Noah's Ark

[VirOptimus]

With all his knowledge, diligent work, observation, calculations and experiments he could have written a better explanation for the benefit of the thousands who read that newspaper. Thousands of people now believe that the lake is totally refreshed several times a year, when it isn't. It took an amateur to present an accurate picture (although I never did actually present it.......oh wait, I just did).

No, you havent.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, you havent.

Well I'm only going to chew that cabbage once.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And such an event would, in all likelihood, be recorded if it actually happened. Eclipses were recorded and they are only a few minutes long at the most. How do you explain that such an event went unnoticed among the general populace?

It was recorded, in Luke 23:44-45.

44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well I'm only going to chew that cabbage once.

Show the math, your model. Otherwise its, at best, a guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was recorded, in Luke 23:44-45.

44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

You are in effect stating that the Bible was wrong since you can't find a reliable source that confirms that claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are in effect stating that the Bible was wrong since you can't find a reliable source that confirms that claim.

Science is myopic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is myopic.

You are merely projecting again.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Science is myopic.

But religion is imaginative.

Which is superior? If I want to fix my computer I can go to a very imaginative child who thinks my computer is run by magical nano-squirrels and I just need to put more acorns in the case (pro-tip: kids DO NOT DO THAT), or I can go to a very boring, very myopic computer engineer to fix the problem.

The computer engineer may completely fail to be interested in the artwork I have on my computer and would, in fact, be unable to even appreciate it, but then the artwork is lost if the computer is no longer working. So there's a place for that myopia. AND that particular myopia will not in any way hinder my ability to get the computer fixed.

 

[AV1611VET]

But religion is imaginative.

For the record, I define "religion" thusly:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

This definition does two things:

1. It takes [true] Christianity out of the realm of religion, and puts it where it belongs: a relationship (with Jesus Christ).

2. It defines atheism as a religion.

So yes ... religion is and can be imaginative ... just ask Colter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the record, I define "religion" thusly:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

This definition does two things:

1. It takes [true] Christianity out of the realm of religion, and puts it where it belongs: a relationship (with Jesus Christ).

2. It defines atheism as a religion.

So yes ... religion is and can be imaginative ... just ask Colter.

Yes, but you do not get to make up definitions. You can go by that, but you would be wrong if you expect anyone else too.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can go by that, but you would be wrong if you expect anyone else too.

I've been wrong before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been wrong before.

No news there.

 

[Colter]

For the record, I define "religion" thusly:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

This definition does two things:

1. It takes [true] Christianity out of the realm of religion, and puts it where it belongs: a relationship (with Jesus Christ).

2. It defines atheism as a religion.

So yes ... religion is and can be imaginative ... just ask Colter.

You believe the flood story because it's in the Bible, in association with other stories, not because it sounds true or plausible.

You believe angels have sex with humans, not because it's even remotely accurate, but because it's in the Bible.

If these kinds of stories weren't in the Bible and recently found in a cave, you would naturally dismiss them out of hand,

 

[AV1611VET]

You believe the flood story because it's in the Bible, in association with other stories, not because it sounds true or plausible.

That's right.

Surely you don't think I think people routinely walk on water, do you?

You believe angels have sex with humans, not because it's even remotely accurate, but because it's in the Bible.

Let's get one thing straight here, shall we?

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

At least these fallen angels had the wherewithal to marry those women.

That means it wasn't "sex", it was "making love," which, I'm sure, is another obsolete term, compliments of a science-driven society, whose goal is to Arab phone or erase every major term in the Scriptures and make way for the Antichrist.

 

[Obliquinaut]

For the record, I define "religion" thusly:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted

Weight occurs whenever there's a mass and an acceleration (eg due to gravity). Not sure it is resisting.

F=ma (wt=mg)

, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

Ahhh, I think I know where this heading: you are going to try to make this a hyperlegalistic commentary about how "religion" (according to you or your sect's sui generis definition) is something that you wish to avoid because you think it is a way to keeping you from Christ's true message.

I am not cleaving to that definition. I mean "information based on one's personal faith relationship with their respective god(s)" is imaginative.

Hope that helps!

2. It defines atheism as a religion.

Oh that's just silly. Atheism is not a religion and you've heard the explanation a billion times no doubt. So let's not play like you have any say whatsoever on atheism. Perhaps if you were to attempt to understand (even if you don't agree with) what atheists think you'd be able to communicate a bit better.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yes, but you do not get to make up definitions. You can go by that, but you would be wrong if you expect anyone else too.

I understand if AV wishes to talk about his particular sect's unique definition of "religion" (it's not that uncommon in some Christian sects to think of religion as being an "overstructured" and less "relationship" based construct...but I think AV knew all along that I wasn't talking about the overstructured excess of faith, but rather faith in an overarching manner. A "common parlance" version of what is meant by "religion". He just chose to drag it over there as if everyone on earth had to adhere to his smaller subset of the overall common definition.

Just as if he were to say something about the word "claim" and I decided that the ONLY interpretation I would allow was that used in patent language and hence only comments that are legally binding and follow very specific structures that are not usually in the common parlance.

Standard word games.

 

[Obliquinaut]

At least these fallen angels had the wherewithal to marry those women.

Well, sure, I mean otherwise they'd be living in sin! And that's bad.

That means it wasn't "sex", it was "making love," which, I'm sure, is another obsolete term, compliments of a science-driven society, whose goal is to Arab phone or erase every major term in the Scriptures and make way for the Antichrist.

Yes, using the word "sex" to describe activities relating to physical and genital contact either in service to pro-creation or couple bonding is the scientists' way of setting the stage for the Antichrist. And it's working. ESPECIALLY when we can "Arab Phone" (whatever that is...but they really like to do it! I mean it sure does sound bad and if there's one thing we know about scientists it's that they are bad.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not cleaving to that definition.

I don't expect you to.

After all, you want to claim that [Christianity] is imaginative, rather than claim that Christianity is obligated to a set of standards delineated in the word of God.

It's sad when people think we can just believe anything we want to unchecked.

In fact, I have a set of Boolean standards I use to keep myself in check and clearly see where my boundaries lie:

My Boolean Standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't expect you to.

After all, you want to claim that [Christianity] is imaginative, rather than claim that Christianity is obligated to a set of standards delineated in the word of God.

It's sad when people think we can just believe anything we want to unchecked.

In fact, I have a set of Boolean standards I use to keep myself in check and clearly see where my boundaries lie:

My Boolean Standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Your "Prime Directive" is unsubstantiated. As a result your entire Boolean argument fails from that point on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, using the word "sex" to describe activities relating to physical and genital contact either in service to pro-creation or couple bonding is the scientists' way of setting the stage for the Antichrist.

Dear me.

I wonder if Mr. Ivereadthebible here is familiar with the "way of Baalim" and how Baalim used marriage to sabotage the morals of the Israelites in order to disconnect them from God's blessings?

Scientists have dragged our morals down quite a bit since the days of Isaac Newton.

ESPECIALLY when we can "Arab Phone" (whatever that is...).

Arab phone ... Chinese whispers ... Grapevine ... Telephone Game?