RE: The Covert Messiah

RE: The Covert Messiah (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TigressLily -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 9:56:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TigressLily There was one pair of every unclean creature and 7 pairs of every clean animal, namely that which was safe to consume. (Gen 7:2,8-9,15) A lot of people get this wrong. Consequently, the clean animals were taken in pairs of 7 each, so they still went into the ark two by two, just like the unclean ones did. That is not what the bible says. Genesis chapter 6 quote: 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. Genesis chapter 7 quote: 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. It is simply impossible to make 2 = 14. There are numerous other direct contradictions like this. Where, pray tell, is there a contradiction? I see further explanation in progressively specific detail. Nowhere does it say go multiply a single pair into 7 pairs. Get one pair of this, 7 pairs of that. Nothing could be clearer. You are a Dom. Do you give every instruction all at once to your s-type to perform a time-consuming (not instantly performable) task? Or do you give a general overview with a few specific instructions to get her started? After the fact, do you launch into a detailed explanation like you are delivering a lecture, or do you pause to let the other person absorb this information at her own pace? You are a Master, aren't you? {Edited for typo}

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 10:00:05 PM)
You're kidding right? It's two different accounts of the same story and one says 1 pair of every critter and the other says take 7 pairs of some and 1 pair of some others, also not that the rules on which animals are clean and unclean do not yet exist as those are supposedly passed from god to Moses in Leviticus several thousand years later.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 10:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed yes, but many people had the same attitude towards Dutch sailors speaking tales of the Kraken, and now we have a Colossal Squid's carcass in a big-ass glass cage in the Museum of Natural History in Britain. and another carcass of Archituthis Dux in the Antipodes. No one believed we could put THOSE in a jar either, and thought belief in the tentacled monsters were the same as belief in pixies and magic bunnies giving chocolate eggs. Well, there were eggs, on quite a few "scientific" faces, after the tentacles with hooks in the suckers were weighed. No. The kraken myth may be based on some sailor seeing a colossal or giant squid carcass but those animals cannot survive at the ocean's surface and neither is remotely the size claimed for the Kraken.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 10:22:55 PM)
We can argue forever about the detail of various religious belief systems. Religion is a matter of faith ie. belief in the absence of confirming evidence. If a person has 'faith' then all the logical arguments and all the evidence to the contrary matter not an iota. In the minds of believers, faith trumps empirical evidence and logic every time. Given this, I find it odd that believers choose to justify their beliefs using empirical evidence and logic. If empirical evidence and logic are considered insufficient to invalidate or disprove faith-based beliefs, how can they be said to validate or 'prove' them?

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 10:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed yes, but many people had the same attitude towards Dutch sailors speaking tales of the Kraken, and now we have a Colossal Squid's carcass in a big-ass glass cage in the Museum of Natural History in Britain. and another carcass of Archituthis Dux in the Antipodes. No one believed we could put THOSE in a jar either, and thought belief in the tentacled monsters were the same as belief in pixies and magic bunnies giving chocolate eggs. Well, there were eggs, on quite a few "scientific" faces, after the tentacles with hooks in the suckers were weighed. No. The kraken myth may be based on some sailor seeing a colossal or giant squid carcass but those animals cannot survive at the ocean's surface and neither is remotely the size claimed for the Kraken. yes, because the attitude given to the sailors was one of believing that anyone thinking a squid longer than a man's arm was ridiculous, due to the fact that few squid in The Old World had been encountered bigger than that. The point is that it's like all the "professional" scientists stating for over 200 years that there is/was no such thing as a black swan. Then the dipshits settled WESTERN AUSTRALIA. Just because something doesn't exist on your street in your city in the experience of your culture does not mean it does not exist elsewhere. Faith in the current science always being 'right' is just as much of a blind faith as any religist's. Case in point, the duhrwads who had the Iguanodon walking on all fours for what, over a century? BRILLIANT.

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 10:55:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle We can argue forever about the detail of various religious belief systems. Religion is a matter of faith ie. belief in the absence of confirming evidence. If a person has 'faith' then all the logical arguments and all the evidence to the contrary matter not an iota. In the minds of believers, faith trumps empirical evidence and logic every time. Given this, I find it odd that believers choose to justify their beliefs using empirical evidence and logic. If empirical evidence and logic are considered insufficient to invalidate or disprove faith-based beliefs, how can they be said to validate or 'prove' them? I had faith in the proving of the claims about the Higgs Bosun and the re-definition of what holds the damn multiverse together RE the lattice of mass/time RE Dark Matter for over 20 years. My faith was JUSTIFIED. at this point you might have faith in a guess that I am in fact NOT a religist. your faith would likewise be justified.

TigressLily -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 10:59:56 PM)
Good question. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Given this, I find it odd that believers choose to justify their beliefs using empirical evidence and logic. If empirical evidence and logic are considered insufficient to invalidate or disprove faith-based beliefs, how can they be said to validate or 'prove' them? Could be for the same reason there are two Davidic lineages recounted. One to satisfy the matrilinealists, the other for the sake of the patrilinealists. Nay-sayers abound, especially the ones who get hung up on every single technical detail. As if everything in life has to be cut and dried with no wiggle room. The same ones who are critical of others for intolerance and intransigence. Insofar as believers go, the objective is not to 'win' an argument or feed an atmosphere of contention. This defeats the whole purpose of reaching the other person on a more spiritual, less egocentric level. Many believers lose sight of this themselves and resort to proselytizing rather than providing information for rumination.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 10:59:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle We can argue forever about the detail of various religious belief systems. Religion is a matter of faith ie. belief in the absence of confirming evidence. If a person has 'faith' then all the logical arguments and all the evidence to the contrary matter not an iota. In the minds of believers, faith trumps empirical evidence and logic every time. Given this, I find it odd that believers choose to justify their beliefs using empirical evidence and logic. If empirical evidence and logic are considered insufficient to invalidate or disprove faith-based beliefs, how can they be said to validate or 'prove' them? I don't find it odd that someone who believes in something greater would welcome evidence suggestive of there possibly being something to that belief, but I do have a quibble with claims that a book (take your pick) constitutes empirical evidence. K.

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 11:04:57 PM)
Kirata: again, this is the bad syllogism of Faith = Religion = consoldation of Creedist Doctrines. If one actually has Faith, by definition they do not need to convert anyone or speak of what they have faith in. Looking at a science-produce satellite map of my surrounding area, even without having walked northwest from here EVER, I have faith that I will run into a tick infested lesser-mountain. I don't need a book to argue the mountain, I don't have to yell at anyone who tries to tell me there ain't no mountain. And I already know people with the tick bites.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 11:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed yes, because the attitude given to the sailors was one of believing that anyone thinking a squid longer than a man's arm was ridiculous, due to the fact that few squid in The Old World had been encountered bigger than that. Europeans knew there were squids longer than a man's arm. They routinely caught and ate them. But giant kraken that dragged ships to the ocean floor? Not possible.

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/14/2013 11:23:56 PM)
That was an exaggeration no different to reports of bears over 13 feet tall in the Californian Rockies by pioneers and gold panners. The point remains. BLACK SWANS, Dom. Black Swans. ESTABLISHED doctrine stating they dod not exist, based on the limitations of experience of people on the other side of the planet from the antipodes, and those people were STILL full of shit. so arguing the finer points while avoiding the - pun intended - SPIRIT of the argument, Dom, is like ignoring the human weal in favour of... debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. How...... CATHOLIC of you Dom Ken. I am impressed. WEG

Apocalypso -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 4:53:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel face palm That's like saying Santa Claus was real. Well, kinda. In the sense that the mythical Santa was based on Saint Nicholas, who is a historical figure that definitely existed. So actually a decent analogy, although possibly not in the way you were meaning. It shows that it's generally way easier for a mythical figure to stem from an actual person. (Although I accept the evidence for the existence of Nicholas is conclusive, where the evidence for the existence of Jesus is merely very strong). quote: ORIGINAL: TigressLily Nay-sayers abound, especially the ones who get hung up on every single technical detail. As if everything in life has to be cut and dried with no wiggle room. Well, the technical details really should only matter to believers if they're going to try and claim that the Bible is to be taken literally, or that it's entirely free of errors. That particular position is unsustainable. Because you instantly run into issues like the fact that the Bible says both that Jehoiachin ascended the throne in Jerusalem when he was eighteen years old (II Kings 24:8) and that he did when he was eight years old (II Chronicles 36:9). The Bible is full of issues like that. At some point, believers need to either accept that the Bible is not to be taken as literal, at least not outside of matters of faith (the Catholic Church position) or they need to just decide that they're going to throw out rationality entirely (the literalist position). The former actually has far more of a respectable historical pedigree- St. Augustine did not take Genesis literally. In other words, this is only an issue for those Christians who insist on making it one. For many (probably most) Christians, it isn't at all.

Zonie63 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 5:23:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed Just because something doesn't exist on your street in your city in the experience of your culture does not mean it does not exist elsewhere. Faith in the current science always being 'right' is just as much of a blind faith as any religist's. Case in point, the duhrwads who had the Iguanodon walking on all fours for what, over a century? BRILLIANT. I somewhat agree, as scientists are human beings who are prone to error and lying just like any other human being. But I can also see that science is self-correcting through peer review. Religion doesn't really have that, and therein lies the difference. I also happen to think that there's a difference between saying "X does not exist" versus "There is insufficient evidence to prove that X exists." I'm an agnostic, so I believe that the statement "God does not exist" is just as scientifically invalid as saying that "God exists." As an agnostic, I'm content to live with a mystery. I don't have a problem with the answer "I don't know." But a lot of people seem unable to accept that, that there HAS to be a conclusive answer to every question or riddle that faces us in life.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 7:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed That was an exaggeration no different to reports of bears over 13 feet tall in the Californian Rockies by pioneers and gold panners. The point remains. BLACK SWANS, Dom. Black Swans. ESTABLISHED doctrine stating they dod not exist, based on the limitations of experience of people on the other side of the planet from the antipodes, and those people were STILL full of shit. so arguing the finer points while avoiding the - pun intended - SPIRIT of the argument, Dom, is like ignoring the human weal in favour of... debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. How...... CATHOLIC of you Dom Ken. I am impressed. WEG This is a truly dumb complaint. No one had ever seen a black swan before outsiders got to Australia. This was not some big scientific principle. It is just an old Latin saying, translated "a rare bird in the lands, very much like a black swan."

TigressLily -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 7:39:35 AM)
Old St. Nick. Haven't thought of him in a long while. . . . No scribe is infallible, a tedious life's work, without much if any recognition for all your painstaking efforts. Neither are proofreaders, nor translators. One word can change the entire meaning of a passage. quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso Well, kinda. In the sense that the mythical Santa was based on Saint Nicholas, who is a historical figure that definitely existed. So actually a decent analogy, although possibly not in the way you were meaning. It shows that it's generally way easier for a mythical figure to stem from an actual person. (Although I accept the evidence for the existence of Nicholas is conclusive, where the evidence for the existence of Jesus is merely very strong). --- Well, the technical details really should only matter to believers if they're going to try and claim that the Bible is to be taken literally, or that it's entirely free of errors. That particular position is unsustainable. Because you instantly run into issues like the fact that the Bible says both that Jehoiachin ascended the throne in Jerusalem when he was eighteen years old (II Kings 24:8) and that he did when he was eight years old (II Chronicles 36:9). The Bible is full of issues like that. <snip> When I did stenography working as a secretary through college, I often took literary license filling in the gaps. I made my executive bosses' letters & memos sound better, and they never seemed to notice the slight improvements, thinking them their own. (I was skilled at capturing their style.) quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I somewhat agree, as scientists are human beings who are prone to error and lying just like any other human being. But I can also see that science is self-correcting through peer review. Religion doesn't really have that, and therein lies the difference. I also happen to think that there's a difference between saying "X does not exist" versus "There is insufficient evidence to prove that X exists." I'm an agnostic, so I believe that the statement "God does not exist" is just as scientifically invalid as saying that "God exists." As an agnostic, I'm content to live with a mystery. I don't have a problem with the answer "I don't know."... Very level-headed approach, unlike many of those of the atheistic bent. You would almost think atheism is a religion unto itself. But that's a whole other phenomenon.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 12:11:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TigressLily Where, pray tell, is there a contradiction? I see further explanation in progressively specific detail. Nowhere does it say go multiply a single pair into 7 pairs. Get one pair of this, 7 pairs of that. Nothing could be clearer. Yep good old confirmation bias. There are no contradictions in the Bible, so long as you ignore all the contradictions.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 12:30:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel face palm That's like saying Santa Claus was real. Well, kinda. In the sense that the mythical Santa was based on Saint Nicholas, who is a historical figure that definitely existed. So actually a decent analogy, although possibly not in the way you were meaning. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso It shows that it's generally way easier for a mythical figure to stem from an actual person. (Although I accept the evidence for the existence of Nicholas is conclusive, where the evidence for the existence of Jesus is merely very strong). We could certainly quibble about "very strong" but that strays from my point. Notice how you say Nicolas (not Santa) was real. It's entirely plausible that there was a country vagrant wandering around prattling on about the doomsday with the popular name of something like Yeshua. Really considering the untreatable nature of mental illness at the time it would be a bit strange if there wasn't. But that's very VERY different from making statements like Jesus and Santa Claus were real. [image]local://upfiles/566126/79AC9421B75E4EF9891C715E564A2B73.jpg[/image]

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 1:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel a country vagrant wandering around prattling on about the doomsday with the popular name of something like Yeshua. It is rare to find someone with your depth of knowledge of what he's talking about. K.

Kana -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 2:41:35 PM)
Of course Jesus is real-he just left Chicago

Zonie63 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 7:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kana Of course Jesus is real-he just left Chicago Bound for New Orleans? I think the song also said that he walked across the Mississippi River and turned it into wine. With that kind of power, he could really work some miracles with tumbleweeds. [;)]

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875