Interview with a top scientist

[dad]

In reality I know, you however know not and will never learn.

You know?? What do you know? You may know SOME of how the sun works. But the deep things involving how it came to be and will end are above your pay grade.

 

[dad]

You made up a silly "interview." You raised no points. If you wish to do so, state them plainly.

Every question by the interviewer raised not only a point, but a major point.

 

[Trogool]

You know?? What do you know? You may know SOME of how the sun works. But the deep things involving how it came to be and will end are above your pay grade.

I'm seriously wondering what world you live in that you actually think this is an unknown...

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[dad]

I think dad is a Poe illustrating the straw man fallacy for another audience...

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Except that science really has declared for example that most of the universe is dark stuff...etc etc. To have any merit your position must be able to tackle the issues raised.

Until then it must remain an iphone conspiracy.

 

[dad]

I'm seriously wondering what world you live in that you actually think this is an unknown...

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Just say exactly what you think is known and find out.

 

[Davian]

Flushing comes to mind.

Bananas.

 

[dad]

Bananas.

Embracing the good and true and eshewing the evil is actually a biblical concept.

 

[CabVet]

Just say exactly what you think is known and find out.

HowStuffWorks "How the Sun Works"

 

[Loudmouth]

Notice you did not say...'most of the universe IS known actually....or we did know about the rings in advance...etc etc'!!!!! Ever think you would actually be so defeated?

Why should I be arguing with the voices in your head?

 

[Nabobalis]

You know?? What do you know? You may know SOME of how the sun works. But the deep things involving how it came to be and will end are above your pay grade.

Maybe above my pay grade, but I know people who's pay grade it is. That's the difference, I want to know, you want to know what you've been told to know.

 

[Davian]

Embracing the good and true and eshewing the evil is actually a biblical concept.

So is slavery.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embracing the good and true and eshewing the evil is actually a biblical concept.

So is slavery.

That would fall under 'eschewing the evil.'

 

[Davian]

That would fall under 'eschewing the evil.'

Does your bible specifically condemn the practice of slavery?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does your bible specifically condemn the practice of slavery?

Not that I know of, unless slavery falls under 'kidnapping' in God's eyes.

 

[Davian]

Not that I know of, unless slavery falls under 'kidnapping' in God's eyes.

So, by "'eschewing", you actually meant "embracing".

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

So, by "'eschewing", you actually meant "embracing".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

You sound like you're thinking like the South did in this country 152 years ago.

Here are my Cliff Notes on the Civil War:

1. The South was pro-slavery.
2. The North was anti-slavery.
3. God broke the tie.

 

[Davian]

Changing the subject, I see.

Does that bible embraces slavery bother you?

You sound like you're thinking like the South did in this country 152 years ago.

Here are my Cliff Notes on the Civil War:

1. The South was pro-slavery.
2. The North was anti-slavery.
3. God broke the tie.

What exactly did God do to break the tie? How do you know this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Changing the subject, I see.

Not at all.

Does that bible embraces slavery bother you?

I'll use your term ("slavery") just for the sake of argument; and to answer your question, the Bible's 'slaves' are not the kind of slaves I think you have in mind when you think of slaves. If Biblical slaves were mistreated, it was in spite of the Bible, not in respect to the Bible.

What exactly did God do to break the tie?

Beats me, I wasn't there. He may have sent tordados, or He may have caused guns to misfire, or He may have drove key squads away with hornets.

How do you know this?

Let's just say I have a strong hunch.

 

[46AND2]

Not at all.

I'll use your term ("slavery") just for the sake of argument; and to answer your question, the Bible's 'slaves' are not the kind of slaves I think you have in mind when you think of slaves. If Biblical slaves were mistreated, it was in spite of the Bible, not in respect to the Bible.

Beats me, I wasn't there. He may have sent tordados, or He may have caused guns to misfire, or He may have drove key squads away with hornets.

Let's just say I have a strong hunch.

Oh, come on. Really? Falling back on the "not the same slavery you have in mind argument?" I know that this has been explained to you, and I know that you have admitted that the same word was used to describe slaves that Israelites owned as was used to indicate the slavery of Israelites to the Egyptians.

So if the Egyptian slavery of Israelites was no different from the "indentured servitude" of Hebrew owned slaves, why was it necessary for God to save them from it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, come on. Really? Falling back on the "not the same slavery you have in mind argument?" I know that this has been explained to you, and I know that you have admitted that the same word was used to describe slaves that Israelites owned as was used to indicate the slavery of Israelites to the Egyptians.

So if the Egyptian slavery of Israelites was no different from the "indentured servitude" of Hebrew owned slaves, why was it necessary for God to save them from it?

I was under the impression we were comparing American slaves with Hebrew 'slaves.'

There is no one-size-fits-all, when it comes to slavery.

In any event, I don't believe the Bible sanctions slavery, and It never did.

Just my opinion ... and hopefully "good news" to you guys, right?