The Funny Side of Religion

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I predict an off-topic rant about the moderation of other fora or an accusation that PDN is intellectually dishonest / condescending / has eyes too close together etc.

This comment is completely uncalled for.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you intend to continue to imply dishonesty, please don't bother. Either engage with the topic or, as I said, fuck off.

As is this, though it was provoked.

The next person who brings up moderation of other forums, produces equivocal insults or sprinkles four-letter epithets about the place -- provoked or not -- will be receiving one of A+A's coveted red cards.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam. You've strawmanned my point again!

The point isn't that the Bible described the construction incorrectly. It's that it did describe it correctly, and the Israelites built a construction of a circular shape while not sticking strictly to pi as 3.14. It's not about the accuracy of the Bible's description, it's about the accuracy of the construction.

The other possibility is described in the link that you have given.

To repeat:

What it says: "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. "

It does not say that the Israelites made it that length, it says that it took a line of 30 cubits to measure around something 10 cubits in length. It can't have.

Turtwig

Ok,
Okays, I'm in stitches..

Who'd have thought that Pi would be so important, eh?

Anyways, my point seems to have been lost, so I'm merely restating it.
I have no problem with the figure of speech excuse that PDN has used. What bugs me though is why apologetics would even bother trying to say the bible is correct about Pi in this matter, PDN, Jakkass, surely you'll admit their excuse or their attempt to remedy something so trivial is laughable at best.
It's simple :
Either Pi is wrong, or the measurment was done wrong, both challenge the "perfect" Bible that some Christians view it as.
I know PDN doesn't, and I don't think Jakkass does either.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Who'd have thought that Pi would be so important, eh?

Ask yourself that the next time you're on a plane with all those little wheels that make it run

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ask yourself that the next time you're on a plane with all those little wheels that make it run

Em.. not meaning to scare yez or anything but I often use 3 when doing calculations.:o
I'm lazy that way and the error introduced by it is usually negligible compared to other terms.

When necessary though I use a very precise value.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To repeat:

What it says: "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. "

It does not say that the Israelites made it that length, it says that it took a line of 30 cubits to measure around something 10 cubits in length. It can't have.

Cite the exact passage so I can look it up for myself. When quoting from Scripture it is helpful to do this so that others can do further research.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

It's simple :
Either Pi is wrong, or the measurment was done wrong, both challenge the "perfect" Bible that some Christians view it as.
I know PDN doesn't, and I don't think Jakkass does either.

*sigh*

No, no it isn't.

For the last time. Read carefully:

The author is (from what I have read already, I'm still waiting on a citation from Sam Vimes) discussing the construction of Solomon's Temple and is discussing the circular shape that the Israelites used on a certain section of the building. It is either:

a) The Bible is writing wrongly about what happened.
b) Or the Bible is correct about what has happened, but the measurements of the Israelites aren't exactly pi.

Reflect on what I posted earlier again, and really think about it:

If I write in a book that young Sam Vimes when doing his maths thought that 2 + 2 = 3 and this was a true event. Does this mean that I am wrong for writing it, or does this mean that Sam Vimes had his maths wrong?

Of course it would mean that Sam Vimes was wrong in his maths, not that I am wrong for mentioning how it happened.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Cite the exact passage so I can look it up for myself. When quoting from Scripture it is helpful to do this so that others can do further research.

1 Kings 7:23

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

What bugs me though is why apologetics would even bother trying to say the bible is correct about Pi in this matter, PDN, Jakkass, surely you'll admit their excuse or their attempt to remedy something so trivial is laughable at best.

Yes, I agree that some such apologies for apologetics are, while well-meaning, as laughable as trhe objections they try to meet. The problem is that if you try to answer the objection rationally, then you can end up looking as petty as the one raising the objection. But if you don't answer it then you leave them thinking that they are right and have somehow 'proved the Bible wrong'. It's a Catch-22 situation that is rather neatly summed up in Proverbs:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26:4-5)



"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." (Proverbs 26:4)

iUseVi

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To repeat:

What it says: "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. "

It does not say that the Israelites made it that length, it says that it took a line of 30 cubits to measure around something 10 cubits in length. It can't have.

To repeat a point Sam made before. It is not particularly reasonably to expect the verse to say "It took a line of thirty cubits, 2 palms, 3 digits..." or whatever. (Calculation of hands and digits is very imprecise) For one thing it doesn't read so well, although doesn't seem to stop large amount of genealogies being put in.

The point is that whatever reason you give for it not being exact you can apply the same reason to not just the same chapter, but any other chapter and any other book. Even if you think the bible to be the inspired word of god it is still all written my men.

Men make approximations, men make omissions, men make make mistakes. And whatever you say you cannot know that the "important" bits of the bible are inerrant, this is something you have to take on faith seeing as there is no evidence - just your conviction. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...."

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

It's simple :
Either Pi is wrong, or the measurment was done wrong, both challenge the "perfect" Bible that some Christians view it as.
I know PDN doesn't, and I don't think Jakkass does either.

Don't you hate it when someone edits a post after you've started typing your reply?

Your statement is incorrect. The measurement was not done wrong. Nor is pi wrong. The Bible simply uses language in normal ways.

Sam Vimes

iUseVi wrote: »

To repeat a point Sam made before. It is not particularly reasonably to expect the verse to say "It took a line of thirty cubits, 2 palms, 3 digits..." or whatever. (Calculation of hands and digits is very imprecise) For one thing it doesn't read so well, although doesn't seem to stop large amount of genealogies being put in.

The point is that whatever reason you give for it not being exact you can apply the same reason to not just the same chapter, but any other chapter and any other book. Even if you think the bible to be the inspired word of god it is still all written my men.

Men make approximations, men make omissions, men make make mistakes. And whatever you say you cannot know that the "important" bits of the bible are inerrant, this is something you have to take on faith seeing as there is no evidence - just your conviction. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...."

This

philologos

1 Kings 7:23 - Shows that the Israelites used 3 as pi, still making a roughly circular shape. I've yet to see how this brings us to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong in documenting this event, rather than that the Israelites themselves built something that was broadly circular while not using 3.14.

Or the other possibility is that it is rendered approximately. Decimals weren't used in the ancient world, at least I don't think they were.

I'll probably will bow out from here in. This point by no means discredits the Bible.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

1 Kings 7:23 - Shows that the Israelites used 3 as pi, still making a roughly circular shape. I've yet to see how this brings us to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong in documenting this event, rather than that the Israelites themselves built something that was broadly circular while not using 3.14.

Because it doesn't say "the Israelites used 3 as pi, still making a roughly circular shape", it says that it took a line of 30 cubits to go around something of ten cubits. It can't have

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll probably will bow out from here in. This point by no means discredits the Bible.

Of course not. As long as you interpret the bible a certain way it can never be discredited. Personally if I was the omnipotent creator of the universe I could have inspired a book that was a hell of a lot clearer, more accurate and less needing of "interpretation". I would have made it so clear, unambiguous and demonstrably and objectively perfect in fact that there would only have been one possible meaning to glean from it and people wouldn't have spent thousands of years arguing and fighting over whose interpretation was right.

It would also have meant that the perfection was so apparent that the bible itself would count as compelling evidence of its own truth. I would have littered it with things that the Israelites could not have known, such as a basic description of evolution. I would have made sure that every single aspect was unambiguously consistent so that we would not need apologists and atheists would not have so much ammunition in the form of inconsistencies of which the best you can say is that you can interpret it in such a way as to make it appear consistent. In fact if I was an omnipotent creator writing the bible there would be no atheists. As it is it seems god littered the bible with at the very least apparent inconsistencies, one can only assume in a deliberate effort to undermine the book's authority and drive people not to believe in it, so that he can damn them to hell. Nice guy

Galvasean

Guys, it's been over 6 pages since somebody posted a video or picture with a caption. Shame on you all!

iUseVi

I'm sure this has relevance to atheism...yes...just can't think of it at the moment...

Goduznt Xzst

iUseVi wrote: »

I'm sure this has relevance to atheism...yes...just can't think of it at the moment...

Why yes it does actually, they are usually put in a blender and served as an aperitif before a main course of babies for most Atheists.

Funglegunk

Bring back the pi discussion!!

Flamed Diving

Funglegunk wrote: »

Bring back the pi discussion!!

The "pi=3'rs" gone and legged it.

Galvasean

iUseVi wrote: »

I'm sure this has relevance to atheism...yes...just can't think of it at the moment...

Cats don't believe in God...
Atheists are like cats, too independant thinking to form a coherent mob...

Coriolanus

Some cats do, but they are scorned by the rest.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

Cats don't believe in God...
Atheists are like cats, too independant thinking to form a coherent mob...

Yes...thats it! I knew there was good reason for posting that.

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Personally if I was the omnipotent creator of the universe I could have inspired a book that was a hell of a lot clearer, more accurate and less needing of "interpretation".

Ye but you forgot that god works in mysterious ways and that our limited complexity and intelligence is no match to his.

robindch

Funglegunk wrote: »

Bring back the pi discussion!!

I think we've all heard enough about how thirty divided by ten is (or is not) equal to pi.

Lets try lolcats for a while.

Dades

Coriolanus

Robin wrote:

Lets try lolcats for a while.

Hokai.

Tyler MacDurden

robindch wrote: »

I think we've all heard enough about how thirty divided by ten is (or is not) equal to pi.

Lets try lolcats for a while.

Convergent lolcatism:

iUseVi

pH

iUseVi

Alright last one from me else you will never stop me.