A Civil Religious Discussion

Adding fuel to the fire…

If we assume he is talking about Rome, later, when he talks about the end being near, we must also assume he is speaking in a more immediate tense. Since we are all still here some 2000 years later, he obviously got that wrong. Therefore, Paul does not seem terribly inspired.

Really?

I'm not sure what your point is here. (And I don't remember Samnell bringing up murder.) It's like you are trying to find theology with whether or not the axe head floated.

The references you are alluding to in the Old Testament are pretty much not taken out of context. They say what they say. For better or worse -- often worse. More often than not, they are simply recording history -- or trying their best to record it for the time period for themselves. Passages that you have a problem with may require more of an anthropological study of the area and surrounding areas. It is also good to understand the point of the stories. But the "context" is more often a sequence of events than "theology" and your issue with some of these passages are whether or not they are "right" -- not with the context they are found in.

The New Testament is quite a bit different. Romans even more so. It is written in a very different style and with a very different purpose. (It was written to show that the Jewish religious leaders had it wrong.) It's not a story about how the Hebrews made it out of Egypt and kept rejecting God even to the point where they got to the promised land. Etc. There is no history in it. It is very much a legal discorse. Taking things out of context or without understanding what Paul is trying to do can lead to some odd conclusions.

If this part of Paul's message has to be taken in context, then all of Paul's message has to be taken in context.

I'm actually saying that all Paul's messages should be taken in context.

I'm reminded of the saying "those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it."

Just because your grandfather lived in a different time doesn't mean you can't learn anything from him.

Actually, to some degree, I feel that I can apply more of Paul's teachings when they are looked at in the correct context. Otherwise you can get silly with rules or restrictions -- especially in some of the Corinthians. Like so many other things in life, it helps to understand the reasoning behind something than strictly the letter of the law.

If we assume he is talking about Rome, later, when he talks about the end being near, we must also assume he is speaking in a more immediate tense. Since we are all still here some 2000 years later, he obviously got that wrong.

Depends. "End" of what? (I haven't looked that closely at the passage in question. But off the top of my head, it could have meant the end of Rome or the end of the Jewish nation.)

Actually there are better passages to "fuel the fire" with regard to the end of the world or whatever. And with some of those, I really don't have an answer for.

I would agree that context and spirit are important. But that begs the question, how does one know that one correctly understand the spirit?

Actually there are better passages to "fuel the fire" with regard to the end of the world or whatever.

I know, but I did not want to go there. Trying to keep things concise and not ambush you again. :)

I would agree that context and spirit are important. But that begs the question, how does one know that one correctly understand the spirit?

If I knew the answer to that question ...

Seriously, I think that question is what many Christian leaders do (and should) ask themselves on a regular basis. Well, not just Christian leaders -- all Christians -- but the leaders need to be more careful for obvious reasons.

In fact, it almost seems as if only a select elite is qualified to correctly translate the meanings of the Bible.

In fact, there's a terminal professional degree for that. Nonetheless, the traditional Protestant thought on that idea is that anybody can, but prayer, study, and inspiration are required.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

I'm busy for a weekend and there are something like 90 posts on this thread. Don't you people have lives?

What is this life you speak of? Does it happen in that queer space with the flaming sphere hovering in the sky? I try not to truck with that cursed day star. It burnss uss.

There is even quite a bit of discussion on teeth and suggesting that canines don't necessarily imply that these creatures ate meat. Really? So you believe that cheetahs have claws and teeth and can run 60 miles an hour to catch those elusive ... bushes?

Get out of my head! :)

CourtFool wrote:

Really?

I'm not sure what your point is here. (And I don't remember Samnell bringing up murder.) It's like you are trying to find theology with whether or not the axe head floated.

I don't really remember talking with you that much about Biblical murder either. I know I've posted here about it previously, but my recollection is that it was with other Christians. There was one chap who was quite convinced that the chief failing of latter-day genocides was that God was not properly consulted and given the chance to sign off, but that was no Moff I know, unless maybe Tarkin. :)

I don't really remember talking with you that much about Biblical murder either.

I apologize.

Samnell wrote:

I don't really remember talking with you that much about Biblical murder either.

I apologize.

No biggie. Sometimes I have trouble keeping straight what Christians I've talked about what with. There's so many of them. :)

A rebuttal of various evidences provided:

So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth {emphasis added}.

So if Earth was destroyed (in Genesis 9 its part of His covenant with Noah to never again destroy the earth . . . in that particular way), and we're living on Earth, it must have been remade. That leaves the Creator a lot of latitude.

Furthermore, a more accurate translation of Genesis 1:1 is not "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth," but rather "At the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth . . ."

It never says God finished creating. I do not believe that He has.

REPLIES TO OTHERS
Paul Watson

And insects have four legs and pi is exactly 3 and bats are birds and rabbits chew the cud, at least acccording to the Bible.

I am not familiar with the verses of the Holy Bible that support your claims. Would you please cite your source?

"I do not believe that the God who endowed us with intelligence and tge capacity to reason, intended us to forgo their use." Gallileo

Galileo Galilei also said, "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

Are you attempting to use one quote of a dead Christian to undermine the existence of God? That seems . . . unseemly.

Persecution: (1) the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook. (2) the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed. Merriam-Webster

I was relying on the collective intelligence of the community to understand that I found the condescending remark of Kirth Gersen to be annoying when I was paraphrasing Jesus' comment that we would be persecuted for believing in Him. However, I am truly incredulous that you honestly believe that I took one post on the internet and equated my position with being "thrown to the lions." And if that really is your belief, all I can say is that I think it is even whackier than, apparently, mine is.

Whining? Wow! Really? Wow! I can only gather that you don't spend any time around any children. You want hear something terrifying?

Kirth Gersen

1. In case I was wrong (which happens often), I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than make absolute statements.

If you'd given me the benefit of the doubt, you would have asked me what my position was on the topics of geology, physical science, and chemistry. Instead, you condescendingly implied that I lacked the intelligence and/or desire to analyze the support that Samnell was providing for his side of the debate about Jeremy Mcgillan's original question, "So if we were designed by god, how come we have superfluos parts, inefficient parts and such?"

2. Which of us does, or does not, preface posts with Scriptural quotes, as if that somehow makes the post that follows somehow unassailable?

You did not assail the Scripture, you assailed me. Whereas Samnell offers evidence to contradict what I've quoted from the Holy Bible, you ignore it altogether and just imply that I'm close-minded.

3. The margin of error is the whole thing. Percentage wise, it's better than most people's watches, with respect to the real time. 10,000 years error in dating, say, 3.8 billion-year-old rocks means that you're off by 0.00026%. On a 12-hour watch face, that's equivalent to being off by 11 seconds. If a person with that kind of accuracy on his watch says, "it's 1:38," he's pretty much spot-on, even if you claim that 1:38:12 instead of 1:38:23 isn't good enough -- in neither case is the actual time 11:59.

Let us analyze the nature of that margin of error. Radiocarbon dating, whether it is Carbon-14 or Potassium-Argon, both of their calculations make use of the derivative (from calculus).

To keep it simple, the derivative of an equation provides the equation of the slope of a line that touches the curve at only one point. But any pre-algebra student knows that slope is "rise over run" and it requires two points. You can't find a slope with only one point as the derivative claims to do.

Wherein lies the hinky-ness? You have a point x and another point some distance away, x + h. I'll not bore you with the equations (unless I'm asked). But in one step there are h's in both the numerator and the denominator. Some of those h's cancel in the numerator, but all of them do in the denominator, only so long as h is still some distance (no matter how infinitely close to x) away from x. Because if h=0 (there being no distance between x and x + h, which is what the derivative claims) the problem collapse to no solution because dividing by zero is undefined.

Okay, the fraction is simplified and the denominator is now 1, essentially irrelevant. Now for those remaining pesky h's in the numerator. Calculus teaches that those h's are now so close to zero, they might as well be zero and they're gone!

Wait, wait, wait. One step ago h had a non-zero value that allowed me to cancel it out. Now it's supposed to actually be zero so it'll go away. That means you're moving h. That's not allowed. I'll grant that you may have found the equation of the slope of a secant line that's close to the tangent line, but, in reality it is not so.

An infinitesimally small difference? Sure. But the Density Property states that between any two real numbers there exists an infinite number of numbers. I find the infinitesimally small at least as awe inspiring as the infinitely large.

God lives in the infinitely small just as much as He lives in the infinitely large. It's why medicines can't say they're 100% effective. Say you're 99.9 with a vinculum over the nine percent effective, but not 100%. God lives there in the difference.

Take birth control. If it said 100% and someone got pregnant, instant lawsuit, and they'd win. But if the drug is totally effective, how did she get pregnant. Bad packaging, contaminated pills, incorrect use. God does not always use a pillar of fire to get things done.

4. If person A relies on statements that contradict observations, and if B then points out the discrepancy and posits a possible explanation for it (which Person A can then either agree with or correct), this does not constitute condescension, but rather an opportunity for clarification -- unless Person A is desperately hoping to find some evidence of "persecution" (which I'd assumed was not the case here).

I am not accusing Samnell of condescension. I am accusing him of engaging in civil discussion. You provided no evidence, asked no questions to clarify my position. You simply typed, "Except, Sam, you're talking to someone who likely rejects all of the geological, physical, and chemical evidence of an old earth, and who likely thinks dinosaurs and people lived together, despite the evidence to the contrary."

This reads like talking about someone who's in the room as though they weren't there. It's typed as an aside to Samnell, yet visible for all to read. It is akin to those who speak in sotto voce and the rest of us are supposed to act like we don't hear. It is a patronizing attitude and behavior. It is hardly civil compared to actually asking me about the subjects you assert you know so much about me.

I see point 4 as nothing more than a cop out. You could have just as easily said, "I posit, as an explanation for why Mykull knocked up his old lady, that he is so cheap he just wanted the free milk," (Mykull, feel free to either agree or correct; I'm not being insulting, I'm just offering you the opportunity for clarification.) That's a gross exaggeration, I know.

Sebastian
Adding to my words and saying it is me by calling it a quote?
Poor form, Sebastian, very poor form.

Garydee
Thank you!

So if Earth was destroyed (in Genesis 9 its part of His covenant with Noah to never again destroy the earth . . . in that particular way), and we're living on Earth, it must have been remade. That leaves the Creator a lot of latitude.

The book doesn't say it was remade though, does it? I'm sure if it did you would have the verse handy. (You do seem handy with those.) Nor, in fact, does Noah seem to notice the rock being obliterated (and all the water with it, to say nothing of his boat!) and a new one made. One would think that hard to miss.

Do you have any evidence that this happened? I mean, I'm sure I can dig up a religion that believes this is the first and only Earth. How can we reasonably resolve this conflict? We all share the same Earth, so one or the other of the religions concerned must be wrong about its history.

Perhaps we might start by setting aside the lot and working from the evidence to see if one, some, or none are right about it? I realize this might seem like a plan to turn you into a dirty secularist but it's coming from a place of pragmatism. (My plot to turn you into a dirty secularist began when I snuck a little something into your drink just now. Don't tell yourself! :) )

I am not accusing Samnell of condescension. I am accusing him of engaging in civil discussion.

I'm very sorry. I shall endeavor to not repeat the offense. :)

A rebuttal of various evidences provided:

Mykull,

2. I ignore your biblical quotes because using a particular religion's book as "proof" that the assertions of that religion are correct isn't a logical argument. If you ever wish to discuss the physical evidence, rather than your sect's assertions (or theoretical mathematics, for that matter), you'll find me castly more civil.

Persecution: (1) the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook. (2) the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed. Merriam-Webster

Hah! Apparently I’ve be persecuted by people my entire life. Could somebody please stop Glenn Beck, Paris Hilton, and Reality Television from persecuting me?

A rebuttal of various evidences provided:

Paul Watson

Paul Watson wrote:

And insects have four legs and pi is exactly 3 and bats are birds and rabbits chew the cud, at least acccording to the Bible.

I am not familiar with the verses of the Holy Bible that support your claims. Would you please cite your source?

Cud Chewing rabbits: Leviticus 11:6

Bats are birds: Leviticus 11:13, 19

Pi is 3: I Kings 7:23

4-legged insects: Leviticus 11:20-23

You may quibble with the intpretations but a literal reading does not match up with the real world.

As for the quotes, they are to succinctly illustrate my thoughts. Just because someone says something I think is a good encapsualtion doesn't mean the other things they say do. I mean, I agree with a lot of the things Jesus said, just not othre parts. And I'm not trying to disprove God. That's a waste of effort as it can't be done aymore than you can prove him. What I said was don't use the Bible as a science textbook because it doesn't work that way. I stand by this statement.

EDIT: And Prince That Howls has come up with a far wittier rebuttal to the persecution point than the one I deleted from this post as being uncivil.

Adding fuel to the fire…

If we assume he is talking about Rome, later, when he talks about the end being near, we must also assume he is speaking in a more immediate tense. Since we are all still here some 2000 years later, he obviously got that wrong. Therefore, Paul does not seem terribly inspired.

Christ himself got the timing of his own second coming wrong, as I recall, on several occasions. He predicted at least once that it would occur during the lifetimes of people then living.

Cud Chewing rabbits: Leviticus 11:6

To be fair, this is a mistranslation. It refers specifically to Hyraxes. In fact, Hyraxes might be inspiration for the name of Spain through a similar misidenitifaction of Rabbits as Hyraxes by Phonecian explorers.

Oh no! It's the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog! Run away! Run away!

To be fair, this is a mistranslation.

"Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint." -Mark Twain

I imagine that would go doubly so for a book regarding your eternal soul.

Samnell
Well, God goes from talking about destroying it in the future to talking about having destroyed it in the past. There must have been a present of being destroyed. And since He was speaking to Noah, there much have been some rebuilding. Better than it was before; better, stronger, faster . . .

But, no, it doesn't specifically say rebuilt. Why doesn't Noah note it? The ark was pitched without and within. It was dark in the ark.
And God shut the ark, not Noah. Perhaps Noah didn't record it because he and his family died and were raised again after the system was rebooted. Jesus wasn't the first to be resurrected, just the most famous.

You pose an interesting challenge to me. Essentially, as I gather from your pragmatist desire for evidence: Use the religion of science to prove the existence of God.

Would it not be just as fair for me to ask you to use the Holy Bible to disprove God? It's like asking for the ultimate home court advantage. I must accept your axioms, which don't include mine, and then prove mine. I am intrigued by the idea and will give it serious prayer.

I have read enough posts to know that I am in the vast minority here in this thread. My purpose here is to answer questions, like Jeremy Mcgillan's, from a biblical point of view. I have no illusions about converting people; it is about providing a Christian point of view so you have a better idea of how one of us thinks and about challenging my own patience and understanding.

Little something in my drink? All hail Discordia!

Prince that Howls
Sure, I'll help you with your persecution; place your entertainment device in the O-F-F position. If that doesn't work, get a sledge hammer (if not available, get a Peter Gabriel) and do what feels right and good and true. :-P

Kirth Gersen
I have a bachelor's of science from Claremont McKenna College. While acquiring that degree I took courses in biology, chemistry, physics (and various specific courses within those fields) from Harvey Mudd.

Radiometric dating systems make use of the derivative. There is hand-waving in the derivative. Then, by extension, there's hinkyness in radiometric dating systems.

You, I'm gathering, are willing to accept that postulate, and the hundreds, if not thousands of others that are necessary for science to work. Even basic axioms like "between two points there is a line" cannot be proven. People have tried for thousands of years. And that's just for two-dimensional Euclidean geometry.

Western science begins, according to secular history books, with King Nebuchadnezzar's priests becoming astronomers. The book of Daniel refers to these people as astrologers. An interesting difference in the choice of words.

A postulate is a statement that is assumed to be true without proof.
A theory is a conjecture or guess.
Fact is reality.

And it is far more persuasive when converting people to the religion of science to say, "We have theories founded upon postulates to establish facts," than to say, "We have guesses based on assumptions to define reality."

Concerning Point 2: I didn't use the Holy Bible to prove that my religion is correct. I used the Holy Bible to provide a biblical explanation to answer Jeremy Mcgillan's question about why we'd have superfluous parts if we were designed by God.

Paul Watson
Studpuffin handled cud chewing rabbits. An exhaustive answer is here

Bats as birds. Linnean classification didn't exist and the Hebrew word "owph" which is commonly rendered as "bird" actually translates as "owner of a wing." I think we can all agree that bats have wings. If we have not that much common ground, we're in deeper Bandini than I thought.

Pi is 3. I Kings 7:23 refers to the Sea being circular in shape (NIV). KJV simply says it was round. Circular is shaped like, or nearly like, a circle; round.

Four-legged locusts answered here.

I have read enough posts to know that I am in the vast minority here in this thread....

I propose that some people who share your views are tired of getting booted and just read along.

Radiometric dating systems make use of the derivative. There is hand-waving in the derivative. Then, by extension, there's hinkyness in radiometric dating systems.

You, I'm gathering, are willing to accept that postulate, and the hundreds, if not thousands of others that are necessary for science to work. Even basic axioms like "between two points there is a line" cannot be proven. People have tried for thousands of years. And that's just for two-dimensional Euclidean geometry.

How do you know you're really reading a book then? You're making the assumption that the book exists, and that the words you see are actually not just random scribbles, and that the words have a meaning that can be understood.

Yes, science is based upon certain basic assumptions, and, if you dig deeply into the basic metaphyiscal foundations of logical thinking and reasoning, you can see that those assumptions are based on assumptions themselves. Woopty doo, if that's your standard, you should also stop assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow and that you will not fall through the floor, since those assumptions are based upon the same faulty reasoning you find in science. Also, you'd better go check your bible again; there's no logical grounds to believe that it contains the same words today as it did yesterday or that it hasn't changed into a cat.

An infinitesimally small difference? Sure. But the Density Property states that between any two real numbers there exists an infinite number of numbers. I find the infinitesimally small at least as awe inspiring as the infinitely large.

Euclidean mathematics is an imprecise representation of physical reality, because the physical world is discrete: it has no infinitesimals (and by extension no infinities). While non-physical irrational ratios exist, physical objects can never match them exactly. The same would hold true for any value less than one quanta.

But, no, it doesn't specifically say rebuilt. Why doesn't Noah note it? The ark was pitched without and within. It was dark in the ark.
And God shut the ark, not Noah. Perhaps Noah didn't record it because he and his family died and were raised again after the system was rebooted. Jesus wasn't the first to be resurrected, just the most famous.

I can write fan fiction too, but that's kind of the problem here. For what reason would we accept your fanfic instead of our own? Isn't the test whether or not something is actually so? We are sharing the same world here, right? And it's going to keep doing what it's doing regardless of what either of us believe, right? If that's the case, then we can arrive at accurate (and in fact, increasingly accurate) knowledge of how things are and were on which we should all be able to agree.

Or I can just say that Richard Dawkins traveled backwards in time with the Doctor and Catherine the Great and they destroyed the world but distracted Noah with a great gay orgy which he didn't want to write about because they never called back. Also they all ate pancakes made by aliens from Zeta Reticuli. (If you don't like this story, I can invent others. Maybe JFK and Grover Cleveland had some really bad tacos and their trans-dimensional flatulence destroyed the universe three times.)

Absent some reason to accept these stories as factual accounts, they're all equally make-believe. So we're back to matters of evidence.

You pose an interesting challenge to me. Essentially, as I gather from your pragmatist desire for evidence: Use the religion of science to prove the existence of God.

Not exactly. I've more or less given you God as a freebie here. You're making claims about the natural history of the Earth. Science claims, in fact. So where's your science?

Would it not be just as fair for me to ask you to use the Holy Bible to disprove God? It's like asking for the ultimate home court advantage. I must accept your axioms, which don't include mine, and then prove mine.

Not quite. I have actually disproved a few conceptions of god popular among Christians with recourse to the Bible, but my challenge to you is to give me some reason why we (any of us, not just me) should treat the Bible with any more deference than my fantasy about Dawkins, the Doctor, Catherine the Great, and pancake-making aliens from Zeta Reticuli. I don't think that's an unfair challenge at all.

But I do think we share some axioms, which I mentioned previously. We both inhabit the same world and thought study of it can learn about it. Do you agree?

I have read enough posts to know that I am in the vast minority here in this thread. My purpose here is to answer questions, like Jeremy Mcgillan's, from a biblical point of view. I have no illusions about converting people; it is about providing a Christian point of view so you have a better idea of how one of us thinks and about challenging my own patience and understanding.

Mine is similar, in that I figure it's fair game to provide commentary on those answers from an external point of view. Such dialog may generate understanding or help us arrive together at a greater, better, more accurate knowledge of the universe. The latter is really the gold standard for me.

Or I can just say that Richard Dawkins traveled backwards in time with the Doctor and Catherine the Great and they destroyed the world but distracted Noah with a great gay orgy which he didn't want to write about because they never called back. Also they all ate pancakes made by aliens from Zeta Reticuli. (If you don't like this story, I can invent others. Maybe JFK and Grover Cleveland had some really bad tacos and their trans-dimensional flatulence destroyed the universe three times.)

Absent some reason to accept these stories as factual accounts, they're all equally make-believe. So we're back to matters of evidence.

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

I have a bachelor's of science from Claremont McKenna College. While acquiring that degree I took courses in biology, chemistry, physics (and various specific courses within those fields) from Harvey Mudd.

There are B.S. degrees in all kinds of soft sciences -- I say that because it seems that yours is not in chemistry, physics, or geology (I'd guess computer science, but I might be way off) -- and a semester in intro chemistry hardly qualifies one to talk about radiometric dating with the kind of authority you're claiming.

To look at your philosophy rather than your science for a moment, if you're honestly holding that all postulates must be abandoned and that all observations are meaningless, then there's no more foundation for your own faith than there is for anything in the physical world. However, I can almost see why you'd want to assume that; allow me to explain.

I'm a practicing professional geologist. I've seen large parts of the fossil record in situ. I've mapped geologic formations over multiple periods and across at least one era boundary. I've tried to reconcile what I've personally seen with the study of geology and chemisty, and succeeded with no difficulty. I've also tried independently to reconcile what I've seen with a literal reading of Scripture, and I'll say this point-blank: I've seen only only two possibilities that fit the observations -- either the Earth is very old, and evolution is true, or else God is a trickster who did everything in his power to make it appear that evolution occurred over ages of an old earth.

Now here's the important part: notice that I have nothing at all to say about whether there is, or isn't, a God. All I assert is that if God exists, all of the physical evidence I've ever seen (which is quite a lot) makes it appear that He worked through evolution when dealing with multicellular organisms -- not through special creation. Secondly, my reading of the Bible in no way leads me to believe that denial of physical evidence is a prerequisite for salvation; nowhere does Jesus state that only people who believe that six days of creation are literal days can accept Him. In other words, I see no reason that a Christian cannot practice science, and accept what we're able to learn from it (nor does Francis Collins, for that matter; nor did Pope John Paul II).

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

There's actually a guy who claims that aliens landed in his yard and offered him pancakes, of which he partook.

Studpuffin wrote:

To be fair, this is a mistranslation.

"Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint." -Mark Twain

I imagine that would go doubly so for a book regarding your eternal soul.

Can you blame a translator for not knowing what something is?

Sebastian wrote:

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

There's actually a guy who claims that aliens landed in his yard and offered him pancakes, of which he partook.

ROFL.

How do you know you're really reading a book then? You're making the assumption that the book exists, and that the words you see are actually not just random scribbles, and that the words have a meaning that can be understood.

Yes, science is based upon certain basic assumptions, and, if you dig deeply into the basic metaphyiscal foundations of logical thinking and reasoning, you can see that those assumptions are based on assumptions themselves. Woopty doo, if that's your standard, you should also stop assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow and that you will not fall through the floor, since those assumptions are based upon the same faulty reasoning you find in science. Also, you'd better go check your bible again; there's no logical grounds to believe that it contains the same words today as it did yesterday or that it hasn't changed into a cat.

THAT explains why they charged me with animal cruelty when I tried to open up my 'bible' to read a few verses.

Sebastian wrote:

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

There's actually a guy who claims that aliens landed in his yard and offered him pancakes, of which he partook.

I thought that was a Backyardigans episode.

Samnell wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

There's actually a guy who claims that aliens landed in his yard and offered him pancakes, of which he partook.

I thought that was a Backyardigans episode.

Yeah, but I'm already a bishop of that church, I'm trying to cover all my bases, spiritually speaking.

Sebastian wrote:

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

There's actually a guy who claims that aliens landed in his yard and offered him pancakes, of which he partook.

Those pancakes look terrible!

Samnell wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

There's actually a guy who claims that aliens landed in his yard and offered him pancakes, of which he partook.

Those pancakes look terrible!

It could have been worse. They could have skipped the pancakes and gone straight for the "probe"...

So do you really think that the virgin mary and jesus keep appearing in various food products? and if they are why? Isn't there better ways to make your presence known than appearing in a grilled cheese. Also why does Elvis have a knack for doing the same thing. Dear, Jesus, Mary, and Jesus STOP RUINING OUR FOOD!!!!!!

I found Lindsay Lohan in a cup of tapioca pudding.

Treppa wrote:

Samnell wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

So...uh...is there an address where I can send you money or something? Because, though I may be in the vast minority of posters in this thread, I completely believe in everything you wrote above.

There's actually a guy who claims that aliens landed in his yard and offered him pancakes, of which he partook.

Those pancakes look terrible!

It could have been worse. They could have skipped the pancakes and gone straight for the "probe"...

Glowing kind or the one that looks like a blender without the pitcher?

Either way, I demand pancakes first.

Some spots of tile on my bathroom floor look like Abraham Lincoln.

I found Lindsay Lohan in a cup of tapioca pudding.

Was it tapioca pudding looking like her or was it really her strung out on whatever her drug of choice at the time in a huge cup of tapioca pudding? Either way I wouldn't be surprised.

Celestial Healer wrote:

I found Lindsay Lohan in a cup of tapioca pudding.

Was it tapioca pudding looking like her or was it really her strung out on whatever her drug of choice at the time in a huge cup of tapioca pudding? Either way I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not sure really. I immediately stuffed it back in my refrigerator.

Some spots of tile on my bathroom floor look like Abraham Lincoln.

You need to clean your floor

Some spots of tile on my bathroom floor look like Abraham Lincoln.

Good Abraham Lincoln or Evil Abraham Lincoln?

Studpuffin wrote:

Some spots of tile on my bathroom floor look like Abraham Lincoln.

You need to clean your floor

That's after cleaning. If its dirty he looks more like Sasquatch with a top hat.

Studpuffin wrote:

Some spots of tile on my bathroom floor look like Abraham Lincoln.

Good Abraham Lincoln or Evil Abraham Lincoln?

Dunno, its just some spots on tile... unless the GOP would like to pay me for pilgrimages to my bathroom.

I found Lindsay Lohan in a cup of tapioca pudding.

Was it pre-coke Lindsay or coked-out Lindsay? Coked-out Lindsay in my pudding would be barfworthy, but pre-coke Lindsay covered in pudding is kinda hot.

Celestial Healer wrote:

I found Lindsay Lohan in a cup of tapioca pudding.

Was it pre-coke Lindsay or coked-out Lindsay? Coked-out Lindsay in my pudding would be barfworthy, but pre-coke Lindsay covered in pudding is kinda hot.

I hope to NEVER be seen in tapioca pudding.

So do you really think that the virgin mary and jesus keep appearing in various food products? and if they are why? Isn't there better ways to make your presence known than appearing in a grilled cheese. Also why does Elvis have a knack for doing the same thing. Dear, Jesus, Mary, and Jesus STOP RUINING OUR FOOD!!!!!!

Four or five years ago someone saw a salt stain on the side of an overpass that looked like Mary. Or at least it did to them. To everyone else, myself included, it looked like a salt stain first and a portion of the female anatomy second.

Apparently the Virgin Mary's, uh, virginal space, was such a local draw that some city employees were dispatched to wash it away to get rid of the traffic problem.

So what is the difference between coincidence and an actual miracle when it comes to food and salt stains?