The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

Less than 10,000 sideral years.

So what about fossils which we date to be older than 10 000 years ?
Is science broken ? Did god make the world to look old?

Also your views are extremist .
Moderate Christians don't take the bible this literally . They believe that god allowed the science to happen etc and that the bible is metaphorical .
That these stories didn't necessarily happen and were use to explain to uneducated people .

Also addressing your earlier comments .
The bible is hypocritical .
The Catholic Church is abusive .
The Catholic Church is corrupt.
Christianity is a cult-cult
kʌlt/
noun
1.
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St Olaf"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing."

This isn't me selecting definitions. They are the first things to come up when you google cult .

Brian Shanahan

I'm just after noticing the typo in the title. Or does English also work on evolutionary lines?

Vivisectus

J C wrote: »

The Fall 're-wired' many things ... by introducing death and disease ... it would undoubtedly have had significant effects on the usage to which previously innocuous structures were now put to.
Venom, for example could have been used to digest plant material before the fall ... and then was used to kill other animals afterwards.
Similarly, sharp teeth are no burden when it comes to eating plants ... and the sabre-toothed tiger's teeth seem to have become a bit of a liability when the switch occurred from rooting out plant bulbs ... to trying to kill animals.

I am starting to see a pattern here! When faced with the impossible, simply make up something to patch up your badly damaged hypothesis, and pre-face it with "Could have"

Never mind with any evidence, or how staggeringly unlikely your proposed solution is (plant cells, for example are much, MUCH harder to break down and spider venom is not very good at doing so. Nor would the result be much good to a spider!)... you have the magical "could have" card, which magically suspends all the rules of rationality in the same way as people here seem to think the hazard lights on a car suspend the rules of the road. Do we see arctic creatures in tropical areas? There could have been a cloud, and the animals could have been different! Carnivorous dentition? Could have been for eating plants!

But hey! Why stop here? We could say that scarred dinosaur bones could be evidence of the struggle between Tiamat and Marduk! Unfettered by any need to support what we say, we can say mammoth fossils could be proof that there was a heroic age in Greece and that they are the remains of giants and larger-than-life heroes! Mitochondrial eve? Could be proof that we are all descended from Deukalion and his wife!

Do we only see sea-based life when we look into the deep past? Could be evidence of the state of the world before Ilmatar created Vainamonen! Also, the small stature of some early hominids and the fact that we often find their remains in caves could be clear evidence of the validity of old nordic belief in dwarves and trolls.

Vivisectus

J C wrote: »

Less than 10,000 sideral years.

It always strikes me that if this is the case, then God obviously wants us to not to take the Bible stories literally.

Why else would he go to the trouble of creating stars (He does not get around to this until day 4) complete with ancient starlight already in transit and about to hit earth in the next 10.000 years or so, just to fool astronomers into thinking the universe is much, much older?

kiffer

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm just after noticing the typo in the title. Or does English also work on evolutionary lines?

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Nine years on. Still going stong."
Typo?
Wait, Is it that the Title Case has been incorrectly applied? Hmmm maybe the punctuation could use some work?
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense: Nine Years on, Still Going Stong."

Is it that you feel the nonsense is more ridiculous than specious?

"The Continuation of Ridiculous Nonsense: Nine of J C Confusing Newbies, Let's all get Some Brewskies."

EDIT: I finally saw it! Only when I looked at it in my own post did I see the fecking typo. Argh. I triple checked it before making this post to make a cheap fecking brewskies joke...

PopePalpatine

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm just after noticing the typo in the title. Or does English also work on evolutionary lines?

If English evolved from German, how come there's still German-speakers? :pac:

Vivisectus

Before the fall, English was probably used for different purposes such as drowning out the frustrated cries of Tyrannosaurs as they tried to masticate leaves without grinding molars.

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If English evolved from German, how come there's still German-speakers? :pac:

Because after the fall of the tower of Babel yhwh kept some of the speakers of the original language with their mother tongue, silly! Eny fule now dat.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm just after noticing the typo in the title. Or does English also work on evolutionary lines?

... this is an example of a loss of CFSI ... so it is indeed working along evolutionary lines.:)

... if you needed something to be strong ... it would be pretty useless if it was only stong allright!!!

J C

Vivisectus wrote: »

It always strikes me that if this is the case, then God obviously wants us to not to take the Bible stories literally.

Why else would he go to the trouble of creating stars (He does not get around to this until day 4) complete with ancient starlight already in transit and about to hit earth in the next 10.000 years or so, just to fool astronomers into thinking the universe is much, much older?

His objective was to show us the magnificence of His Creation ... so He Created the light beams in transit from the stars as well.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If English evolved from German, how come there's still German-speakers? :pac:

There is no problem with English evolving from combining the dialects of of the Angles, Saxons, Frisii and Jutes ... as there were vast inputs of Human Intelligence involved in the process.

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

So what about fossils which we date to be older than 10 000 years ?
Is science broken ? Did god make the world to look old?

The dating systems are faulty and use circular logic.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Also your views are extremist .
Moderate Christians don't take the bible this literally .

... my views aren't 'extremist' ... and I don't take the Bible literally either ... I take a plain reading of scripture

EoghanIRL wrote: »

They believe that god allowed the science to happen etc

I too believe that God allows science to happen ... indeed without God's intelligently designed Creation and physical laws, science would be impossible.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

... and (Moderate Christians believe) that the bible is metaphorical.
That these stories didn't necessarily happen and were use to explain to uneducated people.

Only heretics would believe that the historical accounts in the Bible are metaphorical ... for example the accounts of Jesus Christ (the last Adam) aren't metaphorical ... and neither are the accounts of the First Adam metaphorical either. Denying that Jesus Christ is literally God is the mark of the Anti-christ.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Also addressing your earlier comments .
The bible is hypocritical .
The Catholic Church is abusive .
The Catholic Church is corrupt.
Christianity is a cult-cult
kʌlt/
noun
1.
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St Olaf"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing."

This isn't me selecting definitions. They are the first things to come up when you google cult .

Saved Christians don't venerate any figure or object as this would be idol worship (which is against the second Commandment).

As for the Roman Catholic Church being abusive or corrupt ... all I will say in passing that my experience of Roman Catholics is that they are largely honourable loving and respectful people who have always treated me with respect ... something that you (and many of the other posters on the A & A) should also consider doing.:)

As for Atheist cults (venerating particular figureheads) ... they are numerous ... for example the Cult of Carl Marx (Marxists), the cult of Vladimir Lenin (Leninists), the cult of Joseph Stalin (Stalinists), the cult of Mao Zedong (Maoists) and all of the other bloody cults that Militant Atheism has visited upon Humanity.:(

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Only heretics would believe that the historical accounts in the Bible are metaphorical ...

So Jonah literally lived inside a fish for three days?

Delirium

oscarBravo wrote: »

So Jonah literally lived inside a fish for three days?

JC needs to figure out his own posts before he can answer that.....

J C wrote: »

... my views aren't 'extremist' ... and I don't take the Bible literally either ... I take a plain reading of scripture

and later in the same post.

Only heretics would believe that the historical accounts in the Bible are metaphorical ... for example the accounts of Jesus Christ (the last Adam) aren't metaphorical ... and neither are the accounts of the First Adam metaphorical either. Denying that Jesus Christ is literally God is the mark of the Anti-christ.

So he doesn't take the bible literally but only heretics believe historical accounts are metaphorical

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

The dating systems are faulty and use circular logic.

Can you expand on this. It sounds intriguing.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

As for Atheist cults (venerating particular figureheads) ... they are numerous ... for example the Cult of Carl Marx (Marxists), the cult of Vladimir Lenin (Leninists), the cult of Joseph Stalin (Stalinists), the cult of Mao Zedong (Maoists) and all of the other bloody cults that Militant Atheism has visited upon Humanity.:(

Yes but how may people here belong to a cult and how many of us idolise other atheists ?
I certainly don't .

Christianity is hypocritical aswell .
Don't worship idols, So you worship jesus .
Jesus is an idol right ?

Finally , god uses circular logic too .
You live , you die . Repeat for other people . This is a loop/ circle ?

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Yes but how may people here belong to a cult and how many of us idolise other atheists ?
I certainly don't .

I agree with you on that point ... so can you look at it from my point of view when you made the baseless charge that Christianity is a cult.
This would be equivalent to me saying that all atheists are cultists ... when they most certainly are not.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Christianity is hypocritical aswell .
Don't worship idols, So you worship jesus .
Jesus is an idol right ?

Jesus Christ is God ... and only God is deserving of worship ... all the rest is His Creation ... and no more deserving of worship than I am myself.

EoghanIRL

Does that not make God an idol then though ?

So in your opinion , you don't belong to a cult ?

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Does that not make God an idol then though ?

God is God ... and an idol is some part of Gods creation that is being treated as God ... when it's obviously not.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

So in your opinion , you don't belong to a cult ?

I certainly don't belong to a cult ... no more than you do, I'm sure.

EoghanIRL

Is the definition of cult wrong then ?

Cult - a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

You are devoted to a particular figure (god).
Christianity is a system comprised of different levels of hierarchy and lay people .

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Is the definition of cult wrong then ?

Cult - a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

You are devoted to a particular figure (god).

God is God ... figures are parts of His Creation.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Christianity is a system comprised of different levels of hierarchy and lay people .

Some parts of Christianity differentiate between hierarchy and laity ... other churches don't ... ultimately we will all stand before our God ... with nobody between us and Him ... and we cannot blame hierarchies if we aren't Saved ... nor do we need to praise them if we are.
Salvation is strictly a matter between each one of us and Jesus Christ.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

God is God ... figures are parts of His Creation.


Some parts of it ... ultimately we will all stand before our God ... with nobody between us and Him ... and we cannot blame hierarchies if we aren't Saved ... nor do we need to praise them if we are.
Salvation is strictly a matter between each one of us and Jesus Christ.

The part in bold confuses me jc.
Is the figure that Christians are devoted to not god ?

Is there some other figure you are devoted to ? However that would be idolism.

I'm just not grasping it .

Absolam

EoghanIRL wrote: »

The part in bold confuses me jc. Is the figure that Christians are devoted to not god ? Is there some other figure you are devoted to ? However that would be idolism. I'm just not grasping it .

I think your point depends on your definition of 'a figure'. I'm sure JC would point out that God (the capital G one, as opposed to the lower case g ones) is not 'a' anything; he/she/it is God, practically the definition of unique, so not a figure, especially in the sense that I suspect JC is taking it, which is a representation of something, or simply another way of saying idol.

On the other hand, I imagine JC is more likely to be objecting to Christianity being defined as a cult in the more modern, pejorative sense of the word, rather than the original more catholic sense, which was simply a word that described all organised forms of religious worship, denoting a structured way of paying homage to a divinity (notwithstanding the obvious proviso that it would necessarily be the only true cult of the divinity).

robinph

Determining if you are extremist in your views or a member of a cult is not something that you can do yourself. That can only be said by a third party as no one would ever think that way of themselves.

Doesn't mean that you are not extremist in your views or not a member of a cult, you just are not aware of it.

J C

robinph wrote: »

Determining if you are extremist in your views or a member of a cult is not something that you can do yourself. That can only be said by a third party as no one would ever think that way of themselves.

Doesn't mean that you are not extremist in your views or not a member of a cult, you just are not aware of it.

That potentially applies to everyone on this thread, including yourself, as well.
Bias is certainly a possibility when judging oneself ... but it is also a possibility when judging others ... especially those with whom you strenuously disagree.

The words 'extremist' and 'cult' are particularly loaded words in modern usage ... the former indicates somebody prepared to use violence to achieve their aims and the latter indicates somebody who is brainwashed to the point of complete loss of the ability to think for themselves ... neither term can be validly applied to moderate liberal Christians ... even the ones, like myself, who actually believe what they say when they proclaim their Nicene and Apostle's Creeds (that God is Creator of Heaven and Earth and is Maker of all things visible and invisible).:)

To level the highly prejudicial charges of 'extremism' or 'cultism' against anybody would require very strong evidence that they espoused violence to promote their worldview and were brainwashed to the point of 'lobotomy'. None of this objectively applies to me ... so I'd ask everybody to refrain from such unfounded prejudicial name-calling against me.

Gordon

It's like that saying: if you think you're mad, you most likely aren't.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

It's like that saying: if you think you're mad, you most likely aren't.

It's like saying: if you're objectively sane ... you most likely are.
... but this doesn't stop anybody else calling you mad ... especially people who are mad themselves.:)

... and people who think themselves to be mad ... usually are correct.

robinph

To have extremist views means that your views are to the extreme end of what the majority of other people think. It does not (normally) mean that you want to kill people.

Your views are extreme as the majority of christians do not think the same way as you or read the bible in the same unusual way as you. That makes your version of beliefs presented on here extreme.

oscarBravo

I'm still wondering how Jonah survived three days in a fish.

lazygal

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still wondering how Jonah survived three days in a fish.

I'm still wondering how an omnipotent being can make bushes burn and write on stone, but can't stop people being gay.