PDA

View Full Version : The Creation Museum Opens


Pages : [1] 2 3

Jenson71
05-30-2007, 08:25 AM
Humans walked with dinosaurs!

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

The Creation Museum will be upfront that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice, and in every area it touches upon.

We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that “facts” don’t speak for themselves (click here for a proposed drawing of this exhibit). There aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. We’ll then explore why the Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

After that, we'll take guests on a journey through a visual presentation of the history of the world, based on the “7 C’s of History”: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history.

The complex, near Cincinnati, Ohio, will also be the headquarters for AiG-USA and will house the ministry offices, recording studio and resource distribution center. The museum will also feature classrooms for use by school groups, pastors and others.

Museum mission statement
Exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer through a safe, wholesome, family-friendly center for learning and discovery that clearly presents major biblical themes from Genesis to Revelation.

This center will equip Christians to better evangelize the lost with a sense of urgency, through a combination of exhibits, research and educational presentations that uphold the inerrancy of the Bible.

This center will also challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and to accept the authority of the Bible by providing culturally relevant biblical and scientific answers from a biblical worldview.

Main theme
The Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation!

Frazod
05-30-2007, 08:56 AM
Humans walked with dinosaurs!

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

The Creation Museum will be upfront that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice, and in every area it touches upon.

We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that “facts” don’t speak for themselves (click here for a proposed drawing of this exhibit). There aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. We’ll then explore why the Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

After that, we'll take guests on a journey through a visual presentation of the history of the world, based on the “7 C’s of History”: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history.

The complex, near Cincinnati, Ohio, will also be the headquarters for AiG-USA and will house the ministry offices, recording studio and resource distribution center. The museum will also feature classrooms for use by school groups, pastors and others.

Museum mission statement
Exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer through a safe, wholesome, family-friendly center for learning and discovery that clearly presents major biblical themes from Genesis to Revelation.

This center will equip Christians to better evangelize the lost with a sense of urgency, through a combination of exhibits, research and educational presentations that uphold the inerrancy of the Bible.

This center will also challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and to accept the authority of the Bible by providing culturally relevant biblical and scientific answers from a biblical worldview.

Main theme
The Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation!
That's easy. When pinned down with any pesky, irrefutable facts that run contrary to heavily-edited 2,000 year old text first written by people who had only recently mastered the art of lighting stuff on fire, just scream "I HAVE MY FAITH!" and dismiss the fact bearer as a heretic.

:whackit:

Saulbadguy
05-30-2007, 09:09 AM
Entrance and exit through the gift shop.

the Talking Can
05-30-2007, 09:12 AM
wouldn't it be cheaper to just hit people on the head with a hammer?

keg in kc
05-30-2007, 09:13 AM
wouldn't it be cheaper to just hit people on the head with a hammer?you can't charge people $20 a head to hit them on the head


can you?

Jenson71
05-30-2007, 09:16 AM
2,000 year old text first written by people who had only recently mastered the art of lighting stuff on fire,

This seems like a "fact" you might find in the museum. ;)

Pitt Gorilla
05-30-2007, 10:55 AM
I saw a pretty good discussion of the museum on O'Reilly. It seems like a fine idea, aside from the fact that they also portray science as bad.

Jenson71
05-30-2007, 11:18 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HajP5pE4BE0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HajP5pE4BE0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Amnorix
05-30-2007, 11:19 AM
I saw a pretty good discussion of the museum on O'Reilly. It seems like a fine idea, aside from the fact that they also portray science as bad.


Of course science is bad. It's the same as what the Roman Catholics were doing in the Middle Ages -- science disproves fundamental "facts" as set forth in the Bible, and therefore undermines faith. Therefore it's bad. Pretty simple really.

noa
05-30-2007, 11:31 AM
If humans came from monkeys, then why is there still monkeys around? It don't make no sense...

StcChief
05-30-2007, 11:43 AM
The whole Missing Link thing...still waiting on those.
Why aren't others animals evolving into something else.

Only real human evolutionary change worth exploring is the '3rd boob' theory put forth in the lounge.

Jenson71
05-30-2007, 11:45 AM
The whole Missing Link thing...still waiting on those.
Why aren't others animals evolving into something else.


What Missing Link thing? Animals are evolving. All the time!

noa
05-30-2007, 11:45 AM
Only real human evolutionary change worth exploring is the '3rd boob' theory put forth in the lounge.

As long as it comes with a third arm for the men.

StcChief
05-30-2007, 11:48 AM
As long as it comes with a third arm for the men.
HuH? two hands 1 mouth?

noa
05-30-2007, 11:50 AM
HuH? two hands 1 mouth?

I was going for the Total Recall reference, but that's okay, your point is valid.

chasedude
05-30-2007, 11:56 AM
Of course science is bad. It's the same as what the Roman Catholics were doing in the Middle Ages -- science disproves fundamental "facts" as set forth in the Bible, and therefore undermines faith. Therefore it's bad. Pretty simple really.

Science is bad? Science is fact! A fact that disproves speculation and lies is really bad? I don't think so, nothing simple in it at all.

Jenson71
05-30-2007, 12:03 PM
Science is bad? Science is fact! A fact that disproves speculation and lies is really bad? I don't think so, nothing simple in it at all.

Amnorix is a sarcastic godless liberal.

BigCatDaddy
05-30-2007, 12:06 PM
Science is fact? All I ever read about are a bunch of theories and most of those change or evolve. I am a Christian and I think science is a very good thing when it can benefit man, such as medical improvements and finding alternative fuels. I just hope we don't abandoned what's morally correct in the name of science. Bring science on, I have no fear of it, I welcome it.

HolmeZz
05-30-2007, 12:24 PM
Why aren't others animals evolving into something else.

I WANT TO SEE THEM CHANGING BEFORE MY EYES

Like Pokemon.

listopencil
05-30-2007, 12:26 PM
This is going to be embarrassing if civilization falls and aliens find it.

tiptap
05-30-2007, 12:28 PM
If humans came from monkeys, then why is there still monkeys around? It don't make no sense...

This line of thinking is based upon "Chain of Beings" thinking introduced by the Creationist Linneus. This is the guy that introduced the naming scheme we still use ie. GENUS species. The KINDS of animal was considered to be fixed. KINDS were considered analogous to chemical ELEMENTS. Modern Biology doesn't have a fixed notion of KIND.

The answer is why are there still fish if fish "evolved" into amphibians. The answer is pretty easy. Think of names as an example. Simply because ones name may change through time in a particular line of a family there can still be other lines that have the original family name still. It is not that all monkeys are changing into apes and then into humans. It is that there are lots of family descents, some of which would continue to present day monkeys, others to present day apes and some of those apes would lead to present day man.

noa
05-30-2007, 12:33 PM
This line of thinking is based upon "Chain of Beings" thinking introduced by the Creationist Linneus. This is the guy that introduced the naming scheme we still use ie. GENUS species. The KINDS of animal was considered to be fixed. KINDS were considered analogous to chemical ELEMENTS. Modern Biology doesn't have a fixed notion of KIND.

The answer is why are there still fish if fish "evolved" into amphibians. The answer is pretty easy. Think of names as an example. Simply because ones name may change through time in a particular line of a family there can still be other lines that have the original family name still. It is not that all monkeys are changing into apes and then into humans. It is that there are lots of family descents, some of which would continue to present day monkeys, others to present day apes and some of those apes would lead to present day man.

But why don't monkeys have human babies anymore?

keg in kc
05-30-2007, 12:36 PM
But why don't monkeys have human babies anymore?Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape.

chasedude
05-30-2007, 12:48 PM
Science is fact? All I ever read about are a bunch of theories and most of those change or evolve. I am a Christian and I think science is a very good thing when it can benefit man, such as medical improvements and finding alternative fuels. I just hope we don't abandoned what's morally correct in the name of science. Bring science on, I have no fear of it, I welcome it.

Do you have a problem with stem cell research?

tiptap
05-30-2007, 12:52 PM
The whole Missing Link thing...still waiting on those.
Why aren't others animals evolving into something else.

Only real human evolutionary change worth exploring is the '3rd boob' theory put forth in the lounge.

There are plenty of fossils of animals that are intermediate between land dwelling mammals and back limbless whales. We have a pretty good collection of intermediate ape skeleton between apes and human. We have huge number of intermediate fossils between reptiles and mammals.

Usually what happens is that for every intermediate fossil found scientist are asked to come up with the fossil on either side of the found fossil. In other words for every intermediate fossil we have to come up with two more to fill in the gaps usually with insistence that the found fossil is either one KIND or ANOTHER. Harking back again to Chain of Being thinking that there are a fixed number of possible KINDS.

As far as evidence of Modern Descent with Modification, there are ample examples but there is nothing as large as the differences that have evolved between apes and man because that amount of accumulated change takes million of years. The evidence for that is in the fossil record.

But if you want a genetic connection between Apes and Man look at the Vitamin C defect we share. All Monkeys, Old and New World, Apes AND MAN (and not other primates) share the same genetic defect in producing vitamin C. Without Vitamin C (obtained by diet) these groups of animals develop scurvy and essentially fall apart. All have the correct enzymes to produce Vitamin C except for the 4th and final step. And that enzyme is defective with the same defect expressed over all these animals. You can chose to believe god, being the perfect designer, made the first 3 steps available to these animals but goofed on the 4th step, though he got it right for about every other living creature or you can understand how a common family ancestor had this defect that got passed to this large group of animals. This very smart group of animals are restricted to tropical regions because of the need for Vitamin C (solved by man by introducing first meat eating and later agriculture to meet Vitamin C needs).

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-30-2007, 12:59 PM
The whole Missing Link thing...still waiting on those.
Why aren't others animals evolving into something else.

Only real human evolutionary change worth exploring is the '3rd boob' theory put forth in the lounge.

Case in point why people with no knowledge of science shouldn't argue against it.


You might want to look up how long the evolutionary process actually takes (and guess what--it's longer than 6000 years).

tiptap
05-30-2007, 01:11 PM
But why don't monkeys have human babies anymore?

Well technically they do. In that I am a bipedal, tailless, binocular, tree dwelling, hairy reptilian, air breathing, quadrapedal fish for example. The binocular tree dwelling refers to my monkey heritage.

tiptap
05-30-2007, 01:29 PM
Science is fact? All I ever read about are a bunch of theories and most of those change or evolve. I am a Christian and I think science is a very good thing when it can benefit man, such as medical improvements and finding alternative fuels. I just hope we don't abandoned what's morally correct in the name of science. Bring science on, I have no fear of it, I welcome it.

One often hears that science, especially evolution, means we live by the law of the jungle or survival of the fittest. So why would any creature help any other in the survivalist setting. Well evolution offers a beginning answer in that it isn't an organism that is surviving but is genetic material that is surviving. As such there is advantage to sacrificing oneself for the hive of genetically identical ants or bees. The genetics survive. And less so but still toward sisters or brothers that share at least half of their genetic material. The result is that coordination of social insects allows them together to be more successful then individual insects.

Similarly coordination among tribes of people let them be successful (as seen in social animals like wolves and such). What man can do is abstract the benefits of coordinating social existence to beyond just kindredship. That is the moral benefit we gain by abstracting the success of coordinating our efforts. And is also why selfish and animal tendencies provide a drag on success of the abstraction. As humans we are juggling our biological selfish inheritance against the abstract benefit of shared effort. If we abandoned morality we abandoned the benefit of what gives us modern civilization. An abstraction of the brotherhood of all men.

BigCatDaddy
05-30-2007, 02:29 PM
Do you have a problem with stem cell research?

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I don't think you need to create the cells the do the test they are doing and that they are able to use the adult stem cells to do the same research. If I remember right, some corporation got it on the ballot to make millions and everyone fell for it. But like I said I'm no expert. I am not dead set against it at all. I just don't want it taken to far.

Abortion on the other hand is different and I don't believe you have to be a Christian to see what's wrong with it.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 03:47 PM
you can't charge people $20 a head to hit them on the head


can you?


Sure you can. You just have to explain to them you are a "Retro-Phrenologist" who can induce specific behaviors (quit smoking, kick drinking, gain confidence) by causing lumps on certain areas of the skull.

Haven't you seen my ad on the back page of The Pitch?

I just don't want it taken to far.


So who gets to decide what is "too far"? Someone who believes that a clump of a few dozen undifferentiated cells equals a human being? Someone like me who finds the notion of the "inherent sacredness" of life to be a rather absurd myth created solely out of self-interest?

I just don't want it taken to far.


Aye, that's the rub.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 04:02 PM
Science is bad? Science is fact! A fact that disproves speculation and lies is really bad? I don't think so, nothing simple in it at all.
Science is not always fact. It's about hypotheses and theories as well...but they get tested if possible. Some of today's science is fiction in the future.

el borracho
05-30-2007, 04:32 PM
Will someone in the know please tell me who actually authored the biblical creation story and how that person knew the story. In fact, who authored the entire old testament?

Also, is the "holy spirit" it's own separate, physical, sentient entity or is it an incarnation of god or Jesus or is it something else entirely? Is it even mentioned in the bible?

Mr. Laz
05-30-2007, 04:42 PM
Also, is the "holy spirit" it's own separate, physical, sentient entity or is it an incarnation of god or Jesus or is it something else entirely? Is it even mentioned in the bible?
The Holy Spirit is considered to be the third member of the Godhead.

He is a person equal in every way with God the Father and God the Son.

God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And all the divine attributes ascribed to the Father and the Son are equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

listopencil
05-30-2007, 04:47 PM
Will someone in the know please tell me who actually authored the biblical creation story and how that person knew the story. In fact, who authored the entire old testament?


The Flying Spaghetti Monster authored it with one of his noodly appendages. It was meant as a test of your faith. You failed.

Also, is the "holy spirit" it's own separate, physical, sentient entity or is it an incarnation of god or Jesus or is it something else entirely? Is it even mentioned in the bible?


The Holy Spirit is the equivalent to the Sacred Sauce of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. We have the Meat, Noodles and Sauce.


Any more questions?

el borracho
05-30-2007, 05:21 PM
The Holy Spirit is considered to be the third member of the Godhead.

He is a person equal in every way with God the Father and God the Son.

God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And all the divine attributes ascribed to the Father and the Son are equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
So the holy spirit acts independently of the the father and the son? Does it appear in the bible? Are there any tales of the holy spirit?

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 05:33 PM
Will someone in the know please tell me who actually authored the biblical creation story and how that person knew the story. In fact, who authored the entire old testament?

There's a great article about it here:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

Get ready for a long read. The answer isn't simple.

Also, is the "holy spirit" it's own separate, physical, sentient entity or is it an incarnation of god or Jesus or is it something else entirely? Is it even mentioned in the bible?

Laz already did a fine job of answering your inquiries concerning the Holy Spirit. I'll just add that references can be found in Psalms and Isaiah (in the old testament). I left out Daniel, even though verses from that book will appear if you click on the link below. (The keywords "holy" and "spirit" appear in verses in Daniel, but the phrase "Holy Spirit" does not appear.) The Holy Spirit is mentioned in all four gospels in the new testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), as well as Acts (of the Apostles), also in Paul's letters to the churches he addressed in Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, and Thessalonians. The Holy Spirit is referenced in Timothy, Titus, first and second Peter, and Jude.

Here's a link to references in the Bible (NIV) to the Holy Spirit:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=Holy%20Spirit&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no&startnumber=26&startnumber=51&startnumber=76&startnumber=101&startnumber=76&startnumber=101&startnumber=1

Baby Lee
05-30-2007, 05:37 PM
Science is fact? All I ever read about are a bunch of theories and most of those change or evolve. I am a Christian and I think science is a very good thing when it can benefit man, such as medical improvements and finding alternative fuels. I just hope we don't abandoned what's morally correct in the name of science. Bring science on, I have no fear of it, I welcome it.
Penguins are building a scale replica of Fire Island as we speak.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 05:40 PM
Penguins are building a scale replica of Fire Island as we speak.

It'll melt.

Penguins. You just can't teach them anything.

el borracho
05-30-2007, 05:44 PM
Wow. That is a lot of reading. I did, however, manage to find an answer to my first question; "Not only don't we know authors, we often don't know dates, not even within centuries."

Still trying to figure out what the holy spirit might be...

Slick32
05-30-2007, 05:47 PM
I saw a pretty good discussion of the museum on O'Reilly. It seems like a fine idea, aside from the fact that they also portray science as bad.

Are you saying that science doesn't portray religion as bad?

el borracho
05-30-2007, 05:50 PM
Hmmm... as best I can tell from that second link the holy spirit is the spirit of god and not a separate entity in the way that christians view Jesus. The holy spirit doesn't seem to be corporeal nor independent from god the way Jesus is viewed. Is this correct?

Baby Lee
05-30-2007, 05:51 PM
Hmmm... as best I can tell from that second link the holy spirit is the spirit of god and not a separate entity in the way that christians view Jesus. The holy spirit doesn't seem to be corporeal nor independent from god the way Jesus is viewed. Is this correct?
No, Jesus was corporeal for a period [and was granted agency for that period], but he is not independent from God.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 05:56 PM
Wow. That is a lot of reading. I did, however, manage to find an answer to my first question; "Not only don't we know authors, we often don't know dates, not even within centuries."

Still trying to figure out what the holy spirit might be...

There is a trinity that is the Godhead, according to Christian faith. There is God the Father, the Creator and ultimate judge; God the Son, Jesus Christ, Emmanuel (which translates as "God with us"); and The Holy Spirit, who is "God inside us."

It's not a simple concept to wrap your arms around.

el borracho
05-30-2007, 05:56 PM
I thought Jesus had independent thought and action. Didn't Jesus and god have conversations? Didn't Jesus have the option of obedience or disobedience to god's will? I'm not saying you are wrong, it just doesn't make sense to me that a being of unified mind could/ would/ should behave the way Jesus behaved.

Baby Lee
05-30-2007, 06:02 PM
I thought Jesus had independent thought and action. Didn't Jesus and god have conversations? Didn't Jesus have the option of obedience or disobedience to god's will? I'm not saying you are wrong, it just doesn't make sense to me that a being of unified mind could/ would/ should behave the way Jesus behaved.
He had agency for the period of his corporeal being, but he, the Father ,and the Holy Ghost are one, existing out of time and in all time.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 06:05 PM
Are you saying that science doesn't portray religion as bad?

As Science relies upon the "natural" and places the "supernatural" outside of the realm of science, I'd say no.

Science does not protray religion/supernatural as "good" or "bad". Science is indifferent.

However, there are people who prefer viewing life through the lens of science instead of the lens of religion who may portray religion as "bad". Just as there as those who prefer the lens of religion who seek to cast Science as "bad".

As one who prefers the lens of science, I don't see religion as "bad". Just a little humorous, and a bit sad.

JMO.

Jenson71
05-30-2007, 06:08 PM
What's sad is how God and science are supposedly opposed to one another, to some. I don't see it that way at all. And I would be considered religious, and never really liked any of my science classes. Except Human Origins.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 06:10 PM
What's sad is how God and science are supposedly opposed to one another.

Opposed? :hmmm:

God/Religion=Supernatural explanation. Science=Natural explanation.

Maybe you see opposition. I see apples and oranges.

:shrug:

I suppose I can see an "opposition" if one attempts to prove/disprove the existence of "God" via the Scientific Method. Of course if the existence could be proved, then "God" would be natural, not supernatural, and we would simply need to figure out where he/she/it goes in the big book of biological catagorizations.

Granted, that proof would bring issues with the religious concept of "Without Faith, I am nothing"...but Douglas Adams has already hashed that out quite nicely. ;)

el borracho
05-30-2007, 06:13 PM
I don't think science and a god/ creator are mutually exclusive but I do think that science is the enemy of religions/ mythologies.

el borracho
05-30-2007, 06:15 PM
God/Religion=Supernatural explanation. Science=Natural explanation.
I see god(s) and religion(s) as separate entities.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 06:29 PM
I see god(s) and religion(s) as separate entities.

I wouldn't dispute that. I see the concepts of god and spirituality as different from religion. I see religion primarily as a political/economic/social structure (based on the concepts of spirituality/god) created by man to understand and control those concepts.

I do see both of them as belonging to the "supernatural" realm, within that framework. Again, JMO.

tiptap
05-30-2007, 06:33 PM
I wonder why we changed the name from Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit. I mean we changed the King James wording. I use to get told it was because the meaning of words changed. And of course that just raised the question just how concrete can we think the words were used in Hebrew through 1000 or two years between Genesis and Hosea.

redbrian
05-30-2007, 06:39 PM
My 7 year old daughter who is a nut about dinosaurs picked up a tape from the library made by this whacked out group (she usually gets something with Baker as she likes him).

Even she was able to blow away this group so called facts.

Here are my three favorites

1) Dinosaurs and people existed at the same time.
2) Dinosaurs, people and all the other animals did not eat meat, in fact they were all buddies (bbq came along after the fall from grace I guess)
3) You can’t tell what an animal eats by a study of their teeth, the example they used was that bears have canines but don’t eat meat (my 7 yr old correctly yelled at the TV of course they do they are omnivores).

We pulled the tape at this point took it back to the library and suggested they put it in the fiction section.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:11 PM
As Science relies upon the "natural" and places the "supernatural" outside of the realm of science, I'd say no.

Science does not portray religion/supernatural as "good" or "bad". Science is indifferent.

However, there are people who prefer viewing life through the lens of science instead of the lens of religion who may portray religion as "bad". Just as there as those who prefer the lens of religion who seek to cast Science as "bad".

As one who prefers the lens of science, I don't see religion as "bad". Just a little humorous, and a bit sad.

JMO.

You find it easy to believe some theories but not believe something that just might have some substance to it?

Science relies on speculation in many cases religion relies on faith.

We could argue the point, but I think it's been done before and your opinion is not held to be official by as many as you might wish.

Amnorix
05-30-2007, 07:22 PM
Amnorix is a sarcastic godless liberal.

You say that like it's a bad thing. :LOL:

Amnorix
05-30-2007, 07:24 PM
There is a trinity that is the Godhead, according to Christian faith. There is God the Father, the Creator and ultimate judge; God the Son, Jesus Christ, Emmanuel (which translates as "God with us"); and The Holy Spirit, who is "God inside us."

It's not a simple concept to wrap your arms around.

And yet this is a monotheistic religion.

I don't mean to be profane and blasphemous, but if you're like me -- growing up without religious parents and never attending church, and able to really step back and take a look at it with cold logic, none of it makes a whole lot of sense.

Amnorix
05-30-2007, 07:33 PM
He had agency for the period of his corporeal being, but he, the Father ,and the Holy Ghost are one, existing out of time and in all time.
Oh yes -- please note that the Catholic Church, in particular, and the larger Christian Church, especially before the Greek Orthodox / Roman Catholic split, have had numerous internal relentless and VERY HEATED debates about the fundamental nature of Jesus Christ.

The first Council of Nicea was held in about 325 AD:

"The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Alexandria) over the nature of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia) as God the Father (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father) or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Alexander_of_Alexandria) and Athanasius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius) took the first position; the popular presbyter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyter) Arius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius), from whom the term Arian controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting) against Arius). However, due to the machinations of Athanasius and others in his party, many of the Eastern bishops who were pro-Arian, were prevented from reaching the Council until after the vote had been taken.

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as the same; followers of Alexander did not. Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages; Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek) words like "essence" (ousia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia)), "substance" (hypostasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28religion%29)), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic) heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264-268 Synods of Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synods_of_Antioch).
Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_%28Christianity%29), and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20John&verse=10:30&src=!)). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20John&verse=14:28&src=!): "the Father is greater than I". Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Amnorix
05-30-2007, 07:36 PM
Note, by the way, that the fact that common men were arguing about this stuff 300 years later, and politically manipulating the vote to determine basic tenets of the faith. This rather directly undermines my ability to find faith myself, having grown up without it.

More specifically, a bunch of philosophers could gather around a table today and decide to build a religion out of the Salem Witch trials and what happened there, as a matter of faith, and have about the same ability to "get it right" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 07:39 PM
You find it easy to believe some theories but not believe something that just might have some substance to it?

Science relies on speculation in many cases religion relies on faith.

We could argue the point, but I think it's been done before and your opinion is not held to be official by as many as you might wish.

What "opinion" of mine are you referencing, and what does that have to do with it being "official"?

Seems to me your biggest quibble is that Natural Science relies strictly on "natural" phenomena.

Sorry if you somehow see that as hostile to religion, but we aren't going to be changing the central concept of Natural Science and the Scientific Method just to make you Supernatural believing folks happy.

:shrug:

I'm sure you're right. There are those who don't see the Scientific Method as "official". That's why Creationism, Crystal Power Theory, Pyramidism, Psychics, Astrologers, etc. are referred to as "Psuedo-Science". For instance, "Intelligent Design" theory relies upon the idea of "Irreducable Complexity" a concept which can in no way be tested or verified, only assumed as true. Thus, being neither testable or verifiable, it places itself outside the realm of natural science.

Yes, Science is full of theories that can be proven or disproven. That's the point of it. To test what is or is not true by repeated verifiable experimentation.

Perhaps you can show how "Science" in of itself is hostile to religion. That was your statement, please defend it. However, you should (as I did) draw the distinction between "Science" itself, and advocates of science that are "hostile" to religion.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:44 PM
What "opinion" of mine are you referencing, and what does that have to do with it being "official"?

Seems to me your biggest quibble is that Natural Science relies strictly on "natural" phenomena

Sorry if you somehow see that as hostile to religion, but we aren't going to be changing the central concept of Natural Science and the Scientific Method just to make you Supernatural believing folks happy.

:shrug:

I'm sure you're right. There are those who don't see the Scientific Method as "official". That's why Creationism, Crystal Power Theory, Pyramidism, Psychics, Astrologers, etc. are referred to as "Psuedo-Science".

Perhaps you can show how "Science" in of itself is hostile to religion. That was your statement, please defend it. However, you should (as I did) draw the distinction between "Science" itself, and advocates of science that are "hostile" to religion.

Actually it isn't science that is hostile to religion, it's people like you that cannot merge the two and realize that there are some explanations that will tie them together.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 07:48 PM
if you're like me -- growing up without religious parents and never attending church, and able to really step back and take a look at it with cold logic...

Sounds like the way I grew up.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 07:53 PM
Actually it isn't science that is hostile to religion, it's people like you that cannot merge the two and realize that there are some explanations that will tie them together.


Thank you for the retraction of your erroneous statement. Even if it is a case of moving the goalposts after having your initial statement shown as absurd, thank you.

As for "some explanations" that will "tie them together", feel free to submit any. Just keep in mind they must be testable and capable of being independently verified in accordance with the Scientific Method. If you want them to be accepted as anything more that a hypothesis, that is.

This should help you get started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Remember, we aren't going to change the definition of Science. Work with what it is, not what you wish it would be. ;)

Here's a question. Why are some who believe in the Supernatural so insecure in their beliefs they feel a need for Natural Science to validate them?

For the record, I am not hostile to "religion". I am a bit ornery towards some of it's more (IMO) vocal and naive adherents. Just because I reject the notion as piffle, it does not follow that I believe everyone else should as well. Nor do I believe my POV on the subject makes me "better" than anyone else.

Sounds like the way I grew up.

I was raised going to Church. Then I started asking questions. Then I found a (scientific) method for getting them answered that I found fulfilling and believable. :shrug:

noa
05-30-2007, 08:04 PM
No, Jesus was corporeal for a period [and was granted agency for that period], but he is not independent from God.

Just curious. Don't know much about this, but if Jesus is not independent from God, why were his last words on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" according to Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?

Slick32
05-30-2007, 08:15 PM
Thank you for the retraction of your erroneous statement. Even if it is a case of moving the goalposts after having your initial statement shown as absurd, thank you.

So are you acquessing that religion does not attack science?

As for "some explanations" that will "tie them together", feel free to submit any. Just keep in mind they must be testable and capable of being independently verified in accordance with the Scientific Method. If you want them to be accepted as anything more that a hypothesis, that is.

Tell me why I should attempt to sell an unbeliever anything. You are predispositioned to reject anything that you can't explain.

I was raised going to Church. Then I started asking questions. Then I found a (scientific) method for getting them answered that I found fulfilling and believable.

What makes you think that fulfilling and believable is a substitute? According to you religion is false and cannot be proven, since when is fulfilling and believeable with science any different than fulfilling and believeable religious experiences?

Have you ever witnessed a miracle? You might ask someone that has or better, find someone that has lived a miracle. Find a person that was terminally ill and was healed and medical science could not explain the recovery.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 08:16 PM
Just curious. Don't know much about this, but if Jesus is not independent from God, why were his last words on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" according to Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?

Do some research about the Trinity, if you can't get a handle on it then, try going to a Priest or a Pastor to have them explain it to you.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 08:31 PM
So are you acquessing that religion does not attack science?

Perhaps you can show me where I stated that religion did attack science? You're new at this aren't you?

Tell me why I should attempt to sell an unbeliever anything.
Intellectual Honesty? You made a statement. Defend it. :harumph:

Interesting choice of words as you believe you'd be "selling" something, instead of explaining it. :hmmm:

Granted, as you chose to deflect rather than actually answer the question, It's pretty clear you can't defend that statement either.

You are predispositioned to reject anything that you can't explain. Lovely assumption on your part, but incorrect. I'm predisposed to try to understand anything I can't explain. The Scientific Method gives me a reliable, verifiable manner in which to do so.

I prefer that to simply assuming "god did it".
What makes you think that fulfilling and believable is a substitute?
A substitute for what?

According to you religion is false and cannot be proven, since when is fulfilling and believeable with science any different than fulfilling and believeable religious experiences?
In the methodology, of course. It seems obvious to me. :shrug:

One is based on assumption or faith, one is based on observable natural phenomena, and conclusions drawn from that. As for it being fulfilling and believable, I'm quite sure you find religion to be as fulfilling and believeable as I find Science.

Though I still don't understand your obvious need to have your Supernatural beliefs validated by Natural Science. Such a need you (and others) seemingly feel they should force a change in the very definition of science to accommodate that. Oh well, each to their own. I'm sure my own POV is equally incomprehensible to you.

As for my view of the Supernatural? If it actually exists then one day it will be part of Science.

Until then I'll leave it as Superstition, and dismiss it accordingly. JMO.


;):p
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t7I73DNguRI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t7I73DNguRI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 08:46 PM
I saw a pretty good discussion of the museum on O'Reilly. It seems like a fine idea, aside from the fact that they also portray science as bad.
Wouldn't it fit better as an amusement park attraction than as an actual museum? Maybe build it next to Madame Tussaud's!

HolmeZz
05-30-2007, 08:47 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 08:50 PM
Though I still don't understand your obvious need to have your Supernatural beliefs validated by Natural Science.
I'd say that's a truer testimony to faith (in the process or the methodology) than anything else. Science seems to have the greater faith in its ways than religion, which is why you almost never see scientists feeling a need to validate Natural Science with religion, but you see the reverse constantly.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 08:53 PM
I'd say that's a truer testimony to faith (in the process or the methodology) than anything else. Science seems to have the greater faith in its ways than religion, which is why you almost never see scientists feeling a need to validate Natural Science with religion, but you see the reverse constantly.

:hmmm:

Wise words. Truth. Rep.

I should point out many scientists are believers in religion, to differing degrees. Einstein had "The Old One", Sagan had "The Artist's Signature". Heck the first US astronaut was a Christian Scientist. Incidentally, Alan wrote "The Shepard's Prayer" in the cockpit of Friendship 7 in the long minutes before liftoff.

Please, dear God, don't let me f*** up.

stevieray
05-30-2007, 09:02 PM
Sounds threatening.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 09:10 PM
Sounds threatening.

Oh, I don't know. Regarding the museum, the word "amusing" was the first to come to mind for me.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 09:16 PM
Interesting choice of words as you believe you'd be "selling" something, instead of explaining it.

You are sold on science, same difference.



Lovely assumption on your part, but incorrect. I'm predisposed to try to understand anything I can't explain. The Scientific Method gives me a reliable, verifiable manner in which to do so.

So you fully understand religion? If the above statement was true you would be reading the Bible to try to understand what it says. I see no evidence of that.



One is based on assumption or faith, one is based on observable natural phenomena, and conclusions drawn from that. As for it being fulfilling and believable, I'm quite sure you find religion to be as fulfilling and believeable [<< spelling error] as I find Science.

[QUOTE=Adept Havelock]Though I still don't understand your obvious need to have your Supernatural beliefs validated by Natural Science. Such a need you (and others) seemingly feel they should force a change in the very definition of science to accommodate that. Oh well, each to their own. I'm sure my own POV is equally incomprehensible to you.
If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is true what would you say then? Science isn't the problem with me, if I believed that science was evil I wouldn't go to doctors for illness. I wouldn't take prescription drugs for ailments. Your presume too much.

As for my view of the Supernatural? If it actually exists then one day it will be part of Science. So much for your statement "I'm predisposed to try to understand anything I can't explain."

Until then I'll leave it as Superstition, and dismiss it accordingly. And again your statement: "I'm predisposed to try to understand anything I can't explain."

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 09:23 PM
Just curious. Don't know much about this, but if Jesus is not independent from God, why were his last words on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" according to Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?

That is a truly excellent question.

I'd guide you here for now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

Note this part: "As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term 'mystical union.'"

I'd like to look for a more in-depth answer to your question from other sources.

Good challenge, noa. Well done.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 09:25 PM
If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is true what would you say then? Science isn't the problem with me, if I believed that science was evil I wouldn't go to doctors for illness.
Are you familiar with the term "falsifiable?" It is one of the key distinguishing elements of science, and one of the key differences between science and religion. Scientists recognize that no matter how much we learn, our understanding is fallible, and there is always the possibility that the discovery of new evidence will force new thinking, the correction and amendment, and sometimes even the outright riddance of existing theories. For any scientific theory to have credence, it must meet that falsifiability criterion.

Conversely, religion, or most of them anyway, reject falsifiability. If you were to ask a scientist, "If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is true, what would you say then?", the scientist would answer, "I'll incorporate that new knowledge into my working model and amend my theories accordingly." If, however, you were to ask a Christian dogmatist, "If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is not true, what would you say then?", the dogmatist would answer, "The Bible is true, therefore it is impossible to find incontrovertible evidence that it is not. Any such evidence would be false, planted, fabricated, etc."

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 09:34 PM
That is a truly excellent question.

I'd guide you here for now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

Note this part: "As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term 'mystical union.'"

I'd like to look for a more in-depth answer to your question from other sources.

Good challenge, noa. Well done.There are also some divergent schools of thought on what exactly Christ meant by those words.

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?

The most commonly accepted interpretation, of course, is that this means, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Others point out, however, that the word "eloi" is a plural term, not singular. Some say that this is similar to the lack of unanimity found in interpretations of the verse in Genesis, where the Elohim (also plural) says, "Let us create man in our image."

A third school of thought, also playing upon the notion that eloi is strictly plural, is that he used it in a manner less common in the contemporary vernacular, but still not unheard of, meaning "students," thus suggesting that his cry was not out to God, but to his disciples, some of whom had betrayed, denied and/or abandoned him at the cross. I was told about that school of thought by a rabbi who was a visiting professor at SMSU during the mid-80s. I forget his full name, but we called him Rabbi Ben-Ben.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 09:44 PM
Are you familiar with the term "falsifiable?" It is one of the key distinguishing elements of science, and one of the key differences between science and religion. Scientists recognize that no matter how much we learn, our understanding is fallible, and there is always the possibility that the discovery of new evidence will force new thinking, the correction and amendment, and sometimes even the outright riddance of existing theories. For any scientific theory to have credence, it must meet that falsifiability criterion.

Conversely, religion, or most of them anyway, reject falsifiability. If you were to ask a scientist, "If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is true, what would you say then?", the scientist would answer, "I'll incorporate that new knowledge into my working model and amend my theories accordingly." If, however, you were to ask a Christian dogmatist, "If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is not true, what would you say then?", the dogmatist would answer, "The Bible is true, therefore it is impossible to find incontrovertible evidence that it is not. Any such evidence would be false, planted, fabricated, etc."

I am sure that all will be answered for each of us when we take our own dirt nap. Until then this argument will rage.

Rage on.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 09:49 PM
There are also some divergent schools of thought on what exactly Christ meant by those words.

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?

The most commonly accepted interpretation, of course, is that this means, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Others point out, however, that the word "eloi" is a plural term, not singular. Some say that this is similar to the lack of unanimity found in interpretations of the verse in Genesis, where the Elohim (also plural) says, "Let us create man in our image."

Interesting insight. Thanks, Nightwish.

A third school of thought, also playing upon the notion that eloi is strictly plural, is that he used it in a manner less common in the contemporary vernacular, but still not unheard of, meaning "students," thus suggesting that his cry was not out to God, but to his disciples, some of whom had betrayed, denied and/or abandoned him at the cross.

I'm less comfortable with this idea, since my understanding is that it was at this moment that Jesus took on the burden of all sin and was therefore separated from God the Father. (You've heard it all before: Jesus, who was sinless, died for the rest of us who believe, but are sinners.)

I'd like to think that Jesus's last words weren't uttered only to show that he was disappointed in his disciples. That wouldn't necessarily rule out his divinity, but the words wouldn't be very important to the rest of us.

Logical
05-30-2007, 11:38 PM
Oh, I don't know. Regarding the museum, the word "amusing" was the first to come to mind for me.

Kind of where I am at, I forced myself not to use the rolleyes smiley when I read the thread post. If someone wants to believe this silly revisionist version of the actual facts. Then far be it from me to do anything more than mock their ignorance.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 11:44 PM
Kind of where I am at, I forced myself not to use the rolleyes smiley when I read the thread post. If someone wants to believe this silly revisionist version of the actual facts. Then far be it from me to do anything more than mock their ignorance.

You are a model of restraint, Logical.

Logical
05-30-2007, 11:46 PM
You are a model of restraint, Logical.

I know and I register really low on the sarcastic bastard meter as well.:D

listopencil
05-31-2007, 01:02 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>





Once I found a potato that looked just like Richard Nixon.

HolmeZz
05-31-2007, 01:30 PM
Once I found a potato that looked just like Richard Nixon.

"I am not a spud".

Adept Havelock
05-31-2007, 03:08 PM
Are you familiar with the term "falsifiable?" It is one of the key distinguishing elements of science, and one of the key differences between science and religion. Scientists recognize that no matter how much we learn, our understanding is fallible, and there is always the possibility that the discovery of new evidence will force new thinking, the correction and amendment, and sometimes even the outright riddance of existing theories. For any scientific theory to have credence, it must meet that falsifiability criterion.

Conversely, religion, or most of them anyway, reject falsifiability. If you were to ask a scientist, "If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is true, what would you say then?", the scientist would answer, "I'll incorporate that new knowledge into my working model and amend my theories accordingly." If, however, you were to ask a Christian dogmatist, "If they were to find incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is not true, what would you say then?", the dogmatist would answer, "The Bible is true, therefore it is impossible to find incontrovertible evidence that it is not. Any such evidence would be false, planted, fabricated, etc."

Thank you, NW. I do believe that about covers it.

Pitt Gorilla
05-31-2007, 03:49 PM
The pecan: The Creationist's Nightmare.

banyon
05-31-2007, 04:06 PM
Life imitates Art:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QeqeNisXE2k"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QeqeNisXE2k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

banyon
05-31-2007, 04:07 PM
The pecan: The Creationist's Nightmare.

I always thought it was the platypus.

ClevelandBronco
05-31-2007, 04:57 PM
I always thought it was the platypus.

I thought John Lennon was the platypus.

I know the walrus was Paul.

Adept Havelock
05-31-2007, 05:34 PM
I thought John Lennon was the platypus.

I know the walrus was Paul.

Paul is dying, Paul is dead.

Logical
05-31-2007, 07:57 PM
Paul is dying, Paul is dead.

Well he is definitely barefoot.

tiptap
06-02-2007, 06:45 PM
Have you ever witnessed a miracle? You might ask someone that has or better, find someone that has lived a miracle. Find a person that was terminally ill and was healed and medical science could not explain the recovery.

There are a few miracles that would make me understand there is a god that is active in this world beyond natural laws. A repeat of the Joshua's stopping the sun, moon and stars in the sky for about 24 hours (or backing up the sun as some King of Judah requested). Or a repeat of Elijah/Elisha/Jesus' miracles of barrels that never run out of food or starting with 5 loaves and two fish feed 5000 or 10,000 and have baskets of food left over.

I'd believe in Christianity if Christians rose from the dead after 3 days and rocketed out into space a few months later. But the only person that raised himself from the dead had "special agency" different then the rest of us.

Healing miracles don't only happen to Christians. It may be that the physicians made a premature assessment but eventually even those claiming healing miracles die. As your crooked man quote states.

Slick32
06-02-2007, 06:53 PM
There are a few miracles that would make me understand there is a god that is active in this world beyond natural laws. A repeat of the Joshua's stopping the sun, moon and stars in the sky for about 24 hours (or backing up the sun as some King of Judah requested). Or a repeat of Elijah/Elisha/Jesus' miracles of barrels that never run out of food or starting with 5 loaves and two fish feed 5000 or 10,000 and have baskets of food left over.

I'd believe in Christianity if Christians rose from the dead after 3 days and rocketed out into space a few months later. But the only person that raised himself from the dead had "special agency" different then the rest of us.

Healing miracles don't only happen to Christians. It may be that the physicians made a premature assessment but eventually even those claiming healing miracles die. As your crooked man quote states.

I don't want to tell you what to believe, that's beyond my ability. I don't argue points well, just in case you haven't noticed.

I know the things that have happened in my life and with my family.

If you are looking for proof as you stated I'd have to class you with Thomas in the Bible. But, if you have the knowledge of what is told in the Bible you might have done enough of the groundwork to know that most of all religions are Faith based. You are not required to believe it, nor compelled to follow it. You are a free moral agent and get to make that decision on your own, as we all do. Your non-belief in no way has an impact on my belief.

Ebolapox
06-02-2007, 07:31 PM
Paul is dying, Paul is dead.

I buried Paul.

tiptap
06-02-2007, 07:32 PM
I don't want to tell you what to believe, that's beyond my ability. I don't argue points well, just in case you haven't noticed.

I know the things that have happened in my life and with my family.

If you are looking for proof as you stated I'd have to class you with Thomas in the Bible. But, if you have the knowledge of what is told in the Bible you might have done enough of the groundwork to know that most of all religions are Faith based. You are not required to believe it, nor compelled to follow it. You are a free moral agent and get to make that decision on your own, as we all do. Your non-belief in no way has an impact on my belief.

If your religion does require a moral action with even those who are not of your ilk, I am not looking to change your moral stance. But Thomas had the "benefit" if true of putting his hand in Jesus' hole and in his nail piercings. Which is strange since it implies that injuries and defects might be carried forward into the next life since these things weren't miraculously cured. Add to that that Jesus' resurrection was only after two or three days and his body was still fairly intact. People that have been eaten or burned or exploded might have some difficulty. I gather from the Pope since we keep our sexual identity that there might be sex in heaven and that implies genetics so even if I don't make it, I have brothers and cousins that will carry a lot of my genetic makeup into heaven.

irishjayhawk
06-02-2007, 07:44 PM
I'd say that's a truer testimony to faith (in the process or the methodology) than anything else. Science seems to have the greater faith in its ways than religion, which is why you almost never see scientists feeling a need to validate Natural Science with religion, but you see the reverse constantly.

I don't think that's accurate because this implies they are both on equal footing. I don't think supernatural and natural are on equal footing. Supernatural can survive WITHOUT empirical evidence. Hence, the SUPERnatural. Science deals with the natural. It needs no prefix and therefore nothing to help "back it up". It's kind of like NASCAR. It's actually a motorsport. But why would one need the prefix motor if it was, indeed, a sport?




@Slick

Miracles are nothing more or less than a description or word for things we cannot explain at the current time. That doesn't mean it can't be explained. For example, a pheasant or even well educated aristocrat from the 1600s would call the radio a "miracle".

If you would like to go the medical miracle route, please explain to me why not a single amputee has regenerated a limb in the history of history?


I like Sam Harris' quote (I'll have to paraphrase though). He said something like "If we all suffered collective amnesia, (as a society) at what point would we need to remind ourselves that Jesus was born of a virgin or rose from the dead?" In other words, where would that rank on things to know if we all forgot everything we knew?


@Adept -

I can't understand why you don't see religion as "bad". It's primitive, scientifically stifling ("goddidit" or God of the Gaps), and has killed more than any one or any thing in human history. (And most done without modern technology.) Furthermore, it's infiltrating our politics and policy.

Slick32
06-02-2007, 07:45 PM
If your religion does require a moral action with even those who are not of your ilk, I am not looking to change your moral stance. But Thomas had the "benefit" if true of putting his hand in Jesus' hole and in his nail piercings. Which is strange since it implies that injuries and defects might be carried forward into the next life since these things weren't miraculously cured. Add to that that Jesus' resurrection was only after two or three days and his body was still fairly intact. People that have been eaten or burned or exploded might have some difficulty. I gather from the Pope since we keep our sexual identity that there might be sex in heaven and that implies genetics so even if I don't make it, I have brothers and cousins that will carry a lot of my genetic makeup into heaven.

The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is not reincarnation. Christ is part of a trinity and being part of that trinity he is omnipresent. Part of the Alpha and Omega.

As I said, I'm not good at representing myself in an argument. I'd suggest you talk to PastorMike, he might be able to give you some better examples.

irishjayhawk
06-02-2007, 07:46 PM
Oh, and I'll add that Religion is nothing more than "Blind Faith". And we all saw how that turned out with Hitler.


On an unrelated and off topic (sorta) note, I recently read an excerpt from a book that claimed the Bible is comparable to Mein Kamnpf. It does, on first impression, sound absurd. But it's actually really, really well thought out and articulated. I'll find if anyone's interested.

Slick32
06-02-2007, 08:02 PM
Oh, and I'll add that Religion is nothing more than "Blind Faith". And we all saw how that turned out with Hitler.


On an unrelated and off topic (sorta) note, I recently read an excerpt from a book that claimed the Bible is comparable to Mein Kamnpf. It does, on first impression, sound absurd. But it's actually really, really well thought out and articulated. I'll find if anyone's interested.

Your comparison is probably by a biased individual, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'll take my blind faith over no faith any day.

irishjayhawk
06-02-2007, 08:07 PM
Your comparison is probably by a biased individual, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'll take my blind faith over no faith any day.

Here's the text (by Hector Avalos):

Even if we do not eliminate religion from human life, an argument can be made to eliminate any scripture that contains religious violence from religious life. A zero-tolerance argument means the rejection of any scripture that contains any religious violence in any portion. Thus, even if religion is retained, we can remove such scripture as a whole genre of religious experience.

We begin our zero-tolerance argument with Mein Kampf, a book that is held to be the paradigm of evil in modern society. Imagine that a new religious group were to call themselves the Hitlerian Church, and that the main text would be Mein Kampf. Certainly, the name "Hitlerian" by itself would arouse anger and suspeicion. The reason, of course, is that Hitler is righly held responsible for the murder of millions of people.

So the question can be posed: Would one act of genocide advocated in Mein Kampf be enough to repudiate the name "Hitlerian" from our church? What if the acts of genocide were on a smaller scale? Let us suppose Hitler had advocated killing only a few hundred people, just as Muhummad is said to have done at Qurayza. Would we still repudiate the label? I would guess that most people in our society would rightly repudiate the Hitlerian Church label even if we were to somehow prove that Hitler actually ordered a few killings, while the rest could be attributed to out-of-control operatives at the local and lower levels.

But suppose now that someone argued that there were some good things within Mein Kampf. Hitler, after all, said he stood for family values. He said he was following God's wishes. He said he loved his fellow community members. I would speculate that most people would still not be convinced that we should keep any part of Mein Kampf, even if there were "good" chapters. The genocide committed under Hitler is so heinous that it would outweigh any supposed good in Mein Kampf.



In sum, just as we should reject all of Mein Kampf because of its racist and genocidal policies, we should reject the Bible for any genocidal policies it ever endorse. We should reject other scriptures if they also ever advocate any sort of violence. In fact, Mein Kampf does not contain a single explicit command for genocide equivalent to those found in the Hebrew Bible. Yes, Mein Kampf describes the Jews as an evil to be expelled from Germany, but nowhere in Mein Kampf is there anything as explicit as the policy of killing Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7 and 20 or 1 Samuel 15. Thus, if all of Mein Kampf is to be rejected simply for its implied genocidal policies, we should certainly reject all of the Bible for some of its explicit and blatant genocidal policies.

Also, any thought on the miracles post up there by me?

And what exactly is "no faith"?

Faith, without any evidence, is not a good virtue to have.

Slick32
06-02-2007, 08:37 PM
Here's the text (by Hector Avalos):



Also, any thought on the miracles post up there by me?

And what exactly is "no faith"?

Faith, without any evidence, is not a good virtue to have.

I have my evidence but that does nothing for you. Which means, by your statement, I am virtuous and you are not?

Your post on the miracles? You'll have to be a little more specific. Your miracles cannot be explained supposing you've had them.

I would recant again the miracle that I feel I've witnessed first hand, but it was ridiculed before, probably by you among others. I don't see any need for letting you stand on your soapbox again.

If you want a miracle, find your own. From what I saw of your description you only have specific "miracles" that can convince you. You are predisposed to discount anything that doesn't fit into your small little category.

irishjayhawk
06-02-2007, 08:52 PM
I have my evidence but that does nothing for you. Which means, by your statement, I am virtuous and you are not?

Your post on the miracles? You'll have to be a little more specific. Your miracles cannot be explained supposing you've had them.

I would recant again the miracle that I feel I've witnessed first hand, but it was ridiculed before, probably by you among others. I don't see any need for letting you stand on your soapbox again.

If you want a miracle, find your own. From what I saw of your description you only have specific "miracles" that can convince you. You are predisposed to discount anything that doesn't fit into your small little category.

I said that "miracle" is the word we use to describe what we (science) cannot explain at the current moment.

Is this true?

BigCatDaddy
06-02-2007, 08:55 PM
I said that "miracle" is the word we use to describe what we (science) cannot explain at the current moment.

Is this true?

So perhaps the good lord is just a little more advanced in "Science" then we are.

Logical
06-02-2007, 08:57 PM
I have my evidence but that does nothing for you. Which means, by your statement, I am virtuous and you are not?

Your post on the miracles? You'll have to be a little more specific. Your miracles cannot be explained supposing you've had them.

I would recant again the miracle that I feel I've witnessed first hand, but it was ridiculed before, probably by you among others. I don't see any need for letting you stand on your soapbox again.

If you want a miracle, find your own. From what I saw of your description you only have specific "miracles" that can convince you. You are predisposed to discount anything that doesn't fit into your small little category.

On the other hand you have determined events in your life are miracles without sufficient scientific investigation to possibly rule out another explanation.

irishjayhawk
06-02-2007, 09:03 PM
So perhaps the good lord is just a little more advanced in "Science" then we are.

:hmmm:

Can't tell whether that's sarcasm.

If it's not, I would disagree. Again, the most educated person in the 16th century would gasp at a radio or television and declare them "miracles". Are they? No. It's just they appear that way because they transcend the person's knowledge about the world and how things work.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 06:31 AM
On the other hand you have determined events in your life are miracles without sufficient scientific investigation to possibly rule out another explanation.

Not quite. I've had doctors examine me, complete with MRI's for backup. The situation, a tear, disappeared and could not be found during surgery. I know what happened, it might not be enough scientific evidence for you but I'm sure that if the sun stood still for 24 hours you still would not, or could not be convinced.

Your intellect tells you that it cannot be, my faith tells me that it can. Argue all you want, make as many demeaning comments you like the events in the Bible can confound the most wise.

I won't tell you that you have to believe, but then you cannot tell me that I can't believe.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 06:33 AM
:hmmm:

Can't tell whether that's sarcasm.

If it's not, I would disagree. Again, the most educated person in the 16th century would gasp at a radio or television and declare them "miracles". Are they? No. It's just they appear that way because they transcend the person's knowledge about the world and how things work.

What was said could be sarcasm, but it might have a little more truth to it than you can accept. Transcending man's knowledge ... well at least one that I know of.

Logical
06-03-2007, 06:35 AM
Not quite. I've had doctors examine me, complete with MRI's for backup. The situation, a tear, disappeared and could not be found during surgery. I know what happened, it might not be enough scientific evidence for you but I'm sure that if the sun stood still for 24 hours you still would not, or could not be convinced.

Your intellect tells you that it cannot be, my faith tells me that it can. Argue all you want, make as many demeaning comments you like the events in the Bible can confound the most wise.

I won't tell you that you have to believe, but then you cannot tell me that I can't believe.A tear self healing is nice but it is not in a class with turning water into wine or feeding 1000s with 5 loafs of bread and fish.

BigCatDaddy
06-03-2007, 07:24 AM
A tear self healing is nice but it is not in a class with turning water into wine or feeding 1000s with 5 loafs of bread and fish.

No sarcasm. God just master of the elements, just as we are able to control the elements to a greater degree with an increase in technology. God just has the ultimate technology. We are just scratching the surface of human knowlege. I mean a shark just had a virgin birth, so it impossible then elements could be manipulated for a human to do the same? Maybe today, but what about a few thousand years from now?

tiptap
06-03-2007, 07:33 AM
But a spontaneous virgin birth would be a girl. As my daughter says we wouldn't need a second coming if God had sent his daughter. She would have got it right the first time. (Age 9)

Slick32
06-03-2007, 08:45 AM
A tear self healing is nice but it is not in a class with turning water into wine or feeding 1000s with 5 loafs of bread and fish.

A tear repairing itself in 2 days time? OK if you say so.

I would venture to say that because you haven't been miraculously touched by God for your physical problem doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or that you still can't be.

I'd suggest you talk to PastorMike for further information on what God can do, he is after all an actual ordained Minister of the Gospel.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 08:46 AM
No sarcasm. God just master of the elements, just as we are able to control the elements to a greater degree with an increase in technology. God just has the ultimate technology. We are just scratching the surface of human knowlege. I mean a shark just had a virgin birth, so it impossible then elements could be manipulated for a human to do the same? Maybe today, but what about a few thousand years from now?

How about 2000 years ago?

irishjayhawk
06-03-2007, 09:32 AM
Not quite. I've had doctors examine me, complete with MRI's for backup. The situation, a tear, disappeared and could not be found during surgery. I know what happened, it might not be enough scientific evidence for you but I'm sure that if the sun stood still for 24 hours you still would not, or could not be convinced.

Your intellect tells you that it cannot be, my faith tells me that it can. Argue all you want, make as many demeaning comments you like the events in the Bible can confound the most wise.

I won't tell you that you have to believe, but then you cannot tell me that I can't believe.

You seem to be missing the point. A miracle is something that describes something we cannot explain at the current time. So 10 years from now, perhaps we have an explanation for your knee. Would you then concede that "miracle"? Again, it's like the radio. IN the 16th Century, they'd say it's a miracle. Now, it's no where close to a miracle.

A tear repairing itself in 2 days time? OK if you say so.

I would venture to say that because you haven't been miraculously touched by God for your physical problem doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or that you still can't be.

I'd suggest you talk to PastorMike for further information on what God can do, he is after all an actual ordained Minister of the Gospel.

It's so interesting he would spend time to heal your tear but not heal thousands of amputees, injured soldiers etc. Again, explain to me why a single amputee has yet to regenerate a limb. Did all the amputees not pray enough?


No sarcasm. God just master of the elements, just as we are able to control the elements to a greater degree with an increase in technology. God just has the ultimate technology. We are just scratching the surface of human knowlege. I mean a shark just had a virgin birth, so it impossible then elements could be manipulated for a human to do the same? Maybe today, but what about a few thousand years from now?

First of all, the Shark's virgin birth was scientifically explained. She was isolated from all males for a long period (I forget how long) of time. Therefore she developed this. It's happened before.

Now, if you want to say Mary had no males around her in that time, then you might be okay. But since Joseph was there and many other "men" it's not a logical comparison.

HolmeZz
06-03-2007, 09:46 AM
God invented television.

Bowser
06-03-2007, 09:55 AM
I've learned so much on the internet today. Exactly how God wanted it.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 12:39 PM
You seem to be missing the point. A miracle is something that describes something we cannot explain at the current time. So 10 years from now, perhaps we have an explanation for your knee. Would you then concede that "miracle"? Again, it's like the radio. IN the 16th Century, they'd say it's a miracle. Now, it's no where close to a miracle.



It's so interesting he would spend time to heal your tear but not heal thousands of amputees, injured soldiers etc. Again, explain to me why a single amputee has yet to regenerate a limb. Did all the amputees not pray enough?




First of all, the Shark's virgin birth was scientifically explained. She was isolated from all males for a long period (I forget how long) of time. Therefore she developed this. It's happened before.

Now, if you want to say Mary had no males around her in that time, then you might be okay. But since Joseph was there and many other "men" it's not a logical comparison.

As I said, your disbelief doesn't mean that it didn't or couldn't happen. It is just beyond your capability to understand and that is a choice that you have mad to take a stand on.

If I could explain to you why God hasn't healed thousands of amputees I would but that isn't in my capability. Why don't you do as recommended and ask PastorMike? He is a full timer that could be a better source for what you are searching for.

I believe you are searching for something spiritual but are rejecting it at the moment, some day you may have an epiphany that gives you understanding, but until that time live with how you feel.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 12:40 PM
God invented television.

I thought that was Al Gore..... no wait, he did the internet.

HolmeZz
06-03-2007, 12:53 PM
As I said, your disbelief doesn't mean that it didn't or couldn't happen. It is just beyond your capability to understand and that is a choice that you have mad to take a stand on.

If I could explain to you why God hasn't healed thousands of amputees I would but that isn't in my capability. Why don't you do as recommended and ask PastorMike? He is a full timer that could be a better source for what you are searching for.

I believe you are searching for something spiritual but are rejecting it at the moment, some day you may have an epiphany that gives you understanding, but until that time live with how you feel.

So it's impossible to logically reject God?

Slick32
06-03-2007, 01:02 PM
So it's impossible to logically reject God?

Your statement is not logical. You don't have to believe nor do you have to attempt to ridicule those that do believe.

If you don't believe then don't but also don't reject the possibility that he exists and is omnipotent.

go bowe
06-03-2007, 01:03 PM
I have my evidence but that does nothing for you. Which means, by your statement, I am virtuous and you are not?

Your post on the miracles? You'll have to be a little more specific. Your miracles cannot be explained supposing you've had them.

I would recant again the miracle that I feel I've witnessed first hand, but it was ridiculed before, probably by you among others. I don't see any need for letting you stand on your soapbox again.

If you want a miracle, find your own. From what I saw of your description you only have specific "miracles" that can convince you. You are predisposed to discount anything that doesn't fit into your small little category.wtf is this?

dr. phil?

Slick32
06-03-2007, 01:04 PM
wtf is this?

dr. phil?

Did you even read what was being discussed?

I didn't think so.

irishjayhawk
06-03-2007, 01:12 PM
Your statement is not logical. You don't have to believe nor do you have to attempt to ridicule those that do believe.

If you don't believe then don't but also don't reject the possibility that he exists and is omnipotent.

Let me put it this way.

Leprechauns have a chance of existing. Do you believe in them?
Zeus has a chance of existing and being omnipotent? Do you believe in him?
etc.

I will reject anything and ridicule anyone who believes something without the slightest shred of evidence. It has led to horrible things, not the least of which was the rise of Nazism and Hitler.

Blind Faith is dangerous and should be treated accordingly.


However, you are correct. I cannot disprove the existence of said god, but you cannot prove the existence of said god. Furthermore, the onus is on you to prove something exists because the default position is a state of non-existence.


@go bo - Yes, it sounds like Dr Phil in a lot of ways.

go bowe
06-03-2007, 01:17 PM
Your statement is not logical. You don't have to believe nor do you have to attempt to ridicule those that do believe.

If you don't believe then don't but also don't reject the possibility that he exists and is omnipotent.not logical?

it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you beileve...

it has everything to do with you acting like t#m f#cking c#sh...

HolmeZz
06-03-2007, 01:27 PM
Your statement is not logical.

I didn't make a statement. I posed you a question.

go bowe
06-03-2007, 01:33 PM
Did you even read what was being discussed?

I didn't think so.think what you want, fred...

but don't think for a moment that i give a shit about what you think...

after all, you're t#m f#cking c#ash...

it's entertaining to poke at the neighborhood dumbass...

are you having fun yet?

try sticking your head in a toilet (it's easier than trying to stick your head up your ass)...

and don't forget that we'll need pics to believe that you really did it...

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2007, 01:34 PM
And yet this is a monotheistic religion.

I don't mean to be profane and blasphemous, but if you're like me -- growing up without religious parents and never attending church, and able to really step back and take a look at it with cold logic, none of it makes a whole lot of sense.

You're going to have a hard time with this crew using any type of logic. I'll say it until the end of time, or until someone gives me an answer but all Jesus or Mohammed or any so called Prophet had to do to convince me he was in communication with God is to make one of the following statements:

1. The Earth is round, not flat.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun. The universe does not revolved around the Earth.
3. Hey Jews, pack up your sh*t. We're going to North America!

Instead, the Catholic Church tried to destroy ANY scientific evidence that countered their beliefs. They kept Galileo under house arrest, held the Inquisition all the while Popes were fornicating and having children.

Who could trust ANY of these men? Why would you put your "faith" in them to determine your spiritual lives, especially considering the Council Of Nicea, that decided what belonged in the Bible and what didn't, was made up of these same types of corrupt individuals?

Slick32
06-03-2007, 02:03 PM
think what you want, fred...

but don't think for a moment that i give a shit about what you think...

after all, you're t#m f#cking c#ash...

it's entertaining to poke at the neighborhood dumbass...

are you having fun yet?

try sticking your head in a toilet (it's easier than trying to stick your head up your ass)...

and don't forget that we'll need pics to believe that you really did it...

From the authority of the world no doubt.

Falling to childish behavior to try to support your claims.

You must be easily entertained if you feel this is entertainment.

Fun is my middle name and getting numbnuts like you to go ballistic seems too easy.

When you grow up we can discuss your mental assent ion to that of a 12 year old.

irishjayhawk
06-03-2007, 02:25 PM
You're going to have a hard time with this crew using any type of logic. I'll say it until the end of time, or until someone gives me an answer but all Jesus or Mohammed or any so called Prophet had to do to convince me he was in communication with God is to make one of the following statements:

1. The Earth is round, not flat.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun. The universe does not revolved around the Earth.
3. Hey Jews, pack up your sh*t. We're going to North America!

Instead, the Catholic Church tried to destroy ANY scientific evidence that countered their beliefs. They kept Galileo under house arrest, held the Inquisition all the while Popes were fornicating and having children.

Who could trust ANY of these men? Why would you put your "faith" in them to determine your spiritual lives, especially considering the Council Of Nicea, that decided what belonged in the Bible and what didn't, was made up of these same types of corrupt individuals?

So true.

Logical
06-03-2007, 02:26 PM
I see VoldemorTOM has reverted to his same trollish behavior and sucked us in. I am out of this thread.

irishjayhawk
06-03-2007, 02:34 PM
Can someone explain to me the meaning of Tom Cash or whatever?

Slick32
06-03-2007, 02:53 PM
I see VoldemorTOM has reverted to his same trollish behavior and sucked us in. I am out of this thread.

Another person that is big on attack but small on supporting their theory. Trollish? Who is doing the attacking here? I've commented but I have not jumped out and called people out, nor have I been the first to do the name calling. I see that logical is nonlogical and not able to stand his ground.

Too bad, he is too full of himself to admit that others have opinions.

go bowe
06-03-2007, 02:56 PM
From the authority of the world no doubt.

Falling to childish behavior to try to support your claims.

You must be easily entertained if you feel this is entertainment.

Fun is my middle name and getting numbnuts like you to go ballistic seems too easy.

When you grow up we can discuss your mental assent ion to that of a 12 year old.when speaking with a child, it helps to talk like a child...

i'm not numb and i'm not supporting any claims, other than you're a ****ing asshole, but anyone who reads your posts can see that for themselves...

you underestimate how hilarious you can be at times...

you should give yourself a break...

you're a funny guy, what can i say?

Slick32
06-03-2007, 02:56 PM
Can someone explain to me the meaning of - ahem, shut your mouth - or whatever?

I have been a member of this board for years, off and on. I always tend to lose my temper and say things that I probably shouldn't. As of today I have not resorted to anything as I have in the past.

There are several here that will not reply as an adult to my posts due to my past. I can understand that, but they continue the childish attacks all the same.

I'm no saint but then neither are the ones that seem to be most pissed at me.

Have whatever fun you see fit, but at least give me the benefit of doubt before you join the ranks of notLogical and the rest.

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 10:45 PM
As of today I have not resorted to anything as I have in the past.
At least, you don't think you have. That's one of your problems, you don't realize when you're being you. But if you haven't been acting exactly as you always have in the past (and you have), then how did we pick out so quickly?

DaneMcCloud
06-04-2007, 01:38 AM
Another person that is big on attack but small on supporting their theory. Trollish? Who is doing the attacking here? I've commented but I have not jumped out and called people out, nor have I been the first to do the name calling. I see that logical is nonlogical and not able to stand his ground.

Too bad, he is too full of himself to admit that others have opinions.

You know Tom (Believer, Slick - whatever you're calling yourself these days), I'd REALLY like to see you address MY concerns that I've outlined. And by addressing, I don't mean quoting scripture. I mean, truly addressing the issues in my post.

Give it a try.

Dave Lane
06-05-2007, 08:58 PM
think what you want, fred...

but don't think for a moment that i give a shit about what you think...

after all, you're t#m f#cking c#ash...

it's entertaining to poke at the neighborhood dumbass...

are you having fun yet?

try sticking your head in a toilet (it's easier than trying to stick your head up your ass)...

and don't forget that we'll need pics to believe that you really did it...


Is Tom back again? I always did like the entertain of TC being around.

Dave

Dave Lane
06-05-2007, 09:06 PM
You're going to have a hard time with this crew using any type of logic. I'll say it until the end of time, or until someone gives me an answer but all Jesus or Mohammed or any so called Prophet had to do to convince me he was in communication with God is to make one of the following statements:

1. The Earth is round, not flat.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun. The universe does not revolved around the Earth.
3. Hey Jews, pack up your sh*t. We're going to North America!

Instead, the Catholic Church tried to destroy ANY scientific evidence that countered their beliefs. They kept Galileo under house arrest, held the Inquisition all the while Popes were fornicating and having children.

Who could trust ANY of these men? Why would you put your "faith" in them to determine your spiritual lives, especially considering the Council Of Nicea, that decided what belonged in the Bible and what didn't, was made up of these same types of corrupt individuals?

This is a very cool site for even more tidbits. I love it and bought 2 of the books.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Think I'll go there now :)

Dave

Logical
06-05-2007, 09:44 PM
Is Tom back again? I always did like the entertain of TC being around.

DaveYup Slick32 is VoldemorTOM.

Dave Lane
06-05-2007, 10:13 PM
Is he banned already?

Logical
06-05-2007, 10:17 PM
Is he banned already?Not sure, he may have just typed Banned in for his title under his username.

BigCatDaddy
06-06-2007, 02:50 PM
This is a very cool site for even more tidbits. I love it and bought 2 of the books.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Think I'll go there now :)

Dave

I really hope you didn't donate your money to this garbage. I think I'd rather buy a ticket to Farenheit 911.

Ultra Peanut
06-06-2007, 03:01 PM
I really hope you didn't donate your money to this garbage. I think I'd rather buy a ticket to Farenheit 911.OH SNAP SON YOU TOLD HIM

BigCatDaddy
06-06-2007, 03:27 PM
OH SNAP SON YOU TOLD HIM

Why would I want to insult him? I just think the money could have been spent more wisely. I don't come on here for internet insult fights.

Ultra Peanut
06-06-2007, 03:44 PM
Why would I want to insult him? I just think the money could have been spent more wisely. I don't come on here for internet insult fights.so's your face

Dave Lane
06-06-2007, 06:06 PM
I really hope you didn't donate your money to this garbage. I think I'd rather buy a ticket to Farenheit 911.


I didn't donate but I did buy two books. Probably the best written and laid out historical book I've read. The facts checkout and its a stunning read in terms of depth of knowledge and scope of work.

Dave

Logical
06-06-2007, 07:59 PM
I really hope you didn't donate your money to this garbage. I think I'd rather buy a ticket to Farenheit 911.

Why is it any more garbage than any of the Religions trying to get your money?

BigCatDaddy
06-07-2007, 10:33 AM
Why is it any more garbage than any of the Religions trying to get your money?

In some cases it's not. However, because some faiths actually use this money for just causes and to spread the word of God, when interpreted correctly can be a very good thing for society. We've gone away from this and the results have not been good for our nation. But yes there are corrupt "Churches" out there also and that is also "Garbage". The guy that wrote these books, Moore, and the corrupt religious leaders take advantage of people and their beliefs. When I get something in the mail saying send $10 and you will be blessed, I say send me $20.00 and you will really be blessed! You just have to be careful of wolves in sheep's clothing. Christians have done many terrible things in the past and people have done many bad things in the name of religion, but there have also been many good and just things done as well, charities, hospitals.. etc.

I'm glad that you enjoy the books, but I'm sure books could be written that challenged these books as well. That's why I enjoy watching debates, you get to hear both sides of an argument. I actually attended a good one between a Atheist professor (a really nice guy whose name I don't recall) from UMKC and JP Moreland about if the Christian God does exist. I think those are more informative than unchallenged books from either side and I encourage many to attend such functions. I obviously have chosen what I believe, but I don't force this belief on others even though I disagree, of course, with them. While science, reason, and logic can all be good things, I just don't limit my life to them. God Bless.

Ultra Peanut
06-07-2007, 11:33 AM
I'm glad that you enjoy the books, but I'm sure books could be written that challenged these books as well. No, not really.

"Sure, that's technically true, and you like to wave those fancy-shmancy fact things around, but... um... I DISAGREE."

While science, reason, and logic can all be good things, I just don't limit my life to them. Actually, the appropriate phrasing would be that you choose to ignore them in lieu of your own beliefs.

Baby Lee
06-07-2007, 12:14 PM
I will reject anything and ridicule anyone who believes something without the slightest shred of evidence. It has led to horrible things, not the least of which was the rise of Nazism and Hitler.
Huzzah!! I ridicule and reject cellular respiration and the whole O/CO2 exchange for the self-same reason!!!

BigCatDaddy
06-07-2007, 12:25 PM
No, not really.

"Sure, that's technically true, and you like to wave those fancy-shmancy fact things around, but... um... I DISAGREE."

Actually, the appropriate phrasing would be that you choose to ignore them in lieu of your own beliefs.

I don't have to read those books to realize that there will be questionable "facts" in there about things that happened a few thousand years ago. It took a congressional commitee to get facts about one of the biggest events in US history that happened just a few years.

Not at all. I respect them for what they are and what they can do. They are part of the reason I believe the way that I do.

You seem to have a lot of hate for some reason. I was like that in my "BC" days as I like to call them. I hope things get better.

Logical
06-07-2007, 05:13 PM
In some cases it's not. However, because some faiths actually use this money for just causes and to spread the word of God, when interpreted correctly can be a very good thing for society. We've gone away from this and the results have not been good for our nation. But yes there are corrupt "Churches" out there also and that is also "Garbage". The guy that wrote these books, Moore, and the corrupt religious leaders take advantage of people and their beliefs. When I get something in the mail saying send $10 and you will be blessed, I say send me $20.00 and you will really be blessed! You just have to be careful of wolves in sheep's clothing. Christians have done many terrible things in the past and people have done many bad things in the name of religion, but there have also been many good and just things done as well, charities, hospitals.. etc.

I'm glad that you enjoy the books, but I'm sure books could be written that challenged these books as well. That's why I enjoy watching debates, you get to hear both sides of an argument. I actually attended a good one between a Atheist professor (a really nice guy whose name I don't recall) from UMKC and JP Moreland about if the Christian God does exist. I think those are more informative than unchallenged books from either side and I encourage many to attend such functions. I obviously have chosen what I believe, but I don't force this belief on others even though I disagree, of course, with them. While science, reason, and logic can all be good things, I just don't limit my life to them. God Bless.

Thank you for your reasoned response, unfortunately you answered the inverse of my question. I was more asking you to tell me why that site was garbage, instead you told me that many Churches are garbage and that does not answer the question.

Dave Lane
06-07-2007, 05:24 PM
Actually, the appropriate phrasing would be that you choose to ignore them in lieu of your own beliefs.


In true UP jargon "OH SNAP!" :)

Dave

Dave Lane
06-07-2007, 05:32 PM
Oh and BCE I have had a lifetime of biblical teachings to counter balance the truth. I still think I have my 13 years of straight attendance to sunday school and church, without missing 1 week during that streak, pin here somewhere.

I have read the Koran, the Talmud, worshiped with Buddhists, and spent a half century studying religion and it abilities to effect humankind.

Yes I do have a bit to offset any falsehoods on any side. It's why I'm so excited with the books, the book really pulls together 40 years of research of my own.

Dave

BigCatDaddy
06-08-2007, 10:06 AM
Oh and BCE I have had a lifetime of biblical teachings to counter balance the truth. I still think I have my 13 years of straight attendance to sunday school and church, without missing 1 week during that streak, pin here somewhere.

I have read the Koran, the Talmud, worshiped with Buddhists, and spent a half century studying religion and it abilities to effect humankind.

Yes I do have a bit to offset any falsehoods on any side. It's why I'm so excited with the books, the book really pulls together 40 years of research of my own.

Dave


I guess I'll just have to wait and see the reviews from other sources and well as check them out on my own. On the surface to me it just sounds like another attack on Christianity to profit from those who want to disprove Christianity. Attacks on Christianity are big business, such as the "The Vinci Code", The Lost Gospel of Judas, Jesus's Tomb Discovered I also understand promoting Christianity can be big business also, such as "The Passion", so let me say that before one of you does. I'll have to do more research of my own on the books, but you can understand how I'm skeptical every time something comes out promoting this "Amazing Discovery the will rock your religious convictions" and always turns out to be a dud.

Ultra Peanut
06-08-2007, 10:20 AM
What makes you believe in Christianity? What convinced you that it was the right path? Furthermore, what leads you to believe that Christianity is incompatible with fundamental, rock-solid science?

Attacks on Christianity are big business, such as the "The Vinci Code", LMAO

The "I HATE JESUS" market is so lucrative...

http://i15.tinypic.com/4ujnifq.png

Oh, the Good Lord's goin' down on me, the Good Lord's goin' down...

unlurking
06-08-2007, 10:41 AM
In case anyone is interested, here is an article from someone visiting the museum...

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars

Here's is virtual tour with pictures...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjonboyg/sets/72157600301874014/

Very interesting stuff, like incest was OK before man was filled with sin.

BigCatDaddy
06-08-2007, 11:26 AM
In case anyone is interested, here is an article from someone visiting the museum...

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars

Here's is virtual tour with pictures...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjonboyg/sets/72157600301874014/

Very interesting stuff, like incest was OK before man was filled with sin.

Obviously a very unbiased article. (Where is that darn roll eyes icon?)

I beleive the way I do for many reasons, but I don't have the time to go into it at the moment. I'm leaving for lunch.


Just curious. Do you non believers automatically assume every Christian is less intelligent then yourself?

BigCatDaddy
06-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Delete

Saulbadguy
06-08-2007, 11:28 AM
Just curious. Do you non believers automatically assume any Christian is less intelligent then yourself?
Why, yes!

go bowe
06-08-2007, 12:27 PM
* * *
Just curious. Do you non believers automatically assume every Christian is less intelligent then yourself?well, not necessarily every Christian...

just the rabid ones...

as far as intelligence goes, i think believers are just like everybody else...

some smart, some not so much...

but nobody is as smart as t#m f#cking c#sh...

nobody, i say...

Ultra Peanut
06-08-2007, 12:48 PM
Obviously a very unbiased article. (Where is that darn roll eyes icon?)It's a shame they felt the need to slander such a responsible, even-handed institution by... showing pictures of the insane, completely unfounded shit that is claimed within its walls.

the Talking Can
06-08-2007, 01:09 PM
Just curious. Do you non believers automatically assume every Christian is less intelligent then yourself?

well, when I see things like this the answer is great big YES

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/526984893_3993edc162_b.jpg


"There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live." (stolen from comment box)

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:26 PM
It's a shame they felt the need to slander such a responsible, even-handed institution by... showing pictures of the insane, completely unfounded shit that is claimed within its walls.

No kidding, the f*cking nerve....

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:34 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1111/526985025_93f23212b0.jpg?v=0

Yes it is called evolution you dumbasses. If you are going to create a stupid explanation why don't you say God creates new organisms every day, that would be more believable and frankly logical. If you insist on believe this sort of thing.

stevieray
06-08-2007, 11:08 PM
It's interesting to watch people use science as a means to discredit God, when many prominent men of science were men of great faith.

It's also ironic to watch modern man have the same predjudices today that were used against Galileo in his day. He expected people to believe his theory with no 'proof" to back it up.... Turns out he was right, and the CC church has admitted as much...IIRC, about ten years ago.

Logical
06-08-2007, 11:15 PM
It's interesting to watch people use science as a means to discredit God, when many prominent men of science were men of great faith.

It's also ironic to watch modern man have the same predjudices today that were used against Galileo in his day. He expected people to believe his theory with no 'proof" to back it up.... Turns out he was right, and the CC church has admitted as much...IIRC, about ten years ago.

I of course can only speak for myself, but I was careful not to appear to be disgracing God but the fool who have created this museum and their lack of logic and defiance of the facts. Evolution is a scientific fact, not a theory, we can see it happening, viruses every day.

Ebolapox
06-09-2007, 01:09 AM
It's interesting to watch people use science as a means to discredit God, when many prominent men of science were men of great faith.

It's also ironic to watch modern man have the same predjudices today that were used against Galileo in his day. He expected people to believe his theory with no 'proof" to back it up.... Turns out he was right, and the CC church has admitted as much...IIRC, about ten years ago.

that's just the thing, galileo had 'proof'--his mathematical theorems (we still use them for planetal orbits, fwiw), and a new 'invention' he had showed his equations were correct: the telescope

and yeah, it's wonderful the catholic church admitted they were wrong... considering they excomunicated galileo (he was a staunch catholic), spent the remainder of his life in house arrest, and was forced to regret ever coming out in disagreement with the catholic church as long as he lived

it's fan-f*cking-tastic that they're that magnanimous--360 years after the fact they admit they're wrong
:rolleyes:

yes, the same catholic church that gave hitler the 'kill the jews' idea... (the first inquisition? against the jews)... ever hear the word ghetto? it's the small abhorrent living quarters in rome where the jews were crammed awaiting their turn in the inquisition (and torture)

and yeah, the same catholic church that held a blind eye to one adolph hitler

same catholic church that ignored the slave trade for HUNDREDS OF YEARS

so wow, I'm really impressed how they say 'my bad' hundreds of years after they wrong someone

ClevelandBronco
06-09-2007, 01:19 AM
that's just the thing, galileo had 'proof'--his mathematical theorems (we still use them for planetal orbits, fwiw), and a new 'invention' he had showed his equations were correct: the telescope

and yeah, it's wonderful the catholic church admitted they were wrong... considering they excomunicated galileo (he was a staunch catholic), spent the remainder of his life in house arrest, and was forced to regret ever coming out in disagreement with the catholic church as long as he lived

it's fan-f*cking-tastic that they're that magnanimous--360 years after the fact they admit they're wrong
:rolleyes:

yes, the same catholic church that gave hitler the 'kill the jews' idea... (the first inquisition? against the jews)... ever hear the word ghetto? it's the small abhorrent living quarters in rome where the jews were crammed awaiting their turn in the inquisition (and torture)

and yeah, the same catholic church that held a blind eye to one adolph hitler

same catholic church that ignored the slave trade for HUNDREDS OF YEARS

so wow, I'm really impressed how they say 'my bad' hundreds of years after they wrong someone

All of your points are true, but they have nothing to do with what Jesus taught. Your problem (and mine) is with how powerful men tend to act, not with Jesus.

unlurking
06-09-2007, 04:15 AM
Obviously a very unbiased article. (Where is that darn roll eyes icon?)

I beleive the way I do for many reasons, but I don't have the time to go into it at the moment. I'm leaving for lunch.


Just curious. Do you non believers automatically assume every Christian is less intelligent then yourself?

Did I say it was unbiased? Do you think anyone above the age of FIVE would visit this place without preconceived notions?

As far as Christians and intelligence levels, I have yet to meet one in real life that believes in the young earth theory. So no, I don't believe every Christian is less intelligent than I am. I do however believe that every young-earther is EITHER less intelligent than the average earthworm, or a little 5 year old girl with her fingers in her ears yelling "nananananannanananananananananana".

stevieray
06-09-2007, 07:25 AM
that's just the thing, galileo had 'proof'--his mathematical theorems (we still use them for planetal orbits, fwiw), and a new 'invention' he had showed his equations were correct: the telescope

and yeah, it's wonderful the catholic church admitted they were wrong... considering they excomunicated galileo (he was a staunch catholic), spent the remainder of his life in house arrest, and was forced to regret ever coming out in disagreement with the catholic church as long as he lived

it's fan-f*cking-tastic that they're that magnanimous--360 years after the fact they admit they're wrong
:rolleyes:

yes, the same catholic church that gave hitler the 'kill the jews' idea... (the first inquisition? against the jews)... ever hear the word ghetto? it's the small abhorrent living quarters in rome where the jews were crammed awaiting their turn in the inquisition (and torture)

and yeah, the same catholic church that held a blind eye to one adolph hitler

same catholic church that ignored the slave trade for HUNDREDS OF YEARS

so wow, I'm really impressed how they say 'my bad' hundreds of years after they wrong someone

Have you done someone or something wrong and never apologized? We all have....

..and even through all that Galileo endured, his faith never waivered...seems to me he still chose God over science.

Besides, all of your ranting can be and is directed towards man, and still doesn't discredit God...

You must be really impressed with our taking another hundred years to get from the EP to CR.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 10:01 AM
You're going to have a hard time with this crew using any type of logic.

The fact is Pope Pius XII rescued Jews from the Nazis secretly and underground. In fact Catholics hid as many as 3 million Jews throughout the European countryside. He put on a different face publically out of fear of reprisals from the Nazis.

The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis (http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev080205a.cfm)
This is written by a rabbi...Rabbi David G. Dalin

This idea, widely accepted, originated from a play put on about it and became accepted as fact. There was even a news report months ago as to who originally circulated the idea. I forget who the source was and don't have time to find it. I saved it somewhere.
Instead, the Catholic Church tried to destroy ANY scientific evidence that countered their beliefs.

What specifically did the RCC did to actually "destroy any scientific evidence" that countered their beliefs (plural)?

In 1615, Galileo's time, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine noted that if the Copernican theory was ever proven then it would be necessary to re-think the interpretation of certain Scriptural passages. They didn't all agree even if his book was prohibited ( also because of how he presented it). That was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church, that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation.

There's two sides to any story and too many people accept stories with no knowledge of RCC doctrine or history in order to make such a claim which has historically been exaggerated.

• Copernicus was a Jesuit priest and believed in the same theory as Galilieo. Much early astronomy was done under the auspices of the Church at that time.
Galileo was trying to prove the theories of this Catholic priest who had died 20 years before he was born.
• Copernicus died in 1543 and the Church raised no objections to his revolutionary hypothesis as long as it was presented as theory. The difficulty that both the Church, and leading Protestant reformers, had with the theory is that it was perceived as not only contradicting common sense, but Scripture as well.
• The geocentric theory came from Ptolemy as well as Aristotle and the ancients had this same geocentric dispute.
• In the 1200s, the writings of Aristotle became available to Catholic theologians, in particular Thomas Aquinas who tried to merge Catholic thought with Aristotle; thus having little to do with Scripture. Galileo actually defended the compatibility of Copernicus with the Bible.
• RCC also encouraged science.
• 1632, Galileo published the Dialogue. The Dialogue could be read as a direct challenge to the 1616 edict, as it forcefully argued the truth of the Copernican system. It was greeted with skepticism from the Church AND the scientific community of the day.
• Galilieo presented himself to authorities at first on his own and had an acerberic style which contributed to his problems with authorities. He was also in breach of contract on his promises. There were petty jealousies among priests too.
• Many other scientists and Protestants at that time also felt the theory Galilieo's theory was false; it could not be undeniabley proven until many years after Galileo, despite his telescope. This was part of the problem and shortcoming of science at that time. GeoCentrism was an accepted scientific theory of Medievil science at that time.


The RCC wanted heliocentrism taught as "theory" just not as hard truth at that time; which it was then. It had nothing to do with any ex cathedra defense of religious doctrine or dogma–was never an act of infallibilty. It is today considered to have been an error in relation to Scripture as well. Yet, this is presented as a battle between Bible and science when we look at it through the lens of modernity, and what we know now.


They kept Galileo under house arrest, held the Inquisition all the while Popes were fornicating and having children.
Was that date coincident at that time? Or is that another era?
Not a rhetorical question...just unsure.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 10:35 AM
that's just the thing, galileo had 'proof'--his mathematical theorems (we still use them for planetal orbits, fwiw), and a new 'invention' he had showed his equations were correct: the telescope
According to what I read this was not completely and undeniabley proven or accpeted until 150 years later, despite his use of a telescope.

It was not accepted by many other scientists of the time either on the basis on what they felt was common sense...or what their senses could see without undeniable proof. Ptomely had math and circles to defend his geocentric view too and he turned out wrong.

Not everyone in the Church agreed either. Copernicus was a priest who believed in a heliocentric view. Galilieo set out to prove this priest correct.


and yeah, it's wonderful the catholic church admitted they were wrong... considering they excomunicated galileo (he was a staunch catholic), spent the remainder of his life in house arrest, and was forced to regret ever coming out in disagreement with the catholic church as long as he lived

Galileo was never excommunicated. He was censured. His house arrest had all the luxury of a church offical, and he was never tortured.

Give credit where credit is due. RCC, or early Christianity replaced people killing one another for pleasure and entertainment too. Insisted on affinity being a basis for marriage over a mercenary basis alone, and got rid of wife beating. It has made enlightened contributions to the field of ethics even if it had it's abuses and bad times. All major religions have these incidents.

it's fan-f*cking-tastic that they're that magnanimous--360 years after the fact they admit they're wrong
:rolleyes:
Unfortunately true. At least they did it. It also takes hundreds of years to make a saint. Joan of Arc lived in the 1400's and it took until 1920 to recognize her as a saint. The RCC is very careful and cautious about what they do. They don't just hop on popular trends. They're the same on accepting reports of apparitions. There's been thousands more reported than are ever accepted.



yes, the same catholic church that gave hitler the 'kill the jews' idea... (the first inquisition? against the jews)... ever hear the word ghetto? it's the small abhorrent living quarters in rome where the jews were crammed awaiting their turn in the inquisition (and torture)

and yeah, the same catholic church that held a blind eye to one adolph hitler

Pure libel and defamation. RCC hid 3 million Jews.


same catholic church that ignored the slave trade for HUNDREDS OF YEARS

Apparently Christ ignored it too. So did most faiths, including pagans, even blacks in Africa....for thousands of years. It took a long time to recognize this as wrong. You can't judge past era's with a modern mindset all the time. It wasn't just the Church who ignored it.I t's been around for thousands of years and is actually on the rise again.

so wow, I'm really impressed how they say 'my bad' hundreds of years after they wrong someone

I'm really impressed with your anti-Catholic bigotry. Yep! Catholic bashing is acceptable, alive-and-well in America.

If you said any of this about a Jew you'd be branded an anti-semite, with the ADL all over you...but it's okay if it's the RCC.

DaneMcCloud
06-09-2007, 11:25 AM
Was that date coincident at that time? Or is that another era?
Not a rhetorical question...just unsure.

Having just visited the Vatican in April (pictures forthcoming, someday!), I can tell you that Pope Pius is under investigation for negotiating with Hitler. Curious that the Nazi Army stopped just before Vatican City and nothing was destroyed. There's been rumors of this alliance for years and now the Church is investigating. I checked out your link but I have a feeling, based on what I was told at the Vatican, that they believe there was an agreement between Hitler and the Pope. And they have the Pope's memoirs to prove it.

We visited the Medici House in Florence. Many of the Cardinals and Popes of the 15th & 16 century were from the family Medici. One of the Popes had more than 15 illegitimate children. These Cardinals and Popes were ruthless land barons and essentially ran the Church as an Empire.

For the record, I'm good with whatever people want to believe and I'm not criticizing anyone for their spiritual beliefs. I went to Catholic school, was an altar boy and at one point, went to church as many as four times a week. I don't find fault with anyone's spiritual life.

At this point in time, it's just not for me.

HolmeZz
06-09-2007, 11:55 AM
ONE MORE TIME

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:50 PM
Having just visited the Vatican in April (pictures forthcoming, someday!), I can tell you that Pope Pius is under investigation for negotiating with Hitler. Curious that the Nazi Army stopped just before Vatican City and nothing was destroyed. There's been rumors of this alliance for years and now the Church is investigating. I checked out your link but I have a feeling, based on what I was told at the Vatican, that they believe there was an agreement between Hitler and the Pope. And they have the Pope's memoirs to prove it.

We visited the Medici House in Florence. Many of the Cardinals and Popes of the 15th & 16 century were from the family Medici. One of the Popes had more than 15 illegitimate children. These Cardinals and Popes were ruthless land barons and essentially ran the Church as an Empire.

For the record, I'm good with whatever people want to believe and I'm not criticizing anyone for their spiritual beliefs. I went to Catholic school, was an altar boy and at one point, went to church as many as four times a week. I don't find fault with anyone's spiritual life.

At this point in time, it's just not for me.

Please post the pictures, I had planned to someday go to the Vatican but my kidney disease now makes it too difficult. I always find it an amazing place.

DaneMcCloud
06-09-2007, 12:53 PM
Please post the pictures, I had planned to someday go to the Vatican but my kidney disease now makes it too difficult. I always find it an amazing place.

I will. My wife took over one thousand pictures on our two week trip to Italy and she's still organizing them. As soon as they're ready, I'll post a few.

Logical
06-09-2007, 01:11 PM
ONE MORE TIME

src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4" LOL no question there are idiots

Logical
06-09-2007, 01:13 PM
I will. My wife took over one thousand pictures on our two week trip to Italy and she's still organizing them. As soon as they're ready, I'll post a few.Look forward to it, thanks.

Anyone know if the library discussed in the DaVinci code is real? I have been meaning to research it but have not been able to find time.

Bowser
06-09-2007, 01:26 PM
ONE MORE TIME

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

LMAO

irishjayhawk
06-09-2007, 01:36 PM
LMAO

That's not all.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BGy7jRi2-uY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BGy7jRi2-uY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

DaneMcCloud
06-09-2007, 02:10 PM
Look forward to it, thanks.

Anyone know if the library discussed in the DaVinci code is real? I have been meaning to research it but have not been able to find time.

Which library are you referring to?

Logical
06-09-2007, 03:22 PM
Which library are you referring to?

First of all wrong Dan Brown book should have said "Angels and Demons"

Supposedly Secret Archives in the vatican that hold works of art and writings that stretch back the the RCC's earliest days and contain some possibly damning information.

Dave Lane
06-09-2007, 03:48 PM
What specifically did the RCC did to actually "destroy any scientific evidence" that countered their beliefs (plural)?

In 1615, Galileo's time, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine noted that if the Copernican theory was ever proven then it would be necessary to re-think the interpretation of certain Scriptural passages. They didn't all agree even if his book was prohibited ( also because of how he presented it). That was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church, that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation.

There's two sides to any story and too many people accept stories with no knowledge of RCC doctrine or history in order to make such a claim which has historically been exaggerated.

• Copernicus was a Jesuit priest and believed in the same theory as Galilieo. Much early astronomy was done under the auspices of the Church at that time.
G.


1600 After a seven year trail before the Inquisition, Giordano Bruno, who had the audacity to suggest that space was boundless and that the sun and its planets were not unique, is condemned and burned at the stake.

1633 Galileo is brought before the Inquisition. Under threat of torture and death, he is forced from his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories. He is sentenced to life imprisonment. He dies in 1642 and the charges against him stand for another 350 years.

1553 John Calvin, the "Protestant Pope" of Geneva proves his Christian credentials by having Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake for heresy. Servetus had opposed Trinitarianism and infant baptism.

1814: Society of Jesus, suppressed since 1773, is restored. The Inquisition continues until 1834, Church-sanctioned torture until 1917.

1870: Vatican Council declares the Pope "infallible".

go bowe
06-09-2007, 05:01 PM
geeze, dave...

don't confuse us with distracting facts...

oops, i see something shiny...

HolmeZz
06-09-2007, 07:04 PM
1600 After a seven year trail before the Inquisition, Giordano Bruno, who had the audacity to suggest that space was boundless and that the sun and its planets were not unique, is condemned and burned at the stake.

1633 Galileo is brought before the Inquisition. Under threat of torture and death, he is forced from his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories. He is sentenced to life imprisonment. He dies in 1642 and the charges against him stand for another 350 years.

1553 John Calvin, the "Protestant Pope" of Geneva proves his Christian credentials by having Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake for heresy. Servetus had opposed Trinitarianism and infant baptism.

1814: Society of Jesus, suppressed since 1773, is restored. The Inquisition continues until 1834, Church-sanctioned torture until 1917.

1870: Vatican Council declares the Pope "infallible".

OH SHIT, SON

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 07:26 PM
1633 Galileo is brought before the Inquisition. Under threat of torture and death, he is forced from his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories. He is sentenced to life imprisonment. He dies in 1642 and the charges against him stand for another 350 years.
What's your source for this one?

1870: Vatican Council declares the Pope "infallible".

Yeah..so what? Do you actually know what this means?

You do know that it only pertains to the subject of faith and morals and only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra right? It has NO bearing on being an infallible person with perfect knowledge, incapable of wrongdoing, being neurotic or having bad judgement.

I don't know why you chose one of Calvin's acts as an example. He certainly was not the RCC whose crimes I was discussing.

FTR, the Spanish Inquisition was supposed to be much worse than the Italian one as it was both church and state combined...a bad combo. I believe in Italy the RCC convicted but left the punishment, and torture to the state.

SLAG
06-09-2007, 07:37 PM
My Goodness a Catholic Bashing Thread and Im Missing out on the fun..

what a shame

btw...

had the catholics killed all the muslims Sept 11 might not had happend

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 07:38 PM
btw...

had the catholics killed all the muslims Sept 11 might not had happend
ROFL

DaneMcCloud
06-09-2007, 07:43 PM
My Goodness a Catholic Bashing Thread and Im Missing out on the fun..

I don't think it's bashing when people are stating factual events that have taken place in the RCC.

SLAG
06-09-2007, 07:50 PM
I don't think it's bashing when people are stating factual events that have taken place in the RCC.

Facts, Smacks backs.. tracks..

I say C'mon in the waters horrible,

heres my take on it..

Whenever you have the absoulute truth the devil is going to try and skew it with Lies, as he is the master of liars.

He wants to convice everyone that neither him nor God are real, he has done a bang up job lately

Fact of the matter is we are all human, we all make mistakes, but since Catholics have the one true religion - extra ecclesiam nulla sallas - There is no Salvation ouside the Church, the Devil will go to Extraordinary lengths to defamate those that follow the one true faith.

Remember "Ye without sin Cast the first stone"

Pitt Gorilla
06-09-2007, 07:57 PM
I don't think it's bashing when people are stating factual events that have taken place in the RCC.
Facts aren't allowed if they make someone feel bad.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 07:57 PM
Having just visited the Vatican in April (pictures forthcoming, someday!), I can tell you that Pope Pius is under investigation for negotiating with Hitler.

That's funny because the latest news I saw was the opposite.

There's been rumors of this alliance for years and now the Church is investigating. I checked out your link but I have a feeling, based on what I was told at the Vatican, that they believe there was an agreement between Hitler and the Pope. And they have the Pope's memoirs to prove it.

The Church is investigating it? That's new news...and you know I'm going to check it out. I'm not buying it til I see whose behind it. You do know the RCC has been infiltrated for years with Marxists and gays...maybe it's those guys who are doing it. They always wanted to bring it down.

We visited the Medici House in Florence. Many of the Cardinals and Popes of the 15th & 16 century were from the family Medici. One of the Popes had more than 15 illegitimate children.

I know this. I was just questioning the timing with regard to Galilieo.

Prostitution was legal during the height of the Catholic era 12-13th centuries.
Popes and clergy participated. I wasn't making a claiim that the RCC never had it's abuses and scandals. It did. These scandlas have ebbed and flowed over time with periodic clean ups. I just think the story of Galilieo is part legend.



For the record, I'm good with whatever people want to believe and I'm not criticizing anyone for their spiritual beliefs. I went to Catholic school, was an altar boy and at one point, went to church as many as four times a week. I don't find fault with anyone's spiritual life.
I'm not a Catholic. I was raised as one and went to Catholic schools but I don't get much of my historical info from that, as we didn't get much more than rote memorization of prayers, commandments and rituals.

BTW I didn't think you were intolerant of faith in general...but America, being Protestant, has a history of excessive and in some cases false criticism of the RCC....and it continues today. I grew up with it. Catholic bashing is very popular in the states. However, I do respect the Church and will always defend it, and any other religion, from the more outrageous claims. I've a close family friend who is a scholar of Catholic history, understands scripture and Canon Law quite well who corrected me, even, about Galileo at one time and some other things I never knew growing up.


BTW I am just as hard on Catholics who like to bash Muslims execessivly and unfairly at times too.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 08:01 PM
Facts aren't allowed if they make someone feel bad.
Nor are they facts when they make somone feel good or serve someone's axe to grind either.

The way I see it if a court of law considers the testiomony of two sides as part of evidence then why not check both sides out.

HolmeZz
06-09-2007, 08:05 PM
Whenever you have the absoulute truth the devil is going to try and skew it with Lies, as he is the master of liars.

He wants to convice everyone that neither him nor God are real, he has done a bang up job lately

:bong:

Logical
06-09-2007, 08:13 PM
How did the thread become about the stupid Catholic Church anyway?

SLAG
06-09-2007, 08:13 PM
:bong:
is this where you want to be when Jesus comes back.. making fun of poor little slag?

DaneMcCloud
06-09-2007, 08:19 PM
That's funny because the latest news I saw was the opposite.

The Church is investigating it? That's new news...and you know I'm going to check it out. I'm not buying it til I see whose behind it. You do know the RCC has been infiltrated for years with Marxists and gays...maybe it's those guys who are doing it. They always wanted to bring it down.

This was told to us by our Vatican Tour Guide. Many of the former Popes are actually on display at the Vatican. They're completely clothed in their Papal Robes and there's wax on their faces to depict them as they lived. It's kinda creepy. Anyway, we were told that the Vatican is investigating two Popes, Pius & John (I believe) for their roles in keeping the Nazis from destroying or stealing from the Vatican. Normally, their memoirs are on display as well but these two former Popes weren't on display and their memoirs were being used in the investigations. It should be interesting.

BTW I didn't think you were intolerant of faith in general...but America, being Protestant, has a history of excessive and in some cases false criticism of the RCC....and it continues today. I grew up with it. Catholic bashing is very popular in the states. However, I do respect the Church and will always defend it, and any other religion, from the more outrageous claims. I've a close family friend who is a scholar of Catholic history, understands scripture and Canon Law quite well who corrected me, even, about Galileo at one time and some other things I never knew growing up.

I respect the Catholic Church and people of faith and I haven't intended to bash anyone's beliefs. It's odd to me that America is viewed as Protestant because everyone that I knew while growing up in Kansas & Missouri were Catholic. Not much was made about religions or other faiths because of that reason.

This seems to be an interesting time for the Church. Pope Benedict just ruled on "Limbo", saying that it does not exist (so essentially, children go directly to heaven) and he has made some other decisions that have been a little surprising. I'll be very curious to see whether or not they actually release the info regarding Hitler and if it has any effect on the Church.

HolmeZz
06-09-2007, 08:31 PM
is this where you want to be when Jesus comes back.. making fun of poor little slag?

THE REVOLUTION WILL BE TELEVISED

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 08:35 PM
Dane,
I don't see that you're a sanctimonious religion basher. I don't believe I said that to you. It was to another poster or two, one who specializes in religion bashing and only posts when he can do that. So one has to wonder.

This was told to us by our Vatican Tour Guide. Many of the former Popes are actually on display at the Vatican. They're completely clothed in their Papal Robes and there's wax on their faces to depict them as they lived. It's kinda creepy. Anyway, we were told that the Vatican is investigating two Popes, Pius & John (I believe) for their roles in keeping the Nazis from destroying or stealing from the Vatican. Normally, their memoirs are on display as well but these two former Popes weren't on display and their memoirs were being used in the investigations. It should be interesting.
Sometimes omitted information can color things a certain way or make things appear to be a certain way. There's a lot of good Catholics did during WWII. They really did save 3 million Jews.

As far as tour guides go...mine at the Great Pyramids said they were not built with slave labor as Egypt hadn't slavery at that time. Then another book I read said they were. I questioned it and the answer I got was that some historians claim it was slaves.



I respect the Catholic Church and people of faith and I haven't intended to bash anyone's beliefs. It's odd to me that America is viewed as Protestant because everyone that I knew while growing up in Kansas & Missouri were Catholic. Not much was made about religions or other faiths because of that reason.

I believe Catholic may be the largest denomination but our early settlers were Protestant. There's been historical competition between the two but more unity currently. Probably because of the Muslims. A common enemy wil do that.

My community was predominantly Catholic but the one Protestant that lived nearby was always the CC did this, the CC did that, the CC this, the CC that.
Catholics this, Catholics that. It was run on us constantly. My mother never talked like that about her religion. I finally got so sick of it I nailed a pebble into her kid's butt with my sling shot in the woods. That was the last I heard of it.

Now there's the psychologist born again two doors down who tells my daughter we're going to hell because my car is in the driveway on Sundays. In the meantime she told me how she taught her 8 year old how to masturbate. WTF?

BTW take a look at some of the things the Puritans did here in America by reading their court cases: bestiality, incest, illegitimate children etc etc. They hunng a 14 year old boy who did it with a goat, cow, turkey and a bunch of other animals.

Logical
06-09-2007, 08:56 PM
is this where you want to be when Jesus comes back.. making fun of poor little slag?

Well you don't want to be in Olathe, the city Jesus forgot. Lived there and don't miss it.:p

Bob Dole
06-09-2007, 08:58 PM
I believe Catholic may be the largest denomination but our early settlers were Protestant. There's been historical competition between the two but more unity currently. Probably because of the Muslims. A common enemy wil do that.

Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

SLAG
06-09-2007, 09:02 PM
Buc-
just a quick FYI
Catholic is NOT a demonination

a demonination is something that had broke off the Catholic Church

Bob Dole
06-09-2007, 09:05 PM
Buc-
just a quick FYI
Catholic is NOT a demonination

a demonination is something that had broke off the Catholic Church

According to Fred Phelps, the U.S. is a demonation.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 10:05 PM
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
Interesting. I saw s/g different but my recall must have been re Catholicism being the largest ww. Fastest growing religion right now is supposed to be Islam...more mosques than churches are being built. Between, this and Mexican immigration we just may see another Andalucia. ( Slag do you know?)

Slag you are correct. That is the RC pov.

Bob Dole
06-09-2007, 10:21 PM
Interesting. I saw s/g different but my recall must have been re Catholicism being the largest ww. Fastest growing religion right now is supposed to be Islam...more mosques than churches are being built. Between, this and Mexican immigration we just may see another Andalucia. ( Slag do you know?)

Slag you are correct. That is the RC pov.

Bob Dole forgot to cite the source. That info came from the CIA Factbook.

SLAG
06-09-2007, 10:32 PM
Bob Dole forgot to cite the source. That info came from the CIA Factbook.
bush lied

people died

el borracho
06-09-2007, 10:39 PM
Just curious. Do you non believers automatically assume every Christian is less intelligent then yourself?
Imagine how you would feel if someone told you they actually believed in ancient Greek mythology. Same thing.

SLAG
06-09-2007, 10:48 PM
Imagine how you would feel if someone told you they actually believed in ancient Greek mythology. Same thing.
Can Science Explain Any of this

http://www.tldm.org/misc/Holy%20Hour.htm

el borracho
06-09-2007, 10:54 PM
Can Science Explain Any of this

http://www.tldm.org/misc/Holy%20Hour.htm
Obviously Zeus is the only explanation. Or maybe Hera.

SLAG
06-09-2007, 10:54 PM
Better Link..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_Miracle#The_miracle_of_Lanciano

Pitt Gorilla
06-09-2007, 10:59 PM
Can Science Explain Any of this

http://www.tldm.org/misc/Holy%20Hour.htmYeah, and can science explain any of this?!?!

http://www.timecube.com/

Bob Dole
06-09-2007, 11:05 PM
Yeah, and can science explain any of this?!?!

http://www.timecube.com/

Lunacy can.

SLAG
06-09-2007, 11:05 PM
Yeah, and can science explain any of this?!?!

http://www.timecube.com/


its called Ingorance / Evil

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 11:12 PM
Imagine how you would feel if someone told you they actually believed in ancient Greek mythology. Same thing.
Well...I...'ah...'ehm actually do believe they existed.

ClevelandBronco
06-10-2007, 02:03 AM
How did the thread become about the stupid Catholic Church anyway?

Why don't you try to be a bit less obnoxious and phrase the question this way, "How did the thread become about the Catholic Church anyway?"

Why the hell do you need to insert the word "stupid" into your question?

You're anything but "Logical." Would you please just consider changing your monicker to "Emotional?" It would surely fit you better.

ClevelandBronco
06-10-2007, 02:07 AM
Imagine how you would feel if someone told you they actually believed in ancient Greek mythology. Same thing.

You assume too much. I'd draw no conclusions about their intelligence. I'd draw concusions only about their spirituality.

ClevelandBronco
06-10-2007, 02:16 AM
Well...I...'ah...'ehm actually do believe they existed.

Now there's an interesting point that I'd like to know more about. Are you saying that those gods were "alive" at one time, but "dead" now?

Did they die due to disbelief in the religions that supported them or were they defeated by more modern gods?

Or am I off track entirely and is there another explanation on your mind?

I'm really looking forward to your response, BEP. You've raised intriguing possibilities that I've never considered.

Nightwish
06-10-2007, 02:38 AM
Now there's an interesting point that I'd like to know more about. Are you saying that those gods were "alive" at one time, but "dead" now?

Did they die due to disbelief in the religions that supported them or were they defeated by more modern gods?

Or am I off track entirely and is there another explanation on your mind?

I'm really looking forward to your response, BEP. You've raised intriguing possibilities that I've never considered.There are quite a few people who believe they still exist and always have, particularly people among the Greek and Roman Reconstructionist movements (one of with whom I've been arguing recently on another website, but not about that). I find that a lot in the neopagan community, people literally believing in polytheism and the "old gods." I don't personally believe in them, instead I believe that there is only one Creator, and that the various gods of the various mythologies (including Jesus and the Judeo-Christian god) are archetypes that represent different facets of the whole, a whole that is in reality too vast for us to comprehend - it is human nature to try to break the vast and incomprehensible down into comprehensible parts. But there are a lot of people I've met who are true, dyed-in-the-wool polytheists.

el borracho
06-10-2007, 09:27 AM
You assume too much. I'd draw no conclusions about their intelligence. I'd draw concusions only about their spirituality.
I think you are the one who is making the assumption as I did not actually offer any comment about anybody's intelligence; I simply offered what would be, IMO, a comparable situation for christians to understand how I might feel.

All in all, I think it is a fine thing to be spiritual but I draw a huge distinction between spirituality and religion. Personally, I think it is a bit brazen for any human to think they can know and understand the wishes of a god but explaining the inexplicable seems to be one of the pillars and appeals of religions (hey, everybody! Want to know what god is all about? We'll tell you what we think!).

I know that following a religious paradigm does not automatically mean a person is unintelligent but it does indicate something about that person. I also know that christians become angry when anyone suggests that their god is no more real than the easter bunny but to me he isn't. What is the difference between any modern religion and ancient Greek mythology?- currency (both in the sense of modernity and also in the financial sense). The virgin birth of Jesus is no more believable than the birth of the minotaur to a white bull and an ancient Greek goddess. The bible is a wonderful collection of stories but that's it. BigCatDaddy specifically asked what nonbelievers thought; I wouldn't say that religious persons are unintelligent (I'm sure many are more intelligent than I) but actual belief in an ancient collection of fables and parables is ridiculous.

HolmeZz
06-10-2007, 09:37 AM
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo

DaneMcCloud
06-10-2007, 11:00 AM
its called Ingorance / Evil

Slag,

No disrespect but quoting Scripture to non-believers is a meaningless waste of time. It only means something to someone who actually believes in the Bible - it's nonsense to those who don't.

Since you haven't read the entire thread, please refer to post #129. If you have a reply to that (other than quoting from the Bible), I'll be impressed.

Ultra Peanut
06-10-2007, 11:22 AM
Can Science Explain Any of this

http://www.tldm.org/misc/Holy%20Hour.htmHahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Adept Havelock
06-10-2007, 12:09 PM
Imagine how you would feel if someone told you they actually believed in ancient Greek mythology. Same thing.

I met a Hellenic Revivalist (one of about a dozen in KC, from what she said). She's good people, but a bit odd.

You're going to have a hard time with this crew using any type of logic. I'll say it until the end of time, or until someone gives me an answer but all Jesus or Mohammed or any so called Prophet had to do to convince me he was in communication with God is to make one of the following statements:

1. The Earth is round, not flat.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun. The universe does not revolved around the Earth.
3. Hey Jews, pack up your sh*t. We're going to North America!


:clap:

I always thought "Two strands entwined are the secret of life" would have fit the bill nicely.

SLAG
06-10-2007, 01:06 PM
Slag,

No disrespect but quoting Scripture to non-believers is a meaningless waste of time. It only means something to someone who actually believes in the Bible - it's nonsense to those who don't.

Since you haven't read the entire thread, please refer to post #129. If you have a reply to that (other than quoting from the Bible), I'll be impressed.


129?

this 129?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4003398&postcount=129

hmm

DaneMcCloud
06-10-2007, 01:46 PM
129?

this 129?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4003398&postcount=129

hmm


Oops, post 125. It appears that I too am not infallible.

DaneMcCloud
06-10-2007, 01:48 PM
Well...I...'ah...'ehm actually do believe they existed.

I've never so anxiously awaited for a detailed response on a forum before...

stevieray
06-10-2007, 03:41 PM
I think you are the one who is making the assumption as I did not actually offer any comment about anybody's intelligence; I simply offered what would be, IMO, a comparable situation for christians to understand how I might feel.

All in all, I think it is a fine thing to be spiritual but I draw a huge distinction between spirituality and religion. Personally, I think it is a bit brazen for any human to think they can know and understand the wishes of a god but explaining the inexplicable seems to be one of the pillars and appeals of religions (hey, everybody! Want to know what god is all about? We'll tell you what we think!).

I know that following a religious paradigm does not automatically mean a person is unintelligent but it does indicate something about that person. I also know that christians become angry when anyone suggests that their god is no more real than the easter bunny but to me he isn't. What is the difference between any modern religion and ancient Greek mythology?- currency (both in the sense of modernity and also in the financial sense). The virgin birth of Jesus is no more believable than the birth of the minotaur to a white bull and an ancient Greek goddess. The bible is a wonderful collection of stories but that's it. BigCatDaddy specifically asked what nonbelievers thought; I wouldn't say that religious persons are unintelligent (I'm sure many are more intelligent than I) but actual belief in an ancient collection of fables and parables is ridiculous.


angry? that's why every time a God topic comes up, ninety percent of replies come from unbelievers.....? that's why I made my orignal comment in this thread.

go bowe
06-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Can someone explain to me the meaning of - ahem, shut your mouth - or whatever?the most excellent one, the incorrigible, the massive natal f#ker, here on our stage, t#m f#cking c#sh apparently cried to the mods about his real name being put on the internet so they created a new filter that replaces his real name with Tom Cash...

clever don't you think?

go bowe
06-10-2007, 05:12 PM
cool, huh?

irishjayhawk
06-10-2007, 08:26 PM
Yes, it is indeed cool. You should get one. I mean, go bo. People will identify you in seconds.

Logical
06-10-2007, 08:39 PM
I think you are the one who is making the assumption as I did not actually offer any comment about anybody's intelligence; I simply offered what would be, IMO, a comparable situation for christians to understand how I might feel.

All in all, I think it is a fine thing to be spiritual but I draw a huge distinction between spirituality and religion. Personally, I think it is a bit brazen for any human to think they can know and understand the wishes of a god but explaining the inexplicable seems to be one of the pillars and appeals of religions (hey, everybody! Want to know what god is all about? We'll tell you what we think!).

I know that following a religious paradigm does not automatically mean a person is unintelligent but it does indicate something about that person. I also know that christians become angry when anyone suggests that their god is no more real than the easter bunny but to me he isn't. What is the difference between any modern religion and ancient Greek mythology?- currency (both in the sense of modernity and also in the financial sense). The virgin birth of Jesus is no more believable than the birth of the minotaur to a white bull and an ancient Greek goddess. The bible is a wonderful collection of stories but that's it. BigCatDaddy specifically asked what nonbelievers thought; I wouldn't say that religious persons are unintelligent (I'm sure many are more intelligent than I) but actual belief in an ancient collection of fables and parables is ridiculous.

Really fantastic post, sums up my opinions pretty close. Though I do believe in a Creator or something responsible for life I don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of God anymore than I believe in unicorns ad the tooth fairy.

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 11:11 AM
Slag,

No disrespect but quoting Scripture to non-believers is a meaningless waste of time. It only means something to someone who actually believes in the Bible - it's nonsense to those who don't.

Since you haven't read the entire thread, please refer to post #129. If you have a reply to that (other than quoting from the Bible), I'll be impressed.

So basically you want God, almighty creator of the universe, to do things the way you want them to be done and not his. There are several passages that address your line of thinking, but I really don't think it would help much to post them.

Nightwish
06-11-2007, 11:18 AM
angry?
Angry, yes. Quite often. I've seen steam come from their ears when the suggestion has been made before.

that's why every time a God topic comes up, ninety percent of replies come from unbelievers.....?
That might have something to do with the fact that most of the time when God topics come up, they are posted by Christians who are offering either a challenge or a question to the nonbelievers. If you ask a question to a target audience, you shouldn't be surprised that most of those who answer it are from the target audience.

Nightwish
06-11-2007, 11:21 AM
So basically you want God, almighty creator of the universe, to do things the way you want them to be done and not his. There are several passages that address your line of thinking, but I really don't think it would help much to post them.
What is "his" way? How do you know? We know what some long-dead primitive men claimed was "his" way, but we haven't one bit of evidence that their so-called revelations actually came from God (as opposed to mere primitive superstition and "magical thinking").

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 11:49 AM
What is "his" way? How do you know? We know what some long-dead primitive men claimed was "his" way, but we haven't one bit of evidence that their so-called revelations actually came from God (as opposed to mere primitive superstition and "magical thinking").

Actually we have eye witness accounts. The gospel of John is the best. Many of those that wrote these books are people that preached about truth, love, and righteousness. If makes no sense to me why those that preached and died for their faith would write pages upon pages of lies.

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 11:54 AM
Angry, yes. Quite often. I've seen steam come from their ears when the suggestion has been made before.



I think it has more to do with the manner the suggestion is made. It doesn't upset me because I see it for what it is and choose not to be a part of a hate filled war of words and as a Christian I am to be slow to anger. But just by reading this thread you will notice the tone and way we are often spoken to.

Nightwish
06-11-2007, 11:58 AM
Actually we have eye witness accounts.Actually, we don't, with the possible exception of the writings of Peter. Paul never met Christ. The authors of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are unknown, but none of those works were believed to have been written during (or in a reasonable proximity to provide an unassailable account) Christ's lifetime, nor necessarily presumed to have been written by anyone who was acquainted with or witness to Jesus.
The gospel of John is the best.The gospel of John is considered by many to be the worst, having been penned the furthest time after the death of Christ (some 60 years or more), by an author whose identity is not known (but rather presumed, based on the opinions of later church historians, since the original text didn't survive, and the copy that was found contained no indication of authorship) but is not presumed to have been an eyewitness to the crucifixion nor to any part of the actual ministry of Jesus.
Many of those that wrote these books are people that preached about truth, love, and righteousness. If makes no sense to me why those that preached and died for their faith would write pages upon pages of lies.Thousands of people have died for the Koran and other Islamic writings, too, including several who wrote them. Does that make them true?

Nightwish
06-11-2007, 12:06 PM
I think it has more to do with the manner the suggestion is made.
I know. It isn't unlike the tone Christians tend to use when making condemning and disbelieving statements about the beliefs of non-Christians.

It doesn't upset me because I see it for what it is and choose not to be a part of a hate filled war of words and as a Christian I am to be slow to anger.
Why does it have to be "hate-filled?" Can a person not reject the particular mythology (I'm using that word to mean "traditional story," not "fiction") of Christianity without being immediately accused of being "hate-filled?" It is for just that reason that so many of us who aren't Christians are so disinclined to be swayed by the arguments of Christians, as so very few of you actually seem to want to serve as an upstanding example of your faith. Most of the Christians I've had the "pleasure" of debating with have not been pillars of love and tolerance, but have been shining examples of fear, prejudice and paranoia.

But just by reading this thread you will notice the tone and way we are often spoken to.
If you've ever been on the other side, to have an objective view of how we are often spoken to by those on your side, you'd recognize how one-sided that situation isn't!

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally Posted by Nightwish
I know. It isn't unlike the tone Christians tend to use when making condemning and disbelieving statements about the beliefs of non-Christians.

Yes, some do and they shouldn't.


Why does it have to be "hate-filled?" Can a person not reject the particular mythology (I'm using that word to mean "traditional story," not "fiction") of Christianity without being immediately accused of being "hate-filled?" It is for just that reason that so many of us who arena't Christians are so disinclined to be swayed by the arguments of Christians, as so very few of you actually seem to want to serve as an upstanding example of your faith. Most of the Christians I've had the "pleasure" of debating with have not been pillars of love and tolerance, but have been shining examples of fear, prejudice and paranoia.

It doesn't have to be hate filled, but for some reason that seems to be the type of dialogue that I've experience on this board towards me and I've not engaged or initiated any of it. Since many of you seem to think you don't have to be religious to be a good person, then taking the high road even when you are treated poorly should apply to all. I agree with you again some can be those things, but it's not at all what Christ taught. The greatest of all is love is what I remember reading. But Christians are human also, just like everyone else and will make mistakes. That's why we need Christ, to forgive us of these things


If you've ever been on the other side, to have an objective view of how we are often spoken to by those on your side, you'd recognize how one-sided that situation isn't!

I've seen it and know what you are talking about. It does go both ways, and it's up to the individual to rise above it, not sink to the level of the other side.

(Gosh, I never dreamed I would sound like some hippie)

Chief Faithful
06-11-2007, 12:45 PM
I also know that christians become angry when anyone suggests that their god is no more real than the easter bunny but to me he isn't.

Did you mean to make this sweeping generalization?

I'm sure some Christians become angry when their opinions are challenged, but that is not unique to Christians it is common to people across the board. Actually most Christians do not become angry and actually expect their beliefs to be challenged.

DaneMcCloud
06-11-2007, 01:01 PM
So basically you want God, almighty creator of the universe, to do things the way you want them to be done and not his. There are several passages that address your line of thinking, but I really don't think it would help much to post them.

Where did I say that? What I said that you can quote Scripture all day but unless you *believe* it, it means nothing. I can quote Star Wars all day and Jedi beliefs but if you don't believe it's true, then it's meaningless to you.

The Catholic Church is the biggest enabler of all time. People in ancient times didn't run around saying "Zeus made me do it" after a crime was committed. But once the Church was in power, there was someone to blame: Satan. Gone was personal responsibility. Once someone did something wrong or evil, it's "The Devil made me do it". In addition, people could now kill or maim others under the guise of them "being possessed by the Devil". This "practice" continues worldwide, even today.

Are you telling me that was also "God's Plan"?

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 01:32 PM
They can blame whoever they want. I don't think blaming others for ones actions was brought on by Christianity. It all comes down to choices you make. But how about giving some love to Christianity also. There has been some very good things done in the name of Jesus such as hospitals, all the money given to charity, helping the poor, homeless, abused, helping victims of natural disasters....

DaneMcCloud
06-11-2007, 01:43 PM
They can blame whoever they want. I don't think blaming others for ones actions was brought on by Christianity. It all comes down to choices you make. But how about giving some love to Christianity also. There has been some very good things done in the name of Jesus such as hospitals, all the money given to charity, helping the poor, homeless, abused, helping victims of natural disasters....

I'm not talking about blaming "others". I'm talking about blaming one entity, specifically. Do you think that was part of the plan?

Of course Christianity has done some good throughout the centuries. Probably moreso than any other faith or organized religion. But it should not be judged by that alone. I would venture to say that more people have been killed in the name of God than have been saved by charities tied to the church.

Logical
06-11-2007, 01:59 PM
Actually we have eye witness accounts. The gospel of John is the best. Many of those that wrote these books are people that preached about truth, love, and righteousness. If makes no sense to me why those that preached and died for their faith would write pages upon pages of lies.
In that case the conspiracy theorists about 9-11 must be right, after all why would they write page after page of lies, right?

So based on this we can conclude the US government blew up part of the buildings on 9-11.

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 02:07 PM
In that case the conspiracy theorists about 9-11 must be right, after all why would they write page after page of lies, right?

So based on this we can conclude the US government blew up part of the buildings on 9-11.

That really does not even come close as a valid comparison. I wouldn't even say apples and oranges. I would say apples and tv sets.

I can't even really dignify this with a response as it could be the worst post I've seen you make on here and you seem like an intelligent guy.

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 02:07 PM
-

Logical
06-11-2007, 02:08 PM
That really does not even come close as a valid comparison. I wouldn't even say apples and oranges. I would say apples and tv sets.

I can't even really dignify this with a response as it could be the worst post I've seen you make on here and you seem like an intelligent guy.

Really, is that because you realize you cannot defend your statement or just because you see the fallacy in it?

BigCatDaddy
06-11-2007, 02:52 PM
Really, is that because you realize you cannot defend your statement or just because you see the fallacy in it?

I'm sorry, but it's because the comparison makes no sense.

You guys have been fun to chat with, but I think I now understand why there are more non-believers discussing this on the threads here then believers. I think my time is probably better spent somewhere else. I wish everyone well and God bless.

Ultra Peanut
06-11-2007, 03:01 PM
That really does not even come close as a valid comparison. Fine, then why would ANY other world religion have ever come into being if their belief system weren't equally as valid as Christianity?

You guys have been fun to chat with, but I think I now understand why there are more non-believers discussing this on the threads here then believers. Well, it is kind of hard to have a debate when your position is, "Why? Because... MAGIC!"

Nightwish
06-11-2007, 03:02 PM
Really, is that because you realize you cannot defend your statement or just because you see the fallacy in it?
I didn't really follow the logic in your comparison either. I know what you were driving at, but I hadn't heard of any 9/11 conspiracy theorists dying for what they had written or proclaimed. A better comparison, imo, would be to those suicide bombers and terrorists who are preaching a belief (abominable as it may be) and dying for it on a daily basis. If one is to offer the argument that the willingness of people to die for what they've preached is good evidence of the truth of what they've preached, then one would have to argue, on that basis, that the radical twists on the Koran that are being preached by those suicidal islamists must be true, because there are plenty of them preaching it and willingly dying for it.

Ultra Peanut
06-11-2007, 03:12 PM
I never lie. The sun is made of rotten cabbage. Believe this outlandish claim or endure an eternity of suffering.

http://i15.tinypic.com/661084x.jpg