Fairytale?

[NailsII]

Wow. This thread has so many posts. Can someone tell me what has been going on in this thread because I haven't been following.

In the last 20 or so pages;

• slavery has become 'good' because it is regulated
• the pope only speaks for jesus when he says good things (like "don't wear condoms, they'll maker you sicker than an AIDS victim")
• atheists have a favourite pope
• the crusades were not fought by chrsitians
• Oh, and all christians are physic, powered by god.

did i miss anything?

 

[Gracchus]

I'll color you, and Nathan, and Loudmouth as three smart individuals.

Smart enough not to answer my question.

But for the record, here it is again, so you can show your intelligence:

• Would Jesus have signed up for the Crusades?

I'm just guessing ... After Santa Claus but before the Easter Bunny?

 

[NailsII]

Going to watch CSI. Miles of smiles.

Damn, I bet it's an episode that's not been on in the UK as well.
Caveat:- Grissom is a scientist, he values evidence above all else. His idea of a 'holy trinity' is a little different from yours.... and he uses genetic evidence to pursue his goals (which would not be possible but for evolution....)

Enjoy.

 

[Lilandra]

In the last 20 or so pages;

• slavery has become 'good' because it is regulated
• the pope only speaks for jesus when he says good things (like "don't wear condoms, they'll maker you sicker than an AIDS victim")
• atheists have a favourite pope
• the crusades were not fought by chrsitians
• Oh, and all christians are physic, powered by god.

did i miss anything?

Oh, what I wouldn't give for a silver bullet. to put me out of my misery at this point in the thread. But, it is not like it is mandatory reading.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'd dearly love for you to back up your claim with, oh, a fact? That would be nice. But I understand you don't usually do the "fact" thing. Usually folks like you just create a magical backstory nowhere in the Bible to justify an abhorrence.

I probably should apologize to AV for that post. It was pretty snarky. I shouldn't paint him with such a broad brush.

I just see so many fundamentalists who do that very thing.

I know that usually AV resorts to a hyper-legalistic interpretation.

 

[Aron-Ra]

There's no need to believe "in" evolution since it is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively. And since there are no magic spells or talking animals in any aspect of evolution, as there are in most fairytales including Genesis, then exactly what do you think qualifies evolution as a fairytale? And do please be specific.

Oh Oh, Aron-Ra made a mistake! Can anybody find it? And by his definition evolution IS a fairytale!

The definition I gave for a 'fairy tale' came unmodified from Wikipedia:

"...a fictional story that usually features folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events."​

That describes the Bible quite nicely, doesn't it? But the same cannot be said of evolution. In post # 837, I also said "In order to be a fairy tale, it should adhere to all the criteria for that." Those aren't just my rules; that's what you have to do to categorize anything. So the most you could have found is the fact that humans are talking animals and non-human animals can still communicate by other means. But of course even that one criteria meant only to imply non-human animals who could not already speak in real life, but speak at a human level in the fable.

 

[Gracchus]

The definition I gave for a 'fairy tale' came unmodified from Wikipedia:

"...a fictional story that usually features folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events."​

That describes the Bible quite nicely, doesn't it? But the same cannot be said of evolution. In post # 837, I also said "In order to be a fairy tale, it should adhere to all the criteria for that." Those aren't just my rules; that's what you have to do to categorize anything. So the most you could have found is the fact that humans are talking animals and non-human animals can still communicate by other means. But of course even that one criteria meant only to imply non-human animals who could not already speak in real life, but speak at a human level in the fable.

Surely you must have noticed that Christians, especially of the creationist variety, redefine words as is convenient to their purpose.

"'When [SIZE=+1]I[/SIZE] use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" --- Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carrol)

They live in a strange world, with lots of rhyme and little reason. This is not to say that they are cracked beyond repair. It is not to say it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Surely you must have noticed that Christians, especially of the creationist variety, redefine words as is convenient to their purpose.

At least we have a definition. Who are the ones that got blindsided recently for not having one?

 

[FishFace]

No, get to know Him. Read about Him. Talk to Him. Spend time with Him. This is how you get to know someone.

Ah, right, so all the people who disagree with you, such as Pope Urban II didn't spend time (etc) with Jesus? But they claimed they did so, how do we tell?
Ah, of course - they don't agree with you, so they couldn't possibly have known Jesus! Gottit!

How do you tell whether someone is speaking for Jesus - by whether they know Jesus or not. How do you tell whether they know Jesus - by whether they agree with you.

Come on, Inan, if you want us to take you seriously, you have to come up with a criterion by which we can objectively determine whether someone knows Jesus, or whether they are speaking for him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, right, so all the people who disagree with you, such as Pope Urban II didn't spend time (etc) with Jesus?

Even Joshua got tricked by the Gibeonites because he "didn't spend time (etc) with Jesus."

[q.v. Joshua 9]

 

[Inan3]

Ah, right, so all the people who disagree with you, such as Pope Urban II didn't spend time (etc) with Jesus? But they claimed they did so, how do we tell?
Ah, of course - they don't agree with you, so they couldn't possibly have known Jesus! Gottit!

How do you tell whether someone is speaking for Jesus - by whether they know Jesus or not. How do you tell whether they know Jesus - by whether they agree with you.

Come on, Inan, if you want us to take you seriously, you have to come up with a criterion by which we can objectively determine whether someone knows Jesus, or whether they are speaking for him.

I already told you that. If the fruit is good it's from Jesus. If not it is not. Simple as that. But your really aren't looking for an answer you are looking to argue. You already know the answer and I'm not going to argue or debate you on it. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

 

[Inan3]

The definition I gave for a 'fairy tale' came unmodified from Wikipedia:

"...a fictional story that usually features folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events."​

That describes the Bible quite nicely, doesn't it? But the same cannot be said of evolution. In post # 837, I also said "In order to be a fairy tale, it should adhere to all the criteria for that." Those aren't just my rules; that's what you have to do to categorize anything. So the most you could have found is the fact that humans are talking animals and non-human animals can still communicate by other means. But of course even that one criteria meant only to imply non-human animals who could not already speak in real life, but speak at a human level in the fable.

Very Good! You found it! It was all in fun. I knew what you meant. No harm intended. I wonder if anyone else took a stab at it?

 

[Inan3]

Damn, I bet it's an episode that's not been on in the UK as well.
Caveat:- Grissom is a scientist, he values evidence above all else. His idea of a 'holy trinity' is a little different from yours.... and he uses genetic evidence to pursue his goals (which would not be possible but for evolution....)

Enjoy.

I did enjoy, but not Grissom it was CSI: Miami

Kind of a freaky one with a guy taking wolf hormones and another guy allergic to the sun. I like freaky things ... that's why I come here to see all you evolutionists. You give me a kick!

NOTE: For all you serious ones, no offense, just playing around.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The definition I gave for a 'fairy tale' came unmodified from Wikipedia:

"...a fictional story that usually features folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events."​

That describes the Bible quite nicely, doesn't it? But the same cannot be said of evolution. In post # 837, I also said "In order to be a fairy tale, it should adhere to all the criteria for that." Those aren't just my rules; that's what you have to do to categorize anything. So the most you could have found is the fact that humans are talking animals and non-human animals can still communicate by other means. But of course even that one criteria meant only to imply non-human animals who could not already speak in real life, but speak at a human level in the fable.

Very Good! You found it! It was all in fun. I knew what you meant. No harm intended. I wonder if anyone else took a stab at it?

OK fine. Do you now concede that evolution is definitely not a fairy tale?

 

[FishFace]

Even Joshua got tricked by the Gibeonites because he "didn't spend time (etc) with Jesus."

[q.v. Joshua 9]

I posit that you've been tricked by Satan, and that's why you don't believe in evolution.

Go on, prove me wrong.

 

[FishFace]

I already told you that. If the fruit is good it's from Jesus. If not it is not. Simple as that.

So how do you tell whether the fruit is good? By whether you agree with it?

But your really aren't looking for an answer you are looking to argue. You already know the answer and I'm not going to argue or debate you on it.

Yes, you're right, I do know the answer - I know that the only reason you ever had to claim that Pope Urban II wasn't speaking the words of Jesus was because you disagreed with him.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

However, I am not proud. If you can actually produce some other reason, that's fine. But so far all you've done is produce reasons predicated on the underlying assumption that you know what is right and wrong, that you know what Jesus wants.

 

[AV1611VET]

I posit that you've been tricked by Satan, and that's why you don't believe in evolution.

Go on, prove me wrong.

Did Satan evolve?

 

[TheOutsider]

Did Satan evolve?

The concept of Satan certainly has evolved. Large groups of Christians get their idea of Satan not from the Bible, but from Milton.

(Don't worry, I'm not including you in this group)

 

[FishFace]

Did Satan evolve?

Yes, but he wants you to believe he didn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

I posit that you've been tricked by Satan, and that's why you don't believe in evolution.

Go on, prove me wrong.

Did Satan evolve?

Yes, but he wants you to believe he didn't.

How do you know he evolved? Do you have records to that effect?

And if he didn't evolve --- how is it he didn't, and I did?

(Let me know when you want me to stop.)