RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,09:28   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,09:09)

Quote
Quote
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)


Pardon me if I don't find *your* opinion on the Pope being wrong very credible, nevermind relevant.  

Quote
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.


Good to know. Apparently a multitude of people you consider Christians are just plain wrong about their assessment of evolution. But then we are right back to noting that your claims are internally inconsistent - namely that you keep insisting that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, yet all these Christians (who you agree are indeed Christians) say otherwise. You insist they are wrong, but that's just your opinion. So...ummm...hhmmm...gee...seems that it would be just as reasonable (actually more so) to conclude you are wrong, particularly since your Big Five are erroneous.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
k.e..



Posts: 4871
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,09:43   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,17:09)
Quote
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fuck FL you're on a roll.

Give us your opinion on what Jesus would say about peak oil and global warming.

You know the Pope might just be onto something if he knows that if all the ice on earth melted and oceans rose around 200 meters you can tell him he's wrong again and insist he build an ark.

Tell us when to expect the next visit from Jesus while your at it.

Got any swamps for sale?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,10:05   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:02)
Okay, to recap, you've seen the existence of two killer incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that are taking place right here and right now.

1.  God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity.  Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.

2.  God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought.  In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans.  No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.

******

Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.

3.  Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image.  Yet evolution denies this.

           
Quote
"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

---"Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007


   
Quote
"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view.  It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

--- pro-evolution philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals, c1990.


Okay, so you can see that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity on that one.  Don't even try to fix it.
Let's go to the final killer incompatibility.

******


This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which says that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned (this event is called "The Fall.")

That particular negation is very bad, because if Romans 5:12-17 is historically false, then it's NO longer possible for Christians to tell anybody the meaning of what Christ accomplished or didn't accomplish on the Cross.  

Because of the direct unavoidable historical parallels drawn between Adam and Jesus in Rom. 5:12-17, a non-historical Genesis necessarily means a non-historical Gospel.  A historically inaccurate Creation (and Fall) account necessarily means a historically inaccurate Cross (and Atonement) account.  Then you Christians out there got NOTHING to offer this planet anymore.  

BTW, both Christians and non-Christians have pointed out this stunning situation.  (For example, the Native American activist Vine Deloria Jr. in his book God is Red. calls attention to it)  

Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:
           
Quote
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

"Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!"


---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978, p. 30.


Quite clear, yes?  You see that, Deadman?  How about you, Dale?  You, Stanton?  You see what evolution REALLY means, yes?

******

So there you go.  Four Incompatibilities between Evolution and Christianity.  Each one a killer, each one massive and huge, each one long-standing and intractable, each one clearly documented by evolutionists themselves.  

Please review them and think them over during the course of this discussion.  Sincere thanks if you choose  to do so.

FloydLee

Here's the problem with your thesis, Floyd:

Quote
1.  God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity.  Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.


Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. Philosophers and physicists might have opinions on how things got started that don't include your god, but that isn't the same thing as the TOE.  Your god could very well have created the basis for everything and the TOE would be just fine.

So really, your Big First Point is that Some People's Opinions are incompatible with Christianity. Wow...that's some revelation there, but really it has nothing to do with evolution or the TOE.

Quote
2.  God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought.  In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans.  No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.


This is the same argument as #1 above, but now you are just equivocating "does not include" with "denies". The TOE does NOT deny teleology, it just doesn't require such. Evolution can be explained without invoking some god, but that isn't the same thing as saying that some god didn't have a purpose in mind and used evolution to reach that goal.

Quote
3.  Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image.  Yet evolution denies this.


Once again, philosophers and armchair quarterbacks may well have opinions about what "image of god" means, whether it is true, and whether evolution allows for such, but the fact is the actual science - again, the TOE - has no impact on whether we were created in your god's image or not and whether your god used evolution to create us in his image. The TOE need not include such as part of its verbiage either; it just can't conflict with such a condition. And it doesn't - there is absolutely nothing about the TOE that DENIES the possibility that humans are the image of your god.

Quote
4.  Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.

Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions.


This one is a reasonable argument, Floyd...if you believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true and not allogorical and metaphorical. I would be very interested if you could actually point to a specific "Adam", where this "Adam" existed, nevermind when this "Adam" existed. The problem of course is that there is no mainstream Christian denomination that holds Adam to be a real figure and death before Adam having any meaning. In fact, considering that all biblical scholars and just about all Christian authorities agree that the story of Adam and Eve are allogorical, noting that the word "Adam" is hebrew for "Mankind", such is a very weak argument for the TOE being incompatible with Christianity. Seems to me that in this case you've just claimed that the TOE is incompatible with your fringe belief, which really isn't something that any other Christian will care about.

I can't seem to find the 5th point of the "Big Five", but I doubt that matters much.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,10:38   

FL claims that the Pope has not addressed his claimed "big four incompatibilities" or "big five incompatibilities".  In fact, Pope Benedict has.  Here's what the Pope said:

Pope Benedict XVI, remarks at Auronzo di Cadore, 24 July 2007:

"Presently I see in Germany, and also in the United States, a fairly bitter debate between so-called creationism and evolutionism, presented as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives: whoever believes in a Creator cannot believe in evolution, and likewise whoever believes in evolution has to exclude God.  This opposition is an absurdity, because on the one hand, there are many scientific proofs in favor of an evolution that seems to be a reality that we have to see, and that enriches our understanding of life and of existence as such.  But the doctrine of evolution does not respond to all questions, above all to the great philosophical questions:  Where does everything come from?  How did everything start on the path that finally arrived at humanity?"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_fa....en.html

Paraphrasing, the Pope says that knowledge of evolution and belief in Christianity are compatible because they are about different things.  Science is about what happens, religion is about what ought to happen.  Evolution and Christianity can't be incompatible just as chocolate and broccoli can't be incompatible -- the concept just doesn't make sense.  The fact that FL holds them to be incompatible means only that FL doesn't understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

Galileo put it this way, quoting Cardinal Baronius: "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

In short, the Pope has not only refuted FL's "big four", but he's refuted FL's "big five".  And when FL comes up with some other supposed argument, the Pope has already refuted that one, as well.  He has shown that whatever supposed incompatibilities FL finds, they are irrelevant.

Now, FL might or might not agree with the Pope.  But he should stop claiming that "The Pope hasn't addressed my objection #3a" because the Pope has in fact addressed all possible objections.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3074
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,11:07   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,15:47)
 
Quote
Floyd still hasn't addressed this directly, except to imply that while the Pope may be a Christian, he isn't as good a Christian as Floyd.


You may want to go back and check the pages on this one.  AND when you find my response to the "simple three-line proof", you may want to read for comprehension, and quote what I said in an accurate fashion (you don't need to risk incorrect paraphrasing anymore, just use the quote button instead), and THEN offer your assessment.

I trust that's not beyond your current abilities John.
(But please let me know if you need help on it!)

No problem, preacher boy.  Here you go:
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep 24 2009,07:09)

Quote
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.

It's like I said, Mr Humility.  You think you're a better Christian than the Pope, because he's wrong and you're right.  Why don't you take it up with him?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,12:34   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
   
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

....

FloydLee

FL thinks that he's found a deep error in the simple three-line proof, by pointing out that (1) and (2) are unrelated.  In fact, he's found a deep error in his own understanding of logic.

Here's a similar three-line proof:

1. The variable x is equal to five.

2. The variable y is equal to seven.

3. Therefore, the product x times y is equal to thirty-five.

It is true that statement (1) has nothing to do with statement (2) -- they even concern different variables!  But that's irrelevant to the correctness of the conclusion.

FL has talked and talked, he has brought up many irrelevant points, he has called people names.  But he has not found any flaw in the simple, three-line proof that evolution and Christianity are compatible.

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,12:41   

I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?

  
dheddle



Posts: 543
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,13:04   

Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,12:41)
I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?

Not metaphorical. There was good reason why there were more female converts to Judaism than men.

The men often chose the lesser commitment of the so-called  God-fearers. These men were loosely attached to the synagogue and enjoyed a subset of the privileges of full membership. In return, they agreed to obey some of the law (for example, to keep the Sabbath) and to live in a morally acceptable way. They didn't have to be circumcised. They were the low hanging fruit (bad metaphor?) and were among the first converts to Christianity.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,13:52   

As an atheist who believes that Christianity can certainly be reconciled with evolution, I think I'm going to convert to Christianity.  Just to spite* FloydLee.  


*I figure that with all the Republican politicians around the country embracing him, Jesus must  be getting used to self-serving confessions of faith made with a total lack of sincerity by now.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,13:59   

This debate was rediculous from the beginning. Why not end it now?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA622.html

Claim CA622:
Without a literal Fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.
Source:
Grant, Heber J., Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley. n.d. Mormon view of evolution. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons....eom.htm
Morris, Henry M. 1998. The fall, the curse, and evolution. Back to Genesis 112 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=837
Response:
1. It is sin in general, and not merely one particular instance of sin, that makes redemption necessary. If you can find any sin in the world, then the claim is baseless. Proof of this is given by the fact that many Christians feel the need for redemption but do not believe in a literal Fall.


2. This claim implies that sin and redemption are about things that happened thousands of years ago, not about anything happening to us today. It makes religion less relevant to people's lives.


3. Origins are not determined by our personal decisions of what religion to follow.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:14   

So...'F' for Floyd in part 1 of his assault on reality.

Not an auspicious sign, Floyd.

You expose your lack of ethics & morals by (1) abandoning your agreement on debate conduct, and in (2) the low, fallacy-strewn tactics you employed ...

But you still got roundly spanked.

Let's hope you can "defend" your claims on Intelligent Design better than this first farcical flailing, Floyd. I figure you'll be facing floods of future "F's".

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5414
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:24   

Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11118
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:30   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.

I HATE THEM GAYERS. THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I GET A STIFFY.  :angry:

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,18:20   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,16:14)
Let's hope you can "defend" your claims on Intelligent Design better than this first farcical flailing, Floyd. I figure you'll be facing floods of future "F's".

Unlikely: FL's defense of his claim that Intelligent Design is supposedly a-okay to teach in a science classroom is going to be even more pathetic than the idiocy he's regurgitated now.  Or, to reword it: a snowball tossed into the flaming fords of the Phlegethon in Hades has better survival odds.  I mean, FL harped on and on and on about how he had this "three plank theory" that explained how Intelligent Design was scientific and nonreligious for years, but, he never seemed to be able to get around to explaining what it was.

Among other things, Intelligent Design was determined in court to be nothing but dressed up religious propaganda, and has no legitimate or legal place in a science classroom.

There was one time when FL made an impassioned plea that evolution was a religion, and that science classrooms were apparently the churches of "evolutionists" (sic).  Even if such a ridiculous claim was true, you still couldn't teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom, as last I heard, in the US, it's illegal to demand that the religious propaganda of one religion be taught in the church of a different and or rival religion.

And then there's the problem how the founders of the Intelligent Design freely admit that Intelligent Design was never intended to be a science, or even be an attempt at providing alternative explanations beyond the token GODDESIGNERDIDIT.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5135
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,22:11   

Quote

Quote

other than an ancient tale, you've yet to provide any proof of a world wide flood.


Nor has Henry provided you any proof of a merely local flood.  As for me, I will not be attempting to prove the global Noahic Flood in this thread.


What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

A global Flood would have left a distinct world wide layer of evidence in the geologic record, with discontinuity between what's below it and what's above it. If such a layer had actually been detected, the people that believe the Flood happened would be sharing that information all over the place.

Henry

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,23:15   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2009,22:11)
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

A global Flood would have left a distinct world wide layer of evidence in the geologic record, with discontinuity between what's below it and what's above it. If such a layer had actually been detected, the people that believe the Flood happened would be sharing that information all over the place.

Henry


Uh, that's exactly what Creationists claim, that all those dinosaurs and other creatures buried in the rocks ARE proof of the Great Flood.

NO, THEY ARE NOT! The only way that could be halfway plausible is if the creatures buried were simular to those living today. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are NOT! Indeed, one of the fundamental assumptions of early Creationists was that extinction was not supposed to happen because that would spoil God's perfect plan for the universe.

So today's Creationists get around that difficulty by asserting that dinosaurs DID exist, but they died out after the Flood. Which makes one wonder why God would have had them preserved on the Ark in the first place.

Face it: The Bible was written by and for people who lived on a FLAT Earth that was STATIONARY and only a FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anyone who asserts that the Bible is consistent with modern science is a liar, including FL.

And that is why I assert that anyone who claims the Bible is the Word of God is a BLASPHEMER! No real Creator God would EVER have inspired such a shoddy work!

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,01:08   

Well, there's always the Kent Hovind fallback theory, that the debill planted all dem fossels to test the faith of the Tru Beeleebers

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,07:26   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 24 2009,13:04)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,12:41)
I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?

Not metaphorical. There was good reason why there were more female converts to Judaism than men.

The men often chose the lesser commitment of the so-called  God-fearers. These men were loosely attached to the synagogue and enjoyed a subset of the privileges of full membership. In return, they agreed to obey some of the law (for example, to keep the Sabbath) and to live in a morally acceptable way. They didn't have to be circumcised. They were the low hanging fruit (bad metaphor?) and were among the first converts to Christianity.

Well, maybe, but I plan to act Yahweh-like and ask my daughter's suitor for 100 foreskins as a dowry...

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,07:27   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.

I think there is certainly truth in that, we've certainly seen it publicly in the last few years.
But mentioning that is enough to get you suspended from Christian-run forums.  Those folk never were that good at facing the truth.

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,07:28   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.

I HATE THEM GAYERS. THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I GET A STIFFY.  :angry:

Stiffy?

I have not heard or used that term since about 1986 - thanks for the mammaries! :D

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,07:41   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,22:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.

I don't know why your comment made me think of this, but it did:

Funny cartoon filth. Extremely Not Safe For Work. Very rude, may offend, do not click if you think you might even be a teeensy bit squeamish or prudish in any way. Very naughty, I mean it.

I'm not joking, even Deadman might have an episode.*

(May need to reload it a time or two, the site's server appears hamster powered)

Louis

* RTH on the other hand will love it.

ETA: I would feel bad about even further derailerisation, but, well, this is a farce. FL can't parse a sentence nor find his arse using a map, a set of written instructions enforced by a butch bloke using a stick, a team of huskies, a sherpa guide, a 1 gigacandle torch and a compass. Wrestling the metaphorical pig is more productive. Ooops my cynicism is back. Port the comment to the relevant thread/hole as necessary.

--------------
Bye.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,09:49   

Quote
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

All I'm saying (and as the secular article I provided clearly showed), is that those who try to advocate a local flood face as many or more challenges from the skeptical side as do those  who advocate a global flood.  

As you know, there are some TE's out there who suggest that the Noahic Flood was a merely local flood, so I just provided the article (on the peanut thread which redirected everything to this thread) for the information it gave.

Other than that, I offer no further discussion froabout the Flood, because that's not the thread topic.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,09:52   

Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2170
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:04   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 25 2009,05:41)

Louis, that was my first laugh-out-loud today. Thanks.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2170
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,07:52)
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life." Scheech Floyd!

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Henry J



Posts: 5135
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:31   

Quote
Face it: The Bible was written by and for people who lived on a FLAT Earth that was STATIONARY and only a FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anyone who asserts that the Bible is consistent with modern science is a liar, including FL.

Well, FL is saying that the Bible is inconsistent with science (at least for his interpretation of the Bible).

  
Henry J



Posts: 5135
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:36   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,08:52)
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

The ToE doesn't depend on having a confirmed explanation for how life arose in the first place. It does require that first life did arise at least once, and it concludes that known current life descended from only one or a few original types.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:45   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 25 2009,07:41)
I don't know why your comment made me think of this, but it did:

Funny cartoon filth. Extremely Not Safe For Work. Very rude, may offend, do not click if you think you might even be a teeensy bit squeamish or prudish in any way. Very naughty, I mean it.

I'm not joking, even Deadman might have an episode.*

(May need to reload it a time or two, the site's server appears hamster powered)

Louis

* RTH on the other hand will love it.

I was shocked. SHOCKED and APPALLED. At least now we all know what *someone's* been spending their "baby-sitting" time doing, you filthy miscreant.

On the other hand, I have a great opening line when I see you in Ye Olde Sod: "Show me your HONOR!" Passers-by will be mystified, your missus will roll her eyes and I'll fall down laughing. A good time will be had by all.  

I noticed TaHugs is oddly silent on the topic however. I suspect he's closely evaluating the artwork, in a private room somewhere.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:48   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

Cue out of context and wildly extrapolated and misinterpreted John Oro quote in 3...2...1...

Because after all, one guy's misinterpreted, misrepresentedopinion TRUMPS ALL!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:50   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:49)
Quote
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

All I'm saying (and as the secular article I provided clearly showed), is that those who try to advocate a local flood face as many or more challenges from the skeptical side as do those  who advocate a global flood.  

As you know, there are some TE's out there who suggest that the Noahic Flood was a merely local flood, so I just provided the article (on the peanut thread which redirected everything to this thread) for the information it gave.

Other than that, I offer no further discussion froabout the Flood, because that's not the thread topic.

How about a more rational alternative to your false-dichotomy "Local or global fludde?"

How about "no Noachic fludde at all, merely a borrowing of Mesopotamian mythos for power-structure legitimizing purposes and group identity?" (See the LDS [Mormon] Church for a more modern representative of this historically common cultural phenomenon)

I know this would require both complex thought and a willingness to forego your usual literalism, but I promise that if you actually consider it, the Earth will not open up and send you plunging into a fiery pit.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]