Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Jabba-wocky, Aug 1, 2013.

  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Well, you see, your answer fails to convince. In the same way a person who claims to understand mathematics but disputes that 4 is the result of adding two and two fails to make a compelling in case in their own favour.

    In simple terms, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. To the point at which the best defence creationists have now is "but it's just a theory", which ignores that theory in science =/= theory in the vernacular. It is simply not possible to have reviewed the evidence and formed the view that no, a capricious old jerk called God did it. You may have made a choice to embrace one viewpoint over another, and that's fine, but you need to scrape the veneer of legitimacy off that choice. You've applied it where it does not belong.

    But, I suspect I'm overcomplicating a situation. If you "believed" in evolution then the decision was more akin to picking a sporting team than, say, buying a car where a modicum of research is involved (assuming you're one of those people who thinks buying a pink car or an Alfa Romeo is a good idea). Again, an unconvincing argument.


    Did you grow up in a household where it was a given that Jesus was the son of God; that God created man and the universe, and that the only path to God was through Jesus?
  2. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 7
    Let's be fair, that proof is outrageously nontrivial.
  3. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9

    Ramza, I appreciate I walked this dangerous line by using Hallowed Mathematics in a philosophy debate. That does not, however, empower you to be a pedant. :p
    Last edited by Ender Sai, Feb 16, 2014
    Saintheart and Ramza like this.
  4. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    Comms Admin. Comes with the territory.
  5. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    *comms with the territory
    dp4m likes this.
  6. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    * Commas with the territory.
  7. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
  8. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    The only thing that was destroyed by the flood was a small area of the Mesopotamian Basin. The entire world was not flooded.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  9. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I'm still laughing at 'the KJV is great because it says to ignore atheists' and 'my best friend is an atheist', written by the same person. :oops:
    Last edited by anakinfansince1983, Feb 17, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  10. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6

    [IMG]

    "Here we go..."
  11. ophelia Cards Against Humanity Host. Ex-Mod

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2002
    star 6
    I understand that the conversation has moved on, and I mention this only because as your resident Shakespeare character, it is in my contract to care. Regarding the term "science" used in the KJV, the word also shows up twice in more-or-less contemporary Shakespeare plays, where it is indeed a synonym for knowledge, perhaps "learnéd knowledge," as opposed to "general knowledge," since it's from the Latin scio, "to know," rather than from the plain old boring Old English, gecnāwan.

    "Science," in Shakespearean English, is something one "has." In one case the a character has science of "medicine" but not "nature's mystery," in the other case a character has science of "government." It's not surprising that there is no reference to a field of knowledge called "Science," since the Enlightenment was some 100 years off.

    I don't think it substantially changes the meaning of the KJV to use "knowledge" rather than "science," but let us keep our Early Modern English straight.
    Sarge and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  12. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7

    to be fair that first one's not what he said. it was poorly written, but if you read more closely he was saying the fact that the newer interpretation seems to, (in modern day parlance) more clearly warn against paying attention to atheists, he should go with the KJV version which uses the word science which he interprets differently than how it would have been intended but he is oblivious to this fact.... damn that was poorly written too. w/e
  13. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    Why oh why do people still use Wikepedia as a source to back up their arguments, especially in regards to religion?
  14. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Wikipedia's fine in most cases, for most things. Just be careful.
  15. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    Citing it in academic arguments is a no-no, but on a SW message board, it's fine.
  16. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    Ah that makes sense I guess. I'm so used to avoiding Wikepedia like the plague since I write a lot of research papers for my classes.
  17. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    It's good as a reference tool... you can use it to find the actual sources it cites. But yeah... one shouldn't use it for anything important. For the purpose of arguing in threads here, though, it's totally fine.
    Last edited by harpua, Feb 17, 2014
  18. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    yeah its a useful quick source for internet discussions. what bugs me is using the dictionary definition of something to prove anything other than... what the dictionary says about something. dictionaries dont begin to capture the scope of usage of words and in adult discussions we are more than capable of clarifying working definitions for each other instead of trying to use the dictionary to rules-lawyer the other person's arguement
  19. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Most of all, this. I am really bewildered about why so many pages of discussion sprang up, which is why I restricted myself to one light-hearted comment.

    On the one hand, yes, the guy was painfully and obviously wrong about the definition of that particular word. On the other, the verse is still arguing that the arguments of atheists that would shake his religious faith are A)wrong and B)should be disregarded. That's more or less what he was trying to do, so I don't see what was inappropriate about his quotation. You could well argue that he shouldn't feel these things challenge his faith in the first place, since plenty of Christians (several on this board) accept the credibility of things like carbon dating. But to argue whether there was or wasn't specific religious edict against the study of geology was bizarre, guys.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  20. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    The Book of Job is beautifully written with very vivid imagery. Doesn't mean I agree with it one bit or consider it to be "good". It's one of my least favorite books in the Bible.
  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    There's an interesting correlation between the number of people who doubt Wikipedia's viability as a reference tool; and those who have been proven wrong by one of its articles.

    So long as the article isn't about anything to do with Israel, and thus under a constant siege from radical Zionists who edit anything remotely criticial out, you should be fine to rely on it. If some git has vandalised the article, and you can't detect it, then lol @ you.
  22. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    My favorite was when looking up the Dominican Republic (as I will be vacationing there in April), someone had made the page to show some guy performing fellatio on a visible penis because... getting back at the dude.

    And not everything in the Israel article is false. Just likely anything from 1920s onward. :p
  23. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Wikipedia does this silly thing called citing its sources right there in the given article.
    Last edited by VadersLaMent, Feb 17, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  24. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9

    *citing

    Yeah from about the Balfour Declaration became a thing, through Sharon's war crimes to modern human rights abominations. Between Zionists and the Islamists in Hezbollah I am frankly surprised we don't have a working two state solution.[/quote]
    Last edited by Ender Sai, Feb 17, 2014
  25. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    This is interesting. What don't you like about Job? The last few times I've read, I've come to enjoy the argument of Elihu more and more, and God's response is likewise hugely enlightening.