| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pssst. Look what you quoted...Wrong alias for that reply...mythic at least, man. Priorities.I am.
THAT WAS THE BEST NINJA EDIT EVER! It was regular TL when I hit reply!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, just so I don't throw FaWTL off the rails, I'm going to say the actual topic I wanted to bring up here, 'cause TL you seem like you're cool, and you'll laugh rather than looking at me like I'm a a horrible heretic.
I can't stand the culture of our faith. Like, our faith is awesome, but the cultural associations make me want to vomit sometimes.
People who pray in old English, as if there's something inherently holier about the King James language. IF there was, as the original English translation, then by extension, wouldn't German be even holier, since Martin Luther's original non-Latin translation was German? To continue that - you better damnwell learn Latin if you REALLY want to go legalistic. It's so Pharisee it makes me laugh at the pure irony when they quote stuff that's specifically spoken against that group it's emulating.
How many times do some people have to say "God" in one prayer? I have seen people who inject that, or alterations thereof (father, Jesus, etc.) like they're commas in a Christopher Walken monologue. My wife gets mad at me when I listen to someone pray and afterwards whisper to her "47" or however many times I counted in that four minute prayer.
The music. Ugh. Just...the music. So. Bad. I know there's good Christian music out there, but I have yet to find a church that has it. Change the lyrics to anything else and ask yourself if you'd still listen to it? If you wouldn't - that's crappy music no matter what the message. Even modern churches seem to skip stuff that at least tries to compete mainstream while maintaining its faith, like Skillet or Lifehouse, and stuffs in crap that aesthetically sounds like the same lovey-dovey-cheesy garbage like Natalie Grant or Chris Tomlin. Seriously? Eric Cartman was right - you can write that drivel without even trying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can blame Tacticslion for it. He linked me in. *Totally* his fault.
@greenteagamer --
I actually took about two-and-a-half years of NT Greek back in the day; I *love* the biblical languages . . . Okay, well, one of them.
2) At my particular congregation, one of our members makes prolific use of "Father" -- to the point that I've counted 5 uses before a single sentence is completed. In the "Shots" game, he'd whomp the tar out of Rob Zombie and his "Yeah!"s. If I were the sort to get drunk anymore, I'd try to get some audio and try it out . . . . Not sure if it would take three days to recover, or if it would just turn out to be "Do not pass 'GO', go directly to Morgue."
And, then, of course, it feels like there is only one name for God -- or just one "universally" accepted one . . . . "Heavenly Father". How many times can about 50 - 70 different men call God by the same name in all their prayers??! Evidently, more than all of the times. I kid you negative.
Jehovah Jireh. Yahweh Nissi. Creator. Holy. Just. Good. etc.
3) This may be a big "tell" about my own religio-spiritual background, but I LOVE the fact that I was raised on a capella music. Glad that I'm a bit of a singer, myself -- I can sing all four parts, sometimes (alto is a BEAST, btw). Pianos, guitars, organs, . . . all that? I can do without, personally. Don't get me wrong -- I love music, period, the end; but when it comes to worship and song? Make mine vocal only, please! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like Shakespeare in church should be a thing.
Really make them appreciate thine olde englishe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@YOTCY --
Shame on you.
You do realize your alias's acronym is "Yahtzee", right??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really realize anything, i just make it up as i go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that is has to be a particular aesthetic, but that is part of it. I'm not saying it has to be hard rock or anything (though there's clearly NOT enough of that) - I like David Crowder's stuff, even though in both his musical incarnations he's really mellow.
I just think so much CCM is so damn repetitive. The hooks are all the same thing, a variant of "Hey God, you're cool", and the word "worthy" is dropped so often it makes me want to explode. I think the writers skipped the verse about "vain repetition like the pagans" sometimes.
I'm just so tired of different variations of the same song. I think it's why I used to like Five Iron Frenzy back in the day. They were the first band I heard of that sang about more than how amazing God was (which he is, I get it, but I'm pretty sure even he listens to some of these songs and is like "Dude, I'm omnipotent, I think I heard you the first fourteen times) and actually opened up about things like struggles to be loving or irritations with other members of the culture.
I can dig acapella, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try to figure out what this one means. :-D@YOTCY --
Shame on you.
You do realize your alias's acronym is "Yahtzee", right??
Clearly:
Captain Yesterday - Dragon Ball Z
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said Rock Hard!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doubloon Bandolier Zenith
Death By Zen
Divided By Zero (context clues?)
Dragon Breath Zyrtec
Denial Before the Zeitgeist
Dead Brain Zombie
Shall I continue?
And . . .
What's this about?
J044
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, just so I don't throw FaWTL off the rails, I'm going to say the actual topic I wanted to bring up here, 'cause TL you seem like you're cool, and you'll laugh rather than looking at me like I'm a a horrible heretic.
I can't stand the culture of our faith. Like, our faith is awesome, but the cultural associations make me want to vomit sometimes.
** spoiler omitted **
I lived next door to a Pentecostal church when I was a student. Very good neighbours, apart from when they started up with the '90s HM style praise music at 7am on a Sunday morning. That I could have done without.
They also had a sort of war with the occult bookshop up the road, which solely consisted of winding cassette tapes with curses/prayers or whatever recorded on them around lamp-posts near one another's HQs. Campus Crusade For Christ once tried to firebomb the bookshop, but (obviously) failed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Limey
See? That's exactly it -- CCFC firebombing a joint just because it's "evil"?
Jesus only purged the temple ONCE.
There's no good, biblical justification for advocating for God through violence and destruction. Don't have BCV handy at the moment, but -- "Inasmuch as you are able, live peaceably with ALL MEN."
Wow. Epic Zealot Fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, my big, "What a complete and utter fail of a person" religious moment was when I was walking with a VERY pregnant NobodysWife. There's a church we go by on our walk, and on this particular day the pastor was sweeping out front.
At the curb, NobodysWife tripped and fell sprawling, belly down. It was extremely alarming, and I feared for both her and the baby's safety.
Did the pastor offer to help? Come over? Pretend not to notice?
No. He stopped sweeping and stood there, across the street, glaring at us. As if we'd done it on purpose to disrupt his day. When we didn't immediately get up and move on, as I wanted to check on NobodysWife's health, he glared at us once more, put his broom down, and moved inside so he wouldn't have to deal with us.
No offer of help. No, "Are you OK?" No call to the hospital. Just a whole lotta, "You're not part of my congregation, so you can go hang."
Way to spread the Word, dude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Limey
See? That's exactly it -- CCFC firebombing a joint just because it's "evil"?
Jesus only purged the temple ONCE.
There's no good, biblical justification for advocating for God through violence and destruction. Don't have BCV handy at the moment, but -- "Inasmuch as you are able, live peaceably with ALL MEN."
Wow. Epic Zealot Fail.
They're not typical of anything, certainly not of the Christians I know, even those who are (or were) pretty far out, who were generally mainly concerned with being a good example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a Quaker, most of my horror stories are food related.
Seriously, I have nightmares about wheat germ, and Zucchini to this very day.
And don't get me started on Veggietales! *Sideshow Bob shudder*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try being brought up by folk singers.
Nowadays, I eat tofu out of choice (sometimes), which is something I would have deemed impossible when I was younger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doubloon Bandolier Zenith
Death By Zen
Divided By Zero (context clues?)
Dragon Breath Zyrtec
Denial Before the Zeitgeist
Dead Brain ZombieShall I continue?
And . . .
What's this about?
J044
** spoiler omitted **
Maybe?.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The complaints I was mentioning were silly. The hearts of the people I'm referring to are still good. They're just...lame.
I hear enough "Christians are hate filled and/or hypocritical" from my atheist and agnostic friends.
I know enough good hearted people of my faith and outside of it to know there is no faith or lack that makes you become a good person. A#*$%@!s exist in every group. I do get terrifically annoyed that everyone expects us Christians to somehow be better, as if our religious convictions weren't literally founded on the idea that even the best of us aren't good enough.
That being said sometimes we should remember that when considering others.
But no I was just referencing things that are annoying or silly or kinda lame, but not necessarily bad, per se. I don't remember a command "Thou shalt be a dork."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was in that same passage as, "Thou shalt dress in a really fancy, expensive, and extremely uncomfortably hot suit, because doing otherwise is disrespectful."
Christians, man. Amirite?!
(Just in case there is any question: totes a Christian, right here. I do tend to be harder on us than others, verbally. It's because I am one, though.)
Man. I wanna Farscape so stinkin' bad...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good luck getting me into a suit. Not even on my wedding day.
I wore a white tux on my wedding day.
I loved doing that for my wife. It was fun to wear.
I'm glad I don't wear stuff like that any more. I wear jeans to pretty much everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good luck getting me into a suit. Not even on my wedding day.
Me too, though I suspect I was still dressed up a bit more than you. I had a tie on.
I figured if a job interview got that much out of me, and I was getting hired for something I was way underqualified for (my wife is amazing and I do not deserve her but somehow she still loves me which boggles my mind), I could give her that much.
My church is officially casual, but you wouldn't know that by looking at 3/4 of the congregation. Something about people in the south, where they think if you polish a turd long enough it might shine...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not even a tie. Hawaiian shirt and pants of some sort, baggy green corduroy maybe (in 87 degree temps)
And in fairness to my wife, she never asked me to wear anything fancy. Also we only gave people two weeks to prepare, at the most.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tacticslion, greentea, & cap'n whenever --
The closest justification I ever found in Scripture about wearing "Sunday best" was Nehemiah 10:28 . . . . . . Nevermind, wrong verse. *That* one is the "age of accountability" one . . . . Hmm. Bebother my laxity regarding industrious study of the Word. Argh.
If "modesty" = "suit & tie", well, . . . . I know where I'll end up, then. I'm a jeans and t-shirt fella; I don't recall any testimony that 'Ol Josh Himself wore phylacteries . . . . Waaaitaminnit . . . .
Are all liches Pharisees? But not all Pharisees liches?
@NobodysHome --
I am sorry your wife and unborn youngling weren't of sufficient concern, apparently. Though I do want to float the idea that many ministers feel a persecuted bunch simply because of their vocation (if you can even call it that, really -- Paul made tents, you know), and I believe that there has been a "reflexive sequestering" of ministers across the US, especially. Some of them are scared to offer help to people they don't know because they feel responsible for the negative backlash they've experienced, and have come to expect that negative reaction from others. I'm not saying he was right or wrong, nor am I laying that unfortunate anecdote at your feet, but I'm pretty sure that [u]sometimes[/u] a minister/preacher/pastor/whichever will agonize over "what to do" simply because of a deeper fear of closing a door for ministering . . . . You get it.
It *is* tough to be a believer these days, in some ways, but then, I think that's the way it should be. The two worst things that ever happened to Christianity were, in my opinion:
1) the Edict of Milan, 313 AD (this set the tone for the sense of entitlement we see across the broader umbrella of "Christianity" [used loosely here, because there are plenty of people/groups who claim the name of Christian but really aren't] today -- like a law's protection means we deserve the best this world has to offer?? Please. )
2) and when we started making special buildings to hold our gatherings -- buildings obviously reserved for only the known faithful, since they're kept by lock and key 6 days out of the week (or, rather, only *unlocked* about 8 hours a week, with 160 more hours to just . . . be there, taking up space, "sanctified" and sanctimonious . . . . I get that the temple was convenient in the beginning, but once you get to Antioch, or Macedonia, or "Ephesus" (likely Laodicea, I think -- the book of Ephesians isn't clearly addressed to any specific group in the older manuscripts, but Colossians has a reference to a letter to the Laodiceans, so on and so forth), we read about Christians meeting in homes, or down by the river, and so on. To go with a metaphor I ran across in a book once, paraphrased -- "Christians are a bit like manure -- pile 'em all up in one place, and about all you get is a big stink; but spread 'em around hither and thither, and you're fertilizing for growth." (emphases mine, ST)
I know enough good hearted people of my faith and outside of it to know there is no faith or lack that makes you become a good person. A$+@~@@s exist in every group. I do get terrifically annoyed that everyone expects us Christians to somehow be better, as if our religious convictions weren't literally founded on the idea that even the best of us aren't good enough. (emphases mine, ST)
Just so.
Gotta keep trying to walk that walk, though. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My dad is a minister. There's no way ever he wouldn't have dropped every last thing he was doing to help Nobodyshome and wife. That guy was just being a dick. :-)
Edit: Not trying to be antagonistic, it gets my goat when people are a&@&&&$s like that guy. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta keep trying to walk that walk, though. :)
Always, sir. Always. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My pastor is the product of an unwed mother. He constantly points out God can turn our sin to his glory. He always points out "If you're waiting to fix yourself up to come to Christ you'll never make it to him." I'm positive he would've helped before she fell, been across the street asking when the kid is coming and if you want a drink of water or whatever.
People like those NH dealt with...I want to say they don't exist or aren't that common, but they do, and they are, and it kept me from the faith for so long. That and a culture voluntary ignorance disguised as faith.
Evangelistic witnessing has taken the forefront so much in America people have no idea what apologetics are. When I was in Texas and I questioned inconsistencies, not to be snarky but because I'm of a logical mind and cannot deal with paradoxes, but I wanted to believe and figured an omniscient creator would have an answer, I was met with a lot of "You're too smart for your own good, you just need to have more faith." That was such a BS cop out I wrote the entire faith off for half a decade until my college roommate was able to meet every question I have with either an answer or enough humility to admit "I don't know but give me some time to research and I'll find out."
You judge a nation by it's ambassador, and so many of our people are horrible, horrible ambassadors for the king. I know I'm not perfect, but I at least try to remember what it was like to not believe. The one that always gets me laughing is people who use the bible to prove God is real. You can't start with something they disagree with in the first place! That's like trying to prove Islam is the one true religion with the Quaran. You need to start with a given point of understanding.
I really enjoyed Lewis's Mere Christianity for that reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@gtg --
I really do need to read that . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... it's time.
Time to unveil exactly how hackneyed and derivative I can be.
It's time for a...
NEW BASE CLASS
"Fighter"
- the Fighter is, this one with a bonus to all saves equal to ¼ (level+2) and +1/5 its level to all attack and damage rolls with all weapons. There you go.
...
...
...
...
And now… another...
NEW BASE CLASS
"Red Mage"
- the Red Mage is, mechanically, similar to an archeologist bard, except it sacrifices its trap sense, rogue talents, evasion, and advanced talent for greater magic (described below). Additionally, it gains: a special variant of the wizard’s arcane bond special ability, called “Metakashic Gnosticomancic Spirit Folioscript”, described below.
The meditants of the Metakashic Gnosticomancy – or “Red Mages” as they are informally known – seek to find a grand balance in all things. Their desire to balance their minds, bodies, and magic has made them among the most versatile of all creatures, and their deep focus on esoteric, eldritch, and forbidden lore that would drive lesser creatures mad, has given them a great power over the forces of reality and influence.
Though their caster level is equal to their class level, those skilled in Metakashic Gnosticomancy treat their bard level as two higher for purposes of spells known and spells per day. Additionally, starting at 18th level, they gain a slightly different progression allowing them to unlock even greater spells than normally available to “bard” classes.
At 18th level, in addition to the spells they normally have, Red Mages gain one 7th level spell per day, and two spells known. This increases to two per day and three known at 19th level, and four per day and four known at 20th level.
The Red Mages are not permitted to access the normal bard spell lists. They must instead choose from the spells divination and evocation black mage spells, and the conjuration and transmutation white mage spells.
The meditants of the Metakashic Gnosticomancy have discovered insane and incomprehensible truths at the root of all reality. As a fundamental representation of these truths, they have distilled their training into a bond that represents their true selves with how they interact with reality. But the meditants do not stop at merely learning – no, their over-arching goal is to manipulate. And so they do. They practice the fine art of persuading, and cheating, and deceiving, not just others, but also reality itself.
The meditants of the Metakashic Gnosticomancy have discovered something impossible: they have learned how to calculate their own capabilities. As part of their initial studies, they are forced to go through a rigorous process that accurately identifies each of their strengths and weaknesses. Creating the initial record is a deeply intense and personal experience that strains a meditant to their personal limits and beyond, and forces them to confront truths – often harsh, often relieving – about themselves. But keeping this record allows them not only to grow into a greater warrior, but to trick the cosmos itself. This functions similarly to a wizard’s bonded item, but for a few differences.
This information is so accurate, and their bond becomes so deep, that instead of only reflecting their abilities, it can actually influence them, directly. First, it must always be kept up to date, or else the Red Mage loses their ability to change, grow, or recover – if ever destroyed, the Red Mage cannot recover hit points gained from their levels in Red Mage, regain Red Mage spells, or similar; what’s more, they gain one effective negative level per level of Red Mage each day. These levels cannot kill a Red Mage, but if a full number of negative levels is attained equal to a character’s Red Mage level, the next time the Red Mage rests, that meditant loses all Red Mage levels and experience points, and replaces them with a single level of commoner.
A Red Mage may not keep more than oneMetakashic Gnosticomancic Spirit Folioscript at a time, though they may keep the materials and tools around to create a new one – any attempts at creating a second functioning Metakashic Gnosticomancic Spirit Folioscript has proven to merely create a very accurate set of information about them usable by their enemies. A meditant may purposefully sever their own connection with a particular record as a one-minute ritual. They must then create a new record. A Metakashic Gnosticomancic Spirit Folioscript may be kept in any form information (especially letters or numbers) may be stored. Most Red Mages prefer pen, ink, and plain language and numbers, because it’s easier, and less likely to result in… mishaps. Other attempts require Linguistic checks for every attempt at deciphering or using the record in question – even by the Red Mage. The Linguistic check is determined by the GM. Regardless of what this information is recorded on, and regardless of what manner it is recorded with, it requires a Craft check, with a DC equal to 15+level+object’s hardness, in order to update this – effectively preventing them from gaining a level until they are able to do so. Outside of the esoteric process of “gaining a level” (whatever that means), Red Mages’ records generally update on their own – with no further input from the Red Mage. (The most popular theory among the meditants is that that some sort of genie or genies, generally called a “dji’ehm”, actually control the whole process; alas, no amount of experimentation has been able to conclusively prove this, however.)
The greatest power of the Metakashic Gnosticomancic Spirit Folioscript, however is the method by which the meditants have learned to cheat with it. A number of times per day equal to 3 + charisma modifier, a Red Mage may switch any two numbers on its sheet, so long as those two numbers are within the range of the lower number x (level + highest ability modifier). This switch lasts for only a single round or one minute “real time” (whatever that is), whichever comes first, before the two numbers revert. Making the switch requires a full-round action on the part of the Red Mage. By expending two charges, a meditant may instead roll any one kind of dice instead of any other kind of dice. Regardless of what kind of “cheating” they do, the next dice roll the GM requires them to make, a Red Mage must roll twice and take the lower roll, and it takes one negative level for one in-game minute after doing so – believed by many to be the wrath of the “dji’ehm” for taking such liberties with reality.
EDIT: Credit-edit and amendment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tacticslion --
Everyone knows that red mages don't need genies, folioscripts, divinations, or transmutations. All red mages need are: mountains, red mana, fire, lighnting, rage, and a good ol' anarchistic attitude!
I do love me some M:tG.
But, with a faint dash more seriousness, I get it. Ha. ha-HaHa. Heh.
How many different-colored mages *does* the Final Fantasy brand have? I know we have the white, black, red, and blue, but did they ever make others?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. Classic Magic: The Gathering joke.
This is all premised off of the comic 8-Bit Theater (itself very loosely based on FF 1).
The "Color" of mages depends heavily on what you include in FF.
As far as specific "colors", on a quick perusal, it seems that "green" was added at some point or another, but I'd guess that's exceptionally rare. Time Mages (or, in FFT, Oracles) generally take over the Green Mages jobs, when present, and are more common; Summoners are even more common than that. I don't what an "evoker" is in FF-terms, as it's listed, but has nothing there to explain it.
Based off of this entry, it looks like Green Mage is from FF12 or FFT:A2 - neither of which I've played. From those very games, it adds the arcanist, elementalist, and seer classes - and I think alchemist is there, too; and certainly in FF, the chemist (item-user) is a kind of mage, as is the geomancer, bard, and dancer - despite only some of those following the "mage" path.
To sum it all up: Final Fantasy Tactics is awesome, and should be played. I'm pretty sure that's the conclusion we should all walk away with from all of this.
Does that answer your question? :D
EDIT: for a minor clarification
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys make me feel like there's still hope for me. Thank you.
(referencing faith discussion)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys make me feel like there's still hope for me. Thank you.
(referencing faith discussion)
There's hope for everyone, my friend.
Else there's hope for no one.
And I never believe there is no hope. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tacticslion --
Who said anything about a joke??! I'll burn your face off, dude! I don't always tap that, but when I do, it's red mana!
Grixis is the way to go -- UBR --, really. Stop all the things, kill all the things, burn all the things.
@Randarak --
What Tacticslion said. There is always hope, even in the category of something as intangible as faith/spirituality.
It seems we've become immersed in a sea of existential materialism (can't interact with it from the perspective of the five senses? can't trust it), but I doubt that people would be asking the questions they are if there wasn't a certain disquiet that plagues the assumption of "all is as it is, as it should be". While I will boldly claim that Christianity is the best path to truth (and the only efficacious one), I've generally concluded that most people have an innate sense that material causes cannot fully satisfy the metaphysics of the human experience. For instance, if emotions are merely an evolutionary byproduct or tool (depending upon whom answers the question) of the survival of the human race, why then do the majority of people still operate with emotion as their primary guide? It isn't because we're mired in ignorance -- it's because emotions have a value all their own, no matter what brain activity we can measure while a person experiences an emotion . . . .
@gtg --
I'm a rookie apologist in the realm of creation vs evolution -- those are the questions I most enjoy discussing. I'm guessing, given the C. S. Lewis exposure you've mentioned, that you're more invested in the moral/ethical aspects of apologetics. Am I right?
@Randarak (part 2) --
If there's ever anything on your mind, I'm sure Tacticslion, greentea, or myself would love to listen. I don't think it would cause a ruckus to pick that part of the thread up again, if you'd like -- this is your "homage thread", Tactics, so I can defer to more red mage shenanigans, as you deem appropriate.
. . . . . . .
Why am I being a Hijackasaurus rex today?
@Tacticslion (part 2) --
I want a planimal code name, dude. Have y'all got a roster, or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe there is a disconnect in creationism and evolution. The Hebrew word used for day in Genesis can also mean a time period. As far as the direct creation of man, I believe that when you teach people you have to use what they understand as a basis. You can't teach particle physics to a five year old. Evolution would've made Moses's mind explode. "From the dust of the earth" could be a simplification for inorganic->organic single cellular->multicellular->all the damn steps to human that Moses could understand.
It's no less miraculous. The randomness required for organic matter to evolve naturally is still beyond mathematically possible given our estimated age of the universe, so guided evolution makes sense to me, and fits both faith and science.
I don't think we use science to prove the Bible wrong, but finally fight out what it really means.
I'm a nutso young earth creationist, buuu~uuut, I'm not so hardline as to reject the possible older earth thesis.
More, "This is what I believe; this is why. Proof to the contrary certainly seems convincing, and may well be true, but it is not what I embrace as definitive, based off of faith and meditation. I'll know for sure one day, though." than either, "This is the way: WALK IT." or "Faith... prove it."
I mean, I'd like to prove it, and there are enough... quibbles... in the various theories that I'm not sold that said current concept is even the "correct" one, even by "heavy proof" standards of itself.
(In fact, I'm pretty darn tootin' that it's not. Not because of Faith in any written work, but because of the way the theory itself has been refined and rewritten so many times. Darwin would have no daggum clue what anyone was talking about, these days, and every major point of his original concept, except the basic premise of, "it looks like some creatures might have changed into other creatures" has been proven wrong, soooo... you know. The current models are almost certainly "off" somewhere, and, statistically speaking, rather strongly "off" at that. I mean, we're still classifying what is related to what, at present. We have entire taxonomies that are fundamentally incorrect - or at least were, until recently. I see no evidence that this is a minor trend that will peter out soon.)
I'm more convinced by the various physical cosmological arguments and reasons than I am by the biological ones. In other words, the concepts found in deep time studies are interesting, powerful, and persuasive - though not insurmountable in seeking to find evidence in faith.
My largest and most important takeaway, however, is that, no matter what, keep learning. Look at what the evidence says, and if it says something other than what you believe, at least think about what that could mean. Come up with a justification, sure. That's fine. Apologetics is a very important field, no matter what it's for. But, simultaneously, sit back, and think about what you believe. Examine it and determine, for yourself, what you will cleave to.
Basically, I learn all the science I can, and accept that as the physical evidence of what may well (and, on its own merits, certainly seems likely to) have happened. Then I go, "Welp, that's a very good question that I can't answer. Maybe the Bible really means that - in other words, perhaps it's being a metaphor - or perhaps its being literal." I choose to believe it's literal, and accept God (or, at least, the Book that purports to speak for Him) at face-value, as I find that the more internally consistent and satisfying. But I also hold cognitive dissonance in that I accept the evidence of the material universe as well. And when I can't reconcile the two, I choose God over the current theories, but work in the confines as if the current theories were true.
After all, Paul tells us to be prepared at any moment for the coming of the Lord... but go to work, and live your life, instead of just lazing around waiting for the Return.
I, personally, suspect that a looooooooooooot of us have some serious mistakes that have been culturally accepted, in a broad-way, about the Scripture. I'm mildly interested to see if I'm right or wrong. Either way, I choose to put my faith in God, and to accept when others disagree about what, exactly, that means.
There was literally never agreement among Christians. Before there were Christians, there were these twelve hand-picked guys who followed Christ, and they were always arguing about who was the best whatever, and what, exactly, Jesus meant. After the Holy Spirit came, they still had internal councils and meetings, and disagreements over all sorts of stuff. But in those disagreements, they found unity. Unity as a body under the Lord. And that's awesome. So, I'm cool if people don't believe exactly like I do or for my reasons. Christians have always been a highly opinionated (some might even say "nerdy") bunch, with a lot of different opinions among them.
To be clear, there's a narrow path, but who's to say I'm the right one? Only God. With that in mind, if someone has compelling ideas, or solid concepts, I'll share what I can, and, once my peace is given, leave it to them, but being willing to assist where I can and when, if needed.
And I'll find out what I've done right, and what I've done wrong once I get to Him, and He will judge between me and whoever else. My job is just to love them along the way.
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We were monkeys, dinosaurs existed, and now they're chickens. Deal with it.
And I'm sorry! But there's an episode of Always Sunny where Mac proves "Science is wrong, sometimes" absolutely true, however religion (all of them) has been far more wrong with to much consistency for me to take seriously. Especially on creationism and evolution.
I just don't get it.
Thanks! Just have to get that out, my a~@$@!# brother is always being an a@~$%+~ about this, so it gets me kind of worked up. :-)
You guys are great, and that's all I'll say on the matter. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but my entire argument was that there is no disconnect between science and religion. :-/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I was more responding to Tacticslion. And I just skimmed it, I'm on my phone, so it's hard to not skim long posts. But mostly, I get a lot of the creationism silliness in my parts of the world, so I just have to say my thing whenever anyone mentions the word, kind of like an involuntary muscle movement. :-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even Tac, in a very kind way, said "Yeah, I disagree, but there's nothing wrong with you or anyone else for thinking that way, and one day we'll know who's right, and that's cool."
By skimming and responding based upon what you've heard from others and not his actual words, how is that not a form of pre-judgment, or prejudice? Inserting a "you guys are awesome though" caveat is nice, and helpful, but it doesn't take away the fact.
I don't think it was by any means malicious of you or intentional. I think you're a nice guy, Cap, who has dealt with some real pricks pretending to be nice guys and maybe it's jaded you a bit. I just implore you to reconsider your opinions of the millions of people who are strongly faith based and remember just because you know some wingnuts doesn't mean all of us are, and that our opinions can vary greatly from theirs.
Look at Tac and myself - our opinions, while not entirely opposite, are vastly different sides of the spectrum.
Like I said, involuntary muscle reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are a couple of my more lighthearted arguments against neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (i.e., material causes are fully sufficient) --
1) The Argument from Romance -- If male and female emerged from precursor genetic stock, and male and female were required to propagate the species (and, yes, Tactics, there's still a lot of fuss over what, exactly, constitutes a species), I fail to see how the inscrutability of the female human assists in preservation of the species. If material causes alone were sufficient, they would make more sense!
"Women -- can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em."
2) The Argument of Dragons -- Why do most early civilizations have tales of massive beasts (that sometimes breathed fire), images of which depict decidedly reptilian creatures, if our ancestors did not have *some* exposure to these creatures? I understand a great many "scholars" and "thinkers" point to the animals mentioned in Job 40:15 - 41:34 as elephants, crocodiles, hippopotami, or some other, but I have yet to see a single one of them sneeze light, exhale torches, or smoke without a cigarette. (I can see the memes a-brewing now.) In other words, I *do* believe in the coexistence of humans and dragons/dinosaurs -- we just ate them all after the Flood. Super-giant alligators on the menu after Genesis 9:3? Why *wouldn't* they be dead? Dinosaurs: poster children of over-hunting. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. Darwin was one smart cookie. I am pretty sure he would have been delighted to see where his theory has gone today. And of course, there is enough evidence of evolution HAPPENING for ignoring it to be unrealistic at best. For a very simple example: Cultivate bacteria. Put them under heat that is somewhat dangerous to them. Lots of them die. Among those that do not, you will find that the genes for heat tolerance are now pretty common. Same with antibiotic resistance. It is not just for those individuals, either, but traits that remain with the strain for a long time. Keep subjecting them to heat and antibiotics and the traits will remain and grow stronger. Stop heating, and the strain will no longer have such evolutionary pressure to keep it, and it may disappear in a while. It isn't just bacteria, though. Fishes from one lake divided in two from the same genetic pool, have been observed to differ greatly depending on the conditions in the respective resulting lakes.
Regarding the probability of life arising, make a thought experiment. If we assume that life happens AT ONE SINGLE POINT IN THE UNIVERSE, on a planet around one of the billions and billions of stars... Riddle me this: Where in the universe will people eventually sit thinking about how unlikely the emergence of life is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do... do people still ask for favorites on this thread? Because if so, I'm a little hurt that Tacticslion hasn't favorited my post on the Blame Cosmo thread yet. If that's not a thing I'll just go then...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl --
Adaptation is a thing. No denying it. *I'm* not denying it. But I do call into question the conclusion that adaptation implies emergent ascending biological complexity -- surviving is one thing, making something new is another.
Concerning your riddling thought experiment: *if* we are willing to assume the emergence of life in one cosmological location, the mathematics would argue even further against what I am understanding is your implication. Granted, some of that is tied to the fact that there is a great deal more universe to explore than we've gotten around to,
but utilizing the law of the excluded middle to suggest that there has to be life somewhere else in the universe due to the current mathematical difficulties of explaining its existence here is mere sophistry -- we're still dealing with attempts to quantify that which has not been observed, has not been recorded, and cannot yet be disproved. Using metaphysics to justify physical claims that fall outside the bounds of the scientific process in the now is just the converse of the difficulty atheistic evolutionary thinkers point out regarding most creationist thinking -- "God, therefore science."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
johnnythe34th --
Don't worry. Tactics still faves all the things he likes. We've been getting serious in here, but we're still having fun! :D