Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

not that i have read the quran but i understand that there is no verse in the quran encouraging anybody to kill anybody. it is only an interpretation which is abused by the fanatics to commit murder.

is there any verse in the bible to encourage moses to kill somebody.

i always thought that bible taught us to turn the other cheek if one is slapped. is this not the case. have i been wrong all these years.

I notice that the Old Testament says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" while the New Testament tells us "Turn the other cheek" which is clearly a blatant contradiction. Still, I would like to know first why Genesis 2 tells us that God created the beasts before man and Genesis 3 tells us it was the other way round. Once we have dealt with that contradiction on pages 1-2 of the book, maybe we can move on. Funny, the self-proclaimed experts here on religion keep ignoring my request for clarification on this matter. Let's dispel it and then move on to the next of hundreds of contradictions in this work deemed to be so perfect that countless numbers of people have been tortured and killed in its name over the centuries (thankfully not in Europe since the Enlightenment).

Very interesting Tim!

Maybe one of the zealots can explain this!

Maybe you can start a thread with all the contradictions. Would be interesting.

Here are one or two to be going on with.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_ ... tions.html

Anyway, if people find some king of solace in this stuff, and they don't go around burning witches or chopping people's heads off, let's live and let live. The God delusion is obviously doomed, long term.

Thanks Tim!

That looks like a great resource. I will be reading all of it at a later stage.

I find this stuff quite interesting.

I think religion is in permanent decline in all Western Countries around the globe, including Cyprus.

[umit07]

What's so funny?

He has made a lot of simple mistakes for someone claiming to be a strong believer or religious. I think he is having us on.

A Christian would be very famiar with the Trinity. It is core to Orthodox Christianity. Calling the Son a Ghost would be a big no no.

Also the thing you highlighted about the Qumran Vs Quran. I have no idea about the Quran and I don't know much about the Bible, new or Old Testament, but these things are really basic even for an Atheist or non believer to know.

THe holly trinity thing, he just mentioned them in a different order from what I can see. In regards to the Quran, he never claimed to be an authority on anything but the Bible. So if indeed Qumran is the Quran, (which seems to be the case), I can't really blame him for his error, however simple it may seem. He seems quite genuine in his belief in god and the bible.

[Paphitis]

What's so funny?

He has made a lot of simple mistakes for someone claiming to be a strong believer or religious. I think he is having us on.

A Christian would be very famiar with the Trinity. It is core to Orthodox Christianity. Calling the Son a Ghost would be a big no no.

Also the thing you highlighted about the Qumran Vs Quran. I have no idea about the Quran and I don't know much about the Bible, new or Old Testament, but these things are really basic even for an Atheist or non believer to know.

THe holly trinity thing, he just mentioned them in a different order from what I can see. In regards to the Quran, he never claimed to be an authority on anything but the Bible. So if indeed Qumran is the Quran, (which seems to be the case), I can't really blame him for his error, however simple it may seem. He seems quite genuine in his belief in god and the bible.

Go back and see how he referred to the Trinity as The Father, Ghost and Holy Spirit.

This is really a very simple error for someone claiming to be a believer. I can understand even religious people getting scripture wrong but not knowing the Trinity is a bit too silly, which makes me think he is not serious.

It's suppose to be, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

[Tim Drayton]

I would still be glad if somebody could shed a little light on Genesis 6:1 and 2:

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

The sons of God coming down from heaven and marrying human women? How do you reconcile this with the notion of a transcendent, spiritual entity when God has sons who can physically come to our planet and fancy and marry humans? It seems odd that a transcendent entity would beget sons who have physical form and can come to our planet and settle down with an Earth-woman, thus being in one place at one time.

[Maximus]

I would still be glad if somebody could shed a little light on Genesis 6:1 and 2:

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

The sons of God coming down from heaven and marrying human women? How do you reconcile this with the notion of a transcendent, spiritual entity when God has sons who can physically come to our planet and fancy and marry humans? It seems odd that a transcendent entity would beget sons who have physical form and can come to our planet and settle down with an Earth-woman, thus being in one place at one time.

Nowhere in those two verses does it say that the sons of god came down from heaven. But, how can men multiply if there was no women?

Man and son of god are figures of speech and represents both genders. Just like the word mankind represents the whole human race.

I am no expert. This is just my interpretation and further research on the definition of man provides this from a dictionary;

man
noun: man; plural noun: men;

1.
an adult human male.
synonyms: male, adult male, gentleman;
2.
a human being of either sex; a person.
"God cares for all races and all men"
synonyms: human being, human, person, mortal, individual, personage, soul

[Tim Drayton]

I would still be glad if somebody could shed a little light on Genesis 6:1 and 2:

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

The sons of God coming down from heaven and marrying human women? How do you reconcile this with the notion of a transcendent, spiritual entity when God has sons who can physically come to our planet and fancy and marry humans? It seems odd that a transcendent entity would beget sons who have physical form and can come to our planet and settle down with an Earth-woman, thus being in one place at one time.

Nowhere in those two verses does it say that the sons of god came down from heaven. But, how can men multiply if there was no women?

Man and son of god are figures of speech and represents both genders. Just like the word mankind represents the whole human race.

I am no expert. This is just my interpretation and further research on the definition of man provides this from a dictionary;

man
noun: man; plural noun: men;

1.
an adult human male.
synonyms: male, adult male, gentleman;
2.
a human being of either sex; a person.
"God cares for all races and all men"
synonyms: human being, human, person, mortal, individual, personage, soul

Figures of speech, huh? That's what you always get from religous zealots. It's the absolute, literal truth one minute when it suits them, the next minute it all has to be taken figuratively, whenever there is anything to be explained away. I think we have had this discussion before and I took the trouble to find out what it says in the original Hebrew and that your interpretation holds no water when you do so. Shall we go round and round the mulberry bush again and again? If this one part of the Bible that you want to explain away is a figure of speech, why are we not entitled to treat other things in the Bible as a figure of speech? Maybe God is just a figure of speech and does not really exist.

[Tim Drayton]

Just had a glance at Genesis 2 and I see that God, already having created Adam, then created all of the beasts and only then, from one of Adam's ribs, made Eve. So, it is men first, beasts second and women third. How bizzare! Never mind, it must all be a figure of speech.

[Tim Drayton]

It would appear that when the sons of God had children with the daughters of men, these were the giants known as Nephilim, different from ordinary people, which I find hard to reconcile with the notion that the sons of God is simply a figure of speech and means ordinary men, since these sons of God produced a different kind of offspring from ordinary men when they mated with women. Anyway, if something is staring you in the face and you can't or won't see it, you never will, so enjoy your delusion.

[Maximus]

It would appear that when the sons of God had children with the daughters of men, these were the giants known as Nephilim, different from ordinary people, which I find hard to reconcile with the notion that the sons of God is simply a figure of speech and means ordinary men, since these sons of God produced a different kind of offspring from ordinary men when they mated with women. Anyway, if something is staring you in the face and you can't or won't see it, you never will, so enjoy your delusion.

The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɨˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נפילים‎) were offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge according to Genesis 6:4; the name is also used in reference to giants who inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan according to Numbers 13:33.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

Man is a human being of either sex. Sons of god and daughters of men are man. They married.

[Tim Drayton]

It would appear that when the sons of God had children with the daughters of men, these were the giants known as Nephilim, different from ordinary people, which I find hard to reconcile with the notion that the sons of God is simply a figure of speech and means ordinary men, since these sons of God produced a different kind of offspring from ordinary men when they mated with women. Anyway, if something is staring you in the face and you can't or won't see it, you never will, so enjoy your delusion.

The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɨˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נפילים‎) were offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge according to Genesis 6:4; the name is also used in reference to giants who inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan according to Numbers 13:33.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

Man is a human being of either sex.

Sons of god and daughters of men are man. Human beings of either sex. They married.

See what I mean? Staring you in the face and you can't see it. Never mind.