BS: Church joins real world

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:25 AM

Read the posts, your own included unless I am mistaken on YEC.

Then say the petes of this world just go to church and mind their own business...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:20 AM

"people like yourself accommodate the petes of this world "

And the alternative? The **pete's** seldom bother me... meaning that aside from causing your blood pressure to rise, they usually just got to church and pray.

It's the rabid non-Pete's that concern me. I wish that there could be a vaccination against irrationality, but the lure of the " floating in the poetry of it all " is very strong and I dare say will always be with us... and in that form does little harm...except to provide a vehicle for the rabid ones to use. 'Vehicles' will always be abused, whether run by petrol or bibles... but each can be valueable.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

For crying out loud Joe!

Read my posts in full, don't cherry pick!

I do not see faith in concrete terms and constantly mention the comfort many people get from it. My main bone of contention is that people like yourself accommodate the petes of this world rather than see the harm they create by associating religion with absurd fantasy.

Yes, I'm sure it is a metaphor and the many religious friends and in my wife's case, family with faith are comfortable with their creed.

Meanwhile, the unhinged idiots happy to be called creationists are too stupid to be exposed to metaphor because they think it's real, every last bit of it, are politicising it, lobbying governments and trying to force their hobby as a social and political agenda.

You know what? I think mainstream religions have a role in stopping encouraging them. Its actually in their interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 05:40 AM

Musket, I look on "faith" as a masterpiece painting to be pondered and appreciated. In ways, it's a metaphor, meant to express the beauty and magnificence and mystery in terms that are not clinical and perhaps not completely rational. Nonetheless, that masterpiece gives depth and meaning to my life that I wouldn't have otherwise. It's not for everyone - but for me, it has meaning.

I'm sorry that you and Pete are able to see faith only in such concrete terms, and feel bound to prove or disprove it all. As for me, I'll float in the poetry of it all and just absorb and ponder it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 05:37 AM

Just so long as you don't remind us of your despicable agenda. Some of us have only just finished our breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 04:02 AM

"pointing and laughing", is the only tool you have on many subjects Ian.
I don't think you really care at all about "faith" only the church's obstruction of your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 03:48 AM

Propagating it, telling children it is true and reality is wrong, lobbying government to allow bigotry and discrimination in the name of religion..,.

My mate who believes the moon landings didn't happen, now that's innocent and none insulting. But creationism is a force insisting on credibility. That's why it needs shouting down Joe. Not just get at pete. He has every right to be slightly unhinged and good luck to him. It's when the buggers get together and try to influence society.

Rather than support their right, churches should consider the harm they cause by association. It must be goading to see pete dismiss you and your studies over the years as "boutique." Why say he isn't insulting when he insults your own faith Joe?

Ed. Fairy story might sound insulting but giving it status above what it is doesn't alter anything. Nothing outside the laws of physics actually happened. Nobody came back from the dead. No virgin gave birth. No supernatural being interfered in peoples' lives. Even the bit they got right, they got the wrong way round. God was made in our image.

Faith is a comfort blanket for those who need it, but organised religions need to know their place in c21. They have no right to interfere outside of their membership, yet they do. Whilst ever they do, they will be jeered at by ignorant twats like me. You can't argue philosophy with them because they can move the goalposts too easily. So pointing and laughing is the most effective tool there is.

I repeat. If someone uses their imaginary friend as part of a debate, there is little point in trying to rationalise with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 12:53 AM

Well, there are certainly some insulting posters in these threads, but Pete isn't one of them. But some of you hone insult to a fine art....

Pete says what he believes. I disagree with it, as most of you do. But it's what he believes. How can we consider that insulting?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:46 PM

Think deeper Musket, and take the time to think, versus shooting from the hip.

You could kearn some "deeper thinking" lessions from Bilk D. There are more to consider than oft repeated"fairy tale" one liners.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:45 PM

No fire. No dust.

If you don't understand Big Bang , stop trying to align it to fairy stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:38 PM

Fire 
Ever wonder who is active translating and interpreting old tablets that form the basis of the Bible, and wondered iv they get along and agree?

This website gives good perspective, from onebperson involved. An interesting read under the different titles.

Could the fire and dust origin in the Bible be from the big bang? Interesting interpretations of old hebrew words, used in the Bible segments.

an interesting site 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:28 PM

".. I take it that any bug on board were stowaways and not requisite passengers !."

LOLOL... nice dodging, Pete... but not as clever as " but in theology the rule of thumb is to compare scripture with scripture, esp when in the same passage, "

Internally consistent, huh? That is very convenient... methinks there's a bug in your reasoning...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

well ,I can see the argument from your side, and admittedly where there might seem to be an uncertainty I am going to choose what I consider best. the whole chapter considered though, seems to qualify rather than be all encompassing. but then, I can see that you might say it rather gives some specifics of the whole.
just noticed too, bill, your comment on "bugs" and admittedly "creeping things" might be taken as bugs, but in theology the rule of thumb is to compare scripture with scripture, esp when in the same passage, so unless we grant your poetic nostrils to bugs, I take it that any bug on board were stowaways and not requisite passengers !.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:04 AM

Oops, me above.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:04 AM

Pete - I've just looked up v23 which you called in your defence:

"Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

Again, I can't see that helps your argument. I would read that 'Every living thing' as the dominant phrase. By comparision, omit the text before the semicolon: "people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth". My understanding is that is what you believe the verse means - the part before the semicolon is entirely superfluous. But the part before the semicolon makes sense if the terms after it are not qualifiers but instead emphasise the extent of the destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:09 PM

This has turned into a fascinating discussion.
I wish we could debate all subjects in such a manner....well done

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:17 PM

I can see why you would like it to be a qualifier of the following verse, but I see it as emphasising the destruction. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, but I am saying your assumption is just that: an assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM

when I say that you set such store by that verse, I am obviously not implying you believe it. I was merely answering in your own phrasing, to point out that you are trying to counter my argument by pointing to 7v4. other vs in same passage qualify, including v23 where the word "substance" is qualified as to what is included.
yes, bill, nostrils is a poetic Hebraism, but that does not mean the account is not historical, anymore than if I said the sun rose today. should I be more scientifically precise [and boring!] to convey that information?.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:30 PM

Also I see you are still assuming the declaration about nostrils means beetles are exclude from the destruction. But that not the case. If I said to you "It was a terrible battle. All Mrs Jones' sons were killed" it say not one jot about the fate of Mrs Smith's sons. Similarly telling you what happened to things with nostrils says nothing at all about the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

if the vs you set such store by must insist there be no substance surviving whatever, it would be a contradiction to add that those on the ark did not, it is a qualifier. as is "..all in whose nostrils.."

Actually, you know, you are the one who sets great store by the verses being interpreted literally!

I am sure everyone knows the story in general terms, but it is clear throughout the whole passage that Noah and family are to be safe. It would be unnecessary for every single verses to be followed by "(except Noah and his family)": this is implied by the context. The repetition for the specific verse makes sense both in context and in the art of storytelling.

No such special dispensation was given to beetles.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 03:19 PM

"Nostrils" is a poetic term. Whether you choose to treat it as literal and inspired or not, it was penned and transmitted by human scribes with 'opinions' and fish to fry.. (another poetic term). It is logical only if YOU can demonstrate its premises are true.

...and.."every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,.. seems to override 'nostrils' as a general category. Bugs, as 'creeping things' don't have nostrils.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:33 PM

dmcg- no I was not thinking of you as abusive, you have been absent for awhile, neither, bill. but you got to admit there are definitely a few it does include.
you would have a point if there was no qualifying in the text, but full points for being a clever debater.
if the vs you set such store by must insist there be no substance surviving whatever, it would be a contradiction to add that those on the ark did not, it is a qualifier. as is "..all in whose nostrils.."
seems logical to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 07:35 AM

True. I like to think people in general are nice and don't despise strangers for falling in love with people they wouldn't fall in love with.

I will have to remain delusional till bigotry is dead and buried eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:43 AM

We all have delusions Ian, You, more so than anyone I have encountered.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 04:18 AM

Thank you D.

I can't prove any of the God stuff to be bollocks but neither can I prove hobgoblins don't hide my socks.

Over the last three hundred years, biblical explanations of the world have been found to be bollocks though. Not proven of course, but nothing is proven if you apply the test and logic pete is applying.

Including his god delusion....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 03:25 AM

And, pete, please note I do not mock or abuse or indulge in vulgarity. I do, however, ask you to give explanations of how your theory fits observations I make, such as the large number of species of beetle.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:52 AM

If either of you get into a discussion about Occam's razor, you need to be clear it says nothing about proof at all. It merely says given a choice between two theories that cover all the facts, the simpler is to be preferred. Nothing about it being right. Indeed, given a new piece of evidence, the 'simpler' theory it preferred may no longer cover all the facts and we might need to move to the one previously rejected as over-complicated.

The essential problem with the creationist view is that it doesn't cover all the facts (actually a really strict creationist view would, but since creationists usually want to believe the bible as well, that's a problem.)

So when a creationist is faced with a difficult problem - let's say pete on the question of how many species of beetle on the ark (see past threads) - he either has to say he doesn't know or say they weren't on the ark but survived by another mechanism despite these two verses of the bible:

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Notice the all-inclusiveness of those verses. Pete puts all his store in this verse, which precedes the second of those above:
"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."

So despite two verses saying everything was destroyed, pete insists it is only those with nostrils that died. This is of course a logical error on top of everything else. Because everything with property A died, it is erroneous to assume it means the not-A survived.

And pete, as we went through on another occasion, the (neo)Darwin theory is breathtaking in its simplicity. That it explains a vast amount of the complexity of the world does not make it complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:26 PM

as I understand it, occams razor means favouring the solution that needs the least bolstering or supplementary support.
wrong or not, what does that prove?. certainly not the complexity of Darwinist dogma.
the only thing that I reckon has been proven here, is that there are a lot of atheists and skeptics here that like to engage in abuse, vulgarity and mockery, rather than mature discussion.
so, musket, what has been proven ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 11:52 AM

Occams razor.

If you understand probability at any academic level, we can discuss it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:38 AM

and what has been proven already, musket ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 01:38 AM

Or those pete and his mates try to convince, disregarding what has been proven already.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:36 PM

Bill, It would be impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a "soul", just as it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of "God", that is where faith comes in and as you say that is nobodies business but yours or mine or pete's.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:03 PM

Trust me, if there is hope for you I am the last person to close down a debate, considering I started it.

Forgive me if I see an uphill battle all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:48 PM

*sneaking back in to comment on this*:

"of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet" (yes...in ovulating species)

That may or may not be the case, depending on certain subjective definitions of biological status. Obviously, something relevant & important occurs. When an egg is fertilized and cell division begins, a zygote is produced and begins mitosis.... and if not interrupted, can eventually become a new living individual.
   However, agreement on these terms and the sequence is not really what the controversy is about. It is not even mostly about the stage at which a fetus (my spell checker's spelling)could survive outside the mother's womb, although that is important for certain decisions.
   What is really being question is when...and whether something called a 'soul' enters the zygote/fetus. IF there are such things as souls which are 'automatically' inserted by some divine process into each zygote, the argument goes, then interfering with the process amounts to 'killing' a human being.
   What is usually not discussed is the specific premises that are implied by this viewpoint. To shorten all this, the very concepts of 'divine being' & 'soul' and what it means to interfere with them is a major item for debate and discussion. We see zygotes and measure them and photograph them - we have no way to document the addition of 'souls.

   Because the very basic concepts are a matter of differing opinions, each individual must come to a decision about how to decide the issue, and it makes no sense for someone who believes one thing to have any right to interfere in the decisions of anyone on the other side!
   There are LONG philosophical arguments about explicating this situation, but a practical view would be that "mind your own business" is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:04 PM

DMcG is probably an expert

Most certainly not. I am a mathematician by training and a computer scientist by employment. I have never had any more to do with the medical profession that anyone else with occasional sniffles, check ups and injections.

No-one should assume I am an authoritative source on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:07 PM

Ian, I realise that DMcG is probably an expert and I am certainly not, but I like to be informed and am not quite as closed minded as you.
The purpose of debate is to inform......that's why you always try to close it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:03 PM

Hmm, interesting points DMcG, but how do they effect how we define the construction of a human embryo?....Which is surely what the pro lifers are promoting?

Whether DNA has a "life" of its own, is surely incidental to the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:32 PM

Too many big words, not enough massaging of his ignorance.

This could be interesting. I'll get the pork scratchings.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:05 PM

Normally I'd drop the conversation at this point, ale, but as it is crucial to the pro-life argument I will post again on this sub-topic. We have reasonably clear idea what it means for a creature post-birth to be alive (although even that is not easy in the case of severe comas, for example). But there's no clarity at all what we mean be life when we are at the cellular level. Of course we may adopt the convention that we will call something alive in certain situations, but we are rarely consistent. Are the unfertilised ova and sperm alive? Is the DNA sample the police have just taken alive? On what grounds is a cell in one situation alive while another cell is not, even if both are stem cells?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:34 AM

Sorry DMG, I was referring to ovulating species and should have made that clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:26 AM

Must have been that shot of adrenalin they gave him..

Most accounts show the Romans were pretty good at executing. I doubt they took a bloke down when he was still alive. One way to check is to take the nails out of the hands first and see if he shouts "FFFUUUCCKKK!!" as he shows us how to touch his toes without bending his legs.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:23 AM

joe, matt 12 vs 38 - 41. sounds like he thought it historical, actual persons and events.
"for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" v40.
as far as study of ancient ms is concerned, I agree that they expressed their thoughts different to modern western modes, but as in origins debate, worldview colours interpretation , at least to some extent. but as a layman just looking at this passage in English [while noting ancient expression] , I think he meant it to be understood as historical......
of course, you might think that jesus did not rise after 3 days, in which case your suggestion might work....for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:47 AM

of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet

As with almost everything else in biology, 'life' is a much more evasive idea than it first appears. There are a huge number of species that reproduce asexually, so the generalisation is at the very least too sweeping. There have been many debates on whether things like viruses are alive or not, there is continuing discussion in the medical world what constitutes death ... when it comes to 'life', there are few instances of 'of course' in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:33 AM

I especially enjoyed the word "wither"

The species survival bit doesn't explain that DVD you lent me called Lesbian Lusts.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:47 AM

This whole line of debate is a "red herring", of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet.

In more difficult times males fertilised as many females as possible to ensure species survival, but as we have advanced in food production, social structure etc, contraception has become a necessity.
This has no bearing on wither or not we "enjoy" sex, or on the issue of "God" or religious faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:25 AM

DMcG -- Many thanks for that explanation. I get all the technicalities now.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:12 AM

When I was involved in regulation and termination of pregnancy came up, I objectively heard evidence from all sides and technical input from obstetrics specialists. The UK position from both The Abortion Act 1968 and The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (and complimentary acts for Scotland and Wales) is the interest of the woman up to the cut off date and joint her and the foetus thereafter.

Many religious views put forward dismissed the interest of the woman and concentrated on the potential child. The reasoning given was that their religion taught them that life begins at conception. There was no room for "that's your view but may not be the view of the patient." To which I was told, "you nor anybody else has the right to challenge God. "

If ever you want to see sensitive subjects dealt with insensitively, look no further than such awful people. Then they want to be respected?

(Perhaps they also are of the opinion that sex is purely for procreation. Wrong. I for one have enjoyed shagging over the years, and so have my partners. Only my first wife and I ever thought of procreation, and then at a time of our choosing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:48 AM

I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:-

'The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation"'

Can anyone explain, please, what they meant by this? In what sense do they use "implantation".

I think it is fairly clear, if lacking in precision. Let me give a clipping from a guide to pregnancy site:

After completing its six-day journey through your fallopian tube, the blastocyst you'll one day call your baby reaches its ultimate destination and begins to attach itself to the uterine lining. About 30 percent of the time, implantation bleeding will occur as that bundle of cells burrows its way into the uterine wall. Implantation bleeding, which is usually very scant and either light pink, light red, or light brown, occurs earlier than your expected period. Don't mistake it for your period, and don't worry about the bleeding — it's not a sign that something is wrong.

Now, if you want to have a clear definition of when life starts, as pro-lifers do, conception is nice and easy. However it is a simple fact that many fertilized ova do not implant in the womb for a variety of reasons, and we do not say these women were pregnant, if only because for most of human existence we simply had no way of noticing, (and even today it would be pushing the bounds of possibility).

So the next point you might consider is you wanted a definition is implantation. The 'morning-after' pill worked by preventing implantation. But if you can get the general population to think the best point to say life starts is at implantation rather than conception then Pro-Lifers have lost a vast amount of ground. Also since they typically believe life starts at conception, they regard the fertilized ova as killed exactly as much as by an abortion. Which is why the idea fills them with horror.

You don't have to agree with people to understand them!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:25 AM

"I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:"
Me neither Mike - the Church and its hangers on's attitude to sex an procreation has always been beyond me.
I was quite fascinated by the suggestion that rapists tended to be impotent and the rising cambers (should have read numbers) of homosexuals were a conspiracy because "there couldn't be that any physically deformed people in society."   
We are now seeing a rise in religious fundamentalism on the subject - perhaps time will reveal all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:06 AM

Yeah, Joe has already answered this debate in the new one.

I set this one up purely to discuss that The Church of England now allows women to hold senior management roles after a vote. I thought it good on one level yet hilarious on another. Biblical teaching being put to the vote and losing.

That debate got lost in the fog.