Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#183 Feb 17, 2013
Troth for Leogere wrote:
<quoted text>That you're legally insane?
Yup!
Oh, that reminds me, I've got to go and troll the LGBT forums. Have a nice day :)

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#184 Feb 17, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, that reminds me, I've got to go and troll the LGBT forums. Have a nice day :)
Oh, I plan on it.. too bad you arent gonna have a good one!

oh well, ya reap what ya sow..ya sow!
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#185 Feb 17, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I honestly don't know. I could only speculate. But don't intelligent people at times change their views drastically at some point? I believe these men were very intelligent with the information available to them, but being intelligent certainly doesn't guarantee absolute knowledge.
Very intelligent theologians in more modern times 'have' changed their views, without losing an ounce of faith. The faith in Jesus Christ remains wholly intact, the belief that the Bible is 'the' Word of God remains intact, but they may make drastic changes in some doctrinal views, or conclude that they are not as sure as they were in some areas of scripture.

2. Being a Christian doesn't put a halt to exploration of any kind. There are still many things to learn, certainly in the Bible itself, as well as in science, general history, etc.

3. But to give an example of my prior statement, I 'do' have a sort of biological entity-centric view that humans are the only intelligent life in the physical realm (in the Universe). I think that scripture 'may'(possibly) very well point to this in the book of Psalms. But, I can't make a dogmatic doctrine out of it. I'm not going to claim that Christians who believe in extra-terrestrial intelligent life are heretics. Because in reality, as far as we know, the Bible doesn't really make any absolute claim to this effect.
1. Your post here defends what many here and elsewhere have said many, many times....the Bible is NOT the be all and end all of faith. It is but one device of many for faith and understanding, not the only source, and certainly not a source to be used as a weapon of attack and divisiveness.

2. Yet this seems to be a huge theme in current American Xtianity, to stop "exploration" based on, usually, very thin readings of the Bible. Relying on aspects that in no way truly impact the faith.

Literal interpretation has pretty much always gotten in the way of exploration. Unless it serves the faith in some manner, no matter how vague and thin.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#186 Feb 17, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>With a gentle tour through the history of Europe at the time of the Reformation. Until the creation of the printing press, in which the Catholic Johann Gutenberg participated in the fifteenth century, the century before the emergence of Luther onto the world stage, books were very expensive and not widely available to the common person. Since the ordinary person didn't have much access to books, he didn't have a lot of need for reading. This wasn't a nefarious Church plot; it was simply the way of life during the time period in question. Once printing made books far more accessible, literacy rates correspondingly rose.
Luther's proposition that the Bible should be read by everyone from the humblest milkmaid to the noblest monarch would have been scoffed at a mere hundred years before his birth. This wasn't because knowledge of the Bible was dismissed as unimportant, but because reading was dismissed as generally unnecessary for the common man. Ordinary Christians learned the Christian religion, including the Bible, not by reading, but by being taught through catechesis. Churches, for example, were filled with artwork that depicted scenes from the Bible and were considered "the poor man's catechesis."
Once Luther and the Reformers came along, a new concern arose: The Reformers insisted that the meaning of the Bible was plain to anyone who cracked the spine of a Bible and scanned the text. That this was untrue became apparent with the proliferation of Protestant sects arguing with each other over the Bible's meaning. To solve that problem, the Church did not forbid laypeople to read the Bible, but more clearly defined the Church's role in defining for Christians the meaning of disputed texts.
- from Catholic Answers
The Church is the Authority, not the Bible.
The Church came first and from this Church came the Bible.
The Church never turned over its Jesus-given Authority to the Bible.
And, look at what has happened.........30,000+ Protestant sects with more popping up daily.
Why?
Differing views on what the Bible says/means.
While I love the fact that you always have a ready and cogent reply to the Protys and their personal POV's on historical reality, and vilification of the RCC - I will only comment on one part of the above post.

While its true the artwork of The Churches was a means to educate - its was also a poor means to do so. It was in a manner of speaking the infusion of pop-cultural influences - as imagery, more than words are very much self-interpretive - even when the artist might be trying to reenact a specific story part.(made harder by the lack of proof for nearly all of the Bible stories. Who knows what a resurrected body would look like?)

We know thru art history analysis, that many artists were spinning the stories, and adding/subtracting from the text in order to tell a story in a very narrow way. A snapshot of a huge event is not always a good view of the event. Even a small one.

Its also where the dominance of the Ideal physical make-up of Jesus and in turn the Father took hold and made Europeans believe God was Anglo in form and persona. Which we can say led to the abuses exacted on non-anglo, non-European peoples around the world. These "creatures" were clearly not made in the image of God, like "us Europeans" - so they must not be actual humans at all, but some lower creation.

While I m big fan of all that art and architecture, etc - that helped push civilization forward in the arts and building trades - it was also a great form of Religious propagandizing that while not totally to blame for thousands of atrocities committed in the xtian Gods name - it was and remains a huge influence on Western Xtianity. That to this day still struggles with the reality that Jesus did NOT look like a Anglo-saxon, or Northern Mediterranean male.

It remains apostasy in some white circles to think of Jesus as brown skinned.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#187 Feb 17, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
And it boils down to either believing the RCC or the Bible, for they are in direct opposition to each other.
Thats ridiculous...they are not in contradiction at all. The RCC might be in contradiction with YOUR chosen sectarian POV, but not with the Bible. The Bible is inert, till someone picks it up and INTERPRETS it...its always been thus and will remain so.

The Bible doesn't explain itself. It was not till centuries later that addendum's and side-bars and such were added as a means to maybe explain the text. But it was most certainly not written that way. It was always meant as a thing to be interpreted, but thru a Council, Church, etc, POV.

You, all Xtians, rely on 2K years of thousands of men, a few women, explaining and commentating on the thing...and in no way do you read it in isolation of those influences and come to the very same conclusions that took centuries to be decided as right doctrine...and in your case right for a Sectarian POV.

Stop deluding yourself. THE RCC has been at the game way longer than you, and has had some of the greatest minds on their side - all of which you rely on in your beliefs in some shape or form.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#188 Feb 17, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>While I love the fact that you always have a ready and cogent reply to the Protys and their personal POV's on historical reality, and vilification of the RCC - I will only comment on one part of the above post.
While its true the artwork of The Churches was a means to educate - its was also a poor means to do so. It was in a manner of speaking the infusion of pop-cultural influences - as imagery, more than words are very much self-interpretive - even when the artist might be trying to reenact a specific story part.(made harder by the lack of proof for nearly all of the Bible stories. Who knows what a resurrected body would look like?)
We know thru art history analysis, that many artists were spinning the stories, and adding/subtracting from the text in order to tell a story in a very narrow way. A snapshot of a huge event is not always a good view of the event. Even a small one.
Its also where the dominance of the Ideal physical make-up of Jesus and in turn the Father took hold and made Europeans believe God was Anglo in form and persona. Which we can say led to the abuses exacted on non-anglo, non-European peoples around the world. These "creatures" were clearly not made in the image of God, like "us Europeans" - so they must not be actual humans at all, but some lower creation.
While I m big fan of all that art and architecture, etc - that helped push civilization forward in the arts and building trades - it was also a great form of Religious propagandizing that while not totally to blame for thousands of atrocities committed in the xtian Gods name - it was and remains a huge influence on Western Xtianity. That to this day still struggles with the reality that Jesus did NOT look like a Anglo-saxon, or Northern Mediterranean male.
It remains apostasy in some white circles to think of Jesus as brown skinned.
As always, I enjoyed your post.
And, I agree.
Even as a child, I knew that Jesus did not have fair skin and blue eyes.
Sir Doctor

Anonymous Proxy

#189 Feb 17, 2013
FreeChic wrote:
You really have to wonder what goes on in the mind of someone who starts a thread such as this! Sad or what?-par five
It is usually some idiot like Nettiebelle, who knows she will join her mom in hell, but likes to pretend differently for idiots like NorCal and Gay Troth.
Sir Doctor

Anonymous Proxy

#190 Feb 17, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Thats ridiculous...they are not in contradiction at all. The RCC might be in contradiction with YOUR chosen sectarian POV, but not with the Bible. The Bible is inert, till someone picks it up and INTERPRETS it...its always been thus and will remain so.
The Bible doesn't explain itself. It was not till centuries later that addendum's and side-bars and such were added as a means to maybe explain the text. But it was most certainly not written that way. It was always meant as a thing to be interpreted, but thru a Council, Church, etc, POV.
You, all Xtians, rely on 2K years of thousands of men, a few women, explaining and commentating on the thing...and in no way do you read it in isolation of those influences and come to the very same conclusions that took centuries to be decided as right doctrine...and in your case right for a Sectarian POV.
Stop deluding yourself. THE RCC has been at the game way longer than you, and has had some of the greatest minds on their side - all of which you rely on in your beliefs in some shape or form.
You're ridiculous anda fool in need of RCC friends. See Rome, white Rome. The RCC has always been an attack on Jesus and Jews and it has pagan origins. This is why the RCC killed over 100 million Jews and the holocaust of 6 million was just a drop in the bucket promoted by the RCC Office of Inquisition.

The RCC is the one who spread the lie of the blonde-haired blue eyed Jesus, based on a painting in Rome using a white male model. We Christians have rejected the infusion of the great satanic minds and it is our influence that has caused the RCC nad Mormons to now pretend to promote a Jesus center rather than a John Smith and Mary center.

I can promise you this, I know more about in facet of Christianity than you ever will. If you find agreement with Nuttybutt, then you are in a sad state of self hate and denial.

Originally, most Christians were Jews, since Christ is and was indeed a Jew. Yes, Mary is a Jew and not a Catholic. She had long expired in 380 AD when the RCC came along.

All 12 apostles were Jews and only the RCC has a problem with this, they hve the audacity to try to decide for God who will be saints when they die.

Can any of you shameful uneducateds explain why Pope Benedict took the position and now is stepping down, if God appointed him. I will speak as an educated. It is because he was never appointed by God, but voted in by the same men who defended ALL THE GAY PEDOPHILES WHO RAPED AND ABUSED ALTAR BOYS.
Cisco Kid

Modesto, CA

#191 Feb 17, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>As always, I enjoyed your post.
And, I agree.
Even as a child, I knew that Jesus did not have fair skin and blue eyes.
I would bet money that if a person could go back in time to those rennaisance paintings of Jesus, one would discover that the portrayal of the face of Jesus et al; was very similar to the sponser of those artists.
In the feudal courts it was necessary to kiss ass or flatter those one was beholden to for food and money, etc.

So I would bet ten to one that many of the faces we see painted into those religious works of the Dutch Masters, Flemmish palate wizards and Italian artists looked a lot like their sponsers.
What better way to gain kudos?

Heaven forbid European courtesans should portray Jesus with Semitic features.
Talk about not being worth your salt!

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#192 Feb 17, 2013
< look at my avatar! Thats jesus.
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
I would bet money that if a person could go back in time to those rennaisance paintings of Jesus, one would discover that the portrayal of the face of Jesus et al; was very similar to the sponser of those artists.
In the feudal courts it was necessary to kiss ass or flatter those one was beholden to for food and money, etc.
So I would bet ten to one that many of the faces we see painted into those religious works of the Dutch Masters, Flemmish palate wizards and Italian artists looked a lot like their sponsers.
What better way to gain kudos?
Heaven forbid European courtesans should portray Jesus with Semitic features.
Talk about not being worth your salt!
Cisco Kid

Modesto, CA

#193 Feb 17, 2013
Troth for Leogere wrote:
< look at my avatar! Thats jesus.
<quoted text>
Don't be too sure of that.
Natty dreads and african features were probably not common in Nazareth.

Although in the abstract sense, Catholics teach that Jesus can be seen in any person of any color and ethnicity.
"Lord when did we see you hungry, thirsty, naked and in need?
Whatever you did for the least of these you did for me."

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#194 Feb 17, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, that reminds me, I've got to go and troll the LGBT forums. Have a nice day :)
Oh come on and do it, got balls?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#195 Feb 18, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Your post here defends what many here and elsewhere have said many, many times....the Bible is NOT the be all and end all of faith. It is but one device of many for faith and understanding, not the only source, and certainly not a source to be used as a weapon of attack and divisiveness.

2. Yet this seems to be a huge theme in current American Xtianity, to stop "exploration" based on, usually, very thin readings of the Bible. Relying on aspects that in no way truly impact the faith.
Literal interpretation has pretty much always gotten in the way of exploration. Unless it serves the faith in some manner, no matter how vague and thin.
1. The main issue it seems to me is whether or not the Bible is the Word of God. I believe it is. Once someone claims it "isn't", divisiveness is probably inevitable. My question would be, can you embrace the idea that the Bible is "the" Word of God, and still make the proclamation you made? Or does your proclamation demand that the Bible is just one source out of many that merely holds some truths here and there to gleam from?

2. If evolutionists wish to claim being "open-minded", then dismissing "Creationism" is a disqualification from that man-made title. The exaltation of man isn't any better than the exaltation of nation "with God on their side, and only their side". This new form of exaltation still needs it's bad guys to draw the much needed comparisons. It may not have national/racial/ethnic boundaries as much anymore. Today we have this uber superiority complex concerning time and generations. The bad guy is the ancient man, and anyone who believes the Bible sides with this new villain.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#196 Feb 18, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun does not allow for an opposing view.

2. <quoted text>
No scientist provides quotes from Darwin’s Origin of the Species as proof of the Theory of Evolution, as religious fundamentalists provide quotes from the Bible, as proof of supernatural creation. Scientists provide empirical evidence from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Creationists merely criticize the empirical evidence provided by science but provide no empirical evidence of their own.
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design,"… represent a collection of beliefs usually based on a literal interpretation of religious texts… No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.”- National Academy of Sciences

3. You suggest that there is some sort of scientific debate about the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is incorrect. There is no more valid scientific debate about the Theory of Evolution than there is about the Theory of Gravity.
“By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.”- Thomas Dixon, member of the International Society for Science and Religion
One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists)... give credence to creation-science" - As reported by Newsweek, from Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23
"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" - Brian J. Alters, Chair in Science Education McGill University
<quoted text>

4. The age of a rock can be determined by the principle of superposition, the principle of cross-cutting relations and radiometric age-dating.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney....
Read a science book!
1. Which is probably why there isn't.

2. There is not one theory of evolution, but a body of opinions, speculations, and methods for interpretation of observational facts, so that they fit into the philosophy of Naturalism.- Keith H. Wanser.

3. There's no mainstream debate. Evolutionism is the new "Theocracy" in the guise of "secularism". Denying evolution is the equivalent of the blasphemy Galileo was accused of. As we discussed before, majority does not rule. If it did, we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. And that belief was held among secular scientists of that day (as we discussed before).

4. I'm all for reading a science book, however the question I asked was, can you tell how old a rock is by looking at it? In addition, have you ever personally applied radio-metric age-dating?

Keith H. Wanser made a significant observation from his many visits to the Carlsbad Caverns starting from when he was a boy. A sign above an entrance claimed that the caverns were at least 260 million years old. After a period of time, the age on the sign was reduced to 7-10 million years old. Eventually it changed to 2 million. Now the sign, as I understand it, is apparently gone.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#197 Feb 18, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Which is probably why there isn't.
2. There is not one theory of evolution, but a body of opinions, speculations, and methods for interpretation of observational facts, so that they fit into the philosophy of Naturalism.- Keith H. Wanser.
The Theory of Evolution is not based on opinions, speculations, and interpretations it is based on scientific evidence. Martin Luther and Cardinal Bellarmine said exactly the same thing about the scientific evidence presented by Copernicus and Galileo.

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists.…the hope that it will be ‘refuted’ by some shattering breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to a geocentric vision and discard Copernicus. " - Daniel C Dennett
Job wrote:
3. There's no mainstream debate. Evolutionism is the new "Theocracy" in the guise of "secularism". Denying evolution is the equivalent of the blasphemy Galileo was accused of. As we discussed before, majority does not rule. If it did, we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. And that belief was held among secular scientists of that day (as we discussed before).
Many believe that Galileo was the first scientist. There was community of secular scientists, the world in those days was ruled by believers not scientists and it obviously was not ruled very well.

“Galileo has been called the ‘father of modern observational astronomy’, the ‘father of modern physics’, the ‘father of science’, and ‘the Father of Modern Science’".- Maurice A Finocchiaro,“The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History".
Job wrote:
4. I'm all for reading a science book, however the question I asked was, can you tell how old a rock is by looking at it? In addition, have you ever personally applied radio-metric age-dating?
Science can date rocks! To dispute that puts you into the same category as Martin Luther and Cardinal Bellarmine; wrong.
Job wrote:
Keith H. Wanser made a significant observation from his many visits to the Carlsbad Caverns starting from when he was a boy. A sign above an entrance claimed that the caverns were at least 260 million years old. After a period of time, the age on the sign was reduced to 7-10 million years old. Eventually it changed to 2 million. Now the sign, as I understand it, is apparently gone.
Are you talking about the formation of various features of the caverns or the age of the rock?

“If one takes the geological perspective, the history of these caves spans back as far as 280 million years.”- Carlsbad National Park

“As the Guadalupe Mountains were first raised by compressive earth movements (20-40 million years ago), fresh water filled some of the fractures.”– Carlsbad National Park

“20 Million years ago: Caves are partly drained.”– Carlsbad National Park

“Mountains are still rising today.”– Carlsbad National Park
Read an elementary science book!
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#198 Feb 18, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
3. There's no mainstream debate. Evolutionism is the new "Theocracy" in the guise of "secularism". Denying evolution is the equivalent of the blasphemy Galileo was accused of. As we discussed before, majority does not rule. If it did, we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. And that belief was held among secular scientists of that day (as we discussed before).
Many believe that Galileo was the first scientist. There was no community of secular scientists the world in those days was ruled by believers not scientists and it obviously was not ruled very well.

“Galileo has been called the ‘father of modern observational astronomy’, the ‘father of modern physics’, the ‘father of science’, and ‘the Father of Modern Science’".- Maurice A Finocchiaro,“The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History".
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#199 Feb 18, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
The Theory of Evolution is not based on opinions, speculations, and interpretations it is based on scientific evidence. Martin Luther and Cardinal Bellarmine said exactly the same thing about the scientific evidence presented by Copernicus and Galileo.

2. "The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists.…the hope that it will be ‘refuted’ by some shattering breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to a geocentric vision and discard Copernicus. " - Daniel C Dennett
<quoted text>

3. Many believe that Galileo was the first scientist.

4. Science can date rocks! To dispute that puts you into the same category as Martin Luther and Cardinal Bellarmine; wrong.
<quoted text>

5. Are you talking about the formation of various features of the caverns or the age of the rock?

“If one takes the geological perspective, the history of these caves spans back as far as 280 million years.”- Carlsbad National Park
“As the Guadalupe Mountains were first raised by compressive earth movements (20-40 million years ago), fresh water filled some of the fractures.”– Carlsbad National Park
“20 Million years ago: Caves are partly drained.”– Carlsbad National Park
“Mountains are still rising today.”– Carlsbad National Park

6. Read an elementary science book!
1. They said the exact same thing? What exactly did they say?

2. This closed-book idea should draw immediate suspicion from anyone. It's not a scientific statement by any stretch of the imagination.

3. Many meaning who? That's not even logical. Think about that. The "first" scientist?

4. I'm not questioning the ability of science, but of the accuracy of dating methods used.

5. I'm talking about the age of the caves.

The caves within New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns National Park were formed 4 million to 6 million years ago. Paula Bauer, management assistant at the park, says that although over 100 caves have been identified, there's a good chance some have not yet been discovered.

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/story...

6. Which one will tell me whether or not you personally can tell the age of a rock by looking at it, and/or have you personally applied radio-metric dating to make that determination?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#200 Feb 18, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Many believe that Galileo was the first scientist. There was no community of secular scientists the world in those days was ruled by believers not scientists and it obviously was not ruled very well.
“Galileo has been called the ‘father of modern observational astronomy’, the ‘father of modern physics’, the ‘father of science’, and ‘the Father of Modern Science’".- Maurice A Finocchiaro,“The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History".
And once again, this is a myth. It rates up there with the Founding Fathers all being deists, and closet atheists.

Galileo's rivals were Aristotelian scientists. And yes, they were scientists.

Since: Oct 07

Glasgow, UK

#201 Feb 18, 2013
angelinaUK wrote:
<quoted text>Morning Liz,
Topixland seems to be a place of extremes as far as opinions go so I would have to say that thankfully I haven't come across fundamentalism to the same extreme anywhere else.
I have met a lot of people who do seem to hold a very black and white view of the Christian faith though and have found myself getting quite frustrated by the rigid views of a few. Not so much in the Church I now attend I am pleased to say.
Afternoon Angelina ..yeah my experience has been much the same ..nothing too drastic or extreme thankfully ..hope all is well your neck of the woods ..suns shining brightly here ..winter is almost over ,thankfully

Since: Oct 07

Glasgow, UK

#202 Feb 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I think the closest we have to a christian hate figure in the UK would be Stephen "birdshit" Green.
When it was subsequently revealed he was a wife beater, I wasn't shocked.
<quoted text>
I didn't even know we had this kind of thing going on here ..googled him ..fascinating ..thankfully he only has about three hundred followers according to one report ...still three hundred too many though

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do You Support Military Action Against ISIS 1 hr Thinking 216
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 1 hr Cookie_Parker 13,788
I don't understand 1 hr Hardcore 147
Christianity 2 hr Hardcore 17
Joel Osteen is one of only a few upon the earth... 2 hr Hardcore 78
I == RULE == OVER == the == SPIRIT == REALM (Sep '13) 3 hr jesus is 155
The antichrist 4 hr Mr Ironhart 22

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE