Everyone else: 1. Looky here, there is no such thing as a scientific fact, there are currently accepted theories, but there are no facts, these will always be redefined. 2. A person that blindly puts his faith in a book or anything else is blind(see the connection ) 3. If Omega wants to be an unenlightened person that beleives everything he's been spoonfed by the supposed authorities on a specific theme, than I fail to see why we should pull him out of his self-made gutter. 4. Any religion that limits me, who I can be, what I can do and how I can feel is not a religion that I will obey.
------------------ "Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"
posted
Actually, I'd say that one of the differences between science today, and the science of yesterday, is that today, scientists try to disprove their theories, rather than prove them. So it's not so much a case of "obviously, the Earth is flat, and we're right", but a case of "but are we correct to think that the Earth is round". Scientists know that new stuff will be proven in future years. They allow for that in their work. Hell, even the periodic table, hardly a new creation, allowed for elements that weren't actually known to exist at the time. And it managed to guess their properties pretty well.
Besides, Omega asked for this. DT posted a fair number of reasons. And, as soon as Omega finds his glasses and reads them, we can carry on.
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
So, since you only know good, how would you know disobedience wouldn't result in good?
Good question. I would respond that there are multiple definitions of the word "know". "Knowing" as in "knowing good and evil" may not refer to intellectual knowledge, but to the knowledge of experience. As in "carnal knowledge". They could know OF evil without KNOWING evil.
Liam:
DT's post, dated April 29, 2001 12:57 AM, has a whole heap of internal contradictions
*looks*
Oh, my. Well, I'll be durned. I never saw that post, nor a couple others near it. How did I manage to scroll past without noticing? Ah, well, forgive me.
Now to the debunking.
DT's old post:
Does god feel regret?
Multiple foreign words can be translated as the same English word, because the English word might have multiple uses. To use the example of the recent incident with China, we regretted that the incident occured, but we did not regret any of our actions. I'd need a Hebrew scholar to tell you further, but you can't have a direct, expliit contradiction when a word can have multiple meanings, either of which being equally valid in context.
Sins of the Father?
What God tells us to do and what God Himself sees fit to do are two seperate things. Now if God had told the Hebrews that THEY should do both things, then we might have a contradiction. But that's not what happened. God is by definition righteous. Man's judgement, however, is fallible. Thus, it would seem that God was protecting possibly innocent people from the fallible judgements of other humans, while punishing those who He knew needed to be punished. Omniscience is a wonderful thing.
Rightousness?
Just so you know, Paul was quoting Psalm 14, in that part of Romans 10. You have to read the rest of the chapter to understand the full meaning of his statement. You took it out of context. Read from verse 19. He was quoting the old law. Now he's explaining how it no longer applies.
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become consious of sin."
He's saying here that the point of the law wasn't to get us to Heaven. It was a training tool. The point was to teach us that we CAN'T get to Heaven. At least, not by our works.
"But now, a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Calling on the name of Christ
In Romans 10:14 (the following verse), Paul says, "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?" This implies that the phrase "call on" as used here requires faith in the Entity being called upon. However, Jesus said in Matthew 7:21 that there was plainly a difference between saying "Lord, Lord" and actually following Christ. They're talking about two seperate things. Kinda obvious, if you think about it. Saying "Lord, Lord" is analogous to saying "Help me, God." If you don't believe it, it ain't doin' ya no good. However, Paul seems to be talking about actual, legitimate prayer, which no non-believer would do.
The Trinity
I fail to see how you find a contradiction here. What's wrong with Jesus being one with the Father and yet being sent from Him? He didn't say he WAS the Father. Imagine that God is an ocean. The body of water that stretches towards the horizon is the Father. The waves are the Son. The smell of the salt air is the Spirit. Can not the waves come from the ocean, and yet not still be part of it?
DT's newer post:
I provided him those internal contradictions found through centuries of higher criticism by enlightened scholars. He cannot refute them.
Really?
------------------ "How do you define fool?" "I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination." - CJ Cherryh, Invader
posted
I guess my arguement was irrefuteable... Can I claim victory now?
------------------ "Although, from what I understand, having travelled around the Mid-west quite a bit, apparently Jesus is coming, so I guess the choice now is we should decide whether we should spit or swallow." -Maynard James Keenan
posted
I'm glad to see I finally got a response. Omega first raises issues on translation. Well Omega, allow someone who knows a thing or two about the Bible to enlighten you. The word in question here is "nacham" which is from the Hebrew and is translated in the Bible as the following: am sorry appreased become a consolation change(d) mind(s) comfort(ed)(er)(ers)(s) console(rs)(ing) give rest have compassion moved to pity regret(ted) relent(ed)(ing)(s) relieved repent(ed) sorry think better This is the very word used in both verses I quote. Thus, the Bible says that god cannot "nacham" and later in the same chapter he does "nacham" over the issue of Saul. Moreover, include verse 11 and the exact same word is used. As it is, the word itself is not what is at issue, it is whether god is infallible. Clearly, god is entirely fallible. You claim that any decision he makes, such as the slaughter of so many that he orders, is right because he is omniscient and never fails. Yet, he made Saul king and apparently feels regret (or repentance) over that. In fact, substitute in any of those words. God either regrets his decision, is repenting over it, is sorry over it, thinks better than it, was sorry or changed his mind. Either way, this isn't exactly a good move. You say there cannot be an "explicit contradiction when a word can have multiple meanings, either of which being equally valid in context." I do not see how this cannot be one, as the multiple meanings are all simply variations on the same word in Hebrew. None of the possible alternative English words, being substituted in, can make that verse any less contradictory. As it stands, I am apt to listen to the Bible translators since I think they'd probably be those Hebrew experts you want. Of course, you can throw out the entire thing on the basis of Hebrew perhaps being much deeper than English, but if you do that, you toss out the entire Bible since half of it would be unintelligible to those not versed in Hebrew and the other half is, even in the originals (which we don't have) nothing more than a translation of Hebrew. As it is, let's have more fun with words!!! Numbers 23:19 says that god is "neither a son of mankind that he should feel regret." Again, 'nacham' is used. "The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the Earth" - Genesis 6:6. Here, 'nacham' is translated as 'sorry' in the NAS. "So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." - Exodus 32:14. Nacham is here translated as changed mind, and would denote the same connotations as feeling bad about ever intending it in the first place (of course, the simple fact that his original judgement was WRONG is shocking, eh?) Other verses in the Bible speak of god relenting, another use of the word nacham, from that which he has planned. Clearly, we see some problems with god. In creating man, he did not see what would happen (or, he did and deliberately went ahead and did it knowing that death and suffering would ensue, thus making god a sadist) and felt bad about it. The same happened when he made Saul king. And, likewise, he has planned harm against people and then, because they changed, he changed his mind too. Should not an omniscient god, as you claim him to be, capable of killing people for crimes no one knows they will commit, be able to know that people will repent and thus NOT punish them for crimes or even plan such punishment? Theoretically, your god should never have to change his mind.
Next issue....
"What God tells us to do and what God Himself sees fit to do are two seperate things." Obviously, although as he frequently uses humans as his tools of "divine judgement" he brings us into the mix.
"Now if God had told the Hebrews that THEY should do both things, then we might have a contradiction. But that's not what happened." Oh, but it is. Let us abandon Deuteronomy 24:16 for that specifically talks about the death penalty. Let us instead examine Ezekiel 18:20 which says "the son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity." Now, let us examine Deuteronomy chapter 23, in which god lays down the law. Here he says, in verse 2, that no bastard may be allowed to enter into the assembly of the Lord. Why? What did the bastard do? Moreover, he is telling the Israelites to forbid not only the bastard, punish that man for his father's sin, but to punish the bastard's children! For ten generations no less.
"God is by definition righteous." I'm tackling that in another thread, which I expect you to show up in (since this one is for internal contradictions only) as soon as I start it.
"Man's judgement, however, is fallible." As is god's, we've proven that. He was wrong to make Saul king, a fact that he himself admits! He felt bad over that decision, he regretted it. Yet, he still did it.
"Thus, it would seem that God was protecting possibly innocent people from the fallible judgements of other humans, while punishing those who He knew needed to be punished." Which brings up the much deeper philosophical arguement: why let them live at all. Apparently, god knows well in advance that generations will be wicked, so why not just smite the one man and end them all there? Is it because he is fallible, as we have proven he is (for instance, why did he just not have young Saul be killed by a bear or some such? And do not give me the free choice arguement, for we have proven that god has no problem with intervening in the lives of humans and if he is punishing people for sins he clearly feels they will commit, then....). Of course, he isn't doing this over any need to punish those who he knew needed to be punish. In Exodus 20:4, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, and Isaiah 14:21 he says that he will punish children for the sins of their fathers. Not because he knows they will sin, but simply because one sins all his children must. And, in effect, is this not what he has done to us? Why is their sin and death? Because Adam cocked up. Why should we be punished?
"Omniscience is a wonderful thing." No, it really isn't. And that's fine, because no one is or ever will know everything.
Onto righteousness....
"You have to read the rest of the chapter to understand the full meaning of his statement."
Don't insult me by saying I haven't read the Bible you little pissant. I've read that damn chapter more times than you can imagine, I've written fucking sermons on it. I will not stand for such insults from such an impudent and cowardly piece of garbage as yourself (and before you accuse me of being coarse, I encourage you to read the writings of your very own Martin Luther and then tell me I am coarser than he).
Nonetheless, if in the Jew bible no one was righteous....
"After that the Lord said to Noah: "Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation" Genesis 7:1
The trinity itself is one of the most fantastical concepts ever invented. Three seperate beings, yet all as one, yet all seperate at the same time? They can apparently talk amongst themselves, seperate, join together.... it's really quite wierd. It's like it was taken out of Greek mythology.... :-)
Of course, you make no effort to attack the census because it is very difficult to refute. And the archaelogical evidence you ignore.... why? Simply because you feel that we cannot get off-topic in a thread at Flare? Have things changed that much since I left? Do you want me to repost those in another thread?
On the topic of contradictions...
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." - Genesis 32:30 "No man hath seen God at any time." - John 1:18
"for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." - Jeremiah 3:12 "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." - Jeremiah 17:4
"Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches shall be in his house..." - Psalms 112:1-3 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24 Clearly, god is trying to keep those who fear him out of his kingdom.
"In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." - Leviticus 19:15 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." - Matthew 7:
"Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death." - II Samuel 6:23 "The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul." - II Samuel 21:8
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." - 2 Kings 8:26 "Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." - 2 Chronicles 22:2
"And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men" - 2 Samuel 24:9 "And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword." - 1 Chronicles 21:5
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months." - II Kings 24:8 "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem" - II Chronicles 36:9
"They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall." - Matthew 27:34 "And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh." - Mark 15:28 Him being Jesus on the cross.
"He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness." - Mark 3:29 "And by him that believe are justified from all things." - Acts 13:39 Seems as if Paul wasn't familiar with Jesus' teachings.
Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. - Matthew 5:22 [Jesus said] Ye fools and blind. - Matthew 23:17 Thus, Jesus burned in hell.
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. - John 5:31 I am one that bear witness of myself... - John 8:18 Perhaps the Trinity again at fault?
"No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man." -John 3:13 "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven" -II Kings 2:11 "Also Enoch was taken bodily to Heaven at the age of 365." -Genesis 5:24 A personal fave...
I have more, but it is 6 AM. I will post them tommorow. Hopefully these shall keep you busy Omega.
------------------ "A mass of tears have been transformed to stones now, sharpened on suffering and woven into slings" Zack de la Rocha Rage Against the Machine
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
You might as well try to argue with a concrete wall (you would probably get it to agree with you faster), it's no use. Neither side will ever be able to convince the other.
Hell, I more or less wanted to stay out of this religiously flavoured 'debate', but I felt the need to say this.
------------------ "Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"
posted
Sweden has been sticking with the 1917 swedish translation (that had been translated from hebrew to greek to english to swedish) up until last year.
Then, a bible commision was formed (Bibel2000) that made an updated translation, directly from hebrew to swedish, with additions to the old testament like the apocryphal scripts, the Tora (swedish sp) scrolls and such. There's a dictionary in the back as well, so people can do some interpreting of their own. It cost us a fortune, but the result is remarkable. It's much more readable now, and although I'm not much of a christian it's sometimes interesting to check out certain places and events in there.
What edition does the english-speaking world have?
posted
I think that there are 3 slightly different versions in common usage. The New Testement only one I found is the Good News Bible. The text of this translation was made in the Third Edition of the Greek New Testement (apparently). Interestingly, it has a fair few footnotes, detailing alternate translations, and also mentions some of teh variants that copt up between different manuscripts.
It also has a nice mini-encyclopedia thing, and a map at the back. How thoughtful
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
posted
There are dozens of different versions. The NIV seems to be the most popular, but that might just be my area.
As for the arrogant kid behind the curtain...
DT:
Thus, the Bible says that god cannot "nacham" and later in the same chapter he does "nacham" over the issue of Saul.
Actually, no, it doesn't. The Bible says that SAMUEL said that God does not "nacham". It's entirely possible that Samuel was wrong. The Bible just says that he said it, not that he was right.
And I still want the opinion of a Hebrew scholar before I discard the possibility of multiple meanings dependant on context.
Yet, he made Saul king and apparently feels regret (or repentance) over that.
Not necessarily. Again, I point out the China incident. He can regret the necessity of His actions to achieve His ends, without actually regretting taking those actions. Again, "regret" has many possible meanings, as does "nacham".
Nacham is here translated as changed mind, and would denote the same connotations as feeling bad about ever intending it in the first place
No, it wouldn't. I can change my mind for the benefit of a friend, and not feel bad that I ever intended to do otherwise.
the simple fact that his original judgement was WRONG is shocking
Who said the original judgement was wrong? God simply changed it. Probably, he wanted Moses to learn something.
Should not an omniscient god, as you claim him to be, capable of killing people for crimes no one knows they will commit, be able to know that people will repent and thus NOT punish them for crimes or even plan such punishment?
Capable, yes, but He would have the possible reason that their repentence was DEPENDENT upon their knowing that they might have been punished, but for the intercession of Moses, Jesus, etc. Missing death by a hair has an effect on people.
Theoretically, your god should never have to change his mind.
Unless he was doing so for the benefit of us lesser beings.
Let us instead examine Ezekiel 18:20 which says "the son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity."
Ah, but further, let us instead stop taking verses out of their context, and read Ezekiel 18:4. "The soul who sins is the one who will die." God's not talking about physical bodies, here. Thus, this passage is not related to Exodus 20:4 (which you also took out of context, BTW).
Now, let us examine Deuteronomy chapter 23, in which god lays down the law. Here he says, in verse 2, that no bastard may be allowed to enter into the assembly of the Lord. Why?
To teach the Israelites that there were severe consequences to their actions.
Apparently, god knows well in advance that generations will be wicked, so why not just smite the one man and end them all there?
Again, it's for the benefit of those who WILL be saved. If there had been no enemies for God to deliver them from, Israel would have quickly fallen into total idolatry and never returned.
why did he just not have young Saul be killed by a bear or some such?
Because then the people would never have learned what they needed to learn. David also learned many things from Saul's being king. Nor could David have been made king immediately, as he was probably not yet born at the time.
In Exodus 20:4, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, and Isaiah 14:21 he says that he will punish children for the sins of their fathers.
"For I, the Lord, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
Most of the rest quote this verse.
The exception is Isaiah 14:21. "Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers;" According to verse 4, this is a reference to the king of Babylon. Again, you took it out of context. It's a prophecy of what the people will say when they're freed from Babylon. "On the day the Lord gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:..." Meaning that the people, in CONTRADICTION to the law as stated, will want to kill the king's children for the king's sins. Whether they will succeed or not is left unanswered.
Why is their sin and death? Because Adam cocked up. Why should we be punished?
We're not being punished. Death is not punishment. God simply can't be in the presence of sin, and there can be no life without God. If you go back to a previous thread, I go into more detail, but the idea is that God isn't damning us. We're already damned. "Come with me, if you want to live."
I encourage you to read the writings of your very own Martin Luther
My very own? You mean in the general sense that he was a protestant Christian?
Don't insult me by saying I haven't read the Bible you little pissant. I've read that damn chapter more times than you can imagine, I've written fucking sermons on it. I will not stand for such insults from such an impudent and cowardly piece of garbage as yourself
Well, since we've established that your interpretation was wrong, there are two possibilities. The first is that you don't know scripture as well as you claim, and thus could be excused for not seeing your error. The second, that you do, and were purposefully spreading false information. Which is it?
Nonetheless, if in the Jew bible no one was righteous....
"After that the Lord said to Noah: "Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation" Genesis 7:1
You really should try the NIV some time. Much easier to read.
Under any circumstances, Noah wasn't perfect. "Because I have found you righteous in this generation" implies that he wasn't righteous in the absolute sense that David talks about in Psalms, or Paul in Romans, but that Noah was righteous in the sense that he at least tried to do good, unlike those around him. He also sinned after the flood, which means that even if he WAS righteous in the absolute sense at the time that God said 7:1, he certainly lost that status later.
And the archaelogical evidence you ignore.... why?
Do you want me to repost those in another thread?
YES! Don't you read? I said that quite a while back.
re: God's face
The Bible doesn't say that Jacob saw God's face. It says that JACOB said that he saw God's face. He could have been mistaken. In fact, it seems more likely that this was an angel. Not God's style.
re: God's anger
Again, you took the verses out of context. Do you do that on purpose, or do you just grab the verses out of a concordance, without looking them up and actually reading them?
God was talking to Israel in 3:12, saying that He would not be angry forever. He knew this, because He knew they'd return to Him. However, in 17:4, he's refering to Judah (the nation composed of Benjamin and Judah, so far as I can tell, not the individual tribe of Judah). He knew that THEY would not repent, and thus his anger towards them WOULD "burn forever".
re: riches
"Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches shall be in his house..." - Psalms 112:1-3
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24
Clearly, god is trying to keep those who fear him out of his kingdom.
Again, taken out of context. Psalm 112:1. "Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who finds great delight in his commands." Matthew 19:21. "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Following the commands REQUIRES that you not care about earthly wealth. The wealth and riches may not be here on Earth, but they're certainly where it matters.
"In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." - Leviticus 19:15 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." - Matthew 7:1
Leviticus 19:15. "Do not pervery justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." It's talking about legal trials, here. Judging actions, not judging character. Again, quote taken out of context.
"Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death." - II Samuel 6:23 "The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul." - II Samuel 21:8
Well, that's funny. In my Bible, II Samuel 21:8 says, "...together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab..." You must try the NIV some time. KJV is so out of date.
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." - 2 Kings 8:26 "Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." - 2 Chronicles 22:2
Again, you must try NIV. II Chronicles 22:2, "Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king..."
re: Joab and the census
Well, let's see. 470,000 in Judah is close enough to 500,000 so as not to cause a problem. So Judah's numbers are fine. In Samuel, it says that there were 800,000 fighters in Israel, outside of Judah. Chronicles says that there were a million, one hundred thousand, INCLUDING Judah, but NOT Benjamin or Levi. 200,000 is a decent estimate for those two tribes. The numbers may not match up, but there's enough uncertainty to allow for quite a range of possibilities. Again, no direct contradiction is possible unless you have all the details.
re: Jehoiachin
Again, my Bible says in Chronicles that he was eighteen when he assumed the throne.
re: Jesus' drink
Mark 15:28 is relegated to a footnote in my Bible, and even there, it says nothing about any drink being offered Him. It's something about a fulfillment of a specific prophecy from Isaiah about Him being counted among thieves.
re: unforgivable sin
Wow, you didn't take it out of context, and yet you STILL got it wrong. "Through Him, everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." This is not contradictory with, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven," because to blaspheme against the Spirit, you CAN'T be a believer in Him.
re: fire of hell
"IN DANGER OF". Not "Guarenteed".
re: self-witnessing
"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." He's making a statement of Mosaic law. This is a true statement. In John 8:14, He's talking about how He trancends the Mosaic law. He is, in fact, using the difference to make a point. What's your problem?
re: ascent into Heaven
Well, the Enoch reference in modern translations says nothing about Heaven. As for the other two, care to enlighten us on the Hebrew connection, if any? "Heaven" can mean the literal place of God, or it can mean the sky. More information is required.
------------------ "How do you define fool?" "I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination." - CJ Cherryh, Invader
posted
DT: A communist who knows this much about the Bible? I applaud you on your patience and integrity in persisting with this debate, despite your posts being ignored for a while, there.
Omega: Your usual tactic of ignoring 90% of someone's post and making some facile retort was becoming very tiresome. Although I still utterly disagree with everything you have to say on this subject (nothing personal, it's the Bible) it's good to see you start to actually try and take someone on fairly for a change.
------------------ "If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing."
posted
You know, I just had a thought. If God can destroy whomever he wants and be justified about it, then he's pretty much the same as every other god from mythology.
Oh, and God is the root of all evil.
------------------ "There comes a time when the mind takes on a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap." --Albert Einstein, on intuition.
posted
No, no, Republicans are the root of all evil.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** "I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.
posted
Thank you Gurgeh. The truth is I myself was once Christian. I come from a long line of Protestant ministers and myself was trained for that work. I feel I must persist in this debate for Omega's position is a very dangerous one. I freely admit that the Bible has some very good ideas in it, yet to take it all literally is an affront to continued reasoning. Knowledge grows through discovering new things, to discarding the old when it is proven wrong. Yet, fundamentalists choose to reject that. Although I, myself, am an athiest I strongly support Enlightened Christians who base themselves on the ideas of the Bible and teachings of Christ as opposed to every little word in the Bible.
------------------ "A mass of tears have been transformed to stones now, sharpened on suffering and woven into slings" Zack de la Rocha Rage Against the Machine
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic