/lit/ - Literature

>>3275515
No He isn't. It's a sign of respect, but I certainly don't have to do it over the net. I've pointed out that it's just habit online. Do you have some kind of problem with me and my faith or something?

>>3275494
Yeah, "el" is a generic word for any god. "El Shaddai," specifically means "God Almighty."

>>3275463
You could write "El Sh-ddai" I guess. People don't usually use that phrase though. I'm not going to begin every post with B"H though. That's kind of more of a letter opener.

>>3275468
Well you'll be the one printing it, not I. That's why it's okay to type it on the net.

>>3275420
It's for all languages though. So instead of writing "Dios," you might write "D-os," or something for Spanish.

>>3275411
>Openly admitting that your mind has gone to pot
My mind has gone to pot in between posts, but it leaks.

>You just sit back and leave the thinking to us
Yes, please teach me about my religion and my commandments.

>>3275399
God is the English word for not just any god, but the God. G-d, is an intentional censor of the word "God," to make it easier to refer to that specific word without having to worry what to do with the paper it is written on.

>>3275388
I wish, man. I got money in the bank and my dealer (in this small town) isn't buying until next week. That means I'm dry for another 7 days.

>>3275378
Brain farting all over that sentence. I need to stop focusing on buying weed.

>>3275369
G-d is the English word for well... the Abrahamic G-d. It's not a god, it's the G-d. Kind of like one of G-d's names is "El Shaddai," means "God Almighty." This was a naming convention created around 2000 years ago.

>>3275334
>believes in the documentary hypothesis
I got this great book called "Who Really Wrote the Bible." Not the one by that Hassidic Jew, but the one. It actually engages with that subject quite a bit in a fairly nonbiased way.

>>3275330
I type G-d mostly out of habit. I could type "God," but the thing is we're not suppose to destroy G-d's name on a paper. So this is a way getting around that. You're not writing G-d's name when you're writing "G-d." That way you can throw away the paper when you're done with it.

>yahweh/jehovah
First of all, I try to avoid spelling out the tetragrammatron whenever possible and we don't know how to pronounce it, so it's kind of a false statement to say that G-d's name is "Yahweh."

>>3275321
The Torah is a very complicated set of books, but it does say that G-d is not human (look at the verses to one of my previous posts) and the rest can be made by logical connections. I mean, it's not like these commentators just made conclusions with pieces of information contrived out of thin air and if they did, then it's pointed out as such. I don't know much about Spinoza, but look at some of the commentary on Torah and the arguments they make. The Torah isn't just a book that straight up tells us what to believe, it's a book with themes and lessons. That's what the word "torah" actually means, "lesson."

>>3275321
>Also, why is there a need to call and refer to God as Him; and not It?
That's something specific with the English language.

I can resurrect some mad beats too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ebAvks9ig

>>3275289
>If The Bible is the word of the God, the Genesis, then, implies anthropomorphism
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/238,2093658/What-does-it-mean-that-man-was-created-in-G-ds-image.
html

That was fun.

>>3275280
Sure he did. :)

>>3275246
Sorry, I was texting and I got a few verses for you:
Numbers 23:19
Deuteronomy 4:11-12
1 Samuel 15:29
Are some prominent verses.

>>3275229
>If G-d is omnipotent how come it took him 6 days to make the world.
Because He wanted to take 6 days.

>Why would God give us free will but punish us for using it "wrong."
He doesn't punish you with eternal damnation, but he gives us obstacles to overcome so that we become righteous. It's kind of like homework.

>How come G-d only did godly acts in ancient times?
I mean, he talked to prophets for a good while.

>When is G-d going to end all the worldly suffering?
Messianic Age!

>If everything has to come from something who made G-d?
Can't answer that, but that isn't a refutation of G-d's existence. That's kind of a religious philosophy 101 question.

>If G-d created the universe, why did he make all the planets and stars if they're uninhabited.
Who knows, there might be ancient spooky aliens that also received a Torah.

>Why was Whoopi Goldberg cast as G-d in the Muppet's Christmas Special.

Because Christians think think that G-d can be human for some reason.

>>3275224
>Where did I say anything about superior or inferior?
You're saying it's simpler and I'm assuming you're using Occam's Razor. I never made the claim that creation was correct, but that it didn't conflict with evolution. Read my original argument in my original post and then read your post against it and now see what you're arguing. You backed up the goal post without realizing it.

>>3275202
See, now you're relying on Occam's Razor. I am not saying that my believe in Genesis is superior in your acceptance of certain scientific theories on the origin of life and the universe. What I am saying is that it is not contradictory to accept evolution and be a creationist. Nice job backing up the goal post.

>>3275173
There is a theory based on how old the Earth is, there are hypotheses on the origin of life, the theory of evolution uses these theories as support but the evolutionary theory within itself does not make a claim that the Earth is X years old and that Earth came about from Y.

>not understanding why the evolutionary theory came about and making it fit into your super special beliefs of what the universe is

Evolution was a response to ideas that life on Earth was static and non-evolving. Not that life on Earth was only 6000 years old. I'm no Historian (my cousin is), but I'm pretty sure they have documentaries about this on the History channel.

>>3275151
It's "MUH RAMBAM," my good sir.

>>3275121
>lose a race
>"Haha fat ass. You came in last place."
>It was on purpose!
>OH NO, I GOT TROLLED!

I was only pretending to be dead guys, I really came back to life for a few minutes to rise to Heaven. Honest for truth, you can fact check it with um... erhm... hmm... my followers!

>>3275162
he was an atheist)*

>>3275131
You're not wrong. We are evolving. Did we evolve from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees? That thought conflicts with Torah. Now based on the observable phenomenon, does it appear that we evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees? Yes, the fossil records, genes, et cetera show that is what is seen. Based on what we know, we can draw conclusions that this probably happened if the Earth is billions of years old. In a million years, will the human species evolve and branch out? That is certainly a possibility, but that doesn't conflict with Torah.

The theory of evolution is not necessarily wrong. It is perfectly acceptable to accept a theory that explains that species are not static animals. That's what the theory basically says.

>There is a contradiction. If there wasn't a contradiction, then there wouldn't be anything to correct.
I once had a science teacher back in high school that explained to us (and he was not religious at all, he was a scientist, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity would require us to ditch or completely remodel Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and that's one of the reasons why it is still a theory. It would require us to rewrite a lot of what we learned." There is no need to be scared of having to rewrite a lot of stuff in the scientific text books.