Where religion and science clash - the dinosaurs

[clv0116]

.... Disobedience is not mentioned. I did not post this to "stir the pot" unless asking a simple question does so.

 

God said (again) to fill the Earth, they all bunched up, he made them disperse. It's pretty damn obvious.

[Moai]

Nations don't war with each other because of their differences. They do so because of RESOURCES and GREED. This has been the case since nations consisted only of one tribe. And even within the same tribe (ie' date=' Abraham and Lot over the well, Gen 13:5 - 12) did people fight over resources.[/quote']

 

Nations war for all kinds of reasons, sometimes resources sometimes not. Honduras and El Salvador went to war because of the results of a soccer game. To say that nations fight for resources and greed is overly simplistic and in many cases outright wrong.

 

Also, it will only be a "war" if both sides are armed. I would say that the Nazi state brought a very effective war on Jews and other ethnic minorities--to the tune of 15 million or so dead. The Hutus killed Tutsis in Rwanda at unprecedented rates. Would you say that could not be called war, even though they share the same borders? Neither of these genocides had anything to do with resources.

 

Sunnis are killing Shiites, for no other reason than they interpret their book differently. How many Protestants and Catholics died in Ireland?

 

People mainly kill each other because of their differences. Greedy leaders use these differences to exploit their citizens and turn them loose on the enemy. Sometimes the citizens do that all by themselves.

[Moai]

God said (again) to fill the Earth, they all bunched up, he made them disperse. It's pretty damn obvious.

 

Where? I find nowhere in the text that god commanded them to fill the Earth. Not only that, in Genesis 10 the nations are already established.

 

In Genesis 9:1, God says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth." There is nothing there about how to go about replenishing--beyond the obvious--and there were already other settlements by Genesis 10. Not only that, but the people were not commanded to wander continually, but to fill the Earth, which would mean settling in one place--which they did.

 

If you read the text, god says, "Nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" and he scatters the people and confounds their language. In the text, god himself gives the reason for why he destroys the Tower, and he does not mention disobedience once. He did not say, "Yea, though I told the people to continue replenishing, they stayed in the city and built the Tower. Because of this disobedience, I punished them by destroying the Tower and scattering them thusly."

[NoIDidn't]

Nations war for all kinds of reasons, sometimes resources sometimes not. Honduras and El Salvador went to war because of the results of a soccer game. To say that nations fight for resources and greed is overly simplistic and in many cases outright wrong.

 

Also, it will only be a "war" if both sides are armed. I would say that the Nazi state brought a very effective war on Jews and other ethnic minorities--to the tune of 15 million or so dead. The Hutus killed Tutsis in Rwanda at unprecedented rates. Would you say that could not be called war, even though they share the same borders? Neither of these genocides had anything to do with resources.

 

Sunnis are killing Shiites, for no other reason than they interpret their book differently. How many Protestants and Catholics died in Ireland?

 

People mainly kill each other because of their differences. Greedy leaders use these differences to exploit their citizens and turn them loose on the enemy. Sometimes the citizens do that all by themselves.

 

You only looked at the ones that were based on religion. That's your bone to pick. Most wars are over resources: water, oil, food.

 

Simplistic to me is insisting that religion is at the root of all evils.

[NoIDidn't]

Where? I find nowhere in the text that god commanded them to fill the Earth. Not only that, in Genesis 10 the nations are already established.

 

In Genesis 9:1, God says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth." There is nothing there about how to go about replenishing--beyond the obvious--and there were already other settlements by Genesis 10. Not only that, but the people were not commanded to wander continually, but to fill the Earth, which would mean settling in one place--which they did.

 

If you read the text, god says, "Nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" and he scatters the people and confounds their language. In the text, god himself gives the reason for why he destroys the Tower, and he does not mention disobedience once. He did not say, "Yea, though I told the people to continue replenishing, they stayed in the city and built the Tower. Because of this disobedience, I punished them by destroying the Tower and scattering them thusly."

 

The answer is in your own quote. "The Earth" is what they were to replenish - not just where they were already living. They needed to scatter, but they didn't want to.

 

You might want to do a topic search of a Bible site to find all references to the Tower of Babel before you say that God didn't say he destroyed the Tower for disobedience. I honestly don't know, so I will look it up myself. But I don't think the "disobedience" angle is that far fetched.

[clv0116]

In Genesis 9:1, God says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth."

 

You need to compare a few different translations. Replenish is an interesting word choice not shared by all modern English translations.

 

EDIT:

 

Typically it reads: "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth." or something similar.

[disgracian]

Most wars are over resources: water' date=' oil, food.[/quote']

Even if that is true, let me ask you if the different states of America war with each other over resources or greed. They don't because they're all part of the same nation: they recognise that they have something in common. Now extend that concept and tell me why god thought it was such a bad idea that he had to sabotage man's efforts to come together.

 

Most wars are fought for a lot of reasons. Take the Second World War for instance. A lot of the battles (the majority in fact) were fought to capture critical resources and territory of strategic value. Does that mean that the reason for the war itself was resources? No. Did Hitler's ethnic cleansing have anything to do with resources? No. The resources just enabled the fighting. Resources were a means to an end, not the end itself.

 

You need to learn more about history before you make sweeping generalisations like that.

 

Cheers,

D.

[clv0116]

Most wars are fought for a lot of reasons. Take the Second World War for instance.

 

Actually scarcity of resources enabled the conditions that drove Adolf to power and made his politics popular.

[disgracian]

Like I said, there were a lot of reasons. Lack of resources does not explain all or even half of Hitler's politics and reasons for war. In fact he got a lot of territory and resources back before the war really even started.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

You only looked at the ones that were based on religion. That's your bone to pick. Most wars are over resources: water, oil, food.

 

Simplistic to me is insisting that religion is at the root of all evils.

 

Of all the examples I mentioned, only one was based on religion--the Irish example. The rest have little or nothing to do with religion.

 

There has not been a war over water in over 1,000 years:

"No nations have gone to war specifically over water resources for thousands of years. International water disputes - even among fierce enemies - are resolved peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues," according to the UN Development Program. Link:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34465

 

People kill each other for all sorts of reasons--religion amongst them. And while I do think that religion is a negative influence on mankind I do not think it is the only one. I would appreciate it if you would examine posts more closely, as accusing me of "picking the religious ones" is patently false in this case.

[Moai]

Like I said, there were a lot of reasons. Lack of resources does not explain all or even half of Hitler's politics and reasons for war. In fact he got a lot of territory and resources back before the war really even started.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Correct. Also, the entire world was suffering economically, not Germany. The main reason Hitler wanted war was based on leaflets he read (and regurgitated in Mein Kampf) while in Austria.

[Moai]

That should read not "just" Germany.

[Moai]

You need to compare a few different translations. Replenish is an interesting word choice not shared by all modern English translations.

 

EDIT:

 

Typically it reads: "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth." or something similar.

 

It doesn't matter if the word is "replenish" or "fill the Earth" or "repopulate". The fact remains that is in Genesis 10, and that chapter goes on to list all of the new settlements and cities. Clearly, before the Tower story, people had already spread out.

 

Not only that, but the people who built the Tower were heading East. Surely there were other groups that went North, South, and West, right? People were already scattering and repopulating.

 

I would also mention that this story, beyond a primitive attempt to explain why there are many languages, only matters regarding "punishment" if the Flood story is literally true.

 

Even if the punishment angle is valid, god clearly says that he destroys the Tower and scatters the people because if all men share the same language all will be possible for us. So god obviously doesn't want humans to prosper, as he deliberately confounded language to make it harder on us. And yet again, god punishes the innocent, as I did not build the Tower to glorify myself, yet I share in the punishment by living in a world with thousands of languages.

 

Because of this act, it makes it even harder for people to come to his son, no? Doesn't this work against his own purpose? We have the KJV, the NIV, the "Good News" Bible, and on and on, as well as translations in Chinese, Korean, Japanese...and all have various levels of accuracy and are re-translated every so often as new scholarship sheds light on the original language. Why leave it to humans to translate at all? He could return us to a single language any time he wishes, or he could inspire the exact same book in any language he choses, mistake free. Why has that not happened?

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

Even if the punishment angle is valid, god clearly says that he destroys the Tower and scatters the people because if all men share the same language all will be possible for us. So god obviously doesn't want humans to prosper,...

 

No, he wanted us to prosper in a timely fashion. Would you give an 8 year old the keys to your car?

 

At the time the peoples had the same language and the same understanding but it was very limited. Had they stayed in the same area, together, they would've continued to share the same knowledge. No growth.

 

God ordered that we spread and fill the earth so that we would increase our knowledge and understanding. Individually. Then to come together with that understanding to share that knowledge. Yes, it is a slower process. But it's growth.

 

There is also an element of fear that I read in the story. They were ordered to spread and fill the earth. Yet, they chose to stay and build a common area to prevent themselves from losing each other. That kind of society can lead to a fanatical society. Think Lord of the Flies. One that believes only one thought. It has perpetuated only one understanding leading to a closed minded peoples.

 

Because of this act, it makes it even harder for people to come to his son, no? Doesn't this work against his own purpose?...

 

Without the act would He have needed to send his son to us? What do you think is His purpose? Idk.

[clv0116]

Correct. Also, the entire world was suffering economically, not (just) Germany. The main reason Hitler wanted war was based on leaflets he read (and regurgitated in Mein Kampf) while in Austria.

 

True however as noted here:

 

"The Treaty of Versailles caused enormous bitterness in Germany, which nationalist movements, especially the Nazis, exploited with a conspiracy theory they called the Dolchstosslegende. The treaty contributed to economic collapse of the Weimar Republic by sparking runaway inflation in the 1920s."

 

The postwar conditions in Germany were particularly poor, it seems.

[Moai]

True however as noted here:

 

"The Treaty of Versailles caused enormous bitterness in Germany, which nationalist movements, especially the Nazis, exploited with a conspiracy theory they called the Dolchstosslegende. The treaty contributed to economic collapse of the Weimar Republic by sparking runaway inflation in the 1920s."

 

The postwar conditions in Germany were particularly poor, it seems.

 

They had to stamp a "billion" graphic on 1,000 mark notes because of inflation. A woman had a basket of money on her way to buy bread. She set the basket down in order to say hello to a friend, when she went to grab the basket someone had dumped the money out and stole the basket.

 

Our economy is not doing so well, but we have not experienced a sudden loss of resources that caused the problem. For Germany, they had the resources they always did--save Alsace-Lorraine, which they only had since 1871, lost after WWI, and is part of France today. Germany is doing fine without that territory now, interestingly.

[Moai]

No' date=' he wanted us to prosper in a timely fashion. Would you give an 8 year old the keys to your car?[/quote']

 

I do not understand what you mean.

 

At the time the peoples had the same language and the same understanding but it was very limited. Had they stayed in the same area, together, they would've continued to share the same knowledge. No growth.

 

I don't understand this, either. Technology grows regardless of cultural interaction. Not only that, even though their languages would have been confused, there is nothing in the text to suggest that different groups got different knowledge. They would suddenly have spoken differently, but still all had the same knowledge.

 

God ordered that we spread and fill the earth so that we would increase our knowledge and understanding. Individually. Then to come together with that understanding to share that knowledge. Yes, it is a slower process. But it's growth.

 

Given the text, I would say this is false. Again, with one language "nothing would be restrained from them". This means that they would have grown faster and achieved more with one language, not less as you suggest.

 

If by your "8-year old" comment above you mean that suddenly they would have had power but no wisdom cannot be, as speaking one language would not suddenly give them nuclear technology.

 

There is also an element of fear that I read in the story. They were ordered to spread and fill the earth. Yet, they chose to stay and build a common area to prevent themselves from losing each other. That kind of society can lead to a fanatical society. Think Lord of the Flies. One that believes only one thought. It has perpetuated only one understanding leading to a closed minded peoples.

 

Did destroying the Tower prevent fanatical societies? And, if the above is so, why would Christians want to evangelize other cultures, given that leads to "sameness" and therefore fanaticism?

 

 

 

Without the act would He have needed to send his son to us? What do you think is His purpose? Idk.

 

Without Original Sin he wouldn't need to send his son/himself to us. In the OT I cannot discern any purpose per se, but it is my understanding the Jesus' purpose was to "save" humanity. How that is accomplished after the Crucifiction is obviously up for debate, given the thousands of Christian sects that exist.

[clv0116]

Germany is doing fine without that territory now, interestingly.

 

They have not been blockaded into signing a treaty that requires payment of war reparations recently either.

[clv0116]

.... with one language "nothing would be restrained from them".

 

That's (for once) also my reading of the passage.