NationStates Jolt Archive

Bitter, are we?
He just does not acknowledge the potential value of any work that is demonstrably neither historically or scientifically accurate.

Egghiccup;12612764']Does no-one esle think that the whole Jesus thing was a big hustle?

According to the holy trinity, God, Jesus and the holy ghost are the same thing. So God sent himself down, endured several hours of torture,whist remaining all powerful and then fucked off back to heaven. This was no sacrifice, he was fine after! Just like someone cutting off a hand and growing a new one 3 days later.
I like to think of it (within the scope of the story) as a kind of subtle jab by God at the way the humans dealt with his worship; namely, that they'd try to sacrifice him to himself according to their customs given the chance, completely oblivious to the worthlessness of such a venture.

He just does not acknowledge the potential value of any work that is demonstrably neither historically or scientifically accurate.

That always gets me. I mean is that suggesting that a work like 1984 has no value as a means of examining the potential hazards of an ultra-socialist state?

Apparently its only in "weird Protestant Bibles."

I like to know where as I have attended protestant churches before and not once seen it in there.

Perhaps if he chose a book in a more commonly disseminated Bible, he would find it much more difficult to point out "discrepancies." I wonder why he chose such an obscure book--oh yes, because he has no interest in debating the merits of the Bible, but seeks only to pursue his bigoted anti-Biblical views.

From what I have seen from him, I cannot do anything but agree. It is sad to see :(

I like to think of it (within the scope of the story) as a kind of subtle jab by God at the way the humans dealt with his worship; namely, that they'd try to sacrifice him to himself according to their customs given the chance, completely oblivious to the worthlessness of such a venture.

I've always enjoyed the take on Jesus from Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice. That his life on earth, his death, and his resurrection lacked an inherent piece of meaning in it for God Himself because he went into all of it knowing full well he'd just pop back into heaven after it was all over, thus lacking the inherent uncertainty of the human condition in regard to death and the afterlife.

I like to know where as I have attended protestant churches before and not once seen it in there.

Ah, that's my fault. I meant to say it's only in Catholic and Jewish texts, and only not in "weird Protestant Bibles." So that explains why you couldn't find it ;).

Ah, that's my fault. I meant to say it's only in Catholic and Jewish texts, and only not in "weird Protestant Bibles." So that explains why you couldn't find it ;).

I have the Catholic Bible on my laptop computer. It is not there either. As to Judith being in Jewish Texts, I will talk to my Jewish friends about it.

Egghiccup;12612807']But now they say 'He died for our sins'. No he didn't. Are we forgetting the ressurection?

No! However his resurrection was when he conquered death.

He just does not acknowledge the potential value of any work that is demonstrably neither historically or scientifically accurate.

Hmm. Yes, well, there goes Animal Farm, Catcher in the Rye, the Bhagavad Gita, and virtually all of the hallmarks of man's creative capacity. No Beowulf, Hamlet, hell, even Don Quixote.

My apologies, I need to regain...control. Unbridled loathing and bigotry get me worked up a bit.

I have the Catholic Bible on my laptop computer. It is not there either. As to Judith being in Jewish Texts, I will talk to my Jewish friends about it.

Well, Wikipedia's pretty crap then :D. Let me know what you find...I'm quite interested.

The reason that probably would've happened is because you're sortof defending an absolute. If anything, my target has been Buarong's reasoning that the bible must be taken literally, cuz if this bit isn't exact, what else might be off?
You mean, like, don't love your neighbour, love the guy three blocks down on the left?

Egghiccup;12612807']But now they say 'He died for our sins'. No he didn't. Are we forgetting the ressurection?
They can say whatever they like about what they think it means, just as we can. They might be the organisation that passed it on, but the church does not hold the right of sole interpretation.

That always gets me. I mean is that suggesting that a work like 1984 has no value as a means of examining the potential hazards of an ultra-socialist state?
That's exactly why I think he's mistaken. Mythology, whether fact or fiction, always has value in the ideas and situations it explores.

Mind you, that's also why I think the creationists are mistaken. The need for the "reality" of scripture is a distraction from the more important ideas held therein - ideas that are being completely overlooked in favour of the establishment of a powerful and dangerous political movement.

Bitter, are we?

Y'know, you might as well have ignored him from the begining if this was all he was gonna get out of you.

That's exactly why I think he's mistaken. Mythology, whether fact or fiction, always has value in the ideas and situations it explores.

Hold on now. UB is, almost universally, an asshole. But I don't think this is right. We were discussing the accuracy of the bible. I don't think that these:

"He just does not acknowledge the potential value of any work that is demonstrably neither historically or scientifically accurate."
"Hmm. Yes, well, there goes Animal Farm, Catcher in the Rye, the Bhagavad Gita, and virtually all of the hallmarks of man's creative capacity. No Beowulf, Hamlet, hell, even Don Quixote."

are fair comments. Yeah, he hates the bible, and yeah, he says it's inaccurate. But how does that say he thinks everything not completely accurate is worthless? Maybe I should re-read a bit...

Y'know, you might as well have ignored him from the begining if this was all he was gonna get out of you.

I'll wait til his arguments contain more than contempt and seeks to engage in rational discussion.

I'll wait til his arguments contain more than contempt and seeks to engage in rational discussion.

Funny you should mention contempt as though you weren't a paragon of it in that little comment. We've all been there. If you don't think he's worth dealing with, don't. It works well enough.

Funny you should mention contempt as though you weren't a paragon of it in that little comment. We've all been there. If you don't think he's worth dealing with, don't. It works well enough.

Yes. You're right. I have finals to stress me out--I can't deal with this as well, though it is also of my own making. Time to step away and wash my hands of this.

They can say whatever they like about what they think it means, just as we can. They might be the organisation that passed it on, but the church does not hold the right of sole interpretation.

I agree with you.

Hmm. Yes, well, there goes Animal Farm, Catcher in the Rye, the Bhagavad Gita, and virtually all of the hallmarks of man's creative capacity. No Beowulf, Hamlet, hell, even Don Quixote.

Though of course none of those books are meant to be taken as historically accurate fact or containing absolute literal truth.

Yeah, he hates the bible, and yeah, he says it's inaccurate. But how does that say he thinks everything not completely accurate is worthless? Maybe I should re-read a bit...
Okay, perhaps "worthless" is an exaggeration somewhat, but underlying his posts is a theme that the description of reality is the singularly important thing that scripture can bring to the table, and if it fails in that then there is no other value it can reasonably hold.

To quote directly,

Yes there are [ inaccuracies ]. And don't such inaccuracies rather show that the biblical authors did not know what they were writing about? Why would you assume that the theological aspect was right when the historical aspect was not? And don't such historical inaccuracies destroy whatever other message the text may try to convey? Even if the text is not in protestant bibles.

Well, Wikipedia's pretty crap then :D. Let me know what you find...I'm quite interested.

I heard, that Judith is one of those "gospel of Thomas" type books that was written in the time that the Bible was but wasn't ever cannon, I have seen it as an appendix in some Catholic Bibles, but have never seen it in a protestant Bible nor have I ever seen it alongside in any of the Catholic Bibles only as an appendix. However, I am not a Bible expert when it comes to apocrypha (or anything else for that matter).

I have read Judith twice, but I haven't done the in depth study that it would require to be able to discuss it.

Okay, perhaps "worthless" is an exaggeration somewhat, but underlying his posts is a theme that the description of reality is the singularly important thing that scripture can bring to the table, and if it fails in that then there is no other value it can possibly hold.

To quote directly,

Perhaps. I think his key was here: "Why would you assume that the theological aspect was right when the historical aspect was not?"

He assumes that if the history isn't right, why would you assume the rest is? I suppose he's working off (against) the basis that the bible is supposed to be taken literally, or at least be considered accurate. Like Buarong's comment. Now, I can't be certain the Mr. Elite has been arguing for that position, but...

I assume of course, that when UB says 'text' he's referring specifically to the bible, and not text in general. He...er...Well, how should I say:

Originally Posted by The Bourgeosie Elite View Post
The Bible is comfort, a companion.
Just as any other work of fiction.

He can see value in fiction I guess I'm trying to say. You ever tried to defend someone like him? :P

Perhaps. I think his key was here: "Why would you assume that the theological aspect was right when the historical aspect was not?"

He assumes that is the history isn't right, why would you assume the rest is? I suppose he's working off (against) the basis that the bible is supposed to be taken literally, or at least be considered accurate. Like Buarong's comment. Now, I can't be certain the Mr. Elite has been arguing for that position, but...

I assume of course, that when UB says 'text' he's referring specifically to the bible, and not text in general. He...er...Well, how should I say:

He can see value in fiction I guess I'm trying to say. You ever tried to defend someone like him? :P
Well, then, my killer question is of course "Why believe those who say that the Bible only has value when read literally?"

In my mind, there is only one way you -can- read the Bible, and that is through analysing both the story and the characters who are telling the story, in tandem, as literary devices. I guess it just seems obvious to me to do so, given that we don't (and, indeed, can't) know whether it's an accurate depiction of history, but do have reason to suspect it's not and reason to suspect the motives of the people who're distributing it. What's wrong with thinking about the issues it raises from a literary standpoint?

In any case, I know from previous encounters that UB has something of a devotion to knowing the past, and while I guess it is somewhat admirable, I think this shrouds him from other areas of thought that would have a lot to teach him. Oh, yeah. Do it all the time. It's a fun little test of the skill of Devil's Advocacy. =D

Well, then, my killer question is of course "Why believe those who say that the Bible only has value when read literally?"

One shouldn't. However, many Christians tend to get a little upset if one suggests that some parts of the Bible might be educational or inspiring stories instead of historical fact. The existence of Jesus is a good example. And of course the topic at hand - creation ;)

Creationists nowdays only seem to last a page or two. No stamina=No fun. :(

Well, then, my killer question is of course "Why believe those who say that the Bible only has value when read literally?"

In my mind, there is only one way you -can- read the Bible, and that is through analysing both the story and the characters who are telling the story, in tandem, as literary devices. I guess it just seems obvious to me to do so, given that we don't (and, indeed, can't) know whether it's an accurate depiction of history, but do have reason to suspect it's not and reason to suspect the motives of the people who're distributing it. What's wrong with thinking about the issues it raises from a literary standpoint?

Hence why you might have more issue with Buarong than anyone else. *nods*

Oh, yeah. Do it all the time. It's a fun little test of the skill of Devil's Advocacy. =D
Almost literally speaking. XD

I really don't like creationists, for the same reason that most Muslims do not like Islamic terrorists - they give the sane, clear minded majority a bad name.

I agree with everything stated in the opening post - clearly man was not around to describe creation as it was happening, and so what is written in Genesis must have been imparted through a vision, with the author retelling it as best he can. Genesis should not be viewed as an attempt to explain how we came to be here, though (timescale aside) it does bear remarkable similarities to evolutionary theory, but as an interpretation of why.

I heard, that Judith is one of those "gospel of Thomas" type books that was written in the time that the Bible was but wasn't ever cannon, I have seen it as an appendix in some Catholic Bibles, but have never seen it in a protestant Bible nor have I ever seen it alongside in any of the Catholic Bibles only as an appendix. However, I am not a Bible expert when it comes to apocrypha (or anything else for that matter).

I have read Judith twice, but I haven't done the in depth study that it would require to be able to discuss it.

really, its right in the catholic bible. why the protestants dropped it, i have no idea.

http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

its right there on the list.

its an interesting story but i suppose that if you are going to be a bible literalist, you dont really want your women to use judith as an authorized role model.

Well, it certainly has no effect on how I live. It may explain why, but why is not so important as how. I haven't even read the Bible. Maybe that makes me a bad Christian. But for me, my faith is what it is not because of why I'm here...but how I live.

So in essence, I guess the Bible can be taken literally or not, but in the end it doesn't really matter. My belief that Christ died for sin isn't nearly as strong as my belief that God is. I'm sure the Bible has had an enormous impact on my life, but I don't actively pursue proof of its claims. So maybe I'm intellectually lazy. Yea, in this matter I'll admit I am. Everything's circumstantial. But I take the truth of the Bible on faith, and leave it at that. Frees my life for living.

How can you "take the truth of the Bible on faith", when you admit you don't even know what it says?

That probably is the safest position, though... if you don't know what it says, you don't have to deal with the hundreds of times it conflicts with (itself, and) your life every day.

I am sorry for you. You harbour nothing but doubt. How can you enjoy life? How do you know anything is true? And doesn't such a perspective destroy your capacity to live happily?


Certainty is not required for enjoyment or happiness. Neither is 'knowing anything is true'.

I have the Catholic Bible on my laptop computer. It is not there either. As to Judith being in Jewish Texts, I will talk to my Jewish friends about it.

I just did a quick websearch for catholic bibles online. The first one I found has this:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/judith/intro.htm

Maybe the Bible on your laptop isn't a full Catholic one?

If there are still any Creationists lurking around you might be interested in this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200166) thread. Those clever people at Internet Infidels have compiled a 21 page thread (509 posts at last count) packed full of evidence for evolution. Well worth a browse when you've got the time.

really, its right in the catholic bible. why the protestants dropped it, i have no idea.

http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

its right there on the list.

its an interesting story but i suppose that if you are going to be a bible literalist, you dont really want your women to use judith as an authorized role model.

Well, when I was presented a Bible at my (Episcopal, and thus Protestant) confirmation, the version I was given, the NOAB/NRSV, contains Judith. Therefore, it follows that Portestants have not dropped it.

I heard, that Judith is one of those "gospel of Thomas" type books that was written in the time that the Bible was but wasn't ever cannon, I have seen it as an appendix in some Catholic Bibles, but have never seen it in a protestant Bible nor have I ever seen it alongside in any of the Catholic Bibles only as an appendix. However, I am not a Bible expert when it comes to apocrypha (or anything else for that matter).

I have read Judith twice, but I haven't done the in depth study that it would require to be able to discuss it.

It's not apocrypha by definition. It has been accepted as canon by the Orthodox Churches. Non-canon = apocrypha. Not all apocrypha is considered bad (for lack of a better word) by the Catholic Church. There's a few apocryphal epsitles they consider relevant. I can't think of them off the top of my head.

I've never heard it refrenced in all my years in Catholic school. I don't think I've personally ever read it.

Certainty is not required for enjoyment or happiness. Neither is 'knowing anything is true'.

Repeating yourself is funny. So is repetition.

Well, then, my killer question is of course "Why believe those who say that the Bible only has value when read literally?"If the bible does not accurately describe reality, including the existence and presence of a certain god, then the entire faith system built on the biblical text is pointless. If the bible cannot accurately describe events and circumstances in this world, why the fuck would anyone believe it does accurately describe the 'other' world? And if you want to tell me about what and who and how god is then you have to come up with something more substantial than just vague symbolism.

The Bible is comfort, a companion.Just as any other work of fiction.He can see value in fiction I guess I'm trying to say.The Silmarillion is comfort, a companion...


You ever tried to defend someone like him? :PThere is no need for defense.

If the bible does not accurately describe reality, including the existence and presence of a certain god, then the entire faith system built on the biblical text is pointless. If the bible cannot accurately describe events and circumstances his world, why the fuck would anyone believe it would accurately describe the other world? And if you want to tell me about what and who and how god is then you have to come up with something more substantial than just vague symbolism.

Amusing. I know how desperately you NEED for this to be true, but the fact is that it needn't be historically literally accurate in order to be text sent to us in order to teach us about how we should live and about the God we worship. You've done nothing to establish otherwise other than say it MUST be in order to further your bigotry.

GnI tried to explain to you the value of symbolism and all you could come up with is the claim that all that matters ever is events. "I refuse to acknowledge that there is more to books than the description of events" is never a good argument. It failed in my literary classes when discussing Huckleberry Finn and it works no better when discussing the Bible.

Assuming there is God why would you believe we COULD literally understand all aspects of that God. We can't even literally understand infinity, so with just that one concept alone we have to settle for symbolism. Why would God be any different?

That's exactly why I think he's mistaken. Mythology, whether fact or fiction, always has value in the ideas and situations it explores.But the bible is not just a mythology that explores ideas and situation. It is the basic instrument to manifest the existence of the biblical god as real and worthy of worship and submission. It is supposed to have and is having a direct impact on the real world and on human life (-style) and interaction, and it really is not just about telling nice stories for entertainment or musing.

That always gets me. I mean is that suggesting that a work like 1984 has no value as a means of examining the potential hazards of an ultra-socialist state?Is 1984 used to try to establish any form of faith (-pattern) in the real world? Of course literature is valuable, but that's not how the bible is regarded by believers, because if it were regarded just as a piece of literature then why would there be a need for religion or faith? The bible makes people submit to a god that only exists in their heads because the bible says so. Which other pieces of literature have the same effect? Except other 'holy books' ?

Amusing. I know how desperately you NEED for this to be true, but the fact is that it needn't be historically literally accurate in order to be text sent to us in order to teach us about how we should live and about the God we worship. You've done nothing to establish otherwise other than say it MUST be in order to further your bigotry.

As I said, most Christians require to believe that certain specific parts of the Bible are historically accurate to not lose faith. Or do you think that if it for instance turns out that Jesus never existed, that he was a mixture of Hercules, Mithras, Osiris and so on, the Christian faith would not suffer at all ?

As I said, most Christians require to believe that certain specific parts of the Bible are historically accurate to not lose faith. Or do you think that if it for instance turns out that Jesus never existed, that he was a mixture of Hercules, Mithras, Osiris and so on, the Christian faith would not suffer at all ?Even today they rather hold on to the theological Jesus who is indeed a mixture of a lot of traditions, as opposed to the historical Jesus who was just a weird carpenter from Galilee. But without the historical Jesus the New Testament is just a work of fiction that is unsuitable to be used to create a belief in the divine incarnation that Jesus allegedly was. Christianity as such would be rendered empty and purposeless.

As I said, most Christians require to believe that certain specific parts of the Bible are historically accurate to not lose faith. Or do you think that if it for instance turns out that Jesus never existed, that he was a mixture of Hercules, Mithras, Osiris and so on, the Christian faith would not suffer at all ?

I don't think the New and Old Testaments are comparable in that way. The old Testament appears to be a bunch of lessons centered in stories that were not actually witnessed by those that wrote it. They aren't claiming to be even distant eye witnesses.

The New Testament is a story that was not much more than a generation old when it was written down. Would it be a 100% accurate? Perhaps not. It needn't be so long as the message remains. The story of Martin Luther King today isn't 100% accurate either. It's ripe with legend perhaps derived from other legends, but I'd say the message of MLK is intact and clear.

I think that any change would affect some of those that don't have a rational faith, much like finding out the solar system is heliocentric. The earth as the center of the universe isn't really an object of faith, but it was considered destructive when people changed that belief. I think in the end though, Christianity has many, many ascribers that would simply move past worrying about details in a faith that got summed up twice by the subject of it in a single sentence.

For me, unless you plan to tell me that I'm not supposed to love God and my neighbor or that I shouldn't treat others as I would like to be treated, you really couldn't change anything that would change my faith.

Even today they rather hold on to the theological Jesus who is indeed a mixture of a lot of traditions, as opposed to the historical Jesus who was just a weird carpenter from Galilee. But without the historical Jesus the New Testament is just a work of fiction that is unsuitable to be used to create a belief in the divine incarnation that Jesus allegedly was. Christianity as such would be rendered empty and purposeless.

Why would it be empty and purposeless? I challenge you to support this assertion.

But the bible is not just a mythology that explores ideas and situation. It is the basic instrument to manifest the existence of the biblical god as real and worthy of worship and submission. It is supposed to have and is having a direct impact on the real world and on human life (-style) and interaction, and it really is not just about telling nice stories for entertainment or musing.

Is 1984 used to try to establish any form of faith (-pattern) in the real world? Of course literature is valuable, but that's not how the bible is regarded by believers, because if it were regarded just as a piece of literature then why would there be a need for religion or faith? The bible makes people submit to a god that only exists in their heads because the bible says so. Which other pieces of literature have the same effect? Except other 'holy books' ?

Again, why do you claim this matters? I certainly think you absolutely create a faith based on a work of fiction. You claim that you can't, but faith is about ideas, not events. I could write a story that teaches us how to treat one another and how to worship God and none of it would have to describe anything that ever really happened. Why would it have no value as a faith? You've been making the assertion for months but you refuse to support why it would necessarily be so.

The best we've ever gotten from you is "because I said it has to work that way."

As I said, most Christians require to believe that certain specific parts of the Bible are historically accurate to not lose faith. Or do you think that if it for instance turns out that Jesus never existed, that he was a mixture of Hercules, Mithras, Osiris and so on, the Christian faith would not suffer at all ?

Wouldn't lose anything important. Actually, for that matter, how might a faith suffer?

Wouldn't lose anything important.
Most Christians I know consider the sacrifice of Christ to be quite important...

Actually, for that matter, how might a faith suffer?
By losing followers en masse.

sorry if im braking a dif. conversation that came up in the 50 or so pages but...I want to represent what happened.

*God walked into a dark room, switchs on the light and poof theres exsistance
*

Or you can take the other side

*Some scientific thing happens, bacteria forms slowly, evolving from that mankind is what it is today.*

Either way, it doesn't matter. Sure we can figure out how we came to be, the BOOM nukes go off and were all fucked. Theres really no point to life except the hope you can escape the inevitable distruction of the planet because of some evil people who wanted total control over a civilisation that has been built listening to other people. In truth we are all conformists waiting for the end of the world due to our leaders.

Most Christians I know consider the sacrifice of Christ to be quite important...


By losing followers en masse.

Why? I think the idea that sacrificing Christ is necessary is actually amusing. By necessity, you can't be God and suffer at the same time. I've often said the only true sacrifice would be to agree to suffer for eternity.

Think about it this way... what if I told you that you could sacrifice yourself to hell and this would ensure that every kind person on the planet would enter heaven? Would you do it? I would argue that anyone who says no is not following the principles of Christianity. As such, you can't really argue that the what Christ did is the greatest sacrifice, since it would be saying that God is capable of so much less than we are.

It's just another case of losing the message to the events. The message is ALL that's important.

EDIT: I find it amusing that I keep getting told by non-Christians that the events in the Bible are more important than the message. More than a little bit.

It's not apocrypha by definition. It has been accepted as canon by the Orthodox Churches. Non-canon = apocrypha. Not all apocrypha is considered bad (for lack of a better word) by the Catholic Church. There's a few apocryphal epsitles they consider relevant. I can't think of them off the top of my head.

I've never heard it refrenced in all my years in Catholic school. I don't think I've personally ever read it.

its worth the read. judith kicks ass!

you kinda have to skip the first few chapters, they are setting up the story (but not in an interesting way)

the jews are besieged by the assyrians. they are losing badly. there isnt a drop of water left in the city. the city fathers decide that if god doesnt deliver them in 5 days, they are going to surrender

judith hears of this and is PISSED. she decides to take matters into her own hands. she gets gussied up, goes out of the city and takes up with the assyrian general. few days go by, adventures ensue, he gets wicked drunk and judith cuts his head off with his own sword.

she takes the head back to the city, tells them to post it on the city gate and the enemy freaks out and leaves.

israel is not bothered again until well after judith is dead.

Why? I think the idea that sacrificing Christ is necessary is actually amusing. By necessity, you can't be God and suffer at the same time. I've often said the only true sacrifice would be to agree to suffer for eternity.
Oh, I agree. Most Christians I have spoken however do not.

EDIT: I find it amusing that I keep getting told by non-Christians that the events in the Bible are more important than the message. More than a little bit.

You shouldn't. I am just reporting how Christians usually respond to ideas like these.

Oh, I agree. Most Christians I have spoken however do not.



You shouldn't. I am just reporting how Christians usually respond to ideas like these.

*Gasp* you mean people are resistant to change? The hell you say. Next you're going to tell me that they make boxes with moving pictures on them.

Belief systems work that way. People aren't generally open to the idea that their beliefs are wrong, but it doesn't mean they would abandon them if something changes and the evidence for this is found in Christianity itself. Christianity has changed a lot over time, so much so that I think many lost the original message. However, it still prospers.

Wouldn't lose anything important. Who? You personally? Or Christianity? Christianity would lose the justification for its existence as a religion and belief system. If Jesus di not exist then nobody died as the incarnation of the Jewish god and nobody did the things that Christianity holds true.

Actually, for that matter, how might a faith suffer?Well, since most believers can do without any connexion to reality already, I am not sure what the removal of their core focus point of belief would actually do to their faith. I guess most would hold on to their faith just out of spite. I wouldn't expect them to suddenly become rational and drop their beliefs.

Who? You personally? Or Christianity? Christianity would lose the justification for its existence as a religion and belief system. If Jesus di not exist then nobody died as the incarnation of the Jewish god and nobody did the things that Christianity holds true.

Well, since most believers can do without any connexion to reality already, I am not sure what the removal of their core focus point of belief would actually do to their faith. I guess most would hold on to their faith just out of spite. I wouldn't expect them to suddenly become rational and drop their beliefs.

Again, you claim we must put events ahead of message, but you've not demonstrated why this is necessarily so. But, hey, don't let you lack of support stop you from continually making that assertion. If you did, we would have to assume someone took over your account.

sorry if im braking a dif. conversation that came up in the 50 or so pages but...I want to represent what happened.

*God walked into a dark room, switchs on the light and poof theres exsistance
*

Or you can take the other side

*Some scientific thing happens, bacteria forms slowly, evolving from that mankind is what it is today.*

Either way, it doesn't matter. Sure we can figure out how we came to be, the BOOM nukes go off and were all fucked. Theres really no point to life except the hope you can escape the inevitable distruction of the planet because of some evil people who wanted total control over a civilisation that has been built listening to other people. In truth we are all conformists waiting for the end of the world due to our leaders.

It doesn't matter if you don't care or if you place fairytales in front of science or whatever your private self cares to do with the information given it. Honestly, it does not matter. What matters is when people attempt to pass off faith as scientific method.

Pi approximately = 3. Solomon was a king, not a mathemitician, (obviously). And wasn't th actual value of pi not discovered until sometime after that particular story was written?

The actual value of pi has never been and never will be discovered. However, pi was calculated to 3.125 (far closer than the bible gave) around one thousand years before King Solomon was even born.

The actual value of pi has never been and never will be discovered. However, pi was calculated to 3.125 (far closer than the bible gave) around one thousand years before King Solomon was even born.

Oh! It's basically three. Honestly, mathematicians are so calculating.

The actual value of pi has never been and never will be discovered.Of course it has been discovered. Just as any other named value. You seem to confuse a value with its representation.

First, to answer a previous question, yes, I am Jewish. Consequently, I do not accept the New Testament as having one whit of divine origin.

My timeframe for evolution - I follow the scientists. My current theory for how life started so quickly is that G-d rigged probability.

Now, I normally don't respond to trolls. However, when a troll posts a long rant on a subject I am familiar with, the opportunity for pwnage is irresistable.

Indoslovakia, prepare to be totally emasculated.

So, what is your take on some planets and entire galaxies spinning the oposite way of the Earth? Does the law of centrifical force make it so that they would not be spinning in this direction, but in the very same direction?
No law of science says that everything should rotate in the same direction. Most planets in the solar system rotate one way, but Venus rotates the other way - the current theory is that something really big whacked it. Apparently, there were a few rogue planets flying around the early solar system, causing all sorts of strange happenings. The galaxies can rotate whatever way they want.


So then tell me, what is your philosophy?

In the beginning dirt, or

In the beginning God.

For me, G-d. For a lot of people here, nothing.


A theory that states we have always been here (which is a lot like the hippy theory which says "that we are not really here, we just think we are here"), or

a theory in which states how we became.

Evolution is the latter. Nobody I know seriously believes that mankind has always existed.


Evolutionists best hope for an after life: we become recycled through the ground.

Evolutionists worst dread: God is real and you go to hell.

Creationists best hope: there is a God and we go to heaven.

Creationists dread: we become recycled.

Replace 'evolutionist' with 'atheist' and 'creationist' with 'religious people', and you're closer to the truth. Many religious people, like myself, support evolution.


Did you know that if Evolution were true, then we have no point to life and we can all do what we feel. This is where the 'if-it-feels-good-then-do-it' philosophy comes in.

This is wrong, just wrong. If evolution has an opinion on what our purpose is, then evolution states we must spread our genes.


Hitler and the comlubine shootings were focused on "the advancement of a certain race."

Hitler, yes. Columbine, those were psycho kids. Though I might have missed something in the media.


For that matter, Darwin's whole title to his book is 'The Origins of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races.' Why does the Evolution theory have to be so racist anyways?

It isn't racist. Humans are a single species, which is what Darwin was referring to.


Why is it a religion of death? For things to advance in adaptions and be able to survive, the mutations would have to live past the non-mutant. The non-mutated being would have to die-off or the new mutation could not be possible.

The idea is that a beneficial mutation allows the mutant to outcompete or outbreed the non-mutant.


Why is it that Evolution does not occur today? Why is it that a cat can not produce a non-cat, but millions of years ago they could.

BECAUSE EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! It takes millions of years for a cat, say, to evolve into a sorta-cat, and then into a non-cat. And, for your information, evolution does happen today. Viruses and bacteria are evolving resistance to drugs, which is causing us no end of problems.


The Evolution theory is a lot like the story of when the frog turns into the prince. The only difference: time. Yes, if it happens very quicly, then it is a fairy tale... however, if it takes a few million years, then it is called science. No, it is still a fairy tale.

A frog cannot turn into a prince in its lifetime. But give it a hundred million years or so, and its offspring might evolve into princes (or devolve, depending on your opinion of royalty).


If you are so smart yourself, then tell me why all of these do not make any sence?
I just did. Now to clean up the bloodstains from ripping your argument to shreds.
And "sense" has 2 s's.

And before anyone attacks me for responding to a troll, let me tell you, ripping up his argument was damn enjoyable.

And before anyone attacks me for responding to a troll, let me tell you, ripping up his argument was damn enjoyable.
My favourite part was the spelling correction. ;)

If the bible does not accurately describe reality, including the existence and presence of a certain god, then the entire faith system built on the biblical text is pointless. If the bible cannot accurately describe events and circumstances in this world, why the fuck would anyone believe it does accurately describe the 'other' world? And if you want to tell me about what and who and how god is then you have to come up with something more substantial than just vague symbolism.

The problem isn't the book. The book is fine.

The problem is when people hold that book to a different standard. When they think they can name the author, just from looking at the text. When they think they can make reasonable claims about the nature of the author, from what is contained in the story.

For some people, the Bible is mystically 'True', with the big T. For some people, that Truth is worth more than any amount of evidence that might be contrary.

That is the problem. The book itself is guilty of nothing more than being scribbles on paper.

This thread makes me want to watch the Jaynestown episode of Firefly.

Troll-slaying

You fucking win this thread.

First, to answer a previous question, yes, I am Jewish. Consequently, I do not accept the New Testament as having one whit of divine origin.


First off, this is *not* debating you, merely adding a few points to your argument.


My timeframe for evolution - I follow the scientists. My current theory for how life started so quickly is that G-d rigged probability.

*Hypothesis*, or more correctly "idea", my dear friend. Throwing around "theories" when you mean "my personal opinion" really confuses those who don't have a lick of understanding of what a scientific theory is. Those who do know what it is will get what you mean, however those who don't probably won't.

Now, I normally don't respond to trolls. However, when a troll posts a long rant on a subject I am familiar with, the opportunity for pwnage is irresistable.

Indoslovakia, prepare to be totally emasculated.

It is quite enjoyable, I will admit, to smack around those who don't know what they're talking about. Of course, they are dogmatic to the extreme(It is exceedingly hard to drive home the point that the phrase used in Genesis has multiple meanings, not solely being a solar day, but also, as written, appears to be more along the lines of "indefinate period of time", but that's another issue for another time).


No law of science says that everything should rotate in the same direction. Most planets in the solar system rotate one way, but Venus rotates the other way - the current theory is that something really big whacked it. Apparently, there were a few rogue planets flying around the early solar system, causing all sorts of strange happenings. The galaxies can rotate whatever way they want.


Indeed. It takes an exceptional amount of force to stop mass, especially large bodies of mass, and change it's direction. The going theory(And quite frankly, it is pretty much accepted as the only likely scenario) is that the planets were all made up of the same "cloud" of matter, that was spinning in the same direction. Going further, due to the nature of mass, as particles and cluster of matter became "clumps" of matter, they gained larger amounts of gravitational pull, drawing more matter into them. As the entire cloud was spinning in one direction(Due to the nature of how it was created), the planets created would all be spinning likewise. In truth, planets can revolve the other way around quite easily, they just need to start moving in that direction to begin with. Once in motion, and large bodies of matter are in orbit, it is actually impossible to stop that motion without an outside force(You know, the whole "bodies in motion stay in motion and all that crazy jazz).



Replace 'evolutionist' with 'atheist' and 'creationist' with 'religious people', and you're closer to the truth. Many religious people, like myself, support evolution.


Indeed. I know many very religious people who do not view religion and evolution as being mutually exclusive. In actuality, only the very loudest minority from both sides suggest this, most do not.


Hitler, yes. Columbine, those were psycho kids. Though I might have missed something in the media.

Not only that, but Hitler horribly distorted the theory of evolution. Under evolution, diversity isn't nice to have, it is required. Hitler was trying to create a "master race", which under evolution is impossible to do: Specific varieties of species are more adept to their "natural" environment than others. For instance, Africans are very well adapted to their environment, and their darker skin blocks out a great deal of UV rays that in excess are harmful. However, they can have Vitamin D(Or E, I forget which) deficiency in more northern or southern climates, as they block out to much UV light in those regions(Which have a lower amount of UV than more equatorial regions.

However, Europeans, or Caucasians, have a similar problem. Their light skin is very well adapted to northern climates, allowing enough UV to be absorbed to produce necessary vitamins. However, when introduced to more equatorial climates, they gain to much UV exposure, and can suffer not only from burning of the skin, but also cancer due to to much UV.

Hitler's use of Evolution is likeable to saying that the Theory of Gravity is wrong because you can use it to push people off of cliffs to kill them(Newton's theory of Gravity is wrong, but not for that reason-just pointing out a the obvious flaw in logic-attacking the idea itself with irrelevant information, not the arguments it makes).


It isn't racist. Humans are a single species, which is what Darwin was referring to.


Indeed. Darwin was actually an activitist for racial equality and rights. "Race" refers to species in his Theory, not to the culturally conceived idea of "race".


The idea is that a beneficial mutation allows the mutant to outcompete or outbreed the non-mutant.


Indeed true. However, to point out, beneficial traits are not always successful. They do sometimes fail. Under evolution, your chance of outbreeding are raised with more beneficial traits(To the environment at hand, of course-there is no universal beneficial trait), but never guarenteed. That is why you will always find genetic disorders-as long as in some form they do not completely negate the possibility of reproduction, they can exist.


BECAUSE EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! It takes millions of years for a cat, say, to evolve into a sorta-cat, and then into a non-cat. And, for your information, evolution does happen today. Viruses and bacteria are evolving resistance to drugs, which is causing us no end of problems.


Well, "quickly" is relative, really. You tend to see evolution most prominately in bacterium and insects, as they have short gestation and reproduction periods. We see new species of insects arise all the time. Humans, and mammals largely, have longer gestation and reproduction cycles, leading to a more longer time period of evolution.

Also, for those who say "it's still a fruit fly", remember that the genetic difference between the new species and old species is as different as between us and chimps. Something to chew on.


A frog cannot turn into a prince in its lifetime. But give it a hundred million years or so, and its offspring might evolve into princes (or devolve, depending on your opinion of royalty).

Actually, technically it can't. It took very specific conditions to provide humans. Some may say "AHA! That means that it is so unlikely that humans arose that it is almost impossible! Evolution WRONGZORS!". Those people are under the mistaken impression that evolution has a goal, or a "finish line". This notion is false. It is just as likely that humans would go down a completely different than they did, and produce some very different.

Of course, if you factor religion into the equation, the "luck of the draw", and "finish line" idea are different, I'm just talking from a purely biological viewpoint.


I just did. Now to clean up the bloodstains from ripping your argument to shreds.
And "sense" has 2 s's.

And before anyone attacks me for responding to a troll, let me tell you, ripping up his argument was damn enjoyable.

Like I said, sometimes it needs to be done.

Okay, I admit it. It was me, I ejaculated into the primordial soup

The actual value of pi has never been and never will be discovered. However, pi was calculated to 3.125 (far closer than the bible gave) around one thousand years before King Solomon was even born.

The actual value of pi is this:

(pi)/4 = (-1^n)/(2n+1)

What you do is you start at n=1, and add that to n=2, all the way to infinity and you get pi. Of course this is the Leibniz Formula and requires too many digits to converge reasonably, but this is the easiest to understand.

You fucking win this thread.

Tearing about an argument laid out there in hopes of being shreaded is skeetshooting. It's not particularly impressive. It's like proving Stephen Colbert wrong. He knows he's wrong when he writes it.

Troll-slaying

You fucking win this thread.

Now to add to my sig...

its worth the read. judith kicks ass!

you kinda have to skip the first few chapters, they are setting up the story (but not in an interesting way)

the jews are besieged by the assyrians. they are losing badly. there isnt a drop of water left in the city. the city fathers decide that if god doesnt deliver them in 5 days, they are going to surrender

judith hears of this and is PISSED. she decides to take matters into her own hands. she gets gussied up, goes out of the city and takes up with the assyrian general. few days go by, adventures ensue, he gets wicked drunk and judith cuts his head off with his own sword.

she takes the head back to the city, tells them to post it on the city gate and the enemy freaks out and leaves.

israel is not bothered again until well after judith is dead.

Sweet! I just bought a shiny new NSRV bible. I will have to read it.

Protestant bibles also leave out Maccabees. How on earth can they leave out the book with the coolest name?

How on earth can they leave out the book with the coolest name?

They have Habakkuk.

They have Habakkuk.

True. That's still not as cool as Maccabees. It is a close second.

Sweet! I just bought a shiny new NSRV bible. I will have to read it.

Protestant bibles also leave out Maccabees. How on earth can they leave out the book with the coolest name?

its a shame but they had to do it. maccabees contains theology that the protestants deny. intersession of saints in heaven to help people on earth and prayers and sacrifices for the dead.

(and its not in the earlier jewish "bibles")

its a shame but they had to do it. maccabees contains theology that the protestants deny. intersession of saints in heaven to help people on earth and prayers and sacrifices for the dead. And one would think the Jewish revolt was "important"....

(and its not in the earlier jewish "bibles")It's been added to the Septuagint, which is the earliest Jewish bible.

And one would think the Jewish revolt was "important"....

The revolt that forced the Romans to evict the Jews from their homeland thus scattering them over the world just as prophecy fortold? Oh and let us not forget the destruction of the temple that was also prophecied.

There have been a few creationists around, so I figured I'd bump this thread.

Half a page half a page
  Half a thread onward
All in the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred:
'Forward, the ID Brigade!
Charge for the Evilutionists' he said
Into the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred.

'Forward, the ID Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the posters knew
  Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to post & die,
Into the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred.

Facts to right of them,
Facts to left of them,
Facts in front of them
  Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with data & theory,
Baldly they lied & poorly,
Into the thread of Creationism,
Into the fait accompli
  wrote the six hundred.

Flash'd all their fallacies bare,
Flash'd as they turned in air,
Duping the masses there,
Charging at windmills while
  All the world wonders:
A smoke screen to cover their shame
And Hitler's "atheism" to blame;
Biologist & Physicist
Laughed from the pseudo-science joke
Battered & plunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Facts to right of them,
Facts to left of them,
Facts in front of them
  Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with data & theory,
While fallacies & fanatics fell,
They that had stone-walled so well
Came thro' the thread of Creationism,
Back from the fait accompli,
All that was left of them
  Left of six hundred.

When can their gullibility fade?
O the wild charges they've made!
  All the world wonders.
Humor the charge they made!
Humor the ID Brigade,
  Gullible six hundred!

that was stupendous.

There have been a few creationists around, so I figured I'd bump this thread.

Yeah, arguing with Creationists is always fun (although I should really be revising for my French exams).

This thread is STILL going?

There have been a few creationists around, so I figured I'd bump this thread.

Could someone explain what "bump the thread" means? Is it simiiar to gravedigging?

This thread is STILL going?
Hooray! My poem is back to the front page!! :)

Could someone explain what "bump the thread" means?

Posting on a thread moves it to the top of the first page in the NS General overview. When somebody wants to move the thread to the top so it can be seen they sometimes say "bump".

Could someone explain what "bump the thread" means? Is it simiiar to gravedigging?
"Bumping" simply means posting something (anything) on a thread, which will move it up to the top of the threads again.

Gravedigging is a form of "bumping" where somebody "bumps" a thread that is very old. All gravedigging involves "bumping," but not all "bumping" is gravedigging.

"Bumping" simply means posting something (anything) on a thread, which will move it up to the top of the threads again.

Gravedigging is a form of "bumping" where somebody "bumps" a thread that is very old. All gravedigging involves "bumping," but not all "bumping" is gravedigging.

Any idea what qualifies as old? I mean the last post for this was over a week ago. I half thought it was going to get taken out by now.

Posting on a thread moves it to the top of the first page in the NS General overview. When somebody wants to move the thread to the top so it can be seen they sometimes say "bump".

"Bumping" simply means posting something (anything) on a thread, which will move it up to the top of the threads again.

Gravedigging is a form of "bumping" where somebody "bumps" a thread that is very old. All gravedigging involves "bumping," but not all "bumping" is gravedigging.

Thank you both :)

Any idea what qualifies as old? I mean the last post for this was over a week ago. I half thought it was going to get taken out by now.
No clue. I think the mods are allowed to use some personal discretion when it comes to locking threads. I've seen some "old" threads (read: week or more) allowed to be bumped back up, while others are locked more promptly. The quality of discussion probably impacts this, though I'm not sure.

Of course, now that we've totally derailed this thread, I guess it will prolly be locked. And there goes my poem. :(

QUICK!! Somebody throw some Creationists back in here so we can start the fun again!

No clue. I think the mods are allowed to use some personal discretion when it comes to locking threads. I've seen some "old" threads (read: week or more) allowed to be bumped back up, while others are locked more promptly. The quality of discussion probably impacts this, though I'm not sure.

Of course, now that we've totally derailed this thread, I guess it will prolly be locked. And there goes my poem. :(

QUICK!! Somebody throw some Creationists back in here so we can start the fun again!OK.: I do indeed believe that G-d is the true creator of the universe and that he made everything in 6 days from scratch and rested on day 7. And that he gave the world to humans to rule over it. And the evidence for that is the fact that the moon does not fall to earth but stays above without rotating.

QUICK!! Somebody throw some Creationists back in here so we can start the fun again!
It's Devil's Advocate Time!

... Erm..

... Oh, I know.

What's wrong with the "Otherworldly Programmer" idea of universal origin? Isn't there reasonable argument to be made that since we, through our limited knowledge and understanding, are capable of modelling realities through our technology and networking, that it would not be beyond possibility that this reality is itself some such technological model on another scale?

And wouldn't the existence of intangible physical laws distinct from the actual material components of the universe itself serve as evidence of such a phenomenon?

What's wrong with the "Otherworldly Programmer" idea of universal origin? Isn't there reasonable argument to be made that since we, through our limited knowledge and understanding, are capable of modelling realities through our technology and networking, that it would not be beyond possibility that this reality is itself some such technological model on another scale?

It's not beyond possibility that this reality is nothing but a hallucination that Aphrodite is having because she took some bad hash.


And wouldn't the existence of intangible physical laws distinct from the actual material components of the universe itself serve as evidence of such a phenomenon?
Not particularly. I mean, that doesn't support your proposal any more (or less) strongly than a zillion other possibilities.

But good try. :D

We need some True Believers in here, dagnabbit.

Let's try some bait:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A MORAL PERSON IF YOU BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM.

Mwa ha.

If God made the world in seven days, and made the stars and the sun on day four, and we get the count of our days by the movement of the sun, then how did he measure three days before creating that which we use to measure time?

It's Devil's Advocate Time!

... Erm..

... Oh, I know.

What's wrong with the "Otherworldly Programmer" idea of universal origin? Isn't there reasonable argument to be made that since we, through our limited knowledge and understanding, are capable of modelling realities through our technology and networking, that it would not be beyond possibility that this reality is itself some such technological model on another scale?

Possible, but also impossible to determine. By that same token the universe could've been created yesterday with everyone's memories fabricated. We have no way of knowing and really no reason to believe so.


And wouldn't the existence of intangible physical laws distinct from the actual material components of the universe itself serve as evidence of such a phenomenon?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Those physical laws are most often predictions made based on observational or theoretical models derived from the "material components of the universe."

Thanks for playing Devil's Advocate. :)

QUICK!! Somebody throw some Creationists back in here so we can start the fun again!

I threw myself in here a week or so ago, here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12595987&#post12595987) but it took so long for my post to be approved by the moderators that nobody saw it--either that, or nobody thought it worth responding to--that I saw, anyway, although I've got better things to do than read this thread all day. Either way, here's another chance.

Let's try some bait:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A MORAL PERSON IF YOU BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM.

Mwa ha.

Lets be more blunt:
Being a creationist is like being a child rapist. You might be someone who always has a friendly word for those who need it, helps old ladies across the street and so on - but despite all that many people will still think you should be put away.

Lets be more blunt:
Being a creationist is like being a child rapist. You might be someone who always has a friendly word for those who need it, helps old ladies across the street and so on - but despite all that many people will still think you should be put away.


Wow, this is really starting to get out of hand.

I call Godwins law! Nazi's are only posts away!

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

Wow, this is really starting to get out of hand.

Why ? I have seen the reverse argument - nonbelievers being all that - countless times. Why is it suddenly "getting out of hand" if it is reversed ?

I call Godwins law! Nazi's are only posts away!
Everybody here knows what Godwins law is. Nazis are not yet mentioned ;)

If God made the world in seven days, and made the stars and the sun on day four, and we get the count of our days by the movement of the sun, then how did he measure three days before creating that which we use to measure time?

That is even debted among Christians. Some believe it to be a 24 hour day (and that includes the first day) and others believe it to be either thousands or millions of years.

It all goes back to what one person believes.

Why ? I have seen the reverse argument - nonbelievers being all that - countless times. Why is it suddenly "getting out of hand" if it is reversed ?


Everybody here knows what Godwins law is. Nazis are not yet mentioned ;)

Well, I read it all, looked at the first post, looked at the last post, people are starting to like...Become..More...Evil...ish...towards each-other.

Not particularly. I mean, that doesn't support your proposal any more (or less) strongly than a zillion other possibilities.
Nuu! Don't take my dream of being the One away from me! ;_;

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Those physical laws are most often predictions made based on observational or theoretical models derived from the "material components of the universe."
Well, Physical Laws in the sense of Scientific understanding are derived as a result of observation and our ways of predicting the result of the chain of causality originate in what we see, but there must at some level within the universe be some explanation as to how causality functions. We can't dismiss gravity, for instance, as nothing more than a model when it is the case within our frame of perception that when we throw things up, they fall down again.

Somehow our reality must contain the rules that cause the phenomenon of Gravity, right? This may be entirely local to the physical entities (for instance, an individual item of matter/antimatter might have a function that takes information from its surroundings and decides how to react appropriately), it might be something that is held as a constant factor across the multi-dimensional frame of reference, but either way there must be an explanation as to why, for example, every action results in an equal and opposite reaction.

(Enter the Devil's advocate here) Now the question of where these rules come from isn't an easy one, but if we go on the idea of the rules themselves experiencing a sort of big-bang, we must somewhere reach a framework within which these rules exist. Can't we safely say that reality must itself have a series of imposed, hard-coded basic laws to provide this structure, since without it being provided, reality could never experience any sort of causality to cause it to come into being?

That is even debted among Christians. Some believe it to be a 24 hour day (and that includes the first day) and others believe it to be either thousands or millions of years.

It all goes back to what one person believes.

Heh yeah sure I have heard all of that '1 day = a sqiullion years to God' before. But as we get our mechanics of time from the solar bodies, I just wonder how God timed anything before creating these boides?

Heh yeah sure I have heard all of that '1 day = a sqiullion years to God' before. But as we get our mechanics of time from the solar bodies, I just wonder how God timed anything before creating these bodies?

A thousand years on earth is like a day unto the Lord. Even I cannot answer that question and I do not believe any theologian can.

If God made the world in seven days, and made the stars and the sun on day four, and we get the count of our days by the movement of the sun, then how did he measure three days before creating that which we use to measure time?Before that he was the light himself.

It figures this thread would be the longest of thethreads I have started.
And I never got a reasonable answer from a YEC. IN 57 pages.

Why ? I have seen the reverse argument - nonbelievers being all that - countless times. Why is it suddenly "getting out of hand" if it is reversed ?

Are you saying it wasn't out of hand before?

Nazis are not yet mentioned ;)Only if you delete this post of yours...

I am not a creationist. Sadly, I am married to one. A literal, Adam-and-Eve, won't-listen-to-other-theories-and-expects-everyone-else-to-agree-with-her fundamentalist Catholic. Needless to say, I found this out after we were married.

I try to reconcile the Bible with science just to shut her up, but the bottom line is this - if God read the Bible and saw the stuff that was created in six days, He would laugh. Any deity worth His or Her salt would be able to create all that stuff in ten minutes after some liberal consumption of whiskey, Red Bull and Pixy Stix. In fact, that's probably how creatures such as the platypus, the hammerhead shark, and Kim Jong Il were created. Needless to say, after that last creation, God's cutting back on the Pixy Stix.

life is a very funny thing. many people will change their mind on what really started life through out their own life. there will never be a time where everyone is all on the same page about what must of been the reason for us being here now. both sides have their annoyance. the "atheist" teenager that "knows" he is right and everyone else is just and idiot. and the Christian mother that overly protects her kids from every little thing and controls their lives by using the fear she put into them of GOD.

and it will be this way until the end of the world (whatever may be the cause of the end of it) and people will continue to argue about it.

life is a very funny thing. many people will change their mind on what really started life through out their own life. there will never be a time where everyone is all on the same page about what must of been the reason for us being here now. both sides have their annoyance. the "atheist" teenager that "knows" he is right and everyone else is just and idiot. and the Christian mother that overly protects her kids from every little thing and controls their lives by using the fear she put into them of GOD.

and it will be this way until the end of the world (whatever may be the cause of the end of it) and people will continue to argue about it.


Well a website that balances things Christians and atheists can agree on is summarised nicely. Ive forgotten how much this site, though, hates links. I think. Oh well.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

Well a website that balances things Christians and atheists can agree on is summarised nicely. Ive forgotten how much this site, though, hates links. I think. Oh well.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

Nice Link.

My new favorite page.

Nice Link.
My new favorite page.However the if-Jesus-returns-kill-him-again-dude didn't quite get it, did he?

Seriously that is the most intelligently written piece on the futility of "The Arguement" I have read. I know plenty of non-believers ..who are my friends.
Muslims who are my friends.
One of my best friends is a Buddhist(The Son of A Preacher...so he knows his Bible).

We all get along fine. We even occassional banter "The Arguement" but agreeing to the ten things this guy suggests is something everyone should do.

Most wont, but its a nice thought.

Seriously that is the most intelligently written piece on the futility of "The Arguement" I have read. I know plenty of non-believers ..who are my friends.
Muslims who are my friends.
One of my best friends is a Buddhist(The Son of A Preacher...so he knows his Bible).

We all get along fine. We even occassional banter "The Arguement" but agreeing to the ten things this guy suggests is something everyone should do.

Most wont, but its a nice thought.

Aye. Very well written.