Religous debates and questions [2]

Not yet anyway!

There are nasty rumours about Intelligent Design being the same thing as Creationism. Intelligent Designerists deny it, of course.

I 've also heard the Intelligent Designer also wrote the Bible. So he's a writer too, amongst all his other attributes.

I went over to Wikipedia to see why drunk Noah cursed Ham's kids. It seems to have been controversial for thousands of years.  

The majority of commentators, both ancient and modern, have felt that Ham's seeing his father naked was not a sufficiently serious crime to explain the punishment that follows. Nevertheless, Genesis 9:23, in which Shem and Japheth cover Noah with a cloak while averting their eyes, suggests that the words are to be taken literally, and it has recently been pointed out that in 1st millennium Babylonia, looking at another person's genitals was indeed regarded as a serious matter.

Other ancient commentators suggested that Ham was guilty of more than what the Bible says. The Targum Onqelos (an Aramaic translation of the Bible dating from the first few centuries AD) and several other sources had Ham gossiping about his father's drunken disgrace "in the street" (a reading which has a basis in the original Hebrew), so that being held up to public mockery was what had angered Noah; as the Cave of Treasures (4th century) puts it, "Ham laughed at his father's shame and did not cover it, but laughed aloud and mocked."

Ancient commentaries have also debated that "seeing" someone's nakedness meant to have sex with that person (e.g. Leviticus 20:17). The same idea was raised by 3rd-century rabbis, in the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 AD), who argue that Ham either castrated his father, or sodomised him. The same explanations are found in three Greek translations of the Bible, which replace the word "see" in verse 22 with another word denoting homosexual relations. The castration theory has its modern counterpart in suggested parallels found in the castration of Uranus by Cronus and a Hittite myth of the supreme god Anu whose genitals were "bitten off by his rebel son and cup-bearer Kumarbi, who afterwards rejoiced and laughed ... until Anu cursed him".

Modern scholars have suggested that to "uncover the nakedness" of a man means to have sex with that man's wife (e.g. Leviticus 20:11). If Ham had sex with his mother, and Canaan was the product of this forbidden union, it could explain why the curse falls on his son; the weakness, however, is that Genesis 9:21 has Ham "seeing" his father's nakedness, not "uncovering" it.

Man, the Ancient Hebrew language seems to be able to mean anything people want it to. {{{Sort of like the Bible itself. }}}

Yep. Almost as entertaining as Ally's posts!  

BTW have you heard from her lately?

Thanks for digging that up David, I was failry certain there was some controversy involving incest with Noah, although I had confused it with Lot. So much incest in the Bible its hard to keep track

Actually I believe the curse stems from Ham breaking the commandment of "Honor thy mother and father". The way I understand it, instead of covering his father, Ham left the tent and made a crude remark about him to his brothers. Although the curse seems extreme, it was a big deal at that time not to respect your parents.

Not really interested in getting into a lot of religious debates, just stopping by once in a while to read. I should probably stay away from this topic and stick to the Tolkien threads, but I'll jump in if I'm feeling spicy.

Hello Petty and all you other Breelanders, long time no see.

Hi Hillbilly  
Bree seems sunked but it's nice and dry here  

Hi Hillbilly,
The religious debates in this thread tend to be civil and respectful of the people, while often being irreverent to the subject.
There's a good mix of faiths and lacks-of-faith here.
If you're good with that, please join in the fun from time to time!

Welcome Hillbilly, good to see you again.  
Do feel free to pop into the religious thread as well as any other- things tend not to get too heated around here so its generally safe.


When it ocomes to intepreting why God does certain thing in the Bible I find things can be very tricky, and occasioanlly down right odd.
I find many of Gods actions within the sole context of the Bible baffling.
However when one treats the book as an amalgimtion and refiningment in idealogoy of a lot of ideas that were already floating round, and if you take it that the Biblcal God represents what was once a whole Council of ods, his aprent scizophrenaia becomes clearer.

And didnt he strike down Moses brother for approaching Him wearing the wrong sort of hat? Im sure there is something about that somewhere? (I seem to vaguely recall some Von Daniken style musings that the Ark of the Covenant containing some sort of super electrical weapon, and it was because the hat was metal he got zapped. But maybe God was just a fashion critic!)

Hello everyone, thank you for the welcome. I am considering posting on the welcome page, but since I'm here and some of you know me, I'll just post this anyway.

I understand your comments petty, a lot of people look at the bible that way. Here is my opinion (get the rocks ready):

1. As an evangelical, I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.
2. One reason I am a Christian is because it makes the most intellectual sense to me.
3. America is God's instrument in carrying out his will on earth

That last one is just a bunch of crap I put in to make you mad for a second. I assumed I had to get your attention because the first two had most of you laughing with tears in your eyes.

One of my favorite Scotsmen (yes petty, you are too) is Alistair Begg. If you have questions about Christianity, I will do my best, but his website is a fine source of biblical teaching. It is truthforlife.org. I'm guessing his teaching will be different from the Christianity that some of you here seem to have experienced.

It will be good and interestng to get your persepctive on things then Hillbilly.

I looked up Alistair Begg, I have to admit that initial impressions are not good, I am always wary of anyone claiming to bring the word of God but who requires you first to go to their 'store to buy' to hear it  

#3 was beautifully done, Hillbilly. Cheers!

You have a great sense of humor about those who doubt religion, and given that it makes the most intellectual sense to you, I see a great discussion on the way. One question, is #2 based on #1, or is there an intellectual rather than purely faith based reason to accept the bible as the inerrant word of God?

I wasn't laughing until I read this, Hillbilly:

"That last one is just a bunch of crap I put in to make you mad for a second. I assumed I had to get your attention because the first two had most of you laughing with tears in your eyes."



I'm afraid I'm not going to partake in this discussion, I have too little knowledge about both the bilbe and science to be able to fully dismiss or support either. That said, I am not a religious man, I just had to comment on #3

I don't think the bible should be set as against science, that's just in certain readings of it. One being used to discredit the other does a disservice to the bible, whichever direction the argument goes. I think there are ways to read the bible as truth without conflicting with science, but it requires a more symbolical reading than is generally used.

I think the Bible can be set against science where it makes contrary claims on the same ground- such as the age of the earth, the failure to mention all the other galaxies or dinosaurs or where humans come from and in what form.

I think it can also be challenged on historic grounds, as there are technical errors in it, for example references to cities built by Rameses before the time of Rameses.
And it can be compared to earlier documents and accounts covering the same ground- creation and Flood stories.

Where the ground is much less certain I would say is in philosophical and idealogical matters.
There one could arguably say the morality and the message was directed in some fashion by a God of some sort.

Carl Sagan did a very nice re-interpretation of Genesis where you take 'days' to simply mean periods of time where God did certain tasks, the same way we break off tasks between days. If you are willing to not be literal to the point of concreteness then a bible reading gets you into less conflict with the world as we now know it.

I personally read the bible as a historical artifact with some beautiful thoughts, but don't have arguments with people who take it more seriously, so long as they choose to read the symbolism rather than the words that happened to pop out in whatever translation they are looking at.

I'm with the hairball.

I'm definitely with Halfy on the science/religion stuff. They're fundamentally designed to answer different questions. Sciences generally suck at answering moral and spiritual questions, while religions aren't very good at the nuts and bolts of how the world works. To use one for the other is like opening paint cans with a kitchen knife. It's disrespectful to both.

I would not disagree- but many faiths do make the claim that the Bible is the word of God and an accurate account.

And whilst there is plenty of room for wiggling in the Genesis account with days as millennia ect it all gets a bit trickier with Jesus.

Here we have a choice- you either believe a man was conceived without any sperm involved within a virgin by a ghost, and that he lived a normal human life but was at the same time God incarnate, and that he was killed as the ultimate sacrifice for all our sins and then three days later rose from the dead or you don't believe it in which case that refutes the entire premise Christianity is founded upon.

Those things are all in direct contradiction with everything science tells us about the world and how things function within it- but they are fundamental to accepting the truth of Christianity and Jesus and are not open to reinterpretation the way Genesis is.
Without those elements Jesus is, at most, as the Jews and Muslims see him- just another mortal prophet and there is no Christianity.

I think most christians today don't really care about the virgin birth (that was tied into old ideas where virginity was conflated with purity), the thing about God incarnate and dying for our sins is purely spiritual and so doesn't conflict with science, and they really would like to believe that this is one special case where God stepped in, defying everyday science, and raised someone from the dead so that there is a rallying point for faith.

Many effective scientists are practicing christians who are willing to bend the rules just this once for what is supposed to be a one time occurrence. And the 'fact' of that one time occurrence creates the religious feelings they seek. If it kept occurring they simply wouldn't be interested, for then it passes from religion into science.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Those things are all in direct contradiction with everything science tells us about the world and how things function within it- but they are fundamental to accepting the truth of Christianity and Jesus and are not open to reinterpretation the way Genesis is.

I fundamentally disagree with you here, Petty. Science doesn't get up and tell us things like politicians and religious leaders do.  Is establishes  methodologies for testing certain hypotheses.  It's the nature and profession of scientists to to debate among themselves, and to attempt to form a consensus, but that consensus is always open to challenge as long as the challenge can be objectively tested.  Above all Science doesn't speak with one voice.  

There are many religious scientists who see no contradiction at all between the two.  Nobody has ever designed an experiment to empirically test the divinity of Jesus, and until they do Science (whoever that is) is silent on the subject.

Edit: crosspost w/ Halfwise

That was more an expression of speech than a claim to science having one unified voice David.

But you can devise tests to empirically show that people who have been dead for 3 days dont come back to life.

Or that you require material from males and females to conceive new life in the human species.

So there is a clashing between science knowledge and Biblical 'fact'.

Hillbilly wrote:  Here is my opinion (get the rocks ready):

1.  As an evangelical, I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.
2.  One reason I am a Christian is because it makes the most intellectual sense to me.

There's nothing to laugh at here, but let me ask you about #1 so I know where you're coming from.

When you speak of the Bible, which translation do you prefer, or do you prefer the original language? Also, how do you explain all the little differences between the four Gospels? I know people who consider themselves literalists who answer these questions quite differently.

I guess it comes down to how you define "inerrant"...

Pettytyrant101 wrote:That was more an expression of speech than a claim to science having one unified voice David.

But you can devise tests to empirically show that people who have been dead for 3 days dont come back to life.

Or that you require material from males and females to conceive new life in the human species.

So there is a clashing between science knowledge and Biblical 'fact'.

Well, let me just point out that the scientific definition of death has changed significantly in the last century. It used to be as easy as "his heart has stopped". Most scientists would have considered CPR either a miracle or quackery a century ago.