# My religions or lack thereof can beat up your religion or lack thereof thread



## vpkozel

To keep the book discussion, centered on - you know actual books and stuff - post any commentary on the religious/spiritual contents of said books here.

I'll even start.

justonemore - you mentioned science and that if someone can prove a spiritual being exists then you are more than willing to weigh those facts. Are you equally as stringent when it comes to actual science? Meaning if something cannot be conclusively explained or proven by current science, do you reject it?


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> To keep the book discussion, centered on - you know actual books and stuff - post any commentary on the religious/spiritual contents of said books here.
> 
> I'll even start.
> 
> justonemore - you mentioned science and that if someone can prove a spiritual being exists then you are more than willing to weigh those facts. Are you equally as stringent when it comes to actual science? Meaning if something cannot be conclusively explained or proven by current science, do you reject it?


An impressive opening salvo.

OK J1M - you're up!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

That's a very good question.
I personally don't believe in the so called Big Bang because so many different scientists have so many unprovable theories about it. Even to the extent that some have recently (last 10 years) gone as far as to say that A) it wasn't the first Big Bang, only one in a series of constantly repeating Big Bangs and B) they know what about a milli-millisecond after the big Bang but the time just before the Big Bang i.e. that which caused the Big Bang and that they still can't explain may have been done to some as yet unknown external force........i.e. perhaps a God.
That said, I don't believe in Creationism either.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That's a very good question.
> I personally don't believe in the so called Big Bang because so many different scientists have so many unprovable theories about it. Even to the extent that some have recently (last 10 years) gone as far as to say that A) it wasn't the first Big Bang, only one in a series of constantly repeating Big Bangs and B) they know what about a milli-millisecond after the big Bang but the time just before the Big Bang i.e. that which caused the Big Bang and that they still can't explain may have been done to some as yet unknown external force........i.e. perhaps a God.
> That said, I don't believe in Creationism either.


Whoa there Earl! Isn't 'unprovable' central to your faith?

Anyway, there is proof of the Big Bang - the cosmic microwave background (map below). When you watch a detuned TV station some of the static fizz is the echo of that first moment (or the inflationary period which came but a moment later).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Justonemore said: "There is nothing hate filled about* science" *



Earl of Ormonde said:


> I never said there was. Read my post again. I wrote about their books, "I can only assume they write much the same type of cold, terrifying, hate filled *atheism*."
> 
> *Atheism and Science are not synonymous*, which is what you just did - used them as synonyms. What they do, in their rabid scribblings about atheism and the ridiculousness of religion and the mental illnesses suffered by Theists has absolutely bugger all to do with science. It is atheist vitriol of the worst kind aimed at Theists of all kinds.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Originally Posted by *SG_67*
He, like other Atheists, like to reference Darwin but it become quickly apparent he's never even read it.

Darwin's thesis was the origin of SPECIES not the origin of life.

Darwin, along with Machiavelli, are among the most misunderstood and ill referenced philosophers in history.


Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly, because if he had read it and if he in fact actually knew anything about Darwin he would have known the one fact that many atheists either don't know in their eagerness to name drop Darwin or suppress is that Darwin was very much a believing and practising Christian.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Whoa there Earl! Isn't 'unprovable' central to your faith?
> 
> Anyway, there is proof of the Big Bang - the cosmic microwave background (map below). When you watch a detuned TV station some of the static fizz is the echo of that first moment (or the inflationary period which came but a moment later).


My stress was on the "number of Big Bang theories" as a direct response to the OP's question i.e. if science can't prove something should it be dismissed in the same way that sceince & atheists expect Theists to do?

Proof or unprovable are not part of the vocabulary of faith,trust,belief. If you're asking yourself that question then....well, you know the rest..


----------



## justonemore

Ok. so. Darwin has what to do with all of you having some "proof" of god (or lack therof?)... If a couple people put the ideology towards such, should I submit? Are all Christians against dancing? Women wearing pants? Abortions? Divorce? etc?


----------



## justonemore

Do we have any "real" modern miracles"? Other than what the catholics wishto claim for sainthood? Which of you have seen god? who has god recently spoken to (other than george bush jr.?).


----------



## MaxBuck

Let me interject at this juncture that I find interaction in this forum with both J1M and Hitch to be similar in effect. I trust they will find that observation edifying, if not horrifying.


----------



## justonemore

MaxBuck said:


> Let me interject at this juncture that I find interaction in this forum with both J1M and Hitch to be similar in effect. I trust they will find that observation edifying, if not horrifying.


Ooof. I was born and raised Christian(presbyterian). I doubt Hitch was born and raised too much otherwise other than perhaps being Jewish compared to muslim, hindu buddhist... While I can't speak for Hitch, I also studied philosophy/theology at university. After 30 years of "belief", I decided otherwise after seeing that none of such ideologies seemed realistic in modern life. I doubt Hitch has ever even considered theological différences (after all, to Hitch, it is a crime against America to know the Arabic language).


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My stress was on the "number of Big Bang theories" as a direct response to the OP's question i.e. if science can't prove something should it be dismissed in the same way that sceince & atheists expect Theists to do?
> 
> Proof or unprovable are not part of the vocabulary of faith,trust,belief. If you're asking yourself that question then....well, you know the rest..


Well of course, we refine our knowledge constantly. Our capacity for seemingly endless intellectual growth is one of the most important sparks of God within us.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Do we have any "real" modern miracles"? Other than what the catholics wishto claim for sainthood? Which of you have seen god? who has god recently spoken to (other than george bush jr.?).


Miracles are as miracles do. Are you aware of the effect of quantum tunneling? Life would not exist without this subtle miracle.


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> Ok. so. Darwin has what to do with all of you having some "proof" of god (or lack therof?)... If a couple people put the ideology towards such, should I submit? Are all Christians against dancing? Women wearing pants? Abortions? Divorce? etc?


You didn't answer my questions.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Whoa there Earl! Isn't 'unprovable' central to your faith?
> 
> Anyway, there is proof of the Big Bang - the cosmic microwave background (map below). When you watch a detuned TV station some of the static fizz is the echo of that first moment (or the inflationary period which came but a moment later).


Well, by my understanding, for the Big Bang to be accurate one of 2 current pillars of scientific theory must not true.

Either it is possible for something to go faster than the speed of light, or

Gravity is not a constant


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Miracles are as miracles do. Are you aware of the effect of quantum tunneling? Life would not exist without this subtle miracle.


We had a newbie member claim that god was "vetted". Any clue as to what god that might be? I believe israel likes to claim that the jews are "god's chosen people", christianity seems to claim the same, muslims& islamists are no different. Yet... god seems not to have favored any of these. What decides religious right? Money & military might in each & every battle? Where is god in all this? Perhaps he/she is into capitalism versus rightouseness?


----------



## SG_67

I, for one, am all for women wearing pants. The French agree with me:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...n-Paris-finally-allowed-to-wear-trousers.html


----------



## justonemore

Does god make "****", " retards" & "the socially distant"? Should society kill them off as being against god?


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> You didn't answer my questions.


Blasphemy! You'll smoke a turd in hell for that one!.....:rolleyes2:


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> We had a newbie member claim that god was "vetted". Any clue as to what god that might be? I believe israel likes to claim that the jews are "god's chosen people", christianity seems to claim the same, muslims& islamists are no different. Yet... god seems not to have favored any of these. What decides religious right? Money & military might in each & every battle? Where is god in all this? Perhaps he/she is into capitalism versus rightouseness?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


----------



## justonemore

vpkozel said:


> You didn't answer my questions.


Sorry. Did you have exact questions? I'll try my best for someone that doesn't believe in santa & the easter bunny.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


Plato's _Allegory of the Cave _is along these same lines.


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> My apologies. I assumed you were refering to my posts as being the same as pro-Israelis refering to Anti-Israeli postings as being "anti-semitic". Just as I can be critical of Israel as a "state", I can be critical of religion as an "ideology". I doubt any religion allows much freedom of thought to the "other religions" as does the scientific thought of atheism. Darwin is not a god or a replacement as such to any atheist.


Ah yes, "the scientists are open minded and only guided by facts, while you lot are allowing your lives to be ruled by a myth" superiority complex. The fact of the matter is that science is extremely closed minded in most areas and anyone with a contrary opinion is often vilified and demeaned both personally and professionally.

Oh, and you still never answered my original questions......


----------



## justonemore

vpkozel said:


> Ah yes, the scientists are open minded and only guided by facts, while you lot are allowing your lives to be ruled by a myth superiority complex. The fact of the matter is that science is extremely closed minded in most areas and anyone with a contrary opinion is often vilified and demeaned both personally and professionally.
> 
> Oh, and you still never answered my original questions......


Again. Can you put the main questions to me once again? Sorry but I am forbidden to edit my previous posts.


----------



## justonemore

justonemore said:


> We had a newbie member claim that god was "vetted". Any clue as to what god that might be? I believe israel likes to claim that the jews are "god's chosen people", christianity seems to claim the same, muslims& islamists are no different. Yet... god seems not to have favored any of these. What decides religious right? Money & military might in each & every battle? Where is god in all this? Perhaps he/she is into capitalism versus rightouseness?


Still no response as to a vetted god? Why?


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> Again. Can you put the main questions to me once again? Sorry but I am forbidden to edit my previous posts.


I didn't see your initial response to that. You know, the one where you just reconfirmed the superiority myth I spoke of?



vpkozel said:


> justonemore - you mentioned science and that if someone can prove a spiritual being exists then you are more than willing to weigh those facts. * Are you equally as stringent when it comes to actual science? Meaning if something cannot be conclusively explained or proven by current science, do you reject it?*


I bolded them to make sure you could see them.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> Well, by my understanding, for the Big Bang to be accurate one of 2 current pillars of scientific theory must not true.
> 
> Either it is possible for something to go faster than the speed of light, or
> 
> Gravity is not a constant


The expansion described by cosmological inflation does not violate special relativity as it is the expansion of the geometry of space/time and not the matter contained within it.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Plato's _Allegory of the Cave _is along these same lines.


Rather elegantly expanded by Leary & Wilson into the concept of Reality Tunnels.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Does god make "****", " retards" & "the socially distant"? Should society kill them off as being against god?


Oh dear!


----------



## justonemore

vpkozel said:


> I didn't see your initial response to that. You know, the one where you just reconfirmed the superiority myth I spoke of?
> 
> I bolded them to make sure you could see them.


thank you. I have to admit to a bit on confusion between threads. Science is science. It can be proved beyond individuals & individual societies. Science is not the south korean that claimed dna advances against all proof versus antibiotics that have been shown to work everywhere. While I doubt that the christian "snake handler" religion has merit, I have no doubt as to scientific use of snake venom as an "anti-venom". There are many such examples. I can show you science... can you show me a god? I would once again ask which god out of many is correct . Many believers seem to think their version is a good reason to kill & die for. Science isn't quite as bold. Science goes beyond Israel, the U.S. , Iran, India, Thailand. Religion is specific to these regions & peoples. If you were born in Thailand, you'd be buddhist, if you were born in india you'd be hindu, but..if you are american you are therefore most likely christian or jewish(although there are several other religions available these are the main american religions). Is it majority rules? Hindus & buddhists outnumber christians/jews afterall


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh dear!


agreed. But...many conservative americans seem to think so


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Does god make "****", " retards" & "the socially distant"? Should society kill them off as being against god?





justonemore said:


> agreed. But...many conservative americans seem to think so


That is, without a doubt, one of the most reprehensible statements I've heard. Even from you I would expect more tact. You're truly unhinged!


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> That is, without a doubt, *one of the most reprehensible statements I've heard*. Even from you I would expect more tact. You're truly unhinged!


Is it worse than accusing someone of being an anti-semite because they refer to the Israel lobby? :devil:


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Is it worse than accusing someone of being an anti-semite because they refer to the Israel lobby? :devil:


Oh you're a cheeky one!


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> That is, without a doubt, one of the most reprehensible statements I've heard. Even from you I would expect more tact. You're truly unhinged!


what a bastard version of what I stated. Good job trolling. Put it in context or move on as a troll.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> That is, without a doubt, one of the most reprehensible statements I've heard. Even from you I would expect more tact. You're truly unhinged!


More insults versus logic. Yet... you want me to use "correct language'.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> what a bastard version of what I stated. Good job trolling. Put it in context or move on as a troll.


Press!


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Oh you're a cheeky one!


Guilty as charged. :redface:


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Press!


I don't go to posted links from those that can't voice their own thoughts. Can you not actually defend your ideas?


----------



## justonemore

Sarcasim is beyond your conservative viewpoints? Too smart for you or are you too null for such?


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> That is, without a doubt, one of the most reprehensible statements I've heard. Even from you I would expect more tact. You're truly unhinged!


Any ounce of proof or just more bs as the anti-semite crap?


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Any ounce of proof or just more bs from a newbie troll?


Press!


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Press!


Still a link for you & your ideas? Why not state what you think? Trolling once again? Put it into words or leave it alone. I refuse links for thought. I guess it's more of the quick anti-semitism excuse. Make your point with logic over insults & links please.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Still a link for you & your ideas? Why not state what you think? Trolling once again? Put it into words or leave it alone. I refuse links for thought.


Press!


----------



## Shaver

The 'press' links are actually quite funny J1M - give them a quick press, you won't regret it. :thumbs-up:


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> The expansion described by cosmological inflation does not violate special relativity as it is the expansion of the geometry of space/time and not the matter contained within it.


Can you prove that?


----------



## justonemore

As crass and disgusting as such thoughts are, they are the base of the republican party. Who denounces gay marriage? Who claims that those born with disabilities(& their parents) deserve no societal benefits (other than the forced "right to life")? What party claims definition over a woman's right to their body? What party demands that society has no responsibilty over those born disadvantageous? What party states do what we say & suffer over being respectful for family rights? Disgusting? Yep. Yet it's the party that claims they don't like government interference. Odd in my thoughts. So sad that I agree with the other 33% of their viewpoints.


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> thank you. I have to admit to a bit on confusion between threads. Science is science. It can be proved beyond individuals & individual societies. Science is not the south korean that claimed dna advances against all proof versus antibiotics that have been shown to work everywhere. While I doubt that the christian "snake handler" religion has merit, I have no doubt as to scientific use of snake venom as an "anti-venom". There are many such examples. I can show you science... can you show me a god? I would once again ask which god out of many is correct . Many believers seem to think their version is a good reason to kill & die for. Science isn't quite as bold. Science goes beyond Israel, the U.S. , Iran, India, Thailand. Religion is specific to these regions & peoples. If you were born in Thailand, you'd be buddhist, if you were born in india you'd be hindu, but..if you are american you are therefore most likely christian or jewish(although there are several other religions available these are the main american religions). Is it majority rules? Hindus & buddhists outnumber christians/jews afterall


There is an awful lot contained in that post, so my apologies if I miss something or respond to something out of the context in which you meant it.

That being said, "scientific proof" contains a lot more theory and conjecture than people like to admit. Take gravity for example. It works as a constant and can be observed as such in the vast majority of cases, but to truly be a constant, it must be the same in ALL cases. This is simply not the case with gravity as it relates to all instances - the edges of the universe are actually speeding up and it doesn't hold true at sub atomic levels. Now there are lots of theories, e.g., dark matter, which may very well explain these holes, but as of yet they are unexplainable by us. Yet, I venture to say that if I ask you if gravity is solid science, you would say yes.

Might we at some time prove the existence of Dark Matter? Perhaps.

Now with history, things can become more difficult in that you cannot "prove" someone exists unless they lived in the past 100 years or so, because even photographic evidence could have been manipulated. So, let's stipulate that historical records from various sources denote the actual existence of a person, be it Napoleon, Nelson, Hannibal, Plato, or Jesus. Now, there is a pretty good historical record - totally independent of the Bible - of the life and death of a man named Jesus from Nazareth. Fortunately, the Romans, like the Nazis, kept really good records. Now after his death, the science, really social science, breaks down. Did he arise after 3 days and show himself to his disciples? They say he did and they certainly convinced an awful lot of people in an extremely short amount of time.

Might we at some time prove the existence of Jesus as the Son of God? Perhaps.


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> What party claims definition over a woman's right to their body?


At what point does the fetus gain his rights?


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> At what point does the fetus gain his rights?


Liberals say the moment she pops out of mom. Before that, she is just tissue you know.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> Liberals say the moment she pops out of mom. Before that, she is just tissue you know.


all liberals say that do they? I guess all conservatives think each sperm is a baby & therefore must be used in order to impregnate a woman. No birth control allowed whatsoever. This was a huge point as to abortion in the u.s. within the past few years. No condoms. No pills. No day after pills. Get pregnant & deliver the baby. Sex is meant only for procreation versus recreation. No funds? No insurance? Don't have sex. Sex was for the rich. Who was the crackpot politician that brought home the stillborn kid & slept with it? Didn't he have several disabled kids? Wouldn't ethics state having more to be wrong? I guess god didn't over ride genetics in such a case (nor has "he" ever). Keep going. It's obviously ok to bring another baby into a the world with nothing but suffering & pain. What a god. Suffer. Suffer some more. Welcome to heaven?


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL> Are you talking about the mindset of the Catholic Church or of conservative republicans. I am an arguably conservative Republican, have been all of my adult life, and your post above does not come anywhere near reflecting my thoughts or beliefs on the subject you raise! I am sure there are some whose thoughts might fit nicely within the mold you create, but certainly not all conservatives or all republicans. Try painting with a finer brush, please.


----------



## justonemore

vpkozel said:


> At what point does the fetus gain his rights?


Oof. I myself think natural viability to be reasonable. If the dr can take it out alive without needing half a million in specialized healthcare & the state wants to care for it as an abandoned child, then why not? It no longer concerns the woman or her body. The fetus can survive on its own. Many will state otherwise but I suppose it's the ever famous line in the sand. I also see no reason to bring any child into the world that will suffer from various disorders. Nor do I think it right to force others to do so. Aborting a spinbifida fetus at 7 months is much more humane than bringing it to term and having it suffer several months before death.


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL> Are you talking about the mindset of the Catholic Church or of conservative republicans. I am an arguably conservative Republican, have been all of my adult life, and your post above does not come anywhere near reflecting my thoughts or beliefs on the subject you raise! I am sure there are some whose thoughts might fit nicely within the mold you create, but certainly not all conservatives or all republicans. Try painting with a finer brush, please.


of course eagle. That was a sarcastic reply to petrik & his painting of "liberals" as all wanting abortions at the end of the 3rd trimester. Most do not as a matter of fact desire such
& most would be happy using birth control or "the morning after" pill. M


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> Oof. I myself think natural viability to be reasonable. If the dr can take it out alive without needing half a million in specialized healthcare & the state wants to care for it as an abandoned child, then why not? It no longer concerns the woman or her body. The fetus can survive on its own. Many will state otherwise but I suppose it's the ever famous line in the sand. I also see no reason to bring any child into the world that will suffer from various disorders. Nor do I think it right to force others to do so. Aborting a spinbifida fetus at 7 months is much more humane than bringing it to term and having it suffer several months before death.


Well, natural viability can be a tricky thing. No babies are able to feed themselves, so in that case, none of them are naturally viable. On the other hand, with incubators and the ability to develop naturally outside the womb, babies as young as 5 months can be considered viable.

Interesting about the spina bifida comment though. So, if a test could be developed that determines a kid will have juvenile cancer, schizophrena, or even be homosexual, would you want them aborted on the grounds of needless suffering as well?


----------



## Hitch

Dont complain about how ugly the troll is while you feed it.


----------



## justonemore

vpkozel said:


> Well, natural viability can be a tricky thing. No babies are able to feed themselves, so in that case, none of them are naturally viable. On the other hand, with incubators and the ability to develop naturally outside the womb, babies as young as 5 months can be considered viable.
> 
> Interesting about the spina bifida comment though. So, if a test could be developed that determines a kid will have juvenile cancer, schizophrena, or even be homosexual, would you want them aborted on the grounds of needless suffering as well?


Natural viabilty has nothing to do with feeding after birth. It's not the same debate at all. Nor are incubators, lung machines, etc. This is why I used the term Natural viability over viability with scientific intervention. Oh. As this is the god/religion thread...If such a creature did exist, and "not even a sparrow drops without his knowledge", it would seem that such outcomes are predetermined anyways.

Juvenile cancer? Probably. I find no reason to watch a little girl/boy waste away in dreadful pain just for some religious ideology. In such cases I always think of my extremely convervative (childless) uncle that is against abortion and assisted suicide yet took his cat to be put down when it became too old to enjoy life comfortably. To me, his cat had more rights than he's willing to give his fellow Americans.

Mental illness? Rough life. Hard to tell. Especially Schizophrenia. Scenarios such as long term involuntary hospitalization are not much of a life especially with the Social stigmas attached...

Homosexuality? Some would, I wouldn't.

While I, as a supporter of freedom, will allow that Sarah Palin has a choice as to birthing/raising "Trig", I would forego such. That would be my choice. The "Americans with Disabilities act" has been exploited by the republicans to include such disasters inside the womb. While he might make a good politician, I doubt that much good will come out of the situation overalll. And the worst part? We are all helping the millionaire Palins pay for their son's care with our tax money. I find it sad that I would allow choice (a.k.a. freedom) but the Palins would force me to do something against my will due to their religious choices.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> There is an awful lot contained in that post, so my apologies if I miss something or respond to something out of the context in which you meant it.
> 
> That being said, "scientific proof" contains a lot more theory and conjecture than people like to admit. Take gravity for example. It works as a constant and can be observed as such in the vast majority of cases, but to truly be a constant, it must be the same in ALL cases. This is simply not the case with gravity as it relates to all instances - the edges of the universe are actually speeding up and it doesn't hold true at sub atomic levels. Now there are lots of theories, e.g., dark matter, which may very well explain these holes, but as of yet they are unexplainable by us. Yet, I venture to say that if I ask you if gravity is solid science, you would say yes.
> 
> *Might we at some time prove the existence of Dark Matter? Perhaps.
> *
> Now with history, things can become more difficult in that you cannot "prove" someone exists unless they lived in the past 100 years or so, because even photographic evidence could have been manipulated. So, let's stipulate that historical records from various sources denote the actual existence of a person, be it Napoleon, Nelson, Hannibal, Plato, or Jesus. Now, there is a pretty good historical record - totally independent of the Bible - of the life and death of a man named Jesus from Nazareth. Fortunately, the Romans, like the Nazis, kept really good records. Now after his death, the science, really social science, breaks down. Did he arise after 3 days and show himself to his disciples? They say he did and they certainly convinced an awful lot of people in an extremely short amount of time.
> 
> Might we at some time prove the existence of Jesus as the Son of God? Perhaps.


Dark Matter? GRRRRRR. :mad2: My thoughts here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...?186930-Oh-dear-what-can-the-(Dark)-matter-be


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> Can you prove that?


Of course.

But first you had better advise me as to the level of theory you are familiar with, in order that I might tailor the answer accordingly.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> That is, without a doubt, one of the most reprehensible statements I've heard.


I agree. Horrible words to call people.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

vpkozel said:


> At what point does the fetus gain his rights?


As soon as it is created in my opinion. Abortion for me at any time period is the killing of a human.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Dark matter = scientists haven't really got a clue what's out there.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I agree. Horrible words to call people.


Oh good. I guess my point was made. Welcome to conservative America.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As soon as it is created in my opinion. Abortion for me at any time period is the killing of a human.


Early conception is a splitting and multiplication of cells. Much the same as cancer. Many women don't even realize they are pregant during the first trimester as there are very few signs to state so.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Early conception is a splitting and multiplication of cells. Much the same as cancer. Many women don't even realize they are pregant during the first trimester as there are very few signs to state so.


That has absolutely no bearing on the subject of abortion. Once the process of creating a human has begun, there is life there, anything else is physically impossible.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That has absolutely no bearing on the subject of abortion. Once the process of creating a human has begun, there is life there, anything else is physically impossible.


We'll just have to disagree as to the definition of "life". I doubt highly you'lll agree with mine and I most certainly won't agree with yours. Life (human life), to me, will never be a bunch of split cells that have no capability of thought, reaction, etc. A zygote is not a fetus, and a fetus is not a human. There is nothing at all recogizable as a human form until several weeks after conception. I would be wiling to consider ethical problems after such a point but certainly not at the moment that sperm meets egg. The "day after" pill to me will never equal abortion.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

So for you, once a plant is germinated and starts to grow it is growing without there being life in it? How very odd! 
The discussion is not about being human or not, it is about life.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So for you, once a plant is germinated and starts to grow it is growing without there being life in it? How very odd!
> The discussion is not about being human or not, it is about life.


Do you allow weeds to grow in your garden or do you yank them out from the roots as soon as they show up? There are différences within "life" itself. Do you slap at flies, mosquitoes, etc? Life is life afterall, isn't it? They are considered as part of life as well. A tumour is nothing more than living cells. As this is "kife" shall we allow it to kill the body or shall we try and stop it as soon as it becomes noticed? Is it more ethical to stop life at the start or to allow it to continue without care and thought? An unemployed couple that has no desire/concern for having children will do more harm than good. I give full consideration to others reproductive rights and their capability of deciding if bringing a child into the world is correct. I have no problem paying my taxes for those that can't afford their 10 children, nor do I have a problem with those that decide to have none through birth control or abortion. I disagree with abortion as a form of birth control but again, I have no delusions that I should force my opinions on others (nor do i wish others to force their thoughts onto me).


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> Natural viabilty has nothing to do with feeding after birth. It's not the same debate at all. Nor are incubators, lung machines, etc. This is why I used the term Natural viability over viability with scientific intervention. Oh. As this is the god/religion thread...If such a creature did exist, and "not even a sparrow drops without his knowledge", it would seem that such outcomes are predetermined anyways.
> 
> Juvenile cancer? Probably. I find no reason to watch a little girl/boy waste away in dreadful pain just for some religious ideology. In such cases I always think of my extremely convervative (childless) uncle that is against abortion and assisted suicide yet took his cat to be put down when it became too old to enjoy life comfortably. To me, his cat had more rights than he's willing to give his fellow Americans.
> 
> Mental illness? Rough life. Hard to tell. Especially Schizophrenia. Scenarios such as long term involuntary hospitalization are not much of a life especially with the Social stigmas attached...
> 
> Homosexuality? Some would, I wouldn't.
> 
> While I, as a supporter of freedom, will allow that Sarah Palin has a choice as to birthing/raising "Trig", I would forego such. That would be my choice. The "Americans with Disabilities act" has been exploited by the republicans to include such disasters inside the womb. While he might make a good politician, I doubt that much good will come out of the situation overalll. And the worst part? We are all helping the millionaire Palins pay for their son's care with our tax money. I find it sad that I would allow choice (a.k.a. freedom) but the Palins would force me to do something against my will due to their religious choices.


Wow, you certainly do have a lot of aborting going on. And I think if you look at your answers again, you will find that you are not very far off from Nazi birth policies, which is frightening in and of itself.

And you said naturally viable without spending a half a million, so it seemed to be a financial component as much as anything else. Either that or you just make flip comments that you don't really mean or haven't thought out. And let me tell you, as someone who had a child in the NICU, you get to half a mill pretty quickly at $10K - 20K per day.

The issue with the things that you are typing is that it is all only from your point of view and what you would do in each situation. So, unless you are king of the world, you have to start thinking of what is reasonable. Also, it is quite apparent that you would have a healthy dose sort of wealth and likability component to your decision making, which rarely is going to lead to good policy. And you should also remember that when she had Trig, the Palins were far from millionaires. And I am also curious why you would put his name in apostrophes. I mean, it is his name, I doubt you have ever used them with Barrack or George or Bill.

And it is obvious that you either have zero understanding of God's relationship with man, or you simply choose to ignore it because it allows you to make snide comments like "If such a creature did exist, and "not even a sparrow drops without his knowledge", it would seem that such outcomes are predetermined anyways." Our relationship with God, or more accurately, his relationship with us, does not mean that each person God loves has no pain or trouble in his life. It means that He will always be there to help us deal with problems if we only ask Him. It doesn't mean that He always gives us what we want right at every second - think of it as the wealthy parent who could easily give his child everything that child wants. All you end up with is a spoiled, obnoxious child who has no understanding of sacrifice or true accomplishment. Sometimes as a parent you have to let your kids go through pain and failure, otherwise they will never learn for themselves.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Of course.
> 
> But first you had better advise me as to the level of theory you are familiar with, in order that I might tailor the answer accordingly.


As Denzel says in movie Philadelphia - Explain it to me like I'm a six year old.


----------



## justonemore

vpkozel said:


> Wow, you certainly do have a lot of aborting going on. And I think if you look at your answers again, you will find that you are not very far off from Nazi birth policies, which is frightening in and of itself.
> 
> And you said naturally viable without spending a half a million, so it seemed to be a financial component as much as anything else. Either that or you just make flip comments that you don't really mean or haven't thought out. And let me tell you, as someone who had a child in the NICU, you get to half a mill pretty quickly at $10K - 20K per day.
> 
> The issue with the things that you are typing is that it is all only from your point of view and what you would do in each situation. So, unless you are king of the world, you have to start thinking of what is reasonable. Also, it is quite apparent that you would have a healthy dose sort of wealth and likability component to your decision making, which rarely is going to lead to good policy. And you should also remember that when she had Trig, the Palins were far from millionaires. And I am also curious why you would put his name in apostrophes. I mean, it is his name, I doubt you have ever used them with Barrack or George or Bill.
> 
> And it is obvious that you either have zero understanding of God's relationship with man, or you simply choose to ignore it because it allows you to make snide comments like "If such a creature did exist, and "not even a sparrow drops without his knowledge", it would seem that such outcomes are predetermined anyways." Our relationship with God, or more accurately, his relationship with us, does not mean that each person God loves has no pain or trouble in his life. It means that He will always be there to help us deal with problems if we only ask Him. It doesn't mean that He always gives us what we want right at every second - think of it as the wealthy parent who could easily give his child everything that child wants. All you end up with is a spoiled, obnoxious child who has no understanding of sacrifice or true accomplishment. Sometimes as a parent you have to let your kids go through pain and failure, otherwise they will never learn for themselves.


indeed. I was quite clear that I spoke for myself & not others. I also stated that I respected others ideas but had no desire to have others force me into their ideas. I wasn't aware that anyone here was king but you act it more than I.

Trig is actually a name versus a nickname? Any clue what it means? It's certainly new to me.

I have quite clearly stated my lack of faith. Any pretend relationship you may have, be it santa, the easter bunny, or god..is up to you. I believe I directly quoted the bible with the sparrow comment although I admit to not bothering looking it up versus quoting something out of my religious upbringing.

nazi huh? Sweet. Wern't you just crying about keeping the threads decent?


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> As Denzel says in movie Philadelphia - Explain it to me like I'm a six year old.


Not possible - the capacity for abstract thought is absent in most 6 year olds. Still, here is a relatively (pun intended) simple explanation that most sensible adults should be able to grasp: https://estfound.org/justifying.htm


----------



## vpkozel

justonemore said:


> indeed. I was quite clear that I spoke for myself & not others. I also stated that I respected others ideas but had no desire to have others force me into their ideas.
> 
> I have quite clearly stated my lack of faith. Any pretend relationship you may have, be it santa, the easter bunny, or god..is up to you. I believe I directly quoted the bible with the sparrow comment although I admit to not bothering looking it up versus quoting something out of my religious upbringing.
> 
> nazi huh? Sweet. Wern't you just crying about keeping the threads decent?


Why would comparing or contrasting your positions to another that is very similar not keep a thread decent? It simply is what it is. If you are all for aborting all but the healthiest fetuses and other people have that same point of view, then they are similar are they not? There is nothing inflammatory at all about that.

But nice basic debate move to try to take my comments out of context and pretend that I was calling YOU a Nazi.

However, using words like pretend relationship is quite inflammatory. I am not sure if that passage is in the Bible or not, but that really doesn't matter.


----------



## SG_67

On a strictly theological standpoint regarding the dropping of a sparrow and predetermination of outcomes, I believe to be a fallacy. 

Indeed God knows outcomes as he stands outside his creation and looks in. He is not part of it, but indeed it is part of Him. Though God knows outcomes, we don't. 

We still have free agency to choose. Our future is not predetermined except by the choices we make. Otherwise what's the use of moral agency. It would be as though one were to play a game where the results were predetermined, and both teams knew what the score would be going in. 

God knows the outcomes due to all outcomes being known to Him. All creation is laid out in front of Him at all times. What we consider past, present and future are meaningless to Him as He is aware of all things at all times. 

This is not me, but St. Augustine.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Do you allow weeds to grow in your garden or do you yank them out from the roots as soon as they show up? There are différences within "life" itself. Do you slap at flies, mosquitoes, etc? Life is life afterall, isn't it? They are considered as part of life as well. A tumour is nothing more than living cells. As this is "kife" shall we allow it to kill the body or shall we try and stop it as soon as it becomes noticed? Is it more ethical to stop life at the start or to allow it to continue without care and thought? An unemployed couple that has no desire/concern for having children will do more harm than good. I give full consideration to others reproductive rights and their capability of deciding if bringing a child into the world is correct. I have no problem paying my taxes for those that can't afford their 10 children, nor do I have a problem with those that decide to have none through birth control or abortion. I disagree with abortion as a form of birth control but again, I have no delusions that I should force my opinions on others (nor do i wish others to force their thoughts onto me).


Don't try and avoid the subject with all that nonsense about the value of different lifeforms because we are talking about human abortions not how I look after my garden or kill insects, I am not a Jainist nor am I a fruitarian! Life is life and abortion is the cessation of life regardless of when it is performed. 
Stick to the subject.


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't try and avoid the subject with all that nonsense about the value of different lifeforms because we are talking about human abortions not how I look after my garden or kill insects, I am not a Jainist nor am I a fruitarian! Life is life and abortion is the cessation of life regardless of when it is performed.
> Stick to the subject.


What you're getting is the typical atheist response. It's unavoidable when you consider your interlocutor does not believe in the divine nature of man and how man transcends the rest of creation.

To some, insects and plant life are on equal footing to humans. It's nice in theory but i doubt the same people would jump into a body of water to save a potted plant over a drowning child.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> What you're getting is the typical atheist response. It's unavoidable when you consider your interlocutor does not believe in the divine nature of man and how man transcends the rest of creation.
> 
> To some, insects and plant life are on equal footing to humans. *It's nice in theory but i doubt the same people would jump into a body of water to save a potted plant over a drowning child*.


Hmmmm, what do I prefer: potted plants or children?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Hmmmm, what do I prefer: potted plants or children?


Although, on an airplane, I'll take the potted plant.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Hmmmm, what do I prefer: potted plants or children?


Steady! We'll have none of that talk here!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> Although, on an airplane, I'll take the potted plant.


Me too!


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't try and avoid the subject with all that nonsense about the value of different lifeforms because we are talking about human abortions not how I look after my garden or kill insects, I am not a Jainist nor am I a fruitarian! Life is life and abortion is the cessation of life regardless of when it is performed.
> Stick to the subject.


 You started with the plants. I took it further. Rather hard to ask others to stop after the point is on movement.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Steady! We'll have none of that talk here!


:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## justonemore

vpkozel said:


> Why would comparing or contrasting your positions to another that is very similar not keep a thread decent? It simply is what it is. If you are all for aborting all but the healthiest fetuses and other people have that same point of view, then they are similar are they not? There is nothing inflammatory at all about that.
> 
> But nice basic debate move to try to take my comments out of context and pretend that I was calling YOU a Nazi.
> 
> However, using words like pretend relationship is quite inflammatory. I am not sure if that passage is in the Bible or not, but that really doesn't matter.


My daughter at 6 knows there are no sky creatures that give gifts (santa) or divine intervention (god) . It is all pretend & imaginary to me no matter who wants to state otherwise. You mention an inflammatory creature, I mention lack therof. Same ideology in arguementation to me. Children need to be taught religion, racism, etc. They don't pop out praying to creature xyz

Odd enough it was the Americans & not the nazis that first explored such ideas you wanted to compare. I suppose the term nazi helps your arguement sound good? here's just a bit from good ole wikipedia....

*"Eugenics*, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[SUP][1][/SUP] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[SUP][2][/SUP] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[SUP][4][/SUP] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[SUP][5]"[/SUP]

I also mentioned stopping points as to how I see abortion in general. Should you desire to keep a deformed fetus that won't have a momet of relief during its lifetime & maintain the baby with your money, well, that's up to you. I have always maintained individual freedom of choice versus collective demands upon the individual.

After such hardcore ideology, I understand why the female rights folks demand entire control & no defined time limit. But of course you most likely think that the parasite is more important than the host. Of course what others do with their bodies or as a family is really none of your concern (unless you're king).

And yes, a bunch of dividing cells that have no actual human features are of less interest to me than a pot plant that I've kept and nurished for years.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> My daughter at 6 *knows* there are no sky creatures that give gifts (santa) or divine intervention (god)


Knows? Wow! Where did she get that skill from? Or is it simply something you told her? 
You can no more theologically disprove the existence of the supernatural than you can scientifically prove the existence of dark matter.
Theology and science are parallel ideologies not complementary.

Unknown force working on so called "dark matter"


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> On a strictly theological standpoint regarding the dropping of a sparrow and predetermination of outcomes, I believe to be a fallacy.
> 
> Indeed God knows outcomes as he stands outside his creation and looks in. He is not part of it, but indeed it is part of Him. Though God knows outcomes, we don't.
> 
> We still have free agency to choose. Our future is not predetermined except by the choices we make. Otherwise what's the use of moral agency. It would be as though one were to play a game where the results were predetermined, and both teams knew what the score would be going in.
> 
> God knows the outcomes due to all outcomes being known to Him. All creation is laid out in front of Him at all times. What we consider past, present and future are meaningless to Him as He is aware of all things at all times.
> 
> This is not me, but St. Augustine.


Yes, omniscience is philosophically compatible with free will.


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> of course eagle. That was a sarcastic reply to petrik & his painting of "liberals" as all wanting abortions at the end of the 3rd trimester. Most do not as a matter of fact desire such
> & most would be happy using birth control or "the morning after" pill. M


Well of course all liberals don't believe fetuses are just tissue, but based on your many comments I thought the theme of this thread was to make cartoons of your opponents.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Knows? Wow! Where did she get that skill from? Or is it imsply something you told her?
> You can no more theologically disprove the existence of the supernatural than you can scientifically prove the existence of dark matter.
> Theology and science are parallel ideologies not complementary.
> 
> Unknown force working on so called "dark matter"


Ok. I submit. You can go on thinking santa is real and I'll go on thinking he's not.

Can anyone remind what god we're talking about here anyways? Is it Zeuss? or....

Perhaps this one???

https://imageshack.com/i/np9q8wj


----------



## Shaver

^ All gods are but emblems constructed in the struggle toward an adequate description of the unknowable Creator.


----------



## justonemore

Would it be better if I worshiped the gods as shown above versus nothing? What type of "relationship" should I go for? The American version?


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> ^ All gods are but emblems constructed in the struggle toward an adequate description of the unknowable Creator.


So none of it really matters as long as you are a belieber? "Go forth and multiply" has no meaning to you as to Christianity because it's all the same and the bible is just words over any real ideology? While I would agree that all religions are equal, I am somewhat doubful that such thought is really your point of view. Would you mind listing the different religious texts you have studied? Or are these not really needed whatsoever? Has that whole human sacrifce thing been settled directly with god or is it still allowable? Or did god just change is mind to be in lines with the current day and age? catholics have drastically changed their religion. Heck, somehow god is even considering allowing women priests nowadays.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> So none of it really matters as long as you are a belieber? "Go forth and multiply" has no meaning to you as to Christianity because it's all the same and the bible is just words over any real ideology?


The Bible is a tool for thought. No one (except a few zany half-wits) believes that God created the world in seven literal (i.e. 24 hour) days.

I am not a Christian, by the way. Christ was a prophet not a fleshly manifestation of the Creator, at least no more than you or I - the Holy Trinity is a troubling corruption of Godhead, Logos & Sophia.


----------



## SG_67

^I'm just curious; do you see anything that stands outside of creation? Santa is a created being, and I'm talking about the real St. Nicholas. Is there anything that transcends creation in your opinion? 

If not, then how was the universe created? Where did the matter come from? Even if you believe provide a quantum physics answer, even in those experiments there was some catalyst. What was the catalyst, and where did it come from? 

Scientific explanations for such things are just as theoretical and full of mystery and questions as is a belief in God. To cavalierly dismiss God and His existence, only to hold dear to a scientific explanation of the essence of matter and creation is just as silly in my opinion.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> The Bible is a tool for thought. No one (except a few zany half-wits) believes that God created the world in seven literal (i.e. 24 hour) days.


St. Augustine says as much in "On Genesis", though I don't think he used the term "zany half-wit"...


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> What you're getting is the typical atheist response. It's unavoidable when you consider your interlocutor does not believe in the divine nature of man and how man transcends the rest of creation.
> 
> To some, insects and plant life are on equal footing to humans. It's nice in theory but i doubt the same people would jump into a body of water to save a potted plant over a drowning child.


Just a thought... If you had a pet (dog, cat, ferret, goldfish, etc..), would you allow it to die over say spending the same money on a human that may need your help with the same monetary resources? You havew praised capitalism many times and therefore it would be your choice as to where your cash should be spent. Do you pay 10'000 for cat surgery or donate it to the local orphanage in order to allow the humans a better lifestyle? HAve you stopped driving a car because it's bad for the rest of humanity to breathe in the fumes or do you go about your business and not let such ideologies concern you?

Oh. and anyone with no lifesaving experience that jumps into a body of water (especially moving water such as a river) to save a person is a complete idiot. The papers often list the death notices of those desiring to be heroes.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> ^I'm just curious; do you see anything that stands outside of creation? Santa is a created being, and I'm talking about the real St. Nicholas. Is there anything that transcends creation in your opinion?
> 
> If not, then how was the universe created? Where did the matter come from? Even if you believe provide a quantum physics answer, even in those experiments there was some catalyst. What was the catalyst, and where did it come from?
> 
> Scientific explanations for such things are just as theoretical and full of mystery and questions as is a belief in God. To cavalierly dismiss God and His existence, only to hold dear to a scientific explanation of the essence of matter and creation is just as silly in my opinion.


No catalyst is required for the Universe, a fluctuating vaccuum will do the trick.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> So none of it really matters as long as you are a belieber? "Go forth and multiply" has no meaning to you as to Christianity because it's all the same and the bible is just words over any real ideology? While I would agree that all religions are equal, I am somewhat doubful that such thought is really your point of view. *Would you mind listing the different religious texts you have studied?* Or are these not really needed whatsoever? Has that whole human sacrifce thing been settled directly with god or is it still allowable? Or did god just change is mind to be in lines with the current day and age? catholics have drastically changed their religion. Heck, somehow god is even considering allowing women priests nowadays.


How long have you got to spare? Remember I was schooled first by nuns in the convent and then by Jesuits. :thumbs-up:


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> The Bible is a tool for thought. No one (except a few zany half-wits) believes that God created the world in seven literal (i.e. 24 hour) days.
> 
> I am not a Christian, by the way. Christ was a prophet not a fleshly manifestation of the Creator, at least no more than you or I - the Holy Trinity is a troubling corruption of Godhead, Logos & Sophia.


Ok. for some reason I thought you have proudly mentioned your thoughts & upbringing as being otherwise. My apologies. But to me...If you "believe", then you should most likely follow some type of rules that seem to be mentioned amongst the many different texts that are floating around in theology. Are you claiming that a high being exists but yet has no direct ideology in order to influence followers? Heaven is open to all? Hell is just a metaphor for ???? Do you see my problem here? It's everyone for themselves and their own belief and f... the world if they disagree.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> How long have you got to spare? Remember I was schooled first by nuns in the convent and then by Jesuits. :thumbs-up:


Sure... Although many here would give it up as a "us and them" situation, I would be quite interested actually. Please keep in mind that I was speaking more as to diversity over standard christian texts. I've read the Torah (not in Hebrew), I've read the quran(not in arabic). I've read the bible (not in Aramaic). Heck... I've even read the kama sutra.. (joke. lol.)... Again... I see things as spritual over religious. I have no god but I do have the universe and what it contains. You dislike children (which is an ungodly thing from all religious perspectives), but are they not usually considered to be a continutation of all things "holy"?


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Ok. for some reason I thought you have proudly mentioned your thoughts & upbringing as being otherwise. My apologies. But to me...If you "believe", then you should most likely follow some type of rules that seem to be mentioned amongst the many different texts that are floating around in theology. Are you claiming that a high being exists but yet has no direct ideology in order to influence followers? Heaven is open to all? Hell is just a metaphor for ???? Do you see my problem here? It's everyone for themselves and their own belief and f... the world if they disagree.


In the final analysis the only relationship with God that is worth a fig is the one we achieve ourselves. Theology is a framework to support that endeavour.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Sure... Although many here would give it up as a "us and them" situation, I would be quite interested actually. Please keep in mind that I was speaking more as to diversity over standard christian texts. I've read the Torah (not in Hebrew), I've read the quran. I've read the bible. I've even read the kama sutra.. (joke. lol.)... Again... I see things as spritual over religious. I have no god but I do have the universe and what it contains. You dislike children (which is an ungodly thing from all religious perspectives), but are they not usually considered to be a continutation of all things "holy"?


The Torah is revered by the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims as the core of their faith.

I've read the bloody lot though. All belief is interesting, even shocking tripe such as (looks over shoulder fearfully before daring to type) Scientology.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> In the final analysis the only relationship with God that is worth a fig is the one we achieve ourselves. Theology is a framework to support that endeavour.


So according to you....an islamist is the same as a jew wihich is the same as a christian, which is the same as.... as... As....?? As long as it's a personal Relationship with "THE CREATOR", all is fair in love and war? Kill the islamists, kill the christians, kill the jews, kill the hindus? To me, that ideology is FUBAR...


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> So according to you....an islamist is the same as a jew wihich is the same as a christian, which is the same as.... as... As....?? As long as it's a personal Relationship with "THE CREATOR", all is fair in love and war? Kill the islamists, kill the christians, kill the jews, kill the hindus? To me, that ideology is FUBAR...


Eh? Where does killing enter into it?

You are very aggresive today, old boy.

Kids getting you down? :devil:


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> The Torah is revered by the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims as the core of their faith.
> 
> I've read the bloody lot though. All belief is interesting, even shocking tripe such as (looks over shoulder fearfully before daring to type) Scientology.


Stange enough. In my WASP community back in the 80's, there was no such thing as a "shared" religious text. Welcome to America past? I won't pigeon hole everyone, but such things didn't really seem to exist in the U.S. Beyond racial divides, the religious communities chose to divide themselves as well. There were very few jews in Arlington heights and there were very few christians in Buffalo grove. Both communities hasd the same educational benefits, there were no "anti-semitic" thoughts but communities stayed within their given religion or racial communities. None of the kids really knew the difference. It was just another town to go cruising in and to claim as "not our highschool" (and we had many highschools in our district)... I can honestly say no one considered such. My last name is obviously dutch... no one called me dutch.. There were many polish folks...No one called them poles. etc. etc...


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Eh? Where does killing enter into it?
> 
> You are very aggresive today, old boy.
> 
> Kids getting you down? :devil:


Ohhh. my friend... Most international killing comes down to religion and their efforts to kill those that don't believe as they do. Israel wants an officially recognized apartheid state. They will kill and maim until they get it. Many Islamists consider non-beliebers as being cannoin fodder. The Christians kill whoever they like in the name of god and claim they are neutral in the name of religion... Murder, mayhem, and religion are all in the same category in my thoughts. But of course we can all claim political ideology over religiousif it so pleases the global community...


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Ohhh. my friend... Most international killing comes down to religion and their efforts to kill those that don't believe as they do. Israel wants an officially recognized apartheid state. They will kill and maim until they get it. Many Islamists consider non-beliebers as being cannoin fodder. The Christians kill whoever they like in the name of god and claim they are neutral in the name of religion... Murder, mayhem, and religion are all in the same category in my thoughts. But of course we can all claim political ideology over religiousif it so pleases the global community...


Not so. War is *always* for resources, always has been and always will be. That those who profit from war choose to align their motivations with religious belief is pure obfuscation.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Not so. War is *always* for resources, always has been and always will be. That those who profit from war choose to align their motivations with religious belief is pure obfuscation.


Yes for resources...but.. has that ever been claimed versus going to war for ideology? Israel wants moire land but I doubt highly they will use that as a reason for killing tens of thousands. The U.S. wants more control over oïl resources but that has never been claimed as a reason for killing tens of thousands. The "Masters" want resources but they tell the "followers" quite a different story...


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't try and avoid the subject with all that nonsense about the value of different lifeforms because we are talking about human abortions not how I look after my garden or kill insects, I am not a Jainist nor am I a fruitarian! Life is life and abortion is the cessation of life regardless of when it is performed.
> Stick to the subject.


As a born-again Christian who nonetheless supports abortion rights, I'd like to get your take on where in Christian scripture there is any clue as to God's direction relative to the practice.

Jesus certainly never said a word about it, even though historians agree that abortion was pretty widely practiced in his lifetime. If it's such a big deal to God, why was He silent on the matter when He walked the earth?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> The Torah is revered by the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims as the core of their faith.
> 
> I've read the bloody lot though. All belief is interesting,* even shocking tripe such as (looks over shoulder fearfully before daring to type) Scientology*.


Now you've done it! You'll have to answer to Tom Cruise for that one!.....


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> As a born-again Christian who nonetheless supports abortion rights, I'd like to get your take on where in Christian scripture there is any clue as to God's direction relative to the practice.
> 
> Jesus certainly never said a word about it, even though historians agree that abortion was pretty widely practiced in his lifetime. * If it's such a big deal to God, why was He silent on the matter when He walked the earth?*


"Thou Shalt Not Kill".

For You formed my inward parts:
You covered me in my mother's womb........Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.

From Psalms 139.

Just offering an opinion. For those wondering if the bible says anything about life beginning at conception.


----------



## justonemore

However the ancient greeks and romans would take a deformed baby & knock its head against the rocks or kill it in some other manner. Just everyday life. I guess god (in general) was less of a concern in the past as in the brave new world.


----------



## Odradek

Posted this originally in the book thread, but then realised things had moved on, so deleted it and am reporting here....



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Dawkins is what many atheists now refer to as a militant atheist or fundamentlaist atheist. Him and Hitchens both!


I remember listening to Dr. Jonathan Miller being interviewed, I think on Desert Islamd Discs, and while reflecting on his own atheism, which he felt had been with him since childhood. He did indeed describe Richard Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist.

While I read, and enjoyed, The God Delusion when it was published, I would agree that Dawkins is an obsessive, has become a parody of himself, and is as bad as those he tries to denounce. His recent attack on telling fairy tales to children is a prime example. The ultimate grumpy old man?

A far better read on matters theological, would be to go back to the start, and pick up a copy of The Age Of Reason, by Thomas Paine.
I always bring a copy with me when visiting my overly Catholic in-laws, in case I'm called upon to engage in debate.


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> Ohhh. my friend... Most international killing comes down to religion and their efforts to kill those that don't believe as they do. Israel wants an officially recognized apartheid state. They will kill and maim until they get it. Many Islamists consider non-beliebers as being cannoin fodder. The Christians kill whoever they like in the name of god and claim they are neutral in the name of religion... Murder, mayhem, and religion are all in the same category in my thoughts. But of course we can all claim political ideology over religiousif it so pleases the global community...


Rubbish.

https://carm.org/religion-cause-war


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> As a born-again Christian who nonetheless supports abortion rights, I'd like to get your take on where in Christian scripture there is any clue as to God's direction relative to the practice.
> 
> Jesus certainly never said a word about it, even though historians agree that abortion was pretty widely practiced in his lifetime. If it's such a big deal to God, why was He silent on the matter when He walked the earth?


 Sure thing, its right next to the passage in which Jesus personally judges bestiality.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
> 
> For You formed my inward parts:
> You covered me in my mother's womb........Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
> 
> From Psalms 139.
> 
> Just offering an opinion. For those wondering if the bible says anything about life beginning at conception.


 In case anyone has any serious consideration I suggest a concordance search ; 'fatherless'.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
> 
> For You formed my inward parts:
> You covered me in my mother's womb........Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
> 
> From Psalms 139.
> 
> Just offering an opinion. For those wondering if the bible says anything about life beginning at conception.


I read that, and don't conclude what you've concluded. Not saying your interpretation is wrong, but most of the time when Jesus was trying to tell people not to do something, He really didn't much beat around the bush. (And honestly, He spent far more time telling people what they should be doing, rather than what they should not be doing.)

I've never heard or read any Biblical commentary that persuades me of the whole "life begins at conception" argument, and no offense meant, but your commentary isn't persuasive to me either. All the arguments seem to me to rely on tortured "reading between the lines."


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> However the ancient greeks and romans would take a deformed baby & knock its head against the rocks or kill it in some other manner. Just everyday life. I guess god (in general) was less of a concern in the past as in the brave new world.


Eugenics was given the imprimatur of scientific validity post Darwin.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> I read that, and don't conclude what you've concluded. Not saying your interpretation is wrong, but most of the time when Jesus was trying to tell people not to do something, He really didn't much beat around the bush. (And honestly, He spent far more time telling people what they should be doing, rather than what they should not be doing.)
> 
> I've never heard or read any Biblical commentary that persuades me of the whole "life begins at conception" argument, and no offense meant, but your commentary isn't persuasive to me either. All the arguments seem to me to rely on tortured "reading between the lines."


As I said, I'm simply offering the verses, some of them, that Christians believe relates to conception and life. Tortured it may be but I'd argue that tortured explanations go both ways; that to deny the meaning of something is a tortured denial of the obvious.

Again, just trying to make a philosophical point, not an admonition one way or another. I'll let your intellect discern truth from fiction.

Christ's mission on earth was specific. It wasn't to reinforce the Laws as the Jews were well aware of that already.

His mission was to establish a new covenant and that he did. The details were to be worked out by those who came after him. The Laws that preceded him were still intact.

In fact, if we consider the mystery of the trinity, Christ did say those things and preach them through the Holy Spirit who was the Word.


----------



## Hitch

*Exodus 21:22-23*

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

*22 *"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges _decide_. *23 *But if there is _any further_ injury, then you shall appoint _as a penalty_ life for life,

Its plain enough.


----------



## immanuelrx

It amazes me as to why people decide to debate religion among other things. Hardly anyone enters a debate of religion thinking, "I am curious about religion and want to know what your stance is." or "I am very passionate about my beliefs, but am very open to what you have to say and belief. I will keep an open mind." It more goes like this, "abortion is bad because the bible says so." "I don't believe the bible and I believe the woman does as she pleases with her body." "Your wrong!"
or "I believe x because of the bible." "People who believe in the bible are full of crap! Flying spaghetti monster all the way (it is a real thing, look it up)!" Point is, religion is best represented with works and not words. Especially not words over the internet. Belief in nothing should be just that, nothing. Not a full assault on people who believe. I always here the excuse, "People who are religions are the most hateful and spiteful people, I am just returning the favor." That is ridiculous logic. Grow up.
That is about all I have to offer.


----------



## Watchman

Dear Gentlemen,

I ask you, to please, allow me for a moment to share my testimony, or shall I say the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ in and through the new life He has given to me.

I grew up in a very rough part of town, I was from the other side of the tracks. As far back as I can remember my father, who was a very moral man, was deeply entrenched in the drug culture. Early on, I made some very poor choices to rebel against society. Those choices led me into a life of deep depravity. I failed out of school. All I cared about from around 12 years old and onward, was getting high on drugs.

When I was 16 I fathered a son out of wedlock. The young girl was 15 years old at the time. Unbeknownst to me, she chose to ingest drugs and alcohol while she was pregnant. My first born son was diagnosed with a condition known as hydrocephalus, he was quadriplegic and blind in both eyes. I cannot help but believe that it was a direct repercussion of the drug use.

This incident caused me to spiral out of control. I was introduced to methamphetamine and that was the beginning of the end for me. I began to take the drug all the time. In 2001, I was arrested for manufacturing the drug. In 2003, my very sick son died at 2 1/2 years old. 2 months later, I went to prison for my crimes.

While in prison God began to really seek me out and, in turn, I began to seek Him. It was at rock bottom that Jesus Christ revealed Himself to me, through the Word of God, I cried out to God and was gloriously saved. I came into contact with several very profound pieces of literature, the Bible being primary, but there was another book entitled "John Foxes Book of Martyrs" that really had an impact on me.

I wish I could say it was happily ever after.....But I cannot. After I got out of prison I did very well for awhile. Due to compromises in my walk with God, I fell back into my old life. The old people, places and things had such a tremendous power over me. I could not beat my old life on my own, so, I fell back into it.

In July of 2005 I suffered from a horrible drug overdose on meth and cocaine. I basically had a body temp of 108 degrees and had a heart beat of around 280 beats a minute (I think), at least that is what they tell me. I basically died and was revived by the incredible doctors and staff at the hospital and of course, the hand of God was involved in it all. My kidneys and liver shut down and they had to induce me into a coma, of which I was in for 1 week.

When I came to, I again cried out to God for mercy and He showed Himself merciful. My road to recovery began. There were many things about my salvation and redemption that I previously did not understand. And, by Gods help now I do.

Jesus Christ gave me the full and free victory through faith in His death, burial and resurrection. I graduated seminary and pastor a small church and am now married with 3 beautiful children and a beautiful wife who has never known the life I used to live. I work with other men who were once like myself, sharing the good news of the gospel of Christ with them.

I have a brand new life, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new!

And God even lets me enjoy fine clothing, especially shoes!!! 

And I am here today, enjoying my clothing and shoes with men from all walks of life all over the world....all because of 5 words....Jesus Christ died for me....

Thank you!


----------



## Hitch

:thumbs-up:


----------



## immanuelrx

Watchman said:


> Dear Gentlemen,
> 
> I ask you, to please, allow me for a moment to share my testimony, or shall I say the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ in and through the new life He has given to me.
> 
> I grew up in a very rough part of town, I was from the other side of the tracks. As far back as I can remember my father, who was a very moral man, was deeply entrenched in the drug culture. Early on, I made some very poor choices to rebel against society. Those choices led me into a life of deep depravity. I failed out of school. All I cared about from around 12 years old and onward, was getting high on drugs.
> 
> When I was 16 I fathered a son out of wedlock. The young girl was 15 years old at the time. Unbeknownst to me, she chose to ingest drugs and alcohol while she was pregnant. My first born son was diagnosed with a condition known as hydrocephalus, he was quadriplegic and blind in both eyes. I cannot help but believe that it was a direct repercussion of the drug use.
> 
> This incident caused me to spiral out of control. I was introduced to methamphetamine and that was the beginning of the end for me. I began to take the drug all the time. In 2001, I was arrested for manufacturing the drug. In 2003, my very sick son died at 2 1/2 years old. 2 months later, I went to prison for my crimes.
> 
> While in prison God began to really seek me out and, in turn, I began to seek Him. It was at rock bottom that Jesus Christ revealed Himself to me, through the Word of God, I cried out to God and was gloriously saved. I came into contact with several very profound pieces of literature, the Bible being primary, but there was another book entitled "John Foxes Book of Martyrs" that really had an impact on me.
> 
> I wish I could say it was happily ever after.....But I cannot. After I got out of prison I did very well for awhile. Due to compromises in my walk with God, I fell back into my old life. The old people, places and things had such a tremendous power over me. I could not beat my old life on my own, so, I fell back into it.
> 
> In July of 2005 I suffered from a horrible drug overdose on meth and cocaine. I basically had a body temp of 108 degrees and had a heart beat of around 280 beats a minute (I think), at least that is what they tell me. I basically died and was revived by the incredible doctors and staff at the hospital and of course, the hand of God was involved in it all. My kidneys and liver shut down and they had to induce me into a coma, of which I was in for 1 week.
> 
> When I came to, I again cried out to God for mercy and He showed Himself merciful. My road to recovery began. There were many things about my salvation and redemption that I previously did not understand. And, by Gods help now I do.
> 
> Jesus Christ gave me the full and free victory through faith in His death, burial and resurrection. I graduated seminary and pastor a small church and am now married with 3 beautiful children and a beautiful wife who has never known the life I used to live. I work with other men who were once like myself, sharing the good news of the gospel of Christ with them.
> 
> I have a brand new life, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new!
> 
> And God even lets me enjoy fine clothing, especially shoes!!!
> 
> And I am here today, enjoying my clothing and shoes with men from all walks of life all over the world....all because of 5 words....Jesus Christ died for me....
> 
> Thank you!


Thank you for sharing your story. It is very moving.I pray you have continued success with your former demons. I wish my father would have been able to finally kick his habits. It can easy be a vicious cycle that never goes away. I am glad you broke through those seemingly endless cycles.


----------



## Watchman

immanuelrx said:


> Thank you for sharing your story. It is very moving.I pray you have continued success with your former demons. I wish my father would have been able to finally kick his habits. It can easy be a vicious cycle that never goes away. I am glad you broke through those seemingly endless cycles.


Thank you Sir. The good news is that Christ also found my father who was once heavily involved in the drug culture is now clean, sober and helping others like himself. So, there is hope my friend....great hope!


----------



## vpkozel

immanuelrx said:


> It amazes me as to why people decide to debate religion among other things. Hardly anyone enters a debate of religion thinking, "I am curious about religion and want to know what your stance is." or "I am very passionate about my beliefs, but am very open to what you have to say and belief. I will keep an open mind."


I can honestly say that I enter almost every new conversation with exactly that open frame of mind because you never know what you might learn. It doesn't mean that I will agree with what someone says, but as long as someone is respectful and wants to have a discussion instead of give a speech, then I am happy to talk about all religions.

In the end, I am just a sinner, so I won't be throwing any stones.


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> *Exodus 21:22-23*
> 
> New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> 
> *22 *"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges _decide_. *23 *But if there is _any further_ injury, then you shall appoint _as a penalty_ life for life,
> 
> Its plain enough.


I'm struggling with the concept that abortion is addressed at all by the admonition that, if the woman is further injured, a penalty "life for life" shall be appointed. Again, plain reading of the text doesn't lead me to conclude anything whatever relative to abortion. Perhaps if I were able to read Hebrew I'd be better able to understand this argument. However, myjewishlearning.com cites the following interpretation of that Scripture:



> Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: "When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges' reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life."
> 
> The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets "no other misfortune" to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi's interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.


----------



## MaxBuck

Watchman said:


> Dear Gentlemen,
> 
> I ask you, to please, allow me for a moment to share my testimony, or shall I say the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ in and through the new life He has given to me ...
> 
> I have a brand new life, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new!
> 
> And God even lets me enjoy fine clothing, especially shoes!!!
> 
> And I am here today, enjoying my clothing and shoes with men from all walks of life all over the world....all because of 5 words....Jesus Christ died for me....
> 
> Thank you!


God bless you, brother. We're all fellow-travelers on this road. In your case, a traveler with very nice shoes. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Odradek said:


> Posted this originally in the book thread, but then realised things had moved on, so deleted it and am reporting here....
> 
> I remember listening to Dr. Jonathan Miller being interviewed, I think on Desert Islamd Discs, and while reflecting on his own atheism, which he felt had been with him since childhood. He did indeed describe Richard Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist.
> 
> While I read, and enjoyed, The God Delusion when it was published, I would agree that Dawkins is an obsessive, has become a parody of himself, and is as bad as those he tries to denounce. His recent attack on telling fairy tales to children is a prime example. The ultimate grumpy old man?
> 
> A far better read on matters theological, would be to go back to the start, and pick up a copy of The Age Of Reason, by Thomas Paine.
> I always bring a copy with me when visiting my overly Catholic in-laws, in case I'm called upon to engage in debate.


Here's the supreme irony, I was an atheist when I started reading the God Delusion, I didn't finish it because the hatred and obsession in it, the total absence of live-and-let-live, his total lack of an understanding of the princicple of religious freedom, made me even as an atheist so very angry that I ripped it up and threw it away, and shortly after, not directly because of it, it was just one factor, I started again examining Christian theology, a couple of years later after some very revelatory experiences I was fully back in the Roman Catholic church again.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

For the record: Nowadays Islamist is an offensive word to true Muslims. Islamist is the word used for Muslims of a fundamentalist and extreme nature only interested in war, in destroying Israel, imposing Sharia law and creating an Islamic world.

So if you want to talk about the true Muslims who believe in the true message of Allah and his prophet Mohammed, including their belief in the Old Testasment and in the Virgin Mary (the only woman mentioned by name in the Koran) show some respect and use the correct term Muslim.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Sure thing, its right next to the passage in which Jesus personally judges bestiality.


Leviticus 18:23


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Not so. War is *always* for resources, always has been and always will be. That those who profit from war choose to align their motivations with religious belief is pure obfuscation.


EXACTLY! I had this argument with a friend a few weeks ago and asked him to name me a true religious war. Of course he mentioned Yugoslavia - WRONG! (nationalism & self-determination). He mentioned Rwanda - WRONG AGAIN (tribal). He mentioned the Gulf Wars - WRONG AGAIN (Iraqi invasion & politics).

War since the end of the 1600s has always been for resources - be they land, power, people or minerals. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 pretty much signalled the end of those true religious wars between Catholics & Protestants that had been raging in Europe.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

https://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/4376-the-bibles-teaching-against-abortion


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

ALSO, for all the atheists who haven't bothered to read the New Testament and who constantly call Christians hypocrites for also believing in the "rough justice" of the Old Testament, you would do well to read Romans. Which makes it clear that Christians are no longer bound to the laws of the Old Testament only to the laws of Jesus.


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> https://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/4376-the-bibles-teaching-against-abortion


I have to say that is one of the weakest arguments I've read. Reading into Scripture what one wants to see there, IMO. Of course, that's something all the faithful are tempted to do, myself included.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Leviticus 18:23


 Hmmmm maybe you missed Max's point;



> As a born-again Christian who nonetheless supports abortion rights, I'd like to get your take on where in  there is any clue as to God's direction relative to the practice.
> 
> *Jesus certainly never said a word* about it, even though historians agree that abortion was pretty widely practiced in his lifetime.* If it's such a big deal to God, why was He silent on the matter when He walked the earth?*


 Emphasis added. Max has positioned himself by relying on what the NT recorded as words actually spoken by Christ, and could find no declaration prohibiting abortion. Within those walls one cannot find Christ,personally judging bestiality in the NT. A fact that demonstrates the gross weakness inherent in his position.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> *Hmmmm maybe you missed Max's point;
> *
> Emphasis added. Max has positioned himself by relying on what the NT recorded as words actually spoken by Christ, and could find no declaration prohibiting abortion. Within those walls one cannot find Christ,personally judging bestiality in the NT. A fact that demonstrates the gross weakness inherent in his position.


Not neccesarily Hitch old boy, conversations evolve.

You do believe in evolution I trust? :devil:


----------



## phyrpowr

Earl of Ormonde said:


> EXACTLY! I had this argument with a friend a few weeks ago and asked him to name me a true religious war. Of course he mentioned Yugoslavia - WRONG! (nationalism & self-determination). He mentioned Rwanda - WRONG AGAIN (tribal). He mentioned the Gulf Wars - WRONG AGAIN (Iraqi invasion & politics).
> 
> War since the end of the 1600s has always been for resources - be they land, power, people or minerals. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 pretty much signalled the end of _those *true religious* wars between Catholics & Protestants _that had been raging in Europe.


Even there a goodly part of it was based not so much on religion but on the fact that "The Church" was sucking up a lot of the currency and shipping it to Rome, held a ton of land and political power (Bishops being Imperial Electors, etc.) and was tax exempt to boot.

And let's not forget the Fourth Crusade 1204 where the sainted Doge Enrico Dandolo of Venice, being blind, mistakenly attacked Constantinople instead of Jerusalem, laughed mightily (no doubt) at his error....and decided to keep it.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Not neccesarily Hitch old boy, conversations evolve.
> 
> You do believe in evolution I trust? :devil:


Hardly.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Hardly.


Rather ambiguous. Is that a 'no'?


----------



## Chouan

phyrpowr said:


> Even there a goodly part of it was based not so much on religion but on the fact that "The Church" was sucking up a lot of the currency and shipping it to Rome, held a ton of land and political power (Bishops being Imperial Electors, etc.) and was tax exempt to boot.
> 
> And let's not forget the Fourth Crusade 1204 where the sainted Doge Enrico Dandolo of Venice, being blind, mistakenly attacked Constantinople instead of Jerusalem, laughed mightily (no doubt) at his error....and decided to keep it.


Hardly mistakenly; it was an entirely deliberate attack, planned by Dandolo, in order for Venice to become dominant in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Venetians didn't keep Constantinople, they gave it to the crusaders, who threw out the Genoans and the Pisans and gave the trading concessions, and choice trading posts, to the Venetians.


----------



## phyrpowr

Chouan said:


> Hardly mistakenly; it was an entirely deliberate attack, planned by Dandolo, in order for Venice to become dominant in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Venetians didn't keep Constantinople, they gave it to the crusaders, who threw out the Genoans and the Pisans and gave the trading concessions, and choice trading posts, to the Venetians.


I need to start putting emoticons or labels on my posts. You do realize that I don't really think they used a blind man as a navigator, or that no one else knew the difference, or that it wasn't intentional?:icon_scratch:


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Rather ambiguous. Is that a 'no'?


Correct.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Correct.


Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! :icon_jokercolor:

Would you like me to prove to you why evolution is true?


----------



## Chouan

phyrpowr said:


> I need to start putting emoticons or labels on my posts. You do realize that I don't really think they used a blind man as a navigator, or that no one else knew the difference, or that it wasn't intentional?:icon_scratch:


I came over all pedantic, I'm afraid. It's something I suffer from from time to time.....


----------



## MaxBuck

Shaver said:


> Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! :icon_jokercolor:
> 
> Would you like me to prove to you why evolution is true?


I've never understood those who wish to turn the Bible into a science textbook, when its true purpose is so much more sublime.


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> I've never understood those who wish to turn the Bible into a science textbook, when its true purpose is so much more sublime.


The impulse of the literalists eludes me too Max.

It does however grant us the enormous belly-laugh at the notion that God created fossils to test our faith. :tongue2:

Or even this fun-house: https://creationmuseum.org/


----------



## immanuelrx

Shaver said:


> The impulse of the literalists eludes me too Max.
> 
> It does however grant us the enormous belly-laugh at the notion that God created fossils to test our faith. :tongue2:
> 
> Or even this fun-house: https://creationmuseum.org/


I visited this museum while i drove through with my family. Nothing wrong with it. I have never heard a notion that God created fossils to test one's faith. Sounds silly to me.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> The impulse of the literalists eludes me too Max.
> 
> It does however grant us the enormous belly-laugh at the notion that God created fossils to test our faith. :tongue2:
> 
> Or even this fun-house: https://creationmuseum.org/


^ Such things as a creation museum are silly. Faith doesn't need a museum or other gimmicks in order to perpetuate itself.

For about 400 years, Roman Emperors, with all of the worldly power they possessed and had at their command, could not stamp out Christianity. It's doubtful a creation museum will serve much good.


----------



## Shaver

immanuelrx said:


> I visited this museum while i drove through with my family. Nothing wrong with it. I have never heard a notion that God created fossils to test one's faith. Sounds silly to me.


Nothing wrong with it? Except that it purveys utter gibberish, of course. 'Natural selection is not evolution' is an exhibit that beggars credulity - the message that to adapt is not to evolve, oh deary deary me.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> I've never understood those who wish to turn the Bible into a science textbook, when its true purpose is so much more sublime.


Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?
Good luck.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?
> Good luck.


Metaphor.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> The impulse of the literalists eludes me too Max.
> 
> It does however grant us the enormous belly-laugh at the notion that God created fossils to test our faith. :tongue2:
> 
> Or even this fun-house: https://creationmuseum.org/


 Funnier than seeing an ancestor in the scaley fossilized remains of a fish?

What I see as an impossibilty is the rejection of Genesis, as factual, and the acceptance of 'He in not here He is risen'. A real man fell and another real man was needed to make a sacrifice that could satisfy God's holy justice, Christ was/is as real as Adam.

It is equally impossible to speak of Christ as 'a great teacher' , or a 'prophet', while rejecting His claim of deity 'Before Abraham was I am' and His prediction of resurrection. Either He is the Son of God as defined and described in the NT, or a delusional fellow that managed to get a few things right by borrowing from Moses.

Obvious then the main themes of the NT, of course not a problem for unbelievers , the deity of Christ and His resurrection are tied directly to Genesis. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Metaphor.


Hmmmm, and so the Tower, the dispersal, and Abram? Certainly you can supply many proofs ,from the apostles, that they saw all this as metaphor. You should have the easiest time since unlike Max you make no claim of faith, leaving you with perfect objectivity.


----------



## immanuelrx

Shaver said:


> Nothing wrong with it? Except that it purveys utter gibberish, of course. 'Natural selection is not evolution' is an exhibit that beggars credulity - the message that to adapt is not to evolve, oh deary deary me.


Do you have a link to where this exhibit information is? I can't find it, nor do I remember it when I went through. Probably because I was looking after the kids more than looking around. I admit, I will have to brush up on my knowledge of natural selection and evolution, but I thought they were very closely related. Again, I will have to read up on it.


----------



## immanuelrx

Hitch said:


> Funnier than seeing an ancestor in the scaley fossilized remains of a fish?
> 
> What I see as an impossibilty is the rejection of Genesis, as factual, and the acceptance of 'He in not here He is risen'. A real man fell and another real man was needed to make a sacrifice that could satisfy God's holy justice, Christ was/is as real as Adam.
> 
> *It is equally impossible to speak of Christ as 'a great teacher' , or a 'prophet', while rejecting His claim of deity *'Before Abraham was I am' and His prediction of resurrection. Either He is the Son of God as defined and described in the NT, or a delusional fellow that managed to get a few things right by borrowing from Moses.
> 
> Obvious then the main themes of the NT, of course not a problem for unbelievers , the deity of Christ and His resurrection are tied directly to Genesis. Take it or leave it.


That comment always confused me, calling Jesus just a great teacher, but nothing more. I mean, he walked around calling himself the Son of God and that no one can get to heaven but him. Wouldn't that either make him the Son of God or a little crazy? I find it hard to believe that he fall into any middle category.


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?
> Good luck.


Jesus, Who believers regard as God incarnate, gave most of His lessons as parables (i.e., stories not based on fact). Parables allow great truths to be voiced in a way fact-based narratives cannot achieve.

That notion applies to the Bible in its entirety, which is IMO intended by God to be a book of lessons.

As a comment by an Episcopal bishop goes, "Jesus died to take away our sins. Not our minds."


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> Jesus, Who believers regard as God incarnate, gave most of His lessons as parables (i.e., stories not based on fact). Parables allow great truths to be voiced in a way fact-based narratives cannot achieve.
> 
> That notion applies to the Bible in its entirety, which is IMO intended by God to be a book of lessons.
> 
> As a comment by an Episcopal bishop goes, "Jesus died to take away our sins. Not our minds."


If true it should be easy for you to



> ;_Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?
> _


_
Regarding your allusion to the parables , Which of them are quotes and or taken directly from the Prophets ? I cant think of one. On the other hand I have limited my question to a single passage of the NT. A very narrow spectrum, all the easier for your to support your position. Can you handle one passage?

But let me ask you openly, is the resurrection of Christ a 'lesson', a' parable', a 'metaphor 'or a historical event? Yes or no the follow up is, according to the Scriptures, Why?_


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> _But let me ask you openly, is the resurrection of Christ a 'lesson', a' parable', a 'metaphor 'or a historical event? Yes or no the follow up is, according to the Scriptures, Why?_


Personally, I believe in the factual resurrection of Christ, but it wouldn't affect my faith in the least if it were proven otherwise. My faith is not based on printed words, nor on magickal explanations of occurrences (miracles, etc., which is one reason why the Roman Catholic Church is not for me).

As for your other questions, they are the kind commonly voiced by Creationists to challenge those of us who accept science over myth, and I don't any longer waste my energy arguing the points. Bottom line: I know enough about sedimentary geology to have full confidence that the earth is very old indeed, and that the explanations provided by accepted evolutionary theory are valid.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> Personally, I believe in the factual resurrection of Christ, but it wouldn't affect my faith in the least if it were proven otherwise.


I doubt you are familiar with what Paul has to say about it.


> My faith is not based on printed words, nor on magickal explanations of occurrences (miracles, etc., which is one reason why the Roman Catholic Church is not for me).
> 
> As for your other questions, they are the kind commonly voiced by Creationists to challenge those of us who accept science over myth, and I don't any longer waste my energy arguing the points. Bottom line: I know enough about sedimentary geology to have full confidence that the earth is very old indeed, and that the explanations provided by accepted evolutionary theory are valid.


 LOL I cant help but get chuckle as you jump from Christ's parables to sedimentary geology to avoid answering Pete's passage including Noah.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> Personally, I believe in the factual resurrection of Christ, but it wouldn't affect my faith in the least if it were proven otherwise. My faith is not based on printed words, nor on magickal explanations of occurrences (miracles, etc., which is one reason why the Roman Catholic Church is not for me).
> 
> As for your other questions, they are the kind commonly voiced by Creationists to challenge those of us who accept science over myth, and I don't any longer waste my energy arguing the points. Bottom line: I know enough about sedimentary geology to have full confidence that the earth is very old indeed, and that the explanations provided by accepted evolutionary theory are valid.


Proof of the resurrection, or lack thereof is not in the offing; that's the essence of faith. One simply accepts as faith that Christ was resurrected.

As for sedimentary geology, it has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, there is really nothing incompatible with evolution and creation. Darwin wrote about the theory of evolution, not the theory of creation.

And the earth is old. I will defer to scientists who make such estimates. That had absolutely nothing to do with genesis. I suggest you familiarize yourself with St. Augustine.

You may have more in common with the Catholic Church than you think..;-)


----------



## SG_67

Things evolve all the time. There is no admonition to the contrary and it does not preclude things evolving.

Aquinas makes the distinction between something's being, as in it's existence, and that things natural operation. 

In other words, a thing can exist and be created, yet can have agency within the context of it being created. There are natural causes and natural mechanisms at work all the time. We do it ourselves with animals and crops yet why suggest that it cannot happen over millions of years and still be within the context of God's creation?

If I create a new species of apple, I have not created an apple from nothing. I have simply manipulated that which was already created by God to change it's form and appearance. It nevertheless remains an apple. I have not created a dog from an apple.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> As for sedimentary geology, it has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, there is really nothing incompatible with evolution and creation. Darwin wrote about the theory of evolution, not the theory of creation.
> 
> And the earth is old. I will defer to scientists who make such estimates. That had absolutely nothing to do with genesis. I suggest you familiarize yourself with St. Augustine.
> 
> You may have more in common with the Catholic Church than you think..;-)


First, sedimentary geology is one of the most powerful sources for evidence of evolution; the increasing complexity of the fossil record as one proceeds from deeper to shallower (i.e., older to more-recent) strata is quite striking. That reinforces the presence of increasingly more-complex organisms on earth as time elapsed.

My belief is that the processes of evolution of life on earth and the development of matter in the universe are far more powerful evidence of the great intelligence of the Creator than the literal interpretive explanation of Genesis as being "poof, here it is!" Biblical literalists are responsible for nonsense like the Creation Museum and "young-earth" fallacies.

The RC Church and I have some things in common, for sure, but too many differences for me to be comfortable in their pews on Sunday mornings. As for study of St. Augustine, you might better direct that advice toward Hitch, as my own beliefs on creation and Genesis mirror those of the great theologian very closely.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> First, sedimentary geology is one of the most powerful sources for evidence of evolution; the increasing complexity of the fossil record as one proceeds from deeper to shallower (i.e., older to more-recent) strata is quite striking. That reinforces the presence of increasingly more-complex organisms on earth as time elapsed.
> 
> My belief is that the processes of evolution of life on earth and the development of matter in the universe are far more powerful evidence of the great intelligence of the Creator than the literal interpretive explanation of Genesis as being "poof, here it is!" Biblical literalists are responsible for nonsense like the Creation Museum and "young-earth" fallacies.
> 
> The RC Church and I have some things in common, for sure, but too many differences for me to be comfortable in their pews on Sunday mornings. As for study of St. Augustine, you might better direct that advice toward Hitch, as my own beliefs on creation and Genesis mirror those of the great theologian very closely.


You and I agree; the bible is not to be taken literally when it comes to genesis, particularly the creation story.

It's been distilled as such so that our simple minds can grasp it. It's one of the reasons why Catholics don't make a habit of reading the bible.

Agains, this is St. Augustine, not me.


----------



## Hitch

So much great wisdom but still no answer.

_Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?_
_Good luck._


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> Jesus, Who believers regard as God incarnate, gave most of His lessons as parables (i.e., stories not based on fact). Parables allow great truths to be voiced in a way fact-based narratives cannot achieve.
> 
> That notion applies to the Bible in its entirety, which is IMO intended by God to be a book of lessons.
> 
> As a comment by an Episcopal bishop goes, "Jesus died to take away our sins. Not our minds."


QFT.

It should be appreciated that God's Word is likely to be passed down through the ages until the very end of time. Would God, then, make his Word relevant to _all_ of his children - whether they were born a few thousand years ago or are yet to be born many thousands of years from now? Those who cannot conceive of an affirmative answer to this question seriously underestimate the sublime power of the Creator.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I also feel I have to comment on the phenomenon of recent years i.e. since the 1960s, that people have felt it possible or necessary to have a "pick and mix" personal religion, taking bits from here and parts from there, for example "oh yea, I think the historical Jesus was a good man and a great philosopher" there is NO FACTUAL RECORDED EVIDENCE ANYWHERE in Palestina for Jesus as a historical figure, you either believe in the Gospels (as I do) that he is the son of God or you don't - end of list of choices! Religion is not a personal shopping mall, it is a case of believing, and having faith and trust in a given theology.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Hmmmm, and so the Tower, the dispersal, and Abram? Certainly you can supply many proofs ,from the apostles, that they saw all this as metaphor. You should have the easiest time since unlike Max you make no claim of faith, leaving you with perfect objectivity.


I believe that I have made several claims of faith and outlined my position in this matter rather precisely.

Creationism = Satanism.

Lucifer is the Prince of Lies, lies thrive on ignorance. To dispute the wonders of God's Creation, not the least of which is the marvel of Evolution, is to perpetrate a lie. This lie whether generated knowingly or via ignorance, either way it is against God. Time and again religious zealots have disputed the advances of Science, time and again they are proven to have been in error.

Biblical Literalism = Satanism.

To make mockery of the word of God, to ridicule the Torah by stubbornly insisting that God is lacking of sufficient aptitude to transmit a message that will remain relevant eternally, is to denigrate the divinity of the Creator. Biblical Literalism ultimately provides us with apocalyptical death cults and snake handling kooks. Or do we genuinely believe that the World sits upon pillars? cf 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6

Hail Satan, eh Hitch? 

.
.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Shaver

immanuelrx said:


> Do you have a link to where this exhibit information is? I can't find it, nor do I remember it when I went through. Probably because I was looking after the kids more than looking around. I admit, I will have to brush up on my knowledge of natural selection and evolution, but I thought they were very closely related. Again, I will have to read up on it.


Despite Dawkins becoming latterly an annoying aetheist, there is no better explanation of Evolution by Natural Selection than this:


----------



## justonemore

While not overly scientific, this artice seems to show a few interesting relations as to religious areas....

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/life-in-the-most-religiou_b_5494776.html


----------



## Chouan

Interesting that in the later years BC, ie from about 200BC - 0 it became increasingly common for the Kings of the Successor Kingdoms, the Seleucids, the Ptolomies and the Antigonids, to call themselves things like "Son of God", "The God", "God made Manifest", "The Saviour" and such like. It would, therefore, be entirely reasonable in that milieu for a man claiming to be King of the Jews to also call himself "Son of God", or "Saviour", or similar.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> I believe that I have made several claims of faith and outlined my position in this matter rather precisely.
> 
> Creationism = Satanism.
> 
> Lucifer is the Prince of Lies, lies thrive on ignorance. To dispute the wonders of God's Creation, not the least of which is the marvel of Evolution, is to perpetrate a lie. This lie whether generated knowingly or via ignorance, either way it is against God. Time and again religious zealots have disputed the advances of Science, time and again they are proven to have been in error.
> 
> Biblical Literalism = Satanism.
> 
> To make mockery of the word of God, to ridicule the Torah by stubbornly insisting that God is lacking of sufficient aptitude to transmit a message that will remain relevant eternally, is to denigrate the divinity of the Creator. Biblical Literalism ultimately provides us with apocalyptical death cults and snake handling kooks. Or do we genuinely believe that the World sits upon pillars? cf 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6
> 
> Hail Satan, eh Hitch?
> 
> .
> .
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .


He is not here, but is *risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

My I cant express how surprised I am that you have no answer to my question.LOL

*_ Certainly you can supply many proofs ,from the apostles, that they saw all this as metaphor. You should have the easiest time since unlike Max you make no claim of faith, leaving you with perfect objectivity._


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> *I believe that I have made several claims of faith and outlined my position in this matter rather precisely.*
> 
> Creationism = Satanism.
> 
> Lucifer is the Prince of Lies, lies thrive on ignorance. To dispute the wonders of God's Creation, not the least of which is the marvel of Evolution, is to perpetrate a lie. This lie whether generated knowingly or via ignorance, either way it is against God. Time and again religious zealots have disputed the advances of Science, time and again they are proven to have been in error.
> 
> Biblical Literalism = Satanism.
> 
> To make mockery of the word of God, to ridicule the Torah by stubbornly insisting that God is lacking of sufficient aptitude to transmit a message that will remain relevant eternally, is to denigrate the divinity of the Creator. Biblical Literalism ultimately provides us with apocalyptical death cults and snake handling kooks. Or do we genuinely believe that the World sits upon pillars? cf 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6
> 
> Hail Satan, eh Hitch?
> 
> .
> .
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .





> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/member.php?211480-ShaverShaver
> *Connoisseur*
> 
> Join DateMay 2nd, 2012Posts5,799CountryEnglandStateTraffordCityManchester​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Originally Posted by *justonemore* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1563538#post1563538
> So none of it really matters as long as you are a belieber? "Go forth and multiply" has no meaning to you as to Christianity because it's all the same and the bible is just words over any real ideology?
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a tool for thought. No one (except a few zany half-wits) believes that God created the world in seven literal (i.e. 24 hour) days.
> 
> *I am not a Christian*, by the way. Christ was a prophet not a fleshly manifestation of the Creator, at least no more than you or I - the Holy Trinity is a troubling corruption of Godhead, Logos & Sophia.t​
Click to expand...



That is precise.​


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> He is not here, but is *risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
> 
> My I cant express how surprised I am that you have no answer to my question.LOL
> 
> *_ Certainly you can supply many proofs ,from the apostles, that they saw all this as metaphor. You should have the easiest time since unlike Max you make no claim of faith, leaving you with perfect objectivity._


I am willing to wager that your surprise is *substantially* less than my surprise in that you have not engaged with my bald (and verisimilitudinous) statement in respect of the Satanist agenda of Creationists and Biblical Literalists!

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> That is precise.​


It is precise, isn't it? However, your point being.....?


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> *Funnier than seeing an ancestor in the scaley fossilized remains of a fish?
> *
> What I see as an impossibilty is the rejection of Genesis, as factual, and the acceptance of 'He in not here He is risen'. A real man fell and another real man was needed to make a sacrifice that could satisfy God's holy justice, Christ was/is as real as Adam.
> 
> It is equally impossible to speak of Christ as 'a great teacher' , or a 'prophet', while rejecting His claim of deity 'Before Abraham was I am' and His prediction of resurrection. Either He is the Son of God as defined and described in the NT, or a delusional fellow that managed to get a few things right by borrowing from Moses.
> 
> Obvious then the main themes of the NT, of course not a problem for unbelievers , the deity of Christ and His resurrection are tied directly to Genesis. Take it or leave it.


In which case* this *will _really_ crease you up:


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> I am willing to wager that your surprise is *substantially* less than my surprise in that you have not engaged with my bald (and verisimilitudinous) statement in respect of the Satanist agenda of Creationists and Biblical Literalists!
> 
> .
> .
> 
> .
> .
> .


 You know the question, and for anyone unfamiliar;

*
Certainly you can supply many proofs ,from the apostles, that they saw all this as metaphor. You should have the easiest time since unlike Max you make no claim of faith, leaving you with perfect objectivity.*


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> It is precise, isn't it? However, your point being.....?


To shine some light on this adolescent post you put up earlier; Originally Posted by *Shaver* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1565379#post1565379_*I believe that I have made several claims of faith and outlined my position in this matter rather precisely.*_


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> In which case* this *will _really_ crease you up:


What it does is avoid a direct answer to;


> _What I see as an impossibilty is the rejection of Genesis, as factual, and the acceptance of 'He in not here He is risen'. A real man fell and another real man was needed to make a sacrifice that could satisfy God's holy justice, Christ was/is as real as Adam._
> 
> _It is equally impossible to speak of Christ as 'a great teacher' , or a 'prophet', while rejecting His claim of deity 'Before Abraham was I am' and His prediction of resurrection. Either He is the Son of God as defined and described in the NT, or a delusional fellow that managed to get a few things right by borrowing from Moses. _
> 
> _Obvious then the main themes of the NT, of course not a problem for unbelievers , the deity of Christ and His resurrection are tied directly to Genesis. Take it or leave it._


----------



## Shaver

^ Hitch, we observe this behaviour repeatedly from you. A refusal to engage on any meaningful level whilst continually bemoaning that your own points remain unanswered (even when they are). 

If I were accused of Satanism then I would surely defend myself. There is but one reason I can conceive of that a man would allow such an accusation to pass:

"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ; 
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil"

OR 

Matthew 4:10


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Funnier than seeing an ancestor in the scaley fossilized remains of a fish?
> 
> What I see as an impossibilty is the rejection of Genesis, as factual, and the acceptance of 'He in not here He is risen'. A real man fell and another real man was needed to make a sacrifice that could satisfy God's holy justice, Christ was/is as real as Adam.
> 
> It is equally impossible to speak of Christ as 'a great teacher' , or a 'prophet', while rejecting His claim of deity 'Before Abraham was I am' and His prediction of resurrection. Either He is the Son of God as defined and described in the NT, or a delusional fellow that managed to get a few things right by borrowing from Moses.
> 
> Obvious then the main themes of the NT, of course not a problem for unbelievers , the deity of Christ and His resurrection are tied directly to Genesis. Take it or leave it.


OK as you seem so keen that I attempt to respond to this, let's give it a try - you know me, I am an obliging type of guy.

Genesis is a poetical description of the Creation. A beautiful poem, but not a literal description. It does however provide a vivid allegory for actual Creation, light from dark, life from the waters etc. Even this curious line, we now know is Scientifically credible "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". We are all formed from stardust, each and every atom except Hydrogen & Helium can only be formed in stars, elements with even higher atomic numbers can only be formed in exploding stars - the stuff we are made from is stardust.

I do not wish to denigrate your faith in Jesus, however - to suggest that Christ is directly tied to Genesis is purely without foundation. Jesus was not a Christian, I presume you will allow me to subscribe to the same belief system as your Saviour?


----------



## SG_67

^ Jesus was not a Christian. Actually, early Christian's were Jews and it really wasn't for a couple of hundred years until those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah became known as Christians. I suppose one could argue that Christianity is a sect of Judaism. I'll leave that to the theologians to debate. 

As to the existence of Jesus from the beginning, I believe the opening of the Gospel of John reads something like "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was he"...or something like that. I think this is probably the foundation of the belief that Jesus had existed from the beginning. Of course, it was not the corporeal Jesus, but the Jesus of the Holy Trinity. 

As to the story of Genesis, I realize that there are those out there who believe that the literal interpretation is the correct one; God created the Heavens and Earth in 7 distinct 24 hr. cycles. I'm afraid most serious theologians would dispute this. Again, I would refer to St. Augustine's "On Genesis" for a far more elegant examination of this than I am capable of rendering.


----------



## Shaver

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".


Yes! Exactly.

That's why Catholics refer to the "mystery of the trinity".


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> ^ Hitch, we observe this behaviour repeatedly from you. A refusal to engage on any meaningful level whilst continually bemoaning that your own points remain unanswered (even when they are).
> 
> If I were accused of Satanism then I would surely defend myself. There is but one reason I can conceive of that a man would allow such an accusation to pass:
> 
> "And thus I clothe my naked villany
> With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
> And seem a saint, when most I play the devil"
> 
> OR
> 
> Matthew 4:10


You dont really think you're the first non believer that likes to play in the Scriptures that I've come across do you?


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> OK as you seem so keen that I attempt to respond to this, let's give it a try - you know me, I am an obliging type of guy.
> 
> Genesis is a poetical description of the Creation. A beautiful poem, but not a literal description. It does however provide a vivid allegory for actual Creation, light from dark, life from the waters etc. Even this curious line, we now know is Scientifically credible "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". We are all formed from stardust, each and every atom except Hydrogen & Helium can only be formed in stars, elements with even higher atomic numbers can only be formed in exploding stars - the stuff we are made from is stardust.
> 
> I do not wish to denigrate your faith in Jesus,


 Yawn


> however - to suggest that Christ is directly tied to Genesis is purely without foundation.


 Paul was unaware of this when writting to the Romans


> Jesus was not a Christian,


 Hey have you her the Churchill died? Got any other news or astounding facts? I cant wait.


> I presume you will allow me to subscribe to the same belief system as your Saviour?


 Your silly claims dont matter to me.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> ^ Jesus was not a Christian. Actually, early Christian's were Jews and it really wasn't for a couple of hundred years until those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah became known as Christians. I suppose one could argue that Christianity is a sect of Judaism. I'll leave that to the theologians to debate.
> 
> As to the existence of Jesus from the beginning, I believe the opening of the Gospel of John reads something like "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was he"...or something like that. I think this is probably the foundation of the belief that Jesus had existed from the beginning. Of course, it was not the corporeal Jesus, but the Jesus of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> As to the story of Genesis, I realize that there are those out there who believe that the literal interpretation is the correct one; God created the Heavens and Earth in 7 distinct 24 hr. cycles. I'm afraid most serious theologians would dispute this. Again, I would refer to St. Augustine's "On Genesis" for a far more elegant examination of this than I am capable of rendering.


 Then there must be some point at which Genesis becomes factual. I'd like to see where you think this happens supported with citations from the apostles.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Then there must be some point at which Genesis becomes factual. I'd like to see where you think this happens supported with citations from the apostles.


The story of Genesis is factual. The fact is that God created the Heavens, Earth and all the life that we see today. The apostles were silent on the Trinity as well and were silent on the Sacrament of Communion. They were silent on many things. That's not to preclude such things as being doctrines of the Church.

The story of Genesis is presented as such so that common men can perceive and understand the creative act. I believe St. Augustine is viewed as one of the Doctors of the Church. His writing are considered instructive to our faith, assuming one is Catholic.

The notion of time is unbeknownst to God. He is not subject to time nor bound by it. The whole of creation came about at once and even that suggests a moment in time which again is something that suggestive of a worldly order. God is not subject to His Creation nor is He part of it. He stands above it and views it as one whole from beginning to end.

The idea that all of creation took place over 7 days is really not something that Catholics believe. I suppose there are those who are willing to accept it as fact and I suppose there's nothing that can be done about that except to try to explain the alternative to that.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> You dont really think you're the first non believer that likes to play in the Scriptures that I've come across do you?


Oh Hitch, that's not you talking, that's just Satan in your mouth. I forgive you.

Perhaps we could attempt exorcism by internet? If all the members would be so kind to concentrate on Hitch and chant "Be Silent in the name of Jesus - the power of Christ compels thee!"

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## MaxBuck

Shaver said:


> If all the members would be so kind to concentrate on Hitch and chant "Be Silent in the name of Jesus - the power of Christ compels thee!".


I'd like to oblige, but I really can't agree to "concentrate on Hitch."


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> The story of Genesis is factual. The fact is that God created the Heavens, Earth and all the life that we see today.


 But poor God He just cant get the timing part right.... hmmm or is HE just unable to convey His thoughts in writing? Since God clearly says 7 days who are you to add billions of years?


> *The apostles were silent* on the Trinity as well and were silent on the Sacrament of Communion. They were silent on many things. That's not to preclude such things as being doctrines of the Church.


 You might have a point had they been silent on Genesis, especially Adam and Noah.


> The story of Genesis is presented as such so that common men can perceive and understand the creative act. I believe St. Augustine is viewed as one of the Doctors of the Church. His writing are considered instructive to our faith, assuming one is Catholic.
> 
> The notion of time is unbeknownst to God.


 Really? He created it by has no understanding of it? Do you really want to keep that one ?


> He is not subject to time nor bound by it. The whole of creation came about at once and even that suggests a moment in time which again is something that suggestive of a worldly order. God is not subject to His Creation nor is He part of it. He stands above it and views it as one whole from beginning to end.
> 
> The idea that all of creation took place over 7 days is really not something that Catholics believe. I suppose there are those who are willing to accept it as fact and I suppose there's nothing that can be done about that except to try to explain the alternative to that.


 I asked specifically for NT citations in support of your position. I think you have presented all the NT support you can find.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Oh Hitch, that's not you talking, that's just Satan in your mouth. I forgive you.
> 
> Perhaps we could attempt exorcism by internet? If all the members would be so kind to concentrate on Hitch and chant "Be Silent in the name of Jesus - the power of Christ compels thee!"
> 
> .
> .
> 
> .
> .
> .


Its working you're boring me to death.


----------



## Hitch

> Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?
> Good luck.


Non Christians are welcome to chime in as well ,please remember that to answer this question it is required you cite apostolic sources and/or the Gospels ,that is to say the NT. If necessary I can provide any NT passage you require, additionally the question is open to any one named in Genesis, ante or post diluvian.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> But poor god He just cant get the timing part right.... hmmm or is just unable to convey His thoughts in writing? You might have a point had they been silent on Genesis, especially Adam and Noah. Really? He created it by has no understanding of it? Do you really want to keep that one ? I asked specifically for NT citations in support of your position. I think you have presented all the NT support you can find.


It has nothing to do with not being able to convey thoughts into writing. The story of creation is told to us in such a way that we may be able to understand it. I'm not sure what your point is to be honest. I stated that the story of Genesis is factual. God created the heavens and the earth. He created all that is known to us and all that is unknown. The past, present and future were created along with it; the moment of creation created everything. Time did not exist before creation and it too was created coordinate with it.

That the notion of time is unbeknownst to God? I will stand by that. Time is a meaningless concept to God. He is everywhere, at all times and in all possible realities. There is no past, present or future with God. He just is; "I AM". Perhaps a more artful way is that God is not subject to time nor its constraints or realities.

As for NT citations, I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a NT citation on having to receive communion? Is there a NT citation on going to Church on Sundays? About the sacrament of confession? Is there a NT citation on the establishment of a Pope? There's not even a NT citation on how the Bible should have been organized.

If we base our faith on what we read, or more importantly fail to read if we take the Bible literally, then we're truly missing out on the mystery of faith and the Grace of God.


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> Its working you're boring me to death.


Explaining why, I guess, you continue to beat so many horses here that not only have expired but indeed are likely now being used to join plywood.

If you're so bored, I suggest you find something else to do.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> Explaining why, I guess, you continue to beat so many horses here that not only have expired but indeed are likely now being used to join plywood.
> 
> If you're so bored, I suggest you find something else to do.


Poor Max you're the only one who cant concentrate on anyone but me. Nighty-night Toots


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> It has nothing to do with not being able to convey thoughts into writing. The story of creation is told to us in such a way that we may be able to understand it. I'm not sure what your point is to be honest. I stated that the story of Genesis is factual.


 *1 *And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. I agree ,this is a fact 


> God created the heavens and the earth. He created all that is known to us and all that is unknown. The past, present and future were created along with it; the moment of creation created everything. Time did not exist before creation and it too was created coordinate with it.
> 
> That the notion of time is unbeknownst to God? I will stand by that. *Time is a meaningless concept to God*.


 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven *to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and year*s: 


> He is everywhere, at all times and in all possible realities. There is no past, present or future with God. He just is; "I AM". Perhaps a more artful way is that God is not subject to time nor its constraints or realities.


 Dont flutter , unbeknownst, has a distinct meaning and it has nothing to do with constraints or subjectivity 


> As for NT citations, I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a NT citation on having to receive communion? Is there a NT citation on going to Church on Sundays? About the sacrament of confession? Is there a NT citation on the establishment of a Pope? There's not even a NT citation on how the Bible should have been organized.


 I didnt expect you to hide this way. I've already pointed out that Noah and Adam are named in the NT . I have asked for NT support for any conclusion other than these were real historical men. Its silly of you to point out as objections things which are NOT mentioned. Christ speaks of Noah, as does Pete, Paul speaks of the First and Second Adam.


> If we base our faith on what we read, or more importantly fail to read if we take the Bible literally, then we're truly missing out on the mystery of faith and the Grace of God.


You and Shaver keep saying that but you have yet to produce one word in support from the NT.

Let me ask you ; He is not here: for he is *risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay ,does your admonition apply here as well ?

*When Jesus says He will rise in three days what does He mean? After all if 7 days means billions of years 3 could mean at least a few million ,,right?

Warnings snickers, and mockery regarding biblical literalism all have a common thread. They are all no more than half truths. In this case the disputed area (Genesis) is found in apostolic writings. Will you state publicly that it is harmful to Christian faith to submit to the apostles?


----------



## Shaver

_Matthew 5:5_

Poor Old Hitch, that's you out of the reckoning then. 

_
Matthew 25:21
_
That's how *I* roll. :thumbs-up:



NB Whenever I quote Scripture I am, of course, referring to the King James Bible (Cambridge Edition) and not any of the other shoddy translations.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> *1 *And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. I agree ,this is a fact  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven *to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and year*s:  Dont flutter , unbeknownst, has a distinct meaning and it has nothing to do with constraints or subjectivity I didnt expect you to hide this way. I've already pointed out that Noah and Adam are named in the NT . I have asked for NT support for any conclusion other than these were real historical men. Its silly of you to point out as objections things which are NOT mentioned. Christ speaks of Noah, as does Pete, Paul speaks of the First and Second Adam. *You and Shaver keep saying that but you have yet to produce one word in support from the NT.
> *
> Let me ask you ; He is not here: for he is *risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay ,does your admonition apply here as well ?
> 
> *When Jesus says He will rise in three days what does He mean? After all if 7 days means billions of years 3 could mean at least a few million ,,right?
> 
> Warnings snickers, and mockery regarding biblical literalism all have a common thread. They are all no more than half truths. In this case the disputed area (Genesis) is found in apostolic writings. Will you state publicly that it is harmful to Christian faith to submit to the apostles?




Here is a list of the parables of Jesus. As you can see he was very keen on them. Perhaps he inherited this trait from his Father?

https://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/parables/default.asp


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MaxBuck said:


> Explaining why, I guess, you continue to beat so many horses here that not only have expired but indeed are likely now being used to join plywood.
> If you're so bored, I suggest you find something else to do.


Actually no, Max is far from alone, fact is, everyone is bored with you. Even those, I would suggest, who theologically agree with you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Its working you're boring me to death.


Now you know how the rest of us feel reading your rantings.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> *1 *And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. I agree ,this is a fact  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven *to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and year*s:  Dont flutter , unbeknownst, has a distinct meaning and it has nothing to do with constraints or subjectivity I didnt expect you to hide this way. I've already pointed out that Noah and Adam are named in the NT . I have asked for NT support for any conclusion other than these were real historical men. Its silly of you to point out as objections things which are NOT mentioned. Christ speaks of Noah, as does Pete, Paul speaks of the First and Second Adam. You and Shaver keep saying that but you have yet to produce one word in support from the NT.
> 
> Let me ask you ; He is not here: for he is *risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay ,does your admonition apply here as well ?
> 
> *When Jesus says He will rise in three days what does He mean? After all if 7 days means billions of years 3 could mean at least a few million ,,right?
> 
> Warnings snickers, and mockery regarding biblical literalism all have a common thread. They are all no more than half truths. In this case the disputed area (Genesis) is found in apostolic writings. Will you state publicly that it is harmful to Christian faith to submit to the apostles?




Yes, he divided night from day and called distinguished it but that was for us and not as a way for Him to track his progress. As I said, everything was created at a single moment, including time.

As for hiding and your references to Noah and Adam, I'm honestly afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you asking for NT references to creation? I believe Adam and Noah to have been real people and to have lived real lives. I don't dispute that. Sorry, but I guess I'm just a bit confused. I'm not trying to hide anything, on the contrary, I'm trying to be as open and honest about what I accept to be the truth.

That God is not subject to the rules of his creation goes without saying. I don't understand how this can be controversial, unless I'm not understanding something. God is not subject to the linear nature of time. Time was created for us, as a means for us to order our lives. He has always existed everywhere and for all time and eternity.

As for rising on the 3rd day, I'm not in disagreement with you. Not everything reference to time and space in the Bible is meant to be a metaphor. Jesus came to us at a time when men learned and thought differently. Many of the references and teaching of Jesus were such that men of that time could understand it. I don't dispute, though, that "Christ suffered, died and was buried. On the 3rd day he arose, in accordance with the scriptures." We say that every Sunday on church so to believe otherwise wouldn't make any sense.

We should submit to the writings of the apostles and to the word of God. I don't believe I've indicated anything that is discordant with that.

Perhaps it's what separates Catholicism from the Protestant religions. Without re-fighting the 30 years war, catholic do not take a literal view of the bible and accept the fact that there is much written and needs interpretation.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Poor Max you're the only one who cant concentrate on anyone but me. Nighty-night Toots


Poor Hitch... There are many, many members here that concentrate on your trolling. I can mention several within the one minute that I will bother to respond to your idiotic post but will not name names here in public. You are but one of several members that like to post here, yet refuse to actually post relevant information as to the actual debate. Mentioning 5 dead soldiers again and again should be beyond even your trolling. You have dishonored their names and their service by doing so in the name of "politics"... I will ask once again if you have ever bothered to serve your country and community or if you just like to use those that have done so in order to make you political points. I have seen people I knew and served with injured and killed, have you? Or is it just more political BS? Will you bother with a real response or will it be more trolling?


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Now you know how the rest of us feel reading your rantings.


Yet here you are.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Here is a list of the parables of Jesus. As you can see he was very keen on them. Perhaps he inherited this trait from his Father?
> 
> https://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/parables/default.asp


_Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?_
_Good luck.

_That Christ taught with parables is not in question, the reference above is from Pete's first letter, do you need the entire quote?

Why not?

*1 Peter 3:20*Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of *Noah*, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
*5 *And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
*6 *And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> Yes, he divided night from day and called distinguished it but that was for us and not as a way for Him to track his progress. As I said, everything was created at a single moment, including time.
> 
> As for hiding and your references to Noah and Adam, I'm honestly afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you asking for NT references to creation? I believe Adam and Noah to have been real people and to have lived real lives. I don't dispute that. Sorry, but I guess I'm just a bit confused. I'm not trying to hide anything, on the contrary, I'm trying to be as open and honest about what I accept to be the truth.


 Do you accept that Noah and seven others were to only survivors of the Flood as per Genesis?


> That God is not subject to the rules of his creation goes without saying. I don't understand how this can be controversial, unless I'm not understanding something. God is not subject to the linear nature of time. Time was created for us, as a means for us to order our lives. He has always existed everywhere and for all time and eternity.


 That is not in question.


> As for rising on the 3rd day, I'm not in disagreement with you. Not everything reference to time and space in the Bible is meant to be a metaphor. Jesus came to us at a time when men learned and thought differently. Many of the references and teaching of Jesus were such that men of that time could understand it.


 True enough. It is also true that when Jesus used parables it was for the expressed purpose to keep some from understanding , not that it matters in this case


> I don't dispute, though, that "Christ suffered, died and was buried. On the 3rd day he arose, in accordance with the scriptures." We say that every Sunday on church so to believe otherwise wouldn't make any sense.
> 
> We should submit to the writings of the apostles and to the word of God. I don't believe I've indicated anything that is discordant with that.
> 
> Perhaps it's what separates Catholicism from the Protestant religions. Without re-fighting the 30 years war, catholic do not take a literal view of the bible and accept the fact that there is much written and needs interpretation.


 I'll be interested in your response wrt Noah and the Flood.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> _Perhaps , as a self proclaimed born-again christian, you can explain why the Holy Spirit inspires the apostle Peter to include his summation of the Flood with his claim that only 8 souls were saved. In fact Noah is mentioned more in the NT than the OT. Can you provide any evidence from apostolic writ that indicates Noah was anything other than the real patriarch of the surviving antediluvians ?_
> _Good luck.
> 
> _That Christ taught with parables is not in question, the reference above is from Pete's first letter, do you need the entire quote?
> 
> Why not?
> 
> *1 Peter 3:20*Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of *Noah*, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
> 
> For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
> *5 *And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
> *6 *And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;


Hitch, old boy, even you must concede that their is some extremely, shall we say, 'opaque' content, gibberish even, contained within the Bible? I could point out a few troubling passages if you like and perhaps you may be able to illuminate their meaning?


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Do you accept that Noah and seven others were to only survivors of the Flood as per Genesis? That is not in question. True enough. It is also true that when Jesus used parables it was for the expressed purpose to keep some from understanding , not that it matters in this case I'll be interested in your response wrt Noah and the Flood.


That Noah was a man and there was a great flood is not in dispute. That he built an ark is not in dispute.

The most current thinking amongst catholic theologians is that the translation of "earth" could also be translated as "land" therefore the current catholic doctrine holds that the "land" was covered rather than the entirety of the earth.

This means that only part of the earth was covered, that part that concerns the bible and the lineage of Christ. Keep in mind, the bible is many things, but most importantly what it is is a step by step accounting and lineage from Adam to Abraham to David and to Jesus. There's nothing to preclude men from existing elsewhere on earth if they were not in the lineage that culminated with the birth of Jesus.

In fact, the Holy See has recently stated that there is no biblical admonition for the existence of life beyond the earth. It's just that humans were made in the image of God and were made through the Word. We are spiritual animals able to understand God and that's what makes us unique in His creation.

Again, in simply offering my view based on my faith. You're free to believe as you wish and I'm not trying to change your mind. Your conscience and relationship with God will guide you on that.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Yet here you are.


Blimey!!! What an ego you seem to have, you even think you own the threads and the forum!!!

Don't flatter yourself, big boy, I'm hear reading the posts of other forum members, some of whom, unlike you, actually make sense and are capable of having a civilized discussion.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> That Noah was a man and there was a great flood is not in dispute. That he built an ark is not in dispute.
> 
> The most current thinking amongst catholic theologians is that the translation of "earth" could also be translated as "land" therefore the current catholic doctrine holds that the "land" was covered rather than the entirety of the earth.
> 
> This means that only part of the earth was covered, that part that concerns the bible and the lineage of Christ. Keep in mind, the bible is many things, but most importantly what it is is a step by step accounting and lineage from Adam to Abraham to David and to Jesus. There's nothing to preclude men from existing elsewhere on earth if they were not in the lineage that culminated with the birth of Jesus.


 Once again the NT writers dont share you skepticism. And knew not until the flood came, and *took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. *


> In fact, the Holy See has recently stated that there is no biblical admonition for the existence of life beyond the earth. It's just that humans were made in the image of God and were made through the Word. We are spiritual animals able to understand God and that's what makes us unique in His creation.
> 
> Again, in simply offering my view based on my faith. You're free to believe as you wish and I'm not trying to change your mind. Your conscience and relationship with God will guide you on that.


 Interesting as a Catholic you refuse to publicly confirm Pete's own comments wrt to Noah.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Blimey!!! What an ego you seem to have, you even think you own the threads and the forum!!!
> 
> Don't flatter yourself, big boy, I'm hear reading the posts of other forum members, some of whom, unlike you, actually make sense and are capable of having a civilized discussion.


 And yet here you are ,,again.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Hitch, old boy, even you must concede that their is some extremely, shall we say, 'opaque' content, gibberish even, contained within the Bible? I could point out a few troubling passages if you like and perhaps you may be able to illuminate their meaning?


 Not in chapter one of Genesis . Its plain as DAY . LOL

You did surprise me though I didnt expect you would have any qualms wrt twisting Pete's letter to any degree necessary.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Once again the NT writers dont share you skepticism. And knew not until the flood came, and *took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
> Interesting as a Catholic you refuse to publicly confirm Pete's own comments wrt to Noah.*


*

Who is them? And what is this fixation on Noah?

Keep in mind English is not the original language of the Bible. The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and not even a version that would be understandable by modern speakers of Hebrew. Aramaic is pretty much a dead language except for a handful of people and that even is not the same Aramaic as before.

We have a hard time trying to understand what English from 200 years ago meant in relation to modern English, let alone a language dating back 5000-6000 years.

The NT was written mostly in a Greek that is unrecognizable today by modern Greeks. There has been much ink spilt on the correct translation of these texts. In fact, the Roman Church within the past few years changed some of the working of the Apostles Creed to better reflect what the new thinking is on the correct translation.

I'm not skeptical about anything. You're taking a literal English translation without considering the nuances that may or may not have been lost in the translation. I'm simply telling you the Catholic Church's view on this, not something I've just come up with de novo.*


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> Who is them?


 In that latest post Jesus Christ. Not a bad Hebrew Scripture commentator if you ask me


> And what is this fixation on Noah?


 Perhaps you should ask Pope Peter I just read what he put in his first couple of letters.


> Keep in mind English is not the original language of the Bible. The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and not even a version that would be understandable by modern speakers of Hebrew. Aramaic is pretty much a dead language except for a handful of people and that even is not the same Aramaic as before.


 Ya know I'll bet that God Guy knew that and made every necessary preperation. And the thing about 'dead languages' is that they dont change much over time ,making translation less problematic.


> We have a hard time trying to understand what English from 200 years ago meant in relation to modern English, let alone a language dating back 5000-6000 years.


 So when God says 'these things were written for our learning' He had His fingers crossed? You're really stretching here.For whatsoever things *were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.*



> The NT was written mostly in a Greek that is unrecognizable today by modern Greeks. There has been much ink spilt on the correct translation of these texts. In fact, the Roman Church within the past few years changed some of the working of the Apostles Creed to better reflect what the new thinking is on the correct translation.
> 
> I'm not skeptical about anything. You're taking a literal English translation without considering the nuances that may or may not have been lost in the translation. I'm simply telling you the Catholic Church's view on this, not something I've just come up with de novo.


 I have long been aware that the RCC refuses to stand by Pete.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> In that latest post Jesus Christ. Nat a bad Hebrew Scripture commentator if you ask me Perhaps you should ask Pope Peter I just read what he put in his first couple of letters. Ya know I'll bet that God Guy knew that and made every necessary preperation. And the thing about 'dead languages' is that they dont change much over time ,making translation less problematic. So when God say 'these things ere written for our learning' He had His fingers crossed? You're really stretching here. I have long been aware that the RCC refuses to stand by Pete.


You're reading an English translation, of an English translation, of an English translation of a Latin translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation and a Hebrew translation.

I'm not disputing the actual words in the English Bible. What I'm saying is that the text has undergone a number of translation and is still being studied and refined.

We're relying on a translators version of what those texts said.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> You're reading an English translation, of an English translation, of an English translation of a Latin translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation and a Hebrew translation.
> 
> I'm not disputing the actual words in the English Bible. What I'm saying is that the text has undergone a number of translation and is still being studied and refined.
> 
> We're relying on a translators version of what those texts said.


 Implying that God failed to foresee this doesnt help, it is rather part of His foreordained historical process, just as as the canonization process. 
Now to take what you have repeated here several times we are left with no reliable translations and your warnings apply across the board. Any time you refer to the Scriptures you are left without the possibility of assurance. You cannot say God raised Christ on the third day and fail to invoke your own template of presupposed inaccuracy. That door swings both ways. You can only be sure of uncertainty. Im certain. Im certain that when God declares '*were written aforetime were written for ourlearning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. WE means the redeemed regardless of time or geography. That is what we rely on .*


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Implying that God failed to foresee this doesnt help, it is rather part of His foreordained historical process, just as as the canonization process.
> Now to take what you have repeated here several times we are left with no reliable translations and your warnings apply across the board. Any time you refer to the Scriptures you are left without the possibility of assurance. You cannot say God raised Christ on the third day and fail to invoke your own template of presupposed inaccuracy. That door swings both ways. You can only be sure of uncertainty. Im certain. Im certain that when God declares '*were written aforetime were written for ourlearning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. WE means the redeemed regardless of time or geography. That is what we rely on .*


It does indeed swing both ways but I will accept the Catholic Church's view.

Just as a point of interest, did you ever wonder how we got 3 days, 72 hours, out of dying on a Friday afternoon and having arisen less than 2 days later? I'm not denying the resurrection but without an understanding of what "a day" was in those ancient times, it's easy to get confused.

When we read the bible in its translated form, we are bound to misread and miss much.

No one indicating that that God did not foresee times changing. That's why we have the Church and the Pope. That's why we have the cardinals and the royal priesthood.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> It does indeed swing both ways but I will accept the Catholic Church's view.


 Your posts were noticeably more and more carefully worded, I do wish the Scriptures were your first source.


> Just as a point of interest, did you ever wonder how we got 3 days, 72 hours, out of dying on a Friday afternoon and having arisen less than 2 days later? I'm not denying the resurrection but without an understanding of what "a day" was in those ancient times, it's easy to get confused.
> 
> When we read the bible in its translated form, we are bound to misread and miss much.


 This could be true if God were left out of the equation. Our belief and our time of life is as much a part of His doing as was the Nativity. As for our reliance on translations--- Christ and the apostles quoted from the LXX, so we are in good company.


> No one indicating that that God did not foresee times changing. That's why we have the Church and the Pope. That's why we have the cardinals and the royal priesthood.


And it turns out Im the one quoting the pope, go figure.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Not in chapter one of Genesis . Its plain as DAY . LOL
> 
> You did surprise me though I didnt expect you would have any qualms wrt twisting Pete's letter to any degree necessary.


I pray for you Hitch.


----------



## Chouan

The common Greek, the Koine, in which the NT was written only had a vocabulary of about 1000 words, which makes it very difficult to express finer points of meaning, hence it is open to multiple, provable, interpretations. 
In any case, what is the New Testament anyway? A collection of writings chosen by the Council of Nicaea, as far as I remember, which selected the gospels for inclusion, and also selected gospels for exclusion, some of which were ordered to be burnt.


----------



## Shaver

^ Let's reintroduce the Gospel of Mary of Magdala. :thumbs-up: 

2:2 - Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Your posts were noticeably more and more carefully worded, I do wish the Scriptures were your first source. This could be true if God were left out of the equation. Our belief and our time of life is as much a part of His doing as was the Nativity. As for our reliance on translations--- Christ and the apostles quoted from the LXX, so we are in good company.
> 
> No one indicating that that God did not foresee times changing. That's why we have the Church and the Pope. That's why we have the cardinals and the royal priesthood.


And it turns out Im the one quoting the pope, go figure.[/QUOTE]

My posts are always carefully worded; I've maintained that my view is the Catholic Church's view. I've not veered from that.

Yes, you're citing the first pope, St. Peter. I suppose after he was crucified upside down and we would not have had any other popes after him you might have a point. But the lineage of the papacy is a direct descent from the first Pope. As such, new authority and new revelation is made. The earth is no longer thought of as flat, nor the center of the universe. Scientific profess has been made and new light has been shed on scripture in order to better understand it.

What Chouan said is right, it's an arcane language and it's not as though we're translating modern French to modern English. Think about what's lost when Chinese is translated into English. There are concepts and words now that didn't exist then and vice versa. What would be the Ancient Greek translation for Chemistry? Camera? An automobile?

Think of the debate that goes on between academics when it comes to translations of Aristophanes. The NT was written in much the same way, for men of the times to understand.

God has given us faculties of reason and intellect. Those are blessings not found elsewhere in his creation.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> My posts are always carefully worded; I've maintained that my view is the Catholic Church's view. I've not veered from that.
> 
> Yes, you're citing the first pope, St. Peter. I suppose after he was crucified upside down and we would not have had any other popes after him you might have a point. But the lineage of the papacy is a direct descent from the first Pope. As such, new authority and new revelation is made. The earth is no longer thought of as flat, nor the center of the universe. Scientific profess has been made and new light has been shed on scripture in order to better understand it.
> 
> What Chouan said is right, it's an arcane language and it's not as though we're translating modern French to modern English. Think about what's lost when Chinese is translated into English. There are concepts and words now that didn't exist then and vice versa. What would be the Ancient Greek translation for Chemistry? Camera? An automobile?
> 
> Think of the debate that goes on between academics when it comes to translations of Aristophanes. The NT was written in much the same way, for men of the times to understand.
> 
> *God has given us faculties of reason and intellect. *Those are blessings not found elsewhere in his creation.


Well, some of us at least. :devil:


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Well, some of us at least. :devil:


I'm reminded of that daily!


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> You're reading an English translation, of an English translation, of an English translation of a Latin translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation and a Hebrew translation.
> 
> I'm not disputing the actual words in the English Bible. What I'm saying is that the text has undergone a number of translation and is still being studied and refined.
> 
> We're relying on a translators version of what those texts said.


I've invested a lot of time into mastering the Hebrew text. It's as opaque as any text gets. There is usually (but not always) a sort of first-brush translation, sort of the superficial meaning, but then closer scrutiny reveals that almost all of it invites nuance and interpretation. Ask any rabbi: There's always another meaning. But translations flatten out all the depth. The bottom line is that anyone who takes an English translation at its literal meaning is a fool. I mean, sometimes the Hebrew's as clear as can be, a camel is a camel, Rebecca drew water out of the well, etc., but often not, and so long as one is relying on a translation, one never knows.

Sometimes translations add depth where there is none, because translators are forced to make choices because of their own grammar, or they wish to impose their own theological predilections. A simple example is the use of "thou," which in English is our vestigial second person in formal (thou art = du bist = tu es = tu eres, etc.), as opposed to the second person formal (you are = Sie sind = vous êtes). Hebrew has no such shades of meaning; there's just the one second person singular. So, when a translator reached for the "thou," he made a choice of the informal over the formal, when neither exist in the original. Any reader during the era of King James would have understood the "thou" for what it was, a word used among familiars. Wikipedia says that Tyndale used the "thou" to ensure that the singular was distinct from the plural, but I don't know. Luther, I think, used the Du, as well.


----------



## SG_67

One more reason why we as Catholics don't rely on our own reading, because it is almost flawed.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> One more reason why we as Catholics don't rely on our own reading, because it is almost flawed.


I think Catholicism historically (by that I mean in the pre-Counter Reformation past) went too far in discouraging individual reading and requiring reliance on official interpretation. One does need to think for oneself. Ideally, however, one should be given the tools to read it properly (i.e. in the original language), and in dialogue with canonical interpretations.


----------



## Shaver

^ Interesting reading on that topic: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...amizdat bibles in England middle ages&f=false


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> I pray for you Hitch.


For in *six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.*


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> And it turns out Im the one quoting the pope, go figure.





> My posts are always carefully worded; I've maintained that my view is the Catholic Church's view. I've not veered from that.
> 
> Yes, you're citing the first pope, St. Peter. I suppose after he was crucified upside down and we would not have had any other popes after him you might have a point. But the lineage of the papacy is a direct descent from the first Pope. As such, new authority and new revelation is made. The earth is no longer thought of as flat, nor the center of the universe. Scientific profess has been made and new light has been shed on scripture in order to better understand it.
> 
> What Chouan said is right, it's an arcane language and it's not as though we're translating modern French to modern English. Think about what's lost when Chinese is translated into English. There are concepts and words now that didn't exist then and vice versa. What would be the Ancient Greek translation for Chemistry? Camera? An automobile?


 I suggest you take up God's choice in original text with Him. Its beginning to look like you might have some good pointers


> Think of the debate that goes on between academics when it comes to translations of Aristophanes. The NT was written in much the same way, for men of the times to understand.
> 
> God has given us faculties of reason and intellect. Those are blessings not found elsewhere in his creation.


 Well there goes the papal infallibility myth.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> One more reason why we as Catholics don't rely on our own reading, because it is almost flawed.


 I have it on good authority you Catholics dont even rely on men who lived and traveled with Christ.


----------



## Hitch

> Yes, you're citing the first pope, St. Peter. I suppose after he was crucified upside down and we would not have had any other popes after him you might have a point. But the lineage of the papacy is a direct descent from the first Pope. As such, new authority and new revelation is made. The earth is no longer thought of as flat, nor the center of the universe. Scientific profess has been made and new light has been shed on scripture in order to better understand it.


 I suggest you show cause from Pete's letters/statemets that he believed the earth to be flat and the center of the universe . Or retract your implication.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> I suggest you take up God's choice in original text with Him. Its beginning to look like you might have some good pointers Well there goes the papal infallibility myth.


Do you even understand what papal infallibility means?


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> I suggest you show cause from Pete's letters/statemets that he believed the earth to be flat and the center of the universe . Or retract your implication.


Please tell me how I suggested that St. Peter implied that the Earth was flat. In your eagerness to counter anything I have to say, you're committing the cardinal sin of impatience.

Men of a certain time used to think a certain way. They spoke a certain way and their opinions and knowledge was informed by the times and what was known at the time. Times change, things are learned and new ideas come about. That's all I'm saying. Shall I refute this?


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> Please tell me how I suggested that St. Peter implied that the Earth was flat. In your eagerness to counter anything I have to say, you're committing the cardinal sin of impatience.


 Oh gee maybe because you and I were discussing Pete and his comments wrt to Noah and after confronted with that you placed the flat earth comments on your post. And by 'carefully worded' this is what I mean. You didnt come right out and say Pete was a flat earther, and I never claimed that you did. I see you have repeated it here. WELL?? Who is it you have in mind? Rabbi Slotchsky?


> Men of a certain time used to think a certain way. They spoke a certain way and their opinions and knowledge was informed by the times and what was known at the time. Times change, things are learned and new ideas come about. That's all I'm saying. Shall I refute this?


 I dont care where you hide. Claiming you see Genesis as 'factual' and adding billions of years is as dishonest as it is silly. Be man enough to say you dont believe it . I have to grant Shaver more moral courage than you. At least he stands consistently at his metaphorical point of view. You waver about and word things to the point of meaninglessness. Pointedly different from your posts on political threads.
As for me, Pete's letters are Scripture and God breathed.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> Do you even understand what papal infallibility means?


 Do you understand what I Pete 3;20 means?


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Oh gee maybe because you and I were discussing Pete and his comments wrt to Noah and after confronted with that you placed the flat earth comments on your post. And by 'carefully worded' this is what I mean. You didnt come right out and say Pete was a flat earther, and I never claimed that you did. I see you have repeated it here. WELL?? Who is it you have in mind? Rabbi Slotchsky? I dont care where you hide. Claiming you see Genesis as 'factual' and adding billions of years is as dishonest as it is silly. Be man enough to say you dont believe it . I have to grant Shaver more moral courage than you. At least he stands consistently at his metaphorical point of view. You waver about and word things to the point of meaninglessness. Pointedly different from your posts on political threads.
> As for me, Pete's letters are Scripture and God breathed.


I don't think personal attacks are really necessary here. I'm not wavering or hiding.

I would urge you to review the Vatican's position on the age of the earth as well as on the creation story.

I'm catholic so my apologies if I defer to the Vatican on these matters, which by the way are not contrary to what my own reasoning suggests.

To continue this any further is really fruitless. I've stated what I believe to be the objective truth and I've added or taken away anything to or from Holy Scripture.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> I don't think personal attacks are really necessary here. I'm not wavering or hiding.
> 
> I would urge you to review the Vatican's position on the age of the earth as well as on the creation story.
> 
> I'm catholic so my apologies if I defer to the Vatican on these matters, which by the way are not contrary to what my own reasoning suggests. [
> /quote] They are contrary to what Pete wrote ,arent they?
> 
> 
> 
> To continue this any further is really fruitless. I've stated what I believe to be the objective truth and I've added or taken away anything to or from Holy Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> I reviewed your more recent posts. You're hedging like a used car salesman. Regarding Holy Scripture; Factually you all but said Pete was mistaken wrt I P 3;20 and other references, additionally ,despite many requests, you failed to provide any support for your position taken from the apostles and/or the NT.
> 
> _To continue this any further is really fruitless_ . Agreed and if you care to post a response I'll leave you the last word.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hitch

* NT references to Noah;
**
Matthew 24:37*But as the days of *Noah* were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
*Matthew 24:38*For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that *Noe* entered into the ark

*Luke 17:27*They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that *Noah* entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all


*1 Peter 3:20*Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of *Noah*, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
*2 Peter 2:5*And spared not the old world, but saved *Noah* the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

*Hebrews 11:7*By faith *Noah*, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Oh gee maybe because you and I were discussing Pete and his comments wrt to Noah and after confronted with that you placed the flat earth comments on your post. And by 'carefully worded' this is what I mean. You didnt come right out and say Pete was a flat earther, and I never claimed that you did. I see you have repeated it here. WELL?? Who is it you have in mind? Rabbi Slotchsky? I dont care where you hide. Claiming you see Genesis as 'factual' and adding billions of years is as dishonest as it is silly. Be man enough to say you dont believe it . * I have to grant Shaver more moral courage *than you. At least he stands consistently at his metaphorical point of view. You waver about and word things to the point of meaninglessness. Pointedly different from your posts on political threads.
> As for me, Pete's letters are Scripture and God breathed.


Why thank you Hitch, that's one of the most wholesome traits that anyone has ever accused me of possessing. You really are an old sweetheart sometimes.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> I have it on *good authority *you Catholics dont even rely on men who lived and traveled with Christ.


Pray tell!


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> I have it on good authority you Catholics dont even rely on men who lived and traveled with Christ.


No Christians do. None of them. None of the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> No Christians do. None of them. None of the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus.


Exactly!


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Pray tell!


Well Earl have you ever heard of St Peter? Perhaps you noticed I quoted from his letters. Maybe you even know that Pete lived at the same time Jesus did.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Well Earl have you ever heard of St Peter? Perhaps you noticed I quoted from his letters. Maybe you even know that Pete lived at the same time Jesus did.


Pseudepigrapha.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Well Earl have you ever heard of St Peter? Perhaps you noticed I quoted from his letters. Maybe you even know that Pete lived at the same time Jesus did.


Except that the First Epistle of Saint Peter was written some time after the death of *the* Saint Peter, as it refers to events post-dating Peter's death, by an author who was skilled in rhetoric and who wrote in fluent Greek, and who had had a classical education. He may have written *as* Saint Peter, but wasn't the Peter who was an Apostle.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> Except that the First Epistle of Saint Peter was written some time after the death of *the* Saint Peter, as it refers to events post-dating Peter's death, by an author who was skilled in rhetoric and who wrote in fluent Greek, and who had had a classical education. He may have written *as* Saint Peter, but wasn't the Peter who was an Apostle.


In fairness it should be noted that while there is some evidence in support of this hypothesis, it is not an established fact. The broader point is indisputably correct, though. Christ founded his Church before the New Testament was written and collected. Accordingly, even if one believes, as do I, that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, it is obvious that the existence of Christianity and the doctrinal implications of that existence are not dependent on such Scripture.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> In fairness it should be noted that while there is some evidence in support of this hypothesis, it is not an established fact. The broader point is indisputably correct, though. Christ founded his Church before the New Testament was written and collected. Accordingly, even if one believes, as do I, that the New Testament is the inspired word of God,* it is obvious that the existence of Christianity and the doctrinal implications of that existence are not dependent on such Scripture*.


This is a good point. It's sort of like Shakespeare; you don't have to understand every word or nuance, as long as you get the gist of what is being said. The NT is not written like the Books of Moses where specific laws and rules are laid down. Moses founded a nation and therefore such rules were necessary. Jesus did not.

The NT is specifically devoid of such rules and regulations on the ordering of life and society. In fact, Christ railed against such things. That's why literal interpretations of scripture should be avoided. It's not like a court transcript where we have to hang on every word and everything has to match up perfectly.

In fact, one may say that the ordering of the books of the Bible, both new and old testament, were divinely inspired in their sometimes seeming contradictions. The way that all 4 Gospels differ just a little from one another in emphasis and the parables and stories told. Even the Passion and Crucifixion is depicted a bit differently between all four' this is the seminal event in Christianity.

The fact that their are such difference implies that men saw such things from different points of view and from different angles but came to the same conclusion. The reader cannot but be convinced that the story is therefore true. If each person at different times came to the same conclusion, men in time would suggest that the entire construct is a conspiracy. But that through so many years there are such constant themes throughout suggests otherwise to the reader.

Lastly, I believe one of the key points and purposes of the Bible is to trace the lineage of Jesus to the house of David and before him to Abraham. The prophets of the OT prophesied that the Messiah would be born of this house. It is necessary for Jesus being the Christ that there is a chronology that supports this.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> In fairness it should be noted that while there is some evidence in support of this hypothesis, it is not an established fact. The broader point is indisputably correct, though. Christ founded his Church before the New Testament was written and collected. Accordingly, even if one believes, as do I, that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, it is obvious that the existence of Christianity and the doctrinal implications of that existence are not dependent on such Scripture.


Interpretations of ancient texts can never be completely established as facts, of course. However, that "Peter" mentions things like persecution that didn't occur until after the real Peter's death does make it more than a little doubtful that it was his work. That there is an enormous corpus of writers using others' names, usually referred to as pseudo-whatever, pseudo-Sphrantzes, for a Byzantine example, makes any named work doubtful in any case.
As I mentioned earlier, I find it hard to accept that the NT is the word of God when it was compiled by a group of bishops about 300 years after the events, who chose the gospels to go into the Testament from a much wider selection of gospels, some of which were contemporary, others, like those in the NT which were not.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Interpretations of ancient texts can never be completely established as facts, of course. However, that "Peter" mentions things like persecution that didn't occur until after the real Peter's death does make it more than a little doubtful that it was his work. That there is an enormous corpus of writers using others' names, usually referred to as pseudo-whatever, pseudo-Sphrantzes, for a Byzantine example, makes any named work doubtful in any case.
> *As I mentioned earlier, I find it hard to accept that the NT is the word of God when it was compiled by a group of bishops about 300 years after the events, who chose the gospels to go into the Testament from a much wider selection of gospels, some of which were contemporary, others, like those in the NT which were not*.


It is difficult to accept unless you accept the fact that their decision was inspired and informed by the Holy Spirit. This is what we believe as Christians.

Think of some of the controversy that surrounds the writing of the Declaration of Independence and who inspired what line and who lobbied for the inclusion of this or that. There is still scholarly work being done on it. This is an event that is really only a handful of generations removed when compared to the Bible. Yet all of us in this country know the declaration and no one doubts it's authenticity.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> It is difficult to accept unless you accept *the fact that their decision was inspired and informed by the Holy Spirit*. This is what we believe as Christians.
> 
> Think of some of the controversy that surrounds the writing of the Declaration of Independence and who inspired what line and who lobbied for the inclusion of this or that. There is still scholarly work being done on it. This is an event that is really only a handful of generations removed when compared to the Bible. Yet all of us in this country know the declaration and no one doubts it's authenticity.


Not political expediency and grudging trade-offs then?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> It is difficult to accept unless you accept the fact that their decision was inspired and informed by the Holy Spirit. This is what we believe as Christians.
> 
> Think of some of the controversy that surrounds the writing of the Declaration of Independence and who inspired what line and who lobbied for the inclusion of this or that. There is still scholarly work being done on it. This is an event that is really only a handful of generations removed when compared to the Bible. Yet all of us in this country know the declaration and no one doubts it's authenticity.


Or were the choices made to confirm the views held by the bishops of the early church, with those gospels that challenged their view being discarded. It is curious that* none* of the contemporary gospels, written by people who may have actually known Jesus, were included.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Or were the choices made to confirm the views held by the bishops of the early church, with those gospels that challenged their view being discarded. It is curious that* none* of the contemporary gospels, written by people who may have actually known Jesus, were included.


History is full of curiosities. By the way, to my knowledge there were no gospels written by contemporaries of Jesus.


----------



## Hitch

Wake me if any one comes up with something new.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Pseudepigrapha.


Proof?


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Except that the First Epistle of Saint Peter was written some time after the death of *the* Saint Peter, as it refers to events post-dating Peter's death, by an author who was skilled in rhetoric and who wrote in fluent Greek, and who had had a classical education. He may have written *as* Saint Peter, but wasn't the Peter who was an Apostle.


 Im curious Chouan, how many of the oldest and best texts have you personally read?


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Proof?


Hitch old boy, you have repeatedly illustrated in this very thread that no proof short of God Himself explaining your errors to you will be sufficient.

However rejoice and please be patient, for you will receive that particular service eventually.


----------



## MaxBuck

Hitch said:


> Proof?


117, when purchased in Cask Strength.










If anyone can doubt the divine Hand of God in our magnificent creation after a dram of fine malt whisky, I just don't know what to say to them.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> 117, when purchased in Cask Strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can doubt the divine Hand of God in our magnificent creation after a dram of fine malt whisky, I just don't know what to say to them.


Made by distilling the tears of Islay's guardian angel.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> 117, when purchased in Cask Strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can doubt the divine Hand of God in our magnificent creation after a dram of fine malt whisky, I just don't know what to say to them.


After the Angels take their share, it's only right!


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Hitch old boy, you have repeatedly illustrated in this very thread that no proof short of God Himself explaining your errors to you will be sufficient.
> 
> However rejoice and please be patient, for you will receive that particular service eventually.


As predicted, you have no proof for your claim. You're begining to remind me of the alien abduction headlines of tabloid fame. 'Some experts say..."


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> As predicted, you have no proof for your claim. You're begining to remind me of the alien abduction headlines of tabloid fame. 'Some experts say..."


https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm

*The Authorship of 1 Peter and 2 Peter:* 

Many scholars think 1 Peter is pseudepigraphic, since "Babylon" (5:13) is not used until after 70 AD, and since the Greek is much too good for a simple Galilean fisherman.
Yet the good quality of this epistle's Greek could be due to Silvanus, Peter's assistant and scribe who actually wrote it; so it could very well be authentic, with only few later changes.

Most scholars agree that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic, written long after Peter's death, but still drawing upon his authority.
Much of 2 Peter quotes from the Letter of Jude, thus it must be written later than Jude.


https://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter’s

And on and on.......


----------



## Kingstonian

MaxBuck said:


> 117, when purchased in Cask Strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can doubt the divine Hand of God in our magnificent creation after a dram of fine malt whisky, I just don't know what to say to them.


I would suggest that Laphroaig Quarter Cask is a better whisky for a similar price.


----------



## phyrpowr

SG_67 said:


> Lastly, I believe one of the key points and purposes of the Bible is to trace the lineage of Jesus to the house of David and before him to Abraham. The prophets of the OT prophesied that the Messiah would be born of this house. It is necessary for Jesus being the Christ that there is a chronology that supports this.


This has always confused me a bit, in that Joseph, who was said to be of that house, was not the father of Jesus.


----------



## SG_67

^ Joseph was Jesus's earthly father and therefore a descendant of the House of David. Christ is one person who is both fully human and fully divine. This is in keeping with the notion of his being "the Word made flesh". He was divine in that sense, but also human in that he suffered as humans do. This suffering as part of being human is essential to the sacrifice of God's Son in the cleansing of our sins.


----------



## tocqueville

MaxBuck said:


> 117, when purchased in Cask Strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can doubt the divine Hand of God in our magnificent creation after a dram of fine malt whisky, I just don't know what to say to them.


"Malt does more than Milton can/To explain God's ways to man." A.E. Housman


----------



## phyrpowr

SG_67 said:


> ^ Joseph was Jesus's earthly father and therefore a descendant of the House of David.


Well, _step_ father, yes, but not biological father. Therefore, not "born of that house". His dynastic lineage, as understood then and now, would have been through Mary only.


----------



## phyrpowr

tocqueville said:


> "Malt does more than Milton can/To explain God's ways to man." A.E. Housman


"To _justify_ God's ways to man", a small change, but interesting in the thrust of the line.


----------



## SG_67

phyrpowr said:


> Well, _step_ father, yes, but not biological father. Therefore, not "born of that house". His dynastic lineage, as understood then and now, would have been through Mary only.


Jesus being born of Mary who was married to Joseph would have made him from the House of David. Joseph may not have been Jesus's biological father but he was his earthly father. Furthermore, Mary was also from the House of David.

He was protected by Joseph, raised by Joseph, the Joseph was his role model. Joseph adopted Jesus and therefore had legal guardianship and so under the law was a part of the House of David.


----------



## tocqueville

phyrpowr said:


> "To _justify_ God's ways to man", a small change, but interesting in the thrust of the line.


Thanks!


----------



## tocqueville

phyrpowr said:


> "To _justify_ God's ways to man", a small change, but interesting in the thrust of the line.


This reminds me of this wonderful scene in "Manhattan," in which Woody Allen explains to Mariel Hemingway why she's God's answer to Job. The line comes after the change of scene at the 2:00 mark:


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm
> 
> *The Authorship of 1 Peter and 2 Peter:*
> 
> Many scholars think 1 Peter is pseudepigraphic, since "Babylon" (5:13) is not used until after 70 AD, and since the Greek is much too good for a simple Galilean fisherman.
> Yet the good quality of this epistle's Greek could be due to Silvanus, Peter's assistant and scribe who actually wrote it; so it could very well be authentic, with only few later changes.
> 
> Most scholars agree that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic, written long after Peter's death, but still drawing upon his authority.
> Much of 2 Peter quotes from the Letter of Jude, thus it must be written later than Jude.
> 
> 
> https://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter’s
> 
> And on and on.......


https://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/1pet.htm

https://www.studyyourbibleonline.com/bible-study/2-peter/author-of-2-peter/

https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm

Neither argument affects the fact of canonization.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> Jesus being born of Mary who was married to Joseph would have made him from the House of David. Joseph may not have been Jesus's biological father but he was his earthly father. Furthermore, Mary was also from the House of David.
> 
> He was protected by Joseph, raised by Joseph, the Joseph was his role model. Joseph adopted Jesus and therefore had legal guardianship and so under the law was a part of the House of David.


Given Dave's proclivities it would be hard to find someone unrelated.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Well Earl have you ever heard of St Peter? Perhaps you noticed I quoted from his letters. Maybe you even know that Pete lived at the same time Jesus did.


Your arrogance is very distasteful. You have such a know-it-all attitude, I'm surprised you need to discuss anything with anyone, I'm also surprised anyone wants to discuss anything with you, I certainly don't. You are the type of close minded, stubborn person I dislike immensely. Asking me if I've heard of St. Peter...really? Have you ever heard of New York?


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Given Dave's proclivities it would be hard to find someone unrelated.


He did like the ladies!


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Your arrogance is very distasteful. You have such a know-it-all attitude, I'm surprised you need to discuss anything with anyone, I'm also surprised anyone wants to discuss anything with you, I certainly don't. You are the type of close minded, stubborn person I dislike immensely. Asking me if I've heard of St. Peter...really? Have you ever heard of New York?


 Does this mean no Christmas card?

Come on Earl its just that you're still steamed about ;

Irish soldiers branded deserters for fighting alongside Britain in WWII are finally pardoned

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lies-WWII-finally-pardoned.html#ixzz35bmTIjmb 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Hitch

I cant see Woody Allen and not think of this scene;


----------



## Odradek

Hitch said:


> Given Dave's proclivities it would be hard to find someone unrelated.


Dave?
Pete?

Given that you are trying to argue the case for this religion business, surely some respect for the source material is in order?


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> https://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/1pet.htm
> 
> https://www.studyyourbibleonline.com/bible-study/2-peter/author-of-2-peter/
> 
> https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm
> 
> Neither argument affects the fact of canonization.


Perhaps he dictated to a secretary whilst hanging upside down?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Odradek said:


> Dave?
> Pete?
> 
> Given that you are trying to argue the case for this religion business, surely some respect for the source material is in order?


Well said, my feelings exactly.


----------



## Hitch

Odradek said:


> Dave?
> Pete?
> 
> Given that you are trying to argue the case for this religion business, surely some respect for the source material is in order?


'this religion business'...


----------



## Odradek

Hitch said:


> 'this religion business'...


Unlike you, I am not arguing the case for religion.


----------



## Shaver

Odradek said:


> Dave?
> Pete?
> 
> Given that you are trying to argue the case for this religion business, surely some respect for the source material is in order?


As has been previously demonstrated (and notably not rebutted) Hitch does not worship God but rather is an acolyte of the Adversary.


----------



## Hitch

Odradek said:


> Unlike you, I am not arguing the case for religion.


And somehow this gives you a compulsion to insist I conform to your notions of propriety rest assured I'll give your instruction all the consideration it is due.


----------



## Odradek

Hitch said:


> And somehow this gives you a compulsion to insist I conform to your notions of propriety rest assured I'll give your instruction all the consideration it is due.


My only compulsion is to insist you conform to the rules of punctuation.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Creationism is a story, just one theory, but so is the Big Bang just a story, just a theory.


----------



## Gurdon

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Creationism is a story, just one theory, but so is the Big Bang just a story, just a theory.


Are you suggesting that creation fables be given equal credence to theories proposed in astrophysics?

Gurdon


----------



## Hitch

Gurdon said:


> Are you suggesting that creation fables be given equal credence to theories proposed in astrophysics?
> 
> Gurdon


Doubtless Gurdon is able to prove ,creation, specifically Genesis , is a fable.


----------



## Gurdon

Hitch said:


> Doubtless Gurdon is able to prove ,creation, specifically Genesis , is a fable.


I don't think the discussion is about proving anything. Genesis, like other traditional accounts of the beginning of the world, is a story. Many people believe it to be divinly inspired. Many believe it to be based on historical events. Many believe it to be the literal truth. Some, myself included, believe Genesis, and all the other creation stories, to be just that, stories, myths, fables. Given the common threads that run through many creation myths, it is reasonable to think there are connections between the stories and events in the distant past.

Belief is metaphysical, and not subject to proof or disproof. I would not dispute Hitch's belief, nor anyone else's, for that matter. Many who post here are religious. I certainly cannot deny the validity of their religious or spiritual experiences. Not only would such an argument be beside the point, it would be uncivil.

I rely on physical and natural science for information on how the world began, how things work, the evolution of life, etc. I rely on the liberal arts, on literature, history, the social sciences to help me understand human history. I rely on art and music for insight into the sensory experience of perception, something that is a particular concern to me.

I hope this addresses the concern raised by Hitch.

Best regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Gurdon said:


> Are you suggesting that creation fables be given equal credence to theories proposed in astrophysics?
> 
> Gurdon


Pray tell, in what way has the Big Bang theory been proved beyond doubt? Additionally, it is only a fraction of a theory. Science doesn't know a jot about what happened before the Big Bang, nor conclusively what caused it. Science can only measure from a millionth of a second forwards from the Big Bang itself, that is of course if one accepts that the radiowaves said to come form the Big Bang actually do come from it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Gurdon said:


> I don't think the discussion is about proving anything. Genesis, like other traditional accounts of the beginning of the world, is a story.


I repeat: so is the Big Bang until the scientific community as a whole all agree on it and can prove it. So far, neither state exists.


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Pray tell, in what way has the Big Bang theory been proved beyond doubt? Additionally, it is only a fraction of a theory. Science doesn't know a jot about what happened before the Big Bang, nor conclusively what caused it. Science can only measure from a millionth of a second forwards from the Big Bang itself, that is of course if one accepts that the radiowaves said to come form the Big Bang actually do come from it.


All this is quite true, but has nothing whatever to do with disproving the literal fact of the Genesis story, at least if one accepts one Biblical day as being the same time frame as that used by modern man. That proof is readily available in sedimentary geology and the fossil record.

My Christian faith is quite strong, but it doesn't rely upon my regarding as literal fact the Genesis story of creation of the universe.


----------



## Gurdon

MaxBuck said:


> All this is quite true, but has nothing whatever to do with disproving the literal fact of the Genesis story, at least if one accepts one Biblical day as being the same time frame as that used by modern man. That proof is readily available in sedimentary geology and the fossil record.
> 
> My Christian faith is quite strong, but it doesn't rely upon my regarding as literal fact the Genesis story of creation of the universe.


My point, exactly. Religious faith does not, cannot in my view, depend on literal interpretation of texts. It is a matter of faith in something not suseptible to proof. That's why there is no point in arguing about the evolving view of the universe served up by scientists, or philosphers, or artists, for that matter. 
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I repeat: so is the Big Bang until the scientific community as a whole all agree on it and can prove it. So far, neither state exists.


Earl,
It is hard for me to believe that you are pursuing this line of reasoning. From your many posts it is clear that you are educated and well-informed. It is the nature of scientific knowledge that it is in constant flux. There are no absolute final explanations. In our lifetimes knowledge of physics has changed dramatically. The Big Bang theory has evolved and may now no longer be the most widely held view of the origin of the universe, or universes, depending on what book or news article one has most recently run across.

I cannot disssprove religion any more than you can prove it. Religion is METAPHYSICAL, that is beyond or outside of that which is perceivable. It mucks things up to bolster one's arguments on any side of the subject by trying to fit the constantly evolving scientific understanding of everything (that is everything that can be perceived, measured or inferred from credible evidence) into explaining that which is beyond all understanding.

It is in my view necessary that theology be kept out of politics and governance. There are too many competing theologies for it to be arranged otherwise. You have direct experience in this connection. I do also, but it is not so horrific as the troubles, or the English/Irish experience overall, for that matter.

We agree on many things, among them Maggie and Ronnie, when they were alive. I wish they were in hell, suffering the torments described for the evil people who go there. I imagine you have the satisfaction of belief/knowledge that they indeed, are burning in eternal fire. In that regard faith does offer inducements.

Best regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Mike Petrik

Gurdon said:


> My point, exactly. Religious faith does not, cannot in my view, depend on literal interpretation of texts. It is a matter of faith in something not suseptible to proof. That's why there is no point in arguing about the evolving view of the universe served up by scientists, or philosphers, or artists, for that matter.
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Augustine long ago reasoned that both faith and science can lead to truth, but that they should inform each other. Most importantly, what science teaches us about truth helps us better understand the true meaning of Scripture. If science tells us that Scripture cannot be literally true, it stands to reason that it is either not true or is true in a non-literal sense. It was, after all, a Catholic priest who first proposed the so-called Big Bang theory. I'm confident Monsignor Lemaître nonetheless believed that Genesis is true.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MaxBuck said:


> All this is quite true, but has nothing whatever to do with disproving the literal fact of the Genesis story, at least if one accepts one Biblical day as being the same time frame as that used by modern man. That proof is readily available in sedimentary geology and the fossil record.
> 
> My Christian faith is quite strong, but it doesn't rely upon my regarding as literal fact the Genesis story of creation of the universe.


Well, as scientists will tell you, science can't prove a negative i.e. a non-event or a non-existence.
I don't accept Genesis as literal fact, just as a story. Like I said for me the Big Bang and Genesis are simply 2 stories for the creation of the universe


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Gurdon said:


> My point, exactly. Religious faith does not, cannot in my view, depend on literal interpretation of texts. It is a matter of faith in something not suseptible to proof. That's why there is no point in arguing about the evolving view of the universe served up by scientists, or philosphers, or artists, for that matter.
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I agree with every word of that. I have always viewed science and religions as parallel systems not open to comparison. Faith is Faith, regardless of scientific fact.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Gurdon said:


> Earl,
> It is hard for me to believe that you are pursuing this line of reasoning. From your many posts it is clear that you are educated and well-informed. It is the nature of scientific knowledge that it is in constant flux. There are no absolute final explanations. In our lifetimes knowledge of physics has changed dramatically. The Big Bang theory has evolved and may now no longer be the most widely held view of the origin of the universe, or universes, depending on what book or news article one has most recently run across.
> 
> I cannot disssprove religion any more than you can prove it. Religion is METAPHYSICAL, that is beyond or outside of that which is perceivable. It mucks things up to bolster one's arguments on any side of the subject by trying to fit the constantly evolving scientific understanding of everything (that is everything that can be perceived, measured or inferred from credible evidence) into explaining that which is beyond all understanding.
> 
> It is in my view necessary that theology be kept out of politics and governance. There are too many competing theologies for it to be arranged otherwise. You have direct experience in this connection. I do also, but it is not so horrific as the troubles, or the English/Irish experience overall, for that matter.
> 
> We agree on many things, among them Maggie and Ronnie, when they were alive. I wish they were in hell, suffering the torments described for the evil people who go there. I imagine you have the satisfaction of belief/knowledge that they indeed, are burning in eternal fire. In that regard faith does offer inducements.
> 
> Best regards,
> Gurdon


Gurdon, my beef is with the way science puts the big bang forward as concrete fact, it isn't, it is one of many scientific theories. Then there are many theological theories. And all theories are simply stories to try to describe the world for us.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Gurdon said:


> Earl,
> It is hard for me to believe that you are pursuing this line of reasoning. From your many posts it is clear that you are educated and well-informed. It is the nature of scientific knowledge that it is in constant flux. There are no absolute final explanations. In our lifetimes knowledge of physics has changed dramatically. The Big Bang theory has evolved and may now no longer be the most widely held view of the origin of the universe, or universes, depending on what book or news article one has most recently run across.
> 
> I cannot disssprove religion any more than you can prove it. Religion is METAPHYSICAL, that is beyond or outside of that which is perceivable. It mucks things up to bolster one's arguments on any side of the subject by trying to fit the constantly evolving scientific understanding of everything (that is everything that can be perceived, measured or inferred from credible evidence) into explaining that which is beyond all understanding.
> 
> It is in my view necessary that theology be kept out of politics and governance. There are too many competing theologies for it to be arranged otherwise. You have direct experience in this connection. I do also, but it is not so horrific as the troubles, or the English/Irish experience overall, for that matter.
> 
> We agree on many things, among them Maggie and Ronnie, when they were alive. I wish they were in hell, suffering the torments described for the evil people who go there. I imagine you have the satisfaction of belief/knowledge that they indeed, are burning in eternal fire. In that regard faith does offer inducements.
> 
> Best regards,
> Gurdon


Good Lord, I have my disagreements with lefties, but don't wish any of them in Hell. 
In any case, the idea that theology and science are somehow opposed to each other is indeed a very modern one, and one grounded in misunderstanding. Properly understood and pursued, both lead to truth and each can assist and inform the other. The misunderstanding is largely traceable to the advent of Christian fundamentalism in the 19th century. This movement stood Augustine (see my post #293) and traditional orthodox Christianity on its collective head by postulating that the Bible is literally true, and therefore any science that suggests otherwise is mistaken and perhaps even evil. Unfortunately, many non-believers have responded by arguing that any science that indicates that Scripture is not literally true therefore proves that Scripture (and by extension religious belief) must be mistaken and its followers either deluded or evil.


----------



## Gurdon

That's silly. You never get consensus on an evolving theory. Moreover, as I wrote, the so-called big bang theory has already evolved. They keep revising the theoretical construct as they gather more information. The "scientific community" doesn't ever agree "as a whole" on anything. Somewhere between 99% and 99.9% of scientists who study climate agree on global warming as a human-caused process. As you move away from climatology into other scientific fields, the level of agreement diminishes. Fewer people in weather forecasting are convinced of global warming as a cultural phenomenon. As you get further away from science and fact-based opinion, the percentage is all over the place. 

I have two friends with relevant PhD's. One is a geographer and does climate modeling based on historic records, tree ring analysis, pollon counts, and other fairly recent data. The other is a petroleum geologist and thinks in terms of geological time. They are talking past each other in most things having to do with clmate change. They are both right.

As a simple example, there is a kind of wind that, under certain circumstances, flips over airplanes as they are landing. Prior to the invention of radar that could create an image of wind movement close to the ground it was not known why sometimes airplanes flipped over. There was conjecture, but little information. Now they have a 3-D radar image to explain what happened.

Gurdon


----------



## Hitch

Gurdon said:


> I don't think the discussion is about proving anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Bovine excrement; you posted '_Are you suggesting that creation fables_ . Clearly your intent was to place Genesis in the realm myth. Now you want to claim that this is not about proving anything. It is a pathetic tactic. At the least stand with your own post.
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis, like other traditional accounts of the beginning of the world, is a story. Many people believe it to be divinly inspired. Many believe it to be based on historical events. Many believe it to be the literal truth. Some, myself included, believe Genesis, and all the other creation stories, to be just that, stories, myths, fables. Given the common threads that run through many creation myths, it is reasonable to think there are connections between the stories and events in the distant past.
> 
> Belief is metaphysical, and not subject to proof or disproof. I would not dispute Hitch's belief, nor anyone else's, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> More of the same BE . You didnt come saying you disregard Genesis but rather you came stating as fact Genesis is myth, it is dishonest of you to say you would not dispute anyone's belief when that is the very point and basis of your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Do Many who post here are religious. I certainly cannot deny the validity of their religious or spiritual experiences. Not only would such an argument be beside the point, it would be uncivil.
> 
> I rely on physical and natural science for information on how the world began, how things work, the evolution of life, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then my request for proof should be no burden, and i'l remind you that you alone brought up 'proving religion' no one has asked you to do so and most know this tired old doge when it comes up
> 
> 
> 
> I rely on the liberal arts, on literature, history, the social sciences to help me understand human history. I rely on art and music for insight into the sensory experience of perception, something that is a particular concern to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW your straw man ',religious experiences' , was noted. I suppose that sort of nonsense works in some circles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this addresses the concern raised by Hitch.
> 
> Best regards,
> Gurdon
Click to expand...

 Im surprised it was so easy to set you dancing in circles. You ware asked a scientific question about a subject you brought up, your response reflected anything but one who relies on science. But it was fun to watch


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Gurdon, my beef is with the way science puts the big bang forward as concrete fact ...


First of all, "science" is inanimate and cannot put forth any statement at all.

Second, if by "science" you intend to say "a majority of scientists involved in astrophysics," I may or may not agree; many (in my view the most sensible of them, whether they're believers or not) will simply state that the Big Bang is the theory that provides the best explanation for the state of the universe as we observe it today.

In my view, God created the universe in whatever manner He chose, and we may or may not eventually come to an understanding of just how He did it.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Pray tell, in what way has the Big Bang theory been proved beyond doubt? Additionally, it is only a fraction of a theory. Science doesn't know a jot about what happened before the Big Bang, nor conclusively what caused it. Science can only measure from a millionth of a second forwards from the Big Bang itself, that is of course if one accepts that the radiowaves said to come form the Big Bang actually do come from it.


Prior to the Big Bang there were four dimensions of space and the dimension of time did not exist. There is no 'before' the Big Bang as the eruption of the fluctuating vacuum (from nothing - there is a net zero energy in the Universe - the first thermodynamic law is not violated) effectively created time. No cause to the Big Bang is required beyond the fluctuating vacuum reaching sufficient density - given that there was no time prior to the Big Bang then this must happen eventually, inevitably. The Big Bang is proven by the simple trick of running the parameters of the observable (expanding) Universe backwards. All competing theories (steady state etc) have proven insufficient to scientific rigour. A Big Bounce is possible but no information would survive the contraction and so to all intents and purposes we might as well exclude this from theory, further a Big Bang is still required to initiate this process.

Now.... Boltzmann Brains - that *is* a tricky notion to absorb. 

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent.

Religion: a daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable.

- AB


----------



## Gurdon

Hitch said:


> Im surprised it was so easy to set you dancing in circles. You ware asked a scientific question about a subject you brought up, your response reflected anything but one who relies on science. But it was fun to watch


Obdurate twit.

Gurdon


----------



## Shaver

Gurdon said:


> Obdurate twit.
> 
> Gurdon


Gurdon, with your kind permission, may I occasionally borrow this magnificent response? :thumbs-up:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> There is no 'before' the Big Bang .


Well actually, science has absolutely no idea what did or didn't exist before the Big Bang, and has no current way of finding out, that is my whole point, which is further supported by the constant uncertainty of the scientific community, in that one recent theory garnering support is that "our" Big Bang" was simply one in a series of Big Bangs.


----------



## Gurdon

Shaver said:


> Gurdon, with your kind permission, may I occasionally borrow this magnificent response? :thumbs-up:


By all means. Am honored that you find it worthwhile.
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon

*With apologies to Heisenberg and Planck,*

One of the appealing aspects of science is that its uncertainty reflects a constantly evolving knowledge and understanding of the world.

Reality is in constant flux. This can be disconcerting and is in contrast to theology which, it seems to me, is focussed on certainty and the idea that there are absolute truths.


----------



## MaxBuck

Gurdon said:


> ... in contrast to theology which, it seems to me, is focussed on certainty and the idea that there are absolute truths.


True of some people's theology; certainly not of mine. Or perhaps, my theology stresses that there certainly are absolute truths but that it is not within the power of mankind to know precisely what they are; we're here to seek God's will but never to claim that we have a full understanding of just what it might be.

Yeah, I'm an Episcopalian, which should pretty much explain everything.


----------



## Hitch

Gurdon said:


> Obdurate twit.
> 
> Gurdon


Now its name calling , should I act surprised?


----------



## Gurdon

MaxBuck said:


> True of some people's theology; certainly not of mine. Or perhaps, my theology stresses that there certainly are absolute truths but that it is not within the power of mankind to know precisely what they are; we're here to seek God's will but never to claim that we have a full understanding of just what it might be.
> 
> Yeah, I'm an Episcopalian, which should pretty much explain everything.


Internalizing the idea of things that passeth all understanding prepares one for modernity and physics. Indeed, when pressed, I describe myself as "culturally Episcopalian."

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## MaxBuck

Gurdon said:


> ... I describe myself as "culturally Episcopalian."


So, spent some time at Betty Ford like the rest of us, eh? :devil:

When living in the South, we were frequently referred to as "Whiskeypalians," about whom it was said that wherever there are four Episcopalians, you'll also find a fifth.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Now its name calling , should I act surprised?


Matthew 16:23


----------



## Gurdon

Mike Petrik said:


> Good Lord, I have my disagreements with lefties, but don't wish any of them in Hell.
> In any case, the idea that theology and science are somehow opposed to each other is indeed a very modern one, and one grounded in misunderstanding. Properly understood and pursued, both lead to truth and each can assist and inform the other. The misunderstanding is largely traceable to the advent of Christian fundamentalism in the 19th century. This movement stood Augustine (see my post #293) and traditional orthodox Christianity on its collective head by postulating that the Bible is literally true, and therefore any science that suggests otherwise is mistaken and perhaps even evil. Unfortunately, many non-believers have responded by arguing that any science that indicates that Scripture is not literally true therefore proves that Scripture (and by extension religious belief) must be mistaken and its followers either deluded or evil.


Given that I don't believe hell exists, my wish that the two named individuals were there was hyperbole. I figure, however, that Earl, as a believer, might have the satisfaction of assuming hell is where they are, now and for eternity.

My enthusiasm for consigning Thatcher and Regan to eternal damnation is not because of their political beliefs, but rather for their actions while in power. There are pleanty of "lefties," including Mao, Lenin, and Stalin, who would be in hell if there were one.

As to crediting 19th century fundamentalism as the source of Christian anti-scientific thinking, the following quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica describes the theology of Pope Paul V, who held office from 1605 until 1621. He was not a fundamentalist as that term is currentaly used, and the dispute took place a couple of centuries before the 19th.

"Although he censured Galileo and placed Copernicus's treatise on the heliocentric theory of the solar system on the Index of Forbidden Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), in doctrinal matters he was surprisingly undogmatic."

Apologies for not responding sooner. I have been travelling.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## bernoulli

Earl, you are trying to to put too big of a burden on Science. If you read Popper, Lakatos, or even more radical philosophers of Science like Kuhn, you will come with a wonderful concept called falsifiability. Scientific theories, to work, need to be falsifiable. There HAS to be a possible doubt. And that is the beauty of good theories (in the scientific sense, not the popular sense of the word) like Natural Selection or the Big Bang. They have been able to withstand all manners of scientific evidence that would try to falsify them. See the background radiation (thanks Shaver) and the standard model of physics. We now have a good idea of the Universe's history dating milliseconds after the Big Bang. You are right when you state that Science does not have a workable theory to what exactly constitutes the Universe pre-Big Bang. It does not invalidate the concept of the Big Bang itself.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Pray tell, in what way has the Big Bang theory been proved beyond doubt? Additionally, it is only a fraction of a theory. Science doesn't know a jot about what happened before the Big Bang, nor conclusively what caused it. Science can only measure from a millionth of a second forwards from the Big Bang itself, that is of course if one accepts that the radiowaves said to come form the Big Bang actually do come from it.


----------



## Gurdon

*dark matter, a theory about gravity*

Perhaps this will be interesting. <https://earthsky.org/space/three-next-generation-dark-matter-experiments-get-a-green-light>
Gurdon


----------



## Mike Petrik

Gurdon said:


> Given that I don't believe hell exists, my wish that the two named individuals were there was hyperbole. I figure, however, that Earl, as a believer, might have the satisfaction of assuming hell is where they are, now and for eternity.
> 
> My enthusiasm for consigning Thatcher and Regan to eternal damnation is not because of their political beliefs, but rather for their actions while in power. There are pleanty of "lefties," including Mao, Lenin, and Stalin, who would be in hell if there were one.
> 
> As to crediting 19th century fundamentalism as the source of Christian anti-scientific thinking, the following quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica describes the theology of Pope Paul V, who held office from 1605 until 1621. He was not a fundamentalist as that term is currentaly used, and the dispute took place a couple of centuries before the 19th.
> 
> "Although he censured Galileo and placed Copernicus's treatise on the heliocentric theory of the solar system on the Index of Forbidden Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), in doctrinal matters he was surprisingly undogmatic."
> 
> Apologies for not responding sooner. I have been travelling.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I will decline any invitation to debate the merits of Reagan and Thatcher on the theory that our positions are far too entrenched to be moved via a functionally anonymous Internet exchange.

As for Galileo and heliocentrism:

https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html

As for my thesis generally:

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4691


----------

