If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Young Earth creationism is too ridiculous for even Pat Robertson   (patheos.com) divider line 193
    More: Amusing, young earth creationism, Pat Robertson, Hemant Mehtas, Hemant Mehta, Ken Ham, creation museum, Christian Broadcasting Network, fundies  
•       •       •

6692 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 02:42:33 PM

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

I almost wrote morality along with the spiritual things, but I actually agree with Sam Harris that morality is ultimately a quantifiable thing, given a starting philosophy.
 
2012-11-28 02:48:19 PM

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


The one Holy Roman Catholic Church.
 
2012-11-28 02:55:17 PM

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


Change a few words and you have the Fark Election Night Special.
 
2012-11-28 02:58:51 PM

burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).


If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean
 
2012-11-28 03:02:48 PM

Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.


Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean


Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.
 
2012-11-28 03:03:03 PM

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.


hey, i showered today.

/getting rained on counts as a shower right?
 
2012-11-28 03:03:41 PM

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.

It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.


I realized it really has been a long time since we got to enjoy the performance art that is Bevets.

I did some Googling:

Link

This post from May 27, 2012 is the last known post of his I could find.
 
2012-11-28 03:09:44 PM

eraser8: Kurmudgeon: No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.

If a "day" in Genesis isn't a literal day, then the Bible is not literally true. In that case, "day" becomes either poetry or metaphor. And, we're still left wondering what parts of the Bible are literal and which shouldn't be taken so seriously.


There's also the issue that the literal day could not have existed because the sun wasn't created until the fourth "day." Biblical literalism or not, how can a 24-hour day exist when there is no sun to act as a frame of reference while the earth spins?
 
2012-11-28 03:11:40 PM

burndtdan: burndtdan: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.

I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.


Watchmaker God, basically? Very 1800s of you. You're 300 years up on Pat Robertson, so you've got that one going for you, at least.

Well, assuming you're not trying to be as old-school as possible. If so, you could tell us that Jesus was actually just god's instrument on Earth and we can crown you the winner (since the Aryan heresy died out in something like the 400s, for the most part, before it popped back up briefly in the 1800s to be a corollary to watchmaker heresy).
 
2012-11-28 03:11:49 PM

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.

It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.


He doesn't update his site anymore either.

Who knows, maybe his shrink put him on stronger meds.
 
2012-11-28 03:13:58 PM

Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.


How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.
 
2012-11-28 03:15:21 PM

MrEricSir: Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.

It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.

He doesn't update his site anymore either.

Who knows, maybe his shrink put him on stronger meds.


He was raptured, duh.
 
2012-11-28 03:18:06 PM

Jim_Callahan: burndtdan: burndtdan: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.

I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.

Watchmaker God, basically? Very 1800s of you. You're 300 years up on Pat Robertson, so you've got that one going for you, at least.

Well, assuming you're not trying to be as old-school as possible. If so, you could tell us that Jesus was actually just god's instrument on Earth and we can crown you the winner (since the Aryan heresy died out in something like the 400s, for the most part, before it popped back up briefly in the 1800s to be a corollary to watchmaker heresy).


So you're trying to define Christianity by what it is not?

Here's the problem with the term 'heresy': everyone holds heretical beliefs. Everyone. If you're going to define what a Christian is by what heretical beliefs would be to one, you'd never come up with a definition. This is more true now than ever before, since there are a lot more "Christians in exile" - people who hold Jesus of Nazareth to be a main point of religious significance but don't attend church due to disagreements with church dogma. You'd be better off trying to define a Christian as someone who more or less uses Jesus as the focal point of religious life. There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the starting point.
 
2012-11-28 03:18:24 PM
well, looks like somebodies mind controlling anal slug fell out.
 
2012-11-28 03:19:35 PM

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


Because you're part of the "reality based" community.
 
2012-11-28 03:21:40 PM
are there any 'real' conservatives calling this clown a RINO yet?
 
2012-11-28 03:22:18 PM

Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.


The issue isn't with the 'advice' parts it's with the 'narrative' parts.

Which of these bits are literal and which metaphorical

Creation story
Burning Bush
Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt
Story of Job
Daniel in the Lion's Den
Crucifixion
Virgin Birth
Journey to Nazareth
Samuel's hair

See the issue?
 
2012-11-28 03:23:29 PM
I became an atheist while trying to argue with young earth creationists about evolution.

Pat Robertson has probably caught on that if there are people spouting really stupid shiat it'll make others stop believing his brand of shiat.
 
2012-11-28 03:24:10 PM
"You know, the world's twelve-thousand years old, and dinosaurs existed in that time, you'd think it would've been mentioned in the farking bible at some point. "And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking 'What a big farking lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat farking families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."

/aw, comon Bill
 
2012-11-28 03:25:26 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-28 03:26:08 PM

eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.


Just read the passage. He was using it as an example to expose hypocrisy, not ordering the Pharisees to kill kids who swear at their parents.
 
2012-11-28 03:28:11 PM

Tigger: Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

The issue isn't with the 'advice' parts it's with the 'narrative' parts.

Which of these bits are literal and which metaphorical

Creation story
Burning Bush
Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt
Story of Job
Daniel in the Lion's Den
Crucifixion
Virgin Birth
Journey to Nazareth
Samuel's hair

See the issue?


No, because you answered your own question.
 
2012-11-28 03:28:31 PM

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.

Silverstaff: This post from May 27, 2012 is the last known post of his I could find.


Check his profile; there's a link to the latest post he made (comment c77467919, thread 7157417), which would suggest that, yes, he's moved on.

burndtdan: I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.


Actually, in so far as science starts with "experience", without making a prior philosophical distinction between physical versus spiritual, it put God squarely in hot water.
 
2012-11-28 03:35:12 PM
www.conspiracyplanet.com
 
2012-11-28 03:37:51 PM

Marine1: eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.

Just read the passage. He was using it as an example to expose hypocrisy, not ordering the Pharisees to kill kids who swear at their parents.


I've read the passage. If it has a thesis statement, it's this: What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them:
Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.
Doesn't seem like Jesus is easing up on the commandment that children who curse their parents are defiled and should be put to death. (this is a little different from what he said in Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians...but, that just shows that the Bible is so contradictory that people simply take from it whatever they wish).

But, I do appreciate your candor. And, it's just as I suspected: the Bible means what you want it to mean. And, as I wrote earlier, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.
 
2012-11-28 03:43:06 PM

Marine1: Tigger: Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

The issue isn't with the 'advice' parts it's with the 'narrative' parts.

Which of these bits are literal and which metaphorical

Creation story
Burning Bush
Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt
Story of Job
Daniel in the Lion's Den
Crucifixion
Virgin Birth
Journey to Nazareth
Samuel's hair

See the issue?

No, because you answered your own question.


What?

How are you determining which are literal and which are metaphors?
 
2012-11-28 03:50:19 PM
Young Earth creationism is not a widely held belief despite what some may have everyone believe.

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" 2 Peter 3:8
 
2012-11-28 04:01:41 PM

DubyaHater: The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.


Is she hot? Cause that level of dumb/crazy can make for some wild farking.
 
2012-11-28 04:02:09 PM

eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.

Just read the passage. He was using it as an example to expose hypocrisy, not ordering the Pharisees to kill kids who swear at their parents.

I've read the passage. If it has a thesis statement, it's this: What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them: Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, ...


Problem is, everything means what we want it to mean. We're humans. That's more or less what we do. If you're trying to find one overarching answer, you won't find one. We're better off letting people take what they want from what they read and trying to stick to progress as a species. Beyond that, there really isn't much you can do.
 
2012-11-28 04:04:51 PM

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies, becoming experts in Greek and Hebrew, examining the culture and literature of the context in which the bible was written to better understand the literary structures and styles of the times. If only these people wrote academic-level books about topics like these, and occasionally wrote popular-level books so that nonspecialists could engage with these kinds of issues. Then you might have somewhere to go for guidance as you ask these questions.

/sarcasm, just in case someone's sarcastrometer is broken
 
2012-11-28 04:08:04 PM

Son of Thunder: If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies


Those are basically the sciences of explaining why the Bible doesn't really mean what it really says...which speaks to my point: when the Bible can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it doesn't mean anything at all.
 
2012-11-28 04:08:52 PM
Of course, that's only true because Pat Robertson is older than dirt.

He doesn't believe in Young Earth theology because if the Earth were young, he'd personally remember the Creation.
 
2012-11-28 04:09:43 PM

eraser8: What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.

The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Maybe he's woken up enough to realize the whole thing is metaphrorical allegory.
 
2012-11-28 04:13:02 PM

Marine1: Problem is, everything means what we want it to mean. We're humans.


I'll agree to that. So, maybe we should stop pretending there's anything divine in the Bible. Or, at least, we should stop pretending the Bible is any more divine than anything written by Wittgenstein or Proust.

All are the products of human imagination, so far as we can tell. And, none -- again, so far as we can tell -- was inspired by any supernatural agent.
 
2012-11-28 04:19:58 PM

abb3w: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.


Quite simply put: Revelation of knowledge is only derived from those given from God to humans.

In Christianity this might be called "revealed theology" and in science it would be considered "revealed science."

In this case Pat is indicating that God has revealed to us that the world is much older than 6000 years old and we need to pay attention to that. Not paying attention to things that God reveals to us goes directly against what we're supposed to be doing, which is following the will of God. In this case it shows that the Bible is a living manual of life with God and not a static doctrine which should be universally followed.

Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian. God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.
 
2012-11-28 04:22:03 PM

eraser8: I've read the passage. If it has a thesis statement, it's this: What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them:

Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

Doesn't seem like Jesus is easing up on the commandment that children who curse their parents are defiled and should be put to death. (this is a little different from what he said in Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians...but, that just shows that the Bible is so contradictory that people simply take from it whatever they wish).


This might come as a shock, but Paul's Second Letter was written by... Paul. Not Jesus.

/just sayin
 
2012-11-28 04:22:08 PM

burndtdan: God created and manipulates the universe


Which is still "god of the gaps bullshiat".

Moving magic from the point of abiogenesis back to the point of singularity expansion doesn't change squat except the amount of known history about which you are wrong. In the end, you are still, however, wrong. Magic did not create the universe, did not set in motion, and plays no role in its machinations. Playing devil's advocate for these people is impossible because you're just choosing the amount of time about which they're wrong.

Unless there's just nobody else available, there's no real reason to consider the opinions of people who say "god flicked the singularity and that started everything else, but I accept all the science after that point" anymore than you would people who say "god pissed in the dirt and made muck men out of the result, but I accept all the science after that point".

They're both wrong and they can both be easily dismissed and replaced instead with people who don't choose to be flat-out wrong from some arbitrary point in time back.
 
2012-11-28 04:24:38 PM

Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is


Then you'll have lots of company in Hell, I guess.
 
2012-11-28 04:26:02 PM

Jeremysbrain: Young Earth creationism is not a widely held belief despite what some may have everyone believe.


Gallup tends to overestimate it.

The Gallup poll only gives three options. There was a poll back in 2002 by Mason-Dixon for the Cleveland Plain Dealer at the height of the "Intelligent Design" controversy in Ohio, which used a five-option model. Essentially: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, and Atheistic Evolution. While it was only in the state of Ohio, that state has been a pretty good proxy for the country as a whole for quite some time. The ratios were (rounding a bit) approximately 30:15:15:25:15. The time-nearest Gallup numbers for the three-way breakdown were 45:37:12. Thus, the Gallup poll probably lumps the YEC and OEC crowd together, and the ID and TE crowd together. Nonetheless, that's still circa 30% YEC; the CPD question hasn't been used since, but Gallup's given the poll repeatedly, and their numbers haven't shifted all that much.

In short: a belief held by circa 30% of the country does still seem to constitute "widely held".
 
2012-11-28 04:26:07 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Unless there's just nobody else available, there's no real reason to consider the opinions of people who say "god flicked the singularity and that started everything else, but I accept all the science after that point" anymore than you would people who say "god pissed in the dirt and made muck men out of the result, but I accept all the science after that point".


Nonsense. God held the pattern of the universe in his mind while in Chaos, and the individual philotes which exist there assumed that pattern. Hence how God made us "in his image."

/What? It could be true.
 
2012-11-28 04:26:24 PM

xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament.


It must be awfully convenient when you can dismiss most Christians as not qualifying because they're not "modern."
 
2012-11-28 04:27:31 PM

wippit: This might come as a shock, but Paul's Second Letter was written by... Paul. Not Jesus.


Well, none of the books of the New Testament were written by Jesus. But, many quote him.

But, you were write to call me out on 2 Corinthians. I was actually thinking of something from John. So, thanks for the catch.
 
2012-11-28 04:28:20 PM

eraser8: But, you were write right to call me out on 2 Corinthians. I was actually thinking of something from John. So, thanks for the catch.


FTFM.
 
2012-11-28 04:31:14 PM

xynix: Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Except when Christians like to quote it to justify their hatred of homosexuals.

Yeah, Leviticus is a pretty archaic and obsolete text with minimal relevance to living in the 21st century. However, when churches cite it as a reason for their anti-LBGT doctrines, it gets hauled back into the game, and the foolishness of obeying just one law on that list when ignoring the very long list of other restrictions there becomes apparent.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:14 PM

real_headhoncho: [www.conspiracyplanet.com image 720x361]


You know, that quote itself is disinformation.

What's the source for it? Seriously.

I've tried to find a source for it, an actual reputable source. There are lots of web memes, forum posts, and random websites listing it as a quote, claiming he said it at his very first staff meeting as the DCI in 1981.

However, it's all internet quotes. Nothing predating 2007 that I could find. The vast majority of mentions from within the last year or so, most internet references seem to tie to conspiracy theory message boards and sites tied to the Ron Paul campaign.

Somebody was going to add it to Wikipedia under his entry, but nobody could provide any kind of citation. The best they had was an anonymous web forum attributing it to a Kennedy-era member of the White House Press Corps who was a big proponent of JFK assassination conspiracy theories. . . but nobody could actually provide proof of the citation beyond a forum post.
 
2012-11-28 04:43:36 PM

xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Except for all those Christians who justify their hatred of homosexuals with Leviticus. But you already know about those assholes.
 
2012-11-28 04:49:42 PM

Blues_X: Wow... even he gets it.

Your move, dumbasses.


No. He and his grifter ilk realize they can't isolate themselves too much to keep enough suckers inside the tent to drain their wallets.
 
2012-11-28 04:50:50 PM

Ed Grubermann: xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.

Except for all those Christians who justify their hatred of homosexuals with Leviticus. But you already know about those assholes.


Yes and I do know all about them.. Claiming to be Christian and then not following Christs own examples. People like that are more Muslim than anything and if they were raised in the middle easy they would fit right in.

It's quite clear that gentiles do not follow the old testament. This was written about many times in the book of Acts and letters of Paul. Which is why I made the original statement of: God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.

In fact Christ makes quite a few points that gay marriage should be allowed and he leaves plenty of wiggle-room in his statements to allow for this. He also makes it very clear that the government is only supposed to provide government and not dictate our personal lives. He also makes it clear that those who are not "born again" are not subject to the laws/rules of the New Testament.

Try explaining that to 75% of the Christians in this country though..
 
2012-11-28 04:56:07 PM

Marine1: Rev. Skarekroe: Pat Robertson is mellowing a bit in his old age.

Guy's also for legalization of marijuana. Hard to believe, but true.

Basically, if you're against these things... you're more insane than Pat Robertson. And that's not something you want to be.


Dude was quite the partier in college before he found religion.

/the more you know
 
2012-11-28 05:04:17 PM

xynix: Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Empirical data suggests that the question of whether the Bible is indeed the Word Of God, and the hypocrisy of nominally religious people -- which would appear to potentially include how they selectively emphasize some passages and ignore others -- do indeed serve as potentially significant triggers of religious doubt. So do questions about tolerance of homosexuality and the role of women -- both covered in Leviticus.

Contrariwise, while such triggers appear mainly a necessary step, they are nowhere near a sufficient one. Attitudes on authority seem to play a large role, as does the decision between whether to seek out competing ideas or simply look for arguments confirming one's preexisting beliefs.

Nohow, it's an inaccurate minimization to say Leviticus means "nothing" to "modern" Christians.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report