RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls.

RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (Full Version)

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

Message

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 9:05:30 AM)
There is a scripture in I Peter (I think) that touches on time, in Reference to God. (Paraphrased from memory): ...a day is as to a thousand years to God, even as a thousand years is as a day to God... our sense of time is based on our mortal understanding. If there is a Creator, a being outside of that constrained understanding, it would likely experience "time" differently. Again, I'm uncomfortable debating religion. I don't know any one "truth" to be right or wrong.

bounty44 -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 9:30:43 AM)
that point there winsome, in terms of the "days" in the genesis account of creation, is something that the "young earth" people and the "old earth" people talk about quite a bit and the verse from peter is something that is discussed. the crux of the matter is going back to the original language itself, and how it was used in context, in order to understand the best rendering in English, while at the same time, taking into consideration other aspects of scripture (kinda like what you are hinting at).

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 10:08:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 that point there winsome, in terms of the "days" in the genesis account of creation, is something that the "young earth" people and the "old earth" people talk about quite a bit and the verse from peter is something that is discussed. the crux of the matter is going back to the original language itself, and how it was used in context, in order to understand the best rendering in English, while at the same time, taking into consideration other aspects of scripture (kinda like what you are hinting at). Unless you are of the mindset that, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God..." which implies that what is written and printed is done so by the will of God. In the original text, As I understand it, was written as " all scripture is God Breathed...." There are many many many different thoughts on the topic. I've even read somewhere about the original texts referring to a pantheon of Gods in the first chapter of Genesis and later switches to a word referring to one God when it talks of the creation of Eden.

DaddySatyr -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 10:12:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance There is a scripture in I Peter (I think) that touches on time, in Reference to God. (Paraphrased from memory): ...a day is as to a thousand years to God, even as a thousand years is as a day to God... our sense of time is based on our mortal understanding. If there is a Creator, a being outside of that constrained understanding, it would likely experience "time" differently. Again, I'm uncomfortable debating religion. I don't know any one "truth" to be right or wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 that point there winsome, in terms of the "days" in the genesis account of creation, is something that the "young earth" people and the "old earth" people talk about quite a bit and the verse from peter is something that is discussed. the crux of the matter is going back to the original language itself, and how it was used in context, in order to understand the best rendering in English, while at the same time, taking into consideration other aspects of scripture (kinda like what you are hinting at). For my 2¢ (and no. I'm not attempting a debate; just adding understanding, I hope), a priest explained to me, when I was but a wee scad: If God is eternal, if He truly has no beginning or end, then He lives in a big, giant "now". He has no use for time." More directly, I think to your point, Winsome. Time would have to be a construct of man because God has no use for it. Add to that: Man would have no concept of more than one hundred years or so (depending upon how far back the writings go). But, then, I also believe that when man tries to explain the unexplainable, he usually fails, miserably. There's also a matter of the writer embellishing a bit, in order to show how miraculous the writer believes God to be. Peace, Michael

MrRodgers -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 10:31:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 there are a number of people here who have absolutely no business commenting on the bible. youre most certainly one of them. I have every right. Commenting on books that are nothing more than stone age fairy tales...why not ? Everybody who comments on such mythology, has the right. There is as much or more historical evidence even more so highly suggesting, that the bible (new testament, whatever that is) is mythology written by the Romans who for their political purposes, created a likewise mythical character called Jesus, whole cloth...out of thin air.

MrRodgers -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 10:47:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I agree, and while its possible that some interaction might end up someday as a part of someone's testimony, the people here are not genuinely seeking and their main purpose is to ridicule. It's not to ridicule at all. First, commenting on the bible is no different than commenting on Grimm's fairy tales. I 'generally seek' reason, evidence while the so-called 'faithful' almost always denigrate non-believers as some how defective and less than a 'normal' 'god fearing' [sic] people. Why ? To be flat out honest about such denigration, it is a sorry commentary on the human intellectual condition that has anyone seek solace or righteousness from a book and an imaginary story. That's especially more true everyday when 'Christians' every day pay no homage to the bible at all. Oh but that's ok...go about your sinning because as long as you repent, you're...off the hook, in the clear. Hell, even after John-the-Baptist sold it, the Medici's again gave the world retail absolution, just buck-up heathen...even for the already dead. Isn't that precious ? It's amazing what can be done to such a cult of credulity.

vincentML -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 11:58:34 AM)
quote: More directly, I think to your point, Winsome. Time would have to be a construct of man because God has no use for it. Add to that: Man would have no concept of more than one hundred years or so (depending upon how far back the writings go). Is it your point then that anything that is human construct has no use to God?

vincentML -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 12:02:42 PM)
quote: I 'generally seek' reason, evidence while the so-called 'faithful' almost always denigrate non-believers as some how defective and less than a 'normal' 'god fearing' [sic] people. Why ? To be flat out honest about such denigration, it is a sorry commentary on the human intellectual condition that has anyone seek solace or righteousness from a book and an imaginary story. But look, aren't you prejudging that they are spewing denigration from an imaginary story? While imaginary to you, it is evidently not so to them. Are your words not then laced with an implicit denigration in return?

vincentML -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 12:05:11 PM)
quote: But, then, I also believe that when man tries to explain the unexplainable, he usually fails, miserably. Where is this true. Michael? I wonder if you are not overstating human failures here.

Milesnmiles -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 1:40:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem I encounter with the "The bible is the absolute truth" crowd is that if it is not written in the bible, then it not the truth. ... Again sheer nonsense, the Bible was written to provide us with "truth" about some very specific things and not to provide us with the truth about "everything" and so there is a lot truth out there that is not in the Bible. Right, like the Universe is 6000 years old, yep. See it's things like this that people try to get away with. Okay, show me where the Bible says the Universe is 6000 years old. It doesn't. However Archbishop Ussher is very emphatic that he got his date of 4004 BC for the world's creation from a careful study of Genesis, and spends most of his Anales Veteris blathering about how the King James version clearly supports his argument. Presumably he didn't want anybody thinking that his thesis had been influenced by any of the talmudic scholars who were convinced that the first chapter of Genesis takes place at least a thousand years earlier. The problem is people read this nut case's opinion and think he studies the Bible so the Bible must say stupid things like the Universe is only 6000 years old but as you say it just doesn't.

bounty44 -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 1:59:23 PM)
people who hold to a young earth position are not "nutcases." whoremods point notwithstanding, they take the bible literally and use the genealogy described therein to derive the age. the most scholarly and reputable organization out there when it comes to "creation"---the institute for creation research, holds to a young earth position.

Milesnmiles -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:07:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem I encounter with the "The bible is the absolute truth" crowd is that if it is not written in the bible, then it not the truth. ... Again sheer nonsense, the Bible was written to provide us with "truth" about some very specific things and not to provide us with the truth about "everything" and so there is a lot truth out there that is not in the Bible. Right, like the Universe is 6000 years old, yep. See it's things like this that people try to get away with. Okay, show me where the Bible says the Universe is 6000 years old. I'll go one better, here is the fucking logic behind the fundy christian chronology of earth's age. and by extension, the age of the universe. Well I have to agree there is no accounting for some Fundy Christians. As for the age of the Earth and the Universe, the Bible upfront says; In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, notice the "In the beginning" part and that allows for the Earth and the Universe as old as you think it should be. Even the 6 days thing starts after the Earth was created and is a description of the preparation of the Earth for Mankind and is not saying how old the Earth is. Even the 24 hour "days" that Fundies seem to have a death grip on were an indeterminate length of time and not necessarily 24 hours. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And let us not forget the fundy christian denial of evolution, because it aint in the bible. The discussion of Evolution is long and convoluted and will hijack this thread but it is your thread. I will say just this one thing, there is big difference between what could happen and what did happen. Even if Evolution is one day proven to be a viable way that life could have come to be and as of yet that is not the case, that will will only prove that it could have happened that way and not that it did.

WhoreMods -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem I encounter with the "The bible is the absolute truth" crowd is that if it is not written in the bible, then it not the truth. ... Again sheer nonsense, the Bible was written to provide us with "truth" about some very specific things and not to provide us with the truth about "everything" and so there is a lot truth out there that is not in the Bible. Right, like the Universe is 6000 years old, yep. See it's things like this that people try to get away with. Okay, show me where the Bible says the Universe is 6000 years old. It doesn't. However Archbishop Ussher is very emphatic that he got his date of 4004 BC for the world's creation from a careful study of Genesis, and spends most of his Anales Veteris blathering about how the King James version clearly supports his argument. Presumably he didn't want anybody thinking that his thesis had been influenced by any of the talmudic scholars who were convinced that the first chapter of Genesis takes place at least a thousand years earlier. The problem is people read this nut case's opinion and think he studies the Bible so the Bible must say stupid things like the Universe is only 6000 years old but as you say it just doesn't. He was the archbishop of Dublin and was praised for his scholarship and knowledge of the Bible after he published his book on creation. His argument has been adopted as the young Earther's baseline ever since, so dismissing him as a lone nutcase who has nothing to do with the mainstream of christian thought is outright deceitful. Our Lord and saviour and Mose's tablets from God both had took a dim view of bearing false witness like that.

Milesnmiles -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Guess it doesnt matter that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates Genesis by almost two thousand years and has the oldest account of Noah and the flood.... Actually no, it doesn't matter. If there was an actual world wide flood it would be expected to find different cultures around the world having accounts of the event, which is what we find. So, it could be that the writers of the Genesis account were just describing something that happened and were not just plagiarizing the Epic of Gilgamesh and given the times they lived in they probably had no access to the Epic of Gilgamesh to plagiarize it it the first place.

Milesnmiles -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance There is a scripture in I Peter (I think) that touches on time, in Reference to God. (Paraphrased from memory): ...a day is as to a thousand years to God, even as a thousand years is as a day to God... our sense of time is based on our mortal understanding. If there is a Creator, a being outside of that constrained understanding, it would likely experience "time" differently. Again, I'm uncomfortable debating religion. I don't know any one "truth" to be right or wrong. Yes, there are several places in the Bible that show God has a completely different sense of time than what mankind has.

Milesnmiles -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:26:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr For my 2¢ (and no. I'm not attempting a debate; just adding understanding, I hope), a priest explained to me, when I was but a wee scad: If God is eternal, if He truly has no beginning or end, then He lives in a big, giant "now". He has no use for time." More directly, I think to your point, Winsome. Time would have to be a construct of man because God has no use for it. Add to that: Man would have no concept of more than one hundred years or so (depending upon how far back the writings go). But, then, I also believe that when man tries to explain the unexplainable, he usually fails, miserably. There's also a matter of the writer embellishing a bit, in order to show how miraculous the writer believes God to be. Peace, Michael Thanx for your interesting thoughts on God and time.

Milesnmiles -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:38:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 people who hold to a young earth position are not "nutcases." I did not call all that hold to the young earth position nutcases but this guy who should know better certainly fits the bill. quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 whoremods point notwithstanding, they take the bible literally and use the genealogy described therein to derive the age. Then they are misusing the the genealogy, at best the genealogy shows the the age of mankind, not the age of the Earth or the Universe. quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the most scholarly and reputable organization out there when it comes to "creation"---the institute for creation research, holds to a young earth position. If they hold to a young earth position then they are not very scholarly or reputable to me.

MrRodgers -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I 'generally seek' reason, evidence while the so-called 'faithful' almost always denigrate non-believers as some how defective and less than a 'normal' 'god fearing' [sic] people. Why ? To be flat out honest about such denigration, it is a sorry commentary on the human intellectual condition that has anyone seek solace or righteousness from a book and an imaginary story. But look, aren't you prejudging that they are spewing denigration from an imaginary story? While imaginary to you, it is evidently not so to them. Are your words not then laced with an implicit denigration in return? I don't make any judgments or denigrate people about their beliefs. I do not denigrate believers in any way let alone the shit I get from 'believers.' I am a godless heathen. I should still compare favorably then to the righteous heathens. Such denigrations I get being a non-believer, somehow means I lack a moral compass. No humans need derive their moral compass from any book and particularly from those that preach such righteousness yet are as much the sinner or more so...than I am. Where is any moral lesson to learn from genocide, butchery and slavery ? Where is the moral lesson in stoning to death any number of sinners, even blasphemers ? Why have Christians not stuck to those practices...that righteousness ? Why has even Islam too and many religious cults ended such butchery as their 'holy' books and the bible calls for ? Because of the basic reason found in secular humanism...that's how. Questions: Where does one find any morals in the absolute butchery by the Catholic church ? Where do we find the greatest number of sexual predators today...the Catholic church Where do we find the righteous and most violent religious hegemony today...the Islamic church. I see no redeeming values in the bible or any other such 'scriptures' in any books. Worse, I see few if any lessons, fully learned, understood let alone obeyed today in the righteous.

MrRodgers -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:52:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem I encounter with the "The bible is the absolute truth" crowd is that if it is not written in the bible, then it not the truth. ... Again sheer nonsense, the Bible was written to provide us with "truth" about some very specific things and not to provide us with the truth about "everything" and so there is a lot truth out there that is not in the Bible. Right, like the Universe is 6000 years old, yep. See it's things like this that people try to get away with. Okay, show me where the Bible says the Universe is 6000 years old. It doesn't. However Archbishop Ussher is very emphatic that he got his date of 4004 BC for the world's creation from a careful study of Genesis, and spends most of his Anales Veteris blathering about how the King James version clearly supports his argument. Presumably he didn't want anybody thinking that his thesis had been influenced by any of the talmudic scholars who were convinced that the first chapter of Genesis takes place at least a thousand years earlier. The problem is people read this nut case's opinion and think he studies the Bible so the Bible must say stupid things like the Universe is only 6000 years old but as you say it just doesn't. Oh please, you see this is exactly what I mean. Now [we] are a 'nut case' with 'opinions' about just what is suppose to learned from a mythical book. That's the problems we get I guess with 'godless' heathens.

Milesnmiles -> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. (12/29/2017 2:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem I encounter with the "The bible is the absolute truth" crowd is that if it is not written in the bible, then it not the truth. ... Again sheer nonsense, the Bible was written to provide us with "truth" about some very specific things and not to provide us with the truth about "everything" and so there is a lot truth out there that is not in the Bible. Right, like the Universe is 6000 years old, yep. See it's things like this that people try to get away with. Okay, show me where the Bible says the Universe is 6000 years old. It doesn't. However Archbishop Ussher is very emphatic that he got his date of 4004 BC for the world's creation from a careful study of Genesis, and spends most of his Anales Veteris blathering about how the King James version clearly supports his argument. Presumably he didn't want anybody thinking that his thesis had been influenced by any of the talmudic scholars who were convinced that the first chapter of Genesis takes place at least a thousand years earlier. The problem is people read this nut case's opinion and think he studies the Bible so the Bible must say stupid things like the Universe is only 6000 years old but as you say it just doesn't. He was the archbishop of Dublin and was praised for his scholarship and knowledge of the Bible after he published his book on creation. His argument has been adopted as the young Earther's baseline ever since, so dismissing him as a lone nutcase who has nothing to do with the mainstream of christian thought is outright deceitful. Our Lord and saviour and Mose's tablets from God both had took a dim view of bearing false witness like that. And here I thought you had given up being Frogy but here you come jumping back. I did not dismiss him as a lone nutcase, I dismissed him as one of a number nutcases that have mislead the "mainstream of christian thought" straight into the ditch. As for this "Young Earth" nonsense, any adult with half a brain can see that the Earth and the Universe are at least millions of years old for any number of reasons. Whereas I can understand that God has the ability to have created the Earth only 6000 years ago and just make it look like it was millions of years old but it would mean that God has committed a fraud on us and I don't believe that to be in the nature of God's personality.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.140625