Mwahaha

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2002-09-27 09:37am

Read: http://orbit.m6.net/discuss/philboard_read.asp?id=3760

Now see the message board that he created to discuss this topic: pub135.ezboard.com/bspace48612

Go, my pretties! Kill! Kill!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-27 09:41am

.....

Words fail me

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-09-27 01:37pm

.......that's...........you're right Bean. Words fail me, here too.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-27 04:10pm

...wow. No, really, wow.

What the hell...?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-09-27 06:23pm

Uhh...*trails off*...........................................................

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-27 07:14pm

*Shudders*

Me keep quite as well..

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-09-27 07:55pm

Ugh..ugh*Foams and splutters* Ignorance per square Redneck crossbreeding is..too..great

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-09-27 10:34pm

Not only are they idiots, the forum colors hurt my eyes!

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2002-09-30 11:24am

The gauntlet has been thrown. I decided to start off with something short and to the point.

Is there a conflict between the two?

In a word, yes. The Bible's claims at scientific accuracy are laughable at best, and outright lies at worst. Consider the world, according to the Bible, which:
-is a flat plane (described as having four corners, and claiming Jesus could see every kingdom on Earth from a single mountain)
-rests on pillars (the Earth is described as "shaking" on them)
-is the center of the universe.
-has a roof (the sky is described as having 'gates', which open up to unleash the Flood).
-has no stars (they're described as simple points of light, which will "fall to the earth" on Judgement Day).

As to your stance on Biblical morality, well, you can take your "you-disagree-with-me-and-you're-a-heathen" attitude, and http://www.amishrake.com/gfy

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 02:15pm

-is a flat plane (described as having four corners, and claiming Jesus could see every kingdom on Earth from a single mountain)

People say the Earth has four corners to this day. Also, Jesus = God, and God = omniscient

-rests on pillars (the Earth is described as "shaking" on them)

Flowerly term. Sorta like 'shook the pillars of heaven'.

-is the center of the universe.

Quotes?

-has a roof (the sky is described as having 'gates', which open up to unleash the Flood).

Clouds, perhaps?

-has no stars (they're described as simple points of light, which will "fall to the earth" on Judgement Day).

How would *you* describe stars to people who have no modern scientific comprehension?

I'm not defending this person's position or anything. Just saying that the Bible does not really support an utterly untenable posistion where physics and basic geograph are concerned.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-09-30 04:42pm

metaphors. the ability to change your story at any time.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-30 05:15pm

Cyril wrote:
-is a flat plane (described as having four corners, and claiming Jesus could see every kingdom on Earth from a single mountain)
People say the Earth has four corners to this day. Also, Jesus = God, and God = omniscient

God is too stupid to know that hailstones aren't found in storehouses in the sky. God is not omniscient (besides, if he was omniscient, then there would have been no point climbing to the highest mountain in order to see everything). Face it; the Bible describes a flat Earth.

-rests on pillars (the Earth is described as "shaking" on them)
Flowerly term. Sorta like 'shook the pillars of heaven'.

Both of which are equally stupid and scientifically ignorant. What's your point? That the Bible is stupid and scientifically ignorant? Wait a minute, that's our point.

-is the center of the universe.
Quotes?

Joshua describes the Sun and Moon stopping as they move in the sky. The Bible was obviously written by morons who thought the Sun and Moon move through the sky rather than the Earth revolving in its orbit.

-has a roof (the sky is described as having 'gates', which open up to unleash the Flood).
Clouds, perhaps?

Sure, and the front door of my house is fog.

-has no stars (they're described as simple points of light, which will "fall to the earth" on Judgement Day).
How would *you* describe stars to people who have no modern scientific comprehension?

Suns which are very far away. I explained it thusly to my SIX YEAR OLD BOY, and he got it. Don't make feeble excuses; the Bible was obviously written by ignoramuses who had no freakin' idea whatsoever that the Sun was a sta.

I challenge you to find a single quote anywhere in the Bible which even remotely alludes to the possibility that the Sun is a star.

I'm not defending this person's position or anything. Just saying that the Bible does not really support an utterly untenable posistion where physics and basic geograph are concerned.

Yes it does. It is impossible to regard the Bible as anything more than the creation of scientific ignoramuses.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 05:23pm

Would a man 2000 yrs ago have any idea what a sun is? What a star is? No; they wouldn't. I don't disagree that the ppl who wrote the Bible were scientific ignoramuses, but that doesn't translate into Christianity = belief in flat earth.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-09-30 06:45pm

Cyril wrote:Would a man 2000 yrs ago have any idea what a sun is? What a star is? No; they wouldn't. I don't disagree that the ppl who wrote the Bible were scientific ignoramuses, but that doesn't translate into Christianity = belief in flat earth.

Hehe. So humans in the past didn't see the sun or the stars?

They don't need to understand that Sol is a ball of hydrogen undergoing fusion at it's core to understand that it's there, they don't need to understand what stars are understand that there are lights in the sky at night, and they don't need to understand what stars are to understand that both our sun and all the other stars in the sky are the same thing, only at different distances.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 06:50pm

Right. The Bible is not a scientific journal, and it's explanation as 'points of light' is thereby sufficient. Thank you for proving my point.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-09-30 07:08pm

Cyril wrote:Right. The Bible is not a scientific journal, and it's explanation as 'points of light' is thereby sufficient. Thank you for proving my point.

No, you're still missing the point: the Bible was written by ignoramuses. You can only interpret it as something other than stupidity and ignorance if you throw most of it away and regard the rest of poetry. And there's a funny thing about poetry that maybe you've missed along the way: even today, it's generally written by scientific ignoramuses.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-09-30 07:43pm

Cyril wrote:Right. The Bible is not a scientific journal, and it's explanation as 'points of light' is thereby sufficient. Thank you for proving my point.

Okay. You claim that humans 2000 years ago didn't know what stars or suns were, presumably as a rebuttal to Mike's point. I point out that one need not understand what a star really is to understand that the sun and the stars we see at night are the same thing. You say that I have proven your point. How have I done that?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 07:45pm

I wasn't regarding it as a paragon of scientific virtue. I was simply pointing out that Christianity does not inherently promote a flat-earth view.

You know, you might be able to say that the bit about poetry was a red herring fallacy. ^^

To add a RHF of my own; it's the view of many poets, authors, and myself to never let science get in the way of a good story.

Puns comparing that philosophy with the Bible are inevitable, but not appreciated. Live in fear.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 07:47pm

Okay. You claim that humans 2000 years ago didn't know what stars or suns were, presumably as a rebuttal to Mike's point. I point out that one need not understand what a star really is to understand that the sun and the stars we see at night are the same thing. You say that I have proven your point. How have I done that?

Um...? My point was that 'dim points of light' was a perfectly sufficient description.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-30 07:48pm

Cyril wrote:I wasn't regarding it as a paragon of scientific virtue. I was simply pointing out that Christianity does not inherently promote a flat-earth view.

The Bible does. Whether Christians choose to selectively disregard their Bible is another matter.

You know, you might be able to say that the bit about poetry was a red herring fallacy. ^^

Why? The point is that like poetry, the Bible cannot possibly be interpreted as a factual text. If it is not a factual text, then it is objectively useless, like any fictional novel.

To add a RHF of my own; it's the view of many poets, authors, and myself to never let science get in the way of a good story.

The Bible is hardly a good story. It is alternately dull and hateful.

Puns comparing that philosophy with the Bible are inevitable, but not appreciated. Live in fear.

We can rephrase it a bit: "never let facts or morality get in the way of good old fashioned hate-mongering and intolerance". There, that's a pretty good approximation of Biblical writing methods, eh?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 07:53pm

The Bible does. Whether Christians choose to selectively disregard their Bible is another matter.

I have a copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey next to me. Somewhere in here it describes the stars as 'glittering diamonds.' Is Clarke promoting the theory that stars are diamonds?

Why? The point is that like poetry, the Bible cannot possibly be interpreted as a factual text. If it is not a factual text, then it is objectively useless, like any fictional novel.

It is my belief that many of the Old Testament stories did not actually happen, but that does not matter. The reveal something about God; and that is what is important. How you choose to interperate what they reveal is up to you. It's probably not rational, but then, religion never is.

The Bible is hardly a good story. It is alternately dull and hateful.

Matte of opinion.

'sides, I was not refering to the Bible in general. I do not regard it as an exciting literary romp either.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mwahaha

Mwahaha

Here we go.