Continue from Speaker's Corner

• Icemoon

  31 Jul 05, 20:14

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  forget it. no use reasoning with logic or evidence with them. If they don't wish to believe

  Why will we wish to believe? Is science so pathetic we need to wish to believe? Science demands that we accept, if the evidence is rock solid.
  
  Wait .. is the evidence rock solid yet?
  
  Perhaps if the homo gene is found, then the evidence will be rock solid.
• Icemoon

  31 Jul 05, 20:15

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  For me, it was more than a "few episodes" its more like all the reports and documentries i've seen over 2 or 3 years, which adds up to more than a "few".

  what kind of reports do you read? What kind of journals?
• earthlings73

  31 Jul 05, 20:21

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Why will we wish to believe? Is science so pathetic we need to wish to believe? Science demands that we accept, if the evidence is rock solid.
  
  Wait .. is the evidence rock solid yet?
  
  Perhaps if the homo gene is found, then the evidence will be rock solid.

  but science had also not demonstrated that gays are caused by the environment too..
• Icemoon

  31 Jul 05, 20:30

  science should be able to demonstrate some gays are caused by environment?
  
  ok lah .. let's just see on the fence and be skeptical of any claim put forth by both camps.
• earthlings73

  31 Jul 05, 20:55

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  science should be able to demonstrate some gays are caused by environment?
  
  ok lah .. let's just see on the fence and be skeptical of any claim put forth by both camps.

  one of the best piece of evidence is the islamic countries whereby gays are punishable by execution.. you can still find gays there..
  
  my point is still simply "why condemn someone who has not yet been found guilty?"
• Icemoon

  31 Jul 05, 21:11

  aiyoh .. talking about intolerance .. aren't they even worse?
• earthlings73

  31 Jul 05, 21:26

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  aiyoh .. talking about intolerance .. aren't they even worse?

  pretty sad indeed.. but then, 2 wrongs don't make 1 right..
  
  i guess you had missed out on the great debate when this thread was still in speaker's corner..
  
  in US and other Christian countries, you can find hate crimes against gays.. Yah, these people are not executed by the government but then you have our regular citizens killing gays stating that it's rightful to do so based on the Bible..
  
  and singaporemacross also highlighted that there was indeed a teaching within the catholics that encouraged tolerance.. but somehow, most priests do not follow such a teaching..
  
  as a singaporean, we are usually sheltered from events happening within the middle east.. however, practices happening in US/Europe will affect us in a more direct way.. Hence, in my opinion, the intolerance of Christianity on this issue had a more direct impact on a gay Singaporean like me than let's say a policy in the Middle East..
• HENG@

  31 Jul 05, 22:26

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  what kind of reports do you read? What kind of journals?

  lets see, varied mags. economist, times, newsweek(all picked up randomly), national geographic(subscription), several science ones which i pick up randomly as well. I didn't go looking specifically for such reports. They found me, and I feel pretty convinced. If u don't feel convinced yet, then wait for more evidence to be found. But please don't come telling me that just because it has not enuf evidence for u to be convinced, it must be false ok?
• HENG@

  31 Jul 05, 22:44

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  aiyoh .. talking about intolerance .. aren't they even worse?

  Very much worse. But such laws which states that homosexuality is punishable by death are set by humans, not the religion. And these humans r the ones who r intolerant.
• stupidissmart

  1 Aug 05, 10:25

  Your claim can be disputed. If this snake so power liao still the dumbest .. then I think human can't have dominion over the animals liao.

  First, u still can't show anything tat tis snake is special compared to others. Second the snake is intentionally made smart. In fact perhaps before man eat the fruit of wisdom, maybe the snake r smarter than men. U can't prove tis poitn wrong either.
  
  Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made
  
  

  I think the onus is on you to show me all snakes can talk. After all, we can't communicate with snakes today and I reserve the right to place the onus on you since reality is on my side. Whatever theory you come out with to explain why we can't talk to snake is beside the point, to prove these theories is your business also.

  Lets put it tis way. I don't believe in any part of the bible and I don't believe garden of eden exists. If u wanna compared with today, then I might as well challenge u to show me the location of the garden of eden and the rest of the story and prove tatthe bible is wrong. In the bible, the snakes do talk. In the bible it does not say tat particular snake is special. If u find tat the snakes can't talk now, it just meant tat the bible is ridiculously wrong. However since we r arguing from the theological aspect o the bible, u should produce evidence from the bible itself.
  
  

  And don't be a dumbass tell me what eat fruit then become cannot talk. Hello .. that is supposed to be the fruit of wisdom, not fruit to become deaf and dumb.

  I told u it is because of the curse by god after, making snake walk on belly and men and snake become enemies then they canot communicate. It is nothign to do with the fruit if u read carefully. Then it made perfect sense isn't it ? Snake and men can communicate, then they get cursed to be enemies then they ceased communication. Is tat too hard for u to understand
  
  

  Yah you are right. But I've shown he could communicate to God via another verse. So what's your point?

  Lets putit tis way then. God is omni potent. Snakes can communicate (with eve) Therefore if god is really all-powerful, he could talk with anything comunicatable. Or unless u r gonan say god is not all-powerful and eve has more power than god over talking with snakes?
  
  

  On the other hand, using your own argument back on you, you can't shown me they have not been breathed life into the dust. Where is the evidence? Show me show me.

  I think u should be the one to show me evidence sicne u r the one tat claim animals
  
  

  It is not about fruit of wisdom, but that animals lack the conscious or spirit put in human by God. God breathed into mankind the neshamat, something not mentioned in the creation of animals. Animals are just nefesh chayah, or living being, or soul if you like

  U r claiming tis point first. U should show me the evidence and not me to show u otherwise.
  
  
• Icemoon

  2 Aug 05, 00:38

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  First, u still can't show anything tat tis snake is special compared to others. Second the snake is intentionally made smart. In fact perhaps before man eat the fruit of wisdom, maybe the snake r smarter than men. U can't prove tis poitn wrong either.
  

  you also cannot show this snake is like all other snakes. I can't prove the point wrong, and that point remains your opinion, not really an argument as you have nothing concrete to back it up.
  
  In the bible, the snakes do talk. In the bible it does not say tat particular snake is special.
  
  which verse say that snakes do talk? in the bible, it does not say that particular snake is not special either.
  
  Moreover isn't it strange this snake seems to know so much? I wonder whether it ate before another fruit of wisdom .. haha. Are you saying all snakes know so much, since you claim this snake is just like the rest.
  
  If u find tat the snakes can't talk now, it just meant tat the bible is ridiculously wrong.
  
  this is a sweeping conclusion. Maybe only that particular serpent was able to talk? At least the bible shows one talking serpent and you can't dispute that. Once again, we never find Adam talking to a platoon of vipers.
  
  I told u it is because of the curse by god after, making snake walk on belly and men and snake become enemies then they canot communicate.
  
  where is the evidence?
  
  Then it made perfect sense isn't it ? Snake and men can communicate, then they get cursed to be enemies then they ceased communication. Is tat too hard for u to understand
  
  This is not even remotely suggested in the bible. Moreover, if you maintain that all animals could talk, then why couldn't we talk to other animals now? We became enemey to all animals?
  
  Lets putit tis way then. God is omni potent. Snakes can communicate (with eve) Therefore if god is really all-powerful, he could talk with anything comunicatable.
  
  I have no dispute with this sentence. But what were we arguing actually?
  
  U r claiming tis point first. U should show me the evidence and not me to show u otherwise.
  
  The bible mentions about the neshamat chayim in human but only the nefesh chayah in animals. It is written very clearly.
• stupidissmart

  2 Aug 05, 09:54

  you also cannot show this snake is like all other snakes. I can't prove the point wrong, and that point remains your opinion, not really an argument as you have nothing concrete to back it up.

  U see, I show u some evidence, if u wanna prove it wrong u should show me back some evidence on why u find it doubtful. I show u a talking snake. U should not expect tis snake to be so special compared with the rest of the snake tat only he can communicate while the other is a few million years of revolution behind and cannot communicate. They r all made in the same day isn't it ? If tat snake is so special then it should be mentioned in the bible to be a special one. The onus of proving tat the snake is special lies on u, not me.
  
  

  which verse say that snakes do talk? in the bible, it does not say that particular snake is not special either.

  It says the snake is special and it show an ordinary snake talking. If u think tat the snake is not special, trhen u should prove it.
  
  

  Moreover isn't it strange this snake seems to know so much? I wonder whether it ate before another fruit of wisdom .. haha. Are you saying all snakes know so much, since you claim this snake is just like the rest.

  I am saying all the snakes then can communicate. he did not do a very smart thing either and he is in fact, pretty dumb to taut eve to eat the fruit and get punished for it as well. He did not gain anything from tis experience. Why do u say he knows so much ?
  
  

  this is a sweeping conclusion. Maybe only that particular serpent was able to talk? At least the bible shows one talking serpent and you can't dispute that. Once again, we never find Adam talking to a platoon of vipers.

  If there is a talking snake, it shows tat snakes can talk then. In fact u do not know is there a platoon of snakes in the first place. If u see carefully, God never say tat land dwellign animals should go forth and multiply. He mention tat explicitly to birds and sea creatures only. Why don't u prove to me there is a platoon of snakes in the first place. Maybe he is the only snake then, much like adam and eve r the only men. Show me there exists a platoon of snakes first.
  
  

  where is the evidence?

  And I will put enmity
  between you and the woman,
  and between your offspring [a] and hers;
  he will crush [b] your head,
  and you will strike his heel."
  
  So it can be possible tat to place eminity, the best way is to cease communication. Much like wat god do to create misunderstanding among men in tower of babel
  
  

  This is not even remotely suggested in the bible. Moreover, if you maintain that all animals could talk, then why couldn't we talk to other animals now? We became enemey to all animals?

  Maybe the other animals is not as crafty as the snake. They can't communicate
  
  

  The bible mentions about the neshamat chayim in human but only the nefesh chayah in animals. It is written very clearly

  Written where ?
• Icemoon

  2 Aug 05, 13:16

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  U see, I show u some evidence, if u wanna prove it wrong u should show me back some evidence on why u find it doubtful.

  evidence of what?
  
  It says the snake is special and it show an ordinary snake talking. If u think tat the snake is not special, trhen u should prove it.
  
  Allow me to quote Gen 3:1 (NIV) - Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
  
  The verse tells us the serpent was more crafty and not "serpents were more crafty". And the "he" obviously refers to one serpent, that crafty serpent in the front part.
  
  I am saying all the snakes then can communicate.
  
  and your proof?
  
  he did not do a very smart thing either and he is in fact, pretty dumb to taut eve to eat the fruit and get punished for it as well. He did not gain anything from tis experience. Why do u say he knows so much ?
  
  The snake had no foreknowledge and did not know he would be punished.
  
  He knows so much .. well .. how come the snake knew the nature of the fruit? He even knew the reason behind God's warning.
  
  If there is a talking snake, it shows tat snakes can talk then.
  
  well .. not surprised this sentence comes from someone who fail his logic 101 course. Wah leow eh .. anyone can help me tell this fellow what fallacy is that?
  
  Show me there exists a platoon of snakes first.
  
  you are the one who should be showing me, to boost your claim all snakes can talk. why would I need to show you there exists a platoon of snakes? how does it help my argument?
  
  So it can be possible tat to place eminity, the best way is to cease communication. Much like wat god do to create misunderstanding among men in tower of babel
  
  so even you admit that is only your opinion? that the reason why we can't talk with snakes is 'cos we are enemies?
  
  Maybe the other animals is not as crafty as the snake. They can't communicate
  
  huh .. what are you trying to say here?
  
  Written where ?
  
  the nefesh chayah and neshamat chayim are in the Hebrew Bible. In English, it is a soul vs. spirit distinction, if you like.
• stupidissmart

  2 Aug 05, 13:49

  I think u get a wrong conclusion. animals don't have a religion doesn't means human must have In fact animals, who do not eat the fruit of wisdom and is suppose to be the purest state defined by god do not even pray or worship him. sn't tat a sign tat men shouldn't have a religion as well

  aiyoh .. if you want to argue it the religious way .. please go and study the religious text before you shoot!
  
  It is not about fruit of wisdom, but that animals lack the conscious or spirit put in human by God. God breathed into mankind the neshamat, something not mentioned in the creation of animals. Animals are just nefesh chayah, or living being, or soul if you like

  I think u r drifiting far away fromt he original discussion. All the while it boils down to the above statement made by u. U claim tat god breath into mankind neshamat.
  
  1. U fail to prove tat God do not breath anything to the animals. U can't say tat men were special based on the line tat god breath life into dust because u do not know how god create the other animals. U say men is special, then u have to prove it.
  
  

  if you want to argue it your way, it is still dumb.
  
  You know why .. 'cos the bible did record for us what happened before they ate the fruit.
  
  And before they ate the fruit they already could talk to God. So now they were same state as animals but could talk to God but animals were not shown to talk to God.
  
  So what's your argument now?

  Then u came up with tis argument tat animals were not shown to talk to god.
  
  I manage to prove the following
  
  1) Snake do talk to men
  2) snake is an animal
  3) tat is before they eat the fruit of wisdom
  4) god should be more powerful than men
  5) if men could speak with snake, god should have more power than men and can communicate with snakes as well. SO it proves tat u r wrong tat animals can't talk with god. In fact u agree the above in the sentence below
  
  Lets putit tis way then. God is omni potent. Snakes can communicate (with eve) Therefore if god is really all-powerful, he could talk with anything comunicatable.
  
  I have no dispute with this sentence. But what were we arguing actually?
  
  U claim tat tis snake is unique, however u can't show any evidence tat it is unique, neither can u show tat there r a lot of snakes to begin with. U don't have any claims to show the above wrong. And the rest of the sh!t u write is just avoiding the question and running away from proving your points. If u can't prove it, then obviously u show u r dumb and comment on something which u have lesser knowledge of. So on no grounds can u say tat animals do not have conscious or spirit because they can speak and have conscious. These r the signs tat u insisted to prove tat animals do not have spirit and it was shown tat u r wrong. So in the end u show all your earlier points r full of errors and tat is wat we r trying to prove till now.
• Icemoon

  2 Aug 05, 15:02

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  I think u r drifiting far away fromt he original discussion. All the while it boils down to the above statement made by u. U claim tat god breath into mankind neshamat.

  Oh yeah and you are the accomplice. You instigated me to drift away and then pretended to be the good guy when I suggested we should all wake up.
  
  I claimed God breathed into mankind the neshamat .. yes .. do you have problem with my this very specific claim?
  
  U fail to prove tat God do not breath anything to the animals. U can't say tat men were special based on the line tat god breath life into dust because u do not know how god create the other animals. U say men is special, then u have to prove it.
  
  Men is special - this is reality, ever since eden when God told the couple to have dominion over nature. And throughout Bible, it is always God talking to human and human with God. You never read animals talking with God freely, or God shown to be talking with animals freely, except for a miracle. If you want to argue that animals also talk freely with God and vice versa, you have to show it.
  
  It is meaningless to discuss things which do not have a basis in Scripture. You want to think animals are special then go ahead .. I'm not stopping you. But if you want to argue about theology, then I think we need to agree on certain things.
  
  on the other hand, if you take the opposite stand, you have more things to prove, and the onus is on your side. your argument now is you think all animals were breathed the neshamat, which is never explicitly mentioned and so you have to prove it.
  
  I hope we at least agree that humans are breathed the neshamat.
  
  Then u came up with tis argument tat animals were not shown to talk to god.
  
  God can communicate with animals, why not He is all powerful right? But it is not mentioned animals can talk freely with God. Freely as in like Adam and Eve liddat. It is not even mentioned animals know there is God and so on.
  
  What we agree now, I hope, is there existed a snake which was cursed by God. We are not shown the snake talking with God.
  
  1) Snake do talk to men
  
  only that particular snake could talk to men.
  
  2) snake is an animal
  
  I'm ok with this classification.
  
  3) tat is before they eat the fruit of wisdom
  4) god should be more powerful than men
  
  agree.
  
  5) if men could speak with snake, god should have more power than men and can communicate with snakes as well. SO it proves tat u r wrong tat animals can't talk with god. In fact u agree the above in the sentence below
  
  Lets putit tis way then. God is omni potent. Snakes can communicate (with eve) Therefore if god is really all-powerful, he could talk with anything comunicatable.
  
  Agree with first sentence.
  
  On your second part, God can communicate with snakes doesn't mean snakes (or animals) can talk to God like Adam and Eve did.
  
  It is like I can tell my parrot or dog to sing or pick the bone. But they can't talk to me.
  
  U claim tat tis snake is unique, however u can't show any evidence tat it is unique, neither can u show tat there r a lot of snakes to begin with. U don't have any claims to show the above wrong.
  
  Do you see the problem your reasoning? 'cos I could very well say the snake is Satan (and you don't have any claims to prove me wrong).
  
  don't carry on with this rather pointless way of reasoning. You only shoot your own foot this way.
  
  My conclusion is this - let's assume the author of Genesis was sane when he wrote it. Genesis showed us animals and human both had nefesh chayah, but for human beings, the neshamat chayim was mentioned. There is a reason why this (God breathed into us the spirit of life) was mentioned for human - it is to tell us why human beings are special compared to other creations/living things. And we could see that humans are truly special, even after eden or tower of babel. From earliest times men had sought to worship God but till now we not found any concrete signs of that from animals.
  
  SIS, no one is stopping you from thinking animals are special or they are breathed the neshamat or things like that. but if you want to elevate your opinions to arguments, then you need something more.
• stupidissmart

  2 Aug 05, 16:34

  Men is special - this is reality, ever since eden when God told the couple to have dominion over nature. And throughout Bible, it is always God talking to human and human with God. You never read animals talking with God freely, or God shown to be talking with animals freely, except for a miracle. If you want to argue that animals also talk freely with God and vice versa, you have to show it.

  U see, the argument is not whether does god talk to animals more frequently or not but on whether do they create animals differently from men. U CLAIMED they r not, and as such u SHOULD PROVE from the scripture WHY ? SO far, u neevr come out with any evidence and want me to do all the proving. If u can't prove the above, then it can be safely said tat NOBODY KNOWS. And NOBODY can say tat men r created in a special manner which is totally different from animals. Why should I be the one showing it ? It is your claim isn't it.
  
  

  It is meaningless to discuss things which do not have a basis in Scripture. You want to think animals are special then go ahead .. I'm not stopping you. But if you want to argue about theology, then I think we need to agree on certain things.

  It depend on your definition of basis in scripture. So far u never come out with any basis from the scripture to support yoru stand
  
  

  on the other hand, if you take the opposite stand, you have more things to prove, and the onus is on your side. your argument now is you think all animals were breathed the neshamat, which is never explicitly mentioned and so you have to prove it.

  U get it wrong. U claim tat men r created specially WITHOUT any evidence. If there is no such evidence, it should be easy to conclude tat animals may be treated the same as men and all your arguments crash. If u do not prove it, then the best conclusion is NOBODY KNOW, and as such u cannot give your sweeping statement tat animals r created different from men[/b[b]]. If u refuse to prove, then u r guilty of making sweeping statement and as such u r still labeled as wrong
  
  

  rI hope we at least agree that humans are breathed the neshamat.

  The argument is on whether animals r breathed the same thing, not on men
  
  

  God can communicate with animals, why not He is all powerful right? But it is not mentioned animals can talk freely with God. Freely as in like Adam and Eve liddat. It is not even mentioned animals know there is God and so on.

  As said before, snakes can talk with men. Snakes can talk. Therefore we can conclude snakes can talk to god since god is omnipotent. Whether God wants to listen is not important. I had shown the capability, not on god's likes, preference or desire. God prefer men more doesn't means god create men differently. U do not talk with someone u do not like doesn't means u 2 can't communicate
  
  

  Do you see the problem your reasoning? 'cos I could very well say the snake is Satan

  U get the wrong idea of who should be proving and not proving.
  
  Snake means limbless scaly elongate reptile; some are venomous
  
  Satan means The profoundly evil adversary of God and humanity, often identified with the leader of the fallen angels; the Devil
  
  These 2 r totally different beings. Unless one is an idiot, nobody should have difficulty in seperating the 2. Throughout the bible they mention they snake as simply snake. If u say he is the devil, u have to prove it out, otherwise we should just have to take the literal meaning from the scripture tat a snake is indeed just a plain snake. If u do not prove it out, I can easily say the snake many means Icemoon, or pink unicorn or a mozilla firefox and u can't prove me wrong as well. If u do not prove snake=satan, then logical person will take the literal meaning and treat snake as snake.
  
  

  My conclusion is this - let's assume the author of Genesis was sane when he wrote it. Genesis showed us animals and human both had nefesh chayah, but for human beings, the neshamat chayim was mentioned. There is a reason why this (God breathed into us the spirit of life) was mentioned for human - it is to tell us why human beings are special compared to other creations/living things. And we could see that humans are truly special, even after eden or tower of babel. From earliest times men had sought to worship God but till now we not found any concrete signs of that from animals.

  The point of conflict is tat I believe animals and men r created the same. The only difference is men take the fruit of wisdom and god practise favourtism to like men more than other creatures. It does not necessary means tat animals r created differently. Why we worship etc, perhaps because we eat the fruit of "wisdom" and had some extraordinary "wisdom" and god had to guard against us.
• Icemoon

  2 Aug 05, 21:35

  this is exciting .. i just love talking to idiots and dummies .. don't you? I suppose you are enjoying it too, yeah?
  
  

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  U see, the argument is not whether does god talk to animals more frequently or not but on whether do they create animals differently from men. U CLAIMED they r not, and as such u SHOULD PROVE from the scripture WHY ? SO far, u neevr come out with any evidence and want me to do all the proving.

  what you mean why? you mean why are men created differently?
  
  If u can't prove the above, then it can be safely said tat NOBODY KNOWS. And NOBODY can say tat men r created in a special manner which is totally different from animals
  
  There is no doubt that man is special, regardless of his process of creation.
  
  Man was not created with the animals. He was last in the creation. His hierarchy in the creaton process is already special somewhat. And Scripture records for us the infusion of the holy breath into the man formed from dust. Ask yourself why is this mentioned if it is not mentioned in the creation of animals?
  
  There is a lot of theology and hebrew interpretation behind the issue. Hermeneutics is involved also. I'll address your interpretation later on.
  
  It depend on your definition of basis in scripture. So far u never come out with any basis from the scripture to support yoru stand
  
  mine is the common interpretation. Christians and Jewish theologians all agree that there is something special about that holy breath. if you claim otherwise, then your whole framework must be evaluated.
  
  U get it wrong. U claim tat men r created specially WITHOUT any evidence. If there is no such evidence, it should be easy to conclude tat animals may be treated the same as men and all your arguments crash.
  
  but scripture did record the infusion of the holy breath into human. Even if there is no hard evidence, you also cannot conclude man and animals must be treated the same.
  
  As said before, snakes can talk with men. Snakes can talk. Therefore we can conclude snakes can talk to god since god is omnipotent.
  
  For the million time, you have no shown me snakes could talk. I repost my earlier reply:
  
  

  Allow me to quote Gen 3:1 (NIV) - Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
  
  The verse tells us the serpent was more crafty and not "serpents were more crafty". And the "he" obviously refers to one serpent, that crafty serpent in the front part.

  These 2 r totally different beings. Unless one is an idiot, nobody should have difficulty in seperating the 2.
  
  I don't mean a snake is a satan and a satan is a snake that kind of thing. I mean the snake could be satan in disguise. Meaning there are some snakes that weren't satan in disguise.
  
  The point of conflict is tat I believe animals and men r created the same.
  
  You must explain why scripture records the infusion of the holy breath then. Why wasnt it recorded for the animals?
  
  The only difference is men take the fruit of wisdom and god practise favourtism to like men more than other creatures. It does not necessary means tat animals r created differently.
  
  if you accept God practise favouritism, then can you imagine God creating human differently?
  
  Why we worship etc, perhaps because we eat the fruit of "wisdom" and had some extraordinary "wisdom" and god had to guard against us.
  
  huh what God guard against us?
• Icemoon

  2 Aug 05, 21:39

  hmm .. should I break all my points into replies?
  
  can push the activity rating up a bit.
• plo30360

  3 Aug 05, 08:36

  Originally posted by earthlings73:
  [b]
  
  and singaporemacross also highlighted that there was indeed a teaching within the catholics that encouraged tolerance.. but somehow, most priests do not follow such a teaching..
  
  b]

  And how would you define this tolerance?
• stupidissmart

  3 Aug 05, 10:19

  this is exciting .. i just love talking to idiots and dummies .. don't you? I suppose you are enjoying it too, yeah?

  ah... I feel tat talking with dummies and idiots is a pain to the a$$. Recently I am debating with one and trust me, explaining things to him can't be more difficult
  
  

  what you mean why? you mean why are men created differently?

  I mean where from the scripture does it say men were created differently
  
  

  There is no doubt that man is special, regardless of his process of creation.
  
  Man was not created with the animals. He was last in the creation. His hierarchy in the creaton process is already special somewhat. And Scripture records for us the infusion of the holy breath into the man formed from dust. Ask yourself why is this mentioned if it is not mentioned in the creation of animals?
  
  There is a lot of theology and hebrew interpretation behind the issue. Hermeneutics is involved also. I'll address your interpretation later on.

  If u say men is special, I agree to a certain extent but not to the point tat animals r totally disregarded. Men was created the last or him being given a breath doesn't means he is created differently from animals and tat animals r still considered to be loved by god and animals r the pure form tat god desire them to remain as such
  
  

  mine is the common interpretation. Christians and Jewish theologians all agree that there is something special about that holy breath. if you claim otherwise, then your whole framework must be evaluated.

  U know, the common interpretation used to include the earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, prosecute lefthander, support slavery, start crusaders and inquisition. Their interpretation had proven to be wrong many times. They r probably only guessing and tat saying the breath is special is really just sweeping statement
  
  

  but scripture did record the infusion of the holy breath into human. Even if there is no hard evidence, you also cannot conclude man and animals must be treated the same.

  But they didn't record tat animals were not given the same breath nor say tat the breath is special. Therefore we cannot conclude they should be treated differently
  
  

  For the million time, you have no shown me snakes could talk. I repost my earlier reply:

  Is tat snake made by god ? It can talk. It is an animal. So wat is the problem ? In fact no one can proves tat there r more than a snake at tat time
  
  

  I don't mean a snake is a satan and a satan is a snake that kind of thing. I mean the snake could be satan in disguise. Meaning there are some snakes that weren't satan in disguise.

  Tat is no evidence tat even remotely suggest as such. Therefore we cannot conclude tat it is satan in disguise. If no evidence is neede, I might claim tat he is actually god in disguise and he purposely wanna find an excuse to make adam fall.
  
  

  You must explain why scripture records the infusion of the holy breath then. Why wasnt it recorded for the animals?

  Then u should explain why god never mention how animals r created nor claim tat the breah is specially for men. Otherwise the best conclusion is really, no conclusion
  
  

  if you accept God practise favouritism, then can you imagine God creating human differently?

  No. Your parents could make u and your sibling the same way but they could inevitably practise favourtism to one of them. These r 2 different issues
  
  

  huh what God guard against us?

  like how he guard us against tower of babel
• iveco

  3 Aug 05, 15:02

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  like how he guard us against tower of babel

  That seems like a typical divide & rule tactic to me. Jumble up the languages into various linguistic families, and make each ethnic group suspicious of one another. But, thanks to globalisation these days, the world is getting somewhat more united.
• Icemoon

  4 Aug 05, 01:09

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  I mean where from the scripture does it say men were created differently

  Scripture says that man was created in the image of God while animals were created according to their kinds.
  
  If u say men is special, I agree to a certain extent but not to the point tat animals r totally disregarded .. .. and animals r the pure form tat god desire them to remain as such
  
  We never totally disregard animals. If we do, we will violate God's commandments to "rule over" nature (Gen 1:26-27). We should not rule like a tyrant but like a benevolent king.
  
  What animals pure form? Haha .. the bible is not about animals but mankind.
  
  U know, the common interpretation used to include the earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, prosecute lefthander, support slavery, start crusaders and inquisition. Their interpretation had proven to be wrong many times. They r probably only guessing and tat saying the breath is special is really just sweeping statement
  
  You can't use the flat-earth or geocentric example as counter-argument since it is very clear those theologians were making "scientific comments" which was not their speciality.
  
  Ok, if you say the start crusades and all the shit were wrong, then kindly tell me how were their interpretation proven wrong?
  
  You say they are probably guessing and making sweeping statement .. pls you need to substantiate your claim .. or they can sue you for slander.
  
  But they didn't record tat animals were not given the same breath nor say tat the breath is special. Therefore we cannot conclude they should be treated differently
  
  Nay .. the bible is still fundamentally a literature and not a mathematical manuscript. So i ask you again - why was the infusion of the holy breadth recorded?
  
  Is tat snake made by god ? It can talk. It is an animal. So wat is the problem ? In fact no one can proves tat there r more than a snake at tat time
  
  That snake could talk. Doesn't mean all snakes could talk.
  
  Tat is no evidence tat even remotely suggest as such. Therefore we cannot conclude tat it is satan in disguise. If no evidence is neede, I might claim tat he is actually god in disguise and he purposely wanna find an excuse to make adam fall.
  
  There is evidence from the NT. Jesus' triumph over Satan's temptation was an allusion to the Fall of man. Jesus succeeded where Adam failed.
  
  Then u should explain why god never mention how animals r created nor claim tat the breah is specially for men. Otherwise the best conclusion is really, no conclusion
  
  God never mentions 'cos the creation of animals was unimportant. The holy breath is special, so it warrants a mention.
  
  No. Your parents could make u and your sibling the same way but they could inevitably practise favourtism to one of them. These r 2 different issues
  
  God is eternal, so from our perspective using your analogy, God practised favourtism before Adam was even created.
• laoda99

  4 Aug 05, 02:44

  Originally posted by iveco:

  That seems like a typical divide & rule tactic to me. Jumble up the languages into various linguistic families, and make each ethnic group suspicious of one another. But, thanks to globalisation these days, the world is getting somewhat more united.

  The more I study linguistics at uni, the more convinced i am that they are all from the same source....
  
  
• stupidissmart

  4 Aug 05, 09:46

  Scripture says that man was created in the image of God while animals were created according to their kinds

  Again tat doesn't means they were created differently. Much like there isn't any difference in making a human like doll and a teddy bear.
  
  

  We never totally disregard animals. If we do, we will violate God's commandments to "rule over" nature (Gen 1:26-27). We should not rule like a tyrant but like a benevolent king.
  
  What animals pure form? Haha .. the bible is not about animals but mankind.

  Now the issue is on animal. Regardless of whether they r well-liked or emphasised etc, they r in the form tat god had intended them to be when they r just created. If god make these animals gay, then we should really ponder on why tis is so
  
  

  You can't use the flat-earth or geocentric example as counter-argument since it is very clear those theologians were making "scientific comments" which was not their speciality.

  I am talking about them making wrong statement. Whether it is science or watever, they are shown to be wrong. And they r shown to be wrong many times
  
  

  Ok, if you say the start crusades and all the $$#% were wrong, then kindly tell me how were their interpretation proven wrong?

  No they r not wrong. It is the bbile tat is wrong. So u happy about tis conclusion ? BTW wat hapen to slavery and prosecuting lefthanders ? WHy aren't they mentioned ?
  
  

  Nay .. the bible is still fundamentally a literature and not a mathematical manuscript. So i ask you again - why was the infusion of the holy breadth recorded?

  U r avoiding the question again. They didn't record tat animals were not given the same breath nor say tat the breath is special. Therefore we cannot conclude they r created differently. As said before, the best conclusion is no conclusion unless u prove otherwise
  
  

  That snake could talk. Doesn't mean all snakes could talk.

  I don't need all snakes to talk to prove my point. As long as a snake talk, it prove god created an animal tat can communicate
  
  

  There is evidence from the NT. Jesus' triumph over Satan's temptation was an allusion to the Fall of man. Jesus succeeded where Adam failed.

  Com'on, why link tat story to adam and eve ? Jesus trump over satan doesn't have anything to do with eve and the snake
  
  

  God never mentions 'cos the creation of animals was unimportant. The holy breath is special, so it warrants a mention.

  Animals r not recorded because they r not emphasised. However it doesn't means they were created any differently. If it is so special, it would have given a great emphasis on it instead of just a brief mention. The bible itself never claim the breath is a big deal
  
  

  God is eternal, so from our perspective using your analogy, God practised favourtism before Adam was even created

  And tat is why god should never be consider as fair
• Icemoon

  4 Aug 05, 10:39

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  Again tat doesn't means they were created differently. Much like there isn't any difference in making a human like doll and a teddy bear.

  Can't you see it? If mankind is created in the image of God, then the holy breath part is not essential liao (but still important). This is supporting evidence to show why man behaves differently from animals. So what if mankind is just moulded from clay and so are animals? We don't care about physicial differences.
  
  Now the issue is on animal. Regardless of whether they r well-liked or emphasised etc, they r in the form tat god had intended them to be when they r just created. If god make these animals gay, then we should really ponder on why tis is so
  
  Prove to me god made these animals gay?
  
  If you see a child with Down's Syndrome, does it mean the symptom existed in Adam or Eve?
  
  I am talking about them making wrong statement. Whether it is science or watever, they are shown to be wrong. And they r shown to be wrong many times
  
  They made the wrong statement cos they werent supposed to make those statements. If SIS made a wrong statement in science, ok let's say he keep on making wrong statements in science, do we automatically dismiss his views on religion? ah ha ..
  
  No they r not wrong. It is the bbile tat is wrong. So u happy about tis conclusion ? BTW wat hapen to slavery and prosecuting lefthanders ? WHy aren't they mentioned ?
  
  Where is the bible wrong with regards to those issues?
  
  Slavery and prosecuting lefthanders .. what's wrong with them?
  
  U r avoiding the question again. They didn't record tat animals were not given the same breath nor say tat the breath is special. Therefore we cannot conclude they r created differently. As said before, the best conclusion is no conclusion unless u prove otherwise
  
  God did mention "let us make man in our image, in our likeness .. ". If mankind and animals were created the same way, then there is no way to achieve the distinction. Note that man and animals are quite similar physically (we are > 90% similar with the chimps). If animals also have the neshamat chayim, then we would all be the same.
  
  I repeat the bible is still primarily a literature and not presented as a rigorous proof manuscript. As such, the way they present the information should be subjected to literature analysis rather than [strict] logicial analysis. I maintain the holy breath verse is there cos it is to tell us there is a spiritual creation in us as well, compared to the "created from dust" - a physical creation.
  
  I don't need all snakes to talk to prove my point. As long as a snake talk, it prove god created an animal tat can communicate
  
  Trivial point. How does this help you in your argument?
  
  Com'on, why link tat story to adam and eve ? Jesus trump over satan doesn't have anything to do with eve and the snake
  
  Jesus is often compared with Adam. I'm sure you know this is Christian theology. The temptation of Jesus is to show the triumph over the devil, which Adam had failed.
  
  Animals r not recorded because they r not emphasised. However it doesn't means they were created any differently. If it is so special, it would have given a great emphasis on it instead of just a brief mention. The bible itself never claim the breath is a big deal
  
  Well the breath may not be a big deal, but do you agree that mankind is special?
  
  And tat is why god should never be consider as fair
  
  God never promised you fairness. This is a misconception. If God is considered as "fair", then beautitudes lines like "blessed are the poor .." would not exist. [/b]