Urizen not to be insulting you are however sounding more mainline protestant then atheist here. ;)
All kidding aside I understand what you are saying I just do not agree.
EDIT: although with the vast difference and superior linguistic style many do not think he authored the second epistle at all.
Actually, I consider it a complement. That means my infiltration will succeed. *cackles maniacally* ;p I've also finished reading Aleister Crowley's Liber Al vel Legis (although that's a really quick read ... kind of like Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching -- but requires much more time spent contemplating on what you just read).
I'll give Paul credit for eight out of 14 of his epistles. Some may have been dictated. A couple are definitely psuedoepigraphical.
Which epistle are you actually calling his 2nd?
Also just a personal beef. Assuming Peter is the first Pope, he was in fact a married man. It is just me but that alone should be enough for the Church to allow Priests to marry.
...and had children, too. It escapes me at the moment, but it was awhile before the celibacy clause kicked in. But there are Popes that are still guilty of breaking that vow and siring children.
|
Did you even read the article? It talks more about difficulties and issues with translation than about "apologetics". I guess that you will read into it what you will. What gets me is that you ask for a response and when you get one, you dismiss it. Seems like you are little better than the Christians you have a problem with.
Yes, I do dismiss it because, simply put, genesis refers to a day in very specific terms: A day is a cycle of light and dark. Period. While god may exist outside of time, the timeframe that god used when creating was very explicit. 6 units of time consisting of 6 cycles between day and night. Even taking into account the later passages that tell about god's time, genesis is explicit in what time was used.
|
Also just a personal beef. Assuming Peter is the first Pope, he was in fact a married man. It is just me but that alone should be enough for the Church to allow Priests to marry....and had children, too. It escapes me at the moment, but it was awhile before the celibacy clause kicked in. But there are Popes that are still guilty of breaking that vow and siring children.
1074 and for the most part this was due to inheritance issues, none of which matter in the modern world
|
Did you even read the article? It talks more about difficulties and issues with translation than about "apologetics". I guess that you will read into it what you will. What gets me is that you ask for a response and when you get one, you dismiss it. Seems like you are little better than the Christians you have a problem with.Yes, I do dismiss it because, simply put, genesis refers to a day in very specific terms: A day is a cycle of light and dark. Period. While god may exist outside of time, the timeframe that god used when creating was very explicit. 6 units of time consisting of 6 cycles between day and night. Even taking into account the later passages that tell about god's time, genesis is explicit in what time was used.
Have you ever considered that this passage in Genesis might be metaphor. After all the days of Creation are not exactly in order as we would expect?
|
|
Have you ever considered that this passage in Genesis might be metaphor. After all the days of Creation are not exactly in order as we would expect?Did you even read the article? It talks more about difficulties and issues with translation than about "apologetics". I guess that you will read into it what you will. What gets me is that you ask for a response and when you get one, you dismiss it. Seems like you are little better than the Christians you have a problem with.Yes, I do dismiss it because, simply put, genesis refers to a day in very specific terms: A day is a cycle of light and dark. Period. While god may exist outside of time, the timeframe that god used when creating was very explicit. 6 units of time consisting of 6 cycles between day and night. Even taking into account the later passages that tell about god's time, genesis is explicit in what time was used.
It may be, but what started this exchange was my reference to bible literalists who throw about "it was a day, but not really a day" so as not to be seen as flat-earthers. If they're taking the bible literally, then they need to use the literal length of time as described in genesis...not pick and choose what parts they're going to be literal about.
It may be, but what started this exchange was my reference to bible literalists who throw about "it was a day, but not really a day" so as not to be seen as flat-earthers. If they're taking the bible literally, then they need to use the literal length of time as described in genesis...not pick and choose what parts they're going to be literal about.Have you ever considered that this passage in Genesis might be metaphor. After all the days of Creation are not exactly in order as we would expect?Did you even read the article? It talks more about difficulties and issues with translation than about "apologetics". I guess that you will read into it what you will. What gets me is that you ask for a response and when you get one, you dismiss it. Seems like you are little better than the Christians you have a problem with.Yes, I do dismiss it because, simply put, genesis refers to a day in very specific terms: A day is a cycle of light and dark. Period. While god may exist outside of time, the timeframe that god used when creating was very explicit. 6 units of time consisting of 6 cycles between day and night. Even taking into account the later passages that tell about god's time, genesis is explicit in what time was used.
Yup... literal where the text is literal, metaphorical where it's metaphorical (I'm looking at you Revelation)
Also just a personal beef. Assuming Peter is the first Pope, he was in fact a married man. It is just me but that alone should be enough for the Church to allow Priests to marry.
I thought the non marriage thing was so that the priest would not be distracted by temptations of the flesh... and so that the church could absorb the priest's family/personal wealth (due to a lack of offspring or wives).
|
|
It may be, but what started this exchange was my reference to bible literalists who throw about "it was a day, but not really a day" so as not to be seen as flat-earthers. If they're taking the bible literally, then they need to use the literal length of time as described in genesis...not pick and choose what parts they're going to be literal about.Have you ever considered that this passage in Genesis might be metaphor. After all the days of Creation are not exactly in order as we would expect?Did you even read the article? It talks more about difficulties and issues with translation than about "apologetics". I guess that you will read into it what you will. What gets me is that you ask for a response and when you get one, you dismiss it. Seems like you are little better than the Christians you have a problem with.Yes, I do dismiss it because, simply put, genesis refers to a day in very specific terms: A day is a cycle of light and dark. Period. While god may exist outside of time, the timeframe that god used when creating was very explicit. 6 units of time consisting of 6 cycles between day and night. Even taking into account the later passages that tell about god's time, genesis is explicit in what time was used.
I kind of agree with you there. As a geologist I know for a fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Absolute dating using certain isotopes we can measure when rocks first solidified and started isotope decay. These things are clocks and they are accurate within certain time ranges.
Quite a lot of the bible is metaphor, some of it is the viewpoint of the translator during translation, some of it is prophecy, some of it is beholden on the understandings of things at the times they were written down, especially the very early stuff. I believe it is Divinely inspired, and it requires the Christian to use both study (i.e. knowing about the past contexts, language etc.) and prayer.
It cannot be held up as a text about science, because that wasn't what it was intended for. It does not dismiss the Age of the Earth or Evolution or anything else scientific, because it was not supposed to be scientific. When it is intended to be precise then units of measure are mentioned (in the Torah for example).
So, as a Christian, to me it is a book about God and his interaction with man. It is the best text we have on God as Christians which is why it is very important to us. The use of it as a tool to attack good science has come about because those people who are told the bible is literally true cannot handle anything that might jeopardize their beliefs. This is the problem when ill-educated people with no understanding of science become pastors and their own ignorance and fears are passed on to their flock.
The Roman Church learned its lesson about this kind of thing during the Enlightenment when they accused Galileo of heresy. They didn't make the same mistake again with evolution thankfully, they left that to the Protestants.
He appears very honest though.
Very kind of you to say. Thank you.
Yup... literal where the text is literal, metaphorical where it's metaphorical (I'm looking at you Revelation)
They should've listened to Luther and tossed that one out of the Canon. There'd be soooooo much less headaches these days if it were.
Also just a personal beef. Assuming Peter is the first Pope, he was in fact a married man. It is just me but that alone should be enough for the Church to allow Priests to marry.I thought the non marriage thing was so that the priest would not be distracted by temptations of the flesh... and so that the church could absorb the priest's family/personal wealth (due to a lack of offspring or wives).
Heh. Guess they have a different opinion of what belongs to God and Mammon and trying to serve both masters. ;)
Yup... literal where the text is literal, metaphorical where it's metaphorical (I'm looking at you Revelation)They should've listened to Luther and tossed that one out of the Canon. There'd be soooooo much less headaches these days if it were.
I agree on less headaches, but not that they should get rid of the book. If I remember right Luther wanted to toss out James, too. Called it an "epistle of straw".
That and I'm enough of a cynic to believe that if Revelation wasn't there there'd be equivalent arguments over something else.
I agree on less headaches, but not that they should get rid of the book. If I remember right Luther wanted to toss out James, too. Called it an "epistle of straw".Yup... literal where the text is literal, metaphorical where it's metaphorical (I'm looking at you Revelation)They should've listened to Luther and tossed that one out of the Canon. There'd be soooooo much less headaches these days if it were.
The whole faith versus works debate. Meh.
That and I'm enough of a cynic to believe that if Revelation wasn't there there'd be equivalent arguments over something else.
Eschatologically speaking, you'd have to go back to Isaiah and Daniel, I believe....
1074 and for the most part this was due to inheritance issues, none of which matter in the modern world
And it was barely enforced at until the Reformation. We owe the term nepotism to all the "nephews" that high churchmen helped get into positions of power.
|
|
And it was barely enforced at until the Reformation. We owe the term nepotism to all the "nephews" that high churchmen helped get into positions of power.
1074 and for the most part this was due to inheritance issues, none of which matter in the modern world
Which is why at that time it was a really good thing. Now on the other hand, probably not.
A possible look at how the shoe looks on the other foot of Draw Mohammed day. It does seem less violent, doesn't it?
A possible look at how the shoe looks on the other foot of Draw Mohammed day. It does seem less violent, doesn't it?
This is where the wheat needs to be sorted from the chaff ... or the herd needs culled. ;p
I think the following is my favorite:
This is dumber then Budha. You know how hard that is?
You know…'cause it is o.k. to make fun of Buddha. Now granted, this same person suggested it was stupid to worship Jesus and Allah, so maybe it is one of the militant atheists.
Which is why at that time it was a really good thing. Now on the other hand, probably not.
It certainly helped with a bit of a PR problem the church had.
I think the following is my favorite:
This is dumber then Budha. You know how hard that is?
You know…'cause it is o.k. to make fun of Buddha. Now granted, this same person suggested it was stupid to worship Jesus and Allah, so maybe it is one of the militant atheists.
Don't get me wrong. As an atheist, there are times I cringe when I see some of the militant diatribe bile that gets spewed out ... but rarely do they descend into these depths of ... oh what's the word I want here? Idiocracy is much too kind.
I guess I do not hang out with enough atheists. I want to spew some militant diatribe bile.
Hate, the other white emotion.
I guess I do not hang out with enough atheists. I want to spew some militant diatribe bile.
Hate, the other white emotion.
I've never met an atheist who spewed militant diatribe bile, but I've met a few who did something far worse. They were mistaken on some facts.
They were mistaken on some facts.
You are counting me in that group, aren't you? Aren't you?
"I hope that someone castrates you, beats the shit out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a shit on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."
Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
|
Don't get me wrong. As an atheist, there are times I cringe when I see some of the militant diatribe bile that gets spewed out ... but rarely do they descend into these depths of ... oh what's the word I want here? Idiocracy is much too kind.I think the following is my favorite:
This is dumber then Budha. You know how hard that is?
You know…'cause it is o.k. to make fun of Buddha. Now granted, this same person suggested it was stupid to worship Jesus and Allah, so maybe it is one of the militant atheists.
Idiocracy? That sounds like a idiot beauracracy. I mean at least apply it to like the IRS, or some political group that has it coming. I think the word you were grasping was idiocy, or possibly headupyourassism.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A possible look at how the shoe looks on the other foot of Draw Mohammed day. It does seem less violent, doesn't it?
I'd like to think if I was that dumb, I wouldn't provide evidence in public.
Oh wait...I do that every day here, don't I.
F&#*.
Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
I gave him points for creativity.
Plus, I want to know where he gets his whores.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
"I hope that someone castrates you, beats the s~!! out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a s~!! on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her shit on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap.
|
|
A possible look at how the shoe looks on the other foot of Draw Mohammed day. It does seem less violent, doesn't it?
If the first set of hate mail didn't do it, why repeat the process? It even says many of the readers find them as entertainment...
Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her s@~~ on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap.
I believe our friend was suggesting she is the receiver.
|
|
Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her s#!! on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap."I hope that someone castrates you, beats the s~!! out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a s~!! on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
Of all the points to argue, the lawyer chose this one.
Of all the points to argue, the lawyer chose this one.
The others are too obvious.
|
|
Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her s#!! on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap."I hope that someone castrates you, beats the s~!! out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a s~!! on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
Hey sebastian, is there anyway you can troll Sharoth for me. That ugly frikkin dragon is planning on breaking into my house and stealing my hoard of D&D minis.
That ugly frikkin dragon is planning on breaking into my house and stealing my hoard of D&D minis.
You use miniatures?!
IDOLATOR! Repent your evil ways!|
|
Hey sebastian, is there anyway you can troll Sharoth for me. That ugly frikkin dragon is planning on breaking into my house and stealing my hoard of D&D minis.Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her s#!! on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap."I hope that someone castrates you, beats the s~!! out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a s~!! on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
Don't worry, you'll hear him coming. You can't mistake the sound of all the tilde's. ~
>:)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hey sebastian, is there anyway you can troll Sharoth for me. That ugly frikkin dragon is planning on breaking into my house and stealing my hoard of D&D minis.Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her s#!! on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap."I hope that someone castrates you, beats the s~!! out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a s~!! on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
He is? I'll get right on that.
Just so I can provide the optimal amount of assistance, how much is your hoard worth? Also, does hoard not have an e at the end, because I always spell it that way...
Also, does hoard not have an e at the end, because I always spell it that way...
Yeah, I know a hord of people who think so...
|
|
Of all the points to argue, the lawyer chose this one.Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her s#!! on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap."I hope that someone castrates you, beats the s~!! out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a s~!! on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.
Man am I glad I work in a single-man shop...otherwise I'd have a hard time explaining why I burst out laughing at this.
|
|
Hey sebastian, is there anyway you can troll Sharoth for me. That ugly frikkin dragon is planning on breaking into my house and stealing my hoard of D&D minis.Point of order: for the price you pay a whore to have her s#!! on your chest, she could no longer really be called cheap."I hope that someone castrates you, beats the s~!! out of you, puts you in a tightly tied sack in the middle of the road and a dozen semi’s run you over repeatedly, and to top it off, a dog taking a s~!! on your chest like you we’re a cheap whore."Because, you know, they hate the sin, not the sinner.He is? I'll get right on that.
Just so I can provide the optimal amount of assistance, how much is your hoard worth? Also, does hoard not have an e at the end, because I always spell it that way...
Ummm... well I spent about $100- $150 dollars a month on packs of D&D minis since whenever the hell "Harbinger" came out. Like 2003 then I mentioned on another thread about my storage problems with them, and now that creepy friggin dragon plans to find this mini hoard and try to steal it. But Frankly I'm not worried about sebastian I live in a very damp place that make his perfect mane all frizzy. sooo.... as a consequence he would never consider coming here.
I propose an easy way to resolve all our differences in religion.
Okay that was ridiculous and hilarious.
I gotta stop posting stuff like this I think I may turn into a poodle.Okay that was ridiculous and hilarious.I propose an easy way to resolve all our differences in religion.
LMAO
|
|
LMAOI gotta stop posting stuff like this I think I may turn into a poodle.Okay that was ridiculous and hilarious.I propose an easy way to resolve all our differences in religion.
The cotton balls are beneath the sink, the rubber cement is in the second drawer on the left. I have a spare button you can use for a nose and some thread to attach it.
Poodlism. We have cookies.
…and a spotty carpet.