moogsy Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Glad you found it entertaining, I hope to keep it going. I now find myself in fits of hysterical laughter by picturing your self rolling on the floor in tears of humourious joy. Good stuff man, can't wait for your next instalment. Just to confirm, you believe that everything in the Old Testament is to be taken literally and actually happened? You believe for example a man was swallowed by a whale or a fish and spent 3 days living inside him? Still waiting for Gilamas to enlighten us as to how there is more evidence for Jesus being the son of God than the Romans invading Britain and France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Out of interest, what churches do the christian kickbackers among us attend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Good stuff man, can't wait for your next instalment. Just to confirm, you believe that everything in the Old Testament is to be taken literally and actually happened? You believe for example a man was swallowed by a whale or a fish and spent 3 days living inside him? Still waiting for Gilamas to enlighten us as to how there is more evidence for Jesus being the son of God than the Romans invading Britain and France. It depends very much on the context of the passage. Jesus spoke of Jonah's ordeal as a real historical event. So yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Alfajambo must be trolling, absolutely must be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 It depends very much on the context of the passage. Jesus spoke of Jonah's ordeal as a real historical event. So yes. No way. Just... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moogsy Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 It depends very much on the context of the passage. Jesus spoke of Jonah's ordeal as a real historical event. So yes. Fair enough. You've got to hand it to this Jesus character, even thousands of years after his death he seemingly has no trouble in convincing people to believe in the most preposterous things. That in itself is a bit of a miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Fair enough. You've got to hand it to this Jesus character, even thousands of years after his death he seemingly has no trouble in convincing people to believe in the most preposterous things. That in itself is a bit of a miracle. Jesus was the YouTube of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tian447 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_datingDinosaurs were around 4500 years ago **** off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Dinosaurs were around 4500 years ago **** off. Radiometric dating! Many assumptions are made in these dating methods and as a result findings are notoriously unreliable. As I am sure you are aware dino bones are never or very rarely tested in that way. The age of fossils are directly related to the rock layer they are found in. And believe it or not rock layers are age specified by the type of fossil found. You couldn't really make it up. There are many 'scientific' reasons and evidence to suggest that the earth is young, by that I mean less than 10 000 years. It's a very interesting subject, do some reading and research and discover the truth for your self. Stop taking what you read in the daily express as truth. Give your self a couple of years research and thinking time, then get back with your findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Radiometric dating! Many assumptions are made in these dating methods and as a result findings are notoriously unreliable. As I am sure you are aware dino bones are never or very rarely tested in that way. The age of fossils are directly related to the rock layer they are found in. And believe it or not rock layers are age specified by the type of fossil found. You couldn't really make it up. There are many 'scientific' reasons and evidence to suggest that the earth is young, by that I mean less than 10 000 years. It's a very interesting subject, do some reading and research and discover the truth for your self. Stop taking what you read in the daily express as truth. Give your self a couple of years research and thinking time, then get back with your findings. Thought trolling was against the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Radiometric dating! Many assumptions are made in these dating methods and as a result findings are notoriously unreliable. As I am sure you are aware dino bones are never or very rarely tested in that way. The age of fossils are directly related to the rock layer they are found in. And believe it or not rock layers are age specified by the type of fossil found. You couldn't really make it up. There are many 'scientific' reasons and evidence to suggest that the earth is young, by that I mean less than 10 000 years. It's a very interesting subject, do some reading and research and discover the truth for your self. Stop taking what you read in the daily express as truth. Give your self a couple of years research and thinking time, then get back with your findings. Tbf if I had been brainwashed since birth I'd probably believe this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Radiometric dating! Many assumptions are made in these dating methods and as a result findings are notoriously unreliable. As I am sure you are aware dino bones are never or very rarely tested in that way. The age of fossils are directly related to the rock layer they are found in. And believe it or not rock layers are age specified by the type of fossil found. You couldn't really make it up. There are many 'scientific' reasons and evidence to suggest that the earth is young, by that I mean less than 10 000 years. It's a very interesting subject, do some reading and research and discover the truth for your self. Stop taking what you read in the daily express as truth. Give your self a couple of years research and thinking time, then get back with your findings. Yes, by all means do some reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Yes, by all means do some reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton Hutton's principle for analysing the rocks is not refutation of biblical teaching of creation and the flood, but rather a complete refusal to even contemplate then as possible causes for the geology of the land. Hutton said before examing the evidence that "no powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe". Hutton's views went on to be developed by the lawyer Charles Lyell. It may be difficult for some to grasp, but we must face the fact that the Bible on one hand and the evolutionary paradigm of biology and geology on the other are everlasting incompatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Hutton's principle for analysing the rocks is not refutation of biblical teaching of creation and the flood, but rather a complete refusal to even contemplate then as possible causes for the geology of the land. Hutton said before examing the evidence that "no powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe". Hutton's views went on to be developed by the lawyer Charles Lyell. It may be difficult for some to grasp, but we must face the fact that the Bible on one hand and the evolutionary paradigm of biology and geology on the other are everlasting incompatible. Yes, and that concept of "natural" that Hutton mentioned is a sticky one. Does the fact that something is "natural" mean that God is not in it? Again, here we have the devout believer defining God in a very small and limited way. I can't go there with you, and Thomas Aquinas certainly wouldn't either. For that matter, that would probably be news to Kepler's theological outlooks on his laws of motion, on Church of Scotland minister John Walker and his natural history, and to Gregor Mendel, Catholic priest and cofounder of modern biology. Further, what Hutton was doing in looking only at "natural" causes was, in short, modern science. Yes, science in the broad sense means any attempt to seek knowledge and truth, but in any modern sense, it means trying to discern natural processes. Earlier in this thread you've said there are "scientific" reasons to think the earth is young. If you're throwing out Hutton for looking at "natural" causes, you've thrown out science because it told you something you didn't like -- that humans are a far, far smaller part of the world than we'd previously liked to imagine. You (and an unfortunate number of others) want people to either throw out modern biology and modern geology or to throw out scripture, despite there being over a millennium of theological work that patently does not insist this. And people are wonder why the church is shrinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Did God put man in charge of the dinosaurs too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Thought trolling was against the rules? What if it's not trolling ? In fact....better not go there ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paulo Sergio Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 This thread or Christianity in general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Yes, and that concept of "natural" that Hutton mentioned is a sticky one. Does the fact that something is "natural" mean that God is not in it? Again, here we have the devout believer defining God in a very small and limited way. I can't go there with you, and Thomas Aquinas certainly wouldn't either. For that matter, that would probably be news to Kepler's theological outlooks on his laws of motion, on Church of Scotland minister John Walker and his natural history, and to Gregor Mendel, Catholic priest and cofounder of modern biology. Further, what Hutton was doing in looking only at "natural" causes was, in short, modern science. Yes, science in the broad sense means any attempt to seek knowledge and truth, but in any modern sense, it means trying to discern natural processes. Earlier in this thread you've said there are "scientific" reasons to think the earth is young. If you're throwing out Hutton for looking at "natural" causes, you've thrown out science because it told you something you didn't like -- that humans are a far, far smaller part of the world than we'd previously liked to imagine. You (and an unfortunate number of others) want people to either throw out modern biology and modern geology or to throw out scripture, despite there being over a millennium of theological work that patently does not insist this. And people are wonder why the church is shrinking. Yes, and that concept of "natural" that Hutton mentioned is a sticky one. Does the fact that something is "natural" mean that God is not in it? Again, here we have the devout believer defining God in a very small and limited way. I can't go there with you, and Thomas Aquinas certainly wouldn't either. For that matter, that would probably be news to Kepler's theological outlooks on his laws of motion, on Church of Scotland minister John Walker and his natural history, and to Gregor Mendel, Catholic priest and cofounder of modern biology. Further, what Hutton was doing in looking only at "natural" causes was, in short, modern science. Yes, science in the broad sense means any attempt to seek knowledge and truth, but in any modern sense, it means trying to discern natural processes. Earlier in this thread you've said there are "scientific" reasons to think the earth is young. If you're throwing out Hutton for looking at "natural" causes, you've thrown out science because it told you something you didn't like -- that humans are a far, far smaller part of the world than we'd previously liked to imagine. You (and an unfortunate number of others) want people to either throw out modern biology and modern geology or to throw out scripture, despite there being over a millennium of theological work that patently does not insist this. And people are wonder why the church is shrinking. From someone who seems to deny God's power and authority and bends scripture to fit their own needs and identity, it is perhaps ironic that you accuse me of limiting God's Majesty. At every turn you seem to deny Scripture in favour of the shifting sands of science. It's about time that science was free from the rationalistic shackles which have bound it for the past two centuries, and to put in place a new paradigm which will be faithfull to Scripture and the actual empirical scientific evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgoJambo Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 From someone who seems to deny God's power and authority and bends scripture to fit their own needs and identity, it is perhaps ironic that you accuse me of limiting God's Majesty. At every turn you seem to deny Scripture in favour of the shifting sands of science. It's about time that science was free from the rationalistic shackles which have bound it for the past two centuries, and to put in place a new paradigm which will be faithfull to Scripture and the actual empirical scientific evidence. I do not deny God's power and authority. I deny the inerrancy and literal interpretation of scripture. There is a very large difference -- I don't expect you to agree but I expect you to quit ignoring the point. Scripture is written in human language, so will naturally suffer from the limits of human thought. Scripture is not infallible. Science is not infallible. I want both Christian and Enlightenment thought to grow up enough to acknowledge that we don't get to know everything -- in fact we only get to know the most infinitesimal amount. Both atheists and fundamentalists have forgotten the ancient Christian (and other religions') concept of mystery -- of acknowledging the unknowableness of some things. I set myself both against the notion that we must accept a 6,000 year old earth because the loosely accepted oral tradition around at the time of Jesus says so AND against the notion that modern science is so comprehensive that it answers any question worth answering and those who don't find it fulfilling or sufficient are the intellectually limited ones. There are few things I am certain of but the limitedness of human cognition is one of them. The ultimate truth of God and the full natural laws of the universe are far beyond my greatest hopes of understanding, so I don't claim certainty about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Radiometric dating! Many assumptions are made in these dating methods and as a result findings are notoriously unreliable. As I am sure you are aware dino bones are never or very rarely tested in that way. The age of fossils are directly related to the rock layer they are found in. And believe it or not rock layers are age specified by the type of fossil found. You couldn't really make it up. There are many 'scientific' reasons and evidence to suggest that the earth is young, by that I mean less than 10 000 years. It's a very interesting subject, do some reading and research and discover the truth for your self. Stop taking what you read in the daily express as truth. Give your self a couple of years research and thinking time, then get back with your findings. Ah, the Old carbon dating is not accurate argument. 'Absolute dating' is very reliable over a 40k year period. The rate at which carbon-12 and carbon-14 deteriorate is known over this timescale, and it gives a very accurate result. Now, obviously over a million years or say four million years, this radioactive carbon is very unlikely to still exist, however thankfully, creationists claim that the earth is only 4-5k years old, an age which is very accurately able to be determined through this method. Oh, and my sources are not the Daily Express, my sources are my own reference books, studies and interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 You (and an unfortunate number of others) want people to either throw out modern biology and modern geology or to throw out scripture, despite there being over a millennium of theological work that patently does not insist this. And people are wonder why the church is shrinking.To blame me and an 'unfortunate number of others' for the woes of the church is a bit harsh. Is it not more likely that it is the cold deadness of theological liberalism? If the Bibles history is inaccurate and it's words challenged and disputed how can one trust it's authority as the Word of God? Maybe you are enjoying the Tour de France at the moment? - A church wherever it may be that discounts the authority of Scripture is like a cyclist without a chain, they can peddle as fast as possible, but they are going nowhere. Thankfully God has given us His inspired and inerrant Word. Therefore we can speak with authority and boldness the Word which has the power to change the heart and mind of those who hear and trust its message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Is there seriously a discussion around the Earth being <10,000 years old? By adults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Is there seriously a discussion around the Earth being <10,000 years old? By adults? I agree that it is ridiculous and also a little surreal. How else can it be done though, without just laughing? It's difficult to not be insulting when arguing this topic with people who ignore or refute science.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I like the bit where science is criticised for being rational! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generic Username Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 So, dinosaurs were cutting about 10,000 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 So, dinosaurs were cutting about 10,000 years ago? Nah man, 4,500 years ago. They were on the ark and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 So, dinosaurs were cutting about 10,000 years ago? Scroll back a wee bit and you'll see they were actually on the magic boat annaw. Presumably far enough away from the freshwater aquarium to avoid a stray tail breaking the glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 How did Noah catch 2 Titanosaurus and lead them onto the boat? What a ****ing nightmare that must have been for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 How did Noah catch 2 Titanosaurus and lead them onto the boat? What a ******* nightmare that must have been for him. I imagine it was similar to the riddle about the fox, the rabbit and the lettuce. Takes the Titanosaur over first then goes back for the Tyrannosaurus etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Where do you stand on Noah and The Ark Nowhere near the litter tray hopefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Nowhere near the litter tray hopefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generic Username Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 And verily, he said unto them "behold, I Jesus, the son of God, have found a mosquito trapped in ember and thanks to sophisticated technology have brought a dinosaur to life" And ye, a peasant did touch the beast and his arm was devoured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardiac Rucksack Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Gives a lot more credence to raptor Jesus that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougieHMFC Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 How did Dinosaurs die out after they all got off the ark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 How did Dinosaurs die out after they all got off the ark? Died of boredom at Scripture Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 So a virgin had a baby, a young man turned water into wine/cured folk of blindness/leprosy/fed 5000 or whatever it was with just a few loaves of bread and a fish/walked on water, another guy parted the Red Sea, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, a rod turned into a serpent, a donkey spoke, and there was of course a resurrection....but some people believe these are real, factual, historical events? I didn't know that. I genuinely always assumed that they were symbolic interpretations of events and not actually literal. Or that there was some involvement of illusion, 'magic' or just sheer trickery. David Copperfield and his ilk would have gone down a storm back then. Some of the 'miracles' seemed easy to explain away...natural phenomena which, at the time, might have been well beyond their scientific understanding. I guess I understood why the existence of a God might have seemed all too easy to believe back then, as a means of explaining the seemingly inexplicable, but now? In this day and age? Does faith involve clearing your mind of all rational, learned, logical or scientific understanding in some cases? My post is a bit of a stream of consciousness.....but this stuff completely baffles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Gordons Gloves Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I was flying from Tulsa to Chicago last week. We boarded the plane (one of the wee commuter jets) and waited and waited. During this waiting time, the 2 guys behind me, 1 in his 50s and 1 in his 30's embarked on a conversation about their Christian beliefs. Now, i was in the middle of the bible belt so you expect this, however, i found myself getting more and more irritated by the arrogance of their conversation. The jist of which was essentially that Jesus and God told you how to live your life and that's what you should do and those that don't have god in their life will never be happy and how they feel sorry for them. Actual quote was "these people that don't have faith are always looking for fulfilment". I really did want to turn round and tell them that I was very happy with my life and i didn't need a sky fairy or a wizard to tell me what to do, but i didn't want removed from the flight so as soon as i was able i put my earphones on and worked. 90 mins later when we landed - they were still talking about the scriptures and the like and again - their whole conversation revolved around how wonderful they were and how terrible it must be for those that don't believe. I'm all for living and letting live, but ffs, these pair were off the charts in their slavish devotion. I wish i could have talked to them about dinosaurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I was flying from Tulsa to Chicago last week. We boarded the plane (one of the wee commuter jets) and waited and waited. During this waiting time, the 2 guys behind me, 1 in his 50s and 1 in his 30's embarked on a conversation about their Christian beliefs. Now, i was in the middle of the bible belt so you expect this, however, i found myself getting more and more irritated by the arrogance of their conversation. The jist of which was essentially that Jesus and God told you how to live your life and that's what you should do and those that don't have god in their life will never be happy and how they feel sorry for them. Actual quote was "these people that don't have faith are always looking for fulfilment". I really did want to turn round and tell them that I was very happy with my life and i didn't need a sky fairy or a wizard to tell me what to do, but i didn't want removed from the flight so as soon as i was able i put my earphones on and worked. 90 mins later when we landed - they were still talking about the scriptures and the like and again - their whole conversation revolved around how wonderful they were and how terrible it must be for those that don't believe. I'm all for living and letting live, but ffs, these pair were off the charts in their slavish devotion. I wish i could have talked to them about dinosaurs. Ive always viewed the USA as a very religious country. The federal politicians are all devout Christians, so the country is almost a theocracy. However, that seems to be changing. Recent statistics show an interesting trend: http://qz.com/403261/in-america-christianity-is-declining-as-non-religion-takes-hold/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 http://creationmuseum.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 The only bit of the bible that had my attention was the tree depicted in the garden of eden,. From a purely occult symbology aspect that tree could be seen in relation to the tree of life in the Kabbalistic occult teachings. The serpent too could be seen as the manifestation of the opposite of the tree of life, namely the subdivisions of hell, and its intelligent demonic legions or hordes. I am still of the opinion from an occult perspective, that the bible and christianity are a rehash or incorporated mixture of ancient religions that originated from ancient mystics or mysticism from Summerrain , Babylonian and Egyptian teachings. The ancient mystical kabbalistic tree of life below makes more of a understandable and somewhat credible alternative to the christian tree of life and the symbolic eating of the forbidden apple of knowledge. These mystical occult mystics often pre dated Christianity and that can be seen as a serious red flag if you examine it through the occult or Kabbalistic kabbalah. Now lets look at the opposite of the above tree of life. Like in Christianity and mos other official religions they all recognize "evil" or evil that is organised, intelligent and a real pain in the arse to humanity never ending struggle of attaining heaven on earth, While the christian book of revelations seems to speaks in riddles to the uninitiated, that is when viewed or understood in the context of the occult "Qliphoth" which is the realm of the kabbalist subdivisions of the Christian hell there seems to be more in the way of information on this hell. Qliphoth or its realms are the opposite to the realms of the "SEPHIROT" in the tree of life and like those ancient civilisations like Sumer, Babylon and Egypt there seems to be so much comparisons from them to the "holy trinity" concept of the man, mother and child scenario or divine beings. Take the unholy or intelligent evil opposite to the "Sephirot" of the kabbalist tree of life below, is there a comparison to the Hindu, Sikh, Babylonian , Sumerian , Egyptian and even Grecian versions of their subdivisions of a hell. QUOTE; "In subsequent Hermetic teachings, the Qliphoth have tended, much like the sephirot, to be interpreted as mystical worlds or entities, and merged with ideas derived from demonology. In addition to this, there are seven "infernal habitations" (Tehom/Sheol, Abaddon, Be'er Shachat (?????? ??????, "pit of corruption"), Tit ha-Yaven (???? ???????, "clinging mud"), Sha'arei Mavet (????????? ?????, "gates of death"), Tzalmavet (????????, "shadow of death"), and Gehenna), twelve Qliphotic orders of demons, three powers before Satan and twenty-two demons which correspond to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Crowley, Regardie, and Heidrick[edit] According to Aleister Crowley, the three evil forms (before Samael), are said to be Qemetial, Belial, and Othiel.[6] According to Israel Regardie, the "qlipothic tree" consists of 10 spheres in opposition to the sephirot on the Tree of Life. These are also referred to as the ?evil twins?. They are also the ?Evil Demons of Matter and the Shells of the Dead?.[7] Bill Heidrick gives his own interpretation on the adverse tree, saying that the spellings are ?mostly reconstructions with alternatives. Nonetheless, it is believed that the majority of the above are at least suitable if not perfect?. He also goes on to say that ?These names are sometimes called the 'adverse Sephiroth' instead of the Demonic Orders. A. E. Waitemakes this later point in his Holy Kabbalah, page 256.?[8] Tree of death (Kabbalah) The bible is full of symbolic metaphors of other ancient religious or mystical attributes that can be attributed to the occult that seem to derive from ancient Sumer, Babylon and Egyptian deities, gods and goddesses and demonic realms of intelligent evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generic Username Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 http://creationmuseum.org/ That's absolutely incredible reading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 http://creationmuseum.org/ :gok: :gok: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 http://creationmuseum.org/ Reminds me of the scene in the film Paul when the woman first encounters [Paul in the campervan. Ruth Buggs: The world is 4000 years old and can only be the product of intelligent design. Paul: [offscreen in the bathroom] That's horseshit! Paul: Oh, we're all made in God's image? [Throws open the bathroom door] Paul: Then how do you explain me? [Ruth faints] Paul: And that's Jenga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 To blame me and an 'unfortunate number of others' for the woes of the church is a bit harsh. Is it not more likely that it is the cold deadness of theological liberalism? If the Bibles history is inaccurate and it's words challenged and disputed how can one trust it's authority as the Word of God? Maybe you are enjoying the Tour de France at the moment? - A church wherever it may be that discounts the authority of Scripture is like a cyclist without a chain, they can peddle as fast as possible, but they are going nowhere. Thankfully God has given us His inspired and inerrant Word. Therefore we can speak with authority and boldness the Word which has the power to change the heart and mind of those who hear and trust its message. You know, we're not getting anywhere here. You're basically refusing to believe that my religious practice can be at all authentic, that there's a form of Christian belief that doesn't rely on the inerrant doctrine that was invented in the last 500 years, and that takes scripture seriously without demanding that it be perfect and literal in all ways. I'm going to tell you again that it not only exists but is the dominant form of Christian worship for 2000 years and continues to be the form of the majority of Christian practice. I suppose you saying "that doesn't exist" when it patently does shouldn't be surprising to me if you don't believe in geology, but I guess it still is. Anyway, you can go back to counting me among the heretics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Am I right in saying that we've just had 2 or 3 pages of a sectarian argument between Ugly American and alfajambo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 So a virgin had a baby, a young man turned water into wine/cured folk of blindness/leprosy/fed 5000 or whatever it was with just a few loaves of bread and a fish/walked on water, another guy parted the Red Sea, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, a rod turned into a serpent, a donkey spoke, and there was of course a resurrection....but some people believe these are real, factual, historical events? I didn't know that. I genuinely always assumed that they were symbolic interpretations of events and not actually literal. Or that there was some involvement of illusion, 'magic' or just sheer trickery. David Copperfield and his ilk would have gone down a storm back then. Some of the 'miracles' seemed easy to explain away...natural phenomena which, at the time, might have been well beyond their scientific understanding. I guess I understood why the existence of a God might have seemed all too easy to believe back then, as a means of explaining the seemingly inexplicable, but now? In this day and age? Does faith involve clearing your mind of all rational, learned, logical or scientific understanding in some cases? My post is a bit of a stream of consciousness.....but this stuff completely baffles me. Without disagreeing with the gist of what you're saying, I have to point out that the fundamentalist movements that grew out of the 18th and 19th century were highly, highly rational movements and in many cases learned ones, they were just limited in their empiricism. The notion was that if scripture was the only source of truth about God (the older Protestant doctrine of solo scriptura), then we could rationally deduce the truth of God and of the world by rationally, logically, and carefully analyzing it.*** Those figures of the world being 6,000 years old don't appear directly in the Bible -- they were calculated by Biblical scholars carefully analyzing the text of the Bible and doing calculations on the ages therein and comparing against known dates in history. Note that I don't think this makes them correct, but it would be unfair to say that they're unlearned or irrational calculations. I'd even go so far as to say the hyper-rationality of fundamentalism is one of its biggest problems. The Enlightenment, both in its religious and secular aspects, was all about seeking and striving after the Truth, and that impulse gave birth to modern science and modern education in addition to fundamentalist Protestantism. The downside is that we've come to see any form of irrational thought as somehow utterly anathema, when in fact everyone is irrational at some level -- everything from commonly held but incorrect understandings of what the theories of evolution tells us to wearing a particular jersey to give luck to the Hearts. Part of my reason for going back to the church was that I realized I was going to have irrational thoughts regardless of what I did, so I might as well have them in a community structure. I've mentioned this elsewhere in my back and forth with alfajambo, but there's a substantial wing of Christianity that treats scripture as "sacred and authentic testimony to the light of God" or other similar phrasing. When it comes to the Gospel stories, those were recorded in writing first within several decades after the life of Jesus, and even if I sometimes struggle to believe that Lazarus was actually cold and dead and rigid and was raised by Jesus, there was SOMETHING that made him stand out from the relatively commonplace Jewish prophets, preachers, and minor rebels of the time, and the Gospels are in many ways the best records we have of why that was. *** (Before anyone scoffs too much, it was this obsession with scripture that led the Reformed movement to support universal literacy, led to the emergence of a public education movement in Scotland long before most of the rest of Europe, and helped to undergird the Scottish Enlightenment, not to mention the founding of major universities in the UK and beyond.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Am I right in saying that we've just had 2 or 3 pages of a sectarian argument between Ugly American and alfajambo? As a point of order, is there something specific about my disagreement with alfajambo from Bilel Mohsni's disagreement with him that makes it sectarian? We both disagree with him, and for many of the same reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.