(August 4, 2014 at 12:48 am)Drich Wrote: We'll think about it if I explained something very complex and in great detail to you and it was the first time you heard anything of the subject, how much of it could you relay in such away as to retain the technical points being discussed?

I could actually probably do reasonably well/

Quote:Then you would have to ask to whom was God speaking to? Was he to ignore 4000 years of human history, for the sake of the few hundred years of people?

Why would he have to ignore any history at all?

Quote:What makes more sense? A detailed description that impacts the last generations of warnings and laws that everyone could benefit from?

Actually having the cleric of the ancients jews for example write about how microbes cause disease , would do far more to help his case and make people believe in him thousands of years later then having the cleric write a code of laws that seems oddly similiar to other ancient codes.

(August 5, 2014 at 7:23 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I could actually probably do reasonably well

Probably not. I train people as apart of my job, and the absolute worst of the worst are those who think they "can do reasonably well."

BUT, even IF you could do really well, you are a very rare exception to the rule.

Quote:Why would he have to ignore any history at all?

Because even now we do not know all their is to know about microscopic life. So the question then becomes who does He speak to? Us with our current limited understanding?
To the following generations who have a better more accurate understanding than we do?

Or is it just not better to make laws that tell people to avoid behavior that spread germs, and tell them that it is just "unclean?"

Quote:Actually having the cleric of the ancients jews for example write about how microbes cause disease , would do far more to help his case and make people believe in him thousands of years later then having the cleric write a code of laws that seems oddly similiar to other ancient codes.

That's like playing telephone, unless the priests could have something to relate what they were told to. As God did things He simply made things 'unclean' they understood that. To tell them about microscopic life has no practical application for them if they can not see, manipulate or experiment with it.

Not to mention how much is God obligated to share? Why not impart the knowledge of the very genome of all life that way we can know God is who He says He is?

Because again, no one would even be able to use that infor to verify anything up till our ability to observe experiment and to manipulate said life would allow us to confirm what was said.. So again why should God burden every generation with trying to figure out this knowledge up till this one?

God over and over typically gives us only what we need.

(August 2, 2014 at 11:46 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: god apparently thinks of us as his children

How is that apparent?

---

(August 3, 2014 at 1:58 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Wow for someone that is fond of quoting luke I'd thought you. Would know that Jesus said demons caused disease.

Where does Jesus say this?

(August 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 3, 2014 at 1:58 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Wow for someone that is fond of quoting luke I'd thought you. Would know that Jesus said demons caused disease.

Where does Jesus say this?

Matthew has Jesus curing an ill boy by casting out a demon. I think that it would be beside the point if you were to stress the technicality that it wasn't in Luke and that Jesus didn't say it.

Can't blame Jesus though. His dipshit dad didn't know how to cure leprosy.

We needn't have had it explained to us in great detail (no more detail than we now leverage in explaining it to a child) - but we would've been able to understand even the most complex explanation from -at least- any point in the last 50k years.

Things that are mentioned as "unclean" have absolutely nothing to do with germs or germ theory. It's magic, they are spiritually "unclean".

Get your shit together Drich, you used to be better at this.
:clears throat, for his best Drich:
"God doesn't love all of us, and he does and doesn't do whatever the fuck he pleases, now bow tiny mortal bitch"

(August 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)Cato Wrote: Matthew has Jesus curing an ill boy by casting out a demon. I think that it would be beside the point if you were to stress the technicality that it was in Luke and that Jesus didn't say it.

No, I'm not thinking of which gospel, or whether it was actually quoting Jesus. Please cite the passage. I think you'll find that Jesus cast a demon out of a demon-possessed person, and that you're reading into it that the person was thought to be diseased. The gospels show disease and demon possession to be two different things. You're conflating them. One example:

Matt 4
24 So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Would you prefer that we thought of these people as suffering from an illness, or demon possessed? Which one would make your fairy tale look more ridiculous than it already is? Just trying to be nice about it.

Luke 13, 10-13 btw. Jesus-as-witch doctor.

(August 5, 2014 at 2:55 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)Cato Wrote: Matthew has Jesus curing an ill boy by casting out a demon. I think that it would be beside the point if you were to stress the technicality that it was in Luke and that Jesus didn't say it.

No, I'm not thinking of which gospel, or whether it was actually quoting Jesus. Please cite the passage. I think you'll find that Jesus cast a demon out of a demon-possessed person, and that you're reading into it that the person was thought to be diseased. The gospels show disease and demon possession to be two different things. You're conflating them. One example:

Matt 4
24 So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Matt 17
When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 “[f]Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a [g]lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.” 17 And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured [h]at once.

(August 5, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Cato Wrote: And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?

Finally Jesus is sounding like the crotchety billion-year-old asshole that he supposedly is.

(August 5, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Cato Wrote: Matt 17
When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 “[f]Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a [g]lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.” 17 And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured [h]at once.

What disease does the boy have, and what is its cause?