Religion...Bitch slapped...

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:57
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 9 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:20 PM

She may be off developing foods of mass destruction in some mobile lab ... Yes, I cooked up some mashed potatoes to put the cheese whiz on ... scoops up blueberries - here - for the whipped cream -

MMMMMMMmmmmmmm ... BLuuuuuuuuuuue berries ...

and, uhhh - that potato salad looks kinda good - I really like those scallions - care to throw - I mean TOSS some over my way ... shame to waste it in a food fight ... :looks wistful: ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:20 PM

mmm... want some whipped cream on those bluebs? How 'bout Cheese Whiz on the 'tato salad?

I'll get the wine and the beer!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:12 AM

Shouldn't you idiots be doing this in a thread that has GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN or fucking Penguin in it?
*hides head*

Seriously........

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:23 AM

well it appears that this thread has finally died down.. i dont have much more to say, i think my position was clarified pretty well by Finn and Casual(thanks guys), so there is not much more to really add.

i would like to comment on the origin of a centralized government, or monarchy, specifically among the Israelites. initially, the 'laws' established by God were sufficient to govern the Israelite communities internally, and when necessary priests were used to settle disputes. the reason i bring this up is that earlier in the thread, i made the assertion that anarchy could only succeed if people were guided by a common(consistant)acceptance of transcendent moral absolutes, understood to be held accountable by our Creator(eternally). this, according to the bible, was Gods intention, but the Israelites asked for a king 'as the other nations' had, and so it began...

i found this portion of scripture to be very insightful, and especially foretelling, of the nature of governments and the elite who run them

1 Samual 8:1-22

Quote:

8:1
When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel...

8:4
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah,

8:5
and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations."

8:6
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD.

8:7
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

8:8
According to all the deeds which they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.

8:9
Now then, hearken to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them."

8:10
So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking a king from him.

8:11
He said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots;

8:12
and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.

8:13
He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

8:14
He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.

8:15
He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.

8:16
He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work.

8:17
He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.

8:18
And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

8:19
But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No! but we will have a king over us,

8:20
that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles."

8:21
And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD.

8:22
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken to their voice, and make them a king."

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:17 AM

Finn and Causal defended you but did not in the least "clarify" your position, which has waffled from some sort of vague deist "God is behind it all" to "I believe in the Creation and The Flood" to "I don't doubt the basic sciences". All you did was hide behind them in silence, and frankly I don't think you can clarify your point because you have not resolved it in your own mind.

Until you're willing to put some thought into the discussion don't expect much from me.

Happy Bible-thumping.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 30, 2007 2:51 AM

i do know what i believe, and thats what the bible says. quote me specifically, and ill resolve any contradictions. my guess is that as someone said above, anyone with a religious belief will appear contradictive to you, because you believe it took billions of years for life to originate(on its own, nevertheless). ive stated my skepticism towards abio-genesis and spontaneous generation, and you disagree; thats fine. atleast i precede each of my comments by saying 'i believe', as in 'this is what i personally think to be true'. i believe the bible. im not pretending that everything i say is correct, but if i knew i was misinformed or inconsistent i would change. i know you believe in your head that you have it figured out better then the rest of us, but i promise youre yet to learn otherwise(as well). but until we die, and we know for sure, im going to believe that their is a purpose behind everything. you think this happened by accident, right? i dont. so lets leave it at that

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:18 AM

See, this is where yu get kinda... fuzzy. You don't believe in abiogenesis. OK I got that, but the discussion was not about abiogenesis but about evolution. You said that you don't believe in evolution. You also said that you believe the basic sciences. From my viewpoint that's a big split because the "basic" sciences (chemistry, physics, geology... none at all related to biology) all point to an ancient earth and fossils. You can't believe both. And at one point or another you're going to have to dump science completely in favor of the Bible. The only thing that keeps you from reaching that point is your refusal to look at evidence and apply "basic" scientific principles, or learn just a little bit about the science you claim to trust.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:46 AM

Just to play the Devil's, or as it were, God's Advocate Signy, I belive 100% in Science's ability and history of digging up fossils that we've dated as millions of years old. I don't buy Evolution though, although I won't discount it either. It could very well have happened and it could also very well have been the means in which we were "created". Perhaps Earth has been one great experiment that only took 6 days in God's eyes.

I also believe that if there is a God, he could have put all of that there 6,000 or so years ago and he's laughing at us now, struggling so hard to put together the pieces of the 'verses largest scale prank in history.

Truth is, nobody knows, and Science could never prove that theory as absolute truth or absolute bunk. From what I hear from the Science types, it wouldn't even try to.

Just one of the many theories I've imagined in my mind over the years. I won't ever pretend to have these answers. We'll all find out when we're dead. I hope if there is a God, he's been misunderstood and he's a whole lot more forgiving than we've been lead to believe. I know I'm no angel.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

LEADB

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Just to play the Devil's, or as it were, God's Advocate Signy, I belive 100% in Science's ability and history of digging up fossils that we've dated as millions of years old. I don't buy Evolution though, although I won't discount it either. It could very well have happened and it could also very well have been the means in which we were "created". Perhaps Earth has been one great experiment that only took 6 days in God's eyes.

I also believe that if there is a God, he could have put all of that there 6,000 or so years ago and he's laughing at us now, struggling so hard to put together the pieces of the 'verses largest scale prank in history.

Truth is, nobody knows, and Science could never prove that theory as absolute truth or absolute bunk. From what I hear from the Science types, it wouldn't even try to.

Just one of the many theories I've imagined in my mind over the years. I won't ever pretend to have these answers. We'll all find out when we're dead. I hope if there is a God, he's been misunderstood and he's a whole lot more forgiving than we've been lead to believe. I know I'm no angel.

First, the 'only took 6 days in God's eyes' is fine, but a non-literal reading of the Bible. And that's cool, many church's go along with that. Such a position would be one that certain parts of the bible, besides obvious 'stories' being told by Christ or other figures, may also be allegorical. Keep in mind, there are some who say the 6 days means 6 24 hour periods. If I remember correctly, Anti is willing to concede an age of the planet beyond 10,000 years (if you were trying to defend Anti's position and had not caught that).

When you propose a position like 'I also believe that if there is a God, he could have put all of that there 6,000 or so years ago', you start getting into theological discussions; always an interesting topic, but you have to be careful you understand the theological implications. Such a position posits a deceptive, 'tricky' God. Why would God want to cause strife by 'fooling' us with such things; and then care that he succeeded in fooling us? And then he's going to send us to Hell because we 'fell' for his trick? You may be willing to posit such a God, and include it in your theological position, but I would not be a willing practitioner of your proposed religion.

Keep in mind that one of the more contentious parts of this debate has not been about theological concerns, but instead simple definitions of science. For instance, as Sygny has pointed out, Anti has both claimed he accepts fundamental science as valid; yet denies evolution; denies the fossil record that supports it as ancient (less than 10,000 years old), maintaining it was laid down during the flood of Noah's ark, he maintains that the stratification/layering we see 'just happened', and refuses to suggest what the mechanism is that caused it to lay down in such a pattern. We never even got to what, in his opinion, would be the mechanism by which the layers solidify into sedimentary rock, because science provides no mechanism for this to happen without the correct temperatures and pressures, which simply won't happen to layered sediment just sitting there from a flood.

He does not accept the recrystallization of materials after reheating during volcanic actions, which allows us to use decay of radioactive isotopes to date things, this denies some very fundamental chemistry and physics, which if you extend back into what are some 'daily science' use, like making sugar crystals from supersaturated fluids, causes some important inconsistencies with 'basic science'. (Ok, maybe 'rock candy' isn't part of your daily diet, but I'm hoping you get the picture.)

Basically, Anti really ought to give up "I don't doubt the basic sciences" because he does; he just doesn't realize it yet.

For the record, I generally enjoy debating Causal on these issues; his positions are clear and self consistent. If he took positions like the above, and I pointed out som

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 4:17 PM

I have to say, LeadB, that yours is one of the most intelligent and well thought out posts that I've read in this forum so far. I only wish it was on a topic that I could really sink my teeth into and had a firm grasp on.

The truth is, I don't know there is a god anymore than I know there isn't a god, and I have equal distain for people who are blindly on one side or another. I wish them no offense and, I hope them none on me, but anybody here who's absolutely sure about anything that happened before their born, in my eyes, is a close-minded idiot.

And yes, I don't know Einstein's belifs on God, but if he were an Atheist, I would think him a close minded idiot too.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE