Bible Trivia

[Stu]

Why did god murder Lot’s wife by turning her into a pillar of salt?

[1] She spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah
[2] She looked back
[3] She did an unclean thing
[4] She tried to escape from Zoar

Stuart

[TimothyVI]

Now you are makeing them too easy stu.
She looked back.
Tim

[charity]

[Irene]

Quote (charity @ July 02 2008,15:15)

Charity!  You are to funny.
Love Irene
P.S. God protects the Innocent's. Even cat's.
But what is the question here, since this is Bible Trivia?    

[Stu]

Quote (TimothyVI @ July 01 2008,21:59)

Now you are makeing them too easy stu. She looked back. Tim

OK TimVI since it was too easy you can only have 12 points. Indeed you are right, the evil-hearted woman had the gross insolentence and temerity to 'look back'. What a glorious justice this merciful god has righteously asserted. He should be allowed to wreak fire and brimstone upon innocent people without us humans looking back at it.

Stuart

[Stu]

Who cried to the LORD all night because Saul did not completely obliterate all the good and innocent living things of the Amalekites?

[1] Agag
[2] Samuel
[3] Amalek
[4] None of the above

Stuart

[kejonn]

Quote (Stu @ July 02 2008,05:03)

Who cried to the LORD all night because Saul did not completely obliterate all the good and innocent living things of the Amalekites? [1] Agag [2] Samuel [3] Amalek [4] None of the above Stuart

Samuel.

[kejonn]

What is the last commandment?
[1] Do not covet your neighbor's house
[2] Do not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor
[3] You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk
[4] none of the above

[Not3in1]

Quote (Stu @ July 01 2008,21:12)

Quote (lineon @ July 01 2008,02:41) My guess is [3] 23 points to you lineon, you are right! Ecc 11:9 Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes. Num 15:39 Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes. With god anything is possible. Stuart

No, with men at the pen anything is possible.

[charity]

Quote (kejonn @ July 03 2008,01:40)

What is the last commandment? [1] Do not covet your neighbor's house [2] Do not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor [3] You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk [4] none of the above

I don't kNOw, but that translaton is to be responsible for answer (3) by playing with the head, DO NOT? SHALL not?

Do Not! Shall not!

covet =To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's). See synonyms at envy. not removing simple thoughts are the crime?

[charity]

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 03 2008,05:14)

Quote (Stu @ July 01 2008,21:12) Quote (lineon @ July 01 2008,02:41) My guess is [3] 23 points to you lineon, you are right! Ecc 11:9 Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes. Num 15:39 Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes. With god anything is possible. Stuart No, with men at the pen anything is possible.

yep …. “they take one more god further “so it is said.

[charity]

Quote (kejonn @ July 03 2008,01:40)

What is the last commandment? [1] Do not covet your neighbor's house [2] Do not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor [3] You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk [4] none of the above

(4)

I think this is run for Life, I mean Wife… some ones control is threatened, well what can i say, the law is for those without faith.

can  I really judge the dog by the books it chews or the cat it chases?

[Stu]

Quote (kejonn @ July 03 2008,01:33)

Quote (Stu @ July 02 2008,05:03) Who cried to the LORD all night because Saul did not completely obliterate all the good and innocent living things of the Amalekites? [1] Agag [2] Samuel [3] Amalek [4] None of the above Stuart Samuel.

Yes indeed. 23 more points. What use was Saul to the merciful LORD if he was unwilling to complete this glorious genocide for him? Samuel had good reasons to blub.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 03 2008,05:14)

Quote (Stu @ July 01 2008,21:12) Quote (lineon @ July 01 2008,02:41) My guess is [3] 23 points to you lineon, you are right! Ecc 11:9 Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes. Num 15:39 Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes. With god anything is possible. Stuart No, with men at the pen anything is possible.

I was just quoting Mat 19:26. This especially applies to creation arguments. As Jacob Bronowski put it, it is those who appeal to God and special creation who reduce everything to accident. They assign to man a unique status on the ground that there was some act of special creation which made the world the way it is. But that explains nothing, because it would explain everything; it is an explanation for any conceivable world. If we had the color vision of the bee combined with the neck of the giraffe and the feet of the elephant, that would equally be explained by the “theory” of special creation.

With god, anything goes!

Stuart

[WhatIsTrue]

Quote (Stu @ July 03 2008,19:22)

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 03 2008,05:14) Quote (Stu @ July 01 2008,21:12) Quote (lineon @ July 01 2008,02:41) My guess is [3] 23 points to you lineon, you are right! Ecc 11:9 Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes. Num 15:39 Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes. With god anything is possible. Stuart No, with men at the pen anything is possible. I was just quoting Mat 19:26.  This especially applies to creation arguments.  As Jacob Bronowski put it, it is those who appeal to God and special creation who reduce everything to accident. They assign to man a unique status on the ground that there was some act of special creation which made the world the way it is. But that explains nothing, because it would explain everything; it is an explanation for any conceivable world. If we had the color vision of the bee combined with the neck of the giraffe and the feet of the elephant, that would equally be explained by the “theory” of special creation. With god, anything goes! Stuart

But this is true of evolution as well.

Why do we have eyes on the front of our heads instead of on the sides?
Creationism answers, “Because God designed it that way.”
Evolution answers, “Because it was advantageous to man's survival.”

Why do men pee standing up instead of having to sit or squat like women?
Creationism answers, “Because God designed it that way.”
Evolution answers, “Because it was advantageous to man's survival.”

The specifics of each answer could be the result of design or adaptation, so, in my opinion, as much as God can be a catch-all for the mysteries of the universe, so can evolution. The details do not depend on either premise.

[Stu]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 04 2008,04:46)

Quote (Stu @ July 03 2008,19:22) Quote (Not3in1 @ July 03 2008,05:14) Quote (Stu @ July 01 2008,21:12) Quote (lineon @ July 01 2008,02:41) My guess is [3] 23 points to you lineon, you are right! Ecc 11:9 Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes. Num 15:39 Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes. With god anything is possible. Stuart No, with men at the pen anything is possible. I was just quoting Mat 19:26.  This especially applies to creation arguments.  As Jacob Bronowski put it, it is those who appeal to God and special creation who reduce everything to accident. They assign to man a unique status on the ground that there was some act of special creation which made the world the way it is. But that explains nothing, because it would explain everything; it is an explanation for any conceivable world. If we had the color vision of the bee combined with the neck of the giraffe and the feet of the elephant, that would equally be explained by the “theory” of special creation. With god, anything goes! Stuart But this is true of evolution as well. Why do we have eyes on the front of our heads instead of on the sides? Creationism answers, “Because God designed it that way.” Evolution answers, “Because it was advantageous to man's survival.” Why do men pee standing up instead of having to sit or squat like women? Creationism answers, “Because God designed it that way.” Evolution answers, “Because it was advantageous to man's survival.” The specifics of each answer could be the result of design or adaptation, so, in my opinion, as much as God can be a catch-all for the mysteries of the universe, so can evolution.  The details do not depend on either premise.

No, definitely not. Evolution makes predictions, including that some things are not possible.

We have eyes on the front of the head because we are predators and the stereo vision has an enormous advantage. Compare bottom-dwelling fish that start their development with one eye on each side in the usual fish way, then undergo an extraordinary developmental migration of one eye round to be on the same side as the other so the fish can gain its advantage from lying on the bottom of the sea ad still be able to use both eyes. Both our adaptations and theirs are traceably the products of natural selection working on features already present. These are real concrete, testable explanations that come from a falsifiable, predictive scientific theory. There is no evidence of design in nature. There is plenty for an unguided selection of the most suitably adapted though.

On the subject of urinating, women can do it standing up too!

Tell me how 'god did it' is any kind of explanation at all.

Stuart

[WhatIsTrue]

Stu,

To make my point, I'll take your last post and rephrase it slightly.

We have eyes on the front of the head because God knew that stereo vision would give us an enormous advantage.  Consider the awesome design of bottom-dwelling fish that start their development with one eye on each side in the usual fish way, then undergo an extraordinary developmental migration of one eye round to be on the same side as the other so the fish can gain its advantage from lying on the bottom of the sea and still be able to use both eyes.  This is real concrete evidence that “adaptation” is designed into God's creatures as needed and is not some random occurence over thousands of years.

Now, I am not saying that the above invalidates evolution.  I am just saying that the “invisibible hand” can be attributed to whatever you have faith in.  For athiests, it's natural selection.  For creationists, it's God.  In either case, the details have nothing to do with the underlying cause.  And for most people, the beauty is in the details, not in proving the root cause.

In other words, the intricacies of the universe lead a creationist to proclaim, “God is great!”, but the same intricacies lead an athiest to say, “Natural selection is amazing!”  Both have a default answer for root cause, and neither of them invalidates the beauty of the details.

[Stu]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 04 2008,09:40)

Stu, To make my point, I'll take your last post and rephrase it slightly. We have eyes on the front of the head because God knew that stereo vision would give us an enormous advantage.  Consider the awesome design of bottom-dwelling fish that start their development with one eye on each side in the usual fish way, then undergo an extraordinary developmental migration of one eye round to be on the same side as the other so the fish can gain its advantage from lying on the bottom of the sea and still be able to use both eyes.  This is real concrete evidence that “adaptation” is designed into God's creatures as needed and is not some random occurence over thousands of years. Now, I am not saying that the above invalidates evolution.  I am just saying that the “invisibible hand” can be attributed to whatever you have faith in.  For athiests, it's natural selection.  For creationists, it's God.  In either case, the details have nothing to do with the underlying cause.  And for most people, the beauty is in the details, not in proving the root cause. In other words, the intricacies of the universe lead a creationist to proclaim, “God is great!”, but the same intricacies lead an athiest to say, “Natural selection is amazing!”  Both have a default answer for root cause, and neither of them invalidates the beauty of the details.

You have outlined a philosophy which was disproven by Darwin and many others 150 years ago. The argument from design is only believed by those who fundamentally have no idea what the evidence says, and I would add are blinded by what they are told from a pulpit or ancient text. It is not true that evolution by natural selection and creationist descriptions are equivalent alternatives that can be chosen at whim.

There is a long discussion of this topic in the appropriate thread, and I would encourage you to read it and consider the cases presented there (and elsewhere). If you can disprove the theory of evolution by putting up a falsifiable, predictive alternative theory of special creation that is a better explanation of the evidence then I am sure we would all be keen to read it. Don't let 150 years of abject failure on the part of creationists put you off!

Stuart

[TimothyVI]

Quote (kejonn @ July 03 2008,01:40)

What is the last commandment? [1] Do not covet your neighbor's house [2] Do not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor [3] You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk [4] none of the above

Hi stu,

It depends. If you are referring to the 10 commandments that everyone thinks about when talking about God’s commandments it is;

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. So number 2 could be correct.

However if you are referring to the other 603 commandments that He supposedly gave to Moses, then the last one was;

Not to retain a captive woman for servitude after having sexual relations with her Deut. 21:14

So number 4 would be correct.

Tim

[Stu]

Quote (TimothyVI @ July 05 2008,05:22)

Quote (kejonn @ July 03 2008,01:40) What is the last commandment? [1] Do not covet your neighbor's house [2] Do not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor [3] You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk [4] none of the above Hi stu, It depends. If you are referring to the 10 commandments that everyone thinks about when talking about God’s commandments it is; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. So number 2 could be correct. However if you are referring to the other 603 commandments that He supposedly gave to Moses, then the last one was; Not to retain a captive woman for servitude after having sexual relations with her Deut. 21:14 So number 4 would be correct. Tim

On the garage door of the church across the road from my workplace is written:

XI. Thou shalt not park

Stuart

[Author]

Posts