 sj |
||
|
||
BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 19 May 07 - 03:56 AM Pardon the Segue: When were dinosaur bones first discovered and by whom? Seems like it must have been a BIG day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Bee Date: 19 May 07 - 09:11 AM http://rfreeman.myweb.uga.edu/GEOL3350_'4HistoryDinoSt.htm Here, Ebbie - it's a nice list of early discoveries and attempts to explain what the bones might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 07 - 12:26 PM Yeah, so the idea of something such as a "dinosaur" did not even occur to anyone until the early 1800's. How could the writers of the Bible have written about something that wasn't even a known concept at the time in which they were writing? ;-) They wrote about stuff they could relate to, and stuff which they thought was important enough to merit writing about. They did mention something about a dragon, in that Satan was referred to as a dragon in some passage. The prevalence of dragon myths in old legends in many parts of the world is an interesting phenomenon, given that the dragon seems to combine features of legged reptiles, snakes, and birds. It also is normally said to "breathe fire". Perhaps the dragon legends had some kind of conscious or subconscious link to the dinosaurs that once inhabited the Earth. Then again, maybe not. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to figure it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 19 May 07 - 03:06 PM Thanks, Bee. It's a fascinating website. It's not surprising that fossils and bones had been discovered hundreds of years before a scientific explanation was attempted, but it was a great leap to understanding that all those bits and pieces were of a totally different epoch. If I remember correctly - not that I was there - the tales of gorillas were not vindicated until the late 1800s. Isn't it good to realize that NOW we know everything. *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 07 - 03:30 PM Did humans and dinosaurs co-exist? Of course! Here is authentic, irrefutable documentation: HERE (commemorative stamp). Further proof HERE. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Peace Date: 19 May 07 - 03:39 PM ". . . but leave them alone and they'll come home, dragon there tails behind them." Well, they're in nursery rhymes, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 07 - 03:52 PM Dinosaur love songs: Last night I dreamt I was a brontosaurus,Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 07 - 04:00 PM I think it's a great shame that the brontosaurus got renamed the apatosaurus. It doesn't sound half as good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 07 - 04:40 PM Apparently there are some paleontologists, notwithstanding the mix-up of heads, who contend that the brontosaurus and the Apatosaurus should be regarded as two separate species, but they seem to be in the minority. And the word "brontosaurus," which has a nice, massive ring to it, has gone into the popular lexicon. When Jim put the above verses together, between the beer and the Mexican laughing-tobacco, he wasn't making particularly fine paleontological distinctions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Wolfgang Date: 22 May 07 - 12:34 PM What will happen if a tyrannosaur running to the East meets a tyrannosaur running to the West? Tyrannosaur wrecks. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 23 May 07 - 12:22 PM lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing Date: 23 May 07 - 02:10 PM A Big Bang! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 23 May 07 - 06:03 PM Followed by a nasty argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 24 May 07 - 01:15 PM Can you just imagine T-Rex mating season? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos Date: 24 May 07 - 03:22 PM I could, Ebb, but I don't think I want to... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Buck Evgenisis Date: 25 May 07 - 04:37 AM Trex is a sort of imitation lard sold in the UK. I can't imagine how it could be used in mating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 25 May 07 - 12:26 PM It would be a lively time, wouldn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos Date: 25 May 07 - 04:33 PM Don't go there, Leedle Hack; you are starting down a slope that may be even slipperier than your own imagination can tolerate!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Donuel Date: 25 May 07 - 08:08 PM Creation Science Museums are open nation wide in the USA this summer. There should be one within 90 minutes of every huge city. With the use of Animatronics, the museum exhibits prove that the world is 6,000 years old. My favourite is the torture chamber where animatronic priests show heretic scientists the errors of their ways. I wonder what else the millions of dollars for the construction of these museums could have done that might have helped mankind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: GUEST,Loopey Date: 25 May 07 - 08:15 PM Yeah! They could've used the money to erect statues of William Shatner at the entrances of all larger towns and cities... Damn shame, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing Date: 26 May 07 - 11:32 AM Here's what some of us are doing against the creation museums: click here. Be sure to check out the I got stupider Tee-shirts!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 26 May 07 - 01:24 PM I keep being reminded of the rule of the Ayatollahs. On this track 50, 20, 10 years from now this country will be the only "Christian" nation left. And it will be enforced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 May 07 - 03:22 PM Yes, well, you can always escape to Canada if that should occur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 26 May 07 - 03:47 PM I'm not so sure, LH. Canada has tightened its requirements a great deal in recent years; my guess is the rules will become even more stringent as time passes and the US becomes ever more bizarre. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 26 May 07 - 04:08 PM Don't underestimate the Discover Institute. When it comes to peddling their ideas, these people know what they're doing. I had never heard of the Discover Institute until one evening some months ago when I watched a science show on television. At least, I thought it was a science program. The TV schedule listed a program entitled "The Privileged Planet." From the blurb, it sounded like a one-shot Nova-like program. I am somewhat addicted to such programs about astronomy, cosmology, and such, so I watched it. The show (which, incidentally, is available on DVD) was beautiful. It had excellent production values and graphics, and in this respect, it ranked right up there with the best of Nova or Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. The general thrust of the show was that the Earth is, indeed, a privileged planet. And they lined up a whole string of—yes--facts, such as how Earth lies in a "temperate zone" (just the right distance from the sun to allow water to exist in a liquid state), and how this, in turn, allows other things to take place, making Earth hospitable to cellular life. As I recall, it didn't mention evolution, which, with a lot of folks, would have raised a red flag immediately. It went on to point out that the Earth is sufficiently far from the galactic center not to be endangered by the intense radiation that might exist there, and that it does not lie within a dense cloud of gas and dust, such as many stars (and, presumably, their planets) do, so we are positioned to be able to see out into space and discover our unique place in the cosmos. So I'm watching the show, thinking, "Yeah, that's true. Yes, that's right." And, for some reason, I'm beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable. Somewhere in the last twenty minutes of the hour-long show, it sank in that this whole program was doing a masterful job of leading the viewer down the primrose path. It was a brief for "intelligent design!" Without saying so in so many words, the way they had lined out the information—and most of it was factual—it was set up to lead a person, particularly a scientifically naïve person, but a fairly scientifically sophisticated layman as well, to the conclusion that all of this could not have happened without being carefully planned out ahead of time and designed that way. Intelligently. They offer no alternative explanations. Such as: on sheer happenstance alone, there is a vast number of possibilities that exist in a cosmos as unimaginably huge as the one we inhabit. For example, the majority of stars in the universe are main sequence stars (about 90%). The sun is a main sequence star. Knowing what we know about the way stars are born, it would be unusual for such a star not to have a planetary system such as our solar system. And the way planetary orbits sort themselves out (simple celestial mechanics), most main sequence stars would have at least one planet in the "temperate zone" that would allow liquid water to exist. And how does the water get there? In the earlier stages of formation of the system, by being bombarded by comets—balls of ice and dirt—and other debris as the gravitational fields of the newly formed planets "vacuum" the leftover rubble out of their immediate orbits. Whether or not the water stays there depends mostly on the temperature of the planet, largely a function of its distance from its sun. If we apply astronomer Frank Drake's "formula" ("if only one of 100 stars is main sequence, and only one in 100 main sequence stars has planets, and only one planet in 100 has liquid water. . . ." and so on), we still come up with a galaxy that is teeming with life. And Drake's "one in 100" premise is, intentionally, exceedingly conservative. It is certainly likely—without having to invoke the supernatural—that at least a small percentage of that life develops intelligence. Given the laws of physics and chemistry (including, of course, biochemistry), and on the basis of sheer numbers alone, the universe, including our own galaxy, could easily be a very crowded place. But this "documentary" tried to convey the impression that the Earth—and the life thereon—is totally unique in this whole vast universe. I'm sure a lot of people bought it. And will continue to buy it whenever and wherever the program or the DVD is shown. Believe me, these people know how to get their message across. Don't underestimate them! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Alice Date: 26 May 07 - 04:35 PM One of the methods of "thought reform" used to recruit people into an ideology... feed little facts a bit of a time, mixed with untruths until eventually a person swallows it all... but you can't eat an elephant in one bite. You can if it is fed a bite at a time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Amos Date: 26 May 07 - 06:04 PM Maybe this planet is something like Australia once was -- a dumping ground for the unwanted DNA from ancient star civilizations. 'Course, Australia is special, too! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 May 07 - 09:33 PM Like you, Don, I figure that there are probably a great many inhabited planets rather similar to the Earth out there in the Universe, and that they are all no doubt many millions or billions of years old. Some of them must have what we would term intelligent life too. But why should that be taken as an argument against the concept of God? The fact that it is puzzles me about as much as the fact that some people think the Earth is only around 6,000 years old. But then, every opinion is based on certain underlying broad assumptions, isn't it? You have to find out what someone's broad assumptions are before you really have a clue what they are talking about when they voice an opinion. People tend to jump to a lot of false conclusions, based on their assumption that people who don't share their own opinion are probably stupid, ignorant, or crazy.... ;-) Such is often not the case at all. For instance, I know 2 extremely intelligent and well-informed people who are Jehovah's Witnesses. They are the kind of people who are bound to do well in life, because they are smart, hard-working, well educated, and have very good character and self-discipline to boot! I wish I was as capable in general life skills as those two people are. Seriously. And yet they believe all kinds of strange (to me) religious stuff I could never believe...for one simple reason: they take the Bible as God's Word. And I don't. I take it as a series of religious books written in ancient times by a series of religious people who probably thought that they were doing God's work as best they understood it at the time. Accordingly, I do not take the Bible as authority, but my friends do. If I didn't already know them well, I might make some totally ill-founded assumptions about their intelligence, etc....and they might do likewise, I suppose, about mine. As it is, we mutually respect and like one another and we accept that we differ in some basic beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 27 May 07 - 03:29 PM "But why should that be taken as an argument against the concept of God?" It shouldn't, really. If a person assumes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it should be taken literally (i.e. the fundamentalist view), then if you contest the idea that God created the Heavens and the Earth in an actual six calendar days and that dinosaurs either did not exist or co-existed with Adam and Eve, then that person might assume that you are arguing that God doesn't exist. But I offer a different view. My reading and study of astronomy and cosmology, with it's preponderance of evidence, indicates to me that the universe began 13 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and that then the working out of the laws of physics and chemistry eventually produced the earth and us. And an immense amount that we have yet to learn about. Hence, rather than assuming that I have total knowledge of the origins of "Life, the Universe, and Everything," I am open to new information and, if necessary, revision of that which was previously assumed to be true. Including the possibility that it may have all been started by some kind of deity or higher intelligence—the nature and purposes of which we do not know (no matter what the claims to the contrary). My fundamentalist friend worships a fairly puny God (barely more than a modestly talented wizard with an ego problem, who can't seem to get it right and has to keep messing with it) compared to the kind of intelligence that it would take to create this vast universe by merely saying, "Let there be Light!" followed by an immense KA-BOOM!!! and the rest, this deity (?) knows, will follow without further interference or tinkering. Those laws of physics and chemistry, that the Deity knows full well, eventually produce the Earth and we who reside upon it. And the intelligent, technological kangaroo-like beings who inhabit Alpha Centauri Two, the highly intelligent octopus-like creatures on Wolf 359's single water planet who are not technological, but who are poets and communicate telepathically, the intelligent, technological, and very human-like inhabitants of Procyon Four, and the small, humanoid space-faring inhabitants of Sirius Three who occasionally drop in here to see what we're up to. . . . And these, our brethren, in our fairly immediate neighborhood in the galaxy, whom we have yet to meet (as far as we know). One can believe that there is a God—a being capable of creating this whole, immense universe (and perhaps an infinite number of others)—without buying the idea that the world was created a mere 6,000 years ago and that the "Wizard" in question dug up river mud and literally molded some dude named Adam out of it, then laid down a lot of "do's" and "don't's." Like I say: kinda puny compared to the hypothetical God I can imagine might possibly exist. One likes to know of course. Some folks simply can't stand uncertainty, so they have to make up myths they can believe in. But I find that I am fairly comfortable with mystery. I prefer that to operating on totally irrational assumptions and vociferously denying obvious facts. Mystery is fine. If I knew absolutely everything, life would be boring as hell. There wouldn't be anything left to learn. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 May 07 - 07:22 PM Well said, Don. I agree that your fundamentalist friend's version of God is very small..."puny", as you put it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Folkiedave Date: 28 May 07 - 06:20 AM A paradox which no christian has ever managed to explain to me is the question of omniscient and omnipotence. These are mutually incompatible for if God is omniscient then he must already know how he is going to change the world using his omnipotence. But that means he cannot change his mind about his intervention which means he is not omnipotent. Anyone help me out with this one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 May 07 - 09:42 AM Taking the Bible "literally" is not the "fundamentalist" point of view. Describing it as such is a distortion of the "fundamentalist" point of view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 May 07 - 10:57 AM Hey! That's an amusing way of looking at it, Folkiedave. I doubt that anyone can help you out with it. But it's based on a number of questionable assumptions. One of them is that God "intervenes". For that to be the case, God would have to be separate, correct? I mean, you have to be separate from a situation in order to intervene, don't you? What if God is not separate from anything? If so, then God would automatically know about everything, right? So there you have the omniscient quality, at least. As for the omnipotent quality, that means: all-powerful. Well, I guess if God were the source of all energy behind all acts that occur that would make God all-powerful...in the sense that without God there, there'd be no energy and nothing would happen. But these are just theories I'm proposing as possible answers to your questions... Maybe life as we know it is a bit like a gigantic computer game...God being the intelligence that created the game as well as providing the electricity and creating the machinery that allows the game to function and play out. Thus God is equivalent to game designer, computer manufacturer, and power company. Let's figure a game like one of the Sims adventures...or Rome: Total War....or some other game with a fictional world peopled by an unlimited number of apparently freely acting characters. That's us. ;-) Now note that the game is designed in such a way that all the characters have what certainly appears to be a good measure of free will to make their own decisions. They react intelligently (well, somewhat intelligently) to things done by the other characters in the game. They interact. They agree and disagree. They change their minds. They live and die. They win and lose. Now tell me, is the designer of the game and the person playing the game omniscient and omnipotent in regards to what happens in the game? Yes and no. If I take the "God" role while I'm playing "Rome: Total War" then I am omniscient, because I start the game up, I play it, I obsere its progress, and I can turn it off if I want to. HOWEVER....since the game is designed to give all its characters the ability to make decisions and use what appears to be their own free will while the game is running...and it is....things can happen which I didn't plan on while I was playing the game! And they do. Some danged country decides suddenly to attack Rome, and I wasn't expecting them to. Plague strikes one of my cities and kills off my best general! An earthquake devastates my capital! I could intervene, I suppose, by just turning the darn game off and starting over, but it would be more fun to play it out and see what happens. Am I omniscient and omnipotent in this game that I and I alone am in charge of? Yes and no. Maybe I don't want to be omniscient and omnipotent in regards to everything in the game, because it would simply be too boring. It would be pointless. So maybe I prefer a situation where my omnipotence and my omniscience are put aside in order to create a more exciting and interesting situation. I like the fact that the characters in the game have a certain amount of free will, and that unexpected things happen. It makes the game worth playing. But without me (the player in charge), there is no game. Another theory for you to consider... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: katlaughing Date: 28 May 07 - 11:20 AM Ah! So...we are here to relieve God's boredom!**bg** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 28 May 07 - 11:35 AM Well put, Little Hawk. Meaty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Folkiedave Date: 28 May 07 - 12:00 PM Taking the Bible "literally" is not the "fundamentalist" point of view. Describing it as such is a distortion of the "fundamentalist" point of view. Then what is the fundamentalist view regarding the literalness of the bible. Clearly they cannot believe in the Old Testament - unless they have never really read it of course.....And the New Testament is dodgy historically. So where does the bible fit into funadmentalist belief? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Alice Date: 28 May 07 - 12:55 PM As Fundamentalism originally referred to a Protestant movement in the 20th century, one of its basic beliefs was the literal truth of the bible. That is one of five faith doctrines of Protestant fundamentalism. Now, the word is starting to be applied to faiths other than Protestant Christianity. It is used to describe strict adherance to beliefs and literal scriptures, but the definition seems to be morphing and becoming more broad. Look in the dictionary, and you will see the definition of the 5 fundamental Christian doctrines, but listen to the media and you will hear the word used in many ways. Wikipedia discusses these changes of the meaning on its page about Fundamentalism. Bible literalism was basic in the beginning of Christian Fundamentalism, but apparently because some people now who call themselves Fundamentalists don't always believe in bible literalism, the word needs to be re-defined. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 May 07 - 02:12 PM "Then what is the fundamentalist view regarding the literalness of the bible."[sic] Just as there are many who accept evolution, but misunderstand and wrongly describe it by examples of grey and/or white moths, or by some fish's "want to" causing it to grow legs so it could explore the land... ...there are fundamentalists who do not understand, nor can they correctly explain the finer points of "verbal plenary inspriration". To reject evolution because some lay people so thoroughly butcher the explanation of it, is as stupid as describing fundamentalism as "taking the Bible literally". What they believe is that the Bible is the inspired word of God -- a book of grace whereby God communicated to man through man. They believe that the actual, flawless scripture would be the first one written. Therefore, though they would contend that the various versions contain the word of God, no one translation or version is perfect. They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would accept cultural context -- that the scripture, to be best understood would have to first understand that much of it was written to a specific recipient. They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would also accept historical context -- that some of what was written will not be understood if explained into the wrong timeframe. They would say that that which is meant to be literal, and theological/ethical/moral principle, is, indeed, to be taken literally -- don't steal, don't murder, don't listen to Billy Ray Cyrus. They would say that that which was written as poetry is meant to be read as poetry. They would say that that which was written as symbolism is meant to be read as symbolism. And they would say that no part of what is the accepted canon should stand on its own -- if it seems not to fit with the rest of scripture, the principles of the rest of scripture should supercede. Thus, you wouldn't likely take one small part of scripture and safely assume a whole new cult around that small part -- especially if it seems to contradict the rest of the word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 07 - 04:14 PM Unfortunately, John, not all fundamentalists share your view of what "fundamentalism" means. Nor does the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:— fun•da•men•tal•ismAlso, fundamentalist acquaintances of mine have told me in no uncertain terms that this is precisely what the word means—and what they believe. And I'm guessing that what they would say about your idea of fundamentalism is that you're trying to keep a foot in both camps: the fundamentalist position as they see it, and a more liberal interpretation of the Bible, which they would not find acceptable. Now that's not my idea. I'm not making up any definitions of fundamentalism, I just using the term the way the dictionary defines it and fundamentalists themselves use it, so I'm not the person you need to argue with. Meanwhile, back at the ranch. . . . Regarding the matter of omniscience and omnipotence, there is a very interesting and thought-provoking concept put forth in the extraordinary novel, The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell. Because it deals with space travel and alien contact, many people regard this as science-fiction, but it's significant that not all that many literary reviewers do, and in most bookstores, you find it under "General Literature" rather than "Science Fiction." It's the story of an expedition to the nearby Alpha Centauri system which includes a number of Jesuit priests (Jesuits were in the forefront of many early explorations, such as Marquette and Jolliet in North America), including Father Emilio Sandoz, a linguistics expert. They make contact with the inhabitants of the planet Rakhat. At first, things go well. But soon, all goes horribly wrong. In the process, Father Sandoz, whose enthusiasm for the expedition included high hopes about meeting "God's other children," loses his faith in God. [Non-believers, have no fear: no matter what your religious beliefs—or lack thereof—this is any exceptionally book, and well worth reading.] When Father Sandoz, as far as they know, the sole survivor of the expedition, is rescued by a second expedition and brought back to Earth, the Jesuit council that helped sponsor the first expedition tries to find out what happened. What went wrong? But Father Sandoz refuses to talk about it. But then, they do learn—and, although it does not deny the existence of God—it challenges everyone's faith. In the last pages of the book, a small group of Jesuits are walking in a garden, mulling over what they have learned, and the following conversation takes place (I don't think a "spoiler alert" is necessary; other than the significance of the book's title, I'm not really giving anything away): "There is an old Jewish story that says in the beginning God was everywhere and everything, a totality. But to make creation, God had to remove Himself from some part of the universe, so something besides Himself could exist. So He breathed in, and in the place where God withdrew, there creation exists."I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys reading novels of ideas. Novels of ideas that are also cracking good adventure stories. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 May 07 - 04:44 PM You claim to know some. I was raised one. I went to a fundamentalist elementary school. I went to a fundamentalist junior high school. I went to a fundamentalist high school. I went to a fundamentalist college. I took courses at a fundamentalist seminary. I've attended a score or more fundamentalist churches and am related to a good score or more fundamentalist believers. I have known THOUSANDS of fundamentalists. I DO have a foot in both worlds. Your bigotry allows you the belief about the OTHER world that makes you most comfortable -- a view of that world from the comfort of your non-religious world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 07 - 04:50 PM John, when you feel you have to toss words like "bigot" around when others are trying to have a reasonable discussion, my tendency is to simply dismiss you as the very bigot you accuse me of being. If you persist in personal insults, then I'll simply write you off as having nothing to say that's worth wasting time on. Come on, John! You can do better than that! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 07 - 05:08 PM ". . . the comfort of your non-religious world." And you know that my world is a "non-religious" one, eh? From your apparently narrow fundamentalist viewpoint, I guess you might interpret what I believe that way. Like the early Catholic Church not regarding Protestants as true Christians. I could say something like, "Okay, who's the real bigot here?" But I will refrain. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 May 07 - 07:35 PM I think a bigot is simply someone who has no respect for certain people who are different from himself or herself just because they're different, isn't it? If so, one could find both religious and non-religious bigots of every variety out there, I'm sure... ;-) John, you said... "...there are fundamentalists who do not understand, nor can they correctly explain the finer points of "verbal plenary inspriration". " You're not kidding!!! Even my dog has failed utterly to do that, and he's a genius. Just ask him. Matter of fact, I don't think I know anyone who has succeeded in correctly explaining the finer points of verbal plenary inspriration. Sheesh. Maybe we should ask Batman about it. Or Noam Chomsky. Or Teribus. But definitely not Spaw. Gotta be someone out there who can appreciate those finer points and articulate them so the rest of us can understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: John Hardly Date: 28 May 07 - 09:00 PM LH, LOL!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 May 07 - 09:02 PM ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: frogprince Date: 28 May 07 - 10:03 PM I can't match John's total "score". I went to public elementary and high schools. I attended a fundamentalist church. I attended a major fundamentalist Bible Institute for three years. The college where I finished my bachelors (after a Navy hitch) was of fairly liberal religious affiliation, but I didn't take religious courses there. The seminary I graduated from is generally considered evangelical, but is not fundamentalist by most definitions. John, in your own opinion, is it possible to be a fundamentalist without literally believing (for examples) 1. that God ordered Abraham to kill his son Isaac, as a test of faith, and then praised and rewarded him for being willing (however reluctantly) to do as he was told. 2. that God ordered the Israelites to kill a number of groups of heathens to the last man, woman, and child? Dean |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 28 May 07 - 10:12 PM Most Amish are about as fundamentalist as one can get. The parts of the Bible that don't make sense, they believe that we don't "yet" understand, but that if one did understand, all would be clear. The Bible is inerrant- after all, it pronounces the equivalent of a curse on anyone who changes a jot or tittle. This is true, they believe, even though they, of all people, are well aware that some things are lost in translation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 May 07 - 10:19 PM Well, that doesn't auger well for all those bishops in Byzantium who changed a whole bunch of jots and tittles when they put together the officially sanctioned version of the Bible that everyone goes by now, does it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 07 - 10:30 PM I have looked up the definition of "fundamentalism" in the dictionaries on the reference shelves of my wife's and my library. This includes copies of Merriam-Webster, Webster's New World, American Heritage, Random House, and the Oxford English Dictionary (two volume edition, but complete; four pages from the multi-volume set on each page, and it needs to be read with a magnifying glass [supplied by the publisher]). Give or take a few minor variations in syntax, the definitions are identical to the one (Merriam-Webster on-line) that I posted above. As I said, John, your argument is not with me. It's with the compilers of dictionaries. Those who want to make up their own definitions may very well run the risk of being misunderstood. As far as my not being sufficiently acquainted with those of the fundamentalist persuasion to know what they believe, I submit the following randomly selected samples from my many encounters with those who profess to be fundamentists: While staying at a physical therapy sanitarium in Denver, for a couple of months I shared a room in the establishment with a minister who considered himself to be a fundamentalist—"one of the only true Christians," he informed me. We had a number of interesting discussions. Let us say that it quickly became obvious that, although I told him I was already a member of a church, he was hell-bent on "saving my soul." The church I went to was, at least according to him, "not truly Christian" (despite the fact that it had been around since the sixteenth century and had always been regarded as such, except, perhaps, by the Vatican). He used such stock expressions as "you must be 'Born Again,'" and "you must be washed in the Blood of the Lamb," and "you must accept Christ as your Savior," and when asked "Now, just what, exactly, does that mean? What is it that I actually have to do?" he was reduced to merely repeating the same kind of rubber-stamp rhetoric. He was like a robot that had been programmed from The Evangelist's Handy Phrase-Book, apparently without understanding what the words he was using actually meant well emough to explain them to an obvious dullard like me. He had discussions with another patient there who was also a minister—from one of the more "main-stream" churches. This man was quite a theologian. In the process of the discussions, he recommended to my roomy that he might investigate translations of the Bible other than the King James Bible, such as the Standard Revised Edition, The Living Bible, the English Standard version, and others, in order to compare translations. He also suggested the writings of a number of theologians. My roomy responded by waving his copy of the King James Bible and saying, "Why should I waste my time on that stuff when I have everything I need right here?" It struck me that the man no longer considered it necessary to think. He already had all the answers. Or, at least, was sure he knew where to look them up. And this man was not unique. I've encountered many like him over the years. Such as Ivan Ingman, whom I met while working at Boeing. He would drop by my drawing table and try to save my soul. I was not the only recipient of his attention. His mission seemed to be to save the souls of the entire staff of the Renton Plant engineering support department. He seemed to pay particular attention to me, apparently because first, by then, I knew quite a bit of the Bible, and when he quoted a verse at me, I would quote it right back to him in context and show him that it didn't really mean what he was trying to make it mean. He apparently considered me a challenge. Also, unlike many others, I hadn't said, "Ivan, go away, or I'll shove a T-square where the sun doesn't shine!" Ivan was rarely at his own drawing table doing his own work. He was frequently reprimanded for this, and for interrupting the work of the other production illustrators. He ignored the reprimands because, he said, he was doing God's Work, and that was more important. When Boeing eventually fired him, he tried to file a suit for religious discrimination. And then, there was the horde of young aspiring Evangelists from a local Bible College (Pentecostal) who descended on Seattle's University District in the mid-Sixties, intent on bringing the Gospel Message to the hippies and the druggies and—the worst of the worst!—those sinful and degenerate coffeehouse folk singers! And going back a bit, when I was in the Boy Scouts (from age thirteen to eighteen), every time I went to summer camp (usually two weeks at Camp Parsons up on Hood Canal—Hey! Camp Parsons! I hadn't noticed that before!), several times during each two-week session, we lads were treated to visiting evangelists who regaled us with their sermons and entreaties. The Boy Scout of America is a far more religious organization than most people realize. Believe me, I've been evangelized and fundamentalized by the best of them! So please don't try to tell me that I don't know what fundamentalism is about. Personally, I am of a considerably more philosophical than emotional bent. I have studied the philosophers from Thales and Aristotle and Plato up through Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre, and even more recent philosophers, including even Ayn Rand. This does not mean that I agree with what they all say (that would be impossible!). But I have read them and considered what they have written. And I have read the writings of a number of theologians, such as Walter Wink, John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Barbara Rossing, Elaine Pagels and, earlier on, the non-fiction of C. S. Lewis. In addition, I've had many long, interesting, and enjoyable conversations with pastors Bruce Pond, Jon Nelson, Eldon Olson, Linda Larson, Julie Josund, Verlon Brown, John Lindsay, Shannon Anderson, and Bishop Lowell Knutson. So kindly do not presume to claim you know anything about my life. "Non-religious" or otherwise! I am open to any and all ideas. This does not mean, however, that I will accept them without scrutiny. Don Firth P. S. "He is so intent on getting to Heaven that he is of no Earthly use!" —Mark Heinzig, the son of an African missionary, a former neighbor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf.... From: Ebbie Date: 29 May 07 - 03:07 AM I'm not sure, Little Hawk, that they believe that ever happened. :) |
