Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Plate tectonics-- though I actually don't know if there are really (fossilized) seashells on Everest of if it's just bull**** by Flood proponents. The Indian subcontinent is crashing into Asia and making the highest mountain range in the world even higher. The top of Everest may have been sea floor at some point in the past, and it had nothing to do with a flood reaching miles above current sea level (sea levels changing mostly because of cycles of glaciation).

This source is from Googling, but I've heard from plenty of authorities on the subject who have made the same assessment.

 

Plate tectonics, though by your own admission you don't understand it and attribute every phenomenon it causes to a global flood.

Also, πασχα.

 

And as there was no worldwide flood, it is pointless to bring it up as a possible explanation for the fossil distribution.

 

And you just claimed to be an avid science fan...

Rogue, your homeschool post was the funniest thing I've read in like... 8 hours. Wanna spot me? I'm doing chest.

 

Are you suggesting that you don't? I thought your problem was with people who mistook the genre of the writings? Since this is prose, isn't this something you would have believed? Or were you ever going to answer my questions there?

I know it's pretty easy to punch way down, and laugh at someone who happens to both disagree with you and make a whole series of obvious mistakes, like history of the composition of the King James Version of the Bible and the derivation of the word "Easter." But I should hope you would spare some time for actual discussion.

 

anakinsoloanarchist plz post an article or excerpt from your textbook or something about fossils on mt everest. that sounds interesting

 

first of all i'd like to apologize. that last post was super sassy. not sure why talking about this stuff makes me so...frustrated...but it does. so sorry about that.

Point 1: I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, and I agree with you. I just think a literal reading of the entire Bible is exclusive with what we scientifically know about the universe. Can you show us how true science backs up the creation theory? Because I haven't seen anything like that. And it's not from lack of trying.

Point 2: What's your evidence for this? I mean, why do you believe it, specifically. Like, have you seen somebody walk on water with God's power? Or move a mountain? If you haven't, the scientific thing to think would be it's not possible. Or, at least, doesn't happen these days. That's how a scientist thinks. If there's no evidence for something, there's no reason to believe it. So how can you be a fan of science and also believe these things?

Point 3: My purpose wasn't to be true to what revelation says. My purpose was to show how preposterous is to say you love science and also think the Bible is literally true. Because the Bible says some things that, when taken literally, don't make sense if you have a scientific world view. Like dragons and ****.

Point 4: I do place face in god and her word. Can you show provide examples of how i don't, to back up your claim?

 

JabWAC: yeah, i don't. but not because of the genre thing we were talking about earlier. it's clear to me that the gospels (and acts) are meant to be taken as historical fact. that's pretty obvious. i just don't think the historical facts they record are actually facts. i'm sure the dudes saw something, but i don't think it was what they think it was, because that doesn't coincide with how i believe the world works.

the other possibility is that the dudes writing the gospels had a specifically jewish agenda (making their readers believe that jesus was the messiah) and so they put some of the miraculous stuff in where it fit (coincidentally, it fits perfectly with some cut and pasted prophesies from the Hebrew scriptures!!!).

or maybe it was a combination of the two. that's actually where i tend to land. jesus was cool and he did some cool (and some unexplainable) stuff, and he was also being followed by particular jews with particular agendas and particular interpretations of the stuff they said.

and before you ask how i reconcile this reading with what paul says when he goes all 'if this stuff didn't actually happen then it's all worthless!!!!' i'll just say that i think he's wrong, there. like i think he's wrong about a bunch of other stuff.

 

i think "paul was a big dumb douchebag" is a very "christian" point of view to hold, if not necessarily a very Christian one

 

i'm reading a really good book right now that's making me give him a little more credit, but "kind of a douchebag" and "actually a douchebag" doesn't make much of a difference.

 

he even sounds like a recognizable type of douchebag we all know irl. that guy who stumbles on some project or group kind of late in the game once all the hard work's done and kind of makes it his thing like "oh no no this is how we're gonna run things from now on" and everyone else who's been around longer is like "haha who the **** are you, what the **** are you talking about, *******? you didnt even like The Way five minutes ago and now you're trying to take over?"

im pretty sure the origin of the "jerk-off" gesture could be traced to first century corinth if our archaeology were advanced enough

http://www.b3tards.com/u/0bb7ac49b9769052ddb6/****er.gif

 

So wait, then, Master Penn. Do you believe that Jesus was divine at all?

Further, are you in fact saying that naturalistic explanations are your first screen for whether or not something in the Bible can be considered true? How do you deal with concepts like sin, the soul, and an afterlife, none of which have any scientific support?

Finally, if you have such a deep antipathy for Paul, what do you make of the apostles, like Peter and James, who so openly embraced him and considered him their equals? Do you also reject their teachings, by extension?

 

serfbort

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the prophecies of the messiah is that he would be of the seed of David? The genealogies in Matthew clearly show that Joseph was a direct descendant of David. But since Jesus wasn't of Joseph's seed, doesn't that prove that Jesus couldn't have been the messiah?

 

dawg you can appreciate the beatles without liking yoko ono

 

Even if true, the most literal reading would be that G-d is the seed of both David (having created Adam, from whom all descended) and Jesus (direct intervention) most likely. I'd hardly consider that the sticking point of the Messiah...

 

Yes, you can. But if he trusts their theology, he sort of has to account for the fact that they endorsed Paul's. I'm not just saying that they liked him. I'm pointing out that an explicit part of their religious teachings were "what this other guy says is all correct." Thus, if you reject the other guy, you are at least in part rejecting their teachings as well.

 

politics, holmes.

 

What does that response mean? Are you citing that as the reason the apostles said what they did?

I suppose it is a possibility. But I don't really know if that's what Penn thinks. Nor do I know, even if he thought that way, if he thinks that's a reason to reject that teaching or not. Maybe he has some weird rationalization that makes their comment true and reconcilable with his own views?

I can't tell until he says something. Just like I can't tell about the divinity of Jesus, or how he decides what things in the Bible are true or not. Turns out it's incredibly difficult to have a conversation with someone who won't actually articulate their thoughts on the subject.

 

maybe he's just lazy and prefers the low-hanging fruit of anakinsoloanarchist and his cohorts. i know i do

 

For you, that's perfectly appropriate, as you haven't really pretended to do otherwise in this thread.

Penn, though, in the last half-week alone, has made constant references to how familiar he is with "real" theological study of the Bible as opposed to what others have put forward, and knows about how Christians can practice the "real [expletive]." He has made more constant reference to his authoritative grasp of the subject than KK in a gun thread. At least that guy has the decency to defend his views. Penn claims expertise endlessly and then has become increasingly reticent when people try to engage in an actual discussion.

PRENNTACULAR: That's acting in incredibly bad faith. If you're going to say something, do so. If you're just here to make fun of someone, go ahead and say so. We've got plenty of thread participants that do that already, so it really won't be a bother. But in that case, stop pretending like you're going to at some point want to be seen as credible.

 

Ask and ye shall receive: Link 1 Mentions marine fossils on the summit, on this and other links I found on StartPage. Link 2 The Noahic flood sculpted the world as we know it today, there's no reason to believe fossils couldn't have been deposited on the summit since the waters topped it.

 

link one is interesting. link two is interesting in an entirely different way

 

You do realize the irony of citing 400 million year old fossils to defend a young Earth creationist schema, right?

 

Have to represent my stand on the young earth idea somehow.

Yes. I thought about calling it out but decided not to. The point was that there are fossils on Mt. Everest, not how old they were. However, the crushing pressures of all the water DO have the capacity to cause fossilization to occur very rapidly.