RevBogovac

Nope, for a (hu-)man that makes perfectly sense. For a so called omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God however... Major contradictions...

You think its that small a percent? Christmas is a massive economic driver here. No company can really avoid thinking about how it effects their bottom line. And the yearly media blitz extolling the virtues of "Finding The Perfect Gift" highlights the replacement of Christ with Consumerism as the centerpiece of the holiday in the collective consciousness... My emphasis was on "thinking", the rest are just consumers following the crowd... hence: lazy...

It totally isn't that. I mean, it does contain some philosophy and some metaphors, but they don't even comprise the majority of the book. Its full of everything from folk history and legal records to geneologies and dream diary entries... Its a very complicated collection of disparate texts... True, those too...

Not to bother you all with the (Very long) list of contradictions the bible is full of (and that is "normal" as people wrote the bible, and people are fallible.) You can find one of those lists at: Bible Inconsistencies - Bible Contradictions? as compiled by Donald Morgan. As people who find themselves defending these contradictions bending over backwards, will also say that: Adam lived 930 years (GE 5:5); and, Terah was 205 years old when he died, making Abram 135 at the time (GE 11:32); As far as the God "not repenting [...] himself, [...] creation, [...] anything He had done" but he "repented of what man had done, the wickedness of man", well: God decides who will be dumb, deaf, blind, etc (EX 4:11 ). One of my - personal - favourite (recurring) contradictions in the bible is the dichotomy: 2SA 24:1 The Lord inspired David to take the census. 1CH 21:1 Satan inspired the census. Ah well. c'mon people; the bible is a nice philosophical book full of metaphors one can choose to learn from (or not). But taking the bible literally in this day and age, IMHO, does Christianity a huge disfavour.

Contradiction. <- period

It has more to do with Americans trying to more efficiently exploit profit opportunities. Economies of scale, and all that. Piggy-backing the Santa myth on the Christmas holiday created more opportunities for "kid-friendly" merchandising while simultaneously cementing in the popular consciousness the notion that Christmas is primarily about gift-giving (and, therefore, gift-buying).[...] True... for the 0,1% thinking and acting like that. For the 99,9 other %... well... maybe...

Sorry, but you do not get to "philosophise" this away... God does not get to "repent", remember: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17. Major contradictions going on by now...

That's "just" Americans being lazy... Santa Claus is actually a derivation from Saint Nicholas; a clergyman who was made into a saint because of various good deeds involving children (especially giving them sweets to children so they got some reserves to survive winter). "We" (Dutch) commemorate him around his death anniversary (6. december), and continued to do so as "we" colonised the Americas. Unfortunately Coca Cola decided at the beginning of the 20th century that two holidays in one month was too much and adapted Santa Claus into this "modern" holidaymaker. The popularisation of American culture did the rest... The "celebration" of spring/rebirth of nature with fertility symbols has nothing to do with Easter. It was a coincidence that the pagan celebration of the spring equinox and Judean Pascha coincided more or less so the early Christians adopted the pagan rituals as to convert pagans easier. At the time it was a good idea, nut now it ridicules the most important Christian holiday. I personally like to commemorate the death sentence the philosopher Jesus fro Nazareth got because he did not want to denounce his teachings of equality before the gathered masses (who were there to celebrate the Jewish Pascha) thereby "immortalising" this philosophy and laying the foundation for our current culture. PS@Jonathan; and I thought Jack Frost only entered our culture somewhere in the 19th century personifying (unifying?) the "old God" Old Man Winter (Western Europe) / Grandpa Frost (Eastern Europe)...

I - as an "outsider" to USA laws* - think you can probably find something in the direction of copyright-law: was it the designer's (I believe that was Eiffel, from the French tower) or commissioner's (was it NY city, state or Federal?) intention to depict these gods, or were they only used for inspiration as to depict some abstract notion (like - for instance - freedom). As it is at least a mixture of two known gods I would say the case is strong for the latter. * but I must agree with Jonathan (again...) that this seems like a fun discussion.

100% contradictory, you can not have your cake and eat it too... Creation is either good or not good. An omniscient creator does not get to change his mind. As jonathan said too: In fact, the bible states God does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17. Major contradictions going on here now...

I believe the whole bible should be taken - more or les - as a metaphor. Just like every single other philosophical text. I - persoanlly - would add though that I actually do believe there was some philospher named Jesus. Probably from around Nazareth, spreading his word around Jerusalem about 2000 years ago). Plenty of plausible evidence on that (more than on Plato, who "only" had the writings of Socrat, for instance). The problem starts over a centruty after Jesus was sentenced to death for spreading his equalitarian philosophies when some emperor in Constantinopel decided he should grant Jesus some "miracles" so he can persuade more people to his own sphere of influence. And that is exactly what is "wrong" with the bible too; if you start taking that book too literal. There has been too many changes, drops and additions to do that. It's just a good philosophical read. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh yeah; and yes: I am extremely grateful to Jesus spreading that equalitarian philosphy that is a big part of the basis of our current day way of life. And for standing so strongly for them that he actually accepted the death penalty over recanting his words. But no, he did not "rise from the dead" (that was actually one of those miracle that were added to the book over 100 years after hies death).

Of course... Obviously... Speaking of God: GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

No, off course... non, whatsoever... once you "explain" it. I love books that need "explanations" to clarify things that only seem contradictory. Especially philosophical books that billions of people look to for guidance. (No pun intended, I did my Bachelor in Political Philosophy...) Hmkay, next level, let's step in a bit further than "only" Genesis (although that book alone is already full of "seeming" contradictions): GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is. GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord. PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view. JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

Hmkay, different instances of creation at different places at different time. Maybe different species... Interesting. Now, let's - again - step it up a notch and discuss the creation of humans: GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Hmkay, so God was the first light and the sun was created late. Will give you that... Now, for the next (couple) in this same - timeline - category: GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

OK, I'll start "chronologically"... you just rectify or acknowledge... Mkay? GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Yep. And the bible disproves (contradicts) itself, so therefore - IMHO - disqualifies itself as proof or credible evidence thereof.

Sorry mererdog, but you're running around in circles here. As Jonathan allready clearly said, and asked: You did not go into this. Yes, we all know by now you see it as evidence. But it has been proven not to be. So the question stands.... PS here's a nice link to a more common explanation of "Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof"...

No, but I like to use science to build my knowledge, but if you wish to build your knowledge on another basis... go ahead. You just go and do that. I would be quite grateful if/when you succeed. But in the mean time I'll go for the desired effect using the shortest route available... Too bad, there are a lot of benefits in the practical application of things you might consider "lack of knowledge" as for instance the "self for-filling prophecy" and "positive [self-] enforcement"... But if you choose to discuss the epistemology instead, that might lead to an interesting debate.

To throw in a Dutch "saying": religion is like reproductive organs; it's great to have 'em, you may even be proud of 'em, but don't flaunt 'em in public and don't show 'em to children!

Now you're just going into semantics and details. Yes, Placebo's "work" in some cases (mostly involving pain relieve, where it is high in the "dubble numbers" - some reporting as high as almost 50%). And we can go into the details that the placebo didn't heal a broken leg, but if the patient experienced less pain of that broken leg because he was given one; I, myself, would always give him one... Anyhow, that was not the point; it was an example. Maybe I should have use another example like "self fulfilling prophecy": if you read a few seminal works on succes and self motivation (Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill or Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle by Tom Venuto) you will see consistent results with self motivation through positive reinforcement. If it is faith that provides one this, in a positive way... hey, I'm all for it.

I didn't say "knowledge", I said "science". You're just making a philosophical leap as to justify something that isn't there. There is no - nor will there be in the foreseeable future - proof of the existence of God. He's being discussed for several thousand years by now, so come on... how much time do you need?

This is the fundamental difference between science and faith; in science we actually can know each others limits by publicly stating our findings in a reproducible and therefore verifiable way... Agree 100%, but still I choose to be a "believer"... I like all the little things that come with it that - for me - outweigh the negative... Yep, if nothing else He exists "in our minds"... Hey, Placebo's also work in about 20% of the time (and that is a scientifically proven fact)...

And again;