Noah's Ark Found?

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
sand,

I'm referring to judging all opinions as being equal. No one has the right to say that. In the ultimate sense there is a truth on every matter.

Not true. There is not a truth on where location of a subatomic particle is and what it's momentum is at a given time..
This post was edited on 4/28 12:48 PM
 

LaPrince

HR All-State
Feb 5, 2003
886
0
16
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Hulka

You are a good man.

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
This supercedes any 'wisdom', being spewed forth on this board. Can ya believe how small minded I am?

Lastly, I do not think they have found the ark (back to topic). Don't care if they ever do. But,if they find it, it will be in Iran, not Turkey.

How many years was Mount Sinia looked for in the wrong place, OT said it was in Midian and low and behold -- there it is, in Saudi Arabia. Dont try and visit, it is barbed wired, Christians not welcome.
 

sandimashigh

HR MVP
Mar 14, 2003
1,699
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
sand,

I'm referring to judging all opinions as being equal. No one has the right to say that. In the ultimate sense there is a truth on every matter.

You need to enlighten jonny then.
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Originally posted by NPRLover:
From another site:

Regarding the Ark
(Source - mythofjesus.org.uk)

A conservative estimate of the lifeforms that Noah would have had to collect is:
Insects: 1,000,000
Mammals: 4,008
Birds: 8,600
Reptiles: 6,252
Amphibians: 2,000
TOTAL SPECIES - 1,020,860
TOTAL IF IN PAIRS - 2,041,720

According to the Bible, Noah's sons existed before he began collecting the species. One of his sons, Shem, was born 1,558 years after creation and the flood took place 1,656 years after creation. Therefore, Noah had about 98 years to collect all two million life forms. In order for Noah to do this he would have to collect 20,832 species a year, or 57 species a day. Taking into account the travel time required to gather all the life forms on earth Noah's task would have been even more difficult.
Additionally, Noah would have had to feed and care for all these animals during the time that he collected them all, and during the flood itself; therefore he would also have to collect many times more species simply for feed stock. There is also the fact that in addition to doing all this, there would have been several tons of animal excrement to remove every day.
Additionally, there is the fact that many species on this planet cannot exist outside their ecosystems (For example, how did Noah keep the polar bear alive in the middle east climate?).
This is omitting the fact that there is no indisputable evidence of a global flood and other problems such as how the animals survived after they got back on dry land, and also how they were able to migrate to other land masses surrounded by oceans.

Regarding the Flood
(Source - Talk.Origins Archive)

A global flood would have produced evidence contrary to the evidence we see:

- How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

- Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

- How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern climatic conditions.

- Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

- Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (2) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (3) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

You continue to mischaracterize Creationist thought, NPR. No one believes that Noah had 2,000,000 animals & insects on the ark. God instructed Noah to take with him 2 of ever KIND of animal. He did not need 2 finches, 2 robbins, 2 cardinals, 2 bluejays. He only needed 2 birds. This makes the above claims about feeding & excrement being a problem; exponentially less so.

He also did not hunt down the animals - God brought them to him. The Bible is quite clear on this. I would have thought you would have picked up on of this by now.

To address some of your questions...I'll pick just one...

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers.

Who decided the layers were 'annual layers'? There is ample evidence that the layers do not represent a year; likely much less than a year. A plane that crased in this area in WWII, I believe (50 yrs ago) was found under many hundreds of 'annual layers'. When extrapolated this same ice core data is used to show that the ice has been forming for only about 4000 years...Coninciding with the flood...

I don't understand why we can't have reasonable discourse without all the name-calling....
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by NPRLover:
Neither better or worse? Who are you to judge?

That is absolutely right!!!

Neither one of us is to judge. Not me. Not you.

Point of clarification: I am not saying that ALL opinions are of equal weight, but some are.

As far as somebody being right and somebody being wrong, this type of "competitive relgion" is anathema to most christians; obviously not to fundamentalists. And I'm not talking about Muslims vs. christians, for if you are a christian it is expected that you would find christianity to be "right", but I am talking about the fundamentalists vs. the Methodists, Presybs, Episc, and Lutherans.

The desire for somebody to be right and somebody to be wrong is classic fundamentalist psychological behavior; the same mindset that leads them to a type of religion that eschews harmonious relations with other christian denominations.

As far as the Matthew text saying that Jesus' birth was from a virgin, that's all and good. Not all would agree with you that the Isaiah reference is irrelevant, however.

Foolish talk. I've never been in competition with anyone in regards to truth. Even though 90% of what you say is probably false, there is always some truth to glean from it. There is no psychological dynamic going on, well, at least on my part. I can't speak for you.

And, no, you're wrong again. You say some opinions carry equal weight. No, not in the ultimate sense. Truth is something to be discovered.

And, yes, the Isaiah reference is irrelevant as to whether Jesus' birth was virgin.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by Sal_Paradise:
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
sand,

I'm referring to judging all opinions as being equal. No one has the right to say that. In the ultimate sense there is a truth on every matter.

Not true. There is not a truth on where location of a subatomic particle is and what it's momentum is at a given time..

This post was edited on 4/28 12:48 PM

Oh brother. BTW - It's nice to talk to you too. Yes, there is a truth. The truth is probably that there is not a specific location of a subatomic particle and it's momentum at a given time.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

I've mentioned this analogy before, but in Scott Turow's book "One L", he refers to Ralph Nader describing the study of law giving one the freedom to roam in your own cage.

By this, Mr. Nader means that the law student will become very well-versed with all the minutia and arcana of the law, but is unable to see the big picture.

I'm not saying this is the case, but the fundamentalist trio that often post here remind me of that example. They are very well versed in the bible (but note that it is their "version" of the bible in which they are well versed; others disagree with them over chapters and verses) but are unable to see other points of view. They have built themselves a very nice cage with many rooms, but a cage nonetheless. Unfortunately, they try to convince us that it is the only cage in existence.

Another way to look at this is to compare their study to that of a musical instrument. If you practice a musical passage incorrectly, you will eventually have a "perfect" mistake. To you, it is correct; to others, it is not.

And yes, hounded, your learned opinion is neither better nor worse than many others out there in the world of ideas. This is NOT judgemental, but the opposite.

Again, my point, for it seems to be getting lost, is that reasonable people can differ on these matters. That doesn't make one party right and the other party wrong. But many choose to view the world in this dichotomy; I am clearly not one of them. This is why I am attracted to Judaism - remember the old saying? Everytime you get 2 jews in a room you'll have 3 opinions.
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:



Oh brother. BTW - It's nice to talk to you too. Yes, there is a truth. The truth is probably that there is not a specific location of a subatomic particle and it's momentum at a given time.



[/QUOTE]

Good point.
This post was edited on 4/28 12:59 PM
 

SousyHawk

HR Legend
Aug 18, 2002
12,306
0
36
Who decided the layers were 'annual layers'? There is ample evidence that the layers do not represent a year; likely much less than a year. A plane that crased in this area in WWII, I believe (50 yrs ago) was found under many hundreds of 'annual layers'. When extrapolated this same ice core data is used to show that the ice has been forming for only about 4000 years...Coninciding with the flood...

Pssst... take a closer look as two what "annular" structure means.

(It simply means 'banded' or 'ringed' structure, not one defining a specific length of time. Trees are said to have 'annular rings', corresponding to growing seasons. Trees in certain tropical areas that have more than one 'growing season' in a year can have two 'annular' rings per year.)
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Who decided the layers were 'annual layers'? There is ample evidence that the layers do not represent a year; likely much less than a year. A plane that crased in this area in WWII, I believe (50 yrs ago) was found under many hundreds of 'annual layers'. When extrapolated this same ice core data is used to show that the ice has been forming for only about 4000 years...Coninciding with the flood...

Sarge,

You don't help your credibility with these posts. If your interpretation of scripture matches what you are showing here....
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by Sal_Paradise:
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:





Oh brother. BTW - It's nice to talk to you too. Yes, there is a truth. The truth is probably that there is not a specific location of a subatomic particle and it's momentum at a given time.







Good point.

This post was edited on 4/28 12:59 PM

Thanks. See you in June. Look forward to it. Bye
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Isn't it funny to watch him dig up something from a creationist website, have it refuted, then dissapear to dig something else up? It's like peeing in the toilet with the lights off.
 

Mike Zierath

Family, football and fishing.....
Staff
Jun 3, 2002
17,075
9,270
113
59
Flower Mound, TX
I'd like to get the core group of posters from this thread

in one room. Lock it, supply food and see how long the debate would last.

This is good stuff.

You guys should just agree to disagree, but you all are too stubborn.

Mike
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

There is no psychological dynamic going on, well, at least on my part. I can't speak for you.

Maybe not for you personally, but for many of the fundamentalists.

For me it is more of an unwillingness to let a small, self-selected group monopolize christianity. I just disagree with their whole right/wrong premise. Of course, in their eyes, I am wrong and so am easily dismissed.

I've seen people with views like this from an early age on, and unless one is willing to "join their crowd", no good comes from it. Families can be negatively affected, relationships weakened all because one side is pursuing the "truth" and the other side lacks religious rigor.

Cult-like? Some would say yes. Branch Davidian-like? Maybe, but not to that extreme. What is common is a mind-set of thinking they belong to the group that knows the truth and that those who disagree are wrong. Not much room for compromise there.
This post was edited on 4/28 1:35 PM
 

SousyHawk

HR Legend
Aug 18, 2002
12,306
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....


For me it is more of an unwillingness to let a small, self-selected group monopolize christianity. I just disagree with their whole right/wrong premise. Of course, in their eyes, I am wrong and so am easily dismissed.

I've seen people with views like this from an early age on, and unless one is willing to "join their crowd", no good comes from it. Families can be negatively affected, relationships weakened all because one side is pursuing the "truth" and the other side lacks religious rigor.

Cult-like? Some would say yes. Branch Davidian-like? Maybe, but not to that extreme. What is common is a mind-set of thinking they belong to the group that knows the truth and that those who disagree are wrong. Not much room for compromise there.


This same battle has been going on throughout nearly all of American history. In the recent case of fundamentalism, there has been an increased emphasis on political and media power - whereas fundamentalist movements of the past looked more upon the afterlife more than the present. David Miller, Joseph Smith, etc. all turned from participation in society to concentrate on utopian creations of thier own.

Marty theorized that the backlash from the civil and women's rights movements of the 1960s drew fundamentals to modernity - that the battle would be waged on culture as a whole since the Protestant denominations (and the SCLC) 'won' through their use of modern media and technology.

The Cal Thomas/Ed Dobson book actually wrote against this emphasis, thier argument was that the 'power' was getting in the way of the 'message' - as we see here, the emphasis on getting the views out has had rather polarizing effects.

My favorite example is the LCMS - founded on the principle that church leaders in Germany were 'wrong', and they've been accusing everyone else of being 'wrong' ever since!

It really is an interesting social dynamic. Honestly.
 

tigbitty

HR All-American
Apr 10, 2003
4,175
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by NPRLover:
Definition of a "day" - okay, that's open to interpretation
Ten Commandments - NOT open to interpretation.


I would say that the 10 commandments is definitely open to intrepretation. Take the "Thou shalt not kill" edict. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not murder", but uses the more inclusive term "kill". The word "Kill" is clearly being interpreted in a specific way, ignoring the common definition of the word.


Guy builds a big boat and puts two of "every" animal on it and rides out a global flood - open to interpretation
Virgin birth - NOT open to interpretation.


Again, the virgin birth is open to intrepretation. Some say that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah (something like almah - which means a young maiden) was mistranslated into something that means virgin. (Ignoring the similarities to numerous pagan religions that had virgin births, as well as sons of gods being resurrected, and the eating and drinking the body and blood of gods (Bacchus, for one)).


Here is an interesting blurb on almah.

There are two hebrew words usually translated 'virgin' in English. 'Bethulah' means virgin in the sense that we understand it. It was used, for example, in Isaiah 62:5. 'Almah' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) simply means a young woman. Although it is sometimes used in the sense of a sexually pure woman, this is not it's exclusive usage. The context will usually point out the correct usage.

The confusion arose when the Greek Septuagint used the greek word 'parthenos' to translate Isaiah 7:14. This word, in Greek, does denote a sexually pure woman, and was the inspiration for the gospellers myth of the Virgin birth.

A look at the context of Isaiah 7:14 will quickly reveal that the woman that Isaiah was referring to was probably *already* pregnant, thus pointing out which sense of 'almah' was intended. In any case, the point of Isaiah's prophecy was that before the child reached the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated. (A prophecy which was only partly fulfilled, by the way). The use of the word 'virgin' is not germane in Isaiah's prophecy. The 'sign' was the child, not a miraculous conception.

In short, Isaiah's 'sign' was fulfilled in it's own context, hundreds of years before anyone thought to apply it in a different sense.


So, you see and like Doodle mentions, there is much more open to intrepretation than one realizes. Don't expect your local church to mention these things.

This post was edited on 4/28 11:54 AM

I realize that very little of the Bible is open to intertpretation ... based primarily on the fact that several on here cite after the fact references to support what was never originally fulfilled. As the "Church Lady" once said ... "How convenient."

But ... just for sh*ts and giggles ... and to follow up on NPR's virgin tangent ... here are a few more inconsistencies that these missionaries never seem to recognize:

If we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, from which the verse in question ("Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel") is taken, it is obvious that Christians have taken this verse out of context.

This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims). Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to Isaiah. As it says in Isaiah 8:4, "For before the child shall know to cry, "My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.
 

Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo

HR Legend
Oct 1, 2001
20,121
8,546
113
Island of Misfit Message Board Posters
Ummm, Sarge old pal...

...Doodle GREATLY appreciates your input, insight, and contribution not only to THIS thread, but to this forum in general. That being said, how can you possibly be a (*makes air quotes with hands*) "literalist" and not take the Bible LITERALLY? You might as well have winked and nudged Ol' Doodle in the ribs with your elbow while you were saying that.

From Websters.com

lit·er·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr--lzm)
n.

Adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine.
Literal portrayal; realism.

literalist

\Lit"er*al*ist\, n. One who adheres to the letter or exact word; an interpreter according to the letter.

liter·al·ist n.
liter·al·istic adj.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

*******************************

Now, how is it that you can be a literlist, and NOT believe the bible was saying to ACTUALLY pluck out your eyeball? A biblical literalist NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER interprets ANYTHING they read in that book. Period. End of story. So if the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" it's not the literlist's job to INTERPRET whether it really means "Thou Shalt Not Kill Things That Don't Deserve To Be Killed" or "Thou Shalt Not Commit Premeditated Murder". The literlist's job is to simply take it at face value. So if it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" it MEANS "Thou Shalt Not Kill a person, a rodent, a spider, a plant....NOTHING.

There's one question a true literlist NEVER asks - and that question is, "What does this mean?" Read the definition above once again. It says a literlist is "one who adheres to the letter or exact word" not "one who reads something, and sometimes adheres to the exact word, and other times assumes it's a metaphor".

So Sarge old pal, either you need to stop calling yourself a literalist, or you need to admit that you're the worst literalist in the history of mankind.
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Re: Ummm, Sarge old pal...

Doodle:

To me, literal means true or intended meaning. Ephesians 6 says, 'Wives, submit to your husbands...' Literally, what does this mean? Well, in order to conclude you have to study the context. The chapter goes on to talk about wives responsibility to 'submit' for one verse & talks about husbands obligation to sacrificially love their wife (as Christ loved the Church) for about 20 verses.

So in the end I conclude that a woman who has the most noble, loving, & God-fearing husband in the world (a husband that wouldn't hesitate to give up his own life to protect her) would have no problem 'submitting' to his leadership. Still, this means decisions are made jointly. Sex is agreed to jointly, etc. When a husband is submitted to God his wife will rarely have difficulty submitting to him. The command to women is a big one. The command to men is exponentially bigger.

I'm rambling here.

This is probably a better example...Remember when Jesus is asked how many times you should forgive your neighbor...'even up to 7 times...?' And Jesus responds, 'up to 70 times 7...' Is Jesus saying you should only forgive your neighbor up to 490 times & after that you can not forgive??? No, he's saying forgiveness is unlimited. This is a literal interpretation.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Ummm, Sarge old pal...

Doodle:

To me, literal means true or intended meaning.


This gives the meaning of literal a lot of wiggle room. What is the intended meaning? To me, that may be a matter of opinion; a matter whereupon reasonable people may differ.

If a passage is not taken "literally" (the common definition), then who is to decide the "intended" meaning? Once again, we have man interpreting the "intended" meaning of G-d.

Reasonable men may interpret passages differently: neither right nor wrong, but differently. So, as much as some here hate to hear it, then one person's learned opinion on a matter is neither better nor worse than another's. Both, if honest and sincere, are attempting to find the "intended" meaning.

So stop telling us we're going to hell, that YOU are G-d's Ambassador, who IS or ISN'T a trueChristian, and who is right and who is wrong, or that Job definitely describes a dinosaur. If you believe that, then good for you. It doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make those who think otherwise wrong.


This post was edited on 4/28 4:49 PM
 

RobertIngersoll

HR Legend
Dec 11, 2002
15,918
0
36
Re: Ummm, Sarge old pal...

To me, literal means true or intended meaning.

That is about as incorrect as a statement can be.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Ummm, Sarge old pal...

Originally posted by BertrandRussel:
To me, literal means true or intended meaning.

That is about as incorrect as a statement can be.


That's ok Bert, just don't take his statement literally.
 

$$Bob$$

Scout Team
Apr 21, 2004
127
0
16
Re: Ummm, Sarge old pal...

Originally posted by NPRLover:
Originally posted by BertrandRussel:
To me, literal means true or intended meaning.

That is about as incorrect as a statement can be.


That's ok Bert, just don't take his statement literally.

LMAO
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Ummm, Sarge old pal...

Here is one church's opinion on biblical literalism a la fundamentalism.

...but biblical fundamentalism, despite what it can preserve, really distorts the challenge of Jesus Christ. It provides an absolute certainty based on a belief that every word in the Bible really has been dictated by God and one needs only hold to the literal meaning. It does not recognize that every word in the Bible, even though inspired by God, has been written by human beings who had limitations.

The message of the Incarnation is that there is no way to avoid the interplay of the divine and the human in approaching God. Biblical literalism, since it makes all divine, supplies a false certitude that often unconsciously confuses the human limitation with the divine message. A literalist interpretation destroys the very nature of the Bible as a human expression of divine revelation.


An interesting perspective.

But wait, there's more.
Some 'don'ts' and 'do's'

Those familiar with what works and what doesn't work in responding to fundamentalist challenges have come up with the following bits of wisdom.

Don't waste time arguing over individual biblical texts with fundamentalists. The question is a much larger one of an overall view of religion, of Christianity and of the nature of the Bible.

Don't attack fundamentalists as if they were fools. Often biblical literalism is an attitude of self-defense even on the part of extremely intelligent people. They want to preserve their faith in God, and this seems to them the only way. They will understand your attacks on them as an attack on their faith. Indeed, were you to be successful in convincing an intelligent biblical fundamentalist that the position is wrong, you might be surprised to find that the former fundamentalist does not become a more moderate Christian but an atheist.

Some fundamentalists are very well informed about biblical technicalities, such as languages. There are occasionally evangelists who know a lot more about the Bible than the average Catholic priest or mainline Protestant minister.

Don't be sure that your standard arguments against fundamentalism will work. Biblical fundamentalists have developed careful defenses against the contrary arguments that they have encountered. For instance, if you triumphantly point to the fossil argument supporting evolution, you may be surprised to find a fundamentalist who maintains that God created the world with fossils already in it and that therefore such fossils tell us nothing about the antiquity of the world.

An important "do" is to present the Bible in an intelligent, nonliteralist way. There is no use moaning about the number of fundamentalist media preachers if we have no one in the media presenting the Bible in a sensible, nonliteral manner based on modern biblical approaches, and not simply using the text as a jumping-off point for a pietistic homily. When fundamentalists are the only ones to offer people knowledge about the Bible, people will go to fundamentalists. A very solid, scholarly approach to the Bible can be spiritually nourishing and mentally satisfying. Catholics must encourage that in the media.


This post was edited on 4/28 9:32 PM

The Fundamentalist Challenge
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by NPRLover:
And yes, hounded, your learned opinion is neither better nor worse than many others out there in the world of ideas. This is NOT judgemental, but the opposite.

Again, my point, for it seems to be getting lost, is that reasonable people can differ on these matters. That doesn't make one party right and the other party wrong.

You've created a dream world to authorize your world view. Though claiming to not be judgmental, IMO you've made the most arrogant judgment of all, that is, that there is not truth on matters such as what we've been discussing. In the real world there is right and wrong.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by $$Bob$$:
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
You've created a dream world to authorize your world view.

Pot


Kettle


Black

It appears you've also created a fantasy. It is something you could never prove.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

You've created a dream world to authorize your world view.

Read the above link on fundamentalists. I would suggest that you've got this reversed. It is the fundamentalist who creates the "dream world", as you like to call it. Any interpretation that differs from the fundamentalist is "wrong". As you have shown, Hounded, you are quick to show everyone how you are correct and everyone else is wrong. You and jonny are the self-proclaimed "god squad", at least in your minds. But to you, that's all that ultimately matters.

But once again, I'm suggesting an environment where reasonable people can differ. You are not.

I'm suggesting that one not "judge" others' religious views (within reason). You want to judge; have to judge. For you believe that you are right and others are wrong. To me, that seems to be, in your own words, "the most arrogant judgment of all".
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by NPRLover:
And yes, hounded, your learned opinion is neither better nor worse than many others out there in the world of ideas. This is NOT judgemental, but the opposite.

Again, my point, for it seems to be getting lost, is that reasonable people can differ on these matters. That doesn't make one party right and the other party wrong.

You've created a dream world to authorize your world view. Though claiming to not be judgmental, IMO you've made the most arrogant judgment of all, that is, that there is not truth on matters such as what we've been discussing. In the real world there is right and wrong.

From my above post:

Often biblical literalism is an attitude of self-defense even on the part of extremely intelligent people. They want to preserve their faith in God, and this seems to them the only way. They will understand your attacks on them as an attack on their faith.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

NPR,

No, it's arrogance to say there is no truth on a matter. Therefore, its stupid to create a world where "reasonable" people can both disagree and give each other a big "We're both right" hugs afterwards.

And there are areas that I can show where I'm correct. I've already done that on this thread, and I could do it again with your last little thing on the Bible and literalism. But I'm afraid I've already made a big mistake by giving you any info at all. You wouldn't leave your paradigm if God Himself reached out of heaven and slapped you for your silly stances. I really need to just keep out of here until June.

You sir may have the last word. Forgive me for not sticking around to read it.
 

$$Bob$$

Scout Team
Apr 21, 2004
127
0
16
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
You wouldn't leave your paradigm if God Himself reached out of heaven and slapped you for your silly stances.

I might be being a bit presumptuous here, but I acutally think that would work pretty good. I'll be waiting patiently for it to happen.
 

Jonny_Rogers

HR Heisman
Feb 20, 2003
6,070
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by sandimashigh:
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by NPRLover:


NPR, Your learned opinion is but one of many: neither better nor worse than others. It is when you and jonny claim that you are God's Ambassadors, declaring who is or is not a christian, who is or is not going to heaven, who does or does not understand christianity, that you not only expose your narrow-minded fundamentalist point of view but also turn a lot of less zealous christians off, which is basically about everybody here.

Who are you to judge? .

Who are you and jonny to judge?

We just pass along what God says.

God is quite clear on most subjects, as disappointing as that is to a liberal like you.
 

Jonny_Rogers

HR Heisman
Feb 20, 2003
6,070
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by NPRLover:
Neither better or worse? Who are you to judge?

That is absolutely right!!!

Neither one of us is to judge. Not me. Not you.

Point of clarification: I am not saying that ALL opinions are of equal weight, but some are.

As far as somebody being right and somebody being wrong, this type of "competitive relgion" is anathema to most christians; obviously not to fundamentalists. And I'm not talking about Muslims vs. christians, for if you are a christian it is expected that you would find christianity to be "right", but I am talking about the fundamentalists vs. the Methodists, Presybs, Episc, and Lutherans.

The desire for somebody to be right and somebody to be wrong is classic fundamentalist psychological behavior; the same mindset that leads them to a type of religion that eschews harmonious relations with other christian denominations.

As far as the Matthew text saying that Jesus' birth was from a virgin, that's all and good. Not all would agree with you that the Isaiah reference is irrelevant, however.

NPR, please make a list of other alternatives:

(1) Jesus is the only way to heaven.
(2) Jesus is NOT the only way to heaven.

Lots of issues are black and white, despite what your thin skin wishes was reality.
This post was edited on 4/28 10:50 PM
 

Jonny_Rogers

HR Heisman
Feb 20, 2003
6,070
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by sandimashigh:
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
sand,

I'm referring to judging all opinions as being equal. No one has the right to say that. In the ultimate sense there is a truth on every matter.

You need to enlighten jonny then.

Uh...we are in complete agreement on this. Not all opinions are equal.
 

Jonny_Rogers

HR Heisman
Feb 20, 2003
6,070
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by NPRLover:
You've created a dream world to authorize your world view.

Read the above link on fundamentalists. I would suggest that you've got this reversed. It is the fundamentalist who creates the "dream world", as you like to call it. Any interpretation that differs from the fundamentalist is "wrong". As you have shown, Hounded, you are quick to show everyone how you are correct and everyone else is wrong. You and jonny are the self-proclaimed "god squad", at least in your minds. But to you, that's all that ultimately matters.

But once again, I'm suggesting an environment where reasonable people can differ. You are not.

I'm suggesting that one not "judge" others' religious views (within reason). You want to judge; have to judge. For you believe that you are right and others are wrong. To me, that seems to be, in your own words, "the most arrogant judgment of all".

Why would we not judge religious viewpoints that are blatantly false?
 

clarinetguy

All-Conference
Nov 4, 2003
444
0
16
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Honest question: How can you judge that a religious viewpoint is "blatantly false", assuming that your only evidence is your particular interpretation of the Bible?
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by clarinetguy:
Honest question: How can you judge that a religious viewpoint is "blatantly false", assuming that your only evidence is your particular interpretation of the Bible?

That is a question which the fundamentalists refuse to consider.

If anything, they are consistent. They think their interpretation is the only interpretation; they are the only ones who are correct.

Maybe their cell phone plane includes unlimited minutes with G-d. They certainly act like it does.

Again, my view is that reasonable men can interpret the bible in different ways. Not all of the bible is open to such interpretation, but many areas are. Let each group decide for themselves, within reason, how to interpret it.

Any group that claims to hold a monopoly, and insists on claiming that they are merely a conduit for G-d's message, or are G-d's Ambassadors, or has the "arrogance" (from another poster) to think there is no room for discussion or interpretation, is merely another fundamentalist group.

See my above post on biblical literalism and fundamentalism. It addresses this point.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by Jonny_Rogers:
Originally posted by NPRLover:
You've created a dream world to authorize your world view.

Read the above link on fundamentalists. I would suggest that you've got this reversed. It is the fundamentalist who creates the "dream world", as you like to call it. Any interpretation that differs from the fundamentalist is "wrong". As you have shown, Hounded, you are quick to show everyone how you are correct and everyone else is wrong. You and jonny are the self-proclaimed "god squad", at least in your minds. But to you, that's all that ultimately matters.

But once again, I'm suggesting an environment where reasonable people can differ. You are not.

I'm suggesting that one not "judge" others' religious views (within reason). You want to judge; have to judge. For you believe that you are right and others are wrong. To me, that seems to be, in your own words, "the most arrogant judgment of all".

Why would we not judge religious viewpoints that are blatantly false?

Talk about begging the question.

That's really the whole point.
 

Jonny_Rogers

HR Heisman
Feb 20, 2003
6,070
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

clarinetguy,

I believe my interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Therefore, I believe that all other interpretations are incorrect.

It's quite simple, unless you've spent too much time being brainwashed.
 

Latest posts