Was that the prophet Samuel who killed the Amalekite? Wow, that's different!
shareI am pretty certain ABC has been very upfront from this start this is loosely based and inspired by the biblical story. Not a retelling. (Thank god.)
share'loosely based', 'based on a true story', 'inspired by', etc. All Marketing words to sell tickets. Even if a movie was based on actual events, by the time it's Hollywooded, it's just mostly fiction.
shareEverything is based off the bible son. You wouldn't even be here without God.
share[deleted]
Yes I would because... evolution.
shareAnd evolution is part of nature, so you didn't really beat his argument since he believes in God that created nature.
shareThe Bible claims man was made from mud and woman from bone.
So, yes, the argument is soundly defeated.
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter
Dust you are and to dust you will return. Perfectly and scientifically accurate!
shareYou're using the term dust, very loosely.
Do you really believe that man was created from mud and women from the rib of a man?
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter
All the elements that make up your body can be found in your backyard. Once assembled though the body would lack life.The bible simply states that life was breathed into it and the man became a soul. It's the best explanation in simple terms you'll ever get.
shareI don't care for simple explanations. I care about what is actually true, whether it's simple or not.
You should investigate abiogenesis.
The Biblical "explanation" is no explanation, especially when it straightforwardly claims man from mud and women from ribs.
What you've done is learned some things about science and went back to your holy book trying your best to connect vague phrases to modern understanding of reality.
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter
So by your reasoning, what is true can only be complex and understood by intellectuals?
"Abiogenesis.....is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1[11] billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system."
Wikipedia
There's nothing "natural' about life coming from non-life! The rest is sheer conjecture.
You have trouble with your understanding of the word truth. Truth clearly sails over your head in favour of fairytale fantasy where frogs turn into princes!
So by your reasoning, what is true can only be complex and understood by intellectuals?
There's nothing "natural' about life coming from non-life! The rest is sheer conjecture.
"which you have no demonstrable evidence to support"...really?
I can only assume you don't know how to read the evidence. When every picture in a gallery has the artist's signature and style written all over it. And the old circular reasoning of the atheist rears its familiar head with.." who created God?"
An atheist has to believe that something was eternal, whether it was blind energy or a loving God, I choose the latter.To fully understand the creator you would have to be on his level. It's like asking your iPod to understand how you came into existence.
When I come down for breakfast and find fried eggs, toast, marmalade and hot coffee on the table, I make the assumption that my wife took the time to prepare it for me. You assume the ingredients blindly got together by themselves. I appreciate my wife, whereas you appear to have a hard time even noticing what's been done for you.
When I come down for breakfast and find fried eggs, toast, marmalade and hot coffee on the table, I make the assumption that my wife took the time to prepare it for me. You assume the ingredients blindly got together by themselves. I appreciate my wife, whereas you appear to have a hard time even noticing what's been done for you.
Could it be - man worships God, therefor creates God... (God exists because our believe creates God) - God creates the universe, because we believe God exists, thus he does exist, because we created it, therefor he could create the universe). The universe contains us, we are part of a creation God made, but we made God be believing he exists.
Conclusion: We made up our own existence by creating someone who could create us. End of discussion
I agree that we invented the concept of God and use it as an excuse to explain our existence (god of the gaps).
I do not agree that believing makes things so. If that were the case, we wouldn't have to worry about things like cancer.
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter
Evolution is a theory. It can't be observed or repeated, and where are the remains/fossils of all the 'intermediate' species that would show how one species 'evolves' into another? The dynamics of nature are to go from order to chaos, not the other way around, which would be a requirement of genetic evolution - the 'creation' of new genetic information, rather than the degradation of pre-existing genetic information, which is one of the reasons for the increased prevalence of genetic abnormalities/illnesses. Life is not a result of chance, an accidental collision between an amino acid and a protein way back in the mists of time. We were designed just as we are today...except our genomes started out perfect. No errors, no abnormalities.
Either we're an accident, or the result of conscious design. I prefer the latter, as it implies inherent value.
Evolution is observed all the time. It's a constant never ending process that happens in all organisms. Most easily we discern it in viruses and bacteria. How do you think the different strains of disease come about? Even in people we see it happening. Taking the brazilian population as a whole you can see the amount of recessive genes being repressed permanently. That's evolution in action.
"what is your major malfunction numbnuts?!!"
What you and other ID folks just fail to comprehend - is the human minds' inability to appreciate scale - in this case time, but size, distance and others in how it relates to life, our planet, and on and on. Evolutionary changes over time... a very, very long time - nothing like you and most others can really wrap your heads around, even over hundreds of thousands of years would be fast, now relate that to the history of civilized man.. a few thousand years, being somewhat generous with the term "civilized".
shareBut that's part of my point. If every single living creature started out - way back whenever - as single cell organisms, and evolved though various stages (such as aquatic lifeforms 'learning' to walk on land and becoming mammals, or reptiles becoming birds) why did some not follow that supposed evolutionary path, and why are there not still some 'lower life forms' working their way through those same stages. Why are there no fossil records of supposed 'intermediate' lifeforms? Evolution is generally predicated on the process of 'creating' NEW genetic information within a genus, whereas it is more commonly the case that genetic information degrades with the passing of time. You can't go from 'chaos' to 'order' without a guiding hand of some form, whereas 'order' naturally progresses to 'chaos', whether it be a biological process or mechanical one.
shareThe first known book of the Bible wasn't written until almost 2,600 years ago. The written word has been around for over 5,000 years.
I think your logic is off.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...
You beat me to it! Samuel did kill him.
shareThanks for the correction! I must be getting someone mixed up. What I remember is because Saul disobeyed God by leaving one Amalekite alive, instead of killing them all as he was instructed, that later Saul is killed by......an Amalekite!
So, is Agag the same Amalekite that Saul allowed to live? Or a different one?
Strangely, the Bible presents tribes as being completely destroyed and then somehow coming back. Saul actually kills himself to avoid being captured in his final battle with the Philistines.
An Amalekite (not Agag who really is dead) claims to David that he killed Saul, hoping to win his favor. Unfortunately, he realize how much David still loved Saul despite Saul hating him.
As far as the whole "utterly destroyed; man woman and child" groups turning up later, I've heard several explanations.
a). The extermination orders might have applied to a particular sub-group within much larger one. Not knowing the context, it's confusing for us, but not the original readers.
b). The same national and tribal names might be used differently at different times in the Bible. They might refer at one point to a group defined by heredity and another time to the people of a region.
c.) Various sacred texts were edited together at the cost of consistency.
i don't get it don't religion forbids killing ???
shareAt its best it does.
shareThe Christian and Islamic religion? Not exactly.
You cannot murder, unless god says it's okay or unless they're heathens, or homosexuals, or adulterers...ect...There are many exceptions. Yes, it's insane. Such a loving god.
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter
That part is actually pretty much like the bible tells it. Saul is ordered to wipe out all the Amalekites, but spares their king, Agog, which is then killed in front of an Israelite crowd by Samuel. The final destruction of the Amalekites is carried out decades later during the reign of Hizkiya.
shareSamuel did kill the King of the Amalekite. Saul attacked a city not a Caravan.
2 ¶ Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal
(1 Samuel 15:32–33)
Was that the prophet Samuel who killed the Amalekite? Wow, that's different!