Poll: How did human life come about?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

If you could go back 2000 years, find this Jesus of Nazareth, and you asked him if he is the Son of God, he might say "Yes, aren't you too?"
It should be understood that Jesus was not even formally deified by the Catholic church until 325 AD.

BTW, this -- ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) -- translates from Greek into Hebrew as Adonai, which is the spoken form of the YHWH (which was never to be spoken aloud).
This -- ?e?? (?God?) -- is Zeus (or Deus). And yes, it means God.

who gives a schniz what the catholics think? they molest boys and count beads. when the hell was jesus ever a bead counting petteras?

You think maybe you should have actually read (or tried to understand) my post before this little rant? I seriously doubt that engineereeyore will think that I was coming to his rescue in your little argument with him (because I wasn't), so what's your problem?

didn't think i had one.... i was just expressing my thoughts on the catholic religion and when they decided what.

Yeah well, as you're obviously not aware, the Catholic church IS Christianity. Not its own separate religion. They have over a billion members and account for roughly half of the people who call themselves Christians. And in 325 AD, they were the only Christian church. So if they decided to deify Jesus at that time, that made it a pretty big deal for Christian dogma, especially when he wasn't deified before.

BTW, the word "catholic" is Latin for universal. Translated simply, it means The One Church.

WTF, how do you people even pretend to yourself that you can argue these subjects, or that you can hate on the beliefs of billions of people when you don't even know what those beliefs are? Really...

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

If you could go back 2000 years, find this Jesus of Nazareth, and you asked him if he is the Son of God, he might say "Yes, aren't you too?"
It should be understood that Jesus was not even formally deified by the Catholic church until 325 AD.

BTW, this -- ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) -- translates from Greek into Hebrew as Adonai, which is the spoken form of the YHWH (which was never to be spoken aloud).
This -- ?e?? (?God?) -- is Zeus (or Deus). And yes, it means God.

who gives a schniz what the catholics think? they molest boys and count beads. when the hell was jesus ever a bead counting petteras?

You think maybe you should have actually read (or tried to understand) my post before this little rant? I seriously doubt that engineereeyore will think that I was coming to his rescue in your little argument with him (because I wasn't), so what's your problem?

didn't think i had one.... i was just expressing my thoughts on the catholic religion and when they decided what.

Yeah well, as you're obviously not aware, the Catholic church IS Christianity. Not its own separate religion. They have over a billion members and account for roughly half of the people who call themselves Christians. And in 325 AD, they were the only Christian church. So if they decided to deify Jesus at that time, that made it a pretty big deal for Christian dogma, especially when he wasn't deified before.

BTW, the word "catholic" is Latin for universal. Translated simply, it means The One Church.

WTF, how do you people even pretend to yourself that you can argue these subjects, or that you can hate on the beliefs of billions of people when you don't even know what those beliefs are? Really...

howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
i thought maybe you missed my "unbiased" wiki post, too, so...

Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.?

No, I read it. Didn't see a whole lot interesting in it. Even if most scholar don't agree with it, that doesn't change anything. Take out 'I am'. You've still got redeemer and savior, both of which God isn't. Those were the roles of Christ, not God.

Was the John of Revelations and the John of the Gospel of John the same person? Most people believe they were, but most scholars would disagree due to the uniquely different writing styles contained in the two books. I personally believe they were, as do most Christians. It's things like that that make me value their opinion, but help me to realize it is nothing more than that. Opinion. Here's the quote though.

"John of Patmos, the author of Revelation, was traditionally believed to be the same person as both John, the apostle of Jesus and John the Evangelist, author of the Gospel of John. Justin Martyr, writing in the early 2nd century was the first to equate the author of Revelation with John the apostle.[1] Most biblical scholars now contend that these were separate individuals."

John

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
i thought maybe you missed my "unbiased" wiki post, too, so...

Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.?

No, I read it. Didn't see a whole lot interesting in it. Even if most scholar don't agree with it, that doesn't change anything. Take out 'I am'. You've still got redeemer and savior, both of which God isn't. Those were the roles of Christ, not God.

Was the John of Revelations and the John of the Gospel of John the same person? Most people believe they were, but most scholars would disagree due to the uniquely different writing styles contained in the two books. I personally believe they were, as do most Christians. It's things like that that make me value their opinion, but help me to realize it is nothing more than that. Opinion. Here's the quote though.

"John of Patmos, the author of Revelation, was traditionally believed to be the same person as both John, the apostle of Jesus and John the Evangelist, author of the Gospel of John. Justin Martyr, writing in the early 2nd century was the first to equate the author of Revelation with John the apostle.[1] Most biblical scholars now contend that these were separate individuals."

John

thus the nature of religious sects, i guess. if everyone agreed, we'd all still be counting beads and excommunicating issac newton.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

You wrong in that you don't talk about people like that. What, there's never been a JW that molested someone? I could say something like, "So, how many times have your leaders predicted the second coming and been wrong? What's the total now?" But I wouldn't say things like that. It's just rude.

You're making an accusation on an organization based upon the actions of a few. Would you honestly not find a problem with me saying, "who gives a schniz what the JW's think? they've had child molestors, murders, robbers, adulterers, and spend all there time predicting the date of the second coming. didn't jesus say don't do that and no man know the day?"

Come on.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
thus the nature of religious sects, i guess. if everyone agreed, we'd all still be counting beads and excommunicating issac newton.

Wow. You've truly given me a newfound disrespect for JW's. Personally, comments like that make me very happy we don't all agree.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

If you could go back 2000 years, find this Jesus of Nazareth, and you asked him if he is the Son of God, he might say "Yes, aren't you too?"
It should be understood that Jesus was not even formally deified by the Catholic church until 325 AD.

BTW, this -- ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) -- translates from Greek into Hebrew as Adonai, which is the spoken form of the YHWH (which was never to be spoken aloud).
This -- ?e?? (?God?) -- is Zeus (or Deus). And yes, it means God.

who gives a schniz what the catholics think? they molest boys and count beads. when the hell was jesus ever a bead counting petteras?

You think maybe you should have actually read (or tried to understand) my post before this little rant? I seriously doubt that engineereeyore will think that I was coming to his rescue in your little argument with him (because I wasn't), so what's your problem?

didn't think i had one.... i was just expressing my thoughts on the catholic religion and when they decided what.

Yeah well, as you're obviously not aware, the Catholic church IS Christianity. Not its own separate religion. They have over a billion members and account for roughly half of the people who call themselves Christians. And in 325 AD, they were the only Christian church. So if they decided to deify Jesus at that time, that made it a pretty big deal for Christian dogma, especially when he wasn't deified before.

BTW, the word "catholic" is Latin for universal. Translated simply, it means The One Church.

WTF, how do you people even pretend to yourself that you can argue these subjects, or that you can hate on the beliefs of billions of people when you don't even know what those beliefs are? Really...

howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

I'm sure there's been atheists, Buddhists, and agnostics who have molested children too. I don't see your point. And I'm not a Catholic either.

My earlier point was that there was only one Christian church in 325 AD. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

You wrong in that you don't talk about people like that. What, there's never been a JW that molested someone? I could say something like, "So, how many times have your leaders predicted the second coming and been wrong? What's the total now?" But I wouldn't say things like that. It's just rude.

You're making an accusation on an organization based upon the actions of a few. Would you honestly not find a problem with me saying, "who gives a schniz what the JW's think? they've had child molestors, murders, robbers, adulterers, and spend all there time predicting the date of the second coming. didn't jesus say don't know that and no man know the day?"

Come on.

I think the difference is that the Church itself has not only had 100s of molestors, but they hid it from the public, paid off the victims, and continued to let it happen and spread... and it isn't like it was in the past.. it is still an ongoing issue.

He isn't saying random people were molesters, but the top people themselves and 100s of their priests, while hiding it from the public, etc... it is a terribly corrupt organization.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
thus the nature of religious sects, i guess. if everyone agreed, we'd all still be counting beads and excommunicating issac newton.

Uh... Isaac Newton was never excommunicated by any church and he was devoutly Christian throughout his whole life. He is said to have spent more time studying the scripture than science.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I think the difference is that the Church itself has not only had 100s of molestors, but they hid it from the public, paid off the victims, and continued to let it happen and spread... and it isn't like it was in the past.. it is still an ongoing issue.

He isn't saying random people were molesters, but the top people themselves and 100s of their priests, while hiding it from the public, etc... it is a terribly corrupt organization.

Trust me, I'd never claim the Catholic church was perfect, but still. Stating that nothing they say matters simply because of those actions is ridiculous. I have a great deal of respect for that church. Sure it's had it's problems, and still does. Do you honestly believe that any other church that had the same number of member and the same type of clergy hierarchy wouldn't also have problems?

Again, I'm not trying to justify anything they did. I just don't think they're ideas should be thrown out simply because they've made mistake. Just my opinion though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

You wrong in that you don't talk about people like that. What, there's never been a JW that molested someone? I could say something like, "So, how many times have your leaders predicted the second coming and been wrong? What's the total now?" But I wouldn't say things like that. It's just rude.

You're making an accusation on an organization based upon the actions of a few. Would you honestly not find a problem with me saying, "who gives a schniz what the JW's think? they've had child molestors, murders, robbers, adulterers, and spend all there time predicting the date of the second coming. didn't jesus say don't know that and no man know the day?"

Come on.

I think the difference is that the Church itself has not only had 100s of molestors, but they hid it from the public, paid off the victims, and continued to let it happen and spread... and it isn't like it was in the past.. it is still an ongoing issue.

He isn't saying random people were molesters, but the top people themselves and 100s of their priests, while hiding it from the public, etc... it is a terribly corrupt organization.

Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if it's the Catholic church or the US government. Look at how many schoolteachers rape children. Shall we close the schools? Or address the issues?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

never said i was a JW... just thought the JW article i found near the top of my search had some good points.

good point about the act not being the root of the problem, but the covering up from top to bottom.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

you have the nicene creed of 325 and of 381. differences include the term "catholic" and elaboration of the holy spirit. most notably is the "touch blue make it true" anthym of the 381 version. all this after constantine merged christianity and pagan religions. there being the reasons for christmas, easter, and other pagan rituals finding there way into christian commonplace today.

but wait..... billions of christ loving, god fearing people celebrate both easter and christmas, by your logic their strength in numbers alone keeps them in christian accordance for doing so.

and as far as revelations is concerned... the drunk lady on top of the seven headed beast is none other than the almighty and undisputed under penalty (according to the 381 version) catholic church.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

You wrong in that you don't talk about people like that. What, there's never been a JW that molested someone? I could say something like, "So, how many times have your leaders predicted the second coming and been wrong? What's the total now?" But I wouldn't say things like that. It's just rude.

You're making an accusation on an organization based upon the actions of a few. Would you honestly not find a problem with me saying, "who gives a schniz what the JW's think? they've had child molestors, murders, robbers, adulterers, and spend all there time predicting the date of the second coming. didn't jesus say don't know that and no man know the day?"

Come on.

I think the difference is that the Church itself has not only had 100s of molestors, but they hid it from the public, paid off the victims, and continued to let it happen and spread... and it isn't like it was in the past.. it is still an ongoing issue.

He isn't saying random people were molesters, but the top people themselves and 100s of their priests, while hiding it from the public, etc... it is a terribly corrupt organization.

Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if it's the Catholic church or the US government. Look at how many schoolteachers rape children. Shall we close the schools? Or address the issues?

They aren't raping the children, they are having consensual sex with a minor. Additionally, they are being punished.

The church has not addressed the issues. They hid the problem, pay off the victim, and actually promote the problem with this response.

 

[BW86]

3rd option

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: eojinlim

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: eojinlim
Upon reflecting on the question I must say that the "life evolved over only 10, 000 years" is completely false. However, as a Christian, I would like to point out that this 10, 000 year estimate is completely outdated. It was "calculated" by some member of the church hundreds of years ago and nowhere in the Bible does it state the timeline or any quantifiable evidence that it occurred over only 10, 000 years.

Therefore, it frustrates me to absolutely no end, when non-believers, Atheists, et al. bring up a counter point of how evolution has PROVEN that everything could not have possibly shaped the world in a matter of only 10, 000 years - chump change really.

And here is where you wannabelievers prove that you're completely ignorant about this book of fiction which you let run your lives. The 10,000 year number is wrong, it's 4,500 to 6,000 years and not "outdated". The BIBLE ITSELF provides that number. If you had ever bothered to read it and understand it this little work of fiction creates a very nice timeline of events. Starting with Adam and Eve there's a long and complete list of who begat whom. And the bible also generously provides (make that "foolishly invents") the ages of these people at the key events in their lives. The bible tells you when they were born, what they did, who they begat and how long they all lived. It wasn't calculated out of thin air, the names, numbers and dates were provided by the bible itself. And it's not "outdated". It has not changed because the bible has not changed. It's still the same pack of lies and it still continues to prove itself false. The only people who fail to understand that are the ones who are truly ignorant about the book. Let me repeat this again since you keep trying to ignore this most pertinant fact: The bible provides the timeline and the timeline is false

The world itself is not 4,500-6.000 years old. We know that for a fact
Mankind has not been around for 4,500-6,000 years. We know that for a fact
There was no worldwide flood 3,500 years ago. We know that for a fact
The population of the earth wasn't wiped out except for one family 3,500 years ago and then repopulate from the same DNA. We know that for a fact.

Your most holy piece of fiction proves itself wrong from the very first chapter. It's not a church elder who invented some calculations and it's not an outdated set of numbers. They're the very numbers that come from the book. To believe the book you MUST believe the numbers. If you don't you're rejecting the entire book. If that's the case, congratulations. You just took the first step on the long road of evolution where hopefully you'll grow a brain.

I think you are missing the entire point of the Bible. It isn't there to provide numbers, quantifiable variables, as well as a hypothesis of why things are the way they are. The Bible is basically about Jesus. Everything, from the prophets in the Old Testament, to Jesus' life, and then later on to the beginnings of the church revolve around one thing - Jesus, God's gift, and his burning desire that everyone loves one another, respects one another, and cares for one another.

The Bible has undergone many translations - from Hebrew to Greece to Latin to English to....the numbers may not add up but the truth remains. God could care less whether the timelines are messed, and whether the number's don't add up. Read the Bible, pray to him, and then you will realize that reading the Bible with Him by your side truly reveals a certain level of truth that allows people to live their lives more happily. It doesn't hurt that to believe Jesus' sacrifice could save you from going to Hell.

Isn't this the reason for why the Bible is so important to all of us? Does anyone agree with me?

No. Fine, I'll accept that the Bible is a corrupted piece of fiction that has been changed, mangled and mistranslated until it's become nonsensical ramblings. Does that mean that you're also going to accept that it's been compromised to the point where it no longer has any relevance and that you're going to stop allowing it to run your life? OF COURSE YOU WON'T!!! You so desperately want to believe that even though you yourself admit that nobody really knows what it was trying to say, you still attach your own meaning to it and let it guide you anyway.

Sorry, but an organized religion is not like a chinese menu where you're allowed to choose one from column A and two from column B until you wind up with something that's easy to swallow. NO religion allows you to accept and reject the tenets of the faith on your personal whim. NO religion allows you to sit there musing "well gee, science proves that this part of the bible is pure bullshit, so I'll just claim that it's been mistranslated and science proves that this part is also pure bullshit, so I'll force myself to believe that it's merely allegory. Since science can't disprove this part, that's the part I'll believe..."

You don't have a religion. You have a work of fiction that you're using as an excuse for you to do what you damn well please. Nope, not buying it. You either believe the bible or you don't. You clearly don't. That's why you're making excuses for it. Your faith is a sham since it's based on a book that you don't accept as being true or accurate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

You wrong in that you don't talk about people like that. What, there's never been a JW that molested someone? I could say something like, "So, how many times have your leaders predicted the second coming and been wrong? What's the total now?" But I wouldn't say things like that. It's just rude.

You're making an accusation on an organization based upon the actions of a few. Would you honestly not find a problem with me saying, "who gives a schniz what the JW's think? they've had child molestors, murders, robbers, adulterers, and spend all there time predicting the date of the second coming. didn't jesus say don't know that and no man know the day?"

Come on.

I think the difference is that the Church itself has not only had 100s of molestors, but they hid it from the public, paid off the victims, and continued to let it happen and spread... and it isn't like it was in the past.. it is still an ongoing issue.

He isn't saying random people were molesters, but the top people themselves and 100s of their priests, while hiding it from the public, etc... it is a terribly corrupt organization.

Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if it's the Catholic church or the US government. Look at how many schoolteachers rape children. Shall we close the schools? Or address the issues?

They aren't raping the children, they are having consensual sex with a minor. Additionally, they are being punished.

The church has not addressed the issues. They hid the problem, pay off the victim, and actually promote the problem with this response.

There's no such thing as the bolded. A minor is incapable of giving consent.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
howard stern calls himself the king of all media and that doesn't make it true, so i would assume that the catholics calling themselves such only lends credence among catholics

i'm sure catholics count beads, and i'm sure some have molested children. i'm sure i didn't mess that up, so how was i wrong in saying so?

You wrong in that you don't talk about people like that. What, there's never been a JW that molested someone? I could say something like, "So, how many times have your leaders predicted the second coming and been wrong? What's the total now?" But I wouldn't say things like that. It's just rude.

You're making an accusation on an organization based upon the actions of a few. Would you honestly not find a problem with me saying, "who gives a schniz what the JW's think? they've had child molestors, murders, robbers, adulterers, and spend all there time predicting the date of the second coming. didn't jesus say don't know that and no man know the day?"

Come on.

I think the difference is that the Church itself has not only had 100s of molestors, but they hid it from the public, paid off the victims, and continued to let it happen and spread... and it isn't like it was in the past.. it is still an ongoing issue.

He isn't saying random people were molesters, but the top people themselves and 100s of their priests, while hiding it from the public, etc... it is a terribly corrupt organization.

Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if it's the Catholic church or the US government. Look at how many schoolteachers rape children. Shall we close the schools? Or address the issues?

They aren't raping the children, they are having consensual sex with a minor. Additionally, they are being punished.

The church has not addressed the issues. They hid the problem, pay off the victim, and actually promote the problem with this response.

There's no such thing as the bolded. A minor is incapable of giving consent.

According to the law, yeah. The law allows abortion too.. Many people disagree with that. Doesn't make "abortion is legal so it must be moral" a real argument.(and I am pro-choice btw).

An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old can be consensual. American law says otherwise in some cases. I believe some states have an age difference.. like a 16 year old can be with an 18 year old... I think NJ might have had a 3 year max difference allowed. So that teens could have sex with teens and not be prosecuted.

In a perfect world we would be able to judge people and their ability to give consent based on their maturity and intelligence. Since it is not a perfect world, the law has to create a cutoff point somewhere.

Oh, and btw, minors (15-16 for example) can have consensual sex with each other.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
right, so you're saying you have no idea what I'm talking about. Google OED, you might learn something. Again, these aren't my interpretations (believe me, I'm just as unconvinced of your interpretation of verse as you are of mine.)

The OED gives you the meaning and derivation of words in the English language from their earliest inception, citing contemporary sources of that particular word's use during the era of it's meaning. It seems that that the changing meaning of words over the centuries comes as a shock to you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

This is not philosophy. You confirmed that I could seek my answers in a dictionary, and they would support your argument. I'm just showing you how you don't understand the argument, and how inappropriate a simple dictionary is to the discussion.

BTW, the OED is an invaluable resource for biblical scholars/translators. It is one that that they use to make the interpretations you find so valuable.

Zin, while it is true that words gain meanings as years pass and times change, the words will always retain their original definitions. Therefore, words such as "gay" or "ass" which have been expanded to include alternate definitions, will still contain their original usages. The approach to determining which definition to apply to a word is to look at it in the context of its parent element. There is no need to go out of your way to research the etymology of a word as the meanings will be retained and the context will clarify.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Sure, here is a short read and here is a long read.

read one side of the story much? here is your source: (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article

thanks, try again. perhaps you should try and read sources from his contemporaries, here is an easy source that you should have found...i can only imagine why you didn't cite it...
This source is vetted by several sources, not just one person's opinion:[/quote]

You originally asked me what my thoughts were on the matter of King James' homosexuality, to which I responded. It does not matter at all where I obtained my information, all that matters is that the information is valid. Correct?

You don't see me attacking anyone for using talkoforigins to defend the teachings of evolution, neither asking them to quote a "more balanced" website, do you? Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised or offended if anyone defending creation or the Bible used a Christian website to represent their views.

But as said earlier, the issue of James' sexual orientation does not effect the translation for he was not part of the translation committee. End of that discussion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Blah blah blah

It's obvious that you have no argument beyond a complete redefinition of the meaning of "to die," and a baseless insistence that your new definition must've been the one used in the passage in question. I'm satisfied that my point has been well-made to any readers-along, and you've made it clear that your mind was made up quite some time ago.

For those reasons, I see no point in continuing to discuss this.

 

[ultimatebob]

I went for option #3. I believe that some unknown force created the universe, but it isn't really a "God" as we currently know it.

We'll figure out what IT is, eventually. Don't forget that people from just a few hundred years ago would have thought that WE were gods with our flying machines and life saving medicine and whatnot, so I'd dare to say that we'll evolve to the point where we can understand the mysteries of the universe pretty quickly.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
It's obvious that you have no argument beyond a complete redefinition of the meaning of "to die," and a baseless insistence that your new definition must've been the one used in the passage in question. I'm satisfied that my point has been well-made to any readers-along, and you've made it clear that your mind was made up quite some time ago.

I don't need any other argument. The definition I provided is 100% consistent with the doctrines of the Bible. Your's is not. Mine is in accordance with ALL scripture in the Bible, not just the one provided.

You're point, whether valid or not, has been made. If you're satisfied with it, so be it. I feel the same way about mine.

For those reasons, I see no point in continuing to discuss this.

Best idea you've ever had.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I don't need any other argument. The definition I provided is 100% consistent with the doctrines of the Bible.

No it isn't. You are so wrong that you cannot go uncorrected.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis is "twm." Here's a reference.

Notice nowhere in the definition of the word does it say ANYTHING about "spiritual death." In fact, in virtually every context in which the word is used, it describes the perishing of a physical body. Regardless of what you take THAT to mean, it cannot be denied that the passage in Genesis can only be interpreted to promise the death of Adam's physical body "on that day."

Did it happen? No.

Your's is not.

Yes, it is. You've not provided an iota of sound reasoning to believe that we should interpret the usage of that word any differently than it is used the other 600+ times in the Bible.

All you can do is beg the question by assuming from the beginning that later passages that vaguely allude to some kind of "spiritual death" compel your unusual interpretation because they must, lest there exist a contradiction.

And people like you wonder why so many scoff at Christian "reasoning."

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
No it isn't. You are so wrong that you cannot go uncorrected.

Yes it is. I can't be corrected because I am correct. Get it?

The Hebrew word used in Genesis is "twm." Here's a reference.

Notice nowhere in the definition of the word does it say ANYTHING about "spiritual death." In fact, in virtually every context in which the word is used, it describes the perishing of a physical body. Regardless of what you take THAT to mean, it cannot be denied that the passage in Genesis can only be interpreted to promise the death of Adam's physical body "on that day."

LOL. Whatever man. All that link does is prove Adam would die. I makes absolutely no reference to what type of death it would be. It doesn't even use the word 'body' or 'physical', so please feel free to keep trying.

Yes, it is. You've not provided an iota of sound reasoning to believe that we should interpret the usage of that word any differently than it is used the other 600+ times in the Bible.

I have, you're just not willing to accept it. Since you 'blah blah blah' out my last comment due to the fact you had no answer to my comments, I'll ask you again. When you 'die', are you really dead and cease to exist? If you answer no, then you don't have a foot to stand on in this argument. If you answer yes, you have absolutely no understanding of the Bible and thus have no purpose in this discussion.

Feel free to try to answer, or just coward out again and use 'blah blah blah'. Or you could just follow your own comment and end this ridiculous discussion.

All you can do is beg the question by assuming from the beginning that later passages that vaguely allude to some kind of "spiritual death" compel your unusual interpretation because they must, lest there exist a contradiction.

And people like you wonder why so many scoff at Christian "reasoning."

As I already said, I don't give a rats-rip if the Bible contains a contradiction or not. Doesn't change a dang thing. So you continue believing that's the reason all you wish. It's only you that looks stupid by doing so. And by the way, I scoff at most Christian's reasoning. But thanks for playing.