Anti-Semitism In France!

[BJean 16]

gadgetlady: At one point you asked how one is to determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not. If you have faith you can glean most everything that is intended to be conveyed from the Bible.

If you insist that the Bible is to be taken as literal, and you must determine which parts are literal according to today and which parts are not, won't you be consistently confused? Continually questioning different words and phrases? That is of course, unless you are absolutely certain that your interpretation of the Bible is the only accurate interpretation.

[gadgetlady 4]

If this is true, then you would have to believe in evolution, which you don't. So which is true, Noah's Ark or evolution?

I believe, as science has well documented, that there can be changes within a kind of animal. In other words, dogs can be bred or can naturally develop with certain traits highlighted over others. I do not believe, nor has science documented, a change from one KIND of animal into another. No dog has ever changed into a cat, no fish has ever changed into a bird.

[anonemouse 1]

The Bible says that prior to the flood, neither animals nor humans were carnivores. In Genesis 1, God gives man specifically plants to eat, not animals; this is reinforced throughout the early chapters of Genesis. In Genesis 9, after the flood, man is then given animals to eat.

Come on, do you honestly believe that? Carnivores and hebivores have entirely different digestive tracts. A strict carnivore can't survive as an herbivore, and an strict hebivore can't survive as a carnivore.

[gadgetlady 4]

No, it wouldn't hold "two of every kind". Two elephants, two giraffes, two antelopes, two buffalo, two cows, two horses, two kangaroos (hey....how did Noah manage that, since there are no kangaroos in the Middle East?).

Please read http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp to get a better understanding of my position. I think, after reading that, you will see it if perfectly feasible.

[anonemouse 1]

I believe, as science has well documented, that there can be changes within a kind of animal. In other words, dogs can be bred or can naturally develop with certain traits highlighted over others. I do not believe, nor has science documented, a change from one KIND of animal into another. No dog has ever changed into a cat, no fish has ever changed into a bird.

But what is "a kind"? Is it defines as "fish" or "bird" or "cat"? Is a hawk a different "kind" than a finch? Is a lion a different "kind" than a domesticated house cat?

[gadgetlady 4]

gadgetlady: At one point you asked how one is to determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not. If you have faith you can glean most everything that is intended to be conveyed from the Bible.

So everyone who has faith and interprets the Bible is right? What about when equally faithful people completely disagree? What about Jeremiah 17:9 which says "The heart is deceitful above all things"? It is certainly possible that a person with a whole heapload of faith can be very, very wrong. I KNOW there are people who have a lot of faith that you consider to be wrong in many areas.

If you insist that the Bible is to be taken as literal, and you must determine which parts are literal according to today and which parts are not, won't you be consistently confused? Continually questioning different words and phrases?

I'm not confused at all. I am, however, always learning and discovering nuances that I didn't understand before. These nuances don't contradict my original understanding, but rather enhance them.

[anonemouse 1]

This page illustrates many of the problems with the Noah's Ark story.

[BJean 16]

Oh good grief.

[gadgetlady 4]

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, I'm tired. I don't have much time in my life to debate ad infinitum so I don't know if I'll be back anytime soon, but I hope some of my input has caused some of you to open your minds and consider other options.

[BJean 16]

Nytol. I'm afraid this is all too deep (pardon the pun) for me this late in the day.

[BJean 16]

laurend: I want to clarify... I wasn't good griefing you!

[Carlene 12]

Please read http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp to get a better understanding of my position. I think, after reading that, you will see it if perfectly feasible.

Oh, I did read it! And I must say, this "explaination" is anything but literal. It presumes a LOT. And still doesn't explain those kangaroos.

[Yana 0]

I read the beginning of this thread and then it got too long for me to read it all.

I just wanted to say that I found the first post highly offensive.

I live in an Arab country where 200 nationalities live peacefully side by side.

It is an Islamic country in the true meaning of the word where people are gentle and hospitable.(Judaism,Islam and Christianity are from the same root and their followers are known in Islam as "people of the book".)

Anyone who comes here loves it which is why it has become one of the main holiday destinations for people from the U.K. followed by Germany and Russia.

The sentence that Arab countries only export oil and hatred was just as much a terrible and untrue thing to say as are the Anti-Semetic things I have personally heard said in France.

I have French Jewish friends that I've stayed with since childhood so I am not biased in any way but I think you have a lot to learn about the Arab world Ron.

I am wondering how many Arab countries that "export hatred" you have actually visited?

I have visited your country however and experienced great prejudice and ignorance...because I live in an Arab country:rolleyes: What sense does that make?

I worry about Anti-Semitism on the rise but there are other things now that I am worrying about far more and that is the type of propoganda you have spouted as mentioned above.

However sad to say,I am not in the least surprised.

Yana:)

P.S. I have travelled the world and the country that is my home is the cleanest and more importantly the safest and most harmonious I have been to.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

On another forum, my sig is:

Matthew; 26-52: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Each Year, The USA Spends more Money on Swords than all the rest of the countries of Earth Spend Combined.

I was told that the USA does not spend any money on swords.

Was Jesus speaking of Nuclear bombs (or warheads)?

If the USA proposes the use of Nuclear tipped bunker-buster missiles to destroy Iran's fledgling nuclear program and I tell someone, the USA needs to be careful because "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Can I expect a "huh?" or "you are crazy?" or "Jesus never spoke about Nuclear weapons!"?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

The Bible was written for very ignorant people.

In one story, men attempt to build a Tower to reach Heaven. Does God, in order to stop them, take away their common language and gives them many languages to discourage cooperation?

I think and would hope that God punished them for their arrogance in trying to reach Heaven without his permission, though, they never could have reached Heaven, unless God has moved Heaven since then.

The highly technologically advanced humans of today can not build a tower high enough to reach Heaven, so how were the technologically inept people of a few thousand years BC a threat (to God) to reach it? The people of that time period probably thought a tower could be built to reach Heaven, though the people of today (I assume) know it can't be done.

But, the story makes sense, both then and now.