) Perhaps you're using the wrong analogy - you are implying that the body/physical form has more control over the attributes and abilities of the soul - the older phone model dictates what the wifi will actually be like. Still using this analogy - surely there are great wifi hotspots that crap phones will never be able to take advantage of (a soul could incarnate in a 'defective' or 'poor' body) Can you have a great phone with no wifi? (ie, awesome body, but no soul? - other than being dead?)

c) What are the physical receivers you mention? You say humans have them, so do animals, but rocks don't. Trees do.... You suggest something like the senses - touch, taste, smell. These are chemical reactions in the bodies - are they necessary?  Do the few small cells that make up a newly conceived foetus? What about a 'ghost' - do they exist?

I will probably take up your final suggestion...

hunny797:

a) According to me, mind is the WiFi chip that receives the signal. It is that important part which connects the physical with the non physical. Just as a visible physical WiFi chip connects with the invisible signals similarly the visible, physical mind connects with the invisible soul. In my answer I said soul is the receiver, that was a mistake. Soul is the signal.

c) I may be wrong but so far according to my knowledge physical receiver is the brain, the CPU of any living being. It depends how capable the brain is to connect with the soul and what types of functions this connection can perform. Either it's a meagre 1mb connection or an incredible 100mbps connection. In humans this CPU is much more advanced as compared to the animals and similarly plants have much less functions then the animals. That's the reason there is a whole debate on plants neurobiology vs plant perception. For me it is the ability of plants to sense and respond to their environment which says that they have some form of souls. The extent of which is debatable. But if plants are able to adjust their physiology, morphology and even phenotype, this suggests that there is some sort of connection between their physical and non-physical senses which are absent in rocks etc. Newly conceived fetuses do not have soul. It is at a later stage in their development when the body is ready to receive the signal and connect to it, then comes the time when the connection between a soul and a body is consistent. this is my own thinking and I will update this part as soon as I have studied it in a little more detail.

I am sorry but I couldn't understand your point B. A great body without soul. I would like some clarification on this. Do you mean human body? For a human body a soul is a necessary component for sustenance. For non-human bodies, there are sculptures, monuments, mountains, valleys which are beautiful to behold but they have no soul since they have no spiritual function to perform.

Ghosts.. No I do not believe in them. What I believe in is very very different from the general concept of ghostly creatures. But this discussion needs to include the use of Arabic language. the word for ghost in Arabic is Jinn. But the word jinn also translated as genie and all other fictional stuff has nothing to do with reality. Jinn means something which is hidden from plain view. In the book, Jinn is never used as a ghostly creature depicting a body-less, blood thirsty soul.

Shining_brow:

So, in your setup, humans only have human souls, and dogs have dog souls, etc etc?

There is no transmigration between species? As in many different religious traditions (eg Buddhism, where the soul goes through different incarnations in different forms - slowly 'rising' up through the different levels of awareness).

It would also then lead to questions relating to evolution!

Great body, no soul. Well, how does a soul express itself? You could have someone who is physically very capable, but 'has no soul'. What about someone who is brain-dead? Or clinically dead (or in a coma) who then returns...

hunny797:

yes there is no transmigration. A man's soul has never been passed from the body of an animal or insect. Same is the case with evolution. We believe in some sort of evolution but it is not the Darwinian theory of chance and survival of the fittest etc or that man transforming from monkeys and apes. their have been different stages of creation of man but at all stages man was a separate specie and other animals a different one. Regarding to the last question about being brain dead or returning from coma, I think this refutes the allegations of those who think there is no soul other than the brain/mind. The state of coma shows that even if the brain is unresponsive, there is something else which is keeping the body alive.

Shining_brow:

Can animal souls transmigrate between species? Plants?? etc... (viruses and bacteria?)

Are there male souls and female souls? Do they transmigrate?

Shining_brow:

Did Homo Erectus have a soul? And, if so, did it slowly migrate into human (homo sapien sapien) bodies?

Could we be looking at a Planet of the Apes situation in a future, and if so, what would be the deal there?

(ever watch Babylon 5?)

hunny797:

No, according to my common sense, transmigration between species is logically impossible. Reasons: Either a body has a soul or it doesn't. If it already has a soul there is no place for another soul and as soon as the previous soul leaves the body the body is dead beyond revival. And if the body has no soul means it doesn't contain the chip to receive signals thus it is impossible for it to receive a soul at a later time. Whether there is a gender of the souls is also unknown. But i can assume that it is gender free because the word used by God for soul is a neutral word and there is no separate words given to different gender souls. Supporting this, scientists also have so far not been able to prove otherwise. So until any discovery we cannot say that there may be genders in souls. Regarding the Homo erectus please see my separate answer below…. Sorry but Babylon 5 is of a time when I was very young and I had hardly any knowledge about anything including the movies and serials. But I will maybe check it out later

Shining_brow:

Ok... if you're going to watch the 5 seasons of Babylon 5, I won't give you spoilers.

If you aren't, then I will... you tell me!

hunny797:

feel free to tell...for me spoilers are "suggestions". It is my habit to read the plot of the movie from wikipedia. If I like it I watch it if the story doesnt sound interesting I skip it

So please tell

Shining_brow:

Ok - it's a few hundred years (or even 1000 years) in our future. We've had the technology to go space-faring, which also means meeting up with other races in the galaxy - fairly humanoid, and technologically (and, spiritually - this becomes a much stronger theme as the series progresses) advanced.

During the Earth-Minbari wars, we were getting our butts kicked big time (technology!!), and then just as the Minbari were about to completely conquer the Earth (they were out about Jupiter's orbit), they surrendered.

The reason being - they discovered that a human had a Minbari soul... and so, in their way of thinking -- they were killing their own kind.

While it is a good standard sci-fi series, it does have a very spiritual aspect to it (well, it views such things in a particular way - including the ideas of angels, demons, etc).

hunny797:

Thanks I will watch it once I am free again. These days I have a lot of burden since I am planning to leave China in a year. How will it happen when will it happen and what's gonna happen after that..I am working on these things so I don't know when I will be able to watch it but I will.

hunny797:

questions like these cannot be answered arbitrarily. there is a complete cycle of cause and effect which will enable us to answer questions like this. For eg. my complete theory about soul is that soul is something created by God which in order to sustain needs a physical body. the purpose of this soul and body is to obey and worship God. this is the sole purpose of our creation. We are given a very short time for a simple looking yet very difficult task. If we are able to perform it we will be rewarded a heaven where our soul will again be provided some form of body so as to physically feel the rewards. the details of the afterlife, heaven and hell are hidden from mankind. God has given us some ideas and similar things to only get the gist of it. the true reality is so much hidden that the challenge presented in the book is that no one can even think of the rewards that are in store. there is no way a heart could perceive them. (I think similar thing is also mentioned in the Bible). This also refutes the theory of virgins and all that. As you may have experienced during intercourse at the point of orgasm there are a few seconds which give us the ultimate pleasure and within 1 or 2 seconds that feeling is reduced and gradually finished. By saying that you will get the virgins, it is told that the pleasure you get from the virgins will be manifested in a much better way than the earthly way. Similar is the case about fruits and milk and honey. On one hand it is told that whenever any type of fruit will be given to the inhabitants of paradise they will say that we were given a similar one in the earthly life as well. An on the other hand it is said that the blessings are such that it is impossible for a heart to perceive them. So it is something similar but the pleasure of those things will be such that could never be experienced before

hunny797:

after providing the complete theory of the soul from my point of view, it is easy to further say that it is not possible for all that you have questioned. One reason for it is that since it is never experienced in real life that the souls be changed from the bodies. A body and the soul are something conjoined together. there is no transplantation of the soul

hunny797:

A soul is not something which is present from ever and for ever. Soul is a creation. Before incarnation it was nothing. And after death it will be returned to its creator where it will have to give account of the life it spent and it will be judged accordingly. then the soul will either be rewarded or punished. some outlines of these forms are given in the holy scriptures but it is also mentioned that whatever is being told to you should not be taken as 100% fact. The true reality has been hidden from you for reasons best known to the Creator 

mArtiAn:

Not sure where to put this amongst your sub questions but I think the comedian Bill Hicks said it best: "Everything is one, there is no death, and we are all God experiencing itself objectively." That about sums up my view of things, although I also believe that time is an illusion of sorts (I think Einstein said as much) and that forever and never are something of the same thing. In other words I believe we live forever until we don't. As John Lennon said, "Forever is a 'hell' of a lonnng time."

hunny797:

No, souls are not limited in time and space. But soul is limited within the body. Soul can perform no activity outside the body. It cannot leave the body and wander away on its own. After death in whatever form soul leaves the body and goes to wherever, it is not known that the driving force is the soul itself. the soul may be in a vegetative state. It may or may not experience anything after separating from the body.

mArtiAn:

Beats me. There'd certainly be a party in the first week. I'd go to that, pig out on cake, then split.

Shining_brow:

Most evolutionists don't believe that everything evolved simultaneously... such a concept goes completely against the idea of 'evolution'. Event he word itself suggests that! (unless you're referring to a Big Bang, but that doesn't even come close to what you said, so I'm not sure what you meant).

If you're going to reference a book relating to a religion (this applies to everyone, and not just you - hence the particular phrasing), then I'd have to ask you to tell where in your book that the higher being (aka 'god') actually has an in-depth discussion and elaboration on the subject. ie, NOT just another human writing down their opinion. eg - "And then, God said to me/him/her .....".

xinyuren:

actually, i didnt say most scientists. please read carefully. But since evolution itself goes against logic, I see your point. But in order for life to happen, certain components must evolve at the same time. There is no reproduction without life so there are no second chances. So scientist will have us believe that this miraculous event (life from nothing) happened numerous times before there was a successful reproduction to continue the evolution. The odds are well beyond astronomically low, but that is a debate for another topic. As for your requirement, I have no obligation to provide you with a recording from God. The Bible is widely believed to be a book authored by the Creator using humans to pen the words. Thus, the ideas expressed are His, not the men who dictated them. In the account of the creation of Adam in the book of Genesis, after breathing life into his inanimate body, the text says, 'Adam became a living soul', thereby defining the nature of the term "soul".

Shining_brow:

"actually, i didnt say most scientists. please read carefully."

What should I be reading carefully? I didn't even use the word 'scientist', and what I wrote doesn't contradict what you wrote. I only emphasised that you wrote 'some', and (hopefully) thus, 'most' represents the other side.

personally speaking, I think that those who completely deny evolution are ignoring basic fundamentals of 'life'  - ie, cells, DNA, RNA, proteins, chemicals, ATGC, etc. Photosynthesis, for example, is purely a chemical reaction, using atoms, molecules, physical forces. Is photosynthesis a magic of life?

As for the book - the 'widely believed'... you mean by Christians (and, even then, certainly not all).

So, in that book, does it in any way help to answer the other questions I posed? (obviously, it suggests some answers, but certainly not all).

xinyuren:

ok, i misunderstood your insinuation. The Bible is the most widely read and published book in the history of literature, so I think it qualifies as "widely held", and it answers most if not all of your questions.

Samsara:

"The Bible is widely believed to be a book authored by the Creator using humans to pen the words. Thus, the ideas expressed are His, not the men who dictated them."

Ah.... that was quite a leap. The Bible is widely believed to be the word of God. Therefore it is the word of God.

The "knowledge" displayed in the Bible is that of pre-scientific men from a pre-scientific era. Not surprisingly they have a lot to say about slaves and inter-tribal squabbling, while not so much about the structure of the galaxy (like the solar system being heliocentric), or why fossils exist.

Given that so much of the Bible has now been contradicted outright, how it continues to be referred to as factual is beyond me.

xinyuren:

@Samsara- You are obviously a person who has never earnestly studied the Bible. You have probably just listened to rumors and second hand opinions, so I understand your feelings. It is not a scientific handbook and not designed to teach people about science, but when it touches on scientific matters it is totally accurate. There are no contradictions or inaccuracies in the Bible and I challenge you to find one and show everyone here (although to save you from embarassment, I don't recommend it).

xinyuren:

@Shining- It is precisely those features of life (RNA, DNA, photosynthesis, etc...) that make evolution so improbable. DNA cannot function without RNA and vice-versa. The intricacies of processes like photosynthesis require whole ecosystems to support it. The smartest people in the world have been unable to completely understand them, much less duplicate these thousands of processes that make up a living organism, yet Evolutionists claim they made themselves without intelligent oversight. This is their wishful dream. They are the equivilent of peasants from the Middle Ages examing a quantum computer and coming to the conclusion that it must have developed "naturally". They refuse to believe that someone of vastly greater intelligence was involved in their creation.

hunny797:

Questions related to the truthfulness of religions and religious books need to be discussed separately. And I would welcome to discuss it as well. But just a little food for thought...from the Islamic point of view (while I do believe in Bible too upto an extent), did you know that more than 1400 years ago it was informed by the Prophet Muhammad that there will be a time when transportation will be such that people will be sitting inside it and simultaneously fire will also be burning inside it. Travel of months and years will be done in days and hours. people will travel in the seas and oceans while only a quarter of the transport will be submerged under water. Is it possible for a pre scientific era person to make claims like these? Regarding the souls, the book says it is a word of God and the people are not been given a lot of knowledge about it. This challenge was made 1400+ years ago that you cannot discover much about souls, and strange but true, so far science has no definite theory of souls.

Shining_brow:

"There are no contradictions or inaccuracies in the Bible and I challenge you to find one and show everyone here (although to save you from embarassment, I don't recommend it)."

This is NOT a challenge you want to get involved in! It is extremely easy to come up with LOTS of such examples. Any quick search for "contradictions in bible" will elicit way too many hits! (I'm referring to logical contradictions, not attempts to explain them away...). Something as simple as "God created evil" and "God is all loving" is a fairly logical contradiction. (unless one wants to start redefining words like 'evil' and 'all-loving". (and, before you go there - if god did not create evil, where did it come from? Is there something in the world that god did NOT create? But... didn't the Bible clearly state that God created everything???)

Anyways....

There are holy books in many religions that all say that their god/s helped to write them. There is no real logical reason to accept one book over another. the "we got the printing press first, and then - with allied technologies - we went and conquered the rest of the world, and forced people to convert to our beliefs or die" isn't really a good argument for accepting the validity of what's written in that book.

It was also a "widely held belief" that the Earth was the centre of the entire universe and everything circled around us. This belief was central to Christian doctrine, to the point that people were tortured and executed over it.

So, I'm suggesting that the book and the church are not looking to be very good sources for actual information, at the moment.

The argument regarding DNA etc doesn't hold, either.

We as a species, have only just gotten to the technological level to even understand the concept of DNA, RNA etc.We've been developing and improving for tens of thousands of years, but this knowledge and technology is really only a couple of decades old. So, suggesting that because science now is unable to do or explain something doesn't really have much weight. It's fairly clear, looking at the development of science in the last couple of decades, that fairly soon we'll be able to clone people, clone body parts, etc etc. They are also close to 'creating life' out of raw materials (basic chemicals and energy). Once they've done that (made proteins in the lab) and watched what happens - if the basic building blocks start looking awfully similar to life processes, will you still deny life is a chemical reaction.

Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, even if there was a creator, that does not automatically follow that the Bible is correct. There are other possibilities.

xinyuren:

@- Shining. since you are so sure there are contradictions, accept the challenge. Otherwise, shut up about it. About your second point, Scientists can advance and advance but they will never(quote my words NEVER) create life from nothing. They will never figure out how to create DNA. Borrowing from stem cells is as good as they will get. They are so far away, its laughable. You too are in wishful dreamland. Scientists are eons away from understanding life. There just is no way. A clone is just a copy of God's creation using his work to build from. They can only use His seeds, they will never make their own.

xinyuren:

God created evil isn't a logical contradiction because the Bible doesn't say that God created everything and He didn't create evil. First you should read the Bible, so as not to embarrass yourself. Secondly, evil is a logical result of our gift of freedom of choice. He made us free moral agents with the ability to choose between right and wrong. In this sense, we (His creation) created evil. There is no contradiction. Like I said, to those who are ignorant of the Bible, there may appear to be many contradictions. But those who have taken the time and effort to understand it are just laughing at them.

nzteacher80:

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, The Lord, do all these things

xinyuren:

@nzteacher- You are good at quoting, but a little short on understanding. the translation you quoted from can be understood in another way. Some translations render 'evil' as chaos. My wife's Bible says "disaster". Either way, you can easily see by the context what the proper meaning is. The writer was contrasting light with darkness, therefore we can see in the latter part of that scripture that his meaning is 'I cause peace and I cause war'. This is the only way this scripture would make any sense. It certainly doesn't mean that God created evil. Next? *incidentally, although God did create light and darkness, this scripture is referring to spiritual enlightment and darkness. Its important, when quoting scripture, to read the context from which a quote is taken.

hunny797:

Though I am not a staunch supporter of Bible yet pardon me but I can't find any contradiction between God creating light and darkness or good and evil, war and peace. where is the contradiction. Yes, evil is created by God but there is a purpose for it. We love our children but we do hurt them sometimes. Sometimes we punish them, sometimes we do not give them something which can cause them harm, despite of their crying and begging to get it.. So yes, God did create everything. A contradiction would be if at one place he said that I only created good and no evil and another place he said I created evil. That could be called contradiction.

xinyuren:

hunny, your statement is confusing and just wrong. If God in fact created evil, that would be contradictory to the idea of a loving God. Disciplining our children is not the same as creating or causing evil. Punishment is not evil unless it is applied maliciously. Good parents are not evil to their children. Your example was ill-chosen. The Bible states that at the end of the sixth creative "day", everything was good (no evil). Then he stopped creating. If your Koran says that God created evil things, you have very different God than the one described in the Bible. I find it quite amusing that everyone is under the opinion that the Bible has contradictions, yet noone can come forth with an example. Could it be because their opinions are based on empty heresay and rumours from people who don't want to believe in the Bible, regardless of the facts?

hunny797:

What about those peole who claim that death is evil. Anyone who has created death has caused evil, depriving man of a luxurious life of comfort and reducing him to dust is evil? surely you will inform him that this definition of evil is not accurate. same is the case here. You are mistaken. Directly or indirectly the creator of everything is God. He gave choice to satan to either accept His authority or face his wrath. Satan asked for some respite which was granted by Him. Now to deviate the righteous from His path satan devised evil means. thus in this spiral the top most hand is of God's but we cannot say that God has done something evil. He has prepared clear guidance for his beloved creation. But reward without test has no purpose. A test needs to be placed so as to filter the different categories of humans.He had the power to stop satan from misguiding the people but he allowed it.. So that it may be crystal clear who among humans returns the love of God according to the desire of the Master...

Or are you of the view that God was very loving but he was helpless when someone designed and created evil????

Shining_brow:

Remember - the 'challenge' was to find contradictions or inaccuracies... NOT find things that Christians (or pseudo-christians) can't try to find some way to justify or explain away. It's easy to say "Oh, he didn't really mean it like that, what he meant was...<insert personal - even accepted - opinion on what it REALLY means>". This includes - who decides what is a literal interpretation, and who decides what is allegorical? (at least Hunny, saying "yes, there are contradictions... but hey, I can live with that" gets a bit mroe respect than someone who says "Nope - no contradictions at all!!")

So:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

Let's add this one as well - a nice visual representation:

http://bibviz.com/

Mouse-over a line and get a question, eg - was Jesus the first to be raised from the dead. See which verses refer to it - click it to be taken to the exact verse, and read for yourself.

And:

http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com/  Yes, that says ONE THOUSAND and one

Let's take an example of something which has precise details, and see if it's actually accurate.

As a quick one - which is going to be hard to argue (legitimately) - Solomon's temple was 60 cubits, by 30 high by 20 wide (1Kings 6:2). A cubit is the length from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow - around 40-50cm. Thus, in our terminology - about 30 meters long, by 15m high and 10m wide. However... 1 Kings 5:15-16... Solomon had 153,000 people working on this! WTF???? It also, apparently, took 7 years to build... (with 153,000 people). AND... 1 Chronicles 22:14 I have taken great pains to provide for the temple of the LORD a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, quantities of bronze and iron too great to be weighed, and wood and stone. And you may add to them.

A talent is 20-30kg (depending on which culture). Thus... 2 million kilograms of gold (or 2000 TONS)!!!! About 25million kg in silver, and apparently, that was weighable, but the bronze and iron wasn't, because there was so much (ie, more than the 25,000 TONS of silver). For 1 building. Apparently made out of stone and wood. And only 30 meters long... (presuming, of course, that this temple, like most other buildings, is actually hollow on the inside). 

 Given the amount of building  materials (wood and stone) that would be involved in such a construction - let's say the 30mx10m floor in stone (at 1m deep), we'll also presume the walls were stone, so add another 80m (perimeter) by 15m high by half a meter thick (which is still pretty thick).. And then the roof (unlikely to be stone - so wood).

Rock weighs about 2-3 tons / cubic meter. So, 600 cubic meters for the floor (very thick floors!) is 1200 tons of stone for the floor. and another 600 cubic meters for the walls (again, thick walls) is another 1200 tons - so, 2400 tons of stone. (of course, my math could be bad!). Right now, stone has almost the same value as gold....

I'm fairly certain that once we add up all of that (and deduct the cost of the wages of the 153,000 people involved in the construction), that gold is almost worthless in comparison to a bit of stone and a piece of wood!  (if they were paid in silver, then on average, each person would have been paid about 160kg in silver!)

Money is really grown on trees!

So - I ask you Xin, are these numbers actually accurate?

or, are you going to say "oh, I know it says that.. but it doesn't actually mean that".

xinyuren:

@hunny- Death is evil? Please go to your dictionary and look up evil. Evil is an attribute that can only be ascribed to an intelligent being! To be evil is a choice! Death is just death. It is neither evil nor good. And in God's eyes, it isn't even permament but rather just like a state of sleep. Sure, God has allowed evil to exist to suit his purpose but that does not make him the creator of evil, and the last time I checked, God did not create my cellphone. So there are a great many things in this world that God didn't create. Back to the drawing board, hunny.

xinyuren:

Ummm....Shining....did you heed my advice and read the Bible for yourself? Thats the thing about ignorance: The unlearned who refuse study are forced to parrot some other idiot who possibly has another agenda. In your case, you went to the internets instead of simply reading the account for yourself. The building work you are describing in 6th and 7th chapter of 1Kings encompasses far more than just the main temple building (which, to correct your numbers, measured about 90'x 30' x 45'). There were supporting buildings, sanctuaries and the temple grounds. There was furniture, utensils and statues that needed to be constructed just so. You need not wonder how it was built and what materials were used for it is explained in great detail (detailed instructions were given by God on how this would be built). Of course my guess is you never read the actual account and relied on your internet friends to give you the "facts". Do you even know anything about Solomon (movies don't count)? In the future, if you really want to challenge me, offer a dispute based on what you actually read and stop parroting the internet. This is really poor form for you.

xinyuren:

@shining - as for how all this was paid for..... once again, you need to read the Bible. Those stories are in there for a reason! Solomon was the wisest and richest human king in history. Other kingdoms offered him tribute(this is described in detail. did you read it? no!). Israel conquered many tribes and nations in warfare. If only you had a little knowledge and humility, you wouldn't be asking these elementary questions.

Shining_brow:

So, right now, your "successful defense" of your challenge lies in only vaguely alluding to trying to defend one - AND ONLY ONE - apparent contradiction... (I didn't say anything about how the funds were raised, nor where it came from - only that the expenditure for one temple was hugely over-budget!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+6&version=NIV

I don't think you fully get the numbers we're talking about here.... ok, the artwork is going to be a bit pricey. Possibly the cedar and juniper (although, there should have been relatively available in the area - after all, Lebanon was just up the road, and was known for those trees. Even with all the gold inlay and coverings for everything - TWO THOUSAND TONS of gold!

Not to mention the 153 THOUSAND people who worked on this.... Please, just for a minute, use your imagination, and try to put 153 thousand people together!

You prefer (in this example - but not the donkey example below) to say this is literally true. In the donkey example, you prefer to think it's a metaphor. What are the parameters for deciding which is metaphor, which is exaggeration - and which is literally true?

However... I will grant you - I didn't use the best example! It is clearly open to interpretation. yes, Solomon could have spent all that money, and employed all those people, as unbelievable as it is for that period of time.

You still have 1000 other contradictions/ inaccuracies to go....

Let's move to something else... Noah's Ark.

Q: - is it literally true that Noah built and ark, put all of the animals in it, 2x2, and then God flooded the entire earth? After which, only Noah and his family - and the animals he put on the ark - were the only living things left? (NB: this only requires a 'yes', 'no' or 'mostly yes, except'). Is the record of this event in the Bible a) literally true, and b) accurately told?

You offered a challenge - it has been met (check the links - and yes, just like NZT below, by people who used to be Christians and who actually read it in detail - and even in various languages.

Your current dispute with Hunny on the nature of evil... comes down to how you define the word 'create'. In one situation, the idea is meant as 'to get something from (literally) nothing. In another sense, it's being used as a synonym for 'make' or 'build'.

hunny797:

Xinyuren.. Since I am a non-native, excuse my mistakes in English words. However I took your advice and searched the word evil in the dictionary I most commonly use. And here is what I found ..

Thus I don't think I was wrong in saying that some may assume death may be evil. reasons being that a person being deprived of the luxuries he is enjoying on Earth. As I said earlier such a claim would come not from a religion following person but rather an Atheist..

I am off to the drawing board.

xinyuren:

So what was the budget for the temple? By how much did Solomon go over? I am confused. Yes, I can picture that many workers. But since the project took over 7 years, it probably wasn't 153k people working at the same time! 7 years is a long time to be away from family. Most of the workers traveled to the project from their hometown. They worked in shifts and for scheduled time periods. You really thought it meant there were over 100k people working similtaneously? You must have a simple mind to not come to the most logical conclusion: 153,000 workers over the course of 7 years. Not very hard to believe. Next!

xinyuren:

Noah's Ark. LOL. The Bible doesn't say that every animal was present on the ark. This sounds ridiculous. Once again (aren't you tired of this?), a diligent study of the Bible brings light to the situation. The scripture says that animals were chosen "according to each kind". For example, there are many kinds of cats: lions, tigers, leopards, etc... It wasn't necessary to preserve every subspecies of cat. This greatly reduces the amount of animals Noah needed to gather.. That was too simple. Ony 999 more to go, right. Once again, I implore you to use your brain, read the scriptures and at least try to see things from a objective viewpoint. Your weak attacks are tedious. BTW, I don't read links to dubious websites. I issued the challenge to you! If you got something, bring it on. But it seems to me you got a whole lot of nothin'

xinyuren:

:@hunny. death is just the absence of life. your way of explaining it is faulty. If my wife was suffering from cancer, had a horrible life and longed to die, would her death be "evil"? Some would call it a blessing. Killing people is evil under most circumstance. Death is just a state of being. It is merely a figure of speech to call it evil.

hunny797:

okay since you are not getting my point allow me to become an atheist for a moment. you believe in God but evil was not created by him. If your wife is suffering from cancer having a horrible life longing to die.. first please tell me who would you count as the creator of cancer? is it God, satan or someone else.. And I will proceed forward later.

secondly, also reply to my earlier question, was God helpless while evil was being created? if he is all loving was he not capable to stop evil from being born?

xinyuren:

oh, Shining! I'm having so much fun, I forgot to reply to your metaphor comment. Metaphors are not rocket science or a great mystery. People use metaphors in every day communication? Do you mean to say you can't tell when someone is being literal and someone is using a figure of speech? Wow! I'm learning a lot about you in this debate. You have selective reasoning. Agreed, sometimes it's hard to tell if something is literal or not (especially when it is in writing) and there are a couple of logical rules. 1. When a specific number, place, name or date is used, usually it is meant to be taken literally. 153k people, Xinyu, China, October 14, 2008.... these are all very specific. When just telling a story not meant to be literally taken, no need to be specific. 1 million, in the Underworld, Once upon a time are all non-literal renderings. You really should know this stuff already. 2. If a person is writing poetry or if something seems highly unlikely, the writer may be using a figure of speech. Does this sound reasonable to you? Do I have to school you on the basic of things?

xinyuren:

@hunny. But I already explained in detail where evil came from. Allowing something does not mean he created it. These are two different things. Now as for the issue of why God allows bad things to happen, I have already written on the topic. I will just refer you to the link in another thread which thoroughly explains it. Read my answer here. You will need to scroll to the bottom comment under my answer. http://answers.echinacities.com/question/samsaras-666th-post

Shining_brow:

153,000 workers per year, is over 21,000 per year - about 60 DIFFERENT people per day (average count). Again - theoretically possible - but to a rational, unbiased and reasonably objective person - this is just ridiculous! (especially for someone to give an ACCURATE count - which is what you have suggested!!!) That number is LITERALLY true! Now, if you had've said "well, ok, they're exaggerating", then I'd let it go.... but no! You NEED to hang on to it being absolutely positively 100% accurate!

Noah... "two of each kind of animal" - is the bit where I said you'd be making stuff up to suit your ideas. Or, the translation in your Bible differs to those of other bibles, and you're using that as an escape! (which, btw, means there are inaccuracies and contradictions!!!)

"

GEN 6:18, ... you and your sons, your wife and your son's wives, shall go into the ark. 19 Of all other living creatures you shall bring two into the ark, one male and one female, that you may keep them alive with you. (NAB)

GEN 7:2, Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs,* a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate. (NAB)

GEN 7:8, Of the clean animals, of the animals that are not clean, of the birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, 9 two of each, male and female, came to Noah into the ark, as God had commanded Noah. (TAN)

GEN 7:15, Pairs of all creatures in which there was the breath of life entered the ark with Noah. 16 Those that entered were male and female, and of all species they came, .... (NAB)"

Nope - not seeing anything in these translations to suggest only family or order - aka 'kind'. (I do note that 'genus' is specifically mentioned in the last translation)!

Please not the contradiction above - Gen 7:2 SEVEN pairs of the 'clean' animals, while at Gen 7:8 only ONE pair of clean animals!

Also - given that this flood apparently happened about 2500BC (given various online sources), it would indicate that humans, and animals, grew out of those few 'kinds' of animals, and those small handful of humans - into what we have now... (not to mention all the vegetation that was wiped out). What did the animals eat after they got off the ark? One type of cat evolved into ALL the tigers, lions, cheetahs, hyenas, marmosets, ocelots - not to mention the domesticated cats we now have...

What about those animals that only showed up in specific places around the world - and nowhere else? Did Noah have kangaroos on the ark? And if so, why weren't there any in the Middle East afterwards?

So - is this an allegory, a metaphor, or is it literally true?

How about a simple question - how old is the Earth?

No?

How about - Was Jesus the first person to be resurrected?

Or, how about a moral question - is it ok for god to kill? Or even, is it ok to kill in god's name?

You issued a challenge - I met it by offering links to pages which OUTLINE IN DETAIL the contradictions and inaccuracies you say don't exist. And now - you say "oh, I don't have to look at them - they don't count... I still win". Why? Because it's on another website? Boo hoo! Or do you expect them to be C&Ped to here (taking up SO much space...). Your challenge was met - try having some self-respect and actually face it!

xinyuren:

I hate to keep saying this over again, but you really are not thinking this mass building project through. Maybe you dont have experience in such work. For stone cutters, you need a quarry and a separate shop for the artisans. For the lumber, you need forest workers, and a woodworking shop. For gold and silver, you need a smelting dept. This goes on and on and thats not including people responsible for transportation of materials and a department to feed the workers. There were no automated systems or trucks. Many strong backs were needed. So there are workers spread across a wide area. 21,000 per year is an entirely reasonable number, especially considering there many volunteers to do this honored work. if they worked two shifts thats 10500 per shift. There are many small businesses with more workers. Whats the problem?

xinyuren:

@Noah's ark. Ok, you caught an error. my error. In my effort to condense my answer, I skipped a step in my reasoning. I deleted too much. So let me give my full answer. In the account of creation in Genesis, God created each animal according to it's kind or genus. I dont have a Bible here at the gym, so you will have to look it up in the 2nd or 3rd chapter. Out of these unknown number of kinds came all the variety we see today (people too!). When Noah loaded the ark, which was huge, he didnt need to collect every variation of every species. Was a kangaroo on board? I dont know. But that doesn't make the information inaccurate. The fact that the Bible doesnt list every single genus aboard the ark does not make it contradictory. My explaination stands up to reason: He didn't need to gather every animal and Noah had devine guidance from the creator of those animals, so an expert was in charge. As for you apparent contradiction at 7:2 and 7:8, I see no such contradiction. 7:2 says seven pair of clean animals and 7:8 says take 1 pair of unclean animals. What do you want to say??? As I said, the scriptures dont say how many were taken but it certainly wasn't a handful (did i say the ark was huge?). As for the migration patterns of different animals, do you expect the Bible to provide you detailed info about that? Animals migrated with people, I suppose but I am not educated enough on animal migration to say, but it certainly says nothing about the accuracy of the Bible. It is unreasonable to expect the Bible to say every little detail about human development. The account is literally true. How old is the Earth? The Bible doesn't say! Why are you asking questions the Bible doesn't address? The Bible isnt your personal science book. I think the Creator had a message He wanted to deliver and He wasn't considering your every whim.

xinyuren:

Jesus wasn't the first person in recorded Bible history to be resurrected but he was the first person to be resurrected to heaven. What are you getting at here? God's feelings on humans murdering humans was made clear by his commandments to the Jews, but for God himself (he is the lord and controller of death itself) this command does not apply. Thus anyone killing at His command is not transgressing His law. In the future, please pose one argument per post. This is chaotic. It seems you are throwing a bunch of mud at the wall, hoping something will stick. Well, it wont stick.

xinyuren:

You think your smart friends at that website are so special? There is nothing there that I havent heard already. There is nothing there that cant be logically explained. what makes me laugh so hard when we have these discussions is you always say that you studied the Bible and you found it to be inaccurate. Then why dont you just give me YOUR argument for inaccuracy? Why do you need to go off to the internets to get your weak arguments? Could it be because you have none of your own?

xinyuren:

So thus far, you have presented no innacuracies or contradictions. Your friends on the internets are failing you. And noone on this forum seems to dare try. Do you want to try again?

hunny797:

There is no appeal in a soul as something which will outlive the body. Because any group which believes in a soul outliving the body will also believe that the soul will be judged according to the deeds. Sense of fear is much stronger than the sense of pleasure and happiness. I would happily change my belief that soul will face nothing after death. For me it is better to die and perish than to continue living as a soul and have to face a judgment day.

Shining_brow:

Adding to Hunny's comment, you are pre-supposing that a) there is a form of 'judgement', and b) what that judgement is like.

You also dismiss those who have memories (or some ideas) of having lived previous lives.

Samsara:

I don't pre-suppose judgement. I don't believe in souls, whether the type that get judged or the type that don't.

And yes, I dismiss those who have "memories" of previous lives.

When people have unfamiliar feelings (like vague memories they can't quite place) they are liable to construe them as "proof" of whatever superstitions they believe in.

Shining_brow:

I won't take it as proof, but I will take it as evidence.

It is one of my goals to have said 'proof' like that. There have been a number of documented cases where people have accurately been able to describe places they have not been to in the current lifetime. And, yes, I've also read the ideas put forth who don't believe such a thing would be possible - they must have read/heard about it somewhere...

xinyuren:

While your answer is typical of the sort who don't know squat about the Bible, I thank you for giving this topic a bump.

nzteacher80:

It's my pleasure. Please address the content of my statement rather than making unspecific ad hominem attacks on my biblical knowledge. I am a reformed Christian, thank God, and I have always found that I have a far deeper knowledge of the content of The Bible than almost every Christian I have met save but a few.

Were the things that I said factually incorrect? Please correct them if they are.

Let us take solace in The Good Book. This is one of my favourite verses.

Ezekiel 23:20

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like that of donkeys and whose emissions were like that of horses.

I find this passage a little hard to swallow. A donkey's penis is on average about 20 inches, a man's penis is on average about 6 inches. How could men have penises this big? Did God intervene and gift them huge penises?

As for being capable of making a seminal emission as that of a horse this is just plainly impossible. The average ejaculate for a man is 10 cc and a horse is 150 cc and upwards.

Unless you can prove to me that a man can ejaculate that much then this is proof that your Bible is nothing more than pure fiction.

I eagerly await your response.

xinyuren:

The content of your statement is not worth addressing. You are like the Chinese students who can reference a lot of data, but haven't a clue of how to process and apply it. Then you ridicule what you can't fathom.

nzteacher80:

Yet again you just make ad hominem attacks and ignore the content of my statement. I see you are from the Peewee Herman "I know you are but what am I?" school of debate.

Not only that but you make vulgar, racist comments about Chinese students. I teach Chinese students that would seem to have a far greater ability at processing and synthesizing data when compared to the likes of you.

Like most Christians you pretend to have some special, arcane knowledge when it comes to reading religious text. If a non believer reads the Bible then they cannot comprehend it but if you read accompanied by the idea that you have the ghost of your imaginary friend inside the organ that pumps blood about your body then you comprehend it at a level I could only dream of. Such levels of onanistic conceit can only be found in people who think that the whole of existence was created just for them by an invisible wizard in the sky.

Shining_brow:

What NZT is trying to do is to simplify Christianity to such an extent that it seems absurd.

To Christians, it comes across as ridiuclous and insulting. To non-Chrisitians, it seems like a reasonably accurate summary (albeit, as I mentioned, incredibly simplified).

However, NZT - it doesn't actually address the idea of 'soul'. This thread isn't about Christianity, and a Christian version of souls etc. Buddhists, Hindus, Animists, etc etc also have a concept of soul, and a very different idea of how it exists, what it's here for, etc..

xinyuren:

So there are no Chinese students who inhale information without understanding? In fact, Chinese students are known for this. My statement wasn't all inclusive (that would be racist), but instead likened you to those students who mistake facts for knowledge. Secondly, I am not a "Christian" and have never on this forum claim to be one. Finally to address your "content", I didn't think you were taking this matter seriously because nobody with half a brain would seriously read that passage literally. It is so obvious that the writer in the scripture you reference was using colorful exaggeration to describe the manliness of the object of her desire. Do you mean to say that anyone who uses hyperbole or idioms in their storytelling is telling a fairytail? Yeah, you seriously lack understanding. We all use figure of speech when communicating factual information. If you dont understand this concept, you shouldn't be teaching. I dont claim to have any special understanding, I just use common sense and logic.

xinyuren:

@Shining- this thread seems to be about whatever people choose to write. And your explanation of nzteacher's "content" is flat out wrong. He wasn't "simplifying". He was distorting and changing facts to elicit a humorous reaction. Changing the text in order to make it sound ridiculous is not simplifying. He was ridiculing, which doesn't bother me at all because his ridicule reveals his utter lack of knowledge. I am a non-Christian and his summary seems far from accurate. Only ignorant people would think this is accurate. An earnest study of the Bible would show that Eve didn't eat an apple, snakes dont talk, and God didn't have sex with a woman. Do you mean to say that you believe the Bible teaches this? If so, I seriously overestimated your level of intelligence and you are too ignorant to be taking part in this discussion.

Shining_brow:

I'll let NZT defend his post,and it's ramifications.

I will, however, wonder.. WTF??? You quote the Bible, you refer to it as being a book that is worthy of being read (and re-interpreting it in ways that don't suit as being from fools and idiots who don't understand), you posit a belief in a god, using that book as substantiation... you suggest that everything in the Bible is trune ("there are no inaccuracies or contradictions") but you don't call yourself a Christian....

I am confused!

Please - explain!

(And, FTR - the thread is about the existence of a 'soul' - which would logically include one's reasons for believing un such a thing). While such a thing is currently unproveable (by the definition of being able to prove to another person beyond a good amount of doubt), I would therefore say that such beliefs ought to be rational (hence the more scientific bent to my questions). Saying "I believe in souls because a book says they exist" doesn't really do much for me - especially when there are issues with that book. (I take the same stance with a scientific journal as well - if a science journal set out to dis/prove the existence of souls (as they've done with other phenomena), but don't actually do appropriate research, or make ridiculous claims - or don't even have their methodology right - then I'm going to call foul)).

xinyuren:

@Shining - Scientists do not hold the patent or rights to rationality. You asked a spiritual question. It is a question that science cannot answer because the answer lies in the spiritual realm (which majority of scientists deny exists). You have problems with a book that addresses spirituality but you can't cough up any reasonable objections! I am the one who is confused. On this forum, I have successfully defended the existence of God as being in harmony with known science and reason, I have successfully defended the Bible's theme and story to be logical and reasonable and noone has come forth with a viable innaccuracy or inconsistency in spite of my direct challenge. Yet I am not a member of any religion. Why do you find that confusing? In fact it is completely logical. The world's religions (on the whole)are about lies and control. They are about deception and misdirection. If you knew anything about the Bible, you would understand this and why it is so. On the other hand the Bible is a wonder in simplicity and truth on how it explains man's relationship to the spiritual. It is completely logical and I am a creature of logic. In the words of the fictional Sherlock Holmes, "this is elementary."

hunny797:

@ shining.. I have ignored most of the comments made by you and others in this NZT's post. But one thing caught my eye and I would like to say something in reply.. you said "such a thing is currently unproveable (by the definition of being able to prove to another person beyond a good amount of doubt)" I agree it is currently unproveable but I have some counter statements to make:  the Quran says about the souls it is an order from the God and people are not given much knowledge about the souls due to reasons only He may know. but on the other hand what can definitely be proved is the authenticity of the Quran and of the religion itself. Or do you think truthfulness (or the opposite) of Islam and Quran is also unproveable? If you say it is not so, then why don't you indulge first in those things which can be conclusively proved. If for instance someone is able to convince another person the truthfulness of a religion or a book, the sub-categories will also be accepted even though it may have little chances of provability.

Shining_brow:

@Xinyuren.

No, science doesn't "hold the patents" on rationality - but it does require it. Same with logic and philosophy. Religion, by its very nature, does not. Hence, we have words such as 'faith'.

Personally (and thus, is merely an opinion), I think that science WILL find the existence of souls (evidence). and in the not too distant future. But that, obviously, comes down to my concept of what a soul is, and how it interacts with a body. There has already been some scientific experiments which have resulted in showing something, but these experiments haven't been validated by the scientific community (does that mean what they found doesn't actually exist? No, it means there are arguments about it).

"I have successfully defended..."... Seriously? What's your definition of 'success', because from what I've seen, I'd never want to go into business with you! Just making posts that people disagree with is not a very good definition of 'success'. Neither is writing so much of that that other people give up even trying any more!

A "successful" post is one where people reply with "ok, true - I accept that"...

So, you don't subscribe to any of the sects of Christian religion... but you still believe that a person called Jesus Christ is the 'son' of a god that created this earth (and everything else), and that if we don't believe this, and worship this god, then we don't get to go to heaven. This god also had a book be written, which in no place is contradictory or inaccurate - ie, 'perfect'. And yet, you say you're not a Christian.... (please, write that 100 times so your god can see you mean it!) I think you're changing the meaning of certain words so that they suit you when you feel like it!

From wiki: "Philosopher Michael Martin, in his book The Case Against Christianity, evaluated three historical Christian creeds (the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) to establish a set of basic assumptions which include belief in theism, the historicity of Jesus, the Incarnation, salvation through faith in Jesus, and Jesus as an ethical role model".

Does this not describe your beliefs?

Not believing in the Catholic, or Protestant, or Greek Orthodox or whatever denomination's practices does NOT mean you are not a Christian...

So - if you don't mind - please explain your beliefs, and elaborate on the difference between yours, and that of Christianity.

Shining_brow:

@Hunny

Firstly, I admit to confusion by your post. Are you trying to suggest that just because some things in relation to a book or set of beliefs are true, that one must then accept everything as true? I would seriously hope you are not suggesting that, as it would be so illogical and fallacious!

But, what might appear to be contradictory, yes - if some things that are written are shown to be not true, then one should not accept (and thus, automatically) throw out the whole lot (of that particular hypothesis). Meaning - if you want ot use the Quran as an example - the theory (belief) in one particular form of Islam - in which it is asserted that everything in the book is true - if one thing is shown to not be true, then the whole theory is shown to be false.

This may, of course, lead to the next possible theory of "The whole of Islam is true, and the Quran is true - except for that one thing". This would be a new theory... and subject to the same analysis.

I do agree with your logic (although, perhaps not the intent :p). Start with the proveable, then move to the more tenuous.

Yes, I believe in the concept of souls. No, I do not accept the idea of a 'god' the way that monotheists do. One does not directly lead to the other. Even if I could prove the existence of a soul, I still do not see many of my other questions being answered. So, once the scientists have said "yes, we can prove it" - there are still many questions left unanswered.

Even if we can logically 'prove' the existence of a god-type being, that does not automatically lead to a certain set of beliefs (such as any monotheistic religion would have us).

And, finally, no - even if it were proven that there was someone 2000 years ago, who was called Jesus is proven to have existed, and did say "I am the son of God", and did actually heal the sick (and even bring back someone from the dead) - this too does not automatically mean the belief in Christianity is a given.

xinyuren:

@Shining: My "successes": 1.) A challenge was issued to you(and others). It was a challenge that went unanswered. http://answers.echinacities.com/question/samsaras-666th-post 2.) This success was acknowledged by at least two others in this thread http://answers.echinacities.com/question/how-long-waiting-period-american-man-be-allowed-marry-chinese-lady-china?page=1&showid=291907 3.) And then there is my sucess in defending the weak attacks on the Bible by you and others in this thread. As I said, noone has come forth. Also, you need to clarify your definition of "Christian". The true definiion is, a follower of Christ in works, thoughts and deeds. Sadly, I do not worship God that conforms to any of those links you posted nor do I follow the deeds of Jesus. This is my shortcoming, but also makes my own description of myself entirely accurate. I know what I am, thank you.

xinyuren:

@Shining: Once again, there is a part with your response to hunny that I strongly disagree with. With a scant bit of the right evidence, many things can be perceived. For example, if you ever watched an episode of CSI, trace evidence can lead finding the identity of a killer or a missing person. Thats not science fiction. Crime scene investigation is an established science. Well, we are living in the midst of a "crime scene" of sorts and the evidence is far from scant. It is plentiful. By looking at that evidence and examining it scientifically and rationally (no holy book needed), we can not only come to the conclusion that there is a God, but also what kind of personality He has. We can logically conclude that a Holy book is both necessary and inevitable. Logic dictates what his likely future moves will be. Investigators and scientists do this kind of analysing all the time with much, much less evidence. Unfortunately people dont like much being told what to do, so they often disconnect their logic circuits in reference to the origin of life issue.

hunny797:

Ofcourse I am not suggesting this. Something that is unclear or hidden from me is different from something which is contradictory in a religion…What I am saying is:

For example I have researched on the pros and cons of the existence of an entity God, truthfulness of religion Islam and decided that what it says on basic principles do have some weight. But on the concept of XYZ (souls, life after death, birth etc) this religion is saying you are not given much knowledge for whatever reason. I look around myself; I take help from science and other studies that indeed I do not have much knowledge about XYZ. In this case I accept it as it is and I don’t question it that since you have not given me any knowledge about the concept of XYZ, I am not going to follow this religion etc etc…you accept what is given to you and what is hidden from you for whatever reasons. This is what I follow. Our knowledge is never complete. We cannot grasp the completeness of everything.

On the other hand if some things are proved to be contradictory in a religion and there is no way of separating that contradiction I will definitely have to throw away the whole religion. Now this needs a case to case discussion. For e.g concept of Jihad, ghosts, death of Jesus etc, these are some concepts which are misunderstood by more than 90% of the modern muslim population. But with the help of historical research I can safely conclude that 90% muslims are wrong but the religion is true then I have no need to throw away the religion itself. I only need to throw away the claims made by the 90% ignorant followers of my religion. I don’t always agree with the majority. But if I reach at a stage where I cannot separate a contradiction from Islam I will surely disregard the whole religion.

On a side note, Islam emphasizes on belief in a case of uncertainty. Do you think if God comes down on Earth and shows visible miracles and powers and everyone can see that he is god and there is no choice other than to accept him as god. After all this happens and one starts believing in god, can he be entitled to numerous and countless rewards offered for the believers? Of course not. If you are believing when everything is clear and certain, then why would you be rewarded. As simple as that.

Thus I am of the view that if a general religion is trusted to be true you should accept some minor things that are unclear to you. But if they are clearly contradictory to you then you are not supposed to ignore them as trivial. I hope I am able to clear myself. Maybe because I am a non native I have difficulty in conveying my theories.

Shining_brow:

@HUnny.

Firstly - no, your English is fine. I'm not even remotely confused by it at all. There may be concepts in your head that you haven't explained clearly because to you they're clear... but not to others. That's not a language thing.

I wouldn't suggest you throw out an entire religion just because of one contradiction (unless it was essential to the belief). But when they start to stack up, and there's a lack of evidence supporting the other things, then yes... it's definitely time to stop calling yourself a "X". Either that, or accept that you're an extremist.

Shining_brow:

Oh, also, when your basic beliefs allow you to go against a fairly obvious moral or ethical code, there's a SERIOUS problem!!!

hunny797:

Yes i do agree.. that's why i said if there is a contradiction some day I will research it on a case to case basis like the alleged contradiction of Jihad, death of Jesus, and many other cases. Fortunately so far I have only found contradiction in the majority of the muslims and never in the religion or the book itself.

xinyuren:

My problems are my business and I am working them out as I see fit. My problem, however is not the topic of this discussion. You two have more work to do.

mArtiAn:

That reminds me of a shop I saw once in London. It sold cowboy style boots and was called R Soles. Must have been intentional but a very poorly chosen name nonetheless. Ironic too as it well described the appearance of their clientele on leaving the shop.

mArtiAn:

Pretty much the most comprehensive answer possible on the subject.

diverdude1:

darn, and I was going for dumbest 

xinyuren:

Interesting read, but your revelation was a little late. You see, the Bible, centuries earlier said that man was formed from mud (it is mentioned more than once). And in the very first book, after their disobedience Adam and Eve were condemned to death (from dust you came and to dust you will return). Not to make this a battle of the Holy books, but you said nobody in those days had any idea that man was created from dirt. It appears that you are wrong. The Bible writer, Moses, already knew.

xinyuren:

Additionally, I dispute your claim that there are scientifically proven anythings in regard to the creation of life by evolution. There is none. There are only surmises and opinions and conclusions based on surmises and opinions which are as plentiful as there are scientists. To state that is a scientific consensus backed by the scientific method is misleading and innaccurate. They are guessing and still trying to frame their experiments so that they harmonize with real scientific laws. Evolution is a work in process. A process with many holes.

hunny797:

well, you are most welcome to discuss and compare the wonders and miracles of the Holy Books. Let's take the creation of man as an example. Can you specify the exact words of God mentioned in the Bible? What marvels can you reveal from those instances and then we will compare to the marvels mentioned in the Quran. Are the stages of human creation explained in similar details and steps as in the Quran? the creation of bacteria, transformation of bodies. until recently, the words you mentioned were only used to emphasize the worthlessness of humans.. 

FTR, I believe in Bible as one of the Holy Books from God. But since the passage of time, it has not remained accurate since God had not challenged that this book will remain error free forever. For instance mentioning that God rested on the seventh day.

xinyuren:

As I said, I am not in the Holy book battle business hunny. That is unseemly. I was merely pointing out your error. As I have consistently argued, there are no inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible states that after the sixth creative day, God rested from his creative works. In other words, he stopped creating new things. You have not provided proof otherwise, so I rest my case.

Shining_brow:

@Hunny - Q: this 'jinn' which you have interpreted as those things which cannot be seen by the naked eye... would that not also include things like x-rays, gamma rays, etc? or did I miss something??

And, no offence, but even if your book does have those 'details', it does not automatically assume complete 100% credibility in the rest.

@Xin - if scientists do get around to lumping a pile of chemicals in a dish, and applying some heat and rays, AND it leads to the formation of various protein chains.. will that change your opinion even slightly?

Or, (and this goes for any and all believers of ANY belief system) - what would it take to change your beliefs? Or at least question them??

xinyuren:

@shining: as should be obvious by my many posts, I guide my life by logic and reason. I am not married to my beliefs out of sentimental reasons. If scientists come up with a logical and rational explaination, my views will change correspondingly. But since they are not even close to accomplishing this, I am not holding my breath.

hunny797:

since I am no expert in Arabic language I do not know whether the word Jin be applied to those rays. (after writing this i browsed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn) and found that "are also physical in nature, being able to interact in a tactile manner with people and objects and likewise be acted upon"

Have a look at the wiki page and it becomes clear why Jinn became to be known as genie and the modern ghosts etc

Yes you are right about the credibility test and that is exactly what I am trying to say. that:

(1) a certain amount of things mentioned in the book are proved to be true (though it maybe arguable to some that nothing mentioned is true)

(2) some things are mentioned in the book but so far neither proved to be true nor proved the opposite. (these things according to me, we should assume to be correct since the opposite has not been proved)

(3) some things mentioned in the book are proved to be wrong or false. (I would love to hear about such things)

Now from the above 3 options since I have not yet encountered any instance of option 3 I am safe in believing that whatever remains to be proved will also be true since many things have been proved and none been proved wrong. In case I encounter option 3 I have a commitment to myself that when such a time comes I will research and study it in an unbiased manner.

Shining_brow:

Ah, it's ok... the word 'sapience' is used to describe them.

I still don't get why you can believe in a soul, believe in 'jinn'... and yet 'ghost' is right out. I will presume it's because either you have a particular definition of the word 'ghost', or have place particular limitations on the other two (and possibly more) that prevent a soul/spirit from existing in the material plane such that it can interact with physical objects, but is normally invisible.

hunny797:

Dear the reason in believing one and rejecting the other is quite simple. Fortunately I was born and raised in a time when the term bacteria and virus etc was already discovered and thus I had no difficulty in believing to the claim of Quran on jinn since science was already supporting it. I indeed have a vague idea of looking at the onion skin under a microscope in the classroom once and the teacher telling that it is the cell and all that, but I was not at all interested then... But the concept of ghosts is not yet proved. I will definitely start believing in them the day I have the smallest encounter with them or if I find something in the book giving the slightest hint on the possibility of ghosts. the incident of bones and dung that I mentioned earlier is clearly proved by the science, if the other case is also witnessed I will change my theory.

hi2u:

@shining_brow: "if scientists do get around to lumping a pile of chemicals in a dish, and applying some heat and rays, AND it leads to the formation of various protein chains.. will that change your opinion even slightly?"

This reminds me of a joke. A scientist told God that he could create life from dirt. God accepted his challenge. Just as the scientist was about to collect the dirt, God told the scientist, "Not so fast. You make your own dirt." 

xinyuren:

Ah, an animist. by chance are you Native American? So your thinking is greatly influenced by your racial background. So much for the objective, logical, and rational....

Shining_brow:

What a HUGE leap you just made there... Allow me to quote (and emphasise): "So your thinking is greatly influenced by your racial background. So much for the objective, logical, and rational....

So, you are suggesting that I am not objective (true), nor logical (occasionally, but I try to be) nor rational (given some of the things I 'believe', that would be true) because you think I have a Native America background.

Well. firstly - there are other animists in the world who do not have a Native American background!

Secondly... there are Native Americans who have chosen other beliefs - some have even become Christians (and some even by their own free will!!)

I can't be 100% sure, but I'm about 99.99% sure that my family lineage has about...

ZERO percent Native American in it!

FTR - I was brought up in a fairly Christianised environment (but quite secular), although My mother was about one-eight Jewish. We did not go to church or temple or pray or whatever. When I was in primary school, we did have religious education classes. First, I was introduced to Mormonism (I think... ), and later joined the CoE because that's where my best friend was. Thus, I had Bible classes, you might say. My high school was a Catholic one... thus, years of religious education, focussing on Christianity (taught by a priest).

I look forward to your apology....

xinyuren:

You said you were an animist and your call name is Shinging_brow. So I asked if you were Native American and if you were your objectivity was in question. What do I need to apologize for? I didn't assume anything. I asked a reasonable question based on what I saw. Why are you offended? If you want an admission I was wrong, you have it. But if you are offended by my thinking you might be Native American, then maybe you shouldn't be debating anything. Your ignorance of the Bible is shocking compared to the training you claim to have. But then again, maybe not. most people with such training are equally ignorant.

Shining_brow:

This is why I hate even trying to discuss anything with you! Willful ignorance, and the inability to be incorrect! You seem to be incapable of acknowledging when you're wrong (and seem to love calling other people 'ignorant' when they disagree with you).

No - you asked if I was Native American. Fine.

You THEN made a determination based on that, including 'bias' and lack of objectivity.

You used the word "So', which is a logical connector. You PRESUMED I was Native American, and THEN decided I was  'influenced by my racial background', which includes lacking in objectivity, logic and rationality. You suggest this merely because I don't believe the same things you do!

I came to my beliefs through experience(s), and through the application of logic, rationality, and some objectivity. (which has led to some issues - I either hallucinate, or I'm completely wrong... or I've misinterpreted those experiences).

That rationality is shown in this thread - asking the sort of questions that few ever think about. (Sure, easy to ask "do cats and dogs have a soul?"... it takes a bit more effort to ask about how the spiritual is connected to the physical, and what are its limitations - are they in DNA, cells, form, shape, etc).

And also way back then, I realised that the Bible and Christianity were false!

Some years ago, I worked with a group of strong-minded Christians. One of them had the stupidity to say to me "You will lose your beliefs before I lose mine". I thought about that, and said "yep! When I realise my beliefs contradict what I think is 'right' in the world to such an extent as to be untenable - hell yes! I will dump them! I will not grasp at straws to hold a belief that does not work!"

You, Xinyuren - quite clearly are biased in your beliefs, and clearly not objective in any real sense of the word. I've had Christian friends - staunch believers - who acknowledge the contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible... they at least had the strength of faith to say "yes, I know. - I don't get it either.. but I still believe the main message!" I can respect them for that.

xinyuren:

Shining, I am being unreasonable? I will admit to inaccuracies when you finally present one. Is that unreasonable? So your task is clear. Give me an inaccuracy!!! The true reason you hate debating with me is because I call you out on your claims. You are free to believe what you choose. I don't impose my beliefs on anyone，I simply demand that you present evidence of your claims against them. thus far, you have been unable to do so and that irks you. If I'm so clearly biased, then you should easily be able to expose the flaws in my defense, right? After all, the internet is full of facts to back you up, right? So you want me to apologize because I guessed wrong that you were a Native American? That's petty, but here it goes: I apologize for concluding you were a Native American.

Shining_brow:

NO!

I realised what it is - in one word - last night.

Xinyuren - you are patronising!

I've known for a while that you are arrogant, and somewhat egocentric (if people don't believe your ideas, then you feel you can insult them). You are also belligerent, and quite passive-aggressive when it comes to insulting people (as you did in these comments). You belittle people (and then try to say 'No I didn't - but if you think so, then I'm sorry" (passive-aggressive). You seem to enjoy ridiculing people (I've seen you do this with other people - not just myself - it's in the following threads that Hunny writes).

But it's the patronising that gets my goat! You look down on people who don't see things your way., who don't agree with your 'logic', and you are unwilling to look at other people's viewpoints.

I'm thinking that perhaps you have Asperger's Syndrome, which if you haven't been diagnosed with, perhaps you should look it up... it's one of those forms of Autism that has only relatively recently been diagnosed in people.

You are rude, and quite clearly disrespectful towards other people.

If I thought you didn't honestly believe in your god, bible and messiah - I'd say you're just another troll.

You SHOULD take this reply as something for you to do some soul-searching with. Another intelligent human being has said X about you. (unlikely to be the first person...). You don't have to agree with it - but it would be very un-human to not at least consider it. And to not see WHY someone might think such things.

However, I'm sure this comment will be completely wasted on you.. you do not have the humility that your saviour wanted to espouse in his followers. You will reply almost immediately after reading it, and you will do your usual passive-aggressive BS. There will not be even an ounce of self-reflection (ie, trying to see how other people might view your writing).

Shining_brow:

And, most questions not even attempted :( But not surprising.

Q to you: do you believe in a literal Satan that tries to beguile and trick humans into being bad?

hunny797:

Yes of course I do. For me satan has a very wide meaning. the voice in my head urging me to watch porn is also of the satan. the thing is that a physical entity is not required in the matter of religion and faith since physical bodies are a sign of finity and limit. while realms of religion and faith are infinite and the dimensions various.

The concept of satan according to me is that God has numerous creations. All creations have some purpose. Humans were created to worship and glorify Him. Even before their creation God had created some entities (known as angels etc. Satan is/was an angel or not, I don't know)  But satan was rebellious in nature and he refused to acknowledge humans as superior to him, thus he was exiled and given respite until the final day to try and misguide humans. Some (including me) surrender to his orders others who have much stronger belief do not listen to him.

Shining_brow:

While I was reading up on 'jinn' from before, it said that Shaitan couldn't be an angel, because angels didn't have free will - therefore, he couldn't have rebelled.

Jinns, OTOH, do have some free will, and so Satan was a jinn.

Just letting you know what I read - that's all :)

Shining_brow:

Oh, following on from that - do angels and jinn have a soul? (or are they the soul?)

hunny797:

Yes I and the people from my school of thought are inclined towards the belief that satan could not be called an angel.

About the creation of satan it is said in the book that satan thought himself to be superior than human and the reason he gave to God was "You created me (satan) from fire and human from mud" this shows that satan could possibly not be having a soul since as is the common observation that presence of soul is only argued in physical bodies which have some form of life in it. To receive a soul these two things are important. A physical body and life. If you don't have any one of these you dont have a soul. I think your other option can be possible. satan himself being a form of soul

xinyuren:

Here you have cited three eyewitness accounts of the same event. I am not in the gym, but I am very familiar with this and dont need a Bible. By the wording, you can see John's description is at the beginning of the journey to Golgotha. Jesus was caring his own stake (a more accurate term). Matthew, Mark, and Luke's commentary takes place in transit ("...as they were going out). So apparently Jesus' strength gave out along the way. They found another man to bear the load the rest of the journey. This is just a case of one eyewitness recording a part of an event and others recording another part. This is not a contradiction.

Nessquick:

xinyuren, it's contradiction in a view that bible is word of Lord, while here you clearly state the truth, that bible is collection of stories from different people. Or does Lord dictated to each eyewitness what to write ?