Pope "One cannot make war (or) kill in the name of one's own religion,"

[Final Rehab]

BAWHAHAHAHA!! This is pure gold. 100% true as well.

My hat's off to you sir.

Agreed. That was an A+++ post.

 

[TheComebackKid]

If you don't mind me asking a simple question, how old do you think the earth is and do you think it's reasonable, given centuries of evidence, to speculate that archaeologists throughout history have been engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth of life on this planet?

I'm not a young earth guy. And no I don't believe there is a conspiracy at least consciously. I believe that things get brushed aside, overlooked, ignored, and interpreted according to one's limited world view which can easily lead us to false conclusions. But I don't think there is some organized plan amongst archaeologist to deceive people.

I don't think that dinosaurs are needed for the Abrahamic texts either but shouldn't that reasonably cast doubt into the mind of a rational man than strict adherence to the dogma of that text is deleterious to the evolution of evolved thought and man's understanding of what "God" is?

I've read this like 3 times and don't quite understand the question.

That is very slippery of you Agent TCK.

Lol well

 

[Johntreksmith]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/14/asia/philippines-pope-francis-visit/index.html

I'm sure the war room will handle this well

Actually that's a really respectable thing to say. I don't agree fully with him but I can respect that view point. Considering a couple hundred years ago popes were calling on the deaths of muslims.. this is pretty big step.

He's telling his own people, have respect for religion. You may not believe it but as long as it's not messing with you, try to show respect.

I don't agree with that because it all bleeds over. Imagine a western europe dominated by islam.... seriously. France in 30 years man... just look it up.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I'm not a young earth guy. And no I don't believe there is a conspiracy at least consciously. I believe that things get brushed aside, overlooked, ignored, and interpreted according to one's limited world view which can easily lead us to false conclusions. But I don't think there is some organized plan amongst archaeologist to deceive people.

You're not a young earth guy? Why not? Just the other day weren't you reproaching people who interpret parts of the Bible allegorically?

And what do you even mean "at least not consciously"? What is an unconscious conspiracy? Do you even think through for half a second the garbage you write?

 

[Johntreksmith]

I'm not a young earth guy. And no I don't believe there is a conspiracy at least consciously. I believe that things get brushed aside, overlooked, ignored, and interpreted according to one's limited world view which can easily lead us to false conclusions. But I don't think there is some organized plan amongst archaeologist to deceive people.



I've read this like 3 times and don't quite understand the question.





Lol well

you get the bible is made up right?

 

[Final Rehab]

I'm not a young earth guy. And no I don't believe there is a conspiracy at least consciously. I believe that things get brushed aside, overlooked, ignored, and interpreted according to one's limited world view which can easily lead us to false conclusions. But I don't think there is some organized plan amongst archaeologist to deceive people.

Confirmation bias is for sure a factor but I think there is enough information available in the worldwide exchange that archaeological timelines are pretty well accepted and defined. I don't think it's beneficial for any portion of humanity to reject the cumulative knowledge of humankind and even entertain the notion that humans and dinosaurs walked this earth together. Your postings have suggested that there is some debate on that subject and I think you're smarter than that and I wonder if you're just fucking around with that shit.

I've read this like 3 times and don't quite understand the question.

Sorry for the word salad let me try again...

I don't think that I need to believe in any of the ancient religious texts to believe in something that others may refer to as "God". I think that most of what I have experienced in organized religion has been negative and has pulled me further from my concept of "God". I think that if humanity pulls itself away from strict adherence to the religious dogma presented in those crazy books of nonsense then we'll have a chance to realize the greatness that we're capable of. Until then we're just a bunch of savages sacrificing our defeated to the volcano.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You're not a young earth guy? Why not? Just the other day weren't you reproaching people who interpret parts of the Bible allegorically?

Where does the Bible say the earth is 10,000 yrs old?

And what do you even mean "at least not consciously"? What is an unconscious conspiracy? Do you even think through for half a second the garbage you write?

I'm referring to confirmation bias. And again will you relax man lol. If I were the troll you claim I am don't you realize I would be getting a kick out of how "gotten to" you are? Use your brain man.

Again, I'm 1,000,000-0. Don't become # 1,000,001.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Confirmation bias is for sure a factor but I think there is enough information available in the worldwide exchange that archaeological timelines are pretty well accepted and defined. I don't think it's beneficial for any portion of humanity to reject the cumulative knowledge of humankind and even entertain the notion that humans and dinosaurs walked this earth together. Your postings have suggested that there is some debate on that subject and I think you're smarter than that and I wonder if you're just fucking around with that shit.

Here's the thing. Right now we have a narrative, timeline, or 'story' of our history that stretches back millions of years. This story is based on theories that are based on theories that are based on more theories. Granted these theories are based on an immense amount of research, study, and experiment but they are still nothing more than theories. What are the odds that we could reconstruct millions of years of history and actually get it completely right? What Are the odds that every theory in this pyramid is 100% correct? It would take a lot of faith to believe that.

All it takes is for one or two key theories in pyramid to be wrong and the whole thing falls apart. Therefore I don't see the controversy in entertaining alternative theories about history. That doesn't mean I believe them or would make a bold declarations about them but I don't see the problem in not outright accepting mainstream narratives and instead exploring everything that's out there.

Sorry for the word salad let me try again...

I don't think that I need to believe in any of the ancient religious texts to believe in something that others may refer to as "God". I think that most of what I have experienced in organized religion has been negative and has pulled me further from my concept of "God". I think that if humanity pulls itself away from strict adherence to the religious dogma presented in those crazy books of nonsense then we'll have a chance to realize the greatness that we're capable of. Until then we're just a bunch of savages sacrificing our defeated to the volcano.

Yeah I'm not a fan of organized religion and feel its deceives more than enlightens.

But i will say this about God. To me God is more than a concept or idea. God is supposed to be a real thing that really exists so I don't get to have my concept of God anymore than i can have my concept of Final Rehab.

If God exists and operates a certain way then I have to accept him on those terms not the ones I make up in my brain to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Where does the Bible say the earth is 10,000 yrs old?

It doesn't. A completely literal reading of the Bible leads one to believe that, not just the Earth, but the universe is only 6000 years old.

According to a literal reading of Genesis, man first appeared on the 6th day.

Genesis 1
27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
...
31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

From there, simply follow the genealogy and timeline of major events.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/ottimlin.html

I'm referring to confirmation bias. And again will you relax man lol. If I were the troll you claim I am don't you realize I would be getting a kick out of how "gotten to" you are? Use your brain man.

Again, I'm 1,000,000-0. Don't become # 1,000,001.

I am relaxed. I'm just tired of silently reading your bullshit on here, so I'm finally call you out.

And what do you mean your 1,000,000-0? 1,000,000-0 at what?

 

[JonesBones]

The Vatican seems to be universally against war. They were against the Iraq War before it happened. I remember Michael Moore saying before it started, that if you got the Dixie Chicks and the pope against you, you are doing something wrong.

 

[TheComebackKid]

It doesn't. A completely literal reading of the Bible leads one to believe that, not just the Earth, but the universe is only 6000 years old.

That is one interpretation, sure. But there others as the Bible doesn't explicitly give an age of the earth. The language used in Genesis makes plenty of room for the earth to be much older than 6000 years.

I am relaxed. I'm just tired of silently reading your bullshit on here, so I'm finally call you out.

And what do you mean your 1,000,000-0? 1,000,000-0 at what?

So you can't skip over my posts any longer and must call me out and express how much you dislike me? That is gotten to if I've ever seen it. The sad thing is I wasn't even trying. Imagine if I actually trolled you, you'd probably kill yourself.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

That is one interpretation, sure. But there others as the Bible doesn't explicitly give an age of the earth. The language used in Genesis makes plenty of room for the earth to be much older than 6000 years.

It is the literal interpretaton. Which is the interpretation you claimed to take for the whole Bible just a week ago.

What language in Genesis leaves plenty of room for a literal interpretation of the text in which the universe is much older than 6000 years old? Be specific.

So you can't skip over my posts any longer and must call me out and express how much you dislike me? That is gotten to if I've ever seen it. The sad thing is I wasn't even trying. Imagine if I actually trolled you, you'd probably kill yourself.

So you're not trolling, you're just that stupid? Is it congenital with you? I don't think you're particularly bright (no one in the WR does...), but i don't think you're *as* stupid as you come across. Must be trolling...

Though since you are going to sanctimoniously judge the Pope and members of organized religion, let me ask: what do you do for the poor, the sick, and the hungry? Post vague, pseudointellectual nonsense (baseless skepticism) on a martial arts forum about how scientists are just missing the "big picture" when it comes to issues like dinosaurs and the age of the universe?

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Pope Francis > all imams

While we are ranking shit by smell:

Christianity > Islam

 

[TheComebackKid]

It is the literal interpretaton. Which is the interpretation you claimed to take for the whole Bible just a week ago.

What language in Genesis leaves plenty of room for a literal interpretation of the text in which the universe is much older than 6000 years old? Be specific.

You misunderstand. It's the literal interpretation that's in dispute. In Hebrew the word for "day" can literally mean '24hr period' or 'long period of time' for example. The words for "evening" and "morning" also can be used to describe an age or period of time as well. It depends on the context in which they are used.

So you're not trolling, you're just that stupid? Is it congenital with you? I don't think you're particularly bright (no one in the WR does...), but i don't think you're as stupid as you come across. Gotta be trolling...

Though since you are going to sanctimoniously judge the Pope and members of organized religion, let me ask... What do you do for the poor, the sick, and the hungry? Post cliches all day long on a martial arts forum about how we can't understand God's perspective, or claim (without evidence) that people had pet dinosaurs?

I don't claim to be this great person who is better than anyone. I am just offering my opinion on how it seems to me. People say the most offensive and insulting things on here all day long about democrats, republicans, religious people, atheists, ect...and you take exception with one line criticizing the pope? C'mon man I'm not the enemy.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You misunderstand. It's the literal interpretation that's in dispute. In Hebrew the word for "day" can literally mean '24hr period' or 'long period of time' for example. The words for "evening" and "morning" also can be used to describe an age or period of time as well. It depends on the context in which they are used.



I don't claim to be this great person who is better than anyone. I am just offering my opinion on how it seems to me. People say the most offensive and insulting things on here all day long about democrats, republicans, religious people, atheists, ect...and you take exception with one line criticizing the pope? C'mon man I'm not the enemy.

The context doesn't support an interpretation of "day" as "millions or billions of years". The context supports an interpretation of day as we commonly understand it: a period of time circumscribed by a sunrise and sunset.

First, yom is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4–5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle. Second, yom is used with “evening” and “morning.” Everywhere these two words are used in the Old Testament, either together or separately and with or without yom in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day. Third, yom is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, etc., which everywhere else in the Old Testament indicates literal days.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_days_of_genesis_1.html

Further, in Exodus 20:11 it says "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." What would be the point of the Sabbath if "day" meant millions or billions of years?

 

[Final Rehab]

Here's the thing. Right now we have a narrative, timeline, or 'story' of our history that stretches back millions of years. This story is based on theories that are based on theories that are based on more theories. Granted these theories are based on an immense amount of research, study, and experiment but they are still nothing more than theories. What are the odds that we could reconstruct millions of years of history and actually get it completely right? What Are the odds that every theory in this pyramid is 100% correct? It would take a lot of faith to believe that.

All it takes is for one or two key theories in pyramid to be wrong and the whole thing falls apart. Therefore I don't see the controversy in entertaining alternative theories about history. That doesn't mean I believe them or would make a bold declarations about them but I don't see the problem in not outright accepting mainstream narratives and instead exploring everything that's out there.

I have no problem with that point of view. I think that a person should always question whether things they are told to be true are true, whether it's religion or science. Still, I don't understand why religious fundamentalists have such an aversion to the progression of human knowledge gleaned by empirical evidence. If you posit the hypothesis that there is an all-powerful infinitely intelligent creator of all existence then the ability to reason and deduct are endowed by our creator, right? If this logical deduction contradicts ancient Abrahamic texts why is this a bad thing? Our minds should bring us closer to God and the process we call "science" is a product of God's creation.

Yeah I'm not a fan of organized religion and feel its deceives more than enlightens.

This is an unfortunate reality but it is something that apparently we agree upon.

But i will say this about God. To me God is more than a concept or idea. God is supposed to be a real thing that really exists so I don't get to have my concept of God anymore than i can have my concept of Final Rehab.

If God exists and operates a certain way then I have to accept him on those terms not the ones I make up in my brain to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

We're all trying to figure out who/what God is TCK. Some people use God to make themselves better people and some use God to justify the murder of others in God's name; it crazy when you think about it. I just refuse to restrict myself to strict adherence to those nutty Abrahamic texts while on my journey to understand existence and the possibility of a Creator. It would be great if people everywhere could have this dialogue without hostility. That doesn't seem to be present reality and that's fucked up.

 

[TheComebackKid]

The context doesn't support an interpretation of "day" as "millions or billions of years". The context supports an interpretation of day as we commonly understand it: a period of time circumscribed by a sunrise and sunset.


http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_days_of_genesis_1.html

Further, in Exodus 20:11 it says "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." What would be the point of the Sabbath if "day" meant millions or billions of years?

Like I said the context is in dispute. I'm not going to pretend that either one of us are Hebrew scholars and can truly argue which way the texts should be read in that regard. The best we can do is google arguments from others who do understand Hebrew or have really invested time in researching this question. I've read multiple arguments from both sides and they both make good points.

The main point from you was that I am a hypocrite, and overall scum of the earth, who was contradicting myself by not taking the Bible literally in this circumstance. But as I've shown you sometimes the literal interpretation of things in the Bible can be disputed given the nature of the Hebrew & English languages.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Like I said the context is in dispute. I'm not going to pretend that either one of us are Hebrew scholars and can truly argue which way the texts should be read in that regard. The best we can do is google arguments from others who do understand Hebrew or have really invested time in researching this question. I've read multiple arguments from both sides and they both make good points.

The main point from you was that I am a hypocrite, and overall scum of the earth, who was contradicting myself by not taking the Bible literally in this circumstance. But as I've shown you sometimes the literal interpretation of things in the Bible can be disputed given the nature of the Hebrew & English languages.

??? When did you show me that?

You said the context determines how the Hebrew word for day -- "yom" -- is to be interpreted:

It depends on the context in which they are used.

What is it about the context of Genesis 1 that leads you to believe "yom", when used in Genesis 1, means millions or billions of years?

Can you post some examples from the rest of the Bible where it descibed a "2nd day", "3rd day" "4th day", etc., and it wasn't referring to the period of time circumscribed by a sunrise and sunset?

Lol at me calling you out on your trolling being an indiciation that I think you're the scum of the Earth. You have a serious complex about being a victim.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

??? When did you show me that?

You said the context determines how the Hebrew word for day -- "yom" -- is to be interpreted:



What is it about the context of Genesis 1 that leads you to believe "yom", when used in Genesis 1, means millions or billions of years?

Can you post some examples from the rest of the Bible where it descibed a "2nd day", "3rd day" "4th day", etc., and it wasn't referring to the period of time circumscribed by a sunrise and sunset?

Lol at me calling you out on your trolling being an indiciation that I think you're the scum of the Earth. You have a serious complex about being a victim.

I've never seen a compelling argument for the Bible actually meaning "day=long period of time" in Genesis. From what I've seen, it is just a revisionist take that attempts to reconcile the Bible with what we know the facts to be. It is an attempt to keep the Bible credible by people that want to take the book for more than what it is, IMO.

 

[Johntreksmith]

Like I said the context is in dispute. I'm not going to pretend that either one of us are Hebrew scholars and can truly argue which way the texts should be read in that regard. The best we can do is google arguments from others who do understand Hebrew or have really invested time in researching this question. I've read multiple arguments from both sides and they both make good points.

The main point from you was that I am a hypocrite, and overall scum of the earth, who was contradicting myself by not taking the Bible literally in this circumstance. But as I've shown you sometimes the literal interpretation of things in the Bible can be disputed given the nature of the Hebrew & English languages.

Seems like you are full of shit. "days" means billions of years? get the the fuck out with the nonsense if you want to have a respectable conversation and try pulling that semantic moronic crap.